moved that the Speaker do leave the chair.

rose for the purpose of giving effect, so far as it lay in his power, to the petitions which he had just presented to the House, and there was no form of the House he would not use as a weapon to defeat a measure which had been truly designated in some of these Petitions as one of the most insidious, oppressive, arbitrary, iniquitous, and tyrannical attempts to oppress the working classes that had been ever made. [Laughter.] It might suit hon. Gentlemen to laugh at an attempt to oppress the working classes, but if the House would give him its attention, he would prove to it, and would satisfy the public, that that was the object—and the sole object—of the Bill. He had reason to complain of the manner in which the Bill had arrived at its present stage. To the original Bill no reasonable person would object; it had a humane and proper object in view, and though it increased the power of the Justices, yet it was for the purpose of facilitating the recovery of wages. Under that belief the House passed the Bill through its first stages, but it was under false colours and false pretences. It was then proposed to go into Committee pro formâ, to make certain alterations; those alterations were made, and the Bill came out of Committee without a single word, from the first line of the preamble to the last line in the last Clause the same as it went into that Committee. Therefore, it could not be said that this Bill had been read either a first or second time. The Bill, he reiterated, had been brought to its present stage under false colours and false pretences. And what was the reason assigned for this measure? When his hon. Friend; the Member for Lambeth, asked for some explanation the other night, the hon. Member for Somersetshire said, that the Bill was drawn up by the desire of the Government. Now, if so, it was clearly a Government measure, and ought not to have been brought forward in the House on a Wednesday. On a former evening, the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whom he (Mr. T. Duncombe) was happy to see now in his place, had admitted that he was responsible for the alterations made in the Bill, while the hon. Member for Somersetshire said, it had been drawn after the Government pattern. [Sir J. Graham: I approved of the form of the Bill, not the substance.] It was both the form and substance of the Bill which he had to deal with, though he cared nothing about the shadow. All he knew was, that the measure, whatever its form, was an invidious attempt to degrade and oppress the labouring classes. What were the provisions of this Bill? A new principle was introduced, unknown to the Legislature of the country. The only Legislation in reference to labour which had heretofore taken place, had been in respect to persons hired for a certain term, and the Legislature had given Magistrates power to fine or imprison persons who did not fulfil their contract, and there had certainly been instances of persons who had been imprisoned under these circumstances. But there was no instance of power having been given to the Magistrates to send persons to the House of Correction for neglect or dereliction of duty in job or piece work. Now, it appeared they were about to put the two kinds of labour upon the same footing, and give the Magistrates the same power in cases of job and piece work, which they now possessed in the case of labour hired for a term. So that whether the contract be in writing or not, when a man engaged to make a hat or a pair of shoes, and did not fulfil his work in the time agreed upon, he might be taken before a single Magistrate, and sent to the House of Correction for two months upon the single oath of the employer. Could the House feel surprise, when such an attempt as this was made, that petitions should pour in from journeymen of every description of trade in the whole kingdom, and from persons employed in every species of industry whatsoever? The Bill would affect every species of labour. The hon. Gentleman intended that the Bill should only affect labourers employed in husbandry. But, as it stood now, it would affect those employed in factories. They might be imprisoned for two months upon the oath of the foreman or overseer, if they were only five minutes too late. In order to carry out this Bill they proposed to repeal six Acts of Parliament, and it would be well before this iniquitous Bill received the support of the House, that hon. Gentleman should know what those Acts were. The first Act which was proposed to be repealed, was the 5th of Elizabeth, c. 4. That was the only Act which justified interference with labour at all, and when Gentlemen looked at the provisions of the Acts which it was proposed to repeal, without substituting anything as good in the place of them, they would at once see the cruel oppression of the Measure now submitted to their consideration. By a Clause in this Act, the Magistrates had the power of seeing that the working classes should have good wages both in times of plenty and of scarcity, and this being so, it was quite right that the Legislature should at the same time guarantee to the employer the good conduct of the men. This was the ground of the Legislative interference with labour. He did not know whether those hon. Gentlemen who advocated a ten hours Bill, were aware that this was the first Act that limited the hours of labour. The twelfth Clause limited the hours of labour of no less than thirty-two different trades. It regulated the hours of labour from March to September, allowing two hours and a half for meals a day, viz.—half an hour for breakfast, half an hour for beer time, an hour for dinner, and half an hour for tea. From September to March the time was limited from sunrise to sunset. It was a Bill, therefore, not only for fixing the number of hours for labour, but also for settling the amount of wages. Now, it was proposed by the Bill before the House to repeal this Act, but there was nothing to be substituted in lieu of it that would give the slightest satisfaction or security to the working classes. The next Act was the 20th George II., which was also to be repealed. That Act, which might be considered almost obsolete, having scarcely ever been enforced, empowered the magistrate to inflict corporal punishment in certain cases. It also regulated disputes between the masters and men, and it went on to say that, if the servants should be guilty of misconduct, they should be liable to one month's imprisonment. But there was nothing in these Acts that at all related to piece or job work, which was now, for the first time about to be introduced. He considered it a most objectionable and dangerous principle. The 22nd of George II., c. 26, repealed certain portions of the Act of the 20th of George II., relating to the stannaries. He now came to the 6th of George III., passed in 1765, which was also now to be repealed. This empowered the magistrates to enforce the performance of a contract on the part of a workman, as a hired servant, but there was no mention of job-work or piece-work in it. The next Act was 4th George IV., c. 34, passed in 1823. That also was to be repealed; but it had nothing to do with job or piecework; but it declared that if a person should enter upon his hire, that should be considered evidence of his contract, and tantamount to a contract in writing; and parties breaking their contract were liable to imprisonment. These were the several Acts which it was now proposed to repeal, and then it was proposed to apply certain remedies which were to be found in the Act of 5th George IV., c. 18. This was the most absurd part of the present measure, which was to be extended to Scotland and to Ireland. Now the 5th George IV., was confined to England only: what then could the Scotch and Irish labourers possibly know about its provisions? It was said, that the Bill was not to interfere with the 5th George IV., c. 96 commonly called "The Arbitration Act;" but in that Act there was nothing said about the misconduct or misdemeanour of the parties. It merely empowered magistrates to imprison such parties, who, having submitted their disputes to arbitration, should afterwards refuse to act upon it. This applied both to masters and men, and was a perfectly good law. But by the present Bill, this equal justice was not to be preserved. It mattered not how much the master might oppress, or misbehave himself towards the servant, there was no redress for the poor man. It would, therefore, strictly be making another instance of there being one. law for the rich and another for the poor—one law for the employer and another for the employed. He knew not whether the House would sanction that principle, but he would seriously call upon them to pause before they passed so dangerous, so arbitrary, and so cruel a law. Was this the way to keep the labouring classes in subjection? Was there no other medium except through the police and the treadmill? Were those the only resources to which the Secretary of State for the Home Department could appeal for affording security to the State? Were the treadmill and the policeman's' stave the only ties the right hon. Baronet could think of to unite the labouring classes with their employers? He thought a better feeling and a stronger attachment of interest might be induced by kindness and good treatment, on the one hand, and by fidelity on the other. Let the House consider the state which many parts of the kingdom were now in. What said Sir Augustus Henniker, as chairman of the Quarter Sessions for the county of Suffolk, a short time ago? He declared "that he did not believe the whole metropolitan police could put down incendiarism in that county, there was so much discontent and suffering prevailing among the labouring population." If this state of things had not yet extended to other parts of the country, it behoved the House to take care lest the passing such a law as this they did make the words of Sir Augustus Henniker apply to every manufacturing district in the kingdom. The right hon. Baronet, the other day, when he (Mr. T. Duncombe) proposed to inquire into the effect which might be produced upon wages by the limitation of the hours of labour, said, "There are no petitions, you have no petitions from the working people." The House would now see what effect petitions had upon the right hon. Baronet. Upwards of 200 petitions had been presented against this Bill. Were there any petitions in favour of it? None. While on the other hand, nearly two millions of the working classes had asked the House not to interfere with their labour in this way, but to reject the Bill. He called upon the right hon. Baronet, therefore, to act consistently, and inasmuch, as he appeared to consider the petitions of the people of importance, to give due weight and consideration to those which had been presented against this Measure. If this Bill should be proceeded with, he should deem it his duty, when in Committee, to read several of those petitions; but he hoped and trusted that he had made out a case sufficiently strong to induce the House to pause before they proceeded with this sort of legislation. If, unhappily, the House should sanction the Measure, they might depend upon it it would create more discontent and greater ferment among the working classes of the country than any Act which Parliament had been guilty of within his knowledge. He trusted, therefore, that the House would at once reject the Bill, and thereby comply with the wishes and feelings of the thousands and hundreds of thousands who had respectfully laid their petitions before them. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, as an Amendment, that the House do resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill this day six months.

seconded the Amendment because he was anxious at once to put a , stop to this proceeding. Since the Bill had been introduced several deputations of very sensible working men had waited upon him, declaring that they were prepared to show, if an opportunity were given to them, that this Bill would offend the whole classes of the working men. The Act passed in 1824 was to place masters and workmen on a footing of equality, but this Bill would restore all the injustice which prevailed before the Act of 1824 was passed. This Bill was altogether a new Bill from that which was originally introduced by the hon. Member for Somersetshire. There were several Clauses in the Bill of that hon. Gentleman which would have given relief to the working classes, but those Clauses were not introduced in the present Bill. He could assure the right hon. Baronet that this Bill would raise great indignation and excitement among the working classes. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should not force on the present Measure, but either take charge of the other Bill, or appoint a Committee up stairs for the purpose of inquiry into all the laws affecting masters and workmen. If that were done, he was perfectly satisfied that by the assistance of the deputation from the working classes on the one hand, as to the grievances of the present Law affecting them, and from the masters on the other hand, as to the manner in which the Law operated injuriously to them, the Committee would be able to make such a Report as would admit of the House legislating wisely and justly for all parties, without disadvantage or oppression to any.

said, he had not the least difficulty whatever in giving the hon. Member for Montrose, and the House the assurance which, at the end of his observations he expressed a desire that he (Sir J. Graham) should give—viz., that he had the most earnest desire possible in this matter to consult the feelings and interests of the working classes, and to do nothing which should operate harshly upon them or to their disadvantage. And he could assure the House that if he were not satisfied by diligently looking into the details of this Measure, and by contrasting the existing law with the Clauses of this Bill, that the interests of the working classes would be promoted by the present Measure, he should not have given it that limited sanction which he had promised. The present law appeared to him to operate against the workmen, and unduly and unfairly in favour of the masters. By the Law now in force, any employer might complain against a servant or labourer for alleged misdemeanour, miscarriage, illbehaviour, or misconduct before one justice, who might forthwith issue, not a summons, but a warrant, to apprehend the person of the labourer, and might on proof of breach of contract imprison him with hard labour for three months. But, if, on the other hand, a servant or labourer complained against his master, he had no warrant to apprehend the master, but a summons only was issued. And if even it should be shown to the satisfaction of the magistrate that the master had broken his contract, not only was there no imprisonment —no remedy against the person of the master, but the magistrate had not even the power to compel the payment of any wages that might be due to the servant; all he could do was, to put an end to the contract, which was in itself often times an additional injury to the workman. This was the existing state of the law, and he thought the House would agree with him, that it was not equal or satisfactory. He had therefore concurred with the hon. Member for Somersetshire in thinking it desirable to redress the balance, and make the law more equal. Now what was it that this Bill did? It gave power to the Justice to give damages against the master in favour of the servant or labourer, and it provided, that the servant or labourer should only be apprehended on a warrant, where evidence should be produced to the satisfaction of the magistrate, and that upon oath, that the servant or labourer was about to abscond. In the absence of such evidence, a summons was substituted for a warrant. The term of imprisonment now was three months, by this Bill that term was reduced to two months. The hon. Member proposed that these powers should be conferred on one magistrate only. He differed from the hon. Gentleman in this respect, and proposed it should be given to two magistrates. He thought that these were valuable improvements in the present state of the law, and restored an equal balance between master and man. By the last Clause of the Bill, the Arbitration Act was preserved intact. Looking to the terms of that Act he observed that the power of arbitration was limited to certain trades. Now, if it were desirable, he should not be indisposed to extend that power to all descriptions of trade. The only point then in this Bill which involved any novelty, was the extending the operations of the existing law to job work and piece work. That was the single question this House had now to debate. Upon that point he was disposed to believe that the hon. Member for Somerset was right, and the hon. Member for Finsbury was in error, but he was perfectly prepared to listen without prejudice to any argument upon that subject. His judgment at the present moment was in favour of the extension. He might be permitted to say, in his opinion, that the terms used in the Act of 20 George II., c. 19, might fairly be considered to include job and piece work, and that it was a mere question of construction, and the whole and sole matter now in debate was, whether the House of Commons would put a construction upon the words of that statute, which should extend its operation to job and task work, notwithstanding an adverse decision by the courts of law. If it could be shown to his satisfaction that by so extending the law any injury was likely to be done to the working classes, he would not favour it, but he thought the probable bearing of such an extension a fair matter of discussion in that House. If he thought it could be inquired into with more propriety in a Committee up stairs, he should not object to it, but if he was right as to the operation of the existing law, and if it were a mere question of construction, he thought it would be better that the discussion upon the point whether the law should be applied to task and job work should take place in a Committee of the whole House than in a Committee up stairs. Upon that ground he should be disposed to resist the Amendment of the hon. Member for Fins-bury. When they arrived at the 4th clause the whole debate might be taken upon the point which the hon. Gentleman had raised, and he should be prepared to treat with the utmost attention any arguments which might be urged to show that the alteration would be unfavourable to the working classes. Feeling, however, that at present there was not a well-founded objection to the further progress of this Bill, he thought the Measure was sufficiently ripe for the House being allowed to go into Committee upon the whole of its provisions.

considered this a most inopportune moment for introducing such a Measure as this, and he should therefore support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Finsbury. He should like to know what complaints had been made, either by the masters on the one hand, or by the workmen on the other, to call for this most unreasonable proposition. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that if the working classes were asked whether they would, for the sake of having the advantages which this Bill purported to give them, submit to be liable to be imprisoned by two magistrates for the non-performance of any specific contract they might enter into, the answer from one end of the country to the other would be a decided negative.

felt himself placed in rather an anomalous position. He did not know whether he were to consider this Bill his own or not, or whether he were at liberty to state what alterations he might wish to propose in the Committee or not. He had been told that the form of the Bill was the Government's, but that the substance of it was his own; and one hon. Gentleman had said that he did not object to the Bill as originally introduced. Why, then, should he object to this? He was perfectly certain that if the hon. Member had looked at the Bill as introduced by himself, and had compared it with the one now before the House, he would have found very little difference between them. In proposing the alterations in the existing Law, he did not do so in order to oppress the poor, he did it for the purpose of supporting what he conceived to be their indubitable rights. At present, in his conception, servants and labourers were placed in a most extraordinary position. The Law was di- rectly against them, for literally speaking, unless the master had goods, the servant was without a remedy, for he had no power to touch the master himself. The right hon. Baronet had shortly stated the Law as it now existed, and what the Law would be if the alterations proposed should be adopted. Now, assuredly, unless the hon. Gentleman who opposed this Measure, could show that these alterations would not take place, and that there was something in the Bill which was directly opposed to what was admitted to be the principle of it, and which principles some of those hon. Gentlemen themselves approved of, they must adopt this Measure. He considered the Bill now before the House, a very great improvement upon the Law under which the magistrates now acted. He had seen the operatives, and he believed it was wholly owing to misrepresentations that they opposed a Bill, which would give them remedies in cases where nothing but a suit of Law could now afford them redress. These were his sole reasons for introducing this Bill. There were many trades, such as brick layers and journeymen sawyers, who had no relief, and to them he proposed to give relief by this Bill. A remedy by way of damages was given for the first time by this Bill, and the question was whether, if the master refused to pay damages, he should be imprisoned: that, however, was for the consideration of the Committee. He objected, however, to a Committee up stairs, because every Member in the House who had ever acted as a magistrate, must know the Law of Masters and Servants. One of the main reasons for the Bill was to define the term "other persons," which had been registered in the respective courts to persons ejusdem generis.

thought that his hon. Friend the Member for Somersetshire was something more than the putative father of this Bill, and, therefore, he ought to obey the order of affiliation that had been made upon him. He (Mr. Bernal) however, thought this Bill ought to have been made a Government Measure, especially as the public mind was so ready to receive impressions good or bad, on all such subjects. The right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary had omitted to mention the provisions of the Statute the 4th George IV. c. 34, which expressly provided that the punishment of hard labour should be superadded to three months' imprison- ment. Was the right hon. Baronet or the House prepared to apply, as proposed, this Enactment to every class of handicraft in the kingdom? The hon. Member for Somersetshire (Mr. Miles), when he spoke of the public mind being fully alive to all the proceedings of the House with regard to the Factory question, had totally forgot to state that every operative engaged, no matter in what manufacture, would under this Bill be bound to remain any time provided by the contract in the Factory, or if he absented himself for a single day in the week would be liable to be brought before a magistrate for punishment and imprisonment. He was not prepared to say that there were not Clauses giving greater facilities to the operatives for the recovery of their wages, but the point he had mentioned was a great stumbling-block; and though he was willing to amend the Bill, he must still support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Finsbury. He deemed it a Bill which ought to be begotten by the Government, reared by the Government, and nursed by the legal authorites of the Government, and not left to the accidental assistance of any independent Member.

complained of the 4th Clause, which gave the most enormous powers ever given by any Act. Let them not pass a Bill merely because it was not so bad as a law made in barbarous times. It ought to be good in itself. He should divide on every Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury against so grievous a Clause as the 4th.

said that a law on this subject should not only be needed, but humane and just. The Bill not only affected factories, but also weavers and their employers, from whom he (Sir G. Strickland) had received numerous petitions. If this Bill passed, it would be the greatest act of tyranny against the working man which this House or any Legislature had ever perpetrated. The servant required protection, not the master. They ought not to give powers to one Magistrate to be exercised, perhaps, most unjustly, and he felt himself bound to vote with the hon. Member for Finsbury.

Sir: This is tremendous. This cross-firing from the batteries on either side of this House, Whig and Tory, discharging their heavy shot into our devoted bark, and calling out to us to surrender in the awful name of the people, Sir, I am aware that the House is very likely to suspect that there may be something wrong in a Measure which is thus opposed: and I am equally aware of the clamour which has been raised against it out of doors. Never in my life was I more astonished than I have been by the sensation which this proposition has excited—and by seeing myself shewn up as a monster of cruelty and tyranny, merely because my name appeared at the back of this Bill. But when I inquired into the matter, I soon discovered the cause. I soon discovered that the opposition to this Bill arose from our having accidentally come across the meditated strike of the colliers—the great strike which was to have taken place throughout the whole of the North of England on the same day. Sir, I hold in my hand the proof of this: this newspaper contains the account of one of the earliest meetings which took place on this subject, at Sheffield, where a delegate from Glasgow was introduced on behalf of the colliers, and, on behalf of the colliers, besought the assembled operatives to do their utmost to defeat this Bill. And how did he engage them to oppose it? By reading to them a Clause which is already the law of the land, (the 4th Clause of this Bill,) and giving them to understand that it was entirely new matter, and levelled against the liberties of the working classes of every description—whereas the truth is, that this Clause is only re-enacted here because the Act in which it already exists is repealed by this Bill; and the only really new matter in this Bill is entirely in favour of the working classes. And this is the way in which the people are deceived, in which the peace of the country is disturbed, in which bad things are accomplished, and good things prevented. Sir, I must say that my hon. Friend, the Member for Finsbury, would have acted a much kinder part by his clients, if he had explained to them what was the truth, instead of encouraging them in their erroneous views. I must say, that never was a grosser deception practised upon a people; never did a people labour under a more complete mistake. The real object of this Bill, its only object, is to assist the working classes. By a recent decision of the Court of Queen's Bench it has been ruled that, under the Act which enables Magistrates to interfere between masters and servants, Magistrates are only enabled to interfere in such cases as are specifically named in the Act; so that if an agricultural labourer comes to me, as a Magistrate, and represents to me that he has been reaping or hedging, and cannot get the money which is due to him, I am obliged to say, "I am very sorry for you; if you had been making pots I could have assisted you, because a potter is named in the Act, but as you have only been reaping, I can do nothing for you." Sir, I do hope that this House will not be deluded by misrepresentations, and will not prevent that assistance from being rendered to numbers of labouring men, for whose benefit, and for nothing else, this Bill was designed.

was opposed to the Measure. It might be wise to consolidate the law, but gold might be bought too dear. On such an important subject nothing could be effectually done by a private individual. The existing law had always been found sufficiently strong to control combinations. Throughout the country great excitement was felt against the Bill, and in the town he represented, the most vivid apprehensions of it were entertained. It was unfortunate that a Measure dealing with one of the most delicate questions that could arise in the social state, should have been offered to the House without the previous recommendation of a Committee, according to the usual course. Great danger would arise from single Magistrates adjudicating on questions of this nature. At the same time that he gave full credit to the hon. Member who introduced the Bill, he trusted that the hon. Member would withdraw it, in order that they might see the Bill taken up in another Session, by his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department, and the interests of all classes duly and fairly weighed.

said, as the Bill went to increase the power of Magistrates, and many of the Clergy were Magistrates, and, as he was altogether opposed to increasing the power of the Clergy, he should oppose the Bill with all his power.

amidst much impatience, which rendered him at times quite inaudible, was understood to explain the circumstances under which his name appeared, on the back of the Bill. An alteration in the law had become advisable, in consequence of some recent decisions of the Court of Queen's Bench. As the Bill now stood, it was very different from the Bill brought in by his hon. Friend (Mr. W. Miles,) and he confessed he pre- ferred the original Bill, as being more intelligible and more simple. It had been asked whether workpeople in factories and other places would be affected by the Bill? He believed that many cases of this kind were provided for by special Acts of Parliament; but, at any rate, he thought the exceptive Clause at the end of the Bill, excluded all such occupations as were not named expressly in the Bill. If there was any doubt, a Clause to set it at rest could be introduced in Committee. Nothing had been further from the intentions of those who framed the Bill than to oppress the labourer.

The House divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:—Ayes 54; Noes 97: Majority 43.

Committee put off for six months.

moved that the latter part of the Clause be expunged, with a view of preventing the Bill from interfering with the Franchise under the Reform Bill.

[As there seems a discrepancy between Mr. Manners Sutton moving to leave out words, and voting to keep them in, we subjoin the whole statement of the Division from the Votes of the House.]

DETATCHED PARTS OF COUNTIES BILL, — In the Committee:)—First Clause (Detatched portions of Counties to be part of the County by which they are surrounded):— Amendment proposed, page 1, line 9, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Clause, in order to add the words, "every part of any County in England or Wales which is detatched from the main body of such County shall be considered, for all purposes, as forming part of that County, and of that Division or Riding, or those parts of which it is considered a part for the purposes of the Election of Members to serve in Parliament as Knights of the Shire, under the provisions of an Act passed in the third year of the reign of his late Majesty (3 and 4 Will. 4, c. 64), intituled, ' An Act to settle and describe the divisions of Counties and the limits of Cities and Boroughs in England and Wales, in so far as respects the Election of Members to serve in Parliament:'"— Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:"—

The Committee then divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:—Ayes 15; Noes 19: Majority 4.