, on the House assembling, informed the House that the Bill for the Abolition of Fees had been returned from the Lords, with considerable amendments. He had carefully looked over these amendments, and had no doubt that they were such as could not be admitted. At the same time he recommended the House, as had been done on former occasions, that these amendments should be printed before they were taken into consideration. He recommended this, not as doubting the inadmissibility of the amendments, but in order to make the House fully aware of their nature. They were so voluminous, and the Bill was so small, that he thought this necessary.

On the motion of Mr. Hume, the Bill, with the amendments, was ordered to be printed.

, at the request of his right hon. friend, the member for Waterford, wished to ask the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, if any of the money lent to the Corporation of Londonderry in 1814, to build a bridge over the Boyne, had ever been repaid? He observed, that the Act of Parliament, authorising the loan, was very strict in requiring its re-payment, and pointed out the mode by which the tolls were to be sequestered if the money was not paid. He wished to know if any means had been taken to enforce the Act of Parliament, and if not, by what authority its Operations had been suspended?

explained, that the Act of Parliament had been suspended by a Treasury Minute of 1819, and the present conduct of the Government, in not enforcing payment, was a continuation of that Minute. He would move for some returns that would place the matter before the House in all its bearings.

defended the conduct of the Corporation of Londonderry. The funds had been found inadequate to keep the bridge in repair, and repay all the debts; and therefore the Corporation had petitioned the Treasury to be released from the debt, to which the Treasury had consented, on account of the great Utility of the communication kept up by the bridge.

suggested that a return should be laid on the Table to shew what the income of the Corporation amounted to, and how it was expended.

Several Returns to elucidate this subject were ordered.

objected to the principle of the Bill, and upon that there had yet been no discussion, or even an opportunity of discussion, although it was three months since his hon. friend introduced the subject, and made a long and astounding Statement, to which there had been no opportunity of making any reply. He did not mean to go into the details of the measure, but as to the principle, he must say, that he did not expect that such a Bill would have been introduced, or seriously entertained, by any Member of Parliament, but particularly by his hon. friend, whose views respecting commerce were generally so much in accord with his own. If he were surprised at his hon. friend's departure from what he conceived correct principles, he should be still more surprised to learn that the Government meant to support a Bill so contrary in principle to all the measures lately adopted for removing shackles from the trade of the country. As the House might not be aware of the State of the laws with regard to masters and workmen, he would say first a few words upon that point. The object of this Bill was stated in the second clause; and as it was against the principle he contended, for if that were admitted the hon. Gentleman might carry it into effect by what details he pleased, he would take the liberty of reading the second clause to the House. "Be it further enacted, that from and after the commencement of this Act, if any such artificer, workman, or labourer, as above-mentioned, or any other person on his behalf, shall make or enter into any agreement, understanding, or stipulation with his master or employer, or with any person acting on the part of his master or employer, or with the clerk, bailiff, foreman, manager, or superintendant of any such master or employer, as to the place where, the time when, the manner how, or the person or persons with whom, all or any part of any wages or other reward for labour, then being or afterwards to become due, or any money or bank note or notes, then being or afterwards to become due in respect of wages from the said master or employer to such artificer, workman, or labourer as aforesaid, is or are to be expended or laid out, such agreement, understanding, or stipulation, shall be wholly void, and of no effect." The objection he made to this was the same as he made to all restrictive laws, which had ever been "more honoured in the breach than the observance," that the master and workmen ought to be at liberty to come to what agreement they thought proper respecting the wages one is to give and the other to receive, and respecting the manner and the time of paying them. If this Bill, however, should become a law, no master or workman would be able to make an agreement for wages, except money down. The consequence of this interference would be, that in manufacturing districts, masters would frequently not employ men at all whom they otherwise might have employed. What could be more mischievous than a law that prevented a free agent, anxious and willing to work for meal, for malt, for meat, or for money, from taking work and obtaining food. Such an interference was against all the principles of free trade recognized by that House, and actually contrary to laws already existing. Previous to 1825, it was not competent for masters or men to meet together and settle the wages that should be paid for labour— combination, as it was called, being then a crime. At that time, however, an Act passed restraining the use of force and violence for obtaining wages, but, in other respects, it allowed workmen to enter into any agreement they might think fit with respect to their wages. The hon. Member who introduced this Bill endeavoured to make out that the workmen were not free agents—that they had not the power of bargaining and making the best agreement they could for themselves, he considering them as slaves to their masters, attached to a particular place, and bound to a particular service. If he could make out that proposition, it would be necessary that workmen should receive protection; but the House underrated the artificers of this country if it supposed that they were not able to take care of themselves; and he questioned whether their constitutional knowledge of their own rights was not equal to that of most of the Members of the House. By the 4th Geo. 4th, all litigation and delay between masters and men were suppressed or provided for; and if the workman refused to perform an agreement he had entered into, he was summoned before a Justice of the Peace, who instantly determined the matter pursuant to a form laid down for that purpose. Could the law be placed upon a better footing than that by which every workman in the country was enabled to make what agreement he pleased, with a summary process to settle all disputes that might occur concerning agreements. If hon. Members looked at the Bill, they must acknowledge that they had not met with any thing so absurd for a long time. It was an attempt to prevent a workman, whatever his Situation might be, from getting employment in the best manner he was able. If he were starving, and without clothes, and should say to a manufacturer," Will you employ me?" and the manufacturer should say, "Yes, I will give you food, and clothing, and lodging, I will lend you my credit, to a certain extent, to get other things, but I have no money there is no money to be got here since the banks were shut up, and if there be any balance betwixt us at the end, you shall have cash." If such an offer were to be made, this Bill would prevent the workman from receiving the benefit of such an arrangement. During a Stagnation of trade, nothing was more likely—a large portion of our manufacturers having their warehouses then loaded with goods—and precisely when masters and men both most required relief, this new Act would come into Operation, and render masters liable to prosecution who should employ a workman without having money in their pocket to pay him; his hon. friend, in fact, found the principle so bad that he was obliged to make numerous exceptions. There was a clause providing that the Act should not extend "to any domestic servant, or servants in husbandry, or to any artificer, workman, or labourer, or other person engaged or employed in any manufacture, trade, or occupation, "extending to a long list of exceptions, which would include the greater portion of the population engaged in manufactures. The principle was opposed to what the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department said, when speaking of the Irish poor, viz. that all restrictions which prevented a man from carrying his labour to what he considered the best market were injudicious, and the exceptions to the principle laid down were so numerous as to make the Bill a most bungling piece of legislation, and directly contrary to the simplifying process adopted by the right hon. Gentleman. The Bill was an attempt to prevent workmen from getting what they could for their labour, or, in the words of the right hon. Secretary, from going to market as they pleased with it. Could the right hon. Secretary, therefore, be so injudicious, so unprincipled—he meant in the sense of abandoning the commercial principle he had laid down—as to sanction this Bill. There were, no doubt, evils existing at the present moment in different parts of our manufacturing districts, but the author of this measure mistook the effect for the cause. It was not the truck-system which occasioned want of employment; but the want of full occupation, which obliged men to be satisfied with half a loaf rather than no bread. The hon. Member, in opening this subject, said that the workmen were no longer free agents; but against actual violence or threats they were effectually protected by the Act, to which he had already alluded, for repealing the Combination-laws. His hon. friend read a number of letters in support of his view of the case; but they appeared to come principally from bankers, who formerly found it very convenient to circulate their paper, who now grumble because their trade is cut up, but who would not find their Situation improved by this most absurd law. With respect to the men not being free agents, he would ask his hon. friend, whether the fact of their combining for increased wages did not prove that they were free agents? But supposing that the times were bad, what would be the effect of his Bill? Suppose, said the hon. Member, that I, as a manufacturer, employ twenty men, giving them ready money wages as long as I can sell my wares; a time comes, however, when I cannot sell them—my storehouses are filled, and I have no ready money; but in hopes that matters will come round in four or five months, I am willing to keep my men employed, and although I have no money, I have credit, I can command beef and bread, and all the other necessaries of life, and with them I can supply my workmen, who would thus be prevented from Coming on the poor-rates. Others in the same Situation would do the like; but if this Bill pass, that moment I and other manufacturers whose hands are full of goods, would necessarily turn all our workmen a drift. Some sixteen Acts of Parliament had been passed during the last two or three centuries, to prevent the payment of wages in goods, but they had all proved unavailing. The hon. Gentleman got such an Act passed in 1820, against which Mr. Ricardo argued from the very place in which he was then Standing, and by which heavy penalties were imposed upon masters so paying their men in goods, and yet they did so pay them, although some of the men whom they had saved from starving turned round and prosecuted them. When his hon. friend brought in his former bill, he said that the reason why previous Acts had not succeeded was, that the penalty was not severe enough, and he proposed to give it entirely to the informer. That bill was to last for two years, and if at the end of that time it had been found to succeed, a perpetual law of the same kind would have been passed. But at the end of the two years, his hon. friend admitted that his law had not checked the practice he wished to prevent, and indeed had had no more effect than if it had never been passed at all. He hoped that the right hon. the Secretary for the Home Department would consider well the effect of this Bill, before he allowed it to pass into a law, for it might seriously affect the peace of the country. The right hon. Baronet knew that in several districts the lives of persons had been endangered by laws such as that. The proper course would have been to repeal all the existing laws upon this subject, and to have left all truck-transactions as free as any other. There were thousands, and tens of thousands of men supported by the plan this Bill was to put down; and the right hon. Secretary and his hon. friend must be held responsible for the distress, the animosities, and the breaches of the peace which the enforcement of such a measure could not fail to occasion. Three months ago, when his hon. friend obtained leave to bring in this Bill, he assigned as an argument in its favour that sixty or seventy petitions had been presented for it, and but few against it. What was the reason of that? It was, that masters were unwilling to put themselves forward against it. He remembered that when the Frame-work Knitters bill was introduced into that House, it reached its last stage without Opposition, or complaint. He had then been a very few days, only, a Member of the House, but the bill appeared to him so absurd in its nature, that he opposed it and procured that it should be referred to a committee; that was on a Friday, and no sooner was it known throughout the country that one Member was willing to oppose the bill, than by Monday he had masters from all parts calling upon him to State the facts of the case. They said that they were afraid of petitioning against the bill, because the men were bent upon having it passed, and had a deputation in London to urge it through the House; but since the Opposition had not originated with them, they were ready to join with him in preventing its further progress. The bill was examined in a Committee, and all the objectionable clauses Struck out. He mentioned this fact to show that the absence of petitions was no criterion as to the feeling of masters concerning this Bill. When the hon. Member introduced it, he read a great number of letters in support of his opinions; and in imitation of that example he would read one of the many letters he had received. The letter stated that one petition presented to the House was carried to two factories to be signed, but when the object of it was understood, it was rejected by every individual; and it was then carried to the school, and every school boy was compelled to put his name to it. In 1815 there were in the town from which it came forty clothiers, twenty-nine of whom had since become bankrupts; and the few who remained were only enabled to keep their workmen employed by paying them with goods. It also stated, that the beer sellers considered the truck-system as an invasion on their profits, and that they had roused and excited the people to sign petitions against it. This was the way probably in which nine-tenths of the petitions in favour of the Bill had been got up; and if the Legislature insisted on the masters paying in money, the effect would be to throw numbers of men now employed on the parish. The effect of the truck-system was, to give the master the profits of the retail dealers, amounting perhaps, as stated by his hon. friend, in some instances to as much as twenty or twenty-five per cent. So far from this being objectionable it tended to improve the Situation of the labourer. The System had, in some instances, been attended with great and undeniable benefit. Sir Thomas Barnard, when he laudably proposed to improve the condition of the working classes, suggested that the workmen should be secured from the impositions of the retail dealer, and referred to an instance in a manufactory then well known, where the experiment had succeeded. A store was opened, where the workmen purchased all their provisions at the market price, and were protected from imposition. The same System had been adopted in different parts of the country. He had received two Communications on the subject from Glasgow, from gentlemen of great respectability, and who were at the head of large manufactories in that town. One of them, Mr. Ewins, was the proprietor of an iron foundry, where 2,000 men were employed. He stated, and his foreman also stated, in a manner which appeared to his mind unanswerable, that if this measure passed, it would be impossible to make up to the individuals employed in this concern the loss they would sustain. So far from being a relief, it would be a great evil to the workmen, many of whom would, in consequence, suffer from want of employment. The complaint was, that the master paid partly in goods and partly in money,—that, instead of getting the whole of his wages in money, the workman received a quantity of meal, for which he paid 14d. or 15d. a peck, when he might buy it at market for 12d. or 13d. What evil was there in that? The workman made his calculations in proportion as he was charged above the market price for his meal; he knew that he received less for his work, and he was willing to accept it, because he also knew that he could not find employment elsewhere. Then, what was the alternative offered to the workman? He must either pay ten per cent more for his provisions, or have his wages lowered to that amount. Many of the masters might not be able to carry on their trade without this profit of ten per cent. and the small manufacturers would not be able to compete with the great capitalists. His hon. friend had produced a list of the prices at which goods were sold at a truck or tommy shop, and compared those prices with the marketprice. There was an advance, it appeared, in the prices of flour, tea, butter, and various other articles; but the whole resolved itself into this—that the master who adopted this system gained a profit of ten per cent. His hon. friend said that some of those masters who had established this system derived a profit from it of 7,000l. a-year. He did not know how this was to be prevented, nor was he convinced that it would be proper to prevent it. The House could not prevent it unless it returned to the old law that limited the means of speculation and employment, and said to one man, you must be of one trade and no other; and to a second, you must confine yourself to another trade. Was the Legislature to say that the worker in steel was not to open a grocer's shop, or that the ship-owner might not be a ship-chandler, or that the worker in iron, or gold, or copper, must not carry on any other trades? The principle was monstrous; and the House could never sanction it by giving its assent to this Bill? "Suppose that I and my hon. friend (said Mr. Hume) were both in the iron trade, and that during the war, when at full work, he employed 400 and myself 40 men. The peace comes,—prices are low,—the demand is dull. Who goes to the wall first? No doubt I must, the man with small capital. The trade I find cannot be carried on with advantage. My hon. friend finds this also. I am supposing the case of any two manufacturers, one with a large and the other a small capital. The trade is dull—there are scarcely any profits—yet still I do not like to give it up, for that would be min, and I hope that by keeping up the manufacture, a demand will arise, and that I shall again carry on the trade profitably. At length I find that I am losing two or three per cent. and I then call my workmen, and say, 'I am very sorry for it, but I must discharge you, for I find that I am losing by giving you employment.' The workmen say 'it is very hard on us, for we cannot get work elsewhere; other manufacturers are in the same State as you, and we must go to the parish.' Now to avert that, suppose I say to my workmen, 'If you are disposed to work with me, then you shall continue to do so, but instead of buying your corn, flour, or meal at the market, you must buy them from me at the market price.' The men are willing to do so; they will be benefitted, and I shall keep my works in existence; this law says, I and they shall do no such thing, and that, I say, is an injustice both to the master and the workman." Under this System he believed that the workmen were generally charged no more than the market price for their goods, and that his hon. friend had greatly over-stated the rate charged by the masters; but he would admit that the master charged ten per cent beyond the market price; was that a reason why we should put an end to their manufacture altogether? Was it not better that the master should charge ten per cent than that he should give no employment. Was that a sufficient reason why his hon. friend, Coming from Staffordshire, and representing the great capitalists, should by this Bill destroy the small capitalists, who only existed by the system which this measure was intended to put an end to? The House might be assured that whereever this System existed, when it should be put down, monopoly would supply its place, and the workmen would then be in a worse State than at present. This was a serious question as connected with a general principle, and the adoption of this measure would lead to incalculable difficulties. There were two of the Members from Wales, who were prepared to State that the measure was likely to produce min in their districts, but as he did not see them, he concluded that they were not aware that the subject was to come on that evening. If, through the representations of his hon. friend, the Government was induced to sanction this measure, it must take on itself the responsibility of producing a violent interference with the wishes of the people. If this measure produced the evils which he anticipated, and whole districts were unemployed, as he feared they would be if the State of trade did not change, his hon. friend must bear all the blame. The interference of the Legislature in this case would only affect men of small capital; but if the principle were good, it ought to be extended to all branches of trade and manufacture. The man who dealt in woollens or cottons should not be allowed to be a dealer in meal or in sugars, whatever advantages engaging in those trades might give to him. This was contrary to all the recognized principles of trade, and the men who asked the Legislature to adopt it would be its first victims. What were the instances of injury which his hon. friend quoted? Why, that A B worked for C D, and was paid according to contract, partly in meal, and partly in money; and his hon. friend did not designate those cases properly when he spoke of them as acts of injustice and extortion. The workman submitted to this System knowingly and willingly, because he could do no better. Then it was said that the provisions were sometimes inferior—that bad flour had been sold by the truck-master, as if no bad flour, ever came from the mill but what belonged to the truck-master. These arguments were most unfair, and unworthy of his hon. friend and of the cause he supported. His hon. friend said, "There are three classes of persons affected by this system, the workmen, the retail tradesmen, and the manufacturers." He admitted that the retail dealers were injured, but neither the workmen nor manufacturers were injured. There was no unfair advantage taken. The workman and the master were equally interested in evading the restrictions which prevented them making such contracts as they found advantageous. Where was the hardship on the workman? If he be ill-used by one master he went to another, and wherever labour was wanted, he sold his at as profitable a rate as he could obtain. It appeared to him, that the grounds of coercion and compulsion relied on by his hon. friend had failed in every point. The epithets he had applied to the truck-masters were most unjust. He said, "Will you permit 3,000 or 4,000 persons to make overgrown profits, to the destruction of the whole labouring classes? Will you permit A and B to ruin the whole alphabet by becoming retail dealers? His hon. friend did not See that it was for the interest of the men to permit the masters to become retailers? The circumstances of this case showed how cautiously charges of this kind ought to be brought forward, and how well the House should consider, before it adopted further proceedings. Great excitement and ill-will had been already created in the country. The petition presented to this House from Stoke-upon-Trent, was agreed to at a public meeting. An account of this meeting was published in the Wolverhampton Chronicle, and he believed it was correct. There was a description in it of the dense crowd who marched in procession to the place where the meeting was held, with banners flying, on which were painted caricatures. On one was a caricature of a tall lank fellow, the personification of famine, and under this was written, "the victim of truck." On another, Cerberus was represented watching two truck-masters; and on a third there was a skeleton of a truck-master about to be thrown into a place not to be mentioned. It was a serious thing when 25,000 or 30,000 workmen came together with such feelings. It was remarkable that the resolutions were all introduced by clergymen; and no man who respected the cloth but must regret that they should have given utterance to the sentiments they were reported to have expressed. He appealed to the House whether it would be wise to promote such feelings as manifested themselves at this meeting? One clergyman, proposing the first Resolution, was reported to have said, that he greatly admired the caricatures, as they were quite deserved. According to him, then, hell flames were deserved by the man who paid his workmen partly in money and partly in goods. "I well know" he says, "that this System was commenced with a good object." He admitted that the time existed when the truck-system was good, but now all the horrors of the damned were justly bestowed on those who carry it on. "Time was," he said, "when we paid our messengers to Parliament, and when they did not deliver our messages, or delivered them improperly, we stopped their grog. Now, I think those times were better than these, for if we cannot get our messengers to advocate our cause, in discussions upon our grievances and distresses, what is the use of having them? The labourer who takes truck instead of money is degraded to a level with a certain animal that has no sense. He is reduced below the barn-door fowl, for the barn-door fowl is reared tenderly, and fattened before it is killed and picked." And so this reverend gentleman went on to argue, that the labourer, by the effect of the truck-system, was picked to the bone without being fattened, and died a skeleton; and this speech was loudly cheered. The whole proceedings at this meeting were well deserving of the attention of the House, and showed the feeling that existed throughout the country. Here were three clergymen at the head of an immense mob, indulging in the grossest vituperation on those men who paid workmen partly in goods and partly in money. Would the House lend itself to creating additional excitement of this description. In his opinion, all the excitement which prevailed was to be ascribed to the laws already passed against men making what contracts they pleased. he workman got the idea that he was injured by his master, and regarded the man who was saving him from the work-house as a tyrant who oppressed him. To countenance and sanction such a feeling, by passing that Bill, would be most dangerous. His hon. friend said, that the number and the skill of our artizans "were the main Springs of our strength, of our glory, and our preeminence amongst nations." He agreed with that sentiment, and it was to prevent the evils which he had described that this measure ought not to be carried into effect. His hon. friend said, "Let us consult our common interest by rendering the workmen satisfied with the laws under which they live." In that sentiment also he agreed. If the workman did not like his employer's Service, let him give it up. If he agreed to take part of his wages in goods and part in money, he did that with his eyes open; it was a voluntary thing, and it was absurd to refer it to any thing like force. In his opinion, there was not one part of the Bill that deserved support. The whole point in dispute was this; would the House permit free competition between masters? If it interfered, there was scarcely a small capitalist who would be able to carry on his manufacture, and the country would never be free from litigation between master and servant. When work was at the lowest ebb, workmen were distressed, and they thought their distresses arose from the truck-system, though, in point of fact, it arose from want of employment. In his opinion, the practical Operation of this System was to diminish that evil, and to give the labourer more employment than he would otherwise have. Upon these grounds, and upon every principle of commerce, the House ought not to agree to this Bill. The House ought not only to reject it, but some member of his Majesty's Government ought to bring in a bill to get rid of the existing laws. Restrictions and enactments had been multiplied without number on this subject. They had not been productive of any good; on the contrary, they had done great injury. The masters and men should be allowed to settle those matters as they pleased. He felt himself called on not to allow such a measure to pass one stage further without taking the sense of the House on it. What was it but a departure from those principles of Free-trade, which he hoped we should never again have lost sight of? But what hope was there if we did one thing one day, and another the next; if just when we began to congratulate ourselves on the adoption of sound principles, we were to retrograde to a System of exclusion and monopoly? What hope was there that the recent System of Free-trade could be maintained. It was upon these grounds that he considered this Bill as of great importance, and that its adoption would be a most serious evil. If other Members entertained as strong an opinion as he did on the subject they would join him in opposing it. He was sure that the trade of the country would not flourish under such a System as this Bill would create. He moved, therefore, that the Amendments made by the Committee be read a second time that day six months.

seconded the Amendment. To put an end to the truck-system would, in many cases, put an end to the employment of the workmen altogether. Besides, the Legislature had already tried to do so, without effect. There were no less than thirteen Statutes already in existence having that for their object. The hon. Member also objected to several clauses of the Bill as incongruous. The evils of which the workmen complained, and, he admitted, justly complained, arose from want of work, an evil which this Bill would only make worse.

said, that having had occasion, when he introduced this Bill about three months ago, to trespass at some length on the attention of the House, it was not necessary that he should then go through all the topics which suggested themselves respecting it; and indeed the speech of his hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen, had so little connexion one part with another, that he should have felt great difficulty in following it had it been necessary to answer it in detail. In one point he agreed with his hon. friend, namely, that the peace of the country depended, in a great degree, on this measure. The truck-system had risen to such a height, and had extended itself so rapidly, that if Parliament were to rise without taking any step to arrest it, great discontent would be occasioned throughout the country. In evidence of the feeling which existed on the subject, he would refer to the number of petitions presented from all parts of the country in favour of this Bill. There had been petitions from Cheshire, Staffordshire, Monmouthshire, Buckinghamshire, Leicestershire, Lancashire, Yorkshire, Cumberland, Shropshire, Warwickshire, Gloucestershire, Worcestershire, and from Glasgow. Many of them were numerously signed, not by the retail dealers only, or bankers, who his hon. friend said were the parties principally interested, but by the workmen in great numbers; by money paying masters, who stated that they were fast advancing to ruin, by endeavouring to compete with those who adopted this System; by Magistrates who had a practical knowledge of its evils; and by Grand Juries of different counties. Those were the classes which had chiefly signed the petitions in favour of the Bill, and it was somewhat remarkable that there had not been a Single petition against it. That Observation might probably call up one or two petitions, signed, perhaps, by workmen who feared to do any thing but what their masters bade them; but it was worthy of remark, that although this Bill had been three months before the House, and had been sent to every part of the country, not a single petition had been sent up against it. Even the truck-masters, the very men who carried on the System, shrunk from defending it. Many of them had signed petitions against it, saying, "We abhor the System, but we are obliged to resort to it." His hon. friend had adverted to a bill passed some years ago, and which, as he truly said, had failed. It was a sort of private bill, in fact, which he brought in at the instance of a small portion of his constituents, and the enactments of which were very imperfect. It wanted that clause which seemed so objectionable to the hon. member for Worcester, empowering magistrates to summon the parties to give evidence before them. For want of that clause the bill could not be effective, for the parties were generally the only persons who could give evidence. His hon. friend said, and, indeed, the greater part of his speech resolved itself into that argument, that the System which this Bill was intended to abolish had arisen from want of employment. In fact, however, it had been the growth of centuries, and any one who looked into the several petitions presented, would be at no loss to find the cause from which it had arisen. He was satisfied that this measure would produce the payment of wages in money. Whether the wages would be as large as the nominal amount of wages at present, he would not say: it would secure to the workman his property, the produce of his skill and labour. When he brought this Bill forward, he omitted to press upon the House the injury done to the retail dealers by the truck-system. The cruelty of it, and injury effected by it, as regarded the workman, were the topics on which he laid the greatest stress; but it was a lamentable fact that, in many parts of the country, through the Operation of this System, the whole class of retail dealers was nearly effaced. In one parish it was found impossible to select two proper persons to fill the office of churchwarden, or any other parish office, those who usually filled such offices having been driven out of the parish by the truck-system. In a small town it was stated that eighteen shopkeepers had gone into the Gazette within the last fifteen months, whose ruin was clearly to be traced to the loss of business consequent upon the extension of this System. These Statements were, probably, applicable to many other places as well as those from which he took them, for the System was rapidly extending, to the total extinction of the retail dealer; and if it were not checked, there would be none of that mutual dependence which his hon. friend thought so proper between the master and the workman; but there would be power on the one side, and misery and want on the other. He wished to call the attention of the House to the effect of the important alterations which his right hon. friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had introduced as consequent on the repeal of the Beer-duty, the whole of which had his entire concurrence. The Beer-duty being taken off, and the license System done away, there was no master manufacturer who had adopted the truck-system who would not also undertake to supply his workmen with beer. The article would be of that quality, and it would be consumed in that quantity, and at that price, which the master pleased; and the House could easily conceive how demoralising the effect would be in this particular. The evil already existed in Scotland. At Paisley most of the truck-masters are vintners, and sell spirits to their workmen. He had heard that this was the fact, and had inquired into it. The letter which he received in reply began, "The evil to which you allude does exist here." Similar effects would arise through all parts of the country, only that they would be mitigated by the circumstance that masters could only sell beer and not spirits. There never was a more fortunate period for putting an end to this System than the present. Prices were rising generally throughout the manufacturing districts; there was no want of employment, and gold and silver were never more abundant nor more easily obtained. He understood from Birmingham, which had generally been considered as the great manufactory for base coin, that there was very little now in circulation. Indeed, the people in business there never thought of examining a sovereign or half-sovereign, even when they received 1,000l. in a week: they were so satisfied that the coin was not falsified. Even those manufacturers who complained most of being deprived of the 1l. notes, found no difficulty in obtaining as much coin as they required. The truck-masters, however, had got into the System of issuing tickets, one of which he held in his hand, and which, if this System were not put an end to, must become the circulating medium of certain districts. His hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen, supposed that the evil would correct itself; but if once the Standard of value were removed, every thing would be left to the consciences of the truck-masters, and all men had not the same consciences; nor was it judicious for the Legislature to leave the working classes wholly dependent on the consciences of any body of men. His hon. friend said, that if the laws were repealed, all would be placed on an equality. What then? One master would take ten per cent. another twenty per cent. till the question would be at last, if he might use such an expression, who could take the most from the bowels of the workman, and derive profits to the greatest extent? It was in vain for the House, Session after Session, to occupy itself in considering the Situation of the working classes, if this System were suffered; if the workman were allowed to eat out his wages at the truck-shop, with no coin in his pocket, or with coin procured by selling at a discount what he had already received at a large discount, could he be expected to acquire provident habits? Yet this would become the general System of the country if it were not checked in time. If the House should not sanction this Bill, after a time the evil would be so much aggravated, and the complaints so universal and so loud, that Government would be compelled to come down with some measure of a more severe character. By sanctioning the Bill, the House would prevent the further extension of the evil, and avoid the necessity of resorting to more objectionable measures.

opposed the Bill. He did not agree with the hon. member for Aberdeen, that all laws ought to be abolished on this subject, but he did not approve of the present measure, and therefore wished that the law might remain as at present.

would support the Bill as an experiment.

felt the greatest obligations to the hon. member for Staffordshire for having brought forward this measure. He had heard the most favourable accounts of the Bill from those parts of the country into which he had transmitted it, and should give it his most cordial support.

supported the Bill, being convinced that no system was so calculated to destroy the independence of the workmen as the truck-system. Such a System was not necessary to the carrying on of the manufacture, as was proved by the example of Manchester, in which it did not exist. Although he admitted that there might be some objections to the measure, yet, apprehensive of a further extension of the present System, he gave his cordial assent to the attempt to put an end to it.

said, that unless some step were taken, the system would soon be greatly extended. The right hon. Baronet was, indeed, incorrect in saying that it was not known at Manchester. It was in practice there, though the general feeling of the people was against it.

supported the Bill. The detestable truck-system had also reached Norwich.

gave his decided Opposition to the measure, and would State his reasons on a future opportunity.

, after considerable difficulty, had made up his mind to support the Bill.

admitted that the System was bad, but he opposed the Bill, on the ground of the inexpediency of any interference on the subject of the purchase of labour.

The House divided—For the Amendment 4; Against it 48—Majority 44.

contended that the Bill ought not to be re-committed on a Wednesday evening, and in such an empty House. The hon. Member persisting in his Opposition, the question was adjourned to Friday next.