presented a Petition from the Free Burgesses of Colchester, resident in London, the prayer of which embraced a number of objects of great importance, and which demanded the serious attention of the House; but into the consideration of which, at the present period of the Session, it would be impossible to enter. Among those objects were Reform in Parliament, the Reduction and Equalization of Taxation the Repeal of the Corn-laws, an inquiry into the State of the Land Revenue of the Crown with a view to rendering it available to the purposes of the State, the Abolition of useless Places and Pensions, and an Inquiry into the Condition and Revenues of the Established Church. Every one of these subjects would require more time to consider it than it was possible to devote to it under existing circumstances. On the subject of Parliamentary Reform he begged to say a few words. Those who wished for it forgot that it depended in a great degree upon themselves. That House could do much, but the people could do much more. Their wishes were idle, unless, when the dissolution came, they would exert themselves in the cause. He trusted that in cities, and other places, where the body of constituents was large, that they would not satisfy themselves with the expression of their anxiety for Reform, but that by their efforts and votes they would endeavour to obtain it.

begged to call the attention of the House to a Motion, which he understood would be opposed by the noble Lord opposite, but on which it was his intention to take the sense of the House. It related to the Crown-lands. It might be in the recollection of the House that he had some time ago moved for the production of Returns respecting the Land Revenue of the Crown, from a remote period. The objection to that Motion was, that it spread over too large an extent of time, and that no practical benefit could be derived from it. He had framed his present Motion so as to bring under the notice of the House the condition of the Land Revenue of the Crown since the year 1786. He had chosen that year because a Commission was then appointed, and continued for several years to make reports on the subject. Those reports, however, being bulky as well as numerous, the perusal of them would consume too much of the time of the House. He had framed his Motion, therefore, in such a manner, that the result of it would enable the House to judge at one view of the state of the property of the Crown at the disposal of Parliament. He should like to call the attention of the right hon. the member for Liverpool to this question, because he understood that right hon. Gentleman to say that the state of the Land Revenue of the Crown would be a very fit subject for consideration whenever the Civil List should come under discussion. He apprehended that that would occur early in the next Session of Parliament; and it would be impossible for the House to judge of the State of the land-revenue of the Crown, unless aided by accurate information. His object was, to put Parliament in possession of the actual condition of all the estates under the management of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, which were undisposed of. He had always contended, and always should contend, that they were the property of the country, and that it was the duty of the House of Commons to make that property available to the public service. As he could not conceive on what grounds the Motion would be resisted, he would say no more about it. The noble Lord might, perhaps, contend, that the greater part of the required information was already before the House. True. But who could travel over twenty reports, of 700 or 800 pages each, for the purpose of finding it? What he required would occupy a comparatively small space, and yet would convey the information that it was indispensable the House should possess. The hon. Member concluded by moving, that an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he would be graciously pleased to order that there be laid before the House a Return, describing the condition of all manors, messuages, tenements, &c. belonging to the Crown, in the counties of England and Wales, as specified by the Commissioners in 1826, describing the estates sold, the nature and extent of the manorial rights, &c.; also, what estates remained undisposed of, the number of acres which they contained, &c. &c.

observed, that the information, with the exception of one or two trifling points, was already before the House. Parts of the Motion were so vague that it was difficult to know what was precisely meant. Was every estate to be minutely described, whether glebe or pasture? A triennial report contained most of the details required by the hon. Member. His great objection to the Motion was the expense that would attend it. It would occupy several clerks during the whole summer, and would cost, including the printing, from 600l. to 1,000l. His only objections were this expense, and waste of time. The hon. member for Aberdeen and other hon. Members, had moved for and obtained similar returns; and he could not conceive what was the use of this continual printing and reprinting of papers.

maintained, that the accounts moved for by his hon. friend were essentially necessary, in order to enable the House, whenever the Civil List came under consideration, to form an accurate judgment on the subject. Some of the estates, the property of the Crown, were sold, others only partially sold; of estates which had been bought, parts had been exchanged; and, in short, it was only from the office of the Woods and Forests that satisfactory information could be obtained. It was impossible for any hon. Member to obtain that information from the reports already in possession of the House, without infinite labour. The noble Lord had alluded to the returns which he (Mr. Hume) had moved for on the subject. Those were aggregate returns. What was now wanted was a detailed account; and on a matter of such importance it ought not to be withheld. He cordially seconded the Motion.

observed, that the present returns were so general as to be useless. He defied the noble Lord to put his finger on the account of one estate in which the number of acres was stated; whether that number was ten or 10,000 nobody knew. He defied the noble Lord to put his finger on the account of one estate in which the number of houses was mentioned; whether one or 100 nobody knew.

said, that it appeared to him that to comply with the terms of the Motion, it would be necessary to re-survey every Crown estate in the kingdom. He repeated, that his only objection to the Motion was the useless expense which it would create. However, as no one else objected to it on that score, he would withdraw his opposition.

Motion agreed to.

contended, that the present scale of duties on West-India and corn-made Spirits acted as a prohibition against the use of the former in Scotland and Ireland, the duty on Rum being 9s. per gallon in each country, while the duty on corn-made spirits was 7s. 6d. in England, and only 3s. 4d. in Ireland and Scotland. The discriminating duty, therefore, in favour of English spirits was 1s. 6d. while in favour of Irish and Scotch spirits it was 5s. 8d. That was not fair, particularly when it was considered the West-India islands took a great quantity of provisions from Ireland. The trade between them was carried on by such reciprocity as he had never heard of. He had no wish to injure Ireland but common justice required that the duty on rum, when imported into that country, should be lowered. He saw no reason why the protecting duty for Irish spirits should be greater than that for English spirits. He should therefore move, as an Amendment, that the duty on Rum be reduced to 4s. 10d. in Scotland and Ireland, which would be the same discriminating duty for the spirits made in those countries as was granted to corn-made spirits of England.

thought the present system was the best; it was one of a very old date, under which the spirit-trade of these countries had been conducted for a number of years. And he really did not think it either right or fair to introduce a discussion upon the subject at that late period of the Session, when many of the Irish Members, and others peculiarly interested in it, had left town, on the understanding, and indeed the positive pledge, that the question was to be considered as settled. Under these circumstances, he declined entering into any discussion upon the principle at present, contenting himself with expressing his strenuous Opposition to the Amendment, and putting it to his hon. friend, if it would not be better to postpone it until some future opportunity, when all those interested in the matter would be present?

was in favour of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. The consumption of rum in Ireland had fallen off, in consequence of the high duties, from 430,000 to 20,000 gallons. Ireland found an extensive market in the West Indies for her produce and it was only fair that she should open her markets to the produce of the West Indies.

protested against any alteration, at this late period of the Session, in the duties which prevailed in that part of the kingdom with which he was more immediately connected.

thought this was a most unhappy and unfair time to propose such an alteration as his right hon. friend recommended. It would be ruinous to the agriculture of Ireland; it would encourage illicit distillation, and if it were persisted in he should oppose it to the utmost of his power.

supported the Amendment. The agriculture of Ireland would be benefitted by the increased demand for its produce in the West Indies, and the common principles of reciprocity, that were now so much talked of though seldom acted on required that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman should be agreed to.

protested against the subject being re-opened during the present Session, many of the Irish Members having left town under the pledge that the discussion on this subject would not be revived, and that the settlement proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to be final.

concurred fully in the view taken by his right hon. friend who spoke last. He thought the right hon. member for Liverpool had given no sufficient reason for an alteration that would be attended with loss to Ireland. Such a proposition would be strenuously opposed by the whole of Ireland if it had an opportunity.

supported the Amendment. As to the argument that the duty had long existed in its present State, that appeared to him the very reason why they should alter it. It should be recollected that it would be for the benefit of Ireland that light as well as heavy cargoes should be sent there from the West Indies; and rum, therefore, should not be prohibited as it was at present.

argued against the Amendment. He contended that the consumption of West-India produce in Ireland was much greater than of Irish produce in the West Indies.

opposed the Amendment. It would be more useful to the West-Indians, and more advantageous to the Irish, to reduce the duty on sugar. Owing to the high duties, the consumption there had fallen off one-third.

contended that the present System was a rigid monopoly which ought to be immediately put an end to. A reduction of duty would benefit both the Irish and the West-Indians.

The Amendment was negatived, the original proposition agreed to, the House resumed, the report to be received to-morrow.

said, although the subject was not a very inviting one, he wished to trouble the House with a few words upon it. This was a bill which involved no good principle. He did not know that there was any principle in the measure; though it was against all principle. It militated directly against the free intercourse which ought to subsist between master and servant with respect to making their mutual bargain for labour and wages. The late period of the Session was a sufficient reason for not going into the Bill, which it would be hardly fair to pass, when it was considered that many persons decidedly opposed to it had left town under the impression that the measure would not now be pressed further. As to the clauses of the Bill, he considered them, almost all, so objectionable, that it would be an endless task to amend them in a committee, and he therefore was opposed to proceeding further with the measure. The Bill enumerated no less than thirteen Acts of Parliament; it first confirmed them all, and then proceeded to a new enactment; so that, in order to ascertain and obey or enforce its provisions, the unfortunate magistrate, master, or labourer, would have to look first into these thirteen Acts of Parliament, and then into the Bill itself. Here, then, was a confused mass of legislation, which of itself afforded him a sufficient reason for withholding his assent to the Bill. One of the clauses enacted, in very extraordinary terms, that if any master was supposed to attempt to influence his workmen as to where they should deal, he was to be liable to a penalty of 20l. payable to the informer, on his sole and unconfirmed testimony. What was to prevent any labourer, who had quarrelled with his master, and who had not very strict notions as to the binding nature of an oath, from convicting the employer in a fine of 20l. and applying it to his own benefit? To say the least of it, the Bill required very great care and deliberation previously to its enactments receiving the assent of Parliament. When he saw the members of the Political Economy club agreeing upon the propriety of such a measure, it confirmed him in an idea he had long entertained, namely, that the political economists, strong as they were in general principles, were, nevertheless, willing to give way when a matter affected their own particular interests. He lamented that the hon. member for Stafford shire should have been induced to bring in such a Bill by the influence of his friends in the Potteries, because it placed him in an awkward Situation. He should be glad to hear the opinion of the head of the Board of Trade on the principle of the Bill, and should be glad to hear how that right hon. Gentleman reconciled the Government support of the Bill with the System upon which Government professed to act in commercial matters. He hoped that the measure would not be persisted in at that period of the Session, and he should oppose going into a committee on it. If, however, he were defeated in that attempt, he should do what he could in the committee to mitigate the mischief of the measure, and should propose to confine its Operation to the counties of Stafford and Warwick, which appeared to desire it. If it were a good Bill for them, let those counties have the benefit of it, but let them not impose upon the manufacturers of Dorset and Somerset a measure which the latter are of opinion must be prejudicial to their interests. There was a custom in those places, of employing the wives and daughters of the peasantry in making gloves, and giving them a certain portion of their earnings in clothes. Far from considering that as a loss, he looked on it as an advantage to both parties. If the entire amount of wages were paid in money, it would fall into the power of the husband, who was not always disposed to spend it in a manner the most advantageous to his family. But as the case Stands, a part of the wages was paid in clothes for the females, who were thus at least secured in the enjoyment of some advantage for their labour. Here it must be admitted that what was opprobriously called the truck-system was productive of good effects. In some parts of Lancashire, the manufacturers kept a number of cows, and allowed their labourers to have milk, which was surely very advantageous to the labourer. But he had seen a case that was laid before a legal Gentleman, in order to get at the meaning of the word "understanding" in the Act, and the case was thus put "Suppose a mauufacturer has cows, and gives the milk to the families of persons in his employment, they purchasing and paying for it, is this within the meaning of the Act?" The answer was "If all the master's labourers, or all of a particular class of them, take the milk, that is evidence of 'an understanding,' and that the arrangement is for the advantage of the master." Under these circumstances, a manufacturer who provided his people with milk, an article of such importance, but very often so difficult to be procured by labourers, particularly manufacturing labourers, was liable to a penalty for an act that was greatly to the advantage of the very class of people for whose benefit this penalty was to be inflicted. He did not like such legislation, and would strenuously oppose the Bill.

said, as the subject had already received some consideration, and was going to be further considered in a committee, he should not then trespass on the House at any length. It was only within a few days that he had learnt that this Bill was taken up by his Majesty's Ministers. Looking upon it merely as a measure introduced by the hon. member for Staffordshire, he had not given it that consideration which he was then satisfied it deserved, particularly since the measure had been adopted by Govern- ment. It was, in his opinion, a most unjust, unnecessary, and impolitic interference between masters and workmen. He admitted that the truck-system had given rise to abuses, and if this Bill could be confined to remedying them, it should have his hearty support. The professed object of the Bill was, to remedy the evils which had arisen out of the truck-system amongst the manufacturing classes of the Community. He was apprehensive, however, that the Bill would create other evils, much greater than those it was intended to remove. By the Bill, in fact, the labouring people would be greatly injured, inasmuch as it would have the effect of throwing many of them out of employment. There were several inconveniences which the measure was likely to produce; the chief of which was, that at certain times and in certain districts, it would have the effect of depriving numbers of the working people of work and food. Under this Bill, a manufacturer could not employ men under any circumstances, unless he could pay them in money, and whenever he was out of money he must cease to give them work. He did not defend the truck-system, and he wished that the State of trade was such throughout the country as to enable masters at all times to pay in money, and in money only. But when trade had been long depressed, and when wages were low, and there was a redundancy of labour, the masters were forced to resort to the truck-system, or else to leave off manufacturing altogether. In his opinion the hon. member for Staffordshire proceeded upon a wrong assumption when he argued that the workmen always received goods of an inferior quality, and of inadequate value. This might be the case, no doubt, in a few instances, or in some particular district, but that was not generally the case. In many instances, he was informed, that the labourers got as good articles from their masters as they could get at the retail shops; and at as low, or even in many instances at lower prices. He also objected to the Bill that it was partial in its Operation. If the principle were good, it ought to be made general, and extended to agricultural labourers, as well as persons engaged in every species of manufacture. He had other objections to the Bill, which he would state when it was before the committee. The House was then discussing the principle of the Bill, and not the sort of machinery made use of to carry its enactments into Operation, though he considered the machinery no less objectionable than the principle of the Bill. He called on the House to watch the measure closely, and be satisfied of its Utility before it sanctioned a principle adverse to the whole commercial System of legislation lately adopted by Parliament. For his part he must say, that he never saw a Bill that seemed more objectionable. He would support the measure if he thought it would benefit the labouring classes, of whose interests he had always been the humble but the sincere advocate. The working classes, however, could never flourish whilst trade was depressed; and so far from benefitting them, the Bill, if it passed into a law, would have a contrary effect to that which was the object of the hon. Member who introduced it, and would inflict a great and lasting injury both on labourers and their employers. He meant certainly to join those Members who had made up their minds to oppose the Bill.

felt called upon, by the appeal of the hon. member for Cricklade, to State in that stage of the Bill, the view which he took of its principle; that being the only subject which could then be regularly brought under discussion by those who deemed it proper to make any observations before the Speaker left the Chair. He regretted that this course had not been pursued by other Gentlemen, who had taken that opportunity of going into details which had much better have been reserved for the next stage of the proceeding. The hon. Member who last addressed the House stated, that he had only lately become aware that his Majesty's Government gave its sanction to this measure; which certainly proved that the hon. Member had not been very attentive to the progress of the Bill in its previous stages, or he would have heard the right hon. the Secretary for the Home Department express, on a former occasion, the very decided opinion which he, in common with the other members of his Majesty's Government, entertained on the principle of this Bill. He did not, indeed, then state that this was a Government measure, for such it certainly was not: indeed, it would be exceedingly unfair to his hon. friend, the member for Staffordshire, who had the charge of this Bill, to say that it was a Government measure; the country was indebted for it to the great ability and indefatigable zeal which he had displayed in preparing and promoting it. But the Government approved of the object and principle of the Bill. Being acquainted with the complaints which existed on this subject in the country, and particularly in the manufacturing districts, the Ministers, after listening with great patience to representations from various quarters, felt it incumbent on them to countenance the introduction of a measure having for its object to put an end to evils of very great magnitude, which had given occasion to frequent and general complaints. Indeed, it appeared to him, that no government could properly refuse to support a measure calculated to remove or to mitigate such crying evils. His hon. friend who introduced the Bill with so much eloquence and ability, described in a Statement abundantly confirmed by documents and by facts, the evils to which the lowest of the labouring classes were exposed, by the abuse of this system, in some of the manufacturing districts. No person who listened to that Statement, or was acquainted, from other sources, with the nature of the case, could be otherwise than desirous of promoting the adoption of any measure calculated to obviate the abuses which existed, without infringing upon rights and interests which must be maintained. The truck-system was a great evil, and some remedy for it was urgently called for. The present Bill had been introduced for the purpose of supplying such a remedy, and the question was, whether we should allow an objection to be taken in limine, and upon principle, to a Bill with such an object, and refuse to go into committee and hear the arguments by which the several provisions of the Bill could be supported. My hon. friend opposite, the member for Cricklade, opposed the Bill in toto, as contrary to "all principles." To all the principles of what?—was it contrary to all the principles of legislation or of sound policy? It was very easy to talk in such general terms of all principles. There were principles of legislation, and principles of polity, and general principles of justice and morality. Now, to which of these principles was the present measure adverse? In his opinion, the measure was in strict consistency with the soundest and best principle of legislation—that principle of civil government which said, that the law should be so framed as to take care of that class of the Community which was least able to protect itself. The Bill was certainly not inconsistent with that great principle; nor with the course of legislation on this subject adopted in former times. He was not one of that political school which considered that our ancestors were always wrong, and that their views upon every question of legislation were to be ridiculed. He did not contend that they had always legislated wisely and usefully; but when he found them, for a long series of years, legislating with uniform consistency upon any topic, and striving undeviatingly for the enforcement of any particular object, it offered a strong inducement for their successors to institute a careful inquiry into the motives by which they were actuated, before abandoning the principles which they had adopted. He could not agree, therefore, with his hon. friend, who would oppose such a Bill as that because it was contrary to all principle. But as his hon. friend had asked him several questions, he would permit him to ask what he meant by "all principle," and perhaps he would have the goodness, in some other part of that debate, to explain to what good principle this measure was really, in his opinion, opposed? He maintained that it was a main principle in all good government, and all civil legislation, that the due execution of contracts between man and man should be strictly enforced by the law. The law, therefore, ought to secure to the labourer the exact fulfilment of the contract between him and his employer. His hon. friend could not doubt that truth, but he seemed not to understand its bearing on the present question. But when the employer paid his labourer in goods what he had engaged to pay in money, it was a breach of contract. The law established a legal tender for the discharge of all money engagements between individuals, and no man had a right to offer another, in satisfaction of a debt, anything but the lawful coin of the realm. That ought to be the only medium of paying the labourer his wages; but from the System of truck, the legal tender was wholly banished. The master paid no money, but substituted something else for it, and something which had no fixed or permanent relation of value to all other commodities. Articles subject to constant variations of price, and therefore wholly unfit to be used in discharge of a debt, at the option, and according to the arbitrary valuation of the debtor, were given in payment of a debt, with great injustice and detriment to the defenceless workman. On this point, and in reply to those who talked of principles, he might be permitted to refer to the authority of a great master of the science and principles of political economy; one who had pushed his researches, with all the energy and profound penetration of genius, into every branch of legislation affecting the social and commercial interests of mankind, connected with the wealth and happiness of nations. The practice to which he was referring, of paying labourers by truck, passed under the review of that eminent writer Adam Smith. It might, perhaps, appear presumptuous in him, to those who were arrayed against the principle of this Bill, and who were of a more recent school of political economy than Adam Smith, that he should oppose the authority of that great, but now antiquated, writer to their newer lights; but there was so much of force and of reason concentrated in a brief and simple passage of his work, relating to this subject, that he hoped the House would excuse him if he trespassed on it for a few minutes in reading it. "Whenever the Legislature," said Adam Smith, "attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workmen, its counsellors are the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters. Thus the law which obliges the masters in several different trades to pay their workmen in money, and not in goods, is quite just and equitable. It imposes no real hardship on the masters; it only obliges them to pay that value in money which they pretended to pay, but did not always really pay, in goods: the law is in favour of the workmen." Such was the opinion of Adam Smith on the principle of the law which, by this Bill, it was intended more effectually to enforce. The truck-system was an avoidance of that law. In Order to secure to the workman the full value of his labour, according to his agreement, the payment for it must be made in money, or in some medium not subject to Variation or uncertainty in its relation to money. Under the practice against which the Bill was directed, the master who engaged to pay certain sums for labour did not really pay those sums; he avoided it by not paying in money, but in what he called an equivalent. It was the substitution of an equivalent, arbitrarily valued and selected by the master, that constituted the gist of the evil. There were three degrees in the Operation of the truck-system, to which the attention of the framers of the several Statutes on the subject appeared to have been drawn. First, the Substitution of payment for labour in goods in lieu of payments in money, where money payments had been expressly bargained for by the parties. Secondly, the payment of the workmen, partly in money and partly in goods, where there had been an agreement or understanding beforehand to that effect. Thirdly, the mere union, in the same person, of the business of a master employing labourers, and that of a retail shopkeeper supplying them with the principal articles of their necessary consumption. Each of these was supposed, by some persons, to be pregnant with evil, and liable to pernicious abuses; and they would strictly prohibit them all. In their sentiments and opinion she did not concur, and he felt called upon to explain the distinction he took between these several modes by which the manufacturer sought to diminish the cost of his production. This was the more necessary, because several hon. Members, and among them the hon. member for Montrose, from not attending to these distinctions, did not fully understand the subject. The payment of labourers in goods, where the contract had been specifically made for a payment in money, was admitted to be a case of undisputed injustice. It was admitted that such engagements should be strictly enforced, and that the wages of the workman ought to be paid in money, and nothing else. So far, therefore, as the principle of the Bill enforced the payment of money where money was contracted to be paid, all seemed to agree in its expediency. To that extent the principle of the measure was acknowledged to be good. That was one material point gained for argument, for a considerable part of the practice which the Bill was intended to put down consisted in the evasion of the positive engagement to pay in money. Ninety-nine in every hundred of the agreements for wages were made for money, and these engagements the truck-masters contrived to discharge in goods. In the prevention of this mal practice, there could be no disagreement. But the case was different, and the question not so easy, where the contract or agreement between the employer and the labourer contemplated a settlement, partly in money, and partly in the supply of commodities. Such contracts were prohibited by the existing law, on account of the abuses to which they were liable, and the great injustice which they might inflict on the labourer. But in his humble judgment, they ought not to be condemned absolutely and without exception. There must be a distinction drawn between contracts for the payment of labour in supplies, the nature of which could be exactly ascertained before-hand, and were not liable to variation, and those of an uncertain description. If, for example, the agreement be to pay the labourer partly in money, and partly in lodging, that might be a fair agreement, because both parties equally knew, or might know, at the time of making it, the nature and value of the lodging, which was not liable to change. But that was not the case where the bargain included goods in general, or even specific articles of consumption, liable to vary in quality. The choice of the goods was there left to the discretion of the master, and in the exercise of the power which that gave him over the labourer, the most cruel oppression and fraud were practised. Such contracts were replete with injustice, and ought not to be tolerated between parties of such unequal power, in carrying them into execution, as the master and the labourer. In these cases the labourer really made the contract in ignorance how he was to be paid. The Performance of this agreement was in the hands of the master alone, and under such a System, as it was the interest, so it was too much the practice, of the master to extort from the workman to the utmost of his power, and give him articles that were worth nothing like the sum at which he estimated them. Suppose that a workman was to be paid so much money, and the remainder in goods; that a given quantity of flour was to be part of his wages. There was in such a contract nothing definite; it might be flour of the best or of the worst quality. And how was the price to be determined? There was nothing definite in such a medium of payment when the quality and price of the article were left to the discretion of the master. God forbid that he should suppose that all the masters who paid wages in goods took advantage of their work- men. He knew that there were many who acted fairly and honestly towards their labourers, and who, even in this practice, consulted the advantage of those whom they employed. But here were two contracting parties; on the one side a weak and poor, on the other a rich and powerful man; and, under such circumstances, there must always be danger that the weaker party would be oppressed. When he first looked into this subject, he had considerable doubts as to the restrictions which ought to be imposed upon these voluntary bargains on the part of the labourer for mixed payments in money and goods; and his right hon. friend, the member for Liverpool, to whose consideration it was submitted about the same time, also felt some difficulty on the point. He had some hesitation in reconciling the principle of the present measure in this respect with his views as to the fitness of leaving trade unshackled by all regulations not absolutely necessary. He was certainly of opinion, generally speaking, that it was improper for the Legislature to interfere in the transactions of trade, and for that reason he felt himself bound to look at this measure with great caution. But the higher principle of protecting the labouring classes, of securing to them the just reward of their labour, preponderated, in this case, over all other general considerations; and he therefore maintained, that in this matter the interference of the Legislature was necessary. But although he had dwelt at some length on mixed agreements, it was the less necessary, because ninety-nine out of every hundred of the contracts between masters and workmen were contracts for money only; and those were the contracts which were constantly evaded by masters who practised the truck-system. He considered, therefore, that this would be a most useful Bill, if it remedied the flagrant evils which arose out of the payment in goods of an indefinite value, whether under agreements to pay absolutely in money, or otherwise. These evils were now of such magnitude, that complaints of them were Coming from every part of the kingdom; and more particularly from some of the most important and most populous of the manufacturing counties. The feeling, indeed, had been so strong in the minds of those who had urged the consideration of this measure, that they had strongly pressed the necessity of prohibiting the manufacturer alto- gether from selling commodities to his labourers. That was the third part of the general subject to which he had adverted. It was maintained by those who recommended this prohibition, that if the master were allowed to keep a shop at all, he would convert it into a means of imposing all the evils of the truck-system upon his labourers, by giving them credit, and allowing them to run into his debt. To that reasoning, however, he did not accede. There were many situations in which the shop kept by the master was of the greatest benefit to the workman, and in which, but for it, he could not be advantageously supplied. That practice might, therefore, be allowed to exist consistently with the object of the Bill, which was, to ensure that the money payment of his wages should go fairly, and without reservation or condition of any kind, into the hand of the labourer, and then to leave him free in the disposal of it, to deal with his master, or with any other shopkeeper. But it was one of the chief objects of the Bill to guard against all clandestine or collusive conditions in the application of the money. The hon. member for Montrose asked why it should be supposed that the master manufacturer would be more prone to take advantage of his workmen in the sale of commodities than any other shopkeeper? The reason was, he had necessarily more power. His Situation, in relation to his workman, made a material difference in the two cases. In the ordinary case, the buyers and sellers stood upon equal terms. The seller was, perhaps, in most cases sufficiently inclined to take every advantage he could of the buyer; but the buyer could defend himself, and the struggle was conducted upon a footing of equality. Not so between master and workman. The buyer was, in that case, feeble and helpless, and in the power of the seller. That was more especially the case when the delivery of goods was not made in exchange for money, but in satisfaction of a debt for labour previously incurred. The master then offered what he pleased, and at what price he chose; and how was the labourer to refuse or to resist? He would not dwell on the flagrant instances of which the House had heard; such as a man being paid his week's wages with a coal-scuttle, or a warming-pan, or some other article as little suited to his wants. Those examples were, he hoped, rare; but there were abundant proofs that the goods supplied were frequently such as the labourer must sell again, in order to provide for the subsistence of his family. They were, therefore, most improper Substitutes for money. But what defence could the labourer oppose to a master who forced such a payment upon him, if there were no effective law to protect him? At the close of a week, during which his labour had been given to his employer, he sought his reward. The things were tendered to him; his wants were urgent, and his chance of redress under the existing Statutes absolutely null. He must submit, Week after week he was plunged deeper and deeper in wretchedness, until all hope of extricating himself from the thraldom disappeared. The workman, it was said, might change his master; labour was free to seek the best Channels of employment, and that, if left alone, these evils would work their own cure, and the price of labour necessarily find its proper level. These were pretty words, but every one knew what extremes of misery were caused before such matters really found their level. It was not possible to foresee what mischiefs might arise from the continuance of the truck-system, if it were not corrected by some legislative provision. Whole trades were in a state of ferment; the labouring manufacturers in those districts where it most prevailed were in a State of excitement approaching to insurrection; and even without reference to the injustice of the practice, and to the miseries which it inflicted, it ought to be put an end to, with a view to preserving the tranquillity of the manufacturing counties. And who were the parties who prayed that it might be put down? First, the poor labourers themselves, who presented themselves by deputations from their own body at the Offices of the Government, and who made their applications also through the magistrates of their several counties. These last, too, were urgent, and their appeals were made, not less on the score of humanity, and a charitable feeling for the suffering parties, than for the sake of peace and quiet in their respective neighbourhoods. Even that day representations had reached him from most respectable magistrates in Gloucestershire, imploring the speedy passing of the Bill, and stating that, unless some measure were adopted to stop the mischief, they could not be answerable for the consequences. There were also master manu- facturers who would not adopt the practice, and who, for their own sakes, called for the interference of the Legislature because they were unable to carry on a cmpetition with the truck-masters on such unequal terms; they must either adopt the same mode of increasing their profits, or retire from business. The claims of these parties, though less pressing than those of the labourer, were deserving of I great consideration. There was one point on which he agreed with the member for Montrose. He said it was inconsistent I with the peace of the country to leave the law as at present. He, however, would have the House abolish all the old laws, instead of making a new law on the subject. On the contrary, in accordance with the great authority already quoted, he was of opinion that the principle of the existing law was wise and just; and that it would be expedient to make further Provision for carrying that law into effect. When the Bill was in committee he should advert to its several details, and probably take the liberty of suggesting some amendments. In his observations, he had confined himself to the principle and policy of the Bill, to which he gave his hearty support, because he was convinced that some measure of that description was necessary for the well-being, the comfort, and the tranquillity of the industrious population of those districts in which our staple manufactures were most extensively carried on.

was some what surprised to find after sitting several years in the House, and hearing a vast variety of observations on sound principles and false principles, that the House had only at length got to defining what principle was; and so lame was the definition, that he for one could not understand the right hon. Gentleman's definition. It appeared to him, that all he said on the subject amounted to this, that there were some principles which allowed Parliament to do one thing, and some another; but at fixed principles the House had not yet arrived. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to Adam Smith, who, although a great authority, was not always sound in his principles. He supposed, amongst other things, that the price of labour might be regulated by law. That principle had been tried, and remained a very long time a disgrace to the Statute-book. With respect to the present Bill, he had not looked into it until very re- cently; and he did not wish to throw any obstructions in the way of it; but it really seemed to him liable to a great many objections. For instance, a Single witness might be an informer; and, in case of conviction, he was to receive the whole of the penalties. There were various other objections, into which it was not necessary then to enter; but which had convinced him that it was time to look into the principle of this Bill. There would be great difficulty, he believed, in forming any bill which would prevent the truck-system from being brought into Operation. That System was adopted from necessity. He might, perhaps, be allowed just to mention one or two means by which this Bill might be evaded. The right hon. the President of the Board of Trade, had talked of obliging money contracts to be fulfilled; but without, as it appeared to him, comprehending the nature of the subject. Did he not know that if men contracted for money, the present law is quite equal to enforce the fulfilment of that contract? If the man contracted partly for money and partly for goods, then he ought to receive what he contracted for; and, generally speaking, he did so. To compel the master to pay him otherwise, would be, in fact, violating a contract. The object of this Bill, however, was, to prevent a master and workman from contracting at all. If the master be a butcher, the workman must not deal with him; the master must not, dare not ask him. In his opinion, it would not be possible to carry such a law into effect. There were already thirteen Acts of Parliament on the subject, which were all dead letters, no one ever looking to them, except informers who wanted to make something by them. But let the House See how easily this Act might be evaded. A retail shop might be set up in a town or village. The master did not desire his workmen to deal at that shop, and he paid them in money every Saturday evening. There was, however, a private connexion between the master and the person who managed the retail shop, perhaps that person was a relation of the master's, or one of his own family; every Saturday evening the master might put a cross after the name of every man who did not deal at the shop, and the foreman would discharge that man. He did not tell the workman why he was discharged. He said, perhaps, "You are not a good man, we do not like you; "and the man was sent about his business. This was soon known; every one understood it; all knew why he was discharged, but who could prove it? The man received all his money, there was no agreement that he should deal at any particular shop; but yet there was a general knowledge throughout the town that it was expected; how was that to be avoided? The workman who was discharged because he had disobliged his master, laboured under a great disadvantage, and found a difficulty in getting another employment. The master, without absolutely charging him with any fault, might say to another master who came to inquire concerning his character, "he is a bad one," or "a black sheep," or any of those expressions which were in common use; and the workman was naturally apprehensive of the influence of such representations. This was a case that could not in any way be avoided. It would occur in spite of an Act of Parliament. But suppose the system could be got rid of, what would be the effect of it? It would be to give the workmen a lower rate of wages, which would be reduced precisely in the same proportion in which the truck-system produced profit to the manufacturer. The persons most injured by the truck-system were the small manufacturers, who did not employ men enough to keep truck-shops. Men of small capital could not keep such shops, and therefore laboured under a disadvantage by competition with those who could. That was an evil, however, which no law could prevent. As respected agricultural labourers, nothing could be more disadvantageous than the Operation of this Dill. Whenever the truck-system was brought into Operation in agriculture, it was for the advantage of the labourer. He got his wheat by the bushel, or the half bushel, which he could not get at market, and was enabled to make it into flour himself. It was always advantageous to the labourer.

observed, that the hon. Member was perhaps not aware that, in compliance with the Suggestion thrown out on that point, he had exempted agricultural labourers from the Operation of the Bill.

Agricultural labourers were certainly not exempted in the printed Bill, which he held in his hand; but he was glad to hear that such was the Intention of the hon. Member. It proved, how- ever, that men could not adopt the principle of the Bill, and that the Legislature not withstanding the Observation of the right hon, Gent. had not got upon a fixed principle. Whether the contract entered into be for money or goods, no law ought to prevent it being performed. For these reasons, and because he felt that the House would not be legislating upon any fixed and acknowledged principle, he could not give his support to the Bill. In his opinion, if the Bill passed, it would only be one added to the thirteen useless laws, which had already been passed on the subject. The effect of having so many Acts of Parliament on the same subject was, that no one could be acquainted with what was really the law; for it was no sooner generally known, than a new law was passed. He wished that the hon. member for Staffordshire had Consolidated the whole of the laws relating to masters and workmen, and brought in one short intelligible Act on the subject. It was then too late to introduce such a measure; but perhaps the hon. Member would allow this Bill to lie over until next Session. It might then be referred to a committee upstairs, and after due consideration, when all the facts were established, the House might be enabled to legislate upon just principles, and the whole subject be brought into one law, which every man might have before him. All temporary laws, in his opinion, were bad, for they were no sooner learned than they were repealed. On the whole, the hon. Member would do well to let this Bill stand over till next Session.

did not mean to imitate the example of those hon. Members who had entered upon abstract disquisitions as to the principle of this Bill. He would not inquire whether the Bill were consistent with this or that principle, because he thought the House had better confine itself to the question before it, and consider whether the measure be not consistent with freedom of trade and with common sense. His hon. friend below him had misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman on one point; whom he did not understand to say that he was opposed to the workmen being paid partly in money, and partly in goods, when it was by special contract. On the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman said, he objected to forcibly putting an end to that System, though he admitted that it was liable to abuse; that it was not easy to define what goods meant, because they were subject to variations of price; and under such a System, the weaker party was more liable to be injured. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted the opinion of Adam Smith on this subject. The last edition of his works was edited by a gentle man, whose authority, though not so high perhaps as that of Adam Smith, was also to be respected. He did not say that he was correct in all his views; but his opinion was certainly worth consideration, and ought not to be thrown aside. He alluded to Mr. M'Culloch. In that gentleman's edition of Adam Smith, a note occurred, in which reference was made to the principle now under consideration. Mr. M'Culloch described the law as founded upon principle. He said, "Colliers, coal bearers, salters, and all individuals employed in collieries and salt-works, were placed by the old law of Scotland, in the exact condition of the adscripti glebœ of the middle ages. They were bound to perpetual service at the works to which they belonged; upon a sale of the works, the new proprietor acquired a right to their Services. In 1775, a law was passed for the abolition of this species of servitude; but this Act did not effect the object in view. Those that were emancipated suffered themselves to become indebted to their masters for sums which they could not pay, and which obliged them to continue their Services on the old footing. In 1799 they were completely emancipated." "The Statute, in order to prevent its object from being defealed, took from the masters all title to pursue (a Scotch law term) the colliers for any sum advanced to them, unless for the support of a family during sickness." The argument to be drawn from this was, that when the labourer was paid in goods, instead of money, he was not a free agent. The labourer was constantly exposed to a power which perpetually existed, and it was not surprising that when he got into debt he should cease to be a free agent. When the master was a retailer, nothing was more likely than that the workman should get into his debt. Throughout the country, wherever the truck-system prevailed, it was constantly found to be the case, and under those circumstances, the free competition alluded to by his hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen, did not exist between the master and the workman. The effect was practically to put the workman in the state of dependence to which the writer he had quoted referred. But putting the working classes out of the consideration, the existence of the truck-system was productive of the greatest injury to other branches of the Community, particularly the retail dealers. He looked on it as an evil of no slight magnitude, that the extension of this System would sweep them from off the face of the earth. Much of the moral feeling, the love of liberty, and the best characteristics of this country as a nation, were identified with, and represented by that class. He viewed with great alarm, therefore, any practice which went to produce so fatal a vacuum in the structure of Society. The truck-system, whilst it went to destroy one class, was calculated to degrade another. What was it, he asked, which gave England the character of a great manufacturing country; and induced men of respectability to engage in manufactures? It was because her manufacturers were not only extensive in their trade, but remarkable for their honour and gentlemanly feeling; and was it possible that those characteristics could continue to belong to the manufacturers of England if they descended to keep huckster's-shops? Those qualities which redounded so much to their honour, would cease to form a part of their character. It had been stated, that the most respectable manufacturers throughout the country had complained of the System; and there was no difficulty in telling why they complained. If the System became general, and some manufacturers derived a miserable profit by supplying their workmen with food, all others would be obliged to follow the same course, there would be an increase of competition, until the rate of profit was reduced to the lowest point. If the manufacturers in one part of the country derived a profit from this System, the manufacturers in other districts must adopt it. What prevented all the manufacturers from adopting the System? It was a feeling of delicacy, and of respect for themselves, which made the manufacturers reluctant to begin dealing upon so miserable a system as that of keeping huckster's shops. If the Legislature did not interpose, however, and put down the system, it must be adopted by every manufacturer. It was essential, therefore, that the Legislature should take it into consideration. His hon. friend below him doubted whether the Bill would be effectual; and he should share those doubts if it were not that a strong feeling existed throughout the country against the system. He trusted, therefore, that the law I would be sufficient to put it down, because it would be, as all laws must be that are intended to be effectual, in consonance with the feelings of the people. The law would at least prevent the growth of a great evil, the further extension of which was checked already by the moral feeling of the country. If the Legislature did not put a stop to the System, it must extend. Time would give it feet and wings, and accelerate its progress. He gave his support to the Bill, not saying that the measure would not be attended with evils; but he considered that of two evils, he was choosing the least. The measure was not only justified, but called for. His hon. friend had stated, that the political economists had forgot their principles out of respect to their interests. If his hon. friend alluded to him, he was certainly mistaken. His own interest, as regarded his constituents would have counselled to avoid all discussion on this subject; but he felt himself called upon by a sense of duty, to State his candid opinion, and in so doing, though his sentiments, might not be in accordance with those of his constituents, he was sure that he had not been unmindful of the important trust confided to his hands.

thought, that it was much better that workmen should be paid in money than in goods, and they ought always to be paid in money when it was in the power of the masters to do so. Money wages were most conducive to the comfort and advantage of the labourer. But times had been, and might again come, when the prices of commodities, including wages, were very low, and labour superabundant. Under such circumstances it was not expedient that the manufacturer should be confined to one species of contract. It was not well, either in local expediency or in principle, that he should be obliged to pay his workmen in money, or else not employ them at all. If he were so obliged how would this law affect the workman? He now got a livelihood—a bad one perhaps—under the Truck-system; but if this Bill passed, he would get no livelihood at all. It appeared to him that a Bill of this description ought to have been drawn up with more care and circumspection. Every effort might be made to put down those shops, but, in his opinion, it would prove ineffectual. As his hon. friend, the member for Wiltshire, had stated, the master will say, "You may go wherever you please and purchase your provisions," and the man would find himself dismissed if he acted on that permission. Unless the master committed some offence the law could not punish him; but it appeared also that the law would be evaded without any offence being committed. It had been already observed, that it was necessary in some cases to supply workmen with materials for their work. That was the case in the mines of Cornwall; and he was glad that the hon. member for Stafford had exempted the Cornish miners from the Operation of the Bill. He might State, however, that those engaged in the mines were not only supplied with tools, but also with gunpowder, hemp, and other requisites; and if this System were not allowed, the mines could not be worked. If the mines had not been exempted, therefore, next Session the House would have had petitions from all the mining districts. He mentioned this to show the caution and circumspection that ought to be adopted, lest, in endeavouring to do good, the Legislature should do evil. He had known instances where there had not been enough provisions in a district for the supply of the population, and where proprietors of mines, and other extensive works, had imported provisions, and sold them without any profit, often at a loss, to supply their workmen. If this Bill became a law, and such a circumstance should occur, some evil-disposed person might take advantage of it, and levy the heavy penalty imposed by this Bill. Cases also might arise where money could not be paid by the masters, and where great injury would arise from preventing them paying partly in goods. The Bill ought not only to be sent to a committee up-stairs, but also to all the manufacturing districts for consideration. There was no one who did not give the hon. member for Staffordshire credit for the intentions with which he introduced this Bill; but they were all liable to be imposed upon by interested persons; and an opinion was entertained, that, with the very best intentions, the hon. member for Staffordshire was acting upon the suggestion of some opulent manufacturers in his own district, who were very anxious that he should carry this Bill, under the expectation that its effect would be to raise the price of iron, in which they were dealers.

trusted, after the personal reference that had been made to him, that he might be allowed to say a few words. It was utterly impossible that he could have been influenced by the master manufacturers in the way the hon. Member stated, for they were the last persons from whom he heard on the subject. His attention was drawn to it, in the first instance, by the workmen themselves, who complained loudly of the injury which the System inflicted upon them. The retail dealers complained, and then the most respectable of the master manufacturers also stated that they were opposed to the System. His hon. friend had implied that he was the foster-parent of this Bill, insinuating that the measure did not originate with, but was forced on him. His hon. friend, however, was quite misinformed. He had never been on such terms with his constituents that they could take any liberty with him, or attempt to force any bill on him. He was as independent, he hoped, as any Member of that House. The fact was, that he took up this subject at the Suggestion of no class of persons. He resided in a county where his attention had been necessarily called to it for many years. Seeing its evils, he regarded it as a duty incumbent upon him, if not to devise some remedy at least to call the attention of Parliament to the subject. In the neighbourhood where he resided, there were two or three associations for putting down the system, and it was most obnoxious to all classes. Retail dealers, small manufacturers, labourers, master manufacturers, the clergy, the magistrates, all classes had taken the field against it. The member for Cricklade had asked, why not repeal the thirteen Acts which existed on this subject? He admitted that they, as well as many other Acts relating to this subject, ought to be, and he hoped that at some future time they would be repealed. Some hon. Members had objected to the amount of the sum to be paid to the informer under this Bill, but it was necessary to make the sum considerable, otherwise the object of the Bill would be defeated. The man who should inform would be almost sure to be thrown out of employment, and if an appeal was to be made to the Sessions, against the conviction before a Magistrate, the chance was, that in the interval he would fall into distress. Unless, therefore, the fine to be paid on conviction were such as to compensate for his loss of employment, he would not give the Information. If the penalty were not high, the object of the Act might be defeated. He had consulted several Magistrates on the subject, and they had all been of the same opinion with respect to the penalty, and on the same grounds. They had all been of opinion, also, that to receive the evidence of the informer would be sufficient. No person who had spoken on this subject but had admitted that the present State of the law was inefficient. From every part of the country he had received Communications to the same effect. It had been contended by the hon. Member opposite, that the present Bill would be as ineffectual as the old law; that in times of difficulty no persons would be engaged but such as consented to deal at a particular place, and that those who refused would be thrown out of employment. He doubted that this would be the case, and if it were, it would not be worse than at present, for the truck-system was now flourishing, and had not been, and would not be, probably confined to times of difficulty and distress. He would ask any hon. Gentleman who remembered what took place in the year 1825, whether the truck-system was abandoned in that year, which was not one certainly of any scarcity of work, but one rather of great prosperity and full employment in almost every kind of business. It was not, therefore, correct to state, that the truck-system was carried on only when there was little demand for labour. His hon. friend opposite asked, what would be the advantage of obliging employers to pay in money, if the men might be discharged for not dealing at a particular shop. The inconvenience of such a practice was great, but it could not be wholly guarded against. There were now several manufactories where no money whatever was paid to the persons employed, who took up the whole of their wages in goods. He wished that the employer should be obliged to pay money in all cases. The workman to whom it was paid would then be a free agent, and might dispose of his wages as he pleased. There was a vast difference between persons who received no money at all, and those who received the whole of their wages in money, being at liberty to purchase where they pleased. Some hon. Members who opposed this Bill had suggested, that it should be referred to a Select Committee, in Order that evidence might be received as to the extent of the System; but that evidence would be likely to give rise to great differences, and to great heart-burnings amongst the masters, and also between the masters and the men. It was wholly unnecessary for the House to have evidence of the extent of a System, the existence of which was admitted by every parish in England. It was a fact, that at every public meeting which had been held on this subject, not a single hand had ever been held up against any petition to the Legislature praying for the abolition of the truck-system; a stronger proof could not be given of the general feeling in the country against it. In the course of the very extensive correspondence which he had held on the subject, he was informed that the majority of the labouring poor who had emigrated were persons who had suffered under this System. From his experience as to the effects of this mode of paying the wages of the labouring poor, more particularly in that county with which he was most intimately connected (Staffordshire), he had come to the conclusion, that it was his duty to introduce this measure, because he was convinced that the truck-system had already led to indescribable misery amongst the labouring classes. If any proof were wanting of the feelings of the people, the petitions laid on the Table against the System, and the absence of petitions in favour of it, would be amply sufficient to satisfy the most sceptical that the measure he proposed would be considered a great boon to the people.

said, a proof that this system was forced upon employers by necessity was to be found in the fact, that no person had been found to speak in favour of it at public meetings, because masters had a difficulty in admitting that they were unable to carry on their business without it; if, however, a committee were appointed up-stairs, evidence from the masters themselves might be laid before it, which would put this fact beyond doubt. On this ground he was decidedly opposed to the course pursued by the hon. member for Staffordshire, and he should, both on the present and at future stages, give it every Opposition in his power. It was said, that the truck-system was against all principles, and that the public opinion was decidedly opposed to it; but at the same time the fact was admitted, that some capitalists found it necessary to resort to the System, because they were unable otherwise to compete with their neighbours. What a valuable discovery was that which enabled the manufacturer to produce his goods ten per cent cheaper than before. If it accomplished that, there could be no doubt but it was an advantage to the country, and it would be impolitic to interfere with it by legislative enactment. Parliament should leave these things to find their own level. The House was told that this was opposed to the principles of political economy. What was political economy but the application of sense and reason to the principles of government, as applied to domestic affairs? What was the argument urged in favour of the Beer Bill? That competition should be as extensive as possible, and that, in proportion as it was encouraged, the public would benefit by it. What had been done by the Society for Bettering the Condition of the Poor some time ago? Grocery and other shops were opened in several places, where goods were sold at the original cost, yet nobody objected to that. The question was, how were the comforts of the poor to be increased by this measure? The hon. Member must shew, in the first instance, that the present System was an evil to the poor, and that this Bill would produce a practical good by the removal of that evil. Would it raise the price of the commodity to the manufacturers? for if it did not, raising wages must be an injury to the capitalist. It was said, that there were already thirteen Acts in force to put down this System; and if these were not sufficient, how was the present measure to become so? Parliament must endeavour to give effect to this Bill by means injurious to trade; or it would be much better not to have any law whatever on the subject. On these grounds then, and on the ground that, if the present system gave the capitalist an advantage of ten per cent, that was also an advantage to the workman, who had otherwise no chance of receiving as much employment as at present, he felt it his duty to oppose the Bill.

said, that if the present System gave a profit of ten per cent to the manufacturer, the Parliament not only ought not to put it down by any legisla- tive enactment, but it ought to compel every manufacturer to pay in truck, and not in money wages; but he denied that the System had any such effect. It was, no doubt, of some advantage to the manufacturer, or he would not resort to it; but it was an advantage obtained at the expense of those whom it should be the duty of that House especially to protect—he meant the labouring classes. In his opinion, all contracts made for money wages should be fulfilled according to the terms in which they were made, but they could not be said to be fulfilled if a man contracted to be paid in money, and was only paid in goods. The object of the Bill was, to give effect to contracts made for wages, by obliging the party making them to pay the full amount in money, and not in goods. He knew the effect which the Bill might have on the labourer, and the difficulty the manufacturer might feel from being obliged to pay wages in money; he knew, also, that from a difficulty of this kind had arisen, in many instances, the System which it was the object of this Bill to abolish; but it was at the same time impossible to deny the fact, that there had been a rivalry amongst the masters to see how far they could carry their System of extortion against the workmen. The best way to put an end to this was, to oblige them all to pay their contracts with the workmen in money. Why was money invented at all, but that it should be an invariable Standard, and a measure of value in contracts between man and man, and to prevent the inconvenience which must follow from having that Standard in articles perishable in their nature, and changeable in value? The System of paying in goods, and not in money, had arisen from the exercise of power on the one side over the necessity which existed on the other. The workman was obliged to submit, because he could not obtain employment on any other terms. The difficulty of the master was not caused by a want of a sufficient quantity of the circulating medium; but the effect of that to the workman had been, to lower his wages twenty per cent, and, in some instances, twenty-five per cent. This System ought not to be allowed to continue: it must lead to discontent and dissatisfaction throughout the country, which it should be the business of the Legislature to prevent; and if this Bill were not to pass in the present Session, it would be productive of serious inconvenience. Hon. Gentlemen talked of the great advantage of producing a larger quantity of money transactions; but one of the great evils of this system, if it were persevered in, would be, that capital would be driven out of the manufacturing districts. Instead of trading upon money capital, as heretofore, masters got credit for provisions, and that was all the capital upon which they traded. The underselling of other manufacturers, of which the hon. Member spoke as a consequence of the present System, was not an underselling by means of the manufacturers' greater capital, skill, and industry; it was an underselling at the expense of the earnings and comforts of the industrious part of the Community. Of all the measures which had been under consideration this Session, this very measure was that one on which would depend the good feeling, the tranquillity, and improved condition of the immense concentrated masses of population employed in the manufacturing districts of this country. He said that without any reference to the feeling that connected this System with his constituents, for by the liberality and industry prevailing among them, they were able adequately to reward those whom they employed, so that the truck-system was unknown in Liverpool. The consequence of this was, the prevalence of the best feeling between masters and men; and between the two, a greater satisfaction existed than was to be found in any other place in which there was an equal population. He would not weary the House with the details of the consequences of this system, as they had been described to him; but any Gentleman who would take the trouble to inform himself as to what was passing in Staffordshire, and in part of the clothing and cotton districts, would find, that a great part of the distress prevailing there was not so much owing to a want of employment, as the undue, the unfair competition to which the truck-system gave rise, by making the whole trade a struggle between the avarice of the master and the comforts of the workmen. Unless Parliament resorted to some measure of value, as the Standard whereby to determine the fair remuneration of the workman, the degradation and extortion of the present system would be inevitably continued. Why should the Legislature not do towards the poor and helpless part of the Community, what it had ever been the policy of the law to do towards all those who could not protect themselves? It was the duty of every State to enforce the fulfilment of contracts in the sense in which they were made; there were many instances of the Legislature doing this, as well as instances of its interference for the protection of those who could not protect themselves, or who, perhaps, could protect themselves, but, by the arts of others, were led to make improvident bargains. What, for instance, was the Act which related to the lending of money upon annuities? That Act was passed, not to protect persons who were obliged to sell their labour for whatever they could obtain for it,—not for the protection of the most helpless—of the least informed—of the most friendless part of society, but for the protection of those who might, from circumstances, be obliged to have recourse to moneylenders. That Act provided that every contract should be void unless the payment contracted for in money be paid in money. Why should we not extend the same protection to those who had no friend to guide them, and who looked up to the Legislature as their shield against the extortion of those who regarded only their own advantage, and never thought of the sufferings and afflictions of those whom they employed? It was upon these grounds that he was ready to acknowledge that, on the score of humanity and feeling, he gave his support to the Bill, and should do so, even though it were opposed to all the doctrines of political economy, with which, however, he contended it was perfectly consistent. The bill that had been read a third time to regulate the Sale of Arms in Ireland, might be said to be an Act trenching upon the liberty of the subject; but the necessity existing for such a measure compelled Parliament to pass it. Was there not a like necessity in the present case,—and was it not the duty of the Legislature to yield to it? There was; and the House would not manifest a proper sympathy for the working classes if it did not make every effort to pass the Bill.

thought it would be impossible to take the Bill clause by clause, and examine it properly, in the present circumstances of the Session; so that, on the whole, the less evil would be, to leave the law as it stood, discouraging, although not prohibiting, the truck-system, till next Session, when a Select Committee might be appointed, composed of Members from different parts of the country, who would be able to inquire into the subject.

wished to say a few words in support of this Bill. Looking at the State of vassalage to which the population of South America had been reduced by this truck-system, it was not at all desirable that it should be introduced into England. One of its consequences was, that it gave a fallacious remuneration to labour, professing to do what it never performed. Another of its consequences, which was most evil, was, to extinguish the class of retail traders; a class satisfied with small profits, but upon which they brought up their families properly and respectably. The doctrine of the truck-system might be in favour with philosophy and philosophers; but as it was at variance with philanthropy, he should vote for the measure that was to put an end to it. The House, he was sure, would not tolerate it, but would shew the persons who wished to introduce it, that it would meet with anything but encouragement from the Legislature.

was surprised to hear the hon. and gallant Member compare the Situation of South America with that of this country,—for, in his opinion, no comparison could be instituted between them. He must protest also against the hon. member for Liverpool imputing avarice, fraud, and cruelty, to gentlemen whose conduct was quite undeserving of such epithets. He said there were persons who traded without capital; it might be so; and there were many others who traded with little capital; but should they not be at liberty to compete with others, who had large capitals, as they best could? The right hon. member for Liverpool said, was it not cruel, unfair, and unjust, that a master who stipulated to pay in money should pay his workmen in goods? Undoubtedly; but the Bill said nothing about that. The Master of the Mint, too, said, would it not be cruel and harsh that many contracts should not be fulfilled? and in that he agreed with him, as well as with the hon. member for Liverpool. The right hon. Master of the Mint admitted, that he could see nothing unfair in a workman receiving part of his remuneration in food, part in clothing, part in rent, and part in money.

wished to put the hon. Member right—he had stated that such a course would be liable to great danger.

understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that a man might stipulate for house-rent and fixed wages, but this Bill did not allow anything whatever to be given to a workman except money; therefore the right hon. Gentleman, in supporting this Bill, took from his hon. friend (Mr. Littleton) the principal argument on which the Bill was founded. He entreated the House to consider, that our manufacturers were complaining that they could not meet with foreign sales, because they could not compete with the foreign manufacturer. The right hon. member for Liverpool had repeatedly said, that the only way for us to do so was, to bring down the price of our own articles. But what did the preamble of the Bill say? "And whereas such masters as still continue by secret and fraudulent means to evade the above recited Statutes, supply their workmen, on the credit of their wages, with goods of inferior description, and of inadequate value, and are thus enabled to undersell." So that the object sometime professed by the right hon. member for Liverpool was directly controverted in the Bill he was then advocating. How was he to reconcile such inconsistency?

Read on.

knew that the words "money-paying masters" came, but what right had the Legislature to say to any man that he should not undersell those whom he pleased? 1t was impossible that the Legislature could direct men how they should conduct their business. Some hon. Members had asked, what was meant by sound principles? Every principle was sound which was supported by common sense, and the interest of the country; and common sense required that masters and men should be left to make their own bargains, in their own manner, always, of course, providing against violence. It was said, however, that fraud was used in these cases. He denied it, but if there was fraud, let it be proved, and the law would punish it. Hon. Members had entered into long details of the evils produced, as they said, by this System; but he denied that the evils they spoke of arose from this System, and if a committee were granted, he would shew the adverse witnesses convicting themselves of stating an impossibility. The hon. member for Staffordshire had alluded to the difficulty of getting witnesses to attend a committee in this case; but did he remember the state of things that existed when the Committee on the Combination-laws assembled? Did he recollect bringing a witness from Staffordshire, who employed 200 or 300 men—to prove what?—why, that the trade of the country would be ruined if artisans were allowed to go abroad: but the whole of his argument to prove this was so absurd, that, out of consideration to that respectable gentleman, the Committee agreed, on the motion of the hon. Member himself, that the whole of the cross-examination of this witness, in which his absurdities were exposed, should be Struck out. But how could there be any difficulty in getting witnesses in this case, when there were upwards of seventy petitions? A great prejudice seemed to prevail in the House in favour of this Bill, but it was not greater than existed in favour of the Combination-laws; and yet, when the inquiries of the committee concerning them terminated, not a doubt remained on the mind of any man of their mischievous effects. The country delegates themselves, who came up to support them, agreed that they had been in the wrong, and that they were the constant source of litigation and discontent. They were removed, and what had been the consequence? The right hon. member for Liverpool had singled out his constituents as exempt from the failings of the rest of the country, but did he not remember, that before the repeal of the Combination-laws, such irritation existed with regard to them in Liverpool, that ten ship-builders in that town were afraid to have their evidence taken separately, but were all examined together, in order that it might not be known what each individual said. If the right hon. Member was not deterred by his own want of principle, he ought to be glad to have a committee appointed to inquire into this subject. He said want of principle, for he was prepared to prove, by the examinations of the right hon. Member himself, that he did not continuously support his own doctrines. He called upon the House, therefore, not to suffer passion and feeling to run away with good sense; but at this late period of the Session to postpone the Bill till the House again met, when a committee could be appointed to inquire into the matter. He would then prove, to the hon. member for Staffordshire, that he was wrong; and, that not more than twelve months ago he supported the principles he was now opposing.

assured the hon. Member that he was mistaken.

could, however, have no doubt, that if the House were to appoint a committee, he would shortly acknowledge himself to be in error. He held, that when two individuals, in the Situation of master and workman, had a mind to do that which was for their mutual interests, and could hurt no one else, it would be almost impossible for any law to prevent them. They now did that, and notwithstanding all the Statutes which had been passed for the last 200 years, the Legislature had not been able to prevent it. The circumstances of their Situation obliged workmen to accept of this mode of being remunerated for their labour, and to attempt to prevent them doing so might seriously endanger the peace of the country. He could not agree with the right hon. member for Liverpool, that this was the canker which affected the whole Community. It was bad legislation that caused all the evil. It was their duty, therefore, to institute an inquiry which should prevent the people remaining longer under any delusion as to what it was which affected them. If the House was right in passing this Bill, there was no reason why every man in the country should not be told how to carry on his business. [Sir Robert Peel here called "Question?"] The Question would be put presently; but he must say that it was quite indecent in a Minister of the Crown to cry "Question" when a Member was delivering his opinion upon a subject of so much importance. He should be happy to listen to the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman in favour of the Bill, and he hoped he might be allowed to deliver his sentiments. He contended, that in this case, the House was proceeding in ignorance and darkness, and that it ought not, without inquiry, to risk the starvation of thousands of individuals. It was for those reasons that he should think it was his duty to oppose this Bill in every stage, so as, if possible, to prevent its passing this Session. He could assure the hon. member for Staffordshire, that he had no interest on this subject to bias his mind, and that he had no connexion whatever with any district in which the interested feelings of others could actuate him. He might, therefore, be considered, perhaps, a more impartial judge than the hon. member for Staffordshire, and others who were so connected with districts in which this System was carried on, and who had their feelings excited on the subject. He had seen some most respectable manufacturers, who said that the excitement caused by petitions and public meetings made them afraid to come forward, but that, if a committee were granted, they could shew good reason why the Bill should not pass, and would have no objection to be examined before a committee.

was sorry that, by any impatience on his part, he had been betrayed into such a want of courtesy as to call "Question," but he could assure the hon. Gentleman, that it was only meant as an appeal to him to consider whether he had not nearly exhausted his argument, and whether he would not, in the State of the Session and of the House, attempt to compress what he had to say within as narrow limits as possible: by not doing that, a great deal of time was wasted. What did the argument of the hon. Gentleman consist in? He said, "I am not unwilling that you should enforce contracts, and I think it an advantage that one man should undersell another." Enforce contracts! yes, but a contract by which a man was paid in truck could not be enforced, for it was to be decided by one party, and suffered by another, just as the interest and inclination of the first might dictate. If a man contracted to pay another 1s. for his labour, he could tell whether he got a bad Shilling, or whether he was paid 11d. or pay another 1s. or 12d.; but if the contract were for provisions, by what regulations could the Legislature ensure the workman good articles? what rule would it abide by?

said across the Table, "the market price."

the hon. Member then admitted the justice of the rule, and said, take the market price if you please. But the market price of what?—if a man had cheese or bread of inferior quality, the market price would be inferior. The truck contract was manifestly to the advantage of one party, for that one fulfilled it as he thought proper. Persons engaged in the manufacture of cotton were not the best judges of the qualities of provisions; but having bought a stock, although they deteriorated, they still paid them away to their workmen, who having entered into a contract to receive provisions, had no tribunal to which to apply for relief. This was a radical, a fatal objection to the system; and when the hon. Gentleman said, that it was against all principle to interfere in this manner, would he say why we had any regulations with respect to weights and measures, when, according to his doctrine, every one ought to be left to weigh and measure as he pleased? Again, with respect to the medical profession, why did the Legislature throw difficulties in the way of incompetent persons acting as surgeons? why should it not allow any man who might wish to set up for a doctor so to do? for its not doing so, according to the hon. Gentleman, must be against all principle. The general rule certainly was, to leave each person free to transact his own concerns in his own manner, and there ought to be special reasons to induce the House to interfere with them. Here the special reasons existed, and the question was, whether the advantages to be gained by special interference outweighed the advantages of abiding by the general rule. In his opinion, the truck-system had a direct tendency to undermine the independence of the workmen. The doctrine of the hon. Gentleman was, that to undersell at any rate, and by any measure, was an advantage to the Community. That he denied, and he affirmed, that when one man was able to undersell another upon profits derived from extorting the comforts of the workmen, he accomplished it by a positive disadvantage. The great evil of the present day was a tendency to diminish the enjoyments of the poorer classes—to lower them in the scale of society—and widen their Separation from the upper classes; and he could conceive nothing more likely to reduce them to a State of servitude than that their master, who might be getting 8,000l. or 10,000l. a year by his manufactory, should take from them 2,000l. or 3,000l. more, by dealing in bacon and cheese. He hoped that if this Bill were lost by the means which the hon. Member possessed, and might use, to defeat it, that the working classes would understand that it was he who was responsible for the consequences.

said, that many facts had come to his knowledge, shewing the necessity of some such provisions as those contained in this Act; but he could content himself with stating one of them. A drove of pigs were on their passage through Staffordshire, where they were all bought by a manufacturer, at the rate of 3d. per lb. They were all killed and put into salt and water for ten days, when they were retailed by the manufacturer to his workmen at 10d. per lb. Now, was not this a gross fraud on the unfortunate workmen who were compelled to take this meat, and had no means of protecting themselves against the avarice of their rich and powerful master? It was not necessary, in his opinion, to go into a committee, for there were facts enough before the House to convince it that Parliament was called upon to proceed upon the principle of extending protection to those who could not protect themselves.

thought the Bill absolutely necessary for the welfare of the labouring classes, and should therefore give it his warmest support.

The House went into the Committee.

said, he must complain that he was not fairly treated by the right hon. Gentleman, in being held up to the country as responsible for the defeat of a Bill, which was spoken of, very unjustly in his opinion, as highly favourable to the interests of the labouring classes.

The Committee went through several of the Clauses, and agreed to several verbal Amendments.

Mr. Warburton then moved, that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion agreed to, the Committee to sit again on Wednesday.