said, that he would embrace that opportunity of stating his general opinion on that very important Bill. But first, he would state, that his reason, and he believed that of many other hon. Members, for voting in favour of the appointment of a Commission, was not grounded on a desire for delay, but arose from an anxiety to have the fullest information before the House. And here he would give the noble Lord, with whom the Bill originated, the greatest credit for the patience he had shown. In order to bring the grounds of his opinion before the House, it would be necessary for him to refer to the Report of the Central Board of Commissioners, which contained a recommendation respecting the regulation of the young people and children, which was fraught with mischief, and, he thought, impracticable. The recommendation was, that children from ten to fourteen years of age should be employed eight hours, and those above that age ten hours. If this were to be determined on, it would be found, that the adults would be unable to complete the work left unfinished by the children, unless at a ruinous expense to the manufacturers. In no places would there be found a sufficient proportion of infantile population to supply the deficiency of time, and the general result would be the substitution of machinery, which would rather tend to increase distress than to reduce it. But it had been said, recourse could be had to the foundling hospitals for a supply of children; that was an alter native which he could neither recommend, nor could the manufacturers depend on it, unless, indeed, it was intended, that these establishments should be increased throughout the country. Looking over the evidence that had been obtained, he must say, that the recommendation of the Central Board was not supported by the evidence of the other Boards in the Commission. The answers of Mr. Buchanan to several questions which had been proposed to him, clearly showed, that the proposed plan would render it necessary to have relays of workpeople, and that, in many counties in which there were factories, it would be impossible to obtain a sufficient number of hands to form relays; besides which, by limiting the hours of labour, the wages would be reduced to nearly one-half what they were at present. He had also received a letter from a gentleman in Scotland intimately acquainted with the subject, which also showed the impracticability of carrying the proposed plan into execution, and upon similar grounds to those stated by Mr. Buchanan. He would also advert to the evidence of the medical men, from which it appeared, that the most delicate period in the life of a female (and two-thirds of the juvenile labour in factories were performed by female children), was from thirteen to eighteen, and yet, by this Bill, children above fourteen years of age might be worked for any number of hours. He had, therefore, come to the conclusion, that the restriction of hours of adults or children by legislative enactment would be attended with anything but a benefit. If the Bill passed, he hoped the hours of labour for children would be extended to eleven, for he felt confident that period was not too long. One very valuable recommendation made by the Commission was, the appointment of visitors who could at any period visit the factories, and see that the children were well taken care of, and not over-worked. He thought the House would not object to the expense necessary for such a purpose, and that would do away with the necessity of many of the clauses of the Bill.

said, the question then for the decision of the Committee was, whether that number of hours, and the age of young persons as it stood in the clause were proper. The first point to which he should call the attention of the Committee was, whether it was desirable to consider young persons of eighteen years of age in the light of children, and requiring legal protection. He did not propose in any way to interfere with the protection given to young persons by Sir John Hobhouse's Bill. So far from that being his object, he would at once consent to its provisions being extended to other mills than cotton mills. He confessed he did look at the Bill then in Committee with very considerable apprehension. It might be attended with extreme danger to the manufacturing interests of the country, and of course, if it had any tendency to hurt that interest, it would take away the very bread of the people for whose benefit the Bill was intended, by depriving them of the demand for their labour. Now, it was clear, that if such an event were to happen, the consequences would be most alarming, for the effect must be, that great masses of people would suffer from famine; and who could contemplate such a state of things without great apprehension? If the masses of population who were congregated in our large towns were thrown out of employment, and threatened with starvation, dangers the most alarming and most fatal would arise to the whole community. The question, then, was, whether the limitations of hours proposed in the Bill would not have such an effect, or have a tendency to produce such a calamity. He thought it was quite clear, that if they prevented all persons under eighteen years of age from working longer than ten hours a day, the effect would be to prevent the manufacturers from working their mills longer than that period. Then what would be the effect of diminishing the manufacturing labour of the country to ten hours a-day, when all other nations who were rivalling us in manufactures were unlimited and unfettered in their mode of conducting their business? It might be, and it had before been said, that the only effect of it would be to make the manufacturers embark a larger capital, and build more mills, so that the only loss would be the interest upon the extra capital. But, at the present moment, improvements were every day taking place in machinery, so that what was in use, a few years ago, was thrown aside. Suppose those improvements were to take place at such a rate that new machinery were required every five years, the differnce in the manufacturer's profits would be so large, if his labours were cut down from twelve to ten hours, that his ruin would be certain. The effect might be, to drive the manufacturer out of the market, as he would not then be able to compete the manufacturers of other countries. The House had been told, and he believed it to be the case, that at the present time, though in full work, the manufacturers were working at the lowest possible profit; if, threfore by considerable reduction of that profit took place, the effect would be that the manufacturers would be working at a loss, and would be unable to continue their business. The consequence, therefore, of any arrangement that would diminish materially the operations of the mills, would be, that a great reduction would be made in the wages of the workmen. Those wages, it was well known, were at the present time very moderate; and he thought, that the advantage to the workmen of only working for ten hours a day, accompanied with a diminution of their wages would not confer any benefit. The House had heard a great deal of the effect the work in these manufactories had upon the health of the persons employed. It had been stated before the Committee, that the general appearance of the young persons was pallid; but, in the evidence before the Commissioners it had been stated, that though that was generally the case in the boys, the girls were as healthy as they possibly could be. With respect to the deformity of the person, it was in evidence, that most cases of deformity had occurred when the machinery was differently constructed from that at present in use, and at a time when the operation of the machinery so constructed had a tendency to produce deformity, which was not the case with the machinery now employed. Having these views, he must confess, that he did not look to the alterations proposed in the present system with any degree of confidence, but with fear and trembling. However, he was inclined—and he thought that was going as far as the Legislature could safely proceed—to protect those who were totally unable to protect themselves; and, in his opinion, that protection ought to be extended to children not having entered their fourteenth year; that is, to children thirteen years old; and that they should not work more than eight hours. The recommendation of the Commissioners was, that they should not work more than eight hours a day, and, in that recommendation, he was inclined to acquiesce; because he did not think the effect of adopting that course was likely to be destructive of the interests of the manufacturers of the country. He apprehended, that the following of that recommendation would not have the effect of compelling the mills generally to be stopped more than at present was provided for by Sir John Hobhouse's Act. To extend that Act, and to limit the hours of labour for children under thirteen to eight hours, was in his opinion all the House could at present safely do; and if it was afterwards proved that further protection was required for the children, he could see no reason why the Legislature should not again interfere. He trusted, that the Committee would be cautious how it proceeded; for if they were now to take one false step, and curtail the profits of the manufacturer, and lessen his power to compete with foreign rivals, the consequences might not be immediately apparent, but the mischief would be irremediable. He therefore entreated the Committee to pause, and recollect what immense mischief they might effect. He should move, that the age of thirteen be substituted for the age of eighteen in the clause. He would afterwards propose an Amendment limiting the labour of children to eight hours. He would also propose to extend Sir John Hobhouse's Act to all other mills. He was aware, that there was a difficulty as to silk, but that might be a subject for after investigation. Perhaps it would make no great difference if they said fourteen years instead of thirteen, but he would take the latter as the recommendation of the Commissioners. If the Committee adopted the noble Lord's views, he should probably have no other Amendments to propose—if the Committee adopted his Amendment, he should have other Amendments to propose.

If the noble Lord was unwilling to take upon himself the responsibility of the measure, he (Lord Ashley) was quite willing to take all responsibility on himself to the extent of his proposition; and should always rejoice at having brought forward this Bill. He was much astonished to hear the evidence referred to as not affording allegations of the evils arising from the present mode of employing the children. Had the noble Lord read the evidence of Dr. Loudon? [Lord Althorp: Look at the others.] Well, he would do so; he would turn also to that of Dr. Hawkins. But, first, of Dr. Loudon. That Gentleman stated, and the noble Lord quoted his evidence, that the present prolongation of labour was an act of the utmost cruelty. He says, that the employment of children for ten hours was, in fact, an occupation of their time for thirteen hours, as the remaining three were consumed in going to and from, and taking their meals. It would be remembered by the Committee, that Dr. Loudon had been to the woollen districts, and he declared, as a physician, that ten hours a-day were all that should be occupied by children both in labour and meal times. Dr. Hawkins, who had been to a cotton district—in fact the principal manufacturing district of the kingdom—declared, that no child of less than ten years of age, should be allowed to work, and that ten hours a-day were the utmost that any should be occupied who were under eighteen years of age. He would call on the hon. Gentleman who proposed the Commission to be guided by the opinion of his own Commissioners. He would request him to attach sufficient importance to that of Dr. Hawkins, who said he was supported by the opinion of the majority of the medical men who practised in that district. The noble Lord had said, that the children working in factories did not evince more unhealthiness than those children who were engaged in other employments. But what said the evidence of Dr. Hawkins? Why, that he had taken 350 factory children, and 350 other children, and the result of his investigation into the state of their health was, that the proportion of sickness among the factory children was double that of others. Dr. Hawkins declared, that in the manufacturing districts, as compared with others, there was an alarming extent of intemperance, improvidence, and dissipation; and that this arose from the many hours in which they were employed, and which drove them to drinking spirits as a means of momentary excitement. He (Lord Ashley) would say, take the two evils—the one represented by the noble Lord, as consequent upon foreign competition, which, however, were only problematical, if the number of labour hours were reduced; and the more enormous evil which did and would continue to arise out of a daily exhaustion, which brought about intemperance and dissipation—and he should prefer the danger of foreign competition to the moral degradation of the people. Dr. Hawkins had distinctly stated, that the excessive labour to which the people were subject was the cause of their dissipation; and he would rather suffer any loss than that such immorality should continue. He then referred the right hon. Gentleman opposite to one of his own Commissioners, whose opinion she declared to be borne out by that of so many eminent medical practitioners; and he cheerfully referred the noble Lord, also, to the same authorities. The noble Lord had seriously inquired if it was his (Lord Ashley's) object to limit the hours of labour for adults? He would not say, that it was directly his object to do so; but he should heartily rejoice if his present Bill indirectly produced that result, if it were only to promote a return of the working classes—of those in factories he meant—to domestic habits and domestic comforts. He conceived the complete disruption which now took place, of all domestic ties in our manufacturing districts to be a most tremendous evil, and it ought to be, if possible, counteracted. The views which he had taken upon this question were precisely those of Dr. Hawkins. The noble Lord (Althorp) must perceive, that his own Commission told very strongly against him. Dr. Hawkins stated, that the present factory system had the very worst infiuence upon the female's health and comfort; she had no time to acquire a knowledge of domestic duties; she was generally twelve hours at a time from home, and obliged to leave her infant con- fined while she was absent; and, indeed, it appeared that in some instances mothers gave their infants opium, &c. to compose them to sleep, and to keep them quiet. That Gentleman said, that to a factory labourer his home was, in fact, no home to him, and all this he traced to the present system of excessive labour. As to the limitation of the labour of adults, the noble Lord (Ashley) admitted, that he felt his Bill would have that indirect effect, but the noble Lord opposite, was wrong in arguing that it would have the effect of throwing many persons out of employment; that was the same argument that was raised against Sir Robert Peel's Bill, but the prophecy was never fulfilled. In proposing a limitation to eight hours, the noble Lord (Althorp) must have acted on the Report of the Commissioners, but there was no evidence in the body of the Report that justified such a limitation. A Mr. Sutherland, it was true, had given his opinion, that it was practicable to get two sets of hands, but in that he was contradicted by other evidence. The evidence went to show that it was impracticable to obtain two sets of hands in any immediate neighbourhood, but it was said, that the poor-houses and other places should be ransacked to obtain children from all parts of the kingdom. Was the House prepared to say, that a master manufacturer might send his waggon to any part of the country for a load of children, like so many hogs, and bring them away from their natural protectors, to place them, unprotected, among strangers? In 1815, Mr. Horner, who spoke upon Sir Robert Peel's Bill, condemned such an exportation of children as most repugnant to the best feelings of our nature, and instanced an atrocious case that occurred before the Court of King's Bench, in which a number of children had been apprenticed by a London workhouse to a manufacturer in the country, and by him assigned over to some other person. It then appeared that the manufacturer agreed with a parish in London, that for every twenty healthy children sent to him he would receive one idiot. Surely the noble Lord could not desire to renew those scenes. The noble Lord mentioned a number of persons who had given evidence against the practicability of obtaining two sets of children, according to the plan of the noble Lord opposite; among whom were Mr. Gregg, Mr. G. Walker, of Leeds, Mr. Worsley, Mr Clarke, Mr. Ashley, Mr. Thomas Ogden, Mr. Strutt, Mr. H. Houldsworth, Mr. Marshall, &c. When Mr. Poole, who bad stated that two sets would be practicable, was asked whether he made that suggestion for the benefit of the children, he replied that he made it as a mode of meeting the outcries for legislation [Hear, hear.] He supposed from that cheer that his opponents admitted their plan to be injurious ["No, no," from Lord Althorp], He thought that was the proper inference ["No, no," and a cry of "It is only a choice of evils"]. Then, if both were evils, he supposed that his opponents meant to contend that his was the greatest evil. If they thought so, then let them boldly come forward and throw out the Bill. What security, he would ask, could they have that the same children should not work at two mills? All the medical evidence proved, that twelve hours' labour for females was too much, and it was monstrous to throw, by legislative enactment, such a degree of labour on any woman. If the noble Lord proposed three gradations of labour, there would be, he supposed, three relays or videttes, and that was a system strongly condemned by the noble Lord's own Commissioners. He admitted, that the noble Lord's proposition was in accordance with the Report of the Commissioners; but it was contrary to the evidence on which that Report was founded. He declared himself to be strongly opposed to the plan of employing two sets of children, which the proposition of the noble Lord would cause. He took his stand upon the medical evidence; upon that he relied still, and on that he contended, that more than ten hours' labour was wholly unwarranted.

had been engaged in the manufacturing business; he had lived all his life in a manufacturing district; and he frankly confessed he could not speak on the subject with all the confidence of the noble Lord (Ashley). It was generally known, that confidence was in proportion to want of knowledge; and if the noble Lord were aware of the danger, he would be the last man to propose such a Bill. He saw, from certain Returns laid on the Table of the House, that the declared value of one of our exports was 36,000,000l. The cotton manufacture alone exceeded upwards of 17,000,000l. The oilier manufactures exported, to which the Bill applied, amounted to upwards of 7,000,000l. More, therefore, than two-thirds of our exports consisted of manufactures which would be subject to the regulations of this Bill. To refer to another criterion—the official value of our exports was 64,582,000l. The cotton manufactures exported (including twist) alone amounted to 43,000,000l. and upwards; the other manufactures exported, to which the Bill applied, brought the amount up to 53,000,000l. and upwards. Thus the exports to which the noble Lord's Bill applied extended to three-fourths of the exports of the country. This Bill applied to a multitude of men profitably employed, and generally speaking living in comparative comfort. His fears of the probable results were quite as great as the noble Lord's confidence, and his fear would be extreme if he could suppose that the House shared the confidence possessed by the noble Lord. If the noble Lord's Bill were to pass, the manufacturers said, that they must reduce the wages of labour 25 per cent. The hon. Baronet referred to a paper supplied him by a manufacturer, to show that the reduction of wages in the spinning factories alone, by reducing the hours of labour from twelve to ten, would be not less than 600,000l. per year. He, therefore, could not consider anything more dangerous than to meddle with the matter. It would endanger the tranquillity of the country. When any necessity had arisen for reducing hours of labour, the greatest anxiety and uneasiness had always been felt in the manufacturing districts by all classes, particularly the labourers themselves, who were glad to have a return of the increased hours, in order to have increased wages. There had been a great delusion on this subject. The hon. Baronet referred to the evidence of a Gentleman, who had believed that great distress existed in the manufacturing districts, and who had recently been at Manchester, who declared, that he had never met with people more contented or better fed than in the factories at Manchester. One of the workmen told that Gentleman, that he would be glad to have a reduction of labour, if there were to be no reduction of wages, but if wages were to be reduced, he dreaded the consequences, and that great misery would ensue. This labourer, therefore, was apprehensive, though the noble Lord (Ashley) was not, of the probable result of his Bill. The noble Lord had no apprehension of the foreign manufacturers—but the manufac- turers had apprehensions. In America, wages were as low as in England, and in South America, and the islands of the Mediterranean, the English manufacturers were met by the American manufacturers, and had to contend against them. In America, improvements were continually made in machinery, and some of those improvements had actually been introduced into this country. As to the medical evidence, those who looked only on one side, might come to any conclusion they wished. The factories were very differently managed; some were healthy, and others unhealthy and unwholesome. Were they to legislate for the whole because some were bad? Before they proceeded to make new laws, they ought to take care to make their past legislation effective. In the present state of the country, and of public opinion, however, he admitted that some legislation, was necessary, and that the labour of children ought to be reduced. He did not believe that employing relays of children was so impracticable as the noble Lord supposed. The hon. Baronet then read some Resolutions adopted by the master cotton-manufacturers, approving of the plan of the Ministers, and declaring that Lord Ashley's Bill would be their ruin. The hon. Baronet also referred to the authority of Sir David Barry, to show that the work of the factories was not so injurious to children as had been asserted. That gentleman had not seen a single case of deformity but what had been caused by machinery no longer in use. The hon. Baronet also quoted the evidence of persons as to particular mills, to show that in some the happiness of the people was very great. He also referred to the report of Mr. Stewart, to show that the workers were in good condition and contented. The hon. Baronet also referred lo the evidence to show that many of the questions asked were leading, and the answers given were rather given by the examiners themselves than by the people, who only acquiesced in what they were asked. He admitted the humanity of the call made upon the House by that Bill, and by the public; but he warned the House that much of the agitation on the subject arose from paid and hired agitators, who lived in idleness, upon the contributions of others. Great difficulties were caused by those people ["Name!"] He would refer hon. Members to the Report, and it was not necessary that he should name these agitators. The hon. Baronet quoted the Report to show, that hostility had been manifested by those called Delegates of the Working Classes, to the inquiries instituted in a most unexampled manner. This was a subject on which the House should be on its guard. The hon. Baronet declared that, though there were mismanaged mills, yet, in the well managed mills the condition of the people was better than that of people engaged in any other manufacture. The condition of the people, also, in those districts, and throughout the factory districts, was much superior now to what it was when he was born. Before the factories' people were collected in factories, they spun or wove in damp cellars, and were liable to all the diseases arising from such an abode. In Lancashire, it was well known, that delicate people were sent into the factories, because they were delicate, and in the factories they were well clothed and kept warm. Sir Gilbert Blaine said, that the people of Buckingham were amongst the most stunted in their growth of all the people of England; and he attributed that to the want of manufactures amongst them. It was well known that the average duration of life in England had increased considerably within the last century, and he would put it to the Committee if that could have taken place, unless the health of the manufacturing districts had increased, in which there had been the enormous increase of the population?

wished such a measure to be adopted as would benefit all parties. He was not one of those who wished secretly to impose restrictions on adult labour; he had openly avowed his desire to limit the labour of all persons below the age of twenty-fine. He had never joined in the cry against the masters; he had attack-ed the system, desiring to benefit all parties. He must say, that ten hours were sufficient; but there were many considerations which affected him, and he wished to extend the hours to eleven, in the hope of embracing a larger class by the restriction. There were other considerations, as he before said; he, for example, had always voted for the abolition of the Corn-laws, and for the reduction of the burthens of the conutry, because they were connected with the necessity for severe labour. It was not a question of pounds, shillings, and pence, but a question of morality, of humanity, and of Christianity. It was a question of high principles. If the competition were carried on as at present, might they not be obliged to work seven days instead of six? If the noble Lord's Bill were negatived, he would propose to limit the hours of labour to seven, on the other noble Lord's (Lord Althorp's) Amendment being adopted. He believed, if two sets of children were employed, it would give rise to much fraud and evasion. He thought that the employment of two sets of children would be injurious, particularly in the silk trade. They would require at least 10,000 additional children in that trade alone in Manchester. The great apprehension was ruin by foreign competition. He would oppose everything which would endanger our manufactures; but he wished to relieve all classes. The people expected from the Reform Bill either less labour or more wages. He remembered, however, that the same cry of coming ruin was raised in 1816, but then we exported to the extent of 19,000,000l; and last year the exports amounted to 64,000,000l. It was also said that we should banish the spinning by that Bill to other countries; but then we employed 24,000 spinners in Manchester, and now there were 56,000. Let them, therefore, do right, and fear not. Again, it was said that Liverpool would be destroyed, if the slave trade were done away; but that town had flourished amazingly since that trade was abolished. It It was, however, the duty of legislators to look to all classes; and he believed that they ought to do right, and trust in that Providence who ruled over nations as well as over individuals. He would, in the first instance, vote for the ten hours' Bill; and if that were lost, he would then move as an Amendment the eleven hours' Bill.

thought it was necessary to look to the general welfare, and not to be guided by any popular cry. It was necessary, however, to be quite sure that they should be able to make their legislation effective, before they made laws. They had proved that the present law was not effective, and he would have the House be quite sure that it could reduce all labour to twelve hours, as his hon. friend wished to have a Bill limiting the labour to eleven hours. He agreed with the noble Lord (Lord Ashley) that it was a measure to be considered only in its details; there fore all its details should be examined. The noble Lord, however, had relied altogether on the details given by Dr. Hawkins. Dr. Southwood Smith was opposed to Dr. Hawkins; but if they referred to individual opinion on both sides, they would never come to any such general conclusion as ought to guide them. Mr. Houldsworth had been referred to as opposed to two sets of hands; but he knew that Mr. Houldsworth was now favourable to the recommendation of the Commissioners. Mr. Ashton also was, in February last, in favour of two sets of hands.

interrupted the hon. Member, and read Mr. Ashton's evidence to show, that he declared that two sets of hands would be a more mischievous plan; for it would expose the adults to work eighteen hours.

concurred in the opinion of the evil; but what was the remedy? Why, the existing law. If the law prohibited mills from working more than twelve hours, how could adults be worked in them sixteen hours? The hon. Member also quoted Mr. Ashton's opinion to show, that he saw no objection to employing two sets of hands. The hon. Member advocated the proposed plan of two sets of children, employing them eight hours a day. That would make a reduction of fifty per cent only in their wages, not 100 per cent. Dr. Hawkins, whose evidence had been relied on, proved too much. He said that ten hours were enough for all classes to work; but it was proved that, unless some of the population worked more hours than that, the deterioration of the whole must be the result. If the noble Lord could see the consequences of his measure, he would not urge it forward. Either the Bill would be inoperative, or it would cut down wages and the produce of our factories. With respect to cotton alone—with which he was best acquainted—if the production were cut down one-sixth part, the wages of the labourer would be lessened one-sixth. The sum sunk in building and machinery for the cotton manufacture, was equal to the whole amount of wages. The reduction of production would add the sixth, then, to the charge of the capitalist, on account of his machinery; and he saw not how that could be met, except by a further reduction of wages, and, therefore, he believed that the reducing the hours of labour one-sixth, would, in fact, reduce the wages of the labourer one-third. It was impossible, too, that the reduction could be made good from any other source than from profit or wages. During the last seven years, however, the masters had barely been able to carry on their works; and if a further reduction was made in their profit, they would be ruined, or they would make the whole of the charge fall on wages. He was sure the whole would fall on wages, and they would be reduced to two-thirds of their present amount. The hon. Member quoted a statement to show that the effect of the measure would be equivalent to throwing one-sixth part of the land of this country out of cultivation. It being three o'clock, the House resumed. The Committee to sit again.

said, that he had seen a long paragraph in a newspaper, asserting that Sir Francis Burdett and Sir J. C. Hobhouse had been kept in their places by an undercurrent of bribery and corruption. He should be the last person to countenance the insertion of such a paragraph. His hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, had been supposed to have sanctioned the opinion of Westminster bribery. His hon. friend had referred to transactions forty years ago. With regard to himself, he was sure, that no more remarkable instance had ever been given of disinterested support than he had met with in Westminster. He concluded by moving for a return relative to the municipal government of the city of Westminster, and the duchy of Lancaster, with the nature of the powers of the vestries in controlling the expenditure of parishes, and the number of civil officers in the nomination of the Deans and Chapters, with an account of any pecuniary advantages arising from such offices.

said, that he had supported a petition from an elector of Westminster which asserted, that the principal method of bribery in Westminster, had been the paying the rates for electors; and he had founded upon that petition an argument against making the payment of rates a necessary qualification for becoming an elector.

said, he would not enter into the facts. He was quite sure, when he read that paragraph, that it was founded on mis-statements. He never knew an instance of bribery in Westminster.

said, they had all recently had reason to complain of the manner ill which reports had been given in that House. With regard to the proceedings of the last ten days, it was anything but reporting, it was misrepresenting. Evident proofs of ignorance and incompetency had been given. This had been the ease with respect to the reports of his own speeches. He understood, that the proprietors of newspapers had recently reduced the salaries of the reporters from six guineas a week to two guineas, which sufficiently accounted for the inaccuracy of the reporting, as persons of respectability could not be obtained. It was necessary, therefore, that the public should be cautioned against taking the statements of persons who were under no responsibility for the genuine sentiments of Members of that House. He had himself been most egregiously misrepresented. He wished it to be understood, that Members of that House were not bound by the reports which appeared in the public papers. He had found many who had complained of this, but they seemed afraid to notice it. He was not afraid; and he felt it his duty to notice these misrepresentations.

said, he agreed that an inquiry on this subject was absolutely necessary, and he hoped that the Commission on the subject of the Royal Burghs would extend their inquiries to Westminster.

said, that the Commission, appointed at the suggestion of the House, was a Commission for inquiring into the slate of the Corporations of England, Ireland, and Wales, and could take no notice of Westminster, as there was no Corporation there.

rose to contradict the statements of the hon. and learned member for Dublin, relative to the reporters' salaries.

observed, that the remuneration of reporters was a private consideration, and related to a question which involved a breach of privilege. In the evening sitting, the House again resolved itself into a Committee.

said, the real question before the House was, whether or not protection should be confined to persons under thirteen years of age. He knew a case of a young man whose thigh bone was completely bent by working fifteen hours a-day in a factory, and that deformity did not commence till he had attained his fifteenth year. He believed that no man could work for fifteen or sixteen hours a-day without injury; and he must, therefore, support the proposed limitation to the eighteenth year. He had long entertained a feeling favourable to two sets of children; but from the state in which the question now was, he had but little choice. He was glad, however, that the measure had been so fully discussed, and that something like a principle was established. As to what had been said of our inability, under the proposed alteration, to send our products abroad as we now did, he must say he had no fears on that head. He had too strong-an opinion of the stability of the principles on which English commerce was founded, to think that its success must depend on deforming the limbs of children.

said, the question had been asked whether, in the event of the Ten-hour Bill being passed, the operatives were ready to submit to a fall of wages? and he had been expressly informed by then that they would, rather than sec their children exposed to such hardships as they were now compelled to submit to. An hon. Baronet had stated, in the course of the debate, that paid agitators had been sent throughout the country to excite a feeling in favour of the Bill. He positively denied that, cither in Lancashire or Yorkshire, there had been anything like paid agitation. He implored the House to pass the Bill, and thus make some claim to the respect and confidence of the people. He had no hesitation in saying, as the result of a good deal of observation, that that House—that boasted Reformed House—had not much of popularity lo spare. He would entreat, without urging them to pander to clamour or surrender their own judgments, to take that opportunity of reconciling themselves with the people, by meriting their confidence and respect.

supported the Amendment proposed by Lord Althorp. He objected to the original Bill, not only because it allowed too many hours for labour, but also because it made no difference between the different branches of manufacture, for it was a fact that a smaller quantity of labour in one branch was equal to a larger one in another.

considered the present question as the most delicate and important which had hitherto been brought under the consideration of the Reformed Parliament. It should be discussed calmly and dispassionately, and without any personal feeling, or party bias, or partial view. The interests of the masters and operatives, when truly considered, would be seen to be one and the same, and neither could derive any permanent advantage from the injury of the other. It was the interest of the labourer that the profits of the master should be ample and sufficient; for, unless profits were adequate, increased capital could not be accumulated, and without the increased accumulation and employment of capital, the increase of population could not be employed, the demand for labour would be less than the supply, and thus a permanent fall of wages would result from a fall of profits. On the other hand, it was the obvious interest of the master that his workmen should be supplied with all the necessaries required to preserve them in vigorous working condition. And further, it was the interest of masters, that the operatives should not only have their physical wants provided for, but that they should have sufficient leisure for intellectual and moral improvement; for, if destitute of this, the operatives could not perceive and feel that it was at once their interest and their duty to maintain that peace and order without which the pursuits of industry could not be carried on, or the labouring classes be adequately employed. It was obvious, it was self evident, that the interests, the permanent interests, of master and operative were inseparably connected, were one and the same; and therefore he conceived it would be practicable for the House to legislate ill a manner satisfactory to both. With respect to the two propositions now before the House—that of the noble Lord (Ashley), and that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he (Colonel Torrens) decidedly preferred the former. By the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the labour of children under nine years would be limited to eight hours; the labour of young persons under eighteen would be limited to twelve hours; while those above eighteen would have no protection whatever. Now, those who supported the Amendment, admitted that it was a bad measure, and advocated it only because they felt that some legislative enactment with respect to the limitation of labour was unavoidable and thought that the Amendment would be a less evil than the original Motion. He (Colonel Torrens) conceived that the Amendment, if passed into a law, would make things worse than they were under the existing system, and would aggravate all the evils of which the operatives complained. They prayed the Legislature to limit the labour of their children to ten hours, and they were willing to submit to the diminution of the wages of their children to that extent. No, says the noble Lord, we will not grant you what you ask, but we will grant more: we will limit the labour of children under thirteen to eight hours, and reduce their wages in this greater proportion. The result must be, that the operatives, unable to bear this greater reduction in the wages of their children below thirteen, would be compelled to work their children above that age a greater number of hours than before. The Amendment allowed persons above eighteen to work unlimited hours; relays of children would be employed with adults, and adults, instead of obtaining relief might have to work for fourteen or sixteen hours. Thus the Amendment would prove more injurious than the existing system, and he therefore should oppose it, and give his support to the original Motion limiting the labour of young persons under eighteen to ten hours. Objections had been urged against the measure—he was prepared to meet them. It was said, that the Ten-hours' Bill would have the effect of limiting the labour not of children only, but of adults also. The noble Lord (Ashley) who introduced the measure, avowed this was a part of his object; and it was therefore urged against him that his measure was in violation of the principle that the adult labourer should be left free to make what contracts he thought fit, and to dispose of his labour to the best advantage. He admitted the truth of the principle, that adult labour should be left free, but he contended, that this, like all other general principles, was liable to exceptions. In the present ease the exception was, that, in point of fact, the Legislature did not leave adult labour free, and did not permit the labourer to dispose of his labour to the best advantage. The Corn-laws were a violation of the principle of free labour; they deprived the labourer of the power of disposing of his labour to the best advantage, and compelled him to receive as his wages a less quantity of the necessaries of life than he would otherwise obtain. Thus the Legislature had destroyed the level of free labour, by casting a weight in one scale against the labourer; and, therefore, equity demanded that the balance should be re-adjusted by throwing in the other scale a counter weight in the labourer's favour. It was also objected to the Ten-hours' Bill, that it would render the British manufacturer unable to meet foreign competition, would injure the commerce of the country, and, by throwing the operatives out of work, aggravate their distress. He contended, that England possessed such decided advantages in manufacturing industry, from her coal mines, her energy, and her skill, that a given quantity of British labour produced a much greater effect than the same quantity of foreign labour. To the extent of this advantage British labour might be limited without endangering foreign competition. If, aided by superior machinery, and the greater cheapness of fuel, the effect of nine hours' labour in England was equal to that produced by twelve hours of foreign labour, then might English adult labour be limited to ten hours without the danger of foreign competition. He admitted, that there was danger from foreign competition; but that danger was created by the Corn-laws, and by the taxes imposed upon articles of food and raw materials. Parliament was placed in a dilemma. Justice demanded that the hours of labour should be limited; and the errors of our commercial policy so increased the cost of production upon the master, that justice could not be done without letting in foreign competition and checking trade. In this difficulty, the proper course to be pursued was, not to deny justice to the people, but to abolish the Corn-laws and the taxes upon industry, by which masters and operatives were alike oppressed, and the danger of foreign competition created. For these reasons he should give his decided support to the Ten-hours' Bill introduced by his noble friend.

said, he would detain the Committee but for a few minutes. The hon. member for the Northern Division of Yorkshire said, he was not aware of any attempt to agitate. When this subject was before the House a fortnight ago, he (Mr. Potter) gave the House a pretty fair example of the kind of efforts used in Yorkshire to produce agitation; for that exposure he had had no small portion of abuse heaped upon him; but if the authors of that abuse thought to intimidate him from the discharge of his duty, they were greatly mistaken. The Gallant Colonel, as well as his hon. friend the member for Salford, had connected this subject with the repeal of the Corn Laws; but he would venture to predict that almost every gentleman who had spoken in favour of the Bill, would be as strenuous opponents of the repeal of those laws as they were supporters of this measure. The hon. member for Stamford read some evidence to the House to show that there was no fear of foreign competition; but if the House would give him its attention for a very short period, he should be able to show, that not only was there great fear of foreign competition, but that it was in full operation. Machinery was now made in France, and other places, upon the most approved and newest plans. It appeared by official documents, that spinning and the cotton manufactory were rapidly on the increase, not only on the Continent, but in the United States of America. By the official returns made to Congress in 1832, it appeared, that the United States had consumed in the previous year, 77,557,316 lbs. weight of cotton, and had 795 mills, in which were 1,246,503 spindles at work. It further appeared, that the whole quantity spun in England in 1822, was 222,596,907 lbs.; of this 71,662,850 lbs. were exported, of which only 62,798,270 lbs. were sent to the Continent of Europe. The continental establishments spun in the same year 99,038,762 lbs., and we exported to them only 62,798,270 lbs. It could not be supposed that our smaller quantity would govern the prices of the greater in the market. In France, Switzerland, Prussia, and the Rhenish provinces, Saxony, Lombardy, Austria, and India itself, cotton-spinning was increasing. So much for foreign competition. When this Bill was first introduced he took occasion to observe, that many of its provisions were so objectionable, that if passed into a law, a blow would be struck at the cotton trade of this country, from which it might never recover. He rejoiced that the noble Lord who introduced this Bill now proposed to leave out the objectionable clauses. He also rejoiced that the discussion was carried on with that calmness which its great importance deserved.

supported the Amendment of the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though he confessed his preference for some plan which would limit the period of labour to eleven hours. On the whole, he thought it would be better to limit infant rather than adult labour.

was of opinion, that something ought to be done for the relief of the children employed in factories. But legislative enactments, merely limiting the hours of labour, would furnish no remedy for the evil. It was the direct necessity which compelled these children to undergo such excessive labour. The only means, in his opinion, of doing away with that necessity, was by opening a free trade in corn, and in taking the monopoly of food from the great landed proprietors. It was totally impossible that things should continue in their present condition; and the probability was, that the change would be anew election either in that House or out of doors. It would depend entirely upon the House itself whether that revolution should be a peaceable one, or whether it should be accompanied with every species of bloodshed and violence. It might, perhaps, be imagined that the people were inclined to engage in a sanguinary revolution; but he was confident that the good sense of the English people would declare in favour of a peaceable revolution. In the first place a revolution would have the effect of wiping away the National Debt. The House might laugh if they pleased; but did they suppose that the people did not contemplate such a result? The Church Establishment and the tithe system, would also, in all probability, be wiped away. He did not mean to say, that the people were hostile to religion itself. On the contrary, he was sure they loved it. In the next place, the whole nest of sinecurists would be ferreted out and destroyed, as well as all the abominable monopolies of sugar and corn. Did the House consider how the country was circumstanced? If it should happen that in a winter of distress and poverty, a few bold men should incite their comrades to resist the military and be successful in that resistance (an event which was by no means improbable), in an hour after the event was known all England would be in arms. What would then be the condition of the Members of that House? And what would become of the nobles of the land? They would at once be annihilated. Was it to be supposed that the people of England would think anything of sacrificing a few Lords for such an object? With respect to the Amendment before the House he would support it, although he considered it a contemptible scheme—a poor and paltry illusion. Ministers were now acting on the same plan as they had pursued on the Irish Church Bill. They were truckling in the basest manner to their opponents, because they felt that they were too feeble to resist them. By a sneaking pickpocket scheme they had robbed the Irish Church of 60,000l. for the payment of the Vestry-cess; and having once admitted the principle of spoliation, they might just as well have robbed the Church of 6,000,000l. In conclusion, the hon. Member begged leave again to observe, that he would vote for the Bill, because he was convinced, that it would either be effectual or would altogether put a stop to the manufactures of the country; and if the latter should be the case, the master manufacturers would no doubt immediately join with the people in endeavouring to put down the cursed—damnable—Corn-laws.

fully admitted the necessity of some legislation in favour of the children employed in the manufactories, and he congratulated the noble Lord on his success. With respect to the clause immediately before the House, he had merely to observe that, if his noble friend (Lord Althorp) had not proposed the Amendment, and it had been proposed by any one else, he should have given it his support. He agreed that, from the age of nine to seventeen or eighteen years, children ought to be protected, but he objected to children between nine and fourteen being obliged to labour for an equal period with children between fourteen and eighteen. He should therefore support the Amendment of his noble friend.

was pleased with the manner in which his hon. and learned friend who had just sat down had treated the subject. The proposition was not complex; it was simple, and required no eloquence to set it forth. It would be safest for the House to rely upon the evidence obtained by the Commission. In particular he alluded to the medical evidence. It had long been the opinion of all who were placed in the neighbourhood of the manufacturing districts, that it was neces- sary to adopt some measure for restricting the hour of labour. In this view, the Bill had been brought forward, and it had now been for twelve months before the public. It was perfectly absurd to say, that a child of thirteen years of age should only work eight hours; but that, in a single night after that child's birthday, it might be made to work twelve hours, or perhaps for a longer period. No man who had the feelings of a father would propose to work children between thirteen and eighteen, in the same way as they would work adults. The hon. Member then proceeded to cite various passages to this effect from the medical evidence. The hearts and the feelings of the country were so much interested in this question that it was absolutely necessary that the House should do justice—extending to them the protection which they so much required.

said, there was no doubt in any quarter with respect to the necessity of legislation for the regulation of infant labour; and the only question which remained was, whether the Bill of the noble Lord, as it originally stood, or the Amendment of his noble friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would be the more advantageous to the parties interested. His principal objection to the original Bill was founded upon the admission of the noble Lord (Ashley) that his object was to regulate manufacturing labour. If the proposition of the noble Lord (Ashley) should be successful, he should entertain the greatest apprehension respecting the consequences. He was willing to admit the propriety of legislative interference up to a certain point, but he was of opinion that any attempt to proceed beyond that point would be productive of the greatest mischief. He maintained, that gross exaggeration had taken place with regard to the effects of the present factory system; and he concluded by declaring, that he would give his support to the Amendment proposed by his noble friend (Lord Althorp).

said, after the best consideration he could give to the question, he felt it his duty to vote for the Amendment of the noble Lord. It relieved him greatly to find, that the principle of Sir John Hobhouse's Bill was to be applied to all our manufacturing establishments, for he felt no hesitation in saying, that if it had been done some time since, the present abuses would never have existed, nor would these complaints from the factory children have been heard of. He was satisfied, that no child ought to work ten hours a day, and that was the reason for his vote, for, though perhaps with loss, the manufacturer could adapt himself to the system; and, even if he could not, it did not alter his view as to the amount of work at so tender an age.

said: It is with a bad grace that the hon. member for Yorkshire now comes forward to reproach the cotton-manufacturers with cruelty, after Members of this House have so long neglected their duty by forbearing to enforce the law which would have protected the children whose fate they now lament. I will not deign to answer the attack which has been made upon myself, for, although a stranger in this House, my character, I trust, is too well known in my own neighbourhood to need a formal justification on my part. I have always endeavoured to act from some good reason, and now that I have come into the great council of the nation, I shall not for the first time stultify myself by voting without a good reason. I consider that when attacked I have a right to defend myself, and when, therefore, I hear it asserted over and over again that all the evidence proves the oppression, cruelty, and inhumanity of the factory system, I say, and I will prove it, that such is not the fact. If Sir John Hob-house's Bill had only been properly carried into execution—if those who are now so ready to make puffing humanity speeches had been in their respective neighbourhoods, seeing that those masters who were inclined to evade the law, and take advantage of the conscientious scruples of those who obeyed it were punished,—the evils now complained of would never have arisen. It has been said, over and over again, by the noble Lord, the member for Dorsetshire, that the factory system is fraught with mischief to the health, the morals, and the general good conduct of the factory children. The noble Lord, it seems, relies almost wholly upon the evidence of the doctors, whom, as I do not know, I shall speak of as I find them in his book. In opposition to their evidence I beg to place that of persons from the town I have the honour to represent; for it behoves me, in vindicating the factory system, not to lose sight of the good name I wish to maintain in my own town, and truth, I doubt not, will after all prevail in the long run. Now, what is the evidence I have before me? It is a statement of certain particulars connected with a Sunday School Society composed entirely of children. In it are 1,300 children, and among them is formed another Society, called the sick society, to which 580 of the scholars subscribe. From data taken two or three years back, without reference, mind you, to this inquiry, it appears that half of these subscribers consist of factory children. It follows, that if the factory children enjoy the same degree of health as the rest of the population, one-half of the numbers on the sick list would be from the factories. It appears, however, that the proportion of factory children on the sick list is only one-fourth of the whole, and that the proportion of the deaths among them is only one-fifth instead of one-half, so that both in the numbers of the sick, and in the number of deaths, the advantage is on the side of the factory children. I cannot make this go further if I will, but nothing can prevent it going as far as it will. Hon. Gentlemen may talk of the opinion of doctor this and doctor that: but what is the fact? I'll show you. If you ask a doctor whether it is right that children should work ten hours a-day, of course he will say, "No;" and if I were to ask him whether a husbandman, who worked through winter and summer in wet and in dry, sometimes up to his knees in a ditch of water, the effect of such labour must not be to produce chronic rheumatism in advancing age, no doubt his answer will be "Yes." But putting doctors aside, we must consult common sense and common reason; and I really hope soon to see nothing else prevail in this House; I wish I could say, that I have seen nothing else prevail. Now I happen to be treasurer to the society to which I have referred, which may teach hon. Gentlemen, who are disposed to look after the interests of the infantile population, that there are means of doing it, without coming into this House to make puffing speeches about the distress of the labouring population. Speeches, let me tell this House, can be made on both sides of a question, and I know that for this I shall have to vindicate myself on a future occasion, but I shall never be ashamed of what I am saying, for I believe it to be truth. I will say now what I first said, when I offered myself on the hustings,—if I don't suit the place, or the place does not suit me, I'll turn out to make room for a better man. The sick society of which I was speaking is so well regulated that, although the subscriptions are only one penny per week, it has now the sum of 600l. in the Bank. I do not boast of this, mind you, but I mention it in self defence, in order to show hon. Gentlemen who make puffing speeches, that if they would go home and practise the like in their several districts, they would do more good than they now do. Sir, I object to both the propositions before the Mouse; for when we take a doubtful step in legislation, that step should be as little as possible. I agree with the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Pease), that if all factories had been brought under the operation of Sir John Hobhouse's Act, these abuses never would have been heard of. All Mr. Sadler's evidence applies to factories in which that Act was not enforced. What I would propose, then, is, to try that Act for one year in every branch of our manufactures, and to appoint inspectors subject only to this House, to sec it properly carried into effect. If this were done, I would defy agitators, or any other persons whatever, to bolster up a case for this House. The House would then be able to legislate upon impartial evidence, without having to depend either on the testimony of Mr. Sadler's Committee, or of the Government Commissioners—into both of which it is said party feeling enters. I certainly do not believe, that it does into both; but at any rate you would have the satisfaction of proceeding upon the report of inspectors appointed by yourselves, and responsible only to yourselves. I am told, forsooth, that this would be disappointing the wishes of the people. I know it. I live amongst them, and shall have to convince them of the rectitude of my own conduct when I go back into the country; but I have said nothing which is not founded in truth—nothing which I cannot fully vindicate. When I went down to Lancashire in the Easter week, I sent to a body of spinners, and explained my thoughts upon the matter to them. Said I, "I see how the wind is blowing; you may think the Ten Hours' Bill all right, but in spite of all your flaming speeches and dashing meetings in London, there are certain under-currents you are not aware of, for the supporters of the Ten Hours' Bill are actuated by very different motives, to those you give them credit for. I tell you plainly I shall not give a vote which will perfectly satisfy yon, but you may depend upon it I shall give a vote which will satisfy my own conscience. Many of those consenting to the Ten Hours' Bill, I can tell you, wish to work two sets of hands, and make you labour twelve or fourteen hours." "The deuce they do," they said. "Yes," said I, "its true enough. I do not like to mention names to every body, but if you will send your Committee I will mention names to them." As I told the spinners I would do what would satisfy my own conscience, I now full the House what that is—namely, throw overboard the schemes of the two noble Lords, and give the Bill of Sir John Hobhouse a general trial of twelve months, with competent inspectors. I feel assured, that this would ultimately lead to the best settlement of the matter. If the inspectors should inform us that abuses continue, we can then, and we ought then, to legislate. As to the hue and cry raised of giving the people a stone when they ask for bread (according to my hon. and gallant colleague) I can only say, that 25s. a-week is the common rate of wages to adults, and that the 1,500 persons in the establishment with which I am connected, average nearly 10s. per week. I ask hon. Gentlemen if wages like these were generally paid throughout the country, whether there would be much real cause for complaint. Now, I can tell this House, that there is one class of the population the state of which culls much more imperiously for attention than that of the classes employed in factories—I refer to the hand-loom Weavers. They really want consideration their slate really calls for pity and protection: but let the House not apply a plaister where none is wanted. It is said that the factory system causes the disruption of domestic ties; I deny it; for numbers of parents bring their children into the factory, and have them under their own eye. A certain portion of the work requires children; and if a man has got none of his own to begin with, he employs those of other people. The noble Lord near me (Lord Ashley) is quite in error on this Point; and if he will come to Bolton with me, I will convince him of it. With respect to the important point of education, although I am no friend to Quixotic legislation, I must say, that I feel myself as much bound in conscience to teach the poor man to read his Bible, as to feed or clothe him if hungry or naked. In the course of these discussions, insinuations have been thrown out against Sunday-schools, which they do not deserve, and if hon. Gentlemen will call upon me at Bolton, I will convince them of the fact. If the hours for work are to be reduced to eight or less, the establishment of some system of education, or a great addition to the number of constables, will be necessary. Education will certainly raise the manufacturing population in the scale of society, and prevent them going to the dram-shop or the beer-house. I entreat the House to be cautious in its proceedings. We are not now in the possession of the whole of the spinning trade. By the restrictions having been taken off, the exportation of machinery and the emigration of artizans (whether unfortunately or not I do not say), America and several of the European nations are fast overtaking us. America now spins one-third of the cotton we do; France and the rest of Europe spins another third; and if peace lasts for ten years, they will rival us in the amount now spun in this country. Hon. Gentlemen talk of the difference between twelve and ten hours as if it were only a drop in the bucket; but it is, in fact, no slight matter, for it has come to my own knowledge that orders from abroad for yarn were not to be executed if the price was a halfpenny above a certain fixed sum, because, for that additional halfpenny, the order could be executed by spinners abroad. When a difference of two farthings turns the scale, why should we commit the suicidal act of tying up our hands before entering into competition with foreign nations. I will trouble the House no further, except to urge upon it the simple extension of Sir John Hobhouse's Act, and the appointment of inspectors to see its provisions, duly enforced.

had given the subject the greatest consideration, but he was bound to say that the measure of the noble Lord (Ashley) was so surrounded with perplexity and confusion that he could not conscientiously give it his support. A great stress had been laid upon the cruelty exercised in the factories toward the children. He admitted that individual cases might exist; but wherever they were to be found, he contended they existed without the know- ledge of the master manufacturers. The factory system had been universally condemned, nor did he intend to defend it; but he did say, that if the evils had grown into the system to the extent complained of, it could not be expected to find a remedy in any one legislative measure. Having had some practical experience in these matters, he should for these reasons, give his support to the amendment of the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in preference to the Bill of the noble member for Dorsetshire.

said, he was afraid of meddling with such a complicated subject, not being so confident in his own opinion as the noble Lord, the member for Dorsetshire, and he would support the proposition of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the least interfering of the two.

suggested whether it would not be better, after such a lengthy and useful discussion, they should now report progress, and ask leave to bring in a Bill which should give a full and substantial effect to Sir John Hobhouse's. If this was not agreed to, he should vote for the adoption of the lesser evil—the Amendment of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

said, a new discovery had been made in the House that night, which would doubtless, excite great astonishment in many parts; at all events it would in Lancashire. It had formerly been said that the Navy was the great support of England; at another time, that our maritime commerce was the great bulwark of the country; at another time that our colonies; and it had even been whispered that the Bank was; but now it was admitted, that our great stay and bulwark was to be found in three hundred thousand little girls, or rather in one-eighth of that number. Yes; for it was asserted, that if these little girls worked two hours less per day, our manufacturing superiority would depart from us. This was the only observation he should then make; at another, and more appropriate opportunity, he should go fully into the question.

said, the real question was, whether the words "eighteen years" should be inserted in the clause. He should oppose that proposition; and the point to decide would then be, what age should be inserted. He could not but observe on the strong good sense—the manly sense, he must say—which had characterized the speeches of the hon. Representatives of those towns which had been enfranchised by the Reform Bill, a good sense, to which, however, he was compelled to say, the hon. member for Oldham had presented a contrast. He could not deny that even his own proposition was liable to objections; but he thought the House was really bound to consider whether some protection was not necessary for these children. Further than what was necessary he did not wish to go; for he felt in all such matters they ought not to interfere beyond what the positive urgency of the case required. As to the assertion that under his proposition two relays of children would be necessary, he must say he would admit the truth of it. He thought the course he proposed was, under all circumstances, the best that could be adopted for the many interests concerned.

said, having taken up the subject fairly and conscientiously, he found that the noble Lord had completely defeated him. He should, therefore surrender the Bill into the hands of the noble Lord; but having taken it up with a view to do good to the classes interested, he would only say into whatever hands it might pass, God prosper it.

said, that there could be no doubt about the motives of the noble Lord. The course which the noble Lord had pursued was dictated by the most honourable and praiseworthy feelings. He thought the best course now was to report progress, and ask leave to sit again. His own Amendment had had no object but the advantages of the children.