moved that a new Writ be issued for the election of a Burgess to serve in Parliament for the Borough of Horsham, in the room of the Hon. Mr. Scarlett, now Lord Abinger.

wished to call the attention of the House to the circumstances under which the Writ was moved for. He did not mean to impute blame to any person for what had taken place, but he thought the propriety of the delay was very questionable. There might be extreme cases, in which a person from unwillingness to take his seat in the House of Peers, might cause the suspension of the Writ for an indefinite time, if the practice of waiting for the Writ of Summons to the Peers before the issue of the Writ for a new Election were allowed. This was by no means a matter of little consequence, since it might be of very considerable importance whether the Writ were issued at one period or another. In the present instance a delay of three weeks had taken place; and if the House were to take no notice of the delay, there might just as well have been a delay of three months. He wished to ascertain the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair as to the length of the interval which might be allowed, in the case of the accession of a Member to the Peerage, before that House should declare that the seat was necessarily vacant. It must be remembered that on the occasion of the eldest son of a peer taking his seat in the House, he qualified as such, no property qualification being requisite. The House, therefore, acknowledged him as such by descent, and on the death of his father should take the notoriety of the event as sufficient ground for considering the seat at once vacant, and issuing the Writ without further delay.

said, as regarded the issue of a writ in the case referred to by the hon. Member, the only course for the House to pursue had been laid down by Lord Dunfermline, at the time when he filled the Chair of that House. It was true that when a Peer of the Realm died, his eldest son ceased to be a Member of the House of Commons. But the House had no means of knowing whether a claim made by one of its Members to a Peerage were bonâ fide or not; and therefore, the only safe course for it to adopt was to wait for the Writ of Summons. With respect to the observation of the hon. Member that the Member for Horsham, as the eldest son of a Peer had been admitted into the House without a property qualification, it was perfectly true that such was the case; but it was possible that such a claim might be founded on error. The House would recollect rather a recent case, in which an hon. Member had qualified as the eldest son of a Peer, and it had at last turned out that he was not so. Unless on some special emergency, the safest course for the House to pursue would be to wait for the writ of summons, before issuing a writ for a new election, when the vacancy was caused by the death of a Peer.

said the House was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair for having given his opinion, with which it was impossible not to coincide, recollecting that the House of Peers did not assume it as a matter of course that the person claiming to be the eldest son of a Peer, was to be the person to sit among them. On the contrary, in that House, where it was much more probable that notoriety might be taken as a guide, a very long and careful examination into the question of birth was made. The baptismal certificate, and he believed, also, one of the death and burial of the preceding Peer, was required before admitting the claimant to take the seat in the House of Lords, by a Writ of Summons from the Lord Chancellor's Office. The House of Commons ought to require some better evidence of the accession of one of its Members to the Peerage by the death of his father, than common report. He recollected a circumstance which occurred, that might show the necessity of the precaution. A noble Lord died, and the individual supposed to be his eldest son, did actually take the title; but he never was permitted to take his seat in the House of Lords by succession, and never did take his seat under his father's title.

Motion agreed to.

wished to ask a question of the right hon. Baronet at the head of Her Majesty's Government. He wished to know whether it was true that the Court of Directors of the East India Company had recalled Lord Ellenborough, the Governor-General of India?

In answer to the question put to me by the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to state that on Wednesday last Her Majesty's Government received a communication from the Court of Directors, stating that they had exercised the power which the law gives them, to recal at their will and pleasure, the Governor-General of India.

under these circumstances, supposed he need scarcely say that it was not his intention to bring forward on Tuesday week the Motion of which he had given notice, respecting the late events in Gwalior. He, of course, should reserve to himself the right of bringing forward that subject hereafter; but as the administration of Lord Ellenborough was about to terminate, he could not consider that the public interests would be exposed to the slightest risk from the postponement of this discussion, while it would be more satisfactory to his own feelings, and it would clearly be fairer towards the noble Lord, that no charge should be made against him until he should appear again in this country and be able to defend himself in the other House of Parliament.

Sir, I am sorry to obtrude upon the notice of the House a matter somewhat personal to myself, but I have received a letter couched in such terms that I feel called upon to submit it to the consideration of the House. The House will, I am sure, bear in mind, that on the last discussion on the question of Privilege, the hon. Member for Canterbury thought fit, in the performance of his duty as a Member of this House, to make some observations of a nature personal to myself, and I gave such answer to them at the moment as I thought sufficient. The attacks made upon me were somewhat elaborate; but the House will bear me out, I hope, in saying, that upon that occasion I did not lose my temper. There I fancied the matter would rest, because my speech was not studied—I answered an attack of well-rounded periods in an off-hand way, and well knowing that "he who plays at bowls must expect rubbers,"I thought no more upon the matter.

rose to order. If the hon. and learned Member intended to complain of an excitement to commit a breach of the peace, he ought not to use language which must have that effect.

The hon. and learned Member for Bath is perfectly in order.

Well, Sir, there I thought the matter would have ended, and remained under that impression, until I received the letter I hold in my hand. Now, Sir, before I read the letter which I have received from the hon. Member for Canterbury, let me say at once, that I did not intend to give the hon. Member any offence, and if I did, here, where the offence was given, he shall receive the most ample apology. Sir, on that night I said, and I now repeat it, that, whenever I might be called on to put such an affair in the hands of a prudent friend, I should be prepared to carry it out to the utmost. But, Sir, I don't think that what was said by me on that occasion, after the sort of mode in which the hon. Member thought fit to allude to me, ought to make me feel that I have done anything unbecoming my character as a Member of this House, or anything which ought to excite a moment's regret. Now to the facts; but before I read the letter of the hon. Gentleman, I will recall to the attention of the House— but perhaps I am wrong, and I ought to read the letter without any preface. The expressions used by the hon. Member for Canterbury towards me conveyed imputations of a grave character. I was accused of attempting to deceive by mock professions of spurious patriotism—of endeavouring to cover servility by severity—of aspersing all men, in order that I might the better fawn on one—and it was clearly indicated that that one was an individual powerful in this country. I will not follow the imputation further, though the hon. Gentleman talked of the antithesis presented in my own person, in being at once the rebel's agent and a Queen's counsel—the champion of M. Papineau and the defender of a Secretary of State Sir, I answered the hon. Member with one of those retorts which are usual in this House. I believe I intimated that the accusation must proceed from a more formidable quarter before I could think it necessary to answer it;

This is the letter which I received from the hon. Member for Canterbury:—

"Traveller's Club, April25.

"Sir,—I cannot determine from the newspaper reports of your speech, nor from what I understood of it myself last night, whether it was to me personally that you meant to apply dishonourable motives.

"If it is, I beg to refer you to a letter to my Constituents, dated the 19th of July, 1843, which contains this passage—that as I had never asked a favour of Sir R. Peel's Government, so I could not be actuated by any motive of disappointment, should I be induced by my convictions to vote against it.

"I repeat this assertion.

"I must now call upon you to state that you did not apply your remarks to me; or if you did so, either to retract them, or to refer this matter to some friend to whom my friend, Captain Darrell, can address himself.

"I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,

"G. SMYTHE."

Sir, this letter was put into ray hands by Captain Darrell. My answer was (addressed to Captain Darrell), "He shall get no answer in writing—he shall get an answer to it in the House of Commons."

That is not the answer I received.

That is the answer I sent—and I said to Captain Darrell—"As far as you are concerned, be not alarmed, but tell Mr. Smythe that he shall hear from me only in the House of Commons."

That was not the answer communicated to me.

And Sir, I am here in the House of Commons to answer anything the hon. Member may have to put to me.

The complaint just made by the hon. and learned Member for Bath is, that he has received a letter, purporting to be written by another hon. Member of the House, and containing a challenge; the proper course will be to have the letter put in and read by the Clerk at the Table.

I make no complaint, Sir, I state a fact to the House. I make no complaint—it is for the House to take what steps may be thought proper on the occasion

moved that the letter just brought under the notice of the House be read by the Clerk at the Table.

After what has fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Bath, it is impossible for the House to allow this matter to drop. And in order to found any further proceedings, the letter must be put in and read by the Clerk at the Table.

Letter handed in and read.

The hon. and learned Member for Bath, true to his practices, has at any rate taken one hon. Member by surprise, because the answer of the hon. and learned Member as given to me by the Gentleman I sent to him, was not that which the hon. and learned Member has this moment given to the House. The answer I received was, that the hon. and learned Member for Bath would send me an answer—the words of the hon. and learned Member for Bath made use of by him when my letter was put into his hand were these: "He shall hear of this. "The Gentleman then said, "I must require some more definite answer than that." The hon. and learned Member then said, "I will send an answer; "and from that hour to this I have been expecting that answer. The hon. and learned Member promised to send an answer to my letter, as I understood from the friend I sent to wait upon him. Sir, I pledge my word of honour that I mentioned the subject to no other person. I opened my lips to no other human being than that Gentleman; but about two o'clock to-day I met by mere accident my noble Friend the Member for Newark, and he told me of my letter, and of the intention of the hon. and learned Member to bring it under the notice of the House. The case then stands thus: I took one Gentleman, and one only, into my confidence, while the hon. and learned Member for Bath takes 500 into his, and he having done so I am well content that that confidence shall be full, unreserved, and explicit. I must say, that when the hon. and learned Member for Bath just now spoke about a retort, a fair parliamentary retort, I agreed with him, that his remarks would have partaken of that nature had they been indulged in for the first time; but it must be in the recollection of the House that the hon. and learned Member for Bath, in an Irish debate, which occurred last Session, made a speech full of the most caustic remarks, and with more than his usual asperity, then making insinuations, to which I was unable to reply, because I had already spoken in the debate, and the hon. and learned Member left town immediately afterwards, for the circuit. On that occasion, Sir, I consulted a friend, and upon consideration of the case, he said, "You can take no notice of this, but you must contradict the insinuations. "And, Sir, I did so, in the most convenient and public manner. I did so, because I must be permitted to state that it is a great and grave reflection upon a young public man to have it said or supposed that he is acting from venal, low, and sordid motives. As, Sir, the hon. and learned Member for Bath has brought the matter before the House in a spirit different from that which I expected, that is to say, as he has brought the matter under the notice of the House in a speech characterised by mildness, and not, as I expected, in one full of his usual asperities—as he has not done so, it only remains for me to most humbly and respectfully apologise to the House, if I have done anything which involves a breach of its orders and privileges.

In conformity with the course usually followed on these occasions, it will be necessary to call upon both hon. Gentlemen to give an assurance before the House—which they can have no difficulty in giving—that this matter shall be carried no further.

I most decidedly object to that course, because it supposes that I was going to pursue another course.

The course I pointed out is that usually taken in such cases on former occasions. The intimation just given by the hon. and learned Member for Bath clearly exempts him from any suspicion of ulterior proceedings.

I am only discharging a duty which the House imposes upon me in calling upon the hon. Member for Canterbury to declare that he will not institute any hostile proceedings in consequence of this matter.

The thing is perfectly absurd. If the hon. and learned Member for Bath chooses to bring the matter under the notice of the House, and then says I am not one to bring matters to an extremity, thereby insinuating that I am that person, throwing the whole odium of the false position upon me, I say it is absurd, because, see the position in which it places me. If I refused to give the assurance required of me it will probably bring me acquainted with the Serjeant at Arms, who is the most difficult man in the world to deal with; but if the hon. and learned Member, because he has been engaged in some half-dozen affairs of this kind—[Order.]

The hon. Gentleman, upon reflection, must see that the language he is using is not respectful to the House. The hon. Gentleman has been called upon by me, in the name of the House, to give an assurance that he will not originate or carry out any hostile proceedings in consequence of this matter; and I must again call upon him for an answer.

Then, in one word, Sir, as it is impossible to determine whether the hon. and learned Member for Bath is only here as a simple Member of the House, or in what capacity, in the most full, unreserved, and explicit manner I apologise for any breach of the formulas or forms of the House, and pledge myself that the case shall go no further.

Subject at an end.

Is William Busfeild Ferrand, Esq., in his place?

I am, Sir.

The Clerk at the Table read an extract from the report of a speech, delivered by Mr. Ferrand at a public meeting at Leeds: for which see ante p. 235.

said, Sir, I owe, in the first place, an apology to this House for having been the unintentional means of taking up so much of its valuable time. Had the hon. and learned Member for Bath not taken me unawares the other evening, I should, on reflection, have given to him the answer which the hon. Member for Finsbury said he would have given. But, Sir, having in the hurry of the moment been induced to reply to the question of the hon. and learned Member, I am sorry that I should have been the cause of thus taking up the time of the House. I owe another apology, Sir, to the working classes in the factory districts of this Kingdom, that I should have been the means this evening of depriving them of one moment of that sacred time which they were expecting would be employed in debating a question to them of vital importance—for it is to them a question of life or death. I hope the House will do me the justice to believe that, if any remarks of mine, either of a public or a pri- vate nature, should have wounded the feelings of any individual, I shall ever be prepared to give that explanation to that individual which one man of honour has a right to expect from another. It appears to me, Sir, that there have been unfounded conclusions arrived at as to what I said in reference to the subject which the hon. and learned Member has brought before the House. On Monday evening, as far as my recollection goes, I said to this House that I believed that every word of mine, as reported in the Times newspaper, which related to the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department and to the hon. and learned Member for Beverley was strictly true, but that I would not vouch for them until I had referred to that paper; and if they were correct I would come down the following day, and fearlessly and boldly, before this House, either avow or disavow them. I redeemed my pledge to this House: I came down with the full intention of doing so, and so I did. Sir, the House labours under an incorrect impression, when it supposes that I was driven from the House by the rude and unmanly interruption offered to me by the hon. Members opposite, or that I fled from the charge. The charge that was made against me was that I used language at Leeds affecting those two hon. Gentlemen, and I admitted that I had done so. I admit so now, for every word reported in that paper is what I uttered at the Leeds meeting. When I left this House I adopted a precedent which has been pursued by hon. Members placed under such peculiar circumstances. I retired from the House, considering that it would have been improper in me, and impertinent towards the House, if I remained one moment longer in it. Having redeemed my pledge, I left, lest I might be an impediment to the free discussion of the subject. I have been ordered by the House of Commons to appear in my seat to day, and I have respectfully obeyed the order, as I will respectfully obey every summons or order this House may give me if it is justified in giving it. I am given to understand, that if I am prepared in my place this evening to plead guilty to the charge which the hon. and learned Gentleman has made against me, I shall receive a free pardon at its hands, but that if I will not plead guilty, the House will then proceed to pass sentence upon me without even examining the evidence—that it will proceed to pass sentence upon me without producing any evidence as to the construction to be put upon the words I have used. I hope I may be allowed to say one word as to the conduct hitherto pursued by this self-constituted court of honour. Mr. Speaker, no man ever sat in that Chair who conducted himself with more strict impartiality, more gentlemanly demeanour, or more graceful bearing than yourself. But, Sir, in this new office as judge of this self-constituted court of honour you yourself have found the greatest difficulty in acting as an impartial judge. Sir, the other evening when that common informer applied to me— [Order, order] I retract the words, but I will never retract the sentiment. Sir, when that public accuser [Interruption]— it is a Parliamentary phrase, and it is ungenerous thus to attempt to interrupt me—Sir, when that public accuser applied to me the epithet of falsehood the other evening, I declared that the language was ungentlemanly. You called me to order. Sir, when one of the witnesses in this prosecution read his evidence against me, he supported it by engrafting on that evidence a leading article in the Times newspaper. Sir, the leading men of both political parties in this House attacked me in violent language. Nay, one of them in language unjustifiable, charged me with a crime, Sir, of which he himself was guilty. Is he a fit judge to sit here? I admit that a more noble or generous-hearted man never trod the soil of Britain; but under the excitement of the moment, he uttered expressions which I am convinced he will much regret. Sir, the yells for revenge which issued from the jury were also within your hearing, and let the House recollect, that the Prime Minister of England, when I had scarcely quitted these walls, declared that my absence had deprived it of considerable amusement. As a Member of this House, Sir, I solemnly protest against these proceedings. In the name of the people of England, I deny your right to try me on this charge—in the name of the people of England I pronounce this self-constituted court of honour to be an illegal and unconstitutional court; and, in the name of the people of England, I refuse to plead at its Bar.

Sir, I by no means rise to address the House in answer to the speech of the hon. Gentleman, who has just sat down; but as my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Beverley, has in distinct terms denied the accuracy of the charge preferred by the hon. Member for Knaresborough, and I have not sis yet made to the House any statement or assurance with reference to the facts contained in those charges which are now under the consideration of the House, it is on that ground only I rise before I retire, to address you, as I think it right, that before the House enters further into this question it should hear my statement with reference to the facts. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, has demurred to the authority of this tribunal. It is not for me to ask for the opinion of the House with respect to the conduct of my accuser; but I am the accused, and as such am entitled to ask for an acquittal, or for an investigation. Before I can be in a condition to require the decision of the House, it is right that I should give a detail of facts; first, as to the charge which relates exclusively to myself, and secondly, as to the charge in which I am united with the hon. Member for Beverley. The first charge, in which I am exclusively concerned, is contained in a few words; that I was a person who took steps to procure a report which was false, merely for the purpose of crushing a Member; and it adds, that I dismissed the poor tool who had been the degraded and ignominious instrument in fabricating the injurious report. That is the substance of the charge; and I have with the utmost diligence endeavoured to ascertain whether any communication, direct or indirect, passed between me and the Assistant Poor Law Commissioner, whose name may be here mentioned, Mr. Mott, as to the report used by me in the debate, and I have been unable to find any trace of any such communications. I have endeavoured also to find a trace of any communication on this subject between me and the Poor Law Commissioners, the central authority under which the Assistant Commissioners act, but I have been able to find none; by my directions the Poor Law Commissioners have searched their records to discover any instructions from them to Mr. Mott, in reference to the Keighley union, and to the report of the 23rd of April; and I am authorised to say, that they can find no record of such instructions; further, I have been most anxious to ascertain whether any verbal directions were given by me to the Poor Law Commissioners. My own recollection does not lead me to think that any were given; and the recollection of the Poor Law Commissioners is explicit, that they received no such directions. Therefore I am in a condition to state, in my place, on as solemn an assurance as can be given, that no directions emanated from me as to the report of the 23rd of April, relating to the Keighley union, which I used in debate, I think on the 9th of June. I repeat, therefore, that it is an erroneous assertion, gravely made, deliberately adhered to, and not now retracted, that I used my official power to procure a report that is false, and that I dismissed the poor tool, the degraded and ignominious instrument in fabricating the injurious report. If any hon. Member should think arguments at all necessary, after such a denial as that now given, I may suggest that the circumstance of the dismissal of a tool, employed for the purpose of fabricating a report, affords, on the face of it, conclusive evidence against the truth of the charge. I should be sorry to say anything injurious to the character of a Gentleman no longer employed by the Poor Law Commissioners, but I see the hon. Member for Bolton (Dr. Bowring) in his place, and he, I think, is acquainted with a transaction which may in some measure account for the removal of Mr. Mott. So much for the charge exclusively bearing on myself. I ought, perhaps, to add, that it was not in my power to dismiss Mr. Mott: he was under the Poor Law Commissioners, and I distinctly assert, that it was not in reference to this report that Mr. Mott's dismissal took place. There was a reduction of the Assistant Commissioners from ten to nine, and the Poor Law Commissioners decided that Mr. Mott should retire. The second charge against me has reference to the decision of the Nottingham Election Committee, as applying to the seat of Mr. Walter. The charge is, that it was felt necessary by Sir James Graham to get Mr. Walter out of the House of Commons, and that the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Hogg) aided Sir James Graham and the Government in unseating Mr. Walter. First, the House must allow me to deny that I felt any necessity of the kind. I must say, that it was a matter of perfect indifference to me whether Mr. Walter had a seat in this House or not; but the allegation is, that I directly or indirectly interfered in reference to the decision of the Nottingham Election Committee. That I had no communication with the hon. Member for Beverley, who was Chairman of the Committee, I can give the most solemn assurance. I hold the privileges of this House as high as it is possible for any Member to hold them, and I consider the freedom of debate and discussion invaluable. I know not what course the House is likely to pursue on this occasion; but as to the matter of privilege, before I withdraw, I may be permitted to say that I regard it as a balanced question. Certainly, the character of Members of the House, when assailed here, has been regarded at all times as the character of the House itself, to be protected by the authority of the House; at the same time, in so treating the character of Members, especially where an attack upon a Minister of the Crown is concerned, and where that most valuable right, the privilege of speech, is involved, it is a matter of extreme difficulty. If it were only a matter of opinion and inference from facts, it would not be proper to check the expression of that opinion; but here we have substantive charges: it is not an inquiry into a matter of opinion, but into an allegation of fact that I procured a false report for a particular purpose, and that it was fabricated by my direction. That accusation is susceptible of proof, it is a charge, which no man should make without proof. There is a report of a Committee already before the House, which finds that the report of Mr. Mott, instead of being unfounded, is in the main correct; but if any doubt yet remains, that doubt can be removed by further inquiry. I have already stated, that for the purpose of clearing my own recollection, I have referred to the Poor Law Commissioners, but reference can be made to another individual, to Mr. Mott himself, who having been removed, must be considered, at least, an unprejudiced witness. He is capable of putting an end to all doubt. I did not think it was competent to me to refer to Mr. Mott, and I told the Commissioners that, in my opinion, it would be a breach of their duty to resort to him. Therefore, Mr. Mott is at this moment a witness beyond all exception, who may be called, and whose evidence can at once elucidate the question. The hon. Member for Knaresborough has talked of the rights of Englishmen, and the right of free discussion, as I have said, is invaluable, but I hope the right of an Englishman will not be refused to me. I am the accused party, and I ask for trial, or for acquittal, and this right I am quite satisfied the House will concede to me. I think, in my present position, it would be unbecoming in me to add more, and I have only to say, that I am obliged to the House for the patience with which it has indulged me.

My knowledge of the honourable and generous nature of the hon. Member for Knaresborough induces me to think that we are not, at this moment, without a prospect of bringing this matter to a satisfactory conclusion. From what fell from that hon. Gentleman he seemed to imagine that this House could not deliberately consider what is the true construction of the expressions he is supposed to have used. I apprehend that, in this respect, he is mistaken. Had an opportunity presented itself at an earlier period of this discussion, I should have said what I say now—that I do not believe and I will not believe till I hear the hon. Gentleman state it in his place in this House, that the hon. Member for Knaresborough, in the expressions he used, intended to convey the offensive meaning which has been put upon them. I cannot blame the hon. and learned Member for Bath to the extent which some hon. Members have blamed him, but at the same time I do sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Knaresborough for the surprise to which he had been subjected by the hon. and learned Member for Bath, and I can well understand that an honourable mind, when so taken suddenly and by surprise, would be unwilling to retract, and be tempted, in the heat of the moment, to adhere to expressions which upon reflection and after due deliberation might be willingly withdrawn. I think such must have been the feeling which operated upon the mind of the hon. Member for Knaresborough at the moment. Will the House pardon me while I recall to its attention the expressions which really were used? I confess that when I heard the passages read by the Clerk at the Table (and I was not the only Member among many around me who felt the same) I was struck with this—that the passage as read at the Table was not so strong as it had been repeated from memory by the hon. and learned Member for Beverley in the course of the former debate, and as represented by others in the progress of the discussion. There are two charges supposed to have been made by the hon. Member for Knaresborough—the first regards the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department alone, and it is supposed that the right hon. Baronet is charged with having procured a false report to be made; and the second is supposed to be a charge which involves both the right hon. Baronet and the hon. and learned Gentleman, for it charges the right hon. Baronet with using his influence with the hon. and learned Member for Beverley, and that the hon. and learned Member for Beverley bowed to that influence, and that by these combined means an improper decision of a Committee was obtained. Now, if we look to the passage itself we shall find that no such meaning can be applied to it—the words themselves do not necessarily lead to the conclusion at which many have arrived. I appeal to the hon. Member for Knaresborough himself, for until I hear from him that such is the fact, I cannot believe that he means to charge the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary with procuring a false report in the sense of suborning a man to put his name to a paper which he knew to be false. The words used by the hon. Member as reported in the newspaper which has been read are, "obtained a report which was false. "I do not say there are not other circumstances which may induce hon. Members to suppose that the charge went to the full extent stated; but I ask the hon. Member for Knaresborough whether I am not now putting to the House the true intent and meaning of the words he used? As to the expression "for the purpose of crushing a Member, "it scarcely deserves notice. No doubt, in the debate the other night, the hon. Member for Canterbury thought he could crush the hon. and learned Member for Bath, and the hon. and learned Member for Bath, no doubt, thought he could crush the hon. Member for Canterbury, and I think the term, "for the purpose of crushing a Member, "is totally unworthy the consideration or interference of the House. With respect to the other passage of the speech which has been read, I would remind the House that it does not state that the right hon. Baronet had influenced the hon. and learned Member for Beverley, or that the hon. and learned Member for Beverley had yielded to that influence. I believe I am not mistaking or misrepresenting the hon. Member for Knaresborough, when I say that the meaning which has been put upon his words by the hon. Member for Montrose is not the meaning he intended to convey. Indeed, the hon. Member for Knaresborough himself interposed, and said he meant no such thing as was attributed to him. All that is in the speech is this, that "Sir J. Graham was anxious that the decision of the Committee should unseat Mr. Walter. "Now, I rise for the purpose of ascertaining from my hon. Friend the Member for Knaresborough, whether or not I put a right construction upon his words? There is no doubt this is a most serious matter: on the one hand it is charged that a Minister of the Crown has made use of his office to procure a false report, and I repeat that I wholly acquit the hon. and learned Member for Bath for bringing the subject under the attention of the House, because I think it forms a just ground for Parliamentary inquiry, to ascertain whether such a charge had been made. In the next place, the charge is against an officer of the House for corruption in his office. Two more serious matters for inquiry could not be listened to; but, on the other hand, there is the danger of fettering perfect freedom of discussion, which I regard as a subject for serious consideration. I, however, again repeat that until I hear it from the hon. Member for Knaresborough himself, I cannot believe he intended to convey the imputation which has been ascribed to the words used. If he did, then the House, I think, is bound to acquit the right hon. Baronet and the hon. and learned Member for Beverley of the grave charges brought against them; of course, as to any further or ulterior proceedings, I do not at present presume to give any opinion.

. No answer having been given to the appeal just made by my hon. and learned Friend—an appeal which opened to the hon. Member for Knaresborough an opportunity if he thought fit (and I was anxious not to interfere till I saw whether the hon. Member would embrace it), I infer it is not the hon. Member's intention to make any other explanation beyond that he has already addressed to the House. [Mr. Ferrand: Not in this House.] Then it becomes my duty to state my impressions, and to offer to the House my respectful advice as to the course which, as it appears to me, it is fitting to pursue in this matter. I trust the House will understand that this office of an adviser is not one voluntarily sought for by me, and that in offering my advice I am only acting in conformity with that established usage which, as it is necessary, in order that the House may come to a decision, it should have some distinct proposition before it, usually devolves—

interrupting the right hon. Baronet, according to the established usages of the House, it is necessary that the hon. Member for Knaresborough should withdraw.

[Mr. Ferrand withdrew, and was followed by Sir J. Graham and Mr. Hogg.]

proceeded. I was stating, Sir, when you felt yourself called on to interrupt me, that I had assumed this office of adviser, not voluntarily, but in conformity with that usage which has generally devolved on the First Minister of the Crown in this House, the duty of submitting to the House some distinct proposition in respect to its opinion upon this subject. I trust that I have taken no course in regard to this matter which incapacitates me from offering that opinion. My opinion, before the subject was noticed in this House, was, that it would be better not to notice what appeared in a newspaper report as the observations of the hon. Gentleman. When the subject was first brought forward, I counselled the House not to come to any immediate conclusion, but to take time to consider the matter, and not to pronounce any opinion with regard to it until after the interval of twenty-four hours. After the lapse of that time I still recommended to the House not to consider the admissions made by the hon. Gentleman in the course of a speech which was not brought to a conclusion—not to consider those admissions as final and conclusive against him, but to give him an opportunity, after mature consideration, of stating to the House whether he adopted the expressions, and adhered to the charges, and whether he were prepared to substantiate them. Sir, the complaint was brought under the notice of the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley. They complained that charges had been preferred against them of improper conduct, in the discharge in the one case of official duty, and in the other of judicial duties imposed upon him by this House. Sir, whatever course we take in this matter, I trust we shall not try to escape from the difficulty by any equivocation as to the nature of these charges. I trust we shall apply to them the principles of common sense, and ask ourselves this question, "What is the imputation which the expressions were meant or intended to convey?" It is imputed to my right hon. Friend, in express terms, "that he, being the Secretary of State, and standing in an official relation to the Poor Law Commissioners who are in communication with him, took steps to procure a Report which was false, merely for the purpose of crushing a Member of the House of Commons." Now, can I put that construction upon these words which has been put on them by my hon. and learned Friend who last addressed the House, that the hon. Member for Knaresborough meant merely an advantage taken in debate? Can those expressions mean anything but this, that the Secretary of State took steps to procure a false Report affecting the character of a Member of the House of Commons? Why, if there were any doubt whatever as to the plain meaning of those expressions, look at the expressions which follow in a subsequent part of the speech. It is there said that the Secretary of State dismissed the poor tool who had been his degraded and ignominious instrument in fabricating this injurious Report. Sir, the charge is not—that my right hon. Friend quoted a Report that turned out to be erroneous, but the charge is that he made use of his official authority for the purpose of procuring the fabrication of a false Report, and that the man who made that Report was his degraded and ignominious instrument. How degraded and ignominious, if there were merely an unintentional error in the Report? Well, then, what is the charge with respect to the hon. Member for Beverley? It is said that my right hon. Friend having an interest in procuring the exclusion of Mr. Walter from the House of Commons, "This Tory Chairman aided Sir James Graham and the Government, in unseating Mr. Walter." Surely the meaning of that is, that the hon. Member for Beverley was acting thus from corrupt motives; because if he were not, how happened it that, when Mr. Hogg tried to explain away his conduct on that occasion, "the whole of the Government side of the House, listened with feelings of disgust" while he higgled and haggled through his explanation with regard to the decision of the Committee? "Feelings of disgust!" Why, if it had been an erroneous construction of the law, why "disgust" at the explanation? Can "disgust," applied to an explanation by a judicial officer, mean anything but disgust at improper motives and corrupt conduct? That is the construction applying the principles of common sense, which I affix to the charges contained in those ex- pressions. But, if I am wrong—if these are not the charges—if there be no imputations of corrupt motives, what can be easier than for the hon. Gentleman the Member for Knaresborough to get up in his place and state "although the expressions are correct, yet the construction which you place upon them is erroneous; I declare that I entirely acquit Mr. Hogg of corrupt conduct in his judicial capacity; I think his judgment was erroneous, and that the effect of that judgment was to unseat Mr. Walter; but I never meant to impute to him any deviation from the strict line of integrity?" Is there any such explanation offered by the hon. Gentleman? He says, "I adhere to the expressions—I protest against the tribunal. I will not disclaim the intention of imputing the corrupt motive. The expressions are correct, and I will at least maintain them by a silence as to the construction put upon them. "Sir, I do not feel that I am at liberty to explain them away, when that construction has been given to them by the conduct of the hon. Member. The charge against my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is a definite one; it is not like charges which have been preferred against the House of Commons generally, of being influenced by corrupt motives or of being guilty of perjury. The charge against the Secretary of State is a definite one, that he used the influence of his office for the purpose of procuring a false report. The hon. Gentleman in the course of his speech of to-night (and it is only one part of that speech to which, in his absence, I will refer) said, that the House of Commons was at once inclined to visit him with condemnation without evidence. Sir, I look on the hon. Gentleman himself as the accuser in this case. I thought he had preferred a charge; and what I advised was, that the House of Commons should, if the hon. Gentleman were prepared to substantiate it, immediately appoint a tribunal by which those charges might be inquired into. I proposed to take no course whatever with respect to the hon. Gentleman, other than to give him an opportunity of establishing the charges which I understand he has made. Sir, the House has heard the statement which has been made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Knaresborough, and I presume that it must be the wish of the House to come to some conclusion upon the subject, as they have had it sufficiently before them to enable them to dispose of it. I am therefore called upon, after hearing the speech of the hon. Gentleman, to consider the position in which the matter is now placed; and I shall, without hesitation, undertake the duty which I think properly to belong to me. I consider, then, that the expressions contained or implied a charge of corrupt conduct against two hon. Members of this House; that a complaint of those charges has been formally made; that we have acted upon it, having desired the hon. Gentleman to attend in his place in this House; the hon. Member has attended, and we are now called upon to dispose of the matter. I think that the charges imply corrupt conduct on the part of two Members of the House, and that they are entitled to call upon the House for a decision tonight. If the hon. Gentleman had said, "I am prepared to substantiate the charges," I would have humbly recommended that there should have been a postponement of this question—that a Committee should be appointed—that the facts should be laid before them—and that we should have acted on the report of that Committee; but the hon. Gentleman, I understand, proposes to pursue no such course; and I think, in justice to the two hon. Members, we are called on to pronounce our opinion upon the charges now. Sir, I think the House will infer from what I said on the first occasion when I addressed it, that I am most unwilling to establish or extend any precedent which would interfere with the free expression of opinion in this House; that I think it is the right of the Members of this House to question any public act of any Member of this House; above all, that it is the right of Members of this House freely to question the official acts of any Minister of the Crown. But where the imputation implies corruption, and where the accuser declines to substantiate it, then that Member who is so accused, be he Minister of the Crown or be he not, has a right to ask the House for an expression of its opinion. Sir, the Resolution which I shall propose, after hearing the speech of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, recites those parts of the paragraph which contain the imputation, in my opinion, of corrupt motives— I shall propose as the first Resolution, that we should resolve—

"That, in the expressions in the same speech, it is imputed to the Right Hon. Sir James Graham, a Member of this House, that he took steps to procure a report, which was false, merely for the purpose of crushing a Member of the House of Commons; and, also, that he subsequently dismissed the poor tool who had been his degraded and ignominious instrument in fabricating the injurious report; that, in another passage, with reference to the petition against the return of John Walter, Esq., to this House for the town of Nottingham, in the year 1842, it is stated that it was felt necessary by Sir James Graham to get him out of the House of Commons, and that James Weir Hogg, Esq., a Member of this House, who had been Chairman of the Committee, appointed and sworn to try and determine the matter of the petition complaining of the said return, had aided Sir James Graham and the Government in unseating Mr. Walter."

These, Sir, are the passages which contain the gravamen of the charges. I shall, then, in justice to those hon. Gentlemen, move a Resolution to this effect:—

"That the said Sir James Graham and James Weir Hogg, Esq., having in their places denied the imputations cast upon them, and William Busfeild Ferrand, Esq., having avowed that he had used the same expressions, and having declined to substantiate the truth of them, this House is of opinion that the imputations conveyed in the same expressions are wholly unfounded and calumnious, and that they do not affect in the slightest degree the honour and character of the Members to whom they refer."

Sir, I think these Resolutions will do justice and no more than justice to the two hon. Gentlemen who have been so assailed. I believe them to be precisely in conformity with the fact, and I think, as this matter has been noticed, it is the duty of the House to record an opinion upon it. Then, Sir, it may perhaps be asked, "do I propose to recommend the House to take any further proceedings?" Sir, I have looked back at the course which has been taken in matters of this kind, and have devoted as much time as I possibly could, consistently with the performances of other duties, to the examination of precedents. I find that in some cases the House has proceeded to vote that such charges implied a breach of privilege. I am unwilling to follow that precedent. One of the charges is against a Minister of the Crown, and I think it is sufficient to state that the charge is unfounded and calumnious. I am unwilling to proceed further, and to state that the making of that charge and not proceeding to substantiate it is a breach of privilege. I can attach no very definite notions to the offences that constitute a breach of privilege; but in a case where a Minister of the Grown is concerned, I should be most unwilling to extend any precedent which would make the freely questioning of the conduct of that Minister a breach of privilege. I recollect a case where I myself was charged by the late Mr. Cobbett with conduct which ought to call upon the House to dismiss me, not from the councils of his Majesty—for I was not then a Minister of the Crown—but of conduct of such a disgraceful nature that I ought to be dismissed from the Privy Council. The House heard the charge, which certainly did not make much impression; on the contrary, the House went so far as to order that the whole of the Resolutions moved by Mr. Cobbett should be expunged from its Journals; and that Resolution, I believe, was carried by a majority of 200 to 4. And I was content with having the charge disposed of by such a Resolution. That was the whole of the proceeding which was then adopted; it was a sufficient vindication, and I was perfectly contented that the character of the charge should be determined by that Resolution. Then I find another case in which the late Mr. Tierney—and there are hon. Members of this House who are old enough to recollect it —made charges against the late Mr. Abbott, then the Speaker of this House. The House proceeded at once to consider those charges, and the Resolution to which they came upon the Motion of Mr. Canning, stated that they highly approved of the conduct of the Speaker, and gave him credit for an able and impartial discharge of his duties. The House and the Speaker rested satisfied with that Resolution, and pursued the matter no further. I believe it to be infinitely better in a matter of this kind not to be bound by a rigid adherence to precedent, or the strict adoption of expressions which may have been used on former occasions when those expressions are not necessary. I think that full justice has been done in this case by moving that the charges are utterly unfounded and calumnious. That, no doubt, implies a censure upon him by whom they were preferred, while it is a complete and an honourable acquittal of the parties against whom the charges are preferred; and not wishing to involve this House in unneces- sary conflicts with individuals, I feel that the justice of the case will be completely answered by the passing of these Resolutions. They are the Resolutions which I submit to the House after hearing the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Knaresborough. Of course if any hon. Gentleman be dissatisfied, and think that another course should be pursued, it will be perfectly competent for that hon. Member to submit his view to the House, and take the sense of the House upon it; but it is of great importance if you can in this case obtain the unanimous, or, at least, the general approval of the House. This is the most satisfactory course for the vindication of those who are concerned; and I trust, after the declaration made by individual Members—I shall secure the almost unanimous adoption of my Resolutions.

thought that a question should be asked before the Resolutions were put. He did not understand that the hon. Member for Knaresborough had declined to substantiate his charges. All that he had said was that he had no further explanation to offer to the House generally, and in a portion of his speech he had expressed his willingness to offer explanation to the individuals, whilst in another part he complained that they were going to censure him without inquiry. He thought, before the House came to this Resolution it would be better to send for the hon. Member for Knaresborough, and ask if he were prepared to substantiate the charge.

thought it must be sufficiently obvious to the hon. Gentleman, if he would have undertaken to substantiate the charges, that the House would have appointed a Committee to investigate them. He thought from the concluding words of the hon. Member, that he had no explanation to offer, except out of the House which could not be misunderstood. The hon. Member demurred to the tribunal.

The Speaker having read the Resolutions from the Chair,

said, it appeared to him that the right hon. Baronet had not correctly stated the case as it appeared before the House. He had omitted one important statement. The hon. Member for Knaresborough, in his place in that House, had distinctly denied that he had made any charge, or imputed any charge; that the hon. Member for Beverley had been tampered with, or that the right hon. Gentleman had tampered with him. That had been altogether omitted by the right hon. Baronet. He had no hesitation in saying that no one disapproved more highly than he did of the conduct of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Knaresborough. He should have thought, whether he objected to the tribunal or not, when the hon. Member for Beverley understood there was a charge hanging over him, there would have been nothing to prevent the hon. Member for Knaresborough from stepping forward and removing the misunderstanding. He should have advised the hon. Member to have apologised for having been, even for a moment, the innocent cause of such an unpleasant feeling. Still he was not prepared to go so far as the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth proposed. When the question was first brought under the consideration of the House, that right hon. Baronet told them to consider carefully what they were about to do, and to look to precedents. He had since considered the subject and referred to the precedents. Certainly he found some very different from those which the right hon. Baronet had just quoted, and he did not consider it would consult the honour and dignity of the House that this business should be further proceeded with. He was sorry to be obliged to allude to matters personally connected with the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government and the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Office, but anything that affected this question must be of a personal nature. Expressions had been made use of, and a course pursued, certainly as objectionable, if not more objectionable than that of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, by Gentlemen holding high offices. He did not say—

"That in the Captain's but a choleric word,

Which in the soldier is rank blasphemy,"

He should, therefore, move a Resolution—

"That inasmuch as the Secretary of State for the Colonies did on a former occasion, in his place in Parliament, accuse his former Colleagues as Cabinet Ministers, [Laughter]—

He hoped he should not be interrupted; he should go through with his duty, and interruption would only give him the trouble of reading his Resolution a second time.

of introducing measures for the consideration of Parliament which involved the low and infamous tricks of thimble riggers, and had offered no explanation or apology; and. inasmuch as the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury did in the course of debate on a former occasion accuse the hon. Member for Stockport of exciting to the horrible crime of assassination; for which he had made no satisfactory explanation or apology; therefore it was not expedient, fitting or proper in this House to proceed further to notice the language of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Knaresborough, which was supposed to reflect upon the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the bon. Member for Beverley, particularly as those words were not used in this House."

No hon. Member seconded the amendment.

Motion agreed to, Resolution adopted.

was not aware the Speaker was putting the original Motion, he thought it had been the Amendment. He would ask, therefore, whether there was now any opportunity of demurring to any part of the Resolution.

The Resolution has already been acceded to by the House.

[On this question it will make our records complete, if we copy from the Votes of the House of Commons the entire entry on this subject.

Order read for the Consideration of the Complaint of Passages of a Speech delivered at a public meeting which took place in the Music Hall at Leeds, in favour of the Ten Hours Factory Bill, by William Busfeild Ferrand, esquire, a Member of this House, as reported in The Times newspaper of Wednesday, April 10, 1844:—

Order for attendance of Mr. Ferrand read:—

Mr. Ferrand attended accordingly—

Passages complained of read—

Whereupon Mr. Ferrand was heard, and stated that be did not in any manner retract any of the expressions contained in the said passages of this Speech, that he denied the jurisdiction of the House in this matter, and therefore refused to plead at its Bar.

And Sir James Graham having explicitly denied the charge of his having procured Mr. Mott, the Assistant Poor Law Commissioner, to make any false Report; and also of having used any means whatsoever to influence the decision of Mr. Hogg, the Chairman of the Nottingham Election Committee, in order to deprive Mr. Walter of his Seat—

And Mr. Hogg having on Wednesday last Stated, that the charge against him as Chairman of the Nottingham Election Committee was wholly without foundation—

And Mr. Ferrand having again declined to give any explanation in the House—

Mr. Ferrand, Sir James Graham, and Mr. Hogg withdrew.

Resolved, That in the expressions in the said speech it is imputed to the right hon. Sir J. Graham, a Member of this House, that he "took steps to procure a Report which was false, merely for the purpose of crushing a Member of the House of Commons;" and also, that he had subsequently "dismissed the poor tool who had been his degraded and ignominious instrument in fabricating the injurious Report:"—That in another passage, with reference to the Petition against the Return of John Walter, esquire, to this House for the town of Nottingham, in the year 1842, it is stated, that "it was felt necessary by Sir James Graham to get him out of the House of Commons; and that James Weir Hogg, esquire, a Member of this House, who had been Chairman of the Committee appointed and sworn to try and determine the matter of the Petition, complaining of the said Return, "had aided Sir James Graham and the Government in unseating Mr. Walter;"—That the said Sir James Graham and James Weir Hogg, esquire, having, in their places, denied the imputations cast upon them, and William Busfeild Ferrand, esquire, having avowed that he had used the said expressions, and having declined to substantiate the truth of them, this House is of opinion that the imputations conveyed in the said expressions are wholly unfounded and calumnious; and that they do not affect, in the slightest degree the honour and character of the Members to whom they were applied.]

rose to move as an amendment to discharge the Order of the Day, for the purpose of referring the Bill to a Committee up stairs, which should take evidence, and he did so for the purpose of having the public mind satisfied upon a subject on which, he believed, there existed very grave and considerable doubt—he meant in reference to the effect which limiting the hours of labour to ten, would have upon the pecuniary resources—that was, on the wages of the operatives. He now asked this question, what would be the effect? He was there to prove as far as he was able, and he hoped he should be able to show to the satisfaction of the House, that very grave and considerable doubt did exist, not only in the House—perhaps it did not exist so much in the House—but in the minds of the working classes of the country, that limiting work to ten hours, instead of having the effect of reducing their wages, would have the effect of raising wages to a considerable degree. If there be such an impression on the minds of any considerable portion of the working classes, and if such an impression be unfounded, as it was said to be in that House, he thought the working classes ought to have the power of submitting their evidence upon that point. Because the House will recollect that almost all the argument resorted to against the ten hours proposition by hon. Gentlemen was their belief that it would be injurious and detrimental to the working classes to limit the hours of labour for females and young people to less than twelve hours, because it would have so injurious an effect upon the interests of those persons; and that their families would not have power of procuring those comforts which they had at present, in consequence of the diminution of their wages. It is said in answer to this that the working classes are prepared for the worst consequences, and should there be a reduction of wages they would submit to it. There was, however, an important question beyond this. If they asked the working classes whether they expected the reduction in the hours of labour would have that effect, they said they did not expect it would have any such consequences; they said they were prepared to chance it; they said that they were aware the masters would make the attempt to reduce wages, but they did not believe they would succeed. What were the opinions expressed by various Members of that House, and in the petitions presented on the part of the masters in reference to this subject? He would call the attention of the House to the petition which had been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, signed by sixty-two firms at Manchester, employing 30,000 hands. That petition was presented to the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department. These 62 firms said that the reduction of wages in consequence of the reduction in the hours of labour to ten, would be from 15 to 25 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman himself stated that the reduction would be 18 per cent. The learned Gentleman the Member for Liskeard thought the reduction would be about nine per cent. whilst a gentleman who had recently published a pamphlet, Colonel Torrens, believed the reduction would be 25 per cent., and said that the Bill of the noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire ought to be called "A Bill for the reduction of the wages of the operative classes throughout England." There was another petition, presented to the House by the hon. Member for Stock-port, which stated the game reasons for opposing the Ten Hours Bill. The petitions in favour of the Ten Hours did not touch upon the question of wages; that was not brought by them under the consideration of the House. He said that this was a most important element in coming to a decision upon this subject. It was a question very fairly for their consideration, because he believed that there was considerable doubt in the minds of Members there as well as elsewhere. If he thought that, by reducing the number of hours of work by one-sixth, they would be reducing the wages of the working-man twenty-four per cent. he would not support it. They had got rid of their personal squabbles, and there was no longer any interest taken in the business of the House; but he wished to come to a satisfactory and an amicable conclusion on this difficult question. Whilst it was said in the House that the effect of the limitation would be to reduce wages, and the working classes maintained that it would raise them, it was time for the House to inquire into the subject. He had heard, when he was at Manchester, the other day, when he saw delegates from Ashton, Sheffield, and elsewhere, and the subject was discussed, that they believed the effect of the limitation would be to increase wages: they believed this in consequence of what they saw passing around, and one of the parties from Sheffield had favoured him with a statement of the effect of working a reduced number of hours at Sheffield, and the impression of the working classes there. There was no town in which it was more distinctly understood and believed that a reduction of the hours of labour would cause wages to rise. He would call the attention of the right hon. Baronet to this: he was sorry to see that he was not taking so much interest in this subject as he did in the last subject before the House. [Sir James Graham: "I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am."] They maintained that the result of a limitation would be a raising of wages instead of a reduction, because this had been found to be the state of things at Sheffield. There sixteen trades had, at this moment, reduced the hours of work of their own accord, and this was the result.

"The Sheffield spring-knife grinders, four months ago, were working 66 hours per week, and had 300 men employed, with 150 boys. They now work 42 hours per week, and 400 are employed, with 230 boys, and work only 42 hours weekly, with wages advanced at least 20 per cent., and have taken 50 paupers off the parish, who now have their share of employment. During the long-hours system, from August to January, the trade was very brisk; to use their own expressions, they worked 'all the hours God sent,' but during the seven months work was just as they could get it—nothing to do on Monday and Tuesday, and during the remainder of the week all hurry and bustle. Now they work seven hours regular, and in the morning and evening can go and cultivate their gardens after their toil. Fork-forgers and grinders, under the long-hours system worked 66 hours, now work 36 hours. Recently a rise in wages has taken place of 25 per cent.; formerly 200 men were employed, now 300. Razor-grinders formerly worked 66 hours, now they work 45, with an increase of wages 10 per cent.; 300 formerly, now 400 employed. Table-blade grinders formerly worked 66 hours, now only 36: increase in wages 25 per cent.; increase of number employed, 20 per cent. Brace-bit grinders worked 66 hours, now 36: increase in wages, 100 per cent. Table-blade forgers worked 12, 14, and 16 hours a-day, now uniformly work 8, with increased wages of 30 per cent.; additional number employed, one in 7. Table-knife cutlers worked on an average 15 hours, now 10: result, increased wages, 15 per cent.; number employed additional, one in seven. My time has not permitted me to ascertain the results in all the other branches of the trade, but I feel convinced that the alteration will have proved equally beneficial to the workmen: Britannia-metal smiths worked 11 hours, now 9 daily; saw-makers worked 60, now 48 weekly; file-grinders worked 60, now 36 weekly; scissor-grinders worked 11, now 9 daily; razor-forgers worked eleven, now 9 daily. In the grinding-trade every man has to pay 3s. 3d. for 12 hours power, whether they work them all or not; they have to find their own tools, and neither their employers nor proprietors of the place will furnish fans or flues for the preservation of life."

The men in the factory districts naturally believed that what took place at Sheffield would take place elsewhere. The delegates saw no reason why it should not take place at Manchester as well as Sheffield, nor did he. At Sheffield they might work for twelve hours if they liked; but by combination they agreed only to work seven or eight hours, and they said the effect of this combination had not been to depress wages. He said that this required some explanation. The state of trade at Sheffield was not brisker now than last year, when, to use their own expression, they "worked all the hours that God sent." Yet, when they were now working fewer hours, they said their employment was more general, and they had better wages. These also were the opinions expressed in the evidence given in 1832 before Mr. Sadler's Committee. That Committee did not make a Report, and he wanted the Committee now to be appointed to make a Report. If the working men were deluded, let their minds be disabused. If the ten hours would reduce the wages one-fourth, he would not wish to make such a reduction. There had been nothing since the Committee of 1832 on this important point. In that evidence Mr. A. Whitehead, a clothier, gave this evidence:—

"Are the wages any better in those districts where the excessive labour is undergone than where it is moderate?—Wages are lower where they are worked the greater length of time. Only last week I was travelling from Leeds to Holmfirth, and as we were going past Mr. Whitaker's mill, a gentleman in the coach said, 'Mr. Whitaker has not built up his mill yet.' I said, 'No.' He said, 'What is his reason for not carrying on his business?' I said, I believe he does as much business now as ever he has done, but he gets his work done at the mills at Holmfirth.' 'That looks strange,' said the gentleman, 'that he should send his work to Holmfirth, when he might have it done in his own mill. How is that?' 'In his own mill he only works about twelve or thirteen hours a day, but I know that at the very mill where he has his work done, they work not less, when they have plenty of work, than seventeen and half hours per day.'"

And again, further on, he says: —

"Suppose the hours of labour be reduced, do you think wages would remain the same? —Perhaps they would not remain the same. I do believe, and I know it is the general impression of the inhabitants of Holmfirth, that wages would rather rise than fall if the hours of labour were limited."

Mr. David Brook, a cloth dresser of Leeds, gave this evidence:—

"Is it your impression, then, that while the public would not suffer, the master would be a gainer, rather than otherwise, by moderating the hours of labour?—I gave it as my opinion that it would be an advantage, not only to the men, but the masters also, that the hours of labour should be regulated. If the hours of labour were regulated, it would in some measure destroy undue competition for labour, and the wages would be more likely to rise than fall.

"As you have had a great deal of commu- nication with a great body of intelligent operatives of that large town and neighbourhood, as well as of other places, state to the Committee the general impression on their mind as to this important point?—As far as I have had communication with them, which has been extensive of late, the desire of the operatives is, that the hours of labour shall be regulated, and less time be worked; but it is not anticipated generally that any reduction will take place.

"Supposing it should take place, are they prepared for the alternative?—They are, and will submit to it; and, generally speaking, they will submit to it cheerfully, rather than work the long hours they do. Let me not be misunderstood; they will submit to it, not, however, without attempting to keep them up.

"But if the alternative was presented to them, they would prefer lower wages to this excessive labour with higher wages?—I do not know that I have questioned them particularly, but, as an individual, I would."

Mr. Matthew Crabtree, a blanket manufacturer, said;—

"What is the impression in the country from which you come with respect to the effect of this Bill upon wages?—They do not anticipate that it will affect wages at all.

"They think it will not lower wages?— They do.

"Do you mean that it will not lower wages by the hour, or that you will receive the same wages per day?—They anticipate that it may perhaps lower their wages at a certain time of the year when they are working hard, but not at other times, so that they will have their wages more regular."

Mr. John Hannam, a cotton spinner, gave this evidence:—

"In your experience, have you found that the larger wages have been paid where the longest labour has been required, or the reverse?—It is generally the reverse; they reckon to pay for their time, but their wages are generally lower at places where they work those long hours.

"Do you find that the wages are better in those places where the hours are excessively long, or where they are more moderate and short?—The wages are worse where they are in the habit of working so many hours.

"Has that been your observation and experience through life?—Yes."

Samuel Smith, Esq., a surgeon, of Leeds, said: —

"In considering the limitation of hours to be enacted by Parliament, ought not the Committee to consider the diminution of wages, and consequently the diminution of the comforts arising from them, as well as the injury done to health by the greater length of the hours?—Certainly, I think that consideration should be taken into view; but, although I understand very little of such subjects, still I have a strong impression that Mr. Sadler's Bill will have a tendency to increase wages rather than to diminish them.

"Can you state whether that is the general impression among the working classes in Yorkshire?—It is; they have that impression in some degree."

And lastly, Mr. Richard Oastler gave evidence, which he (Mr. Duncombe) believed he would still maintain, which he still impressed on the working classes, and which he declared he was ready to maintain now before any Committee:—

"Have you formed any opinion with respect to the effect this Bill would have upon wages? —I have a decided opinion upon that point; and my own opinion is, that it will not lower wages; I think it will raise wages.

"Not even in the first instance?—In the very first instance there will be a little battle between the two parties; the master will expect them to work at lower wages, and the men will stand out a little.

"Of course this Bill must in some degree diminish the profits of the masters, must it not?—I do not know that at all. I believe that they are competing with one another, at present, to such a degree, that if they did less work they would get more profit."

That Committee made no report. There was another Committee, which sat in 1840, of which the noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire, was chairman: that Committee also blinked this question, and also made no report on the effect of the limitation of the hours of work upon wages. It went into the physical condition of the operatives, but it neglected the other most important point. If the right hon. Baronet would consent to the appointment of this Committee, he proposed that it should confine the inquiry entirely to the question of wages, and to the effect of a limitation of ten hours upon the wages of the operatives. Who was right upon this question? The operatives said that it would increase wages, and hon. Members and persons who wrote said there would be a reduction of 25 per cent. They might depend upon it, unless they procured further information, there would be no satisfactory settlement of this question. He knew it was said that the Committee might hang up the Bill till the end of the Session, and that there would be no Bill. He believed it would be better, for the credit of the House and for the operative and labouring classes of this country, if there were no Bill in the present Session, rather than that they should pass a twelve hours Bill. He had received letters from the working classes requesting him not to bring on this Motion for a Committee, because it would hang up the Bill, and their expression was, that the noble Lord would be able to carry his ten hours Clause. Every man of sense knew that the noble Lord had not a shade or a shadow of chance of carrying his ten hours Clause on the third reading. The Government would then tell him that they had discussed all the Clauses of the Bill in Committee, where it had been fairly sifted as it could be: for the hon. Member for Bath and the hon. Member for Sheffield had given notice of amendments. The noble Lord had fancied that the House would go into Committee, report the Bill, and pass the third reading, and that nothing would be said; and then he would come down before the Bill passes with Clauses, which would so conflict against other Clauses already agreed to, that Her Majesty's Ministers would, of course, resist the Clauses Successfully. The other day the noble Lord thought that he (Mr. Duncombe) had not treated him with candour or justice. He neither intended any disrespect to the noble Lord, nor to treat him with any injustice—quite the contrary. The noble Lord told him that the Working classes understood their own interest ten times as well and had ten times as much candour as he (Mr. Duncombe). So convinced was be that they did better understand their own interests, that he wished to give them the Franchise, and permit them to have representatives who would protect those interests. He would advise the House to send the Bill to a Select Committee, merely for the purpose of having this point explained. He believed it would not take long—not so long as the time which would intervene between the present period and that when the noble Lord would have an opportunity of moving his amendment. Let it be an impartial Committee, and the fewer in number the better—a Committee in which all parties would have confidence. He thought not only the Government, but the House, ought to abide by the report of such a Committee, whether it decided in favour of ten hours or twelve. He would not reproach any one for what had occurred in that House on a previous occasion; he would leave it to the House to decide as it might think proper. He was sure the working classes would be happy and proud to hear the arguments of the free traders before a Committee, for they believed they could refute those arguments. If they did refute them, he was sure an impartial Committee would so report; and if they did not, and it was thought the reduction of the hours of labour would have the effect of diminishing wages some 25 per cent., he should be guided by the decision of the Committee, and he believed the working men, having confidence in such a tribunal, would submit with better temper than they felt at present to the Bill passing with the twelve hours Clause. Such a Committee could not by possibility do harm, and he could not understand on what ground any one could object to it. The working man was not afraid to go before a Committee; it was impossible that the free traders could object to it, and he felt confident such a course would open the door to a satisfactory settlement of this difficult question: the House would put a stop to this controversy, and they would come to a conclusion satisfactory to the country, to the honour of the House, and beneficial both to capital and labour.

in seconding the Motion, said, that as the hon. Member for Finsbury had alluded to the feeling in the town which he (Mr. Ward) represented, he took the earliest opportunity of stating why he concurred with the hon. Member. He would not press this Motion on the attention of the Government with any view of embarrassing them, but because he believed that an inquiry, limited to this particular point of wages, which had never fairly been gone into, would be productive of great good. There were double reasons for adopting this course; there were reasons which would affect Members of that House, and even out of the House. In the House he felt, after the two decisions to which the House had come, that it would be difficult to retrace their steps, without some new ground being put forward; and out of the House, if the Votes on the former discussions were rescinded without any fresh cause being assigned, it would be attributed to the worst of motives—it would be put down to Government interference-it would be said, that the interests of the working classes had been sacrificed to those of party. He had had an opportunity since the debate took place of seeing what the feeling of the working classes was. He would not allude to anything regarding himself, were it not on account of the fact that he had been severely handled during the debate. He stated very frankly and fairly the reasons which induced him to take the course which he had taken. He told them that the population of Sheffield lived by its foreign trade, and that look at the subject as they would, that cheapness, the result of superior industry or superior skill, was the only foundation of foreign trade. He was answered very much in the terms that his hon. Friend said he had heard expressed by the deputies from Sheffield. The hon. Member here read extracts from a letter which he had received from Sheffield, stating that the various branches of the Sheffield trade were varying in production, inasmuch as some of the artizans worked ten, others eight, and others only six hours per day, as they found it necessary. It was said they were the best judges of their own affairs, and they found the system work well. He had confirmed his hon. Friend's statement, by the document he had read as to the hours of labour in Sheffield, in order to answer his argument. That system had been in operation in Sheffield about six months, and what was the effect on the foreign trade of the town? The morning after he had received the letter to which he had referred, he met an hon. Member of that House, who was largely engaged in the export trade, he meant Mr. Muntz, the hon. Member for Birmingham, who asked him, in his usual frank way, if all his constituents were gone mad? He replied that he did not think they were all mad, but there were some of them for whose sanity he should be very sorry to vouch. He then inquired what they had done, and the hon. Member answered that, for the first time since the bad times came, he had been able to send them a very large order at fair prices, enough to keep half the town at work for some time. They kept it three days, and then sent it back, and said they were very sorry, but the working men could not think of undertaking the work on the terms offered. And what was the consequence? Why, the order went to the Continent the next day, and it would be willingly executed there at the prices offered. He had a letter, also, from another friend, who was largely engaged in the export trade, and who gave him the history of what was now passing among the working men. He said that a foreigner brought a letter of introduction to him last week: he was a large buyer of cutlery, hut he did not make a purchase, in consequence of the advance in our market. He wanted the goods for the Turkish market, and he said he should buy where he could purchase cheaper. This was true now as to many articles, and the heads and hands which could at present make such goods on the Continent, would not require seven years of apprenticeship to compete with us in the manufacture of other articles. Looking at these facts—looking also at the facts which might be adduced by the manufacturers of the cotton and woollen trade, and all other branches of industry, he thought it would do the greatest good if the two contending parties were brought fairly together, and allowed to state the opinions which they conscientiously entertained. He believed the proposition to limit labour was absolutely impracticable, and he was sure that before a Select Committee evidence would be collected which would carry conviction to the public at large, and it was with that view he wished to go to a Committee.

said, that on a question of this description it was not consistent with his duty to consult only the interest of the Government; he should wish to consult also the feelings of every portion of the community; and he was strongly of opinion that it was not the interest of any party to have a Select Committee appointed. If any facts were disputed, no mode of inquiry could be more efficacious than a Committee; but he did not think this was a case in which enquiry was necessary. There were many antagonist views. The two hon. Members who had moved and seconded the Motion would go to a Committee with views as opposite as the poles, for they were each convinced that the result of an inquiry would lead to different conclusions. He might be allowed in passing to remark, that it did so happen that upon this very question, not of fact but of opinion, viz., the effect of the reduction of the time of labour on wages, the House had already inquired. There was a most elaborate inquiry in 1832, and the hon. Member for Finsbury had quoted largely from the Report of that inquiry. To refer this Bill to a Committee, upon the Motion which had been submitted to the House, would give rise to the belief that the Committee was about to decide upon the reduction of wages coincident with the reduction of the hours of labour from twelve to ten hours. But that was not the question. The question now before the House is, that the Bill which had been read a second time, should go into a Committee of the whole House. The object of the hon. Member was limited to a Committee upon the effect of the reduction of the hours of labour on wages. It was open to him to make it a substantive Motion; but it was most inexpedient to enter into this inquiry as immediately connected with the Bill before the House. It might be a very important inquiry, and as a substantive Measure he was not prepared to say that he should not support it; but as bearing on the question now under consideration, whether they should go into Committee on the details of this Bill, he had the strongest objection to such a Motion. If ever there was a Bill which had been well considered by that House, it was the present. A Committee sat in 1840, over which the noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire presided, and that Committee went at length into this Bill, except as to the question of the hours of labour; and the noble Lord with all his anxiety upon that subject, most wisely in 1840 excluded it; and why? because this question of the limitation of the time of labour did not rest upon a question of fact, but it was to be carried, if at all, by general reasoning drawn from facts, and such reasoning was not the duty of a Select Committee, it was the duty of the Legislative Assembly. The argument had been full, and the noble Lord had given a fresh opportunity of discussing the question upon the Motion of which he had given notice—the limitation of time to ten hours would then be raised; and he should be wasting the patience of the House were he at that time to enter into the general argument; but there was an argument which was conclusive, and not very abstruse, by which it could be demonstrated that a reduction of time must entail a certain loss on the labourer which without that reduction of time would not occur. That loss must be compensated either by a reduction of profit or a rise of price; it must fall on capital or on wages. At the right time he should be prepared to urge this view of the subject; but it was a question not to be raised before a Select Committee. Such questions were perhaps as important as any upon which a deliberative assembly could divide, and ought to be argued before the whole House. If justice required it, he would willingly accede to a Committee. The hon. Gentleman fancied himself the mouth-piece of the working classes; but he was not aware that the parties interested—the workmen concerned in cotton, wool, and flax— had petitioned the House for a Committee of inquiry. This Bill, with the single exception of the limitation of the time of labour to ten hours, embodied in it all the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1840; and its provisions, he believed, were generally approved of by the working classes. He thought it would be trifling with the hopes of those persons, because there were different opinions upon one point in the House, that they should fail to satisfy their just expectations on all the other points. He was quite sure that the Motion of the hon. Gentleman would have the effect of delaying the Bill so that it could not pass this Session. A Committee sat in 1840, and the late Government introduced a Bill in 1841; in 1842 no measure on the subject was brought forward, but there was a Bill, which proved abortive in 1843; and this was now the third time, within the last two or three years, that a Bill on this subject resting on high authority, and most of the provisions of which were much approved, had been brought before the House; much disappointment had already been caused, and after the discussion which had taken place on the ten hours' question, which was now postponed for a time, they had arrived at the very point of considering the Bill upon going into Committee, when the hon. Gentleman sought by his Motion to cause further delay, notwithstanding the Motion of which the noble Lord had given notice, and upon which it was right to observe a full discussion would take place. He (Sir James Graham) would not anticipate that discussion, but would entreat the House not to disappoint the expectations which he believed were generally entertained with respect to the provisions of this Bill. The hon. Gentleman had not produced any petitions in favour of his Motion, and he trusted the House would not entertain it.

said, that the motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury was, in effect, to get rid of the Bill. He, however, thought the provisions of the Bill were so important, that even without the ten hours Clause it was of great moment that no further delay than was absolutely necessary should take place. He (Sir G. Strickland) was a member of Mr. Sadler's Committee, and also of the Committee of 1840, and he was sure both Committees fully investigated all the points brought before them. He was extremely doubtful whether, if the hon. Member obtained the Committee he sought for, he would obtain any valuable information in addition to that which had been already elicited. It was a most difficult subject; it was not one that depended on facts, and they would have nothing but opinions if they sat for six months upon it. Those opinions would vary according to the different parties in the country, and the various kinds of employment. From Mr. Oastler they would have violent appeals on one side, and from persons of different opinions appeals as violent the other way. He had listened with great attention to the arguments of the hon. Member for Finsbury and the hon. Member for Sheffield, and he did not think that one of the circumstances to which they had referred had any bearing at all upon the question. With reference to the case of the Sheffield grinders, to which they had alluded, who had already succeeded in reducing their hours of labour to eight, what reference had that to the subject of a poor girl being obliged to work for more than ten or eleven hours? He had received communications on the subject from many parties in the country, and more especially from the town which he represented, and he had presented several petitions to the House, all of which took the same most rational view of the subject—viz., that the increase of the powers of machinery daily rendered it more necessary that some restriction should be put on the hours of labour, and relief given to those who had to work against the accelerated speed of machinery. Adopting, as he did, those views, he hoped the House would not accede to the Motion.

said that no one regretted more than he did that persons should be obliged to work more than ten hours, but they were not in a condition to determine upon the number of hours which any individual should work; they were placed in competition with the whole world; they were not working against machinery, but with machinery to see how far they could give employment to the whole of the manufacturing population. The principle upon which he would act would be to extend the market for the consumption of manufactures of this country, in order to give increased employment to the people, and thereby relieve the destitution which existed. Some hon. Gentlemen, however, seemed to prefer stopping the machinery, regardless of a market which must keep up employment. The question was, whether this interference with labour would not add to the great evil now existing, namely, the want of employment. He could speak from long experience when he said that he never knew doubtful questions connected with the working classes so easily settled as by means of full investigation before a select Committee of that House, where persons of all shades of opinion could be heard. He would illustrate this by a question which excited the greatest attention amongst the whole of the masters and the mass of the working classes in the years 1823 and 1824—he meant the combination laws. The strongest prejudices existed on this subject, and the existence of the combination laws was productive of great mischief, and the workmen almost universally believed that they produced a low rate of wages. It was with the greatest difficulty that he could make the least impression on the minds of the workmen that the rate of wages depended on the extent of employment, and the proportion of labour. He obtained a Committee in 1824 to inquire into the operation of these laws, and he took care that a large proportion of the members of it should entertain opinions adverse to the repeal of the laws; the Committee sat for several months, and the result of the long investigation was, that the Committee unanimously agreed to a series of resolutions, recommending the repeal of these laws. The delegates also who came up from all parts of the country to oppose the alteration of these laws, returned into the country perfectly satisfied with the propriety of repealing them. As he had just observed, the result of the Committee was unanimous Resolutions as to the inexpediency of interfering with labour. A Bill was then passed within one week of the Session to repeal seventy-five Acts of Parliament for the regulation of wages and employment. That Bill met with almost the unanimous approval of the House and the country. He was sure, if they agreed to the present Motion of his hon. Friend, that the investigation before the Committee would satisfy the working classes of the error of supposing that there could be a ten hours Clause without lowering the rate of wages. He had always found the working classes to be most reasonable and and honest in their opinions, and he was satisfied that the examination before a Committee would satisfy them as to the fallacy of the opinion that they entertained. [Sir J. Graham: They have not asked for inquiry.] No, perhaps not. But it was with the view of satisfying the working classes, and removing the prejudices which existed on this subject, that he approved of sending the Bill to a Committee up stairs. All his past experience convinced him that a Committee would get rid of conflicting opinions that were entertained on this subject. If England was the only country in the world which manufactured cotton, then it might regulate labour employed in that branch of manufactures as it pleased; but if they looked to all the neighbouring States and even Lima and China, they would find that this branch of industry was carried on, and this country had constantly to contend with new rivals. He knew, from many communications which he had had with the labouring classes, that the belief was extensively entertained that they could have twelve hours' wages for ten hours' labour; and, also, that there would be more work under this arrangement. Every attempt should be made to remove such delusions. He felt assured that if an inquiry was instituted the working men, who would be delegated to attend that Committee, would go back to their constituents and confess that they had entertained erroneous views on this subject.

observed, that the question now before the House was not whether they should have further interference with the time of labour, but whether the Bill of the Government should be referred to a Committee of the whole House, with a view to its becoming the law of the land. He should feel it to be his duty to give every support to the Bill of the Government, and thus avoid the mischief which would inevitably result from adopting the extravagant proposition of the noble Lord. He advisedly used that expression, as it involved the monstrous proposition that the same amount of wages should be given for a much less amount of labour. He hoped that the House would not encourage such nonsense—for it was nothing more nor less than nonsense—by going into inquiry before a Committee up stairs on a matter which was as obvious as the sunshine in midday. He also objected to the proposal on the grounds which had been so ably put forward by the right hon. Baronet. He should avail himself of a future opportunity of dwelling on the amendment of the noble Lord.

was surprised at the exaggerated statements that had been put forward by some hon. Members opposite, and by several manufacturers out of doors. Could any reasonable person suppose that the foreign trade of this country would be destroyed because 150,000 persons employed in the manufactures had their labour limited by about two hours a-day. He felt that twelve hours' work for young persons and females was too much, although he was unwilling to interfere with the market of labour. He could not conceive that the adoption of the proposition of the noble Lord would have any material effect on the 400,000 persons who were dependent on the manufactures of cotton, wool, and flax, and who would be affected by the Clause. He believed that the sense of the country had been so fully ascertained and expressed on this subject, that the manufacturers themselves would in the course of next year assent to the adoption of the principle laid down by the noble Lord. He should vote for the House at once going into Committee on this Bill, and against the proposition of the hon. Member for Finsbury.

said, if there was any doubt as to the importance of proceeding with caution on matters of this kind, and assuming that they were sufficiently informed respecting the interests likely to be affected, it would be the speech of the hon. Member for Essex, who says that he and the House have made up their minds on this subject, and are satisfied that they have sufficient information on which to proceed; for he gives them an idea of the extent of his knowledge of the interests in question by the manner in which he speaks of the foreign trade. He says the error on this side was greatly to overrate it, that they did not know how unimportant it was; that they talked of it as if it was a large proportion of the people that were interested in it; whereas the fact was, taking the woollen, silk, linen, and cotton trade altogether, it did not amount to 400,000 people altogether that were interested in it; and the hon. Member, on this assumption, is ready to make a great experiment, thinking that it could not signify very much if it did not succeed. Let him give the hon. Member a bit of information that he ventured to say was correct, and which he will have the opportunity of verifying when he gets home, or if he should meet a friend who knows anything of the matter, which was, that in the cotton business alone there are not less than 1,500,000 who are interested in its existence and present extent, who depend upon it, and who would suffer to-morrow if his school had their way in injuring it. The hon. Member laughs. He was glad to think that he had not misrepresented him, and that he was struck with the correction that he had given him. He would tell the hon. Member one thing more—that instead of 400,000 people, which he stated as the outside of those who are interested in the foreign trade of this country—that he would almost venture to prove to him it was not less than 4,000,000. The hon. Member was probably not less informed than many others; but do let the country consider what little reason there is for confidence in those Gentlemen opposite, in the mode in which they deal with commercial questions, when they proceed upon premises so grossly erroneous as those of the hon. Member. It is the habit of Gentlemen opposite to speak with contempt of manufactures in this country, and to think lightly of foreign trade. How fortunate they are that their various schemes for injuring them have not yet had complete success. The hon. Member is a county Member. Is he the least aware how deeply indebted he is to those manufactures and to trade for the absence of thousands and thousands, whom he would consider most unwelcome visitors, if they were to return to prove the liability of the property which he represents to contribute something to their support. The ignorance of such things was really lamentable; it Was not peculiar on this question; it gives the character to the legislation of this House, and certainly afforded little reason for refusing inquiry on the most important matter in dispute. The question was whether such matter shall be referred to a Committee to satisfy the doubts that exist upon it, and the reasons opposed to it were certainly far from conclusive with him. It Was said that it might delay the Bill, perhaps lose it. And suppose the truth was learnt at the expense for this Session, of the Bill, where, he would ask, would be the great harm of that? For his part, he could not learn who cared for the Bill. The hon. Member who has just sat down, says that there are several Clauses exceedingly vexatious to the masters, unnecessarily so; he regrets them, for he says he has not the bad opinion of masters that others have. The masters, then, certainly never called for the Bill—never wanted it the least, and it is denounced on their behalf by one of its supporters. Well, but do the working men want it as it is? No; the Member for Finsbury, who knows them Well, who is in communication with them, has stated to-night that the only thing they cared for was the ten hours Clause, which is not in it, and which, as he said truly, there is not the most distant chance of being carried if it proceeds. Well, the masters don't want it, the men don't want it without the ten hours Clause; there is no chance of getting that this Session; there is some doubt, it seems, whether the men will ever think it worth having. The House ought to have no wish but that of doing good to the people in question, and yet, for fear of postponing this precious Bill, they were not to pause for a short time to see if the whole thing does not proceed upon error and delusion. Now he should support this Motion, not from any doubts on his own mind, but out of deference to the feelings, the interests, and opinions of that portion of the working people who believe themselves interested in this matter. If there were any honesty or real humanity in this House their only object in this legislation was to improve and raise the condition of the working people. A question had been raised and argued, and even by the friends of the Clause itself, as to whether it would have that effect or not— whether it would not, by reducing their wages, really put them in a worse condition than they were at present? Surely that was a reason to pause, at least unless there is any other reason for the Measure. The reason which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State gave was certainly curious. He said there had been a Committee so recently as 1840, and there was no further reason for inquiry. But what did he say besides? Why, that the noble Lord had judiciously excluded the only matter now in question; that no evidence was taken as to the effect of the ten hours limitation, and no opinion formed upon it. Why that was the very point, and the only point that the Member for Finsbury wanted to raise, it was what had not been satisfied, but what he wanted to inquire into now; then the right hon. Gentleman says, that Committees were very good to inquire about facts, but not about opinions. Why, he knew that was the stock argument of any Government against any Committee whenever they wanted to resist one. He had no great respect for Committees of that House, but he thought that they were as competent to collect and estimate opinion as they were to report upon facts, and they did both, whenever it suited the House to appoint them. But he contended that there was an important fact at issue, which it would be useful to clear up, which was, whether the working men, whose wishes this House desired to consult, were prepared for the reduction in wages which would inevitably follow from working less time. Those who knew them best said that they were aware of this result, and were prepared for it; while the Member for Finsbury, who was a staunch advocate for the ten hours Clause, said, he should shrink from its support, and that many of the working people would do so likewise, if their wages were to be reduced; and in the reports of speeches on this subject he had seen interruptions made by working men who said, that their wages were low enough, and that they would not submit to their being lower. He believed that to be the case. God knows, they were low enough, and the numbers who could get no work at all were really lamentable. He must pause then before, by any Act of his, especially legislating in the dark as they were, he could be a party to reducing them any lower; and when he recommended more investigation into this matter, let the House remember, that though the purpose was partial for which this Bill was intended, yet that it was avowed by the supporters of this Clause, that it was the beginning of one general system of intervention; that they were in a new social state; and that they must adapt their laws to the new circumstances: and there is no doubt, that unless the system was followed, it would be idle and mischievous to adapt it to one business alone. He said, then, let every pains be taken to make sure that this course of legislation is wise and useful for its avowed purpose, for the step may be difficult to retrace. Now, in this particular case, he could not help concluding there was delusion—a delusion that might be removed if a little time and trouble were given for that purpose. He saw men seeking the same object with the most opposite views, and by means which were antagonistic and conflicting. There were masters and men both seeking this Ten Hours Clause. What was the object of the masters? Why the same as that of the men—to diminish the competition among themselves. Some of them had the best machinery in their mills, and they had capital sufficient to stand their ground, and especially if the Measure had the effect they expected, that it would knock up many of the smaller masters, and which, doubtless, it would do. They would have the benefit, as they expect, of some capital being withdrawn from the business. Well, but how did the men expect that it would profit them, or rather raise wages? Precisely by the opposite method; by bringing more capital into the business; that is, they expected that one-sixth more mills would be immediately erected, and that this would create a greater demand for labour. Now these two things could not both happen, capital be brought in and withdrawn; yet some masters and some men were recommending this measure with these opposite views. Both wished to diminish competition, but, unfortunately, the competition which each complained of was advantageous to the other. In one case more labour was demanded, in the other more labour was given for less wages. Again, the men fancied that the price could be raised and consumption not be affected; he believed that was a delusion, and if consumption fell off, capital must be withdrawn. They further had an idea that by rendering it inconvenient to employ women and children, that it would probably raise the value of male adult labour, and that their wages would rise in consequence. Now this was again a fallacy; for if women and children were thrown out, the adult male labour employed in their stead would not be paid for more than their labour was worth, and there would be plenty of unskilled male adult labour immediately to compete with them, and they would, in the redundant state of the people now, have them come from all parts of the country for the purpose of getting what they could earn in the factories, and lower the condition, probably, of some of the skilled labourers who would lose the employment of their wives and children. Surely there was no excuse for interfering at all in these matters, but to raise the condition of the working classes; their state, generally, was far too low; it was pressing itself daily more and more upon their notice. Was it right, then, by them, was it wise, to be acting without the fullest information as to the prospect offered of accomplishing this object, and whether the expectations of the working people would be realised. From what he had ever seen or heard of the working classes, he declared he thought them rather more open than other classes to conviction, and there was no reason whatever to believe that they would persevere in error, if they saw it in that light, and particularly when it might prejudice themselves and their families. He should like some working men to come before a Committee and state how it was that they thought their wages would be raised without affecting the market or diminishing consumption; and he should like them to read calmly the evidence which those of their own class, or others, might give to show the impossibility of it. Pains enough are not taken to reason with the working men. Some persons assume they are always wrong, and others are always ready to trade with their errors as if they were right. He should gladly reconsider the matter in any fresh inquiry, for he declared that if, by any departure from principle, he thought it possible to make the working classes generally better off, and more prosperous and contented, he would do so; but he could not hitherto come to any conclusion but that it was dire necessity that compelled them to work as they did now, and that an Act of Parliament, merely declaring that they should not work so long or so hard, would not really mend their condition. What the people suffered from was competition with one another; the only relief from that was to diminish the number of competitors; that could only be done legitimately by widening the field for their employment, so as to cause a greater demand for it, and to increase customers for its results. This could be done by the House if they would remove the impediments to the trade in the produce of that labour. This would raise the value of their labour in the market at home, and would give them freer access to all the articles of general necessity abroad, which would be exchanged for this labour. Let that be done, and the people would then dictate the terms on which they would labour.

explained. He had, it was true, stated that, in the Committee referred to by the hon. Gentleman, the subject matter in question had been quite omitted from consideration; but he had also stated that, in the Committee moved for by Mr. Sadler, in 1832, that subject matter had been fully sifted, and a great number of working men examined.

begged to assure the hon. Secretary that the working classes were by no means indifferent to this Bill; on the contrary, the vast majority of them were extremely anxious for the larger portion of its provisions. There were, no doubt, one or two of its details to which they objected, but they regarded the main features of it, the great body of it, as effecting a vital improvement in their favour, and they were deeply grateful to Government for introducing it. This measure was mainly grounded, with the exception, indeed, of one or two points, on the report of the Committee of which he had the honour to be a member. On that Committee there were three or four master manufacturers of eminence. Yet there had not been a dissentient voice as to the main provisions recommended by the Committee, and were adopted in this Bill. He was perfectly sure that the delay occasioned by sending the Bill to a Select Committee, would be the source of the very greatest disappointment to the operative classes. The hon. Member for Fins-bury himself had received from the opertives of Yorkshire a communication, imploring him to do nothing which should interpose delay in the passing of this measure. If this measure were referred to a Select Committee, there would be assuredly very small chance of its coming before the House again until the Session was so well nigh over that it could be too late to legislate upon the subject. He would implore the hon. Member not to press his motion.

said, that if any Bill for shortening the hours of labour could give the operatives the advantages promised them by the advocates of the ten hours' principle, without, at the same time necessarily subjecting them to losses and sufferings, which would far more than counterbalance the advantages, it would be a very different matter; but the question was whether a ten hours Bill would not involve a reduction of wages in a degree corresponding with the reduced labour, and whether this would not be a far more serious injury to the working classes than the saving of two hours work would be an advantage. This was a question from which there had been exhibited a great disposition on this occasion to shrink, though it was in reality the main point. He would undertake to say, that any Measure which, while it reduced the hours of labour, had the necessary effect, as any such Measure would, under existing circumstances, of reducing the rate of wages in proportion, would be received by the working classes as anything but an acceptable Measure. How were people paid in the cotton manufacturing districts? Generally by the piece. How then could it be supposed that the fewer hours they worked the more they would earn. He had met with but two arguments by which it was sought to he made out that the same wages might he given for diminished hours of work. The one was, that the manufacturers could increase the speed of the machinery to such a degree that the same work might he done in ten as heretofore in twelve hours, and consequently the same wages be earned. Now he had taken pains to make inquiries upon this subject, of the best informed masters and millowners, and the answer he had received from each was, that their machinery, driven by steam, was now worked at the utmost rate at which it was profitable or paying to work it; that the tendency, indeed, of late years, had been to diminish, rather than increase speed, for that speed beyond a certain point, which was already attained, occasioned more loss from waste, than it could possibly produce any advantage in other respects. He was, therefore, he believed, quite safe in asserting that this argument of the ten hours advocates, was altogether fallacious. The second proposition was, on the other hand, that by reducing the hours of labour from twelve to ten, there would be diminished production; that this diminished production would sell for the same price as the present larger production, and that then, tempted by this rise in price, one-sixth more mills would be built, so as to produce the same quantity as now produced, for which much more labour would be required. Now, there was a great fallacy in this argument; its supporters went on the assumption that there would be always an equal if not an increasing quantity of cotton goods sold by this country, whatever our price, whereas the fact was simply, that our present sale of cotton goods arose from and was owing to their cheapness. If we increased our prices, we should infallibly lose our customers, and the hand-looms, the distaff, and the spindle, in foreign countries, which had been superseded by our low-priced goods, would once more be set to work, Let it be put honestly before the working classes, that if the hours of labour were reduced, they must at the same time submit to a reduction of their wages in corresponding proportions, let this but be placed honestly before them, and see whether they would want a ten hours Bill; not they. They had already had experience of the operation of short time in the cotton districts; they had had eight hours time and did the men like it? Not at all; for they got only four days wages for their four days work. So completely did the earnings of the operatives in a mill depend on the time they worked, that he had been told of a gentleman who employed 1,600 hands, and whose machinery was driven by two steam engines, that if one of these engines stopped but for an hour in a week for repairs, the men employed about it received a perceptible diminution of their wages in consequence; and it was a source of general complaint if one of the steam engines worked slower than the other. Let no man think that the working classes would thank him and bless him for a Measure, which, reducing their hours of labour, diminished also their wages; far from it; such a man would speedily become the subject of general obloquy amongst the working classes. A good deal had been said in that House upon this matter, with reference to the conduct of the free traders, they had been charged as a body, as the especial advocates of long hours. Nay, the hon. Member for Finsbury had not hesitated to place the working classes on the one side, and the free traders on the other, as in hostility. Now he could tell the hon. Member for Finsbury, who called himself the representative of the working classes, in the first place, that the working classes were no more the advocates of monopoly than the free traders were; and secondly, that the free traders were taking the only rational and practical means; and it would come to that by and by, of diminishing the labour of the working classes, their hard and unreasonable hours of labour. He did not say, as had been said by others, that a reduction in the price of bread would alone afford compensation to the labouring classes for a reduction in the hours of labour; he did not see in the mere reduction of the price of wheat, or sugar, or coffee, the great means of enabling the operatives to get on with fewer hours of labour; but he said this—that if we enlarged the various markets for our productions, if we allowed a full and free exchange of our commodities for the corn, and sugar, and coffee of other countries, this would be the practical means of raising the value of our products, and, consequently, of raising the value of the labour which produced them; so that then, indeed, ten hours labour might be as good, or better than twelve hours now for the pockets of the labourer, and produce as much profit to the employer. Such were the opinion of the most intelligent manufacturers in Lancashire, one of whom, employing several hundreds of men, had only that morning said to him, that if the House of Commons would take off the restrictions on trade he would willingly give his hands the same wages they had now, for ten hours labour. Mr. Deacon Hume, admitted on all sides to be a great and impartial authority, distinctly stated that the only practical way of shortening the hours of labour would be to remove the restrictions on industry. Let hon. Gentlemen who really wished the labourers to work only ten hours, and to get the same wages as for twelve, support the hon. Member for Wolverhampton when he next brought forward his Motion for a repeal of the Corn Laws, and their object would speedily be effected. He should vote for the Select Committee, thinking it calculated to clear up, beyond a doubt, many disputed points which at present were made use of to interpose serious difficulties in the way of a proper adjustment of the whole matter.

The House divided on the question that the Order be discharged-Ayes 42; Noes 145: Majority 103.

House in Committee.

On Clause 3 being proposed,

said, that the Clause gave a power to the sub-inspectors, which would not be at all liked by the manufacturer. He was extremely anxious that the inspectors of factories should be reduced to one class and placed upon an equal footing, and that hereafter no sub-inspectors should be appointed at all. He did not quarrel with the amount of remuneration which it was intended to pay these inspectors; but he must confess he did not see the necessity for these inspectors at all. His object was to make the Bill as little objectionable as possible to the parties for whom it was intended.

said, that the Clause placed a restriction upon the powers of the inspectors. Up to the present period these inspectors had the power of making rules and regulations. That power was taken from them and transferred to others. These sub-inspectors, it should be recollected, were appointed by the hon. Gentleman who preceded him in office. No complaint had been made against these sub-inspectors, and the inference which he was justified in drawing was, that they had executed their duty in a satisfactory manner. If they appointed only chief officers, it would greatly add to the expense, without any advantage resulting.

said, that it was not an agreeable thing to have more persons than were absolutely necessary in possession of the power of going through manufactories whenever they pleased, and he thought it would be well if the Clause were altered, for it was one which was calculated to place unnecessary trammels upon trade. He was of opinion that the right hon. Baronet would consult the public benefit and the convenience of the manufacturers by agreeing to the alteration which had been suggested.

agreed that the Government ought to show reasonable grounds for asking the House to give that power which was proposed by the Clause, and did not suggest any unnecessary restriction. He believed that the power to visit the factories which would be given by the Clause was one that would not be constantly and generally acted upon, but only in cases when the inspector or sub- inspector thought that the law was evaded, and from what he knew of the manufacturers he did not think, under those circumstances, the visits would be frequent.

wished to know if the granting of this power could not be avoided without inconvenience.

said that the manufacturing districts were divided into four divisions, over each of which was an inspector, and a suitable number of sub-inspectors. Through those inspectors there was a direct control over the districts. He entertained in 1841, an opinion very much to the same effect as that of the hon. Member opposite, but since he had an opportunity of becoming better acquainted with the subject by greater experience, he had changed that opinion.

said, that it was melancholy to witness this new attempt to put additional shackles upon commerce. They proposed to undertake that which they never would be able to carry out, and they were about to commence an interference that was quite unnecessary and uncalled for. He (Mr. Hume) looked upon the whole Bill as a nullity and a disgrace to the country.

Clause agreed to.

On Clause 5,

objected to the appointment of a central office for receiving the reports of the inspectors. He did not see any necessity for creating an office of that kind, and it should be recollected that the creation of an office of that description was only the commencement of a future office of extended operation and increased expense. If there were any statistical returns of a nature calculated to be useful, they might be arranged under the direction of the Board of Trade, but it was not necessary to establish a separate office, which might perhaps be here-after placed under the direction of a retired inspector.

agreed in the opinion that statistical statements or returns made by the inspectors should be superintended by the Board of Trade, but however successful that arrangement might be, it would be necessary, if it were carried into effect, to place the regulation of the inspectors also under the Board of Trade. The regulation of the inspectors, and the arrangement of the returns ought to be under one department, and if the control over the inspectors was to be retained by the Home Office, the duty of receiving their documents ought also to be under the Home Office. The appointment of two or three clerks to arrange and take care of all the information on the subject of Factories which was afforded by the inspectors, would be a great public benefit. During the last year, the hon. Member for Salford called for a return which he was unable to give, in consequence of no such office as this, which was now proposed, having existed. If the reports were carefully kept and organised, that information could be easily obtained.

thought, if Gentlemen were appointed with intermediate salaries between the inspectors and sub-inspectors, and the correspondence arranged by an intelligent clerk at the Home Office, it would be a better arrangement. The plan proposed by the Clause would have a tendency to bring inspectors to London more than was desirable.

was of opinion that a clerk in the Home Office to receive the reports, would answer all the purposes which it was intended to effect by the creation of a new office. It was most objectionable to give any additional cause for leaving their districts. The Clause as it stood ought to be expunged.

thought the reasons assigned by the right hon. Secretary of State were sufficient to show that it was not necessary to create that new office, as the duties might be as well performed in the Secretary of State's office. As there was to be no head, it was quite evident that the establishment of a distinct office was unnecessary; and if they did establish such an office, there was no doubt that in a short time there would be an appointment of a head of that office. If they established such an office, before two years they would witness the appointment of an inspector-general at the head of it. In one of the Factory Bills it had been shadowed forth, and he believed that an inspector-general had been spoken of. It would be desirable if the Clause were left out of the Bill altogether.

The Committee divided on the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill.— Ayes 157; Noes 53: Majority 104.

Clause to stand part of the Bill.

Several other Clauses agreed to.

House resumed. Committee to sit again.

House adjourned at twelve o'clock.