, on Clause 8th, which enacts that the employment of children under eleven, twelve, and thirteen years of age, for more than eight hours a-day, should be prohibited, moved, as an Amendment, that at the expiration of six months after the passing of the Act, no child under eleven years of age should be permitted to work more than eight hours; that no child under the age of twelve years should be permitted, after the expiration of eighteen months from the passing of the Bill, to work for more than eight hours a-day; and that after the expiration of two years from the passing of the Bill, no child under thirteen years should be permitted to work more than eight hours a-day. This, he said, he did, that the effect of the Bill might be gradual.

objected to the Amendment as postponing the operation of the Bill till March, 1835.

would support the Amendment, from his knowledge of the impossibility of procuring relays. The information from the country convinced him that a graduated scale would be infinitely preferable.

observed, that the principle of gradation was, perhaps, necessary to carry the Bill efficiently into effect, so, indeed, as to insure the co-operation of the masters. He certainly was in favour of the Amendment, though he had some doubts whether the House would be prepared to go the whole length of his hon. friend.

was averse to the adoption of such lengthened periods; but he would not object to a graduated system, the extent of time being limited to six months. The first part of the hon. Member's Amendment was put, and carried without a division.

seconded the Amendment. Though the Bill might remedy abuses in some districts, in others it would cause great poverty and distress, and families would be reduced by it from 10s. to 4,s. per week.

could not see how, in consistency with its pledges to the country, the House could adopt the principle of the hon. Member. The House had already decided the question of the Ten Hours' Bill.

said, that this subject had been before the House many times, and if he had not shown that restlessness of feeling that might have been expected, he would candidly state the reason why. He wished it to be expressly understood, that so far as these Motions affected him, his feelings were not, in the slightest degree, disturbed by them. Every Gentleman in that House came there with the credentials of the approbation of his constituents. So far as this was a recommendation, there was not a Member of that House who had a prouder testimonial than his. He was now addressing the sixth Parliament of which he had been a Member, and always for the same place, and the same constituents. There might be Members who had represented places for a longer space of time, but not under the same circumstances as he had represented Colchester. Some Gentlemen represented millions, not minds; and by the force of their property they selected the places for which they sat. Not so with him. He was proud to say, that he had the personal as well as the political, approbation of his constituents. over whom he possessed not the slightest influence that property could give. Under these circumstances, he required no testimonial of the approbation of that House. Still, however, there was no one who viewed that House, collectively or individually, with more respect than he did, or who more coveted their esteem. So much so, indeed, that if there was any Gentle, man who wished for an explanation of that Motion, or of anything connected with his life, he should be happy to give any information in his power. When the hon. Baronet had given notice of the Motion just now withdrawn, he had selected fourteen Gentlemen, Members of that House, who were not at all individually connected with him, to listen to his statement. That statement was made, and they came to an unanimous resolution, that his conduct throughout was satisfactory to them as Gentlemen. The reasons why he did not wish to enter at great length into the subject at present were these—Last Session it was brought forward on a Motion to refer the matter to a Select Committee, and it was opposed, but so strong was the feeling of the House in his favour, that it was lost by only a small majority. After that, he renewed the subject, and the Attorney General of that day promised that it should undergo inquiry before the Common Law Commission. He then appeared before the Common Law Commissioners, and he learned with regret, that while they were prepared to receive any statement which would lead to an improvement in the mode of admitting students, first to the Inns of Court, and afterwards to the Bar, they did not feel it to be within their province to investigate any particular case of injustice 'and oppression which might have previously happened. He thought it also right to present a petition to the twelve Judges, praying them either to look into the matter themselves, or to direct the Benchers again to examine into the case. The Judges said, in answer, that as he had not renewed his application to the Benchers, they could not interfere. He conceived that this answer of theirs was an intimation that he ought to renew his application to the Benchers. He accordingly did so, and then the Benchers appointed a day on which he was to attend them and to be heard. He attended accordingly, and then, for the first time, they conceded that he should be attended by Counsel, and should have a short-hand writer present. This concession from monopoly was pleasing and satis- factory to him personally: but in the mean time many Members of that House had taken an active part in the affair, and on his intimating it to the fourteen or fifteen Gentlemen to whom he had already alluded, they expressed a desire to be present at the decision of it. They went with him to the Temple—they required admission into the Benchers' room, and then the learned Bench came to the conclusion that those Members should not be admitted. He mentioned this merely to show that he had ever anxiously wished to have these circumstances investigated. It appeared to him most extraordinary that while this House exercised a sovereign jurisdiction over all matters and things, and brought within its cognizance every thing that took place in Courts of Justice, there should exist one tribunal—

rose to order. He had not interrupted the hon. and learned Gentleman while his statement was merely personal, although there was no Motion regularly before the House; but he begged leave to suggest that it would be better, as there was no question before the House, to refrain from criticising or attacking any other party.

said, that he did not intend either to criticise or to attack any other party in the statement of facts which he had just made. It was not his wish, nay more, it was not his interest to do so. Though there was at present no Motion before the House, he said that this was a subject in which the public ought to take an interest, in which it should take an interest, in which it must take an interest; for these inns of court claimed to exercise a species of despotism which was positively insupportable. He was stating, before he was interrupted, that several of his friends. Members of that House, had applied to be admitted into the benchers' room. The benchers' declared that they were not admissible. He then appealed to his friends as to what he should do, and they were of opinion that he would be sacrificing a great principle, for which he had long been contending, if he did not withdraw his application altogether from a conclave which formed its decisions in a private room. So much with regard to the history of the past: now with regard to the future. He had sent a letter to the benchers of the Inner Temple to say, that he would renew his application to be called to the bar in the next Session if they would allow besides himself, and his counsel, and the short-hand-writer, one reporter for the whole of the public Press, and one reporter for a paper belonging to the county of Essex, to be present at the discussion. To disarm the benchers of every pretext, he did mean, if they would not yield to this proposition, to compel them to enter upon a reconsideration of his case, subject, however, to a protest on his part against the irregularity of their proceedings. He now offered publicly to let this whole matter be referred to any number of gentlemen in that House without regard to party, great or small, three or thirty; and he promised, that if that number did not come to a unanimous resolution that he had been treated with injustice and oppression by the learned bench, he would, within twenty-four hours after their decision was made known, move for a new writ for the borough of Colchester.

said, that though the whole of this proceeding was highly irregular, yet, as he was the only bencher present out of the large number who had been charged by the hon. Member with injustice and oppression, he must be permitted to say, that the decision of the benchers in the hon. Member's case had been confirmed by the twelve Judges unanimously, and therefore if oppression and injustice were to be charged against the benchers of the Inner Temple, he desired that the twelve Judges might also take their share of it.

observed, that, without meaning any disrespect to the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken, he must say, that no Member of Parliament could so easily convey in a few words very harsh and ungenerous imputations. He meant, he repeated, no disrespect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but he was bound to state, that what the hon. and learned Gentleman had just asserted respecting the twelve Judges was not true. This case had not been referred to the twelve Judges, and that was the very point of which he complained. The twelve Judges of England formed a tribunal sitting in open Court, and not capable of sitting in private on any case. All that they had said was, that they were not competent to depart from the decision of the benchers, and though Mr. Brougham and Mr. Denman were standing at the door of Serjeants' Inn, with twenty witnesses to be examined, the twelve Judges came to the resolution that they had not power to examine one amongst them.

took occasion to refer to the case of an individual whom he stated to have been convicted for selling unstamped newspapers, and fined 20l. by the Magistrates, and, in default of payment, sentenced to six months' imprisonment. This person was very harshly treated in prison, being sent into the felons' yard amongst criminals of the worst description, and condemned to hard labour. His hair was cut off; and, permission being refused him to provide his own bed or food, he was obliged to be content with the prison allowance. He (Mr. Cobbett) was satisfied, that the law had been transgressed in the treatment of this individual; that the Magistrates were to blame; and that although Attornies General could pinch pretty sharply, as he had good reason to know, the Stamp-office could act with still greater severity. He believed that the Stamp-office had prosecuted and caused the conviction of upwards of 300 individuals since the present Ministry came into office.

—No.

—Well, then, take the number at fifty.

again dissented from the statement.

wished to hear from the Solicitor General a disclaimer of the cruelty with which the party to whom he referred had been treated.

denied, that the Government, or any one connected with them, had instituted the prosecutions complained of, which, as far as he knew, were the work of common informers. With respect to the case mentioned by the hon. member for Oldham, he thought the hon. Gentleman must be misinformed. He could not believe that the person had been either sentenced or put to hard labour; neither did he imagine it possible that the other acts of severity complained of should have been committed. If the hon. Member could make out such a case of oppression, he (the Solicitor General) pledged himself to do his utmost to redress it.

believed the Solicitor General to be correct in stating, that these prosecutions had not been instituted by the Government, but it should be recollected that they arose out of the Stamp Act, the severity of which it was the duty of Ministers to mitigate, more especially after the opposition offered by the noble Lord (Althorp), the Lord Chancellor, and the Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench, to the passing of the Six Acts, under one of which some of these convictions had occurred. The last returns showed, that 276 persons had been proceeded against for violations of the Stamp Acts—a number of prosecutions for those offences unparalleled in the entire history of the country. It mattered little to the people whether this prosecution was set on foot at the instance of the Government or of common informers; it was the duty of Ministers to put a stop to so unjust and arbitrary a proceeding by in immediate alteration in the law. In addition to the other evils of the system, the law was unfairly administered: the Magistrates would not convict for selling Tory publications, but the moment an unfortunate liberal was accused, he was clapped up directly by the Tory Magistrates. The case of an individual named Hodgson, who was prosecuted for publishing a paper called "A Warning Voice," had been mentioned to him, and he had applied to the Stamp-office for information on the subject, which, the instant he received it, he would take care to place in the hands of the noble Lord.

thought the Amendment unnecessary. If there was any culpable negligence on the part of the proprietor of the mill, and any life was lost in consequence, he would be responsi- ble at common law. No practical good, therefore, would be effected by the clause; and it was not likely that the inspectors would be able to examine the machines, so as to know whether they were in proper order or not.

said, that the inspectors could hardly be so ignorant, as not to know whether a dangerous part of the machinery was or not well fenced off. Surely, when a man was punished for manslaughter, if he drove over any person, he ought to be liable to some punishment if he left things in such a way that accidents must almost necessarily happen.

objected to the Amendment. The proprietors of these mills had every wish to protect the children, and yet they of all men were marked out to be put under the ban of the law. The hon. member for Bradford, when he proposed this Amendment, seemed to forget that the collieries in the neighbourhood of the town he represented were, at least, as dangerous as cotton-mills, and instead of this Bill being confined to four trades, it should embrace all trades whatever. Yet there was no Act compelling the owners of coal-mines to see that those places were properly ventilated, and the ropes of the machinery lowered down the pits.

observed, that so far as concerned those manufacturers who now took every proper precaution, this Clause would have no effect. It could not hurt their feelings that the Committee should have thought fit to introduce such a Clause, and as to others, they would have no right to complain of it.

said, that the inspectors would not probably know anything of machinery, and their interference might be more injurious than beneficial. Suppose he were to offer himself for an inspector, he might be a good inspector as could be as to the health of the children, and their food and time of labour, but he should not be able to judge of the machinery, and he might think there was danger where there was none, and he might order fences to be put up which would stop the machinery. He thought it a good rule not to interfere in the management of a man's private concerns. They might just as well appoint inspectors to every great kitchen to prevent the little girls from scalding themselves. He should oppose the Amendment.

objected to the Clause. It went to take away one-half of the wages of the children and two hours of their time, in order to teach them reading and writing. He thought they would derive more benefit from keeping their wages and having those two hours for repose or healthful amusement. At all events, that matter should be left to their parents. He, therefore, moved, that the words, "if the parents of such child shall require it, and not otherwise," be inserted.

considered the provision for educating the children one of the best features of the Bill.

said, that the arrangement would, in fact, compel the children to work ten hours a-day, as the two hours devoted to education would be in addition to the eight hours. He thought the expense of education ought to be paid by the State, and not by the children.

protested against the idea that the time to be occupied in education was an aggravation of the labour.

would vote for the Clause; that would prevent the children from being so much worked as they otherwise would be.

supported the Clause, and took this as a first instalment towards a general system of education.

withdrew his Amendment.

moved as an Amendment, that the deduction from the children's wages should not exceed one penny a-week. The pupils in the national schools did not pay more than a penny a-week.

Wood objected to it as being of a criminative character, and proposed another to the effect, that "Whereas, at present, children were worked for too long a time consistent with their health and the purposes of necessary education, it was expedient to alter such time."

said, he had a Resolution to propose on which it was his intention to found a Bill. This Resolution, he begged to say, had not been founded on the report of the Committee. He disapproved of that report, because its object was to restore the old and objectionable system. At the same time he thought it impossible for any one to read the evidence which had been given before the Committee without feeling a wish that the constitution of beerhouses should be improved, and he hoped that this object might be effected without having recourse to any objectionable enactment. He proposed to raise the character of the beer-shops by raising the price of the licence. He would still, however, leave the licences to be granted by the Excise-office, and would confer no additional jurisdictions on Magistrates, except with respect to police regulations. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the following Resolution:—" That for every licence to be granted to any person to sell beer, or ale, or porter, by retail in any part of Great Britain, shall be paid the sum of 5l.; and for every licence to be granted to any person to sell cyder by retail in any part of Great Britain shall be paid the sum of 50s. in lieu of the present duties payable thereon."

would not oppose the Resolution, but at the same time he must say, that, considering the large number of persons whose interests were involved in the question, it was perfectly impossible that the Bill proposed to be introduced, could be passed into a law at this late period of the Session, unless it should clearly appear that it was altogether unobjectionable. To any measure founded on the report of the Committee he would give his strenuous opposition.