presented a Petition from the Anti-Slavery Society, agreed to at a Meeting composed, as the hon. Member observed, of some of the most distinguished persons in this country. The petitioners appeared before the House, he went on to say, on behalf of 800,000 of their fellow-creatures, doomed ed to wear the degrading bonds of slavery; and they complained, in language which, at the time the petition was agreed to, was considered scarcely adequate to the inconsistency of the conduct adopted by the Legislature with respect to its own resolutions. It was a singular circumstance, that the meeting at which the petition was agreed to was held on the anniversary of the passing of those celebrated Resolutions which, seven years before, were, on the 23rd day of May, agreed to by that House; and as some of the most eminent advocates of the abolition of slavery at that time thought those Resolutions did not go far enough, so those who agreed to the petition were of opinion that its language did not express fully their sense of what was required by the neglect of the colonists or the supineness of the Government. The petition, however, addressed the language of strong remonstrance to that House, and pointed out the manner in which its pledge had been fulfilled. Scarcely one of all the islands, whether governed absolutely by the Crown, or possessed of a legislature of its own, had complied with the wishes of the House, as expressed in those Resolutions. Tobago, indeed, had in some degree acted on the regulations respecting Sunday labour, and the corporal punishment of females: but the other islands had either only very partially adopted, or wholly evaded the wish of the House. He was not disposed, however, to go into any details on this subject then, because he felt it necessary to say that he considered himself bound to bring the whole question before the House in such a manner as to enable them to deal with it before the termination of the present Session; but he for one could not venture to appear before his constituents at the approaching dissolution of Parliament, if he failed to discharge his duty to them, to the West-Indians, and to the unhappy persons whose sufferings formed the subject of the petition.

maintained that the statements of the hon. and learned Gentleman respecting the West-India legislatures, were unfounded; and observed, that it would have been proper in the hon. Member to reserve his attacks till the Subject came regularly before the House.

declared that nothing could give him more pleasure than that it should be proved that the West-India proprietors had not sided with the colonial Legislatures, and that neither had resisted the wishes of the British people.

Petition to be printed.

complained of the sufferings under which the West Indies laboured, and the disparity of the relief given to them with respect to the Sugar duties. and the relief given to the East Indies. He also complained of a duty being imposed upon the wastage of Sugar in bond, and hoped that a clause would be introduced into the Bill to remedy that evil. Upon the whole, he thought that the West-India interest had been exceedingly ill used, and the reduction of duty was altogether an advantage conferred on East-India sugar.

, while he felt as much as any man could feel for the sufferings of the West Indies, and admitted that they had been very hardly used, denied that, in the recent reduction of duty on East and West India sugar, any favour had been shown to the former, as compared with the latter. The contrary was the case; and he complained of the heavy duties which were payable on all descriptions of East-India produce.

defended the course which he had pursued on the subject, and denied that there was the inequality alleged between the reduction of the duty on East-India and in West-India sugar. As to the duties on the wastage, alluded to by the hon. member for Bristol, to pay them could not be considered hardship, as the duty was payable on the sugars when imported. It was an indulgence afforded to the trade, to permit the sugar to be warehoused before the payment of the duty in the King's warehouses, instead of compelling the payment of the duty in the first instance.

complained of the manner in which the Resolutions had been brought forward at a late hour, when there were few persons interested in the subject present. He hoped that when the Bill was brought in, the House would compel the right hon. Gentleman to reduce the duties.

, though totally unconnected with the West Indies, yet, as one of the great body of consumers, regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not thought it expedient to comply with what the discussion of the other night must have shown him was the evident feeling of the House on the subject.

stated, that when the Resolutions were proposed that morning, it was in a House as full as the present, and in which were a great many hon. Members interested in the subject.

observed, that the present was not only a fiscal question, but a political question of great importance. He was persuaded that the House was not aware of the extent of the distress in the West Indies. It was even a matter of doubt whether means could be found for providing food and clothes for the labouring population there. It was strange that the right hon. Gentleman had not consulted those who were interested on the subject, as to the best mode in which relief could be afforded. The question was, if the proposed reduction would effect the object which the right hon. Gentleman professed to have in view. He (Mr. C. Pallmer) denied that the reduction would effect it. He disapproved of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's former proposition; though it was but justice to say, that it had this peculiar feature—that the right hon. Gentleman would himself have been the greater loser by it. The great integrity of the right hon. Gentleman operated most injuriously on the West-Indian interest; and it would be much better for that interest, if a person more independently situated than the right hon. Gentleman were to propose measures for its relief. He complained of the disproportion in the reduction of the duties on West and East Indian sugars, The reduction, he said, would not give any relief to the West-Indian planters. He thought that the reduction in the duty, to produce any beneficial effect towards relieving the distress of the West-India colonies, should be carried still further. He was of opinion, too, that the duty on sugar should be extensively reduced in Ireland, and he was sure that an experiment of the kind would be attended by a considerable increase in the consumption of that article there. The consumption of sugar at present in Ireland amounted to only four pounds for each individual; while the consumption in England was twenty-two pounds for each individual. He thought they should take off 15s. of the duty on sugar in Ireland. The hon. Member contended that the reduction should be carried at present to the extent of 5s. instead of 3s. and he called upon the Representatives of the manufacturing and shipping interests, to support him in enforcing on the right hon. Gentleman the duty of revising his Resolutions, by granting a greater reduction of duty to the West-India planter. He concluded by moving as an Amendment, that 22s. should be substituted for 24s. in the first Resolution.

said, that in order to have a more extensive consumption of sugar, they must make a considerable reduction in the duty. The present measure would not, in his opinion, create such an increased consumption as might have the effect of improving the public revenue, or of giving adequate relief to the planter. This he could only receive by such a reduction as would remove the glut that now existed in this country, and compelled the planters to sell at a depreciated price. It was quite true this reduction of 3s. in the duty would reduce the revenue 450,000l. if there were not a great increase in the consumption. But upon this he was not very sanguine, while he was well convinced, that if 7s. had been taken off, there would be an increase in consumption which would leave the revenue very little impaired by the boon granted to the West Indies. The contrary would, he feared, be the result of the finical reduction proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. He had intended to have moved last night that this reduction should be carried to 7s., but after the decision which then took places it would be only wasting the time of the House were he now to press the matter further, although he was persuaded it would afford an early and substantial relief to the planter. As he was upon his legs, however, he wished to remark to the right hon. Gentleman, that the reduction in the duty of molasses was not proportionate to that on sugar. When the duty on sugar was 30s., that on molasses was 10s.: that on sugar was now 24s., while the duty on molasses was 9s. Thus there had only been a reduction of 1s. in the latter, which was certainly not proportionate to that made upon the former. There was one other subject to which he wished to advert. He understood there were parties who thought that after next Monday, when the law should have expired, they could enter sugars without paying any duty at all. He trusted they would be deterred from the attempt, as it must involve them in a contest with the Government.

supported the original Resolutions; he thought, that until they witnessed the effect of the reductions already made, it would not be prudent to proceed further.

concurred with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Huskisson) in thinking, that unless there were a greater reduction there could be no hope of an increased consumption.

The House divided. For the Amend- ment 23; Against it 68—Majority 45. Resolutions agreed to, and Bill, accordingly, ordered to be brought in.

rose to express his doubts respecting the soundness of the plan the right hon. Gentleman proposed to carry into effect. He concurred in the principle of the Bill, and had voted for the second reading, but it was in the hope that such Amendments would have been made in the Committee as might render the measure more satisfactory to the country. He had been disappointed in this, and was consequently induced, even to at this late period, to throw out a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. He had two objects in view—one, to have a perfect and uncontrolled sale of Beer; and this might be effected without the imposition of any restrictions whatsoever. The second object was, to break down the monopoly of the publicans and brewers. Now, although there were to be no restrictions on the sale of beer, he thought that the granting of licenses for the opening of houses ought to be secured by certain guards and precautions. And, strongly, impressed with this feeling as he was, he should submit a clause to the House, which might, he trusted, have the effect of preventing the establishment of alehouses by improper persons, or in situations where they would be nuisances. [The hon. Member commenced reading a clause, but Mr. Speaker having informed him that he could not move it at this stage of the proceeding, the hon. Member intimated his intention of moving it by way of rider after the third reading.]

did not approve of the Bill. It did not seem to him to afford to the labourers any greater facility than had been before afforded by the public-houses for carrying home beer to their families. He believed that the result in practice would be found to be, that each of the houses would become a common pothouse, and tippling would be extended all over the country. He was decidedly opposed even to the principle of this Bill and should therefore move as an Amendment, "That it be read a third time this day six months."

wished to say a few Words on this question. In the course of the progress of this Bill through the House he had voted against it in every stage, although he had not hitherto troubled the House with his reasons for so doing. Several clauses had already been adopted to mitigate the severity of this Bill on those two essential points—the injury it would inflict on individual property, and on public morals. He objected, however, to the principle of the Bill itself—first, because it would occasion a loss of three millions to the revenue, with as little relief in particular quarters as could be effected for them. With the same diminution of revenue, he thought the public, especially the labouring classes and their families, might be more benefitted by taking off the duty on coals, candles, soap, tea, and sugar, especially the last, which, while it would make up the difference to the revenue, by the increased amount of consumption would benefit a particular interest that was now acknowledged to be much distressed. He thought that it was not possible, with the same loss to the revenue, to give less relief to families than by this beer Bill, which would, in reality, only benefit the frequenters of alehouses, not their families. The main relief would be to the tailors, shoemakers, and artizans of manufacturing towns, and they were not a class whom the Legislature ought to go out of its way to benefit; for they were the men who met in public-houses and combined against their masters, and it was by their clamours that the House had been misled into this measure. It would be no relief to the labouring peasantry who did none of these things. He had another objection to the Bill, from the effect it would have in destroying that control which country Gentlemen now exercised so beneficially in their character of magistrates, over the poachers and other frequenters of public-houses. If the wants of the country required more public-houses, the Magistrates had now the power of increasing the number of them; and on all these grounds, therefore, he should cordially second the Amendment.

was of opinion, that the mere increased consumption of beer would only produce an increase of immorality, especially in large and populous towns, one of which he had the honour to represent, and from the Magistrates of which he had already presented petitions against this Bill. He agreed so far with the principle of the Bill that he wished a cheap and wholesome beverage to be secured to the labouring classes, but he did not believe that that would be the effect of this measure, which would only increase the quantity of beer consumed by men away from their families. There were complaints at this moment of wages being paid at the public-house; and he thought that, if this Bill were passed, it would increase the evil.

was in favour of the Bill, and believed it would in the end, effect all that was anticipated from it; but though, it ought perhaps, to pass at once, time ought to be given to the brewers to improve the beverage they sold to the public. He did not think it would increase the amount of immorality in the country, but that, on the contrary, it would diminish the consumption of ardent spirits, which destroyed at once the health and the morality of the labouring population. From the extensive and important county he represented, he had received no letters or remonstrances against this Bill; and though some petitions from the Licensed Victuallers there had been presented against it, he believed it had the approbation of the Local Magistracy of that county. There might be a few differences of opinion with respect to the Bill, but there was no doubt it had been introduced with the best intentions. It was an experimental Bill, and might, if not found to answer, be modified according to circumstances.

expressed his dissent from the present Bill. The Ministers had been misled by the strong opinion expressed in favour of the measure; and though he believed them to be mistaken, he thought they deserved commendation rather than blame, for they had introduced this Bill in conformity to public opinion, expressed as it had been, pretty strongly in this and the other House of Parliament. Still, he thought that three millions might be cut off from taxation in such a way as to be more beneficial to the public than by this Bill.

, with reluctance, should vote against the Bill. The hon. member for Callington was wrong when he talked of this Bill reducing three millions of revenue. That would be he effect of the Bill to reduce the beer-duty, not of this, which only went to regulate the trade in beer. He did not thing that this Bill would put an end to the brewers' monopoly in Lon- don; and in the country it did not exist, for every one brewed his own beer there. He objected to the measure because it held out an inducement to the artizan and manufacturer to leave his family, and to spend his time in public-houses.

said, that he should be sorry if the Bill were not passed, because, in that case, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be unable to complete his promised measure for lowering the duty on beer. If it were not lowered, the brewers and publicans in the country, even under the present system, would soon have no trade, for their business had already greatly decreased. The diminution in the last year was to the extent of about 600,000 barrels, and the wholesome beverage of beer was in many places superseded by spirits, and other articles of an injurious kind. Hence, in future, the value of public-houses in the country would be comparatively trifling. The opponents of the measure put entirely out of view the increased trade to be derived from an alteration of the duty, and here the country brewers would have an important advantage, for they would of course have the supply of the beer shops. He put his own interests entirely out of the question, but he did not believe that it would affect the London brewers and publicans in the same way that it would injure those of the country. While he gave the Chancellor of the Exchequer credit for selecting the beer-duty as that which should be reduced, he thought that time ought to be allowed, as in the case of the Silk-trade, for accomplishing the change. He should, therefore, support with pleasure the proposition of the hon. member for Abingdon, but he could not approve of that of the hon. member for Oxford, which had for its object entirely to defeat the plan.

feared that one effect of the bill would be to deluge the country with small public-houses. This of itself would be a great evil, considering the demoralizing consequences of having the poor man seduced from his family; it was to be recollected also, that if this measure were to improve the article, by destroying monopoly, the better the beer was made the greater would be the temptation. Under all the circumstances, he was somewhat embarrassed how to vote, knowing the vast injury that must be done to private property, and the advantage that would accrue generally to the country from the repeal of three millions of duties, On the whole, however, though it was with reluctance, he would give his vote for the Bill.

supported the Bill, because he thought it calculated to do great and general good. The Amendment would stultify the House, by showing the public that, after all the discussion the subject had undergone, and after the perfection to which the measure had been brought, it was found all at once that it ought not to be adopted. It was true that it might do harm, but that harm would be much or little, according to the manner in which the Bill was brought into operation; and as he was of opinion that Parliament would be proceeding at too rapid a pace if it passed the Bill in its present shape, he should vote for the Amendment of the hon. member for Abingdon, when that was proposed.

denied that Ministers had been influenced by clamours from any quarter in recommending this measure to Parliament; they had acted solely from a clear and strong sense of duty, and a conviction that the lower orders were entitled to this degree of relief. He was confident that the beer-trade generally, instead of being injured, would be extensively promoted by the change; and he expressed his astonishment that any hon. Member should object to the Bill on the ground that it would make beer cheap, which was if not a necessary, next to a necessary, of life. Public-houses and a monopoly of beer tended to destroy both morals and health, and to allow beer to be obtained freely and cheaply would rather check than promote the increase of vice.

looked upon this Bill as a measure of great severity and oppression, and he said so, not as a brewer, but as a Member of Parliament; for he had never given a vote in his life from selfish motives, or because his interests would thereby be promoted. He felt painfully convinced that most of those with whom he had acted all his life would be half ruined by the Bill before the House; and among other Amendments he should propose the following addition to the title of the Bill: he would call it—"An Act for the increase of drunkenness and immorality, and to afford great facilities for the sale and consumption of smuggled spirits."

fully concurred with the hon. Member who spoke last, that the Bill was most oppressive; and it was, therefore, his duty, and the duty of those who thought with him, to oppose it in every stage. Sure he was, that it would little recommend Ministers to the confidence of the country, and it would ruin many who had valuable vested interests. He hoped, when they found that the general disposition of the House was against the Bill, that they would abandon it.

was surprised that such an Amendment had been brought forward, without any notice, to defeat two measures in one—one for a free trade in beer, and the other for lowering the duty upon it. He did not see how it necessarily followed that an increase in the consumption of beer would produce an increase of intoxication. It seemed to him that it would only place a wholesome and nutritious beverage within the reach of the labouring poor, who most needed it. The number of beer-shops would tend to keep the lower orders from the public-houses, and thereby promote both morality and comfort.

objected to that part of the Bill which allowed the sale of beer on the premises. He did not deny that the principle of the measure was just, and that it was fitting and right to get rid of all restrictions on trade, and to do away with all monopolies; but he contended, that the Government had not given the publicans fair warning of its intention to overthrow the monopoly in beer so suddenly. In the case of the linen-trade and the fisheries, ten years had been allowed, and as he was satisfied that great injustice would be done by the passing of the Bill in its present shape, he should certainly, on the third reading, move a clause, to allow two years to elapse before beer could be drunk on the premises.

said, he should certainly not fall into the snare spread for him by the hon. member for Abingdon (Mr. Maberly) by going into a discussion on the clause before it was submitted to the House. He confessed, however, he felt surprised at the course taken by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Estcourt), after all the discussions the Bill had already received, and after the principle of the Bill had been for three months under consideration, and sanctioned by repeated majorities. The principle of the Bill was not then under consideration, and therefore he should not enter into that part of the question; but he might say, that if they were to abandon a bill which was expressly intended to benefit the labouring classes, and which those classes had anticipated so long, he thought they would lay themselves open to the contempt of the country. He denied that the objection of the hon. member for Abingdon with respect to the publicans having had no warning, was a just one. They had received repeated warnings, by the several bills, such as the bill relating to the brewing of beer on a man's own premises, which had been, from time to time, passed with a view of gradually putting an end to the monopoly. The maltsters would have as good reason to claim compensation for losses sustained by the reduction of the malt-duties, because they had large property in malt-houses, as the publicans had now to complain of the opening of the trade in beer. It was said that there had been no warning, but that was not the fact. The trade had been gradually opened, and the Acts of 1823 and 1828, which did this to a considerable degree, had been attended by the most beneficial effects. A great increase of houses for the sale of beer had taken place in various places; and so far, therefore, from the measure for opening the trade having injured the publicans, they had extended and improved it. In conclusion, he hoped the House would not, in the last stage of the proceeding, disappoint the hopes and expectations of the people.

suggested to the hon. Member (Mr. Estcourt), that he should postpone his division till the question was that the Bill do pass.

expressed himself willing to take the division either now or at a future stage.

was of opinion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no reason to find fault with those who claimed to me to discuss the question. The Bill affected the whole community. Many petitions had been presented against it. All the Magistrates of the country were interested in it, and he, therefore, thought that it had not yet been sufficiently discussed. He opposed the Bill and defended the County Magistrates. Some might have behaved corruptly, but was that a reason for stigmatizing the whole body? The hon. Member complained generally of the attacks made on the old constitutional forms of government, which, he said, was tending to bring the aristocracy to ruin. If the member for Oxford divided the House, he would divide with him; but he would recommend him not to press his opposition to a division.

thought it would be most expedient if the member for Oxford would not press for a division, which might endanger the whole Bill, but allow the Motion of the hon. member for Abingdon to be first put. He was happy to congratulate that hon. Member on the progress they had made, which, when they first took this business in hand, they could hardly calculate on. Having said this, he would state why he should oppose his hon. friend's clause. He had observed that every respite of the kind his clause proposed, every notice, every warning given to traders, when it was proposed to alter the law, had been useless, the warning had been thrown away, the respite had been barren, and had rather tended to make the mischief greater than diminish it. The fact was, that such warning seemed to make people increase their business rather than lessen it. For that reason he should oppose the hon. Member's clause. He could not understand the argument of his hon. friend, the member for Southwark, who stated that increasing the number of houses for the sale of beer only would facilitate the use of contraband spirits. He thought that licensing houses to sell beer, and nothing but beer, would have no such effect. His opinion of the Bill was the same then as at first. He considered it a great and an important improvement in the law. They were then at the commencement of July; they had sat a long time, they had discussed a great number of questions; they had heard a great many speeches from Members who did not often speak in that House; but, after all that had been said, this, he believed, was almost the only measure of relief which was likely, during this long and busy Session to be brought to a successful conclusion.

explained, that the houses licensed to sell spirits were subject to examination; but the houses licensed to sell only beer, not having spirits to sell legally, would obtain them for their customers, by buying smuggled spirits He had applied his remark only to the counties of Kent, Surrey, and Essex, in which contraband spirits were now chiefly landed and consumed.

would support the Bill if he thought that it would be a benefit to the poor. But not thinking that, he could not support it. He should prefer to see the taxes on coals and candles removed rather than the tax on beer. He would support the clause recommended by the hon. member for Abingdon, and recommended the hon. member for Oxford to withdraw his Amendment.

said, that he would not press his Motion to a division.

The Bill read a third time.

moved a clause, by way of rider, to postpone for two years the permission to allow beer to be drunk on the premises where it was sold.

The clause was brought up and read a first time. On the Motion that it be read a second time—

The House divided—For the Clause 91; Against it 133—Majority 42.

maintained that the Bill, as it stood, would abrogate the rights of the publicans over the whole kingdom. He moved the introduction of a clause to limit the operation of the Bill to such parishes as contained more than 300 houses.

characterised the Bill as a mistake in legislation. It would diminish the revenue without affording relief in any quarter.

said, if carried into effect, it would produce riots in villages that were destitute of a police.

said, that the effect of the clause proposed would be, to destroy the Bill altogether. In Lincolnshire there were 688 parishes; in Norfolk, 694 parishes; and in both of these counties, there were not above twenty-seven parishes that could avail themselves of the provisions of the Bill, if the clause of the hon. Member were carried. In Wiltshire there were 317 parishes, out of which only eighteen would be able to avail themselves of the provisions of the Bill.

supported the clause. There were now nearly 200 public-houses in the city of Lincoln, and was the right hon. Gentleman prepared to say that the number was not sufficient?

Mr. Estcourt, in accordance with the wishes of his friends around him withdrew the clause.

suggested the propriety of adding a clause for the continuance of the fine of 5s. in case of drunkenness.

looked at such a clause with suspicion, as it was only fining a man for getting drunk on beer, and omitting all penalty for those who tippled on claret and champaigne.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman ran the same risk as any other if he put himself in that situation which came within the letter of the Act, whatever might be his liquor.

congratulated the University of Oxford in being so excellently represented. Dr. Johnson, on being asked which University was best, had said that he believed an equal quantity of port was drank at both. Could the hon. Baronet give one instance where a Member of Parliament had been fined for drunkenness? If so, he would say nothing against the Amendment.

said, that if the hon. and learned Gentleman would put himself in such a situation, and be so brought before a Magistrate, he would ensure his being fined.

, complained that the hon. Baronet was seducing an innocent young man from his habits of sobriety by his observations.

The clause negatived without a division.

On the question that the Bill do pass,

said, that he must again repeat, that he did not see any necessity for the free sale of beer, or that it should be drunk on the premises.

said, that the state in which the licensing system was left by this Bill was cruel in the extreme.

The Bill passed without a division.

wished to submit to the hon. Member (Mr. Littleton) whether, after the hour of twelve, taking into consideration the state of the Session,—when his Majesty's Ministers had agreed to postpone all bills of public importance—the House could in fairness, proceed to this discussion? He would ask the hon. Member whether this were not a bill of the very greatest importance to the public, and to the country at large? and whether it would not be better, in order to do justice between the master and the servant, that this Bill should be discussed when the House was in a condition to consider the subject? The days on which the Bill had been discussed were Wednesdays, when there was scarcely a fair debate. He wished the House also to consider what it was called upon to do; viz. to violate the principle which it had professed to follow, that of leaving a perfect freedom of action between man and man. Here was a law which actually made it penal to save a man from starvation! A law, opposed to every correct principle of legislation. But he had not the slightest idea that this Bill was to come on to-night; and under that impression, though he had had the documents by him for these last ten days, he had sent them away, thinking that only the three bills mentioned by the right hon. Secretary would be considered. He would ask the right hon. Secretary, whether this was passed over as a bill of no importance?—and if it were a bill of importance, why it was not named and stated among those which were to be discussed prior to the dissolution of Parliament? Had it been so specified he should have been prepared to meet the hon. Member on the merits of the Bill. To refer for a moment to some of the hardships attaching to this Bill. Why, he would ask, should the manufacturer of wool be prevented from making any arrangement with his labourer as to the mode of paying him? Why should a restriction be laid particularly on him, while similar transactions were tolerated in other parties? The very principle of the Bill was objectionable, for why should the workman not have the option of getting employment upon the condition of receiving his wages, or part of them, in goods? By that Bill the House was interfering between men who ought surely to be free to transact their business as they pleased, at least, so far as to leave the labourer the option of receiving his remuneration in goods or in money; the House had no right to interfere in such cases. He would move, that the consideration of the Bill be adjourned to that day month; and he would candidly avow, that he did so in order that the Bill might be passed over until the meeting of the next Parliament, when full time might be had to discuss the various points which it embraced. For his part he must say, that there had never been a measure before the House on which he had formed a more decided opinion. If the Bill passed, from the day on which the master could not pay his workmen in money, they must, of necessity, be set adrift. A bill of this nature was opposed to every fair principle,—and those who advocated such a measure, while they pretended to be favourable to free-trade, could have no claim to consistency of opinion. He was sorry that the right hon. member for Liverpool (Mr. Huskisson) was not in the House, as he should like to hear his opinion on the subject. To him it appeared, that in a case of mutual understanding between master and servant—in a case where no violence was used, and where the advantages were quite reciprocal, no power should be used to disturb or to nullify such engagements. By this Act, the House was called on to repeal those former measures which had been found to work well; and the manufacturer in calico or wool, for instance, was to be told, "You shall not be able to give your labourer a credit upon your grocer." You must not say to the tradesman, "Give this poor man a supply of necessaries to prevent him from starving." The penalty for the first offence of that kind would be a fine; and for the third, the Magistrate must convict the party of a misdemeanour. The Bill was an insult on legislation, and an outrage upon all equitable rules; and if allowed to pass, it would stultify the proceedings of the House. It so operated, that at a time when money could not be obtained, the manufacturer must throw men out of employ because he dared not pay them in goods; and he knew that in those districts where the system prevailed, this wretched, illegal, and improper interference on our part would be productive of the greatest distress. Upon these grounds, he begged the hon. Gentleman to delay proceeding with this Bill until the meeting of the new Parliament.

complained, that the hon. member for Aberdeen had hardly acted fairly by him, for he did not expect, when he acceded to there commendation of that hon. Member to have the Bill recommitted, that any advantage would be taken of his consent. Upon that occasion, he gave the hon. Member notice that he should move the Bill from day to day; and the delay had been solely caused by complying with his request. He therefore hoped that the House would not object to the re-committal of the Bill, as every Gentleman would then have an opportunity offerred him to state his opinions.

would not go into the principle of this Bill, but he put it to the House, whether, consistently with the various considerations which now pressed upon it, it could proceed with that Bill. To him the question appeared to be, whether, in the present state of public business, and of the country, the House could venture to proceed with a subject which involved matters of the deepest importance to the whole manufacturing interests of the country. It seemed that there were already twelve or thirteen Statutes enforcing the payment of wages in money; and that the House objected on good grounds to the existing system. When the question was first propounded to him, he was anxious to look at it in all its different characters and bearings, and then he thought it had better not be urged forward. When he considered, however, that the independence of the labourer was so intimately connected with, and so much affected by, the present debasing system, he concluded that it would be worth while to make the experiment, and enforce the payment of wages in money by some new enactment. At present one of the evils was, that the honest trader was injured materially, and the masters and men were always disputing and quarrelling.

observed, that the hon. member for Aberdeen had asked him, why he did not include this among the bills to which he had on a former occasion referred. When he had spoken the other night, it was of the bills the Government meant to carry forward; and it came to that resolution because, if those bills were not passed, it would leave the country in a worse state than before. The truck-system, as had been said by an hon. Member opposite (Mr. Baring), had a tendency to debase the labourers, and was objectionable because they alone who adopted it were benefited by it; although they obtained that benefit by evading the operation of the law. He knew that the hon. member for Aberdeen was an able advocate for the poor man, but he could not go the whole length with him in his argument. The hon. Member said, that every man was the best judge of what was for his own interest, but that maxim had been carried into execution in reference to the passengers who were allowed to go out to Canada; and the House must recollect the horrible scenes which ensued in 1828, and which compelled the House to limit the numbers, and to lay down rules to prevent a too great number of persons from following in this particular what they might consider their best interests. With regard to these poor workmen, it would be, he thought, better to take them under the protection of the Legislature, and rescue them from their present state of degradation than leave them to be the prey of the truck-master. He believed that it was wise to repeal the Combination laws; but when the hon. Gentleman said that unmixed good had arisen from that step he went too far. In the manufacturing districts, committees were formed, and a system existed of preventing men from working except at a certain rate of wages. It was not, he admitted, against any provisions of the law that such committees were formed; but although they did not openly dictate the rate of wages, yet they had amongst them an understanding upon that subject, and persons were appointed as spies, to as certain that no one worked for less wages than that which was agreed upon in the committee. By this means, although in an indirect manner, a system of intimidation was kept up; and an evil was created very difficult to guard against. The hon. Gentleman said, that there had been no discussion upon this Bill, and yet he had heard him deliver what he regarded as a very able speech, which lasted not less than three quarters of an hour, in which he advanced many arguments against the principle of the Bill. He could not understand why any hon. Gentleman should not be able to compress all which it was necessary to say upon the principle of a bill of that kind, within a speech of three quarters of an hour. Some of his hon. friends near him said that the hon. Member's speech occupied an hour and a half. At all events, whether the hon. Member spoke an hour and a half, or only three quarters of an hour, he had occupied time enough to say all that was necessary upon a bill of this kind. [Mr. Hume admitted that he said all that he wished:] Then why require a postponement? Surely there could be no use in travelling the same ground over and over again, when all argument was exhausted. When the House came to a decision on the principle of this Bill, there were forty Members on one side, and only four on the other—a sufficient indication of the feeling of the House upon the subject; and as it was highly desirable that the measure should be carried through before the close of the present Session, he hoped it would be allowed to go through that stage to-night.

did not mean to occupy the House for an hour, or for three quarters of an hour, as all he wished to say was, that he regarded this Bill as erroneous in principle. The hon. member for Stafford admitted that there would be no objection to a workman purchasing goods at his master's shop, provided he were first paid in money. If that were to be allowed, what good could possibly arise from the man's having been paid in money? He would still have goods of an inferior quality palmed upon him at a high price, and, consequently no advantage could possibly result to him. But not to occupy the time of the House at that late hour, he would only say that the whole question appeared to him to be of such serious importance, that it required some further consideration; and he agreed with the hon. Member behind him, that it should be allowed to stand over until the next Session. In his opinion, also, a committee should be appointed to inquire into the whole subject.

was not to be induced at that late hour to answer the appeal which had been made to him by the hon. member for Montrose; but he wished to observe that he should not be acting inconsistently with his former conduct, by lending his support to the present measure. The answer which had been given by his hon. friend to the observations of the hon. member for Montrose was quite sufficient to show the House that the principle of the Bill was good, and therefore, he should not think it necessary to enforce what had been said, particularly as the motion then before them was only to recommit the Bill. He would only observe that it was possible that the hon. member for Montrose, who was, he believed, about to become a candidate for the county of Middlesex, had himself forgotten his principles of free-trade, when he voted that very night for a restriction on the trade in beer. The hon. Member had that evening opposed a measure, which he as the friend of free-trade, had uniformly supported. The hon. Member must permit him therefore, to set his vote for a free-trade in beer, against the hon. Member's vote on that Bill. As the hon. Member for Staffórd had well said, he thought that the House was bound to protect those who hitherto had not been free agents, and who as the weakest part of the community, had the greatest need of the protec- tion of the law. For this reason he thought it was incumbent upon the House to carry this Bill through before the close of the present Session.

would venture to say, in vindication of his hon. friend the member for Montrose, that in supporting the motion of the hon. member for Abingdon that evening on the Beer bill, he was in no degree influenced by the fact of his having determined to become a candidate for the county of Middlesex He should be ashamed of his hon. friend, if after such uniform consistency through so long a period, he should now change his sentiments for such a cause. He hardly knew what course to pursue on the present occasion. If another opportunity was to be afforded in the present Session for discussing the principle of the Bill, he should make no objection to its going through the present stage; but if that was not to be the case, he should certainly then oppose it, as he was anxious to state his opinion as to what he thought would be the operation of the Bill. Although his hon. friend had an opportunity the other night of expressing his opinion upon this question, yet it was then so late, and the impatience of the House so great, that scarcely any other persons was allowed to say a single word. He agreed with the hon. member for Worcester, that if ever there was a bill which ought to be referred to a committee to examine evidence upon it, it was this: As he hoped, however, that another opportunity would be afforded for discussing it, he would not then enlarge upon the subject.

could not pass over without remark the insinuation which had been thrown out, that his hon. friend the member for Montrose, had in some degree abandoned his principles, or deserted his consistency, in supporting the motion for extending the time when the Beer bill should come into operation. Surely his hon. friend had a right to give his vote on such a clause, without being accused of turning round and off or saking his principles. Since he had been in that House he had voted upon every question of free-trade as steadily, and perhaps more steadily, than the right hon. member for Liverpool. That right hon. Member had always laid it down as a sound principle that there should be no interference between master and man; but it was that very principle which this Bill proposed to set aside,

said, that throughout the whole of his life, he had paid as much attention as any man to the principles of the measures brought before the House, and he did not think it was any objection to a measure, to say that it was at variance with some principle of political economy. If any man would find him any one principle of political economy which was not disputed, he should be very much obliged to him. He meant not to treat the science with the slightest degree of disrespect; but, certainly, he must repeat that he had never heard any principle advanced, except moral principles, (and he had some doubts whether they would not admit of exceptions) he had never heard any principle of political economy advanced which was not subject to objection, and he had even heard of many which men were dogmatically told to follow, though they were not susceptible either of an exact definition or proof.

did not pretend to know anything of principles, nor did he intend to argue upon them. What he wished to observe was, that the Legislature had already passed a number of laws against the truck-system, which were found insufficient to remedy the evil. He would leave them all exactly as they were till the next Session. He admitted that the hon. member for Staffordshire had made out a case of great oppression, and he had no doubt that many grievances still existed, but, at the same time, he could hardly bring himself to assent to the propriety of some of the clauses contained in the Bill which the hon. Member had brought in. One of the clauses went to make that penal which, under the present circumstances of the country, should not, in his opinion, be entirely prohibited. This Bill went not only to prevent that species of truck which the hon Member described, and which consisted in the masters paying the labourer, not in the necessaries of life, but in commodities which he was obliged to hawk about the country; it also went to put an end to that other species of truck which consisted in masters paying their workmen in food or clothing. That was going too far. There might be circumstances under which the employer might be able to support a number of workmen, paying them in this way when money was scarce with him, and as those workmen would get nothing, except they were employed in that way, it would be as injurious to them as to the employer that such an enactment as that contained in this Bill should become a law. Under these circumstances, it would, in his opinion, be better to leave the law as it now stood until the next Session of Parliament, when the subject might be fully discussed, and maturely considered.

was quite confident that very great oppression existed among the women in many of the manufacturing districts; and if he could suppose that the measure before the House was adapted to give them relief—without producing more evil than good,—he should be ready to give it his entire and cordial support. But, from the knowledge that he had of the state of the country, and of the manufacturing interests, he believed that it would operate to produce mischief rather than good. There were circumstances within his own knowledge which induced him to think that it would be most unwise to introduce a bill of that kind. He had lately had a conversation with a manufacturer, very extensively engaged in the iron-trade, and who complained of low prices. On asking him whether those low prices did not, in his opinion, increase the export of nails, he replied that he could not tell; but he had some advantage in the present system of paying labourers, which enabled him to manufacture his goods at a rate of eight per cent below that for which they could otherwise be produced. He put it to the House, whether that was a system which ought to be interfered with? If the Bill were simply to put an end to the avariciousness of the truck-masters, it should have his full and entire sppport; but after this specimen of what was now going on in the manufacturing districts, he was bound to conclude, that it would lead only to a decrease in the employment of labourers. There was one other objection, which it would, perhaps, be more proper to urge in committee. This Bill was, in its operation, calculated he believed to affect the interests of those who had not, in the slightest degree, contemplated any interference from the law. From Bristol to Stratford-upon-Avon it had been the practice for many masters to maintain their workmen, by providing them with food in the craft which they navigated upon the canals; and there was, he believed, a clause in this Bill which would enable these men to sue and punish their masters for maintaining them in this manner. He did not wish to take up the time of the House, but this was really a question on which it ought not to decide in ambiguity and doubt, and therefore he was of opinion that the Bill should at least stand over until another Session.

would not, if there was to be another opportunity for discussing this Bill, occupy the time of the House by dwelling upon it then. He had ventured to express his views on a former occasion; but there were, nevertheless, some other observations which he should wish to address to the House, whenever a proper opportunity occurred. In his opinion, a more important question was never submitted to the attention of Parliament; and after much inquiry, and giving due consideration to the subject, he had come to the determination of supporting the Bill. If, however, it would be more convenient to discuss it at a future period, he for one would not object to its postponement. He wished those hon. Gentlemen who opposed the Bill to take into consideration that the evil which it was intended to remedy was an effect, and not a cause,—that it arose from there being too great a number of persons engaged in those trades, to whom, consequently, adequate wages were not allowed. The question therefore was, whether, by abolishing that one peculiar form of payment, the House would in reality benefit that class of persons whose situation it was anxious to mend. If the present Bill should be carried into effect, there could be no doubt but that a great many persons would be thrown out of work. Still he would vote with his hon. friend, because the Bill, although it would have the effect of throwing a certain number of individuals out of work, would, at the same time, diminish the supply of that article, the glut of which in the market had been the means of grinding down the price of the labour of those unfortunate persons. If the supply, therefore, were diminish, and the present demand continued, the wages of those who were employed would be undoubtedly increased, and in a short time the masters would be able to pay them in money. He thought, therefore, that after a time the Bill now proposed by his hon. friend would have the effect of improving the situation of the labouring classes in the manufacturing districts; although, at first, it would undoubtedly have the effect of throwing a considerable number of those, who were now irregularly and inadequately paid by this truck-system, out of employ. He thought that the measure might be defended upon precisely the same ground as that by which the House will allow goods only to be sold by a legal measure—that was a measure which workmen and all classes of the community understood; whereas, it was now impossible for the workman to understand the mode, or even the rate at which he was paid. But let the House recollect that this system not only oppressed the labourer; it was also, in many instances extremely burthensome to the community at large. At this moment there were, in the county of Leicester, a large body of working mechanics, so poorly paid by the truck-system, as to be obliged to have their wages made up by an allowance from the poor-rate. The whole question, therefore, was one of infinite importance; but as he saw that the House was becoming impatient, he would not trespass another moment upon its attention.

The Amendment was withdrawn, and the House went into a Committee on the Bill.

Mr. Hume, Mr. Warburton, and others, objected to the clause which prohibited masters from even recommending the places at which workmen might expend their wages; and Mr. Warburton moved, as an Amendment, that the word "Recommendation" be left out; upon which the committee divided, when there appeared to be only thirty-five Members present, and the House was counted out.