said, it would be in the recollection of the House, that in the early part of February, he put a question to the noble Lord, whether it was the intention of the Government to make any proposition with regard to church-accommodation in Scotland? In consequence of the late period of the previous Session in which the destitute state of the Scotch Church was brought under the attention of the House, it was too late to proceed with any measure; but in February he expressed a hope, that the whole subject of the report of the commissioners would attract the attention of her Majesty's Government, and that an application would be made to Parliament on the subject. The noble Lord, in reply, stated, that it was the intention of the Government to make a proposition on the subject, and that he would then state the general nature of his motion, but he did not think, that he should be able to propose a vote before Easter. He was most desirous of bringing the Report of the Commissioners of Ecclesiastical Inquiry in Scotland, so far as it related to religious destitution in Edinburgh and Glasgow, under the notice of the House. If the noble Lord still persevered in bringing forward that motion, he should avail himself of that opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the state of religious destitution in Edinburgh and Glasgow. He, therefore, begged to ask the noble Lord, whether it were his intention, in the course of the present Session of Parliament, to take the sense of the House on the measure relating to the Church in Scotland?

acknowledged, that he had stated generally the outline of the measure he intended to propose. But he had now to state, in answer to a question from the right hon. Gentleman, that from various circumstances, some connected with the business of the House, and some connected with what had occurred in Scotland, it was not the intention of the Government to make any proposition to the House this Session.

was quite sure, the House would feel, that when the noble Lord stated he feared he should not be able to propose any vote before Easter, he had a right to assume, the noble Lord did intend to propose a vote before the termination of the Session. That would, therefore, account for his not asking the noble Lord previously to Easter for any more detailed information, as he had a fair right to presume it was the noble Lord's intention to propose a vote subsequently. It became, therefore, necessary for him (Sir Robert Peel) to decide what course he should take; and, on the whole, considering the near approach of the coronation, the great arrear of business, and also the advanced period of the Session, and considering that the noble Lord had stated it was not his intention to call the attention of Parliament to this most important subject this Session, he had come to the conclusion, but with very great reluctance, that, on the whole, he was best consulting the interests of the question by not bringing it forward for discussion this Session. At the same time, he thought it necessary that he should announce on this occasion, that in the course of the next Session—independently of any course which the noble Lord might think fit to pursue—he should call the attention of the House to the subject of the report of the commissioners.

hoped the House would allow him an opportunity of explaining as to the observation that he made, that he could not bring forward any measure on the subject before Easter. He begged to call the attention of the House to the circumstance, that there were but two days in the week in which he could bring forward a measure of this kind. Nearly four months of the Session were occupied on these days with two bills, namely, the Irish Poor-law Bill, and the Benefices Pluralities Bill. Under these circumstances, he could not have brought the measure forward since Easter.

Subject dropped.

rose, for the purpose of moving, as an amendment, the second reading of the Factories Regulation Bill, which was the first Order of the Day. He did not mean to undervalue the importance of the bill of which the noble Lord opposite had just moved the second reading; but he must say, that he held the other Order of the Day to be quite as important. He had no other opportunity but the present of calling the attention of the House to the statement which he was requested to make on behalf of the children employed in the factories—to the repeated violations of the provisions of the bill which had been suffered to pass unnoticed, and to the total neglect and con- tempt with which the Government had treated all the representations and remonstrances which had been made to them upon this subject. He hoped, that the House would, without much difficulty, be convinced of the pressing necessity of providing some means this Session to afford relief to these miserable victims of the most abominable system that had ever prevailed in any civilised country. He was prepared to prove, that he had correctly characterized this system; and if any of his statements should be contradicted, all that he would ask for was a committee of inquiry. He made this appeal the more fervently, because he could show to the House that he himself had been deluded and mocked upon this subject by her Majesty's Government in the most unwarrantable manner. He had made repeated attempts to introduce amendments into the operation of the existing law, but the Government had invariably taken the matter out of his hand under the solemn promise that they would proceed with it themselves. And he (Lord Ashley), yielding to their representations and requests, had parted with the measure, and surrendered it into their hands. Government, however, had not moved in the matter. For two years he had been deluded in this way; and now he was told by the noble Lord, that Government had no intention of proceeding further with the subject this Session, and that the whole of this great question was to be brought in the most peremptory manner to a sudden stand-still. [The noble Lord entered into a succinct history of the delays which had taken place in bringing forward the Factories question since 1836. He then continued.] The noble Lord now stated, that the Session was so far advanced that he could not proceed with the bill. What argument could the noble Lord advance to justify the postponement of this measure? The noble Lord was perfectly well aware all along, that the coronation would take place. Would the noble Lord treat it as a matter of trivial importance, when the temporal and eternal interests of some hundred thousands of his fellow-creatures were at stake? He asked the noble Lord, whether the lives and limbs of his own fellow-countrymen were, in his estimation, of less value than those of the negroes? He was surprised, that the noble Lord should endeavour to evade in this manner what he should not disguise to be otherwise than an imputation upon the character of the Government, of having totally neglected the best interests of humanity. For this conduct, his Government would stand condemned in the estimation of every honourable-minded man in the Kingdom. He would, therefore, conclude by moving the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Factories Regulation Bill.

thought, that whatever delusion existed with reference to this matter was a delusion which existed in the noble Lord's own mind, and which the noble Lord had created for himself, if he supposed that a great many factory children were suffering under the infliction of grievances. In reply to the noble Lord's statement, he had to observe, that there was an Act already in existence, which had been carried into operation as far as possible, and that the bill which he had introduced this Session—a bill which lie was still ready to support—would be a bill for clearly defining the operation of the Act. The noble Lord did not seem to differ much from him in opinion. With regard to the existing Act he would only say, that, in accordance with his promise to carry the existing law into operation as efficiently as possible, Mr. Horner, in the report for the last quarter of the year 1837, said, that no very gross violation of the law had occurred in his district since the last report was furnished. There had been several cases in which it had been found necessary to inflict penalties. It was, however, very difficult to enforce the law upon this subject against the shortsighted interests both of the parents of the children and of the factory proprietors. He did not think it possible to avoid many violations of the law, particularly with respect to the age of the children—a point upon which much difference of opinion existed. It had assuredly been his intention to bring forward this bill, but to weigh its importance and the probable opposition which it would encounter against the importance of other bills with the consideration of the opposition which they were likely to meet with. The noble Lord seemed to imply, that it was a very easy thing to carry this bill through the House. There, again, he thought, that the noble Lord deluded himself, for he did not take into consideration the interests and feelings which were engaged against this bill. A bill might be passed to make the law more clear and defined; but while in the nature of the subject there was so much uncertainty—while there was so much difficulty in ascertaining the age of the children—seeing, also, that the interests of the manufacturers and the parents were likely to work against the operation of any law upon the subject, he could not promise the noble Lord or the House, that any such law could be carried into effect without its frequent violation both in tenour and in spirit.

said, that the noble Lord had referred to a variety of matters having no connexion with the immediate question before the House. The noble Lord had led the House into all the intricacies and difficulties of the factory question generally, in order to evade the particular point under discussion. Such, likewise, had been the conduct of the noble Lord on former occasions towards his noble Friend, the Member for Dorsetshire. The complaint of his noble Friend was, that the existing factory law had been grossly violated, as was shown by the reports of every inspector up to the present moment, and, as was admitted by the Government itself, in having introduced a bill to remedy its defects. According to the proceeding of the Government itself, therefore, it was acknowledged, that the defects of the present law were susceptible of remedy. His noble Friend had justly remarked, that the interests of thousands of children were involved in this question; and such being the fact, there could be no doubt, that without at all interfering with the interests of manufacturers or the progress of their manufactories, it was within the power and became the duty of Parliament to exercise a control over the management of those children, in order to protect their comforts and their lives by diminishing the cruel demands made upon their labour. The inspector throughout all their reports complained of the violation of the law in this respect—that children of tender age had been worked beyond their strength. The noble Lord would not undertake the Bill, forsooth, because he would be thereby embarking in a measure of great difficulty—because he would have to encounter the feelings of the manufacturers on the one hand, and those of the parents on the other. But who asked the noble Lord to undertake it? Had his noble Friend asked him to do so, or had his noble Friend himself shrunk from the discharge of the duty—a duty which he thought consistent with every feeling of humanity? On the contrary, his noble Friend had proposed to introduce a measure himself with a view, as far as possible, to reconcile conflicting opinions, and render the present law effective. Who prevented him from doing so? Why, the noble Lord and the Government; who, be it recollected, did not meet his noble Friend by a manly avowal, that they would oppose him and maintain the defects of the law, but by a delusion, as it was justly termed. They told him, that if he would abstain from introducing a measure, they would themselves bring forward a bill for the purpose of repairing the defects of the existing law, and replacing the question on a more equitable footing. Having thus deluded his noble Friend, and induced him to abandon a measure to which he had devoted much of his time and talents, at the close of the second Session, after the assurance given by the noble Lord, the Government threw up their bill, leaving the children still subject to all the evils mentioned in the inspectors' report, and without any hope of Parliamentary relief, or even of any attempt at such, from the noble Lord opposite. His noble Friend had, therefore, adopted the only course which was open to him—that of entreating the House to go into the bill then upon the table, to take so much of it as was necessary to enforce the law, and thereby afford protection to the unfortunate children whose interests were at stake.

had listened with the utmost astonishment to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, for greater misrepresentation of facts he had never heard. The right hon. Gentleman said, that Government had deluded the noble Lord, and had prevented him from proceeding with his bill for the protection of the factory children. He utterly denied that, and he challenged the noble Lord, and right hon. Gentleman to produce any proofs of their assertion. He was much inclined to doubt, too, whether the right hon. Gentleman quite agreed with the noble Lord's views on this subject. What were the facts? In 1837, the noble Lord asked him whether it were the intention of Government to introduce a bill to amend the Factory Act. He replied, that such was their intention, but that he conceived that their bill would not meet the views of the noble Lord in favour of a ten-hour labour bill, and the placing restrictions on the labour of adults, as well as of children. The noble Lord's plan was, to place restrictions on all labour. Then the noble Lord had altered his plan, for such had been his plan hitherto, and Ministers never proposed the introduction of any bill to meet such views. The noble Lord said Ministers had subjected him to delusion on this subject this session. He denied it. A bill carefully drawn up was introduced this year, and it was the full intention of Government to go on with it. They had throughout been most anxious to proceed with it; but he would put it to any one who knows anything about the extent of the business before the House, whether it had been possible. The Gentleman, moreover, who had charge of the bill, was, for upwards of a month, absent from the House, in consequence of severe illness, in itself a sufficient explanation of the delay in the progress of the measure; but, independently of this, the state of public business had been such as to render it impossible to go on with the bill. The right hon. Gentleman talked about its being so very easy to frame an effectual bill for the protection of these children, but how happened it that the right hon. Gentleman, when he was himself at the head of the Home Department, did not take advantage of this facility of dealing with the subject, and protecting the children, in whose behalf he was now so vehement? He happened to know, that when the right hon. Gentleman was so situated, he turned a deaf ear to all representations made on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman was now, as then, well aware of the extreme difficulty of dealing with this question; and the right hon. Gentleman had, therefore, no right to treat the matter as an easy one, or to accuse Government of a want of proper care, or of a remissness of attention to its duties. The right hon. Gentleman had further charged the Government, that it was remiss in carrying the existing law into effect. He denied it altogether. He had introduced a bill to amend the law two years since; and instructions were issued by his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) to all the factory inspectors, that they should carry out the spirit of the act to its fullest extent, and that every precaution should be taken that the child's age should be ascertained as sa- tisfactorily as possible. So far from the Government not having exerted themselves to carry out the law, the testimony of Mr. Horner proved, that the inspectors had received the most positive directions not to grant a certificate to any child who had not attained the age of thirteen years, howsoever appearances might be to the contrary. He would freely admit, that legislation was required on the subject, but to be good for any thing, it should be a well-considered legislation. Both parties should have an opportunity of pleading their cause, and no hasty measure should be introduced on the subject. He believed that any restriction on the labour of adults would be fatal to the best interests of this country. He was not more interested for the masters and manufacturers than he was for the children, but lie felt that it was impossible to look to the state of the manufactures in this country, in connexion with the growing extent of those in America, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Germany, and the facilities afforded to capitalists in these countries, without concluding that anything connected with it was of paramount importance. In point of fact, they were intimately connected with the well-being and best interests of this country. And though he would never admit the threats of the manufacturers, that if they were meddled with, they would transfer their skill and capital elsewhere, he could not fail to allow, that if they were to be perpetually harassed, they had no alternative, if they wished to carry on their business with advantage to themselves, than to transfer them to other countries. On those considerations, he hoped the House would not suffer the subject to be hurried forward as the noble Lord proposed. It was only in due time, and on deep consideration, that it could be at all satisfactorily settled.

I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman's own judgment, as well as to the House, whether the speech he has just delivered is not decisive in favour of immediately settling the question. I am no advocate for the plan of the noble Lord (Ashley). I never took the popular view of the subject. I saw it with other eyes than those who support the ten-hours bill of my noble Friend, and therefore I cannot be suspected of partial advocacy of a settlement; but this I feel, if there be any foundation for what the right hon. Gentleman has just asserted, if his argu- ments be conclusive with himself, that if there be one subject beyond all others to which the attention of the House should be at once, and without delay, directed, it is this. The reasons for it are two-fold. If it be looked upon as a question involving the rights of humanity, and the happiness of tens of thousands of our fellow-creatures, then I say, that attention ought to be directed to it, to the exclusion of any other. Such a case brooks no delay. But there is another reason which I believe to be better founded, and which, at all events, is equally cogent. What does the right hon. Gentleman say? He asks us to look at the manufactures of this country in connection with those of France, Switzerland, Germany, Belgium, and America. He tells us, that the competition we have to encounter from those countries is a most fearful one. He intimates to us the discontent of our manufacturers at the perpetual intermeddling of the Legislature, and he hints at their threats of transferring their skill and capital elsewhere, unless they are suffered to carry on their business in quiet. Can anything be more conclusive than these facts as to the necessity of at once settling the question in dispute? Can anything be more important than the solution of the question as to whether the manufacturer employs his capital at home or abroad, and gives the benefit of his skill to this or to a foreign country? That is the difficulty which stares the right hon. Gentleman in the face—is it lessened by delay? It should be solved at once, one way or the other, if the right hon. Gentleman's facts are well founded and his conclusions rightly drawn. Why, then, does the right hon. Gentleman interpose delay? For the Government to say, Session after Session, that it would bring forward a bill on the subject—for the Government Session after Session, to abandon the bills they introduce, without at the same time permitting others to be brought in by individuals willing to do so, in their stead—is like applying a perpetual blister to the sides of the country, and keeping up the fever and irritation of a dangerous sore. If the question can be solved by the Government let it be solved at once; but I warn them, that they will find all temporary substitutes for a solution unavailing. Especially will they find a postponement of it from Session to Session of no service, but, on the contrary, of great and manifold injury. If, on the other hand, they feel, that the difficulties which surround the question are insoluble and inseparable from it, then as a Government, let them manfully come forward and acknowledge it. Let them come down to the House boldly, and meet the emergency of the case by stating that to legislate for the remedy of the small defects in the present laws, of which they admit the existence, would be much more dangerous than any advantage which they could propose to derive from it for the country at large. Let them do either one or the other, and the manufacturers knowing then what they mean will act accordingly. If they think the difficulties of the case are to be met by legislation let us have it at once; if not, let us hear no more about it; but let the decision be come to by them without further delay. My noble Friend has told us, that the question has been now three years before the House, and yet the right hon. Gentleman opposite deprecates hasty legislation on it. Can the right hon. Gentleman repeat his objection on that score? If, I say, the difficulty of the case cannot be got over without an exposure of the country to greater danger than at present exists, then the Government should unhesitatingly and at once abandon all legislation on the subject—and not alone that, but they should state their intention of opposing it on the part of all individual Members of this House. No hon. Member would interfere on the matter after such an announcement. But these are comparatively minor considerations. It is because I feel the force of the right hon. Gentleman's observations; it is because I admit their accuracy—it is because I cannot fail to perceive the competition with which this country is threatened—it is because I foresee, that the interests of humanity in the large view of the question are likely to be less consulted by the short-sighted restriction of labour than they are by its perfect freedom—it is because the fact is unquestionable, that though you may exempt the child from fatigue, you also deprive it of prospective employment, by driving the manufacturers to seek elsewhere that protection which they find no longer at home—it is for these reasons, and because I feel the full force of the consideration suggested by the right hon. Member that I implore Parliament to decide the question this night, whether it will legislate or not, If the Government be unwilling to take the risk of decision on themselves, let them then permit some hon. Member, in his individual capacity, to try the opinion of the House. At all events, I entreat, I implore the House, whatever is done, to let the question be settled at once.

presumed, that those who debated on the bill on the other side of the House could not have looked into its contents, which were at variance with their arguments. The observations of the right hon. Baronet would lead the House to infer that the bill of his (the Solicitor-General's) right hon. Friend then in question was for the purpose of keeping up "a perpetual blister"—but the fact was, it only went to explain and affirm the provisions of the act of 1833—with the view of making it more distinct and explicit. There was no clause in the present bill which was not already in being—it contained no new enactment. The prosecution of that bill would not affect at all the hours of labour in factories, and, he would put it to the House, whether it should be permitted to take precedence of the bill for the settlement of the Irish Tithe question; or whether that important measure should be put off that the Factory Act might be more clearly explained. If such a subject were to be looked upon as paramount to all others—if it was to be treated on the footing of a case affecting the rights of humanity—if it was to be made the matter of such doubt and dreaded danger—he (the Solicitor-General) did not know what would follow next. It seemed to him altogether so extravagant a proceeding that he could not help thinking more than once that the right hon. Baronet was either not serious in his observations, or not cognizant of the contents of the bill on which he argued. He hoped, however, that the House would show its good sense and information by giving that important bill, Irish Tithes, the precedence of the bill in question, notwithstanding all that had been said on the subject by hon. Gentlemen opposite.

should have thought, that the reason alleged by the hon. and learned Gentleman were precisely those why the bill should be proceeded with. He would insist on stating one point. He was prepared to prove that a number of children were working (as stated in the certificate of the partners in a certain mill) between the ages of nine and thirteen, while the same children were, in another certificate, signed by the same partners, and countersigned by the same magistrates as working between the ages of thirteen and eighteen.

did not know if the noble Lord was prepared to take up this bill if the Government abandoned it, but before he came to such a determination he would call to the noble Lord's mind evidence that had been given both in the noble Lord's and in his presence. From that evidence it appeared, that in Glasgow the Factories Act was totally neglected; it was observed by nobody, and violated by everybody. They there found it too inconvenient to work with, and had in practice repealed it. In Manchester the law was observed, but it worked there exceedingly ill for the cotton-spinner. The cotton-spinner was obliged to pay his piecers, who were the children he employed; he himself received so much per week, and out of that sum his piecers were paid. Now, the effect of this Act had been such, that the piecers to whom he used to pay 2s. 6d. per week he was at present obliged to pay 4s. 6d., and the wages of the cotton-spinners were, therefore, reduced by the amount of the difference between the two sums. The truth was, and it ought at once to be avowed, the object of the persons who agitated this question was to limit the hours of labour of the adults. The question which ought to be before the House was not whether they should pass the present Factory Bill, but one of a widely different character. He should be exceedingly happy if it were possible to limit the labour of adults, for they were overworked; but he believed, that if they made the attempt, the effect, in consequence of the foreign competition, would be, to throw both adults and children out of employment. He believed it impossible to restrict labour; he was sorry for it; he should be glad to become the advocate of the adults in that respect, if he did not think, that such a law would strike a fatal blow at the manufacturing interests. The difficulties in the present case must satisfy all how little men could do, in the way of legislation, when they attempted to legislate against the interests of employer or employed.

objected to the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that the Factories Act was openly violated in Glasgow. In Scotland the inspectors visited the factories at all times, and were even better received there by the manufacturers than they were occasionally in England. Indeed, the superintendents had been allowed by the manufacturers to perform the same duties as the inspectors. During the whole time that Mr. Horner was an inspector in Scotland he instituted only eight prosecutions; the present inspector, who succeeded that gentleman in the same district, had not instituted one. The reason of the small number of prosecutions was this—no sooner was it discovered that a child was improperly employed than, on complaint from the inspector, the required alteration was made. No one could have been more anxious than he had been to press this measure forward, but he had been prevented from doing so by circumstances which he was unable to control.

observed, with respect to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who declared themselves the friends of humanity, and who said, they were influenced by such a motive, as well as by a desire to serve the industrious classes in the country, that these very Gentlemen had, at an early period of the Session, refused to enter into any consideration of the Corn-laws. They would not even consider those laws, the effect of which was to make food dear, and to injure the working classes of the country.

The House divided on the original question: Ayes 119; Noes 111: Majority 8.

moved, that the Report on the Metropolis Hackney Carriages Bill be brought up.

opposed the bill, on the ground of the additional and unnecessary expense incurred by the registration proposed by it. He thought the present system of jurisdiction much better than that proposed. The matter was properly one of police.

The House divided:—Ayes 56; Noes 15: Majority 41.

Report received.