moved the Second Reading of the Smoke Prohibition Bill. The hon. Member stated that he made the Motion with a view to having the Bill referred to a Committee up stairs.

wished, before the Bill was read a second time, to have some clear understanding as to the intentions of Government. He opposed the Bill simply because he believed it would be impossible to carry it out. On a former occasion, the noble Earl at the head of the Woods and Forests stated that the Bill had received full consideration from Government; and that the Government did not think it expedient that it should be proceeded with at present. He thought that the hon. Member for Leamington ought to suspend the progress of the Bill until the Sanatory Bill of the Government came before the House. He believed that the smoke of private houses caused as much annoyance as factory chimneys, which were especially aimed at by the Bill. With these views, he moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

expressed his surprise at the opposition of the hon. Member for Lambeth, seeing that no person would be more benefited by the suppression of the smoke nuisance than the hon. Member's constituents. He thought that his hon. Friend the Member for Leamington had established a claim on the gratitude of the inhabitants of large towns by introducing the measure.

had but one or two observations to make in reference to this measure. The hon. Member assumed that there existed a smoke nuisance which could be put down; and the provisions of the Bill had particular reference to the occupiers of chimneys and furnaces. Who were occupiers of chimneys? He and other hon. Members denied the practicability of complying with the requisitions of this Bill.

retained the opinion he had expressed on a former occasion—namely, that it would have been more convenient to postpone the Bill until the Bill of the Government, introducing sanatory regulations into large towns, had been laid on the Table. Under that Bill, it would be necessary to constitute local administrative bodies; and, therefore, it would be premature now to appoint local inspectors for the single nuisance of smoke throughout the kingdom. However, as his hon. Friend objected to the delay, and as his object was merely to lay the Bill before a Select Committee to consider the different clauses of the Bill, he should consider it his duty to support the second reading. There would not be much inconvenience in that course, as the Committee might so modify the clauses of the Bill as to render them compatible with the sanatory measure of the Government. The hon. Member for Lambeth should recollect, that neither refineries nor breweries were affected by the Bill; the operation of which was confined wholly to steam-boilers, a restriction which he regretted. He was sure, when the hon. Gentleman reflected upon the large amount of property destroyed by smoke, he would not be inclined to throw any impediment in the way of legislation upon this subject. As one instance, he might mention that a short time ago a nursery-gardener in the neighbourhood of this metropolis was in the habit of railing expensive and valuable plants; but, from the erection of two extensive chimneys in his neighbourhood, he was compelled to abandon a lucrative occupation. Now, by the introduction of some patent apparatus into the two chimneys, he believed the gardener was afterwards enabled to resume his business with his former success. He did not wish to trespass longer on the attention of the House; but would conclude by saying that if the hon. Member pressed his Motion to a division he would vote for it; but he would earnestly recommend the hon. Gentleman to postpone the second reading until the Sanatory Bill had been introduced.

thought the best mode would be to withhold the consideration of this matter for the present; as the Government had announced their intention of embrace it. It would be a mere waste of time, under such circumstances, to refer the matter to a Select Committee. He would vote against the second reading of the Bill.

hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Leamington would postpone the second reading of this Bill. Suppose the most complete apparatus were to be employed for effecting the object which the hon. Gentleman had in view, there was nothing to compel the workmen to put it into effective use; and without their co-operation, it would be utterly futile to attempt to carry the Bill into effect. Besides, there was a very great doubt whether the consumption of smoke would not compel a very much larger consumption of fuel. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hawes) had complained that the Bill was a mere waste of legislation; but he would go further, and say, that if they attempted to carry this Bill into effect, they would excite such an amount of opposition throughout the country as would not only prevent any benefit being derived from it, but would also very greatly militate against any really good measure. Another inconvenience arising from the measure, as it stood, was, that every manufacturing interest was claiming to be exempt from its operation. He believed, indeed, that there was a Notice on the Books for excluding the iron trade; and if the iron trade, why not the glass trade, or any other trade? He trusted, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman would not press this Bill to a division; for he be- lieved that it was quite an impracticable measure.

said, that he could not possibly assent to the assertion that the smoke from manufactories was no nuisance, or even a small nuisance; for he knew that in the district which he had the honour to represent it was felt to be a great nuisance; and he conceived that to talk of this period for legislation on the subject being too early, or that discussion was unnecessary in that House, was quite beside the facts of the case. He was favourable to the object of the Bill; but he thought there would be some difficulty in carrying its enactments into effect.

thought, that after the observations of the noble Lord at the head of the Woods and Forests, it would have been better had this measure been deferred until after the introduction of the Health of Towns Bill. He should, under these circumstances, vote against the second reading of this Bill. At the same time, he gave every credit to the hon. Gentleman for the excellence of his intention, and for the pains he had taken in the details of the measure. He granted that a great nuisance existed; but he did not agree in the particular mode of remedy advocated by the hon. Gentleman.

said, that the details of this Bill might be greatly modified and improved. In that case, he hoped that the hon. Member would not press his Motion against the second reading of the Bill. He should remark that there were chimneys belonging to certain manufactories in Manchester (where there was a strong feeling on this subject), from which there was no more smoke than from a private dwelling-house. He believed that the Bill, if properly modified, would meet with warm support in Manchester. There was no doubt that great attention would be paid to the correction of the Bill by the Select Committee.

proposed that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Salford should be adopted, as no one could be more competent to make a suggestion on the matter than that hon. Gentleman. It was impossible to make any rule with respect to the suppression of a general nuisance which would not create some local inconveniences. The Select Committee would consider whether the provisions of this Bill could be safely adopted. He was very certain that the time of the Committee would not be lost. Understanding that the Bill was not to be pressed until the measure for improving the sanatory condition of large towns was before the House, he thought there could be no objection to the second reading, and referring the Bill to the consideration of a Select Committee.

was perfectly satisfied with the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, and should, therefore, withdraw his Motion; but he should like to know whether the Committee would have power to take evidence upon certain points of the Bill?

reminded the hon. Member for Lambeth, that the Government were going to introduce a Bill affecting the same subject; and it would be, therefore, all labour lost to make any inquiry into the nature of this Bill. For his part, he would rather the matter should rest with the Government than be entrusted to the hands of a Committee. There were two parties affected by this Bill. The one was the party who was annoyed by smoke; the other was the party who lived by smoke. Now, he could only say, on the part of his constituents, that they would have to give up business altogether if they were not allowed to smoke. They were now in a state of uncertainty; and there was no doubt that they would remain so, until the intentions and measure of the Government on this subject were before the House.

wished to say a few words in explanation. It would be recollected that a Committee of that House reported that the nuisance of smoke could and ought to be prevented; and added, that if the Government did not take up the matter with a view to legislation, the Chairman of the Committee ought. Was not that recommendation worthy of regard? He had merely followed the recommendation of the Committee. In fact, he had done nothing more than act upon the instructions of the Committee. If the noble Lord did not feel inclined to proceed with his measure, he (Mr. Mackinnon) would proceed with the present Bill; but not otherwise.

said: The House will remember that when the noble Lord moved for leave to introduce this Bill, I ventured to state my opinion on the great importance of the measure, and to express the doubt which I entertained with respect to the policy of debating the provisions which the noble Lord in bringing forward his Motion brought under the consideration of the House. This Bill was, I think, introduced on the 12th of March, and from that time to the period when we are discussing the second reading, I have been engaged in making very extensive inquiries, which, on the part of the Government, I considered it my duty to institute with respect to a measure that embraces so large a field of manufacturing industry scattered throughout different parts of the United Kingdom. I thought it necessary to assemble in London the Factory Inspectors appointed under the provisions of the Factory Act, and who are employed throughout the districts in which the trades affected by the present Bill are carried on. Under my directions the inspectors repaired to their different districts, and having assembled the sub-inspectors engaged under them, they directed them to proceed with a copy of this Bill in their hands, and to make extensive inquiries, and to enter into communication with all the leading parties connected with these branches of industry in their respective districts. In addition to the information thus obtained, I had also the pleasure of receiving several deputations from the master manufacturers, who are most deeply interested in this measure; and I have likewise given the subject that anxious attention which, as I already stated to the House, it was both my duty and my inclination to devote to it. Because, as I observed on that former occasion, as well as now, all my feelings were in accordance with the wishes of the noble Lord, and a sense of duty to the public alone restrains me from giving an unqualified acquiescence to his measure. I am bound to state that the result of the inquiry which I have made, and of all the information which I have received, has operated in inducing myself and my Colleagues to come to the decision at which we have arrived. If by assenting to the second reading of this Bill it should be assumed for a moment that the Government pledged itself to all the details of the enactment proposed by the noble Lord, then it would, be my painful duty— but still a duty which I should feel bound to perform—to resist the second reading; but I am at the same time happy to say that though many of the provisions of this Bill must receive my dissent, yet I am not prepared, on the part of the Government, to deny that some regulation is necessary with reference to the employment of children and females in print works; and admitting that necessity, it is our intention to support the second reading of this Bill. But, although it is not, on the whole, necessary, in assenting to the principle of the Bill, that I should go into the details hereafter to be brought under the notice of the House, still, when I recollect the immense interests involved in the measure, I think it is right and proper that I should state what are the provisions of the Bill, as it now stands, to which I object, and what measures I shall be prepared in Committee to suggest, as preferable to those proposed by the noble Lord. In the first place, I would say that a very great extension of the objects of the Bill is created by the terms of construction in the first clause beyond that avowed in the title and preamble. To that extension I have an insuperable objection. The title of the Bill refers only to the regulation of the labour of children in calico print works; but in the interpretation clause the operation of the bill is extended far beyond the print works, and made to apply to all buildings, and, as I understand, even to separate houses in which dyeing, bleaching, and calendering, may be carried on. This is adopted from analogy with the Factory Bill, an analogy which I do not consider quite applicable to these branches of trade, for reasons which I stated at some length on a former occasion. In the factory system labour is dependent altogether on machinery, and it may thus be terminated at any fixed hour; but it is very different in these establishments, for from the nature of the process—from the time occupied in the work, and from the employment of chemical aids; on account also of its being very much unconnected with machinery, and of the effect on the performance of the work which is produced by the state of the atmosphere and many other accidental causes, the determination of a given process, and the quantity of toil and attention necessary for its completion, cannot possibly be prescribed. Moreover, I am bound to state that as far as my inquiries have gone—and I am sure they have been made honestly and with diligence—they lead to the conclusion, that although in printing works children are extensively employed, yet in dyeing, bleaching, and calendering establishments, apart from the printing works, comparatively very few children are engaged. My first objection to the Bill of the noble Lord therefore is, to the extension of its provisions beyond the print works, to houses in which dyeing, bleaching, and calendering are carried on. The next observation that I would wish to make on the noble Lord's Bill is, that I am satisfied the provision involved in Clause 3, which follows the example set by the Factory Bill, is impracticable in limiting the hours of labour by children, not only in calico print works, but in bleaching, dyeing, and calendering works, either to twelve hours on alternate days, or to eight hours on every successive day. That provision appears to me altogether inapplicable to the case with which we have to deal. There are great peculiarities connected with this trade. Under the most favourable circumstances the demand in this branch of industry is occasionally great; but still the labour of the parties concerned in it is never continuous throughout the year. The demand for labour in them is uncertain. It comes at periods which are well known, as certainly recurring every year at particular seasons, but which demands do not last throughout the whole year. I believe the term in the trade is, that there are "pushes" and "slacks" at different periods of the year. The "pushes" occur every spring and autumn, and they may also return for a third period; and after these the demand relaxes, even under the most favourable circumstances, and the trade then becomes comparatively slack. During the time of the demand everything depends on the work being executed with the least possible delay. The profits and success of the manufacturers, and everything that makes trade advantageous, depends on the absence of all check or delay in the progress of the work while the intensity of the demand exists. It is therefore a material injury, not only to the employers, but to the adult workmen, and even to the children themselves, that any attempt should be made to check their labour while the intensity of the demand is great. I am, therefore, satisfied that the provision of the noble Lord's Bill on the subject of the labour of children in these establishments, founded on the analogy of the Factory Bill, does not hold good; but that peculiar provisions with respect to this trade are indispensably necessary. I am, therefore, not prepared to assent to the proposition of the noble Lord, that children under thirteen years of age should not at any time work more than eight hours a day, or twelve hours on alternate days, in these establishments. I will now, with the permission of the House, state what are the provisions to which I am ready to assent, provided the House consents to have the Bill read a second time, and to go into Committee upon it. I do think, on the whole—the Bill being restricted to calico print works alone—that the prohibition of the employment of children under eight years of age in them is not a disadvantageous enactment to any branch of trade. That, I will say, would be a wise and humane provision, and in accordance with the principle of the Factory Act. There is also another provision, which is more doubtful, but which I think, nevertheless, proceeds on a principle recognised by the House, to which I am also ready to assent. I mean the prohibition of night-work with reference to children, and also on the principle which this House has more than once affirmed with reference to females employed in factories. Having with some hesitation assented to that principle, and the House having thought it right to interfere with the labour of female adults, and having appointed limits to the duration of that labour, both in the Factory Bill and in the Bill of the noble Lord respecting working in coal mines, I think that on the whole, after the most anxious inquiry that I have been able to give the subject, that it is advisable to adopt the double limitation proposed by the noble Lord: first, that no children under eight years of age should be employed; and also that no children between the ages of eight and thirteen, and that no females, should be employed at night work. These are two provisions to which I could readily assent. It then becomes necessary that we should agree to a definition of the term "night work;" I think that to avoid the perplexity that would be created by the double limitation proposed by the noble Lord with respect to summer and winter, it would be better for the sake of simplicity to have a single definition of the word "night," and the course which I would recommend would be to define night to mean generally the period between nine o'clock in the evening and five o'clock in the morning. The advantage of that definition would be, that during a considerable portion of the year, including the whole of the summer months, the parties could continue at their work without any artificial lights, either in the mornings or evenings. Though there would be thus a period from five o'clock in the morning to nine in the evening during which children might be employed: still I can state positively, as a general rule, that no children are obliged to work throughout the whole period of sixteen hours. But from the nature of the work in this trade, and from the peculiarity of the employment generally, it is necessary that we should leave a sufficient period for occasional extraordinary demand; and I would, therefore, propose, that it should be competent for children from eight to thirteen years of age to work in calico print works at any times between five o'clock in the morning and nine o'clock at night. I also feel in the strongest manner, in common with the noble Lord and with the general sentiment of the House, that some provision of an effective nature should be adopted for the education of those children, and that no arrangement would be satisfactory—if the Legislature interfere at all in the matter—without including some time for relaxation. I have already stated that the period of intense demand, as compared with the whole year, is in proportion of eight months out of twelve. In deciding on the question of the time to be allowed for the education of children employed in these works, I would prefer looking to the analogy between their condition and that of the children of agricultural labourers, rather than to that of factory labour regulated by machinery. In the north of England and in Scotland, where it is well known the children of the agricultural labourers are, practically speaking, well educated, there are certain periods of the year when, in consequence of the greater demand for labour, there is a suspension of education At seed time and during the hay time and in harvest all the parish schools in Scotland and in the North of England are generally closed; and it is only at the periods between the hay and corn harvests and between that and seed time that the education of the children is mainly conducted. Now I wish in the matter before the House, to be guided by practical experience, derived from other sources of industry; and I think we should rather look to the analogy afforded by the case of the agricultural population than to any analogy arising from factory labour regulated by machinery. Where circumstances vary, your rule should also vary. Having assumed that during eight months out of twelve the work should continue day by day in these establishments, while the work is comparatively light during the other four months, I would propose that the days for education should be regulated accordingly. We could secure a provision under this enactment, that during one hundred days throughout the year, being about one third of the whole working year, all children employed in these works from eight to thirteen years of age should attend a school daily, as in the case of factory children, say for three or four hours a day; and I would also recommend, in order that there should be no evasion of the intentions of the Legislature, that this period should be divided into fifty days in each half-year. This will not interfere with the other clauses of the Bill. It will be founded on the circumstances of the trade, and will tend to make the Bill, as I hope it will become, a successful measure. Now, I think I remember the noble Lord the Member for London referring on a former occasion—and he did so with perfect accuracy—to the system pursued in the great cotton factories in America, where a similar system of education prevails; and, if I mistake not, a provision of this kind is adopted in Austria. I beg to express my sincere hope that the House will not object to an experiment of this nature being tried to this limited extent. I know not whether I should state to the noble Lord a matter that has occurred to me with respect to this Bill. It is, that if the House be of opinion that any such regulation as I have sketched should be adopted, it would be very advantageous that it should be made a perfectly substantive measure. As the Bill at present stands, it has reference to the Factory Bill; but many of its provisions have no relation whatever to that measure; and I am strongly of opinion, if the House should adopt the suggestions I have thrown out, that it would be very advantageous to make this a perfect Bill, and to have the whole of the regulations with reference to calico print works distinctly and explicitly set forth, without reference to any other enactment. I cannot expect but that the noble Lord, having devoted so much attention to this subject, and having produced this Bill in all its details, will think that the measure might be carried much further than I am prepared to go; yet, on the whole, if he will consent to limit this great experiment within the boundaries that I suggest, I can assure the noble Lord that I shall be anxious, before the Bill goes into Com- mittee, to meet him on the subject, and to endeavour to aid him in shaping the Bill in such a manner as to give full effect to all the details that I have suggested. After the Bill is read pro formâ, I would suggest that it should be printed and circulated throughout the country in its amended form, in order that the Committee may have the advantage of knowing the general views entertained by the trade on its details. I trust we shall proceed in this manner cautiously, gradually, and at the same time safely, to consider the great benefits that may be conferred on those classes for whom the noble Lord is endeavouring in so praiseworthy and laudable a manner to extend the protection of the Legislature. In conclusion, I beg to state that I most cheerfully give my consent to the second reading of the Bill.

Sir, my right hon. Friend who has just sat down was kind enough to inform me yesterday of the intentions of Her Majesty's Government as respects this Bill. It is, therefore, to his courtesy and kindness I am indebted, that I am not now taken unawares. I took, Sir, into very anxious consideration the propositions which have been thus stated to me by my right hon. Friend, and I think the result of it is this. I find that my Bill is in this position. Supposing that the Amendments of the right hon. Baronet should be adopted, on one side I lose this—I lose the extension of the provisions of the Bill to those departments connected with the bleaching, dyeing, and calendering of this manufacture, which is not immediately connected with calico printing. I will merely just say, that the right hon. Baronet had omitted to state the condition of the bleaching works in Scotland, which was the great thing I directed my attention to when I introduced the provisions into the Bill which had reference to this branch of the trade. I next find that I shall lose the protection which I proposed to children under thirteen years of age, as I am anxious to limit their labour to a period of eight hours in the day, although a certain protection will be given to them as regards the night work. These children, however, will be left to the possibility of being obliged to labour for sixteen hours every day in the week. These are the points of the Bill which I shall lose. On the other hand, I shall retain the prohibition of the work of children under eight years of age; I shall re- tain the prohibition of night work of children of both sexes under thirteen, and all females under any age: and I shall also be certain of obtaining an enactment for the education of children under thirteen. That is the state of the case, and I must now make my choice of either alternative. On one side I see myself almost alone; on the other side is the Government, supported, I believe by the great mass of the master printers of the United Kingdom. I do think that the struggle on my part, therefore, would be nearly hopeless; at all events, I would be delaying, if I persisted, the passing of any measure which would tend to alleviate these unprotected classes. On the other hand, I don't think that by agreeing to the suggestions of my right hon. Friend I should delay the eventual success of the principles I advocate, and I do gain two or three collateral points. I shall gain—first, the time and attention of the whole House by not resorting to fruitless divisions. I shall gain the opportunity of fairly and fully having this experiment tried, and of showing that legislation on these subjects was not only applicable, but safe. I shall, thirdly, obtain, I believe, what I have ardently desired—not only the co-operation, but I shall also gain the approval of about nine-tenths of the great proprietors and capitalists engaged in these manufactures. For such insuperable advantages, I am, Sir, prepared to make even larger concessions; for although I might succeed in passing a law that may be found stringent, yet if the great masters were hostile to it, half of the law would become ineffectual, and the other half might be made exceedingly vexatious to all parties. Now, I am prepared to say, that although I reserve to myself my own opinions, and my right on some other occasions, whenever I think a fitting opportunity arises, to try and carry out those principles which I advocate, yet I have no hesitation in saying that I do accept, with thankfulness, the offer which the right hon. Baronet has now made to me. And I am delighted to have the opportunity of saying in this House that I believe I carry with me the co-operation of many Gentlemen whom I see on the opposite side, and who were opposed to me in my endeavours to carry out my principles on a former occasion. I shall have the support, I believe, of Mr. Neile, of Manchester Mr. Thompson, of Clitheroe; Mr. Bryce, and I know I shall have the support of Mr. Hargrave, of Accrington. I am quite certain of this—that I shall have co-operating with me at this moment a great number of Gentlemen who two years ago, would never have co-operated with me. I therefore entertain a very sanguine hope that in the course of two or three years more I shall succeed in bringing them further over to co-operate with me in the views which I now entertain upon this subject. I say, Sir, at once, that I accept of the offer which has now been made to me, and I do it with the utmost satisfaction and delight; because I hail it as the commencement of a grand co-operation on the part of all employers in one great and grand effort for the improvement and protection of that which is the noblest material of the British and of all empires and nations—viz., the working classes.

said, that in point of fact, many of the arrangements which the noble Lord and others were so desirous of effecting by legislation were already in existance in many factories, and he thought it was doubtful whether it were wise to effect such improvements by Acts of Parliament, when they found them accomplished by the voluntary efforts of employers of labour in factories. With respect to the proposal that the children should be required to attend schools at the time of a slack, he would remark that those times were the periods when the children would not be likely to be on the premises, whilst during full employment they were on the premises; and it would be therefore difficult to make the employer responsible for the attendance of the children at such a period, when he would not have the same opportunity of insuring their attendance. If the noble Lord were so desirous of improving the condition of the population of manufacturing districts, he ought to look to the improvement or the population in agricultural districts; for it was the agricultural population from which the population of manufacturing districts was drawn, and which supplied those who sent children to be employed in the calico works. The manufacturing districts now drew their labour from that poisoned source, and thus ignorant parents were brought together. If they wanted to improve and enlighten the children, they ought to begin by improving and edu- cating those labourers who were destined to become the parents of the rising generation in the manufacturing districts. Unless they directed their attention to the moral training of the whole population they could not succeed in their object of improving the moral condition of persons in the manufacturing districts. They might compel children in the manufacturing districts to attend school, and limit their hours of labour for that purpose; but so long as they confined their exertions to one class, and did not extend it to the whole population, they would find their exertions ineffectual. He thought that with respect to this Bill, the word "work" was not sufficiently defined; for a man might be in a print work for many hours, but it did not follow that during all that time he was employed in a manner injurious to his health. From the time an individual rose in the morning until he went to bed at night he was employed constantly in some manner or another—he moved his limbs and employed his mind; but no one could say that he was consequently working during eighteen hours, if that was the period which elapsed between his rising in the morning and lying down at night. The question for them to consider, then, was whether the amount of work required from each individual in calico print works or factories, was such as required its duration to be lessened, in order to preserve the health of such individual. If they were so desirous to improve the condition of those employed in calico works, they ought to ascertain that any limitation of the hours of labour which they caused, would have the effect of bettering the existence of such persons. Until somebody was prepared to show that by limiting the hours of labour in a particular employment, he could benefit the whole existence of persons so engaged, it was useless to make a proposition for so limiting the hours of labour. It was evident that those who derived an income from the employment of their children were the poorest of the population; and if the noble Lord had such a desire to improve their condition, and confer benefit upon them, why did he not endeavour to place them in a better position by reducing the price of the great necessaries of life, and thus enable the poorer classes to live at a cheaper rate than at present? He could inform the noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire, that within the last four years, since the price of corn and provisions had fallen, the wages of the working people in the manufacturing districts had increased, and their condition had become generally improved. Such had been the effect of a reduction of the prices of the necessaries of life, that not only had the wages of persons in the manufacturing districts been increased within the last four years, but greater numbers had been employed by the manufacturers. That circumstance was sufficient to show the effect of low prices on the condition of the working classes; and those who wished to relieve them from the necessity of lengthened toil ought to do so by reducing the price of the food of the working population. They could not expect to get credit for philanthropy in their efforts to shorten the hours of labour, until they also made an exertion to give the necessaries of life at a cheap price to the poor. It was not by making a law to affect a particular employment only, that they could improve the moral condition of the persons employed in the manufacturing districts. Why did they not look to the moral training of the agricultural population? Why did they not enact that employers of children's labour in the agricultural districts should require a school certificate with a child before they employed him in the agricultural districts? Why did they not take that course of encouraging education amongst a population which was at present in a state of the grossest ignorance and moral degradation? Why should they continue to pour into the manufacturing districts of the north an uncultivated and ignorant population, devoid of all moral training, when they ought to know that, with reference to the improvement of the moral condition of the children in those districts, it was most necessary of all that the population which supplied the adult working people should be educated and receive proper moral training? They were undoing by their neglect of education in the agricultural districts all they had done by their legislation with respect to the manufacturing districts. He hoped the noble Lord (Lord Ashley) would not neglect this important portion of the subject; that he would look to the moral training of the population of Dorsetshire, and call for a provision which would require every farmer to demand a certificate, before he employed any child in agricultural labour, that the child seeking for employment had been at school for two days in each week constantly. Mr. Horner, who was a very great authority on these subjects, was in favour of such an arrangement; and he trusted that its importance with respect to the working classes in the manufacturing districts would not be forgotten. He (Mr. Gibson) was not disposed to make any objection to the second reading of the Bill, after the statement which they had just heard from the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department; and he should reserve what he had to say with respect to the details of the measure for a future stage. In fact, the principle of this measure might almost be said to be a matter of detail; for it required them to consider how far it would be practicable to carry out certain arrangements consistently with the proper management of manufactories. The noble Lord opposite had urged in that House improvements which he (Mr. Gibson) believed to be impracticable, and which, if attempted to be enforced, would be injurious to the interests of a large body of the manufacturers. He should deal with the new proposals of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department when they came in detail before the House.

said, the hon. Member for Manchester appeared to be so enamoured of the advantages to be derived from requiring school certificates with children, that he proposed to have the system adopted in the agricultural districts; and he agreed with the hon. Member in the great importance of extending education to the population of the country generally—to the agricultural as well as the manufacturing districts. With respect to the necessity of encouraging and diffusing education in the manufacturing districts, they ought to remember it had been stated that such was the constant employment of the children in print works as almost to prevent the possibility of their education, as the teaching of the Sunday schools was insufficient to give them adequate instruction in reading and writing, in addition to which the children were so exhausted in mind and body from their week's employment that they were unable to pay sufficient attention to the instructions at the school on Sunday. If the House of Commons of a former day took care of the moral training of those who formed the parents of those children whose education they now felt it necessary to look to, they would not be required to interfere, as they were at present called on to do, in order to prevent a gradual deterioration of the moral character of the working classes. The hon. Member for Manchester asked for a definition of the term "work," as applied in the Bill. That definition was sufficiently clear in his opinion. It meant being employed on the premises; for it was quite sufficient that the children were kept on the premises, during their working hours, without being allowed time to receive instruction, to constitute the definition. Nothing was more important than to secure for the operative classes a proper amount of leisure, in order that there might be time for improving their moral condition by a sufficient education. The hon. Member for Manchester had asked what the Legislature had done towards improving the whole existence of the labouring classes, and had spoken as if their legislation on the subject of employment had not produced any effect in improving their whole existence. On that subject he was at issue with the hon. Member, for he was assured that the legislation which had already taken place had been of great benefit to the manufacturing population. It had been ascertained that those young persons whose hours of work had been limited by the recent legislation on the subject, had not suffered any loss of pay or comfort by that arrangement, whilst their existence was certainly much bettered by it. It was evident from the admission of the hon. Member for Manchester, that the regulations affecting night work were practicable, as they had already been adopted by some manufacturers; whilst the advantage of a legislative enactment on the subject would be to prevent less scrupulous manufacturers from employing those persons in night work beyond the proper and allotted period. He was glad that the Secretary of State for the Home Department had been able to come forward with such proposals as had received almost the unanimous assent of all who were interested in the subject, it was most desirable to advance gradually as public opinion advanced; and opinion on this subject had not only very much advanced since they had commenced legislating with respect to it, but it was still progressing; and he had no doubt that many of the improvements which his noble Friend (Lord Ashley) now suggested, would at a future period meet with the approbation of those connected with the manufactories to which they had reference. He was strongly impressed with the importance of looking to the education of the working classes both in the agricultural and manufacturing districts.

had one or two observations to make on the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down, because he thought his hon. Friend had totally misunderstood the observations of the hon. Member for Manchester. He deplored the extended hours of labour and night-work as much as any man; but what both he and his hon. Friend deprecated was the interference with one class of the community. If they were to interfere with children of a certain age, let them begin with the farming children. The hon. Member denied that young children were employed in agriculture. Had he never seen young children, in wet cold weather, engaged in herding cattle? Why, only fourteen days ago, while the snow was on the ground, he had seen children of six or seven years of age tending cattle in the field. He thought that those children deserved to be taken care of by the Legislature, as I well as the children in the manufacturing districts. Did the hon. Member believe that there were no children of thirteen years of age—[Mr. Cowper: No; eight.] Well, eight years of age; but were there no children of eight years of age employed in agricultural labour? There were plenty of them. He would recommend the hon. Member to go back to the agricultural districts and get better information on this subject. He did not object to education; it was the duty of Government to supply the means of education to the children of all classes in the community, and he complained that the Government had not done so—that they were allowing the present generation to rise up in ignorance. He believed that a Government which neglected the education of a generation had much to answer for; but he would also state that he could not give much credit to those who felt so much for the sufferings of children from over-employment, whilst they kept the food of those children dear. The first duty of the man who felt for the wants and destitution of another was, to place the necessaries of and he had no doubt life, the means of existence within his reach—to increase his means of getting food; and that could be done by reducing the price of the food of the working classes. He could not give credit for philanthropy to those who, whilst they deplored the condition of the children, interfered with commerce, which gave employment to the idle, and kept up laws which made food dear. If they took a proper course in this respect they would find that the parents would be the best, as they were the natural, protectors of their own children; for the working people of this country were not such brutes as those appeared to think who supposed they would wilfully neglect the proper care of their children. He should be always found ready to give his support to education; but he hoped to see a comprehensive system brought forward, applicable to the agricultural as well as the manufacturing districts. It was well known that the agricultural districts supplied labour to the manufactories; and they ought to educate the agricultural population, in order to act on the population of the manufacturing districts. He did not think the Government did right in giving countenance to this Bill, which contained, in his opinion, a mischievous principle; and if he saw any prospect of success he should divide the House against it. Who were the natural protectors of children? Why, their parents. [Mr. Cowper: If they would do their duty.] The hon. Member said if they would do their duty. Why, natural ties would compel them to do their duty. ["No."] No! then the inhabitants of this country were a race of brutes, worse than the very animals. And it was in this point of view that he regretted the Government had not taken up the question of education generally. If they reared an ignorant race of people, if they made men brutes, they could have no reason to complain if they acted as brutes. He would press upon Her Majesty's Government the necessity of supporting the question of education as far as possible; but let them bring in a comprehensive measure, and proceed in one uniform general principle. He did not believe that Englishmen, Scotchmen, or Irishmen, were such brutes as this piece of legislation would induce them to believe. He was of opinion that where children were sent to the factories, to the neglect of the means of education, it was where the parents were driven by want, and thought it was better to allow their children to earn something, however small, rather than starve.

had supported the noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire, ever since he had brought forward this question; and he had done so for this reason, that the noble Lord was the first to introduce into the legislation of the country the principles of humanity as against the exclusive principles of finance. This was an object worthy the ambition of the greatest statesman; and he believed that not England alone, but Europe at large, would reap the benefit of these measures of the noble Lord. He would not have been absent from these discussions on any account; and to-night he did not know whether to congratulate the noble Lord more on the support he had received, or on the character of the opposition he had met with. The support was an admission of his principles, and an offer to assist in carrying them out as far as possible; and the opposition amounted to neither more nor less than this—why do you not carry your principles into the agricultural as well as the manufacturing districts? In addition to that, one hon. Gentleman advised them to cheapen the food of the people, and then they would effect all the good they wished. Now, he questioned that, even if he were to admit, for the sake of argument, but not of fact, that it would cheapen their food. What was the argument of the hon. Gentleman? That it would cheapen labour. ["No."] No; was it not to enable manufacturers to enter into competition with foreign manufacturers; and how could that be done but by cheapening labour? But he thought the argument might be answered on a broader principle. Were they not to do some good because they did not see it their duty at once to do all the good that others might wish? Suppose that the repeal of the Corn Laws were fraught with all the blessings which its supporters expected, were they not to do some good today, because they would not agree to the repeal of the Corn Laws to-morrow? He thought the noble Lord had done wisely in adopting the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, who had admitted as much of the measure as was perhaps practicable in the present circumstances of the country; and he had no doubt that the measure would soon be in active operation. He thought the whole system of education might be prodigiously improved without any serious difficulty, for he thought the constitution in Church and Stale was well calculated to promote the secular as well as the religious improvement of the people.

wished to say a few words on this subject. He had formerly presented a petition from the workmen in the manufacturing districts, complaining of the grievances under which they laboured. Their petition went even farther than the noble Lord's Bill, for they asked the House to limit the time in which machinery was to be employed. But he was satisfied that this petition was proposed to the House in the belief that the employers generally would not give the noble Lord's measure their zealous co-operation; that they would be adverse to its provisions, and, being adverse, that they would evade it. But now, when he understood from the noble Lord that several of the master manufacturers were favourable to his Resolutions, and particularly to the abolition of night work, that materially altered the question, and he thought the noble Lord had exercised a wise discretion in agreeing to the offer made by the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary. He trusted the concessions made by the Government would be received by all parties in the spirit in which they were offered.

differed from the principle of the Bill; but, as the persons interested in the question gave it no opposition, and the noble Lord and the Government were agreed as to the Bill, he supposed that it would pass. He could not help thinking that the measure had reached its present stage in a somewhat remarkable manner. The noble Lord had adopted the suggestions of the Government, and had taken what he could get. No doubt that was quite proper. He had given his reasons for doing so; one of which was, that if he had not adopted the suggestions of the Government, he would not have been able to pass any measure at all. The right hon. Gentleman had agreed to the second reading of the Bill, after making a speech, in which he said that he only did so in the hope that he would be able to strike out certain objectionable clauses. He had no objection to that course, if the right hon. Gentleman thought he was able to make it a salutary and good measure. He was, however, astonished at the speeches of the hon. Members for Manchester and Montrose, because they had made strong speeches against the principle of the Bill, and yet they said they would not divide the House. He was at a loss to understand how persons representing manufacturing constituencies, and feeling the importance of resisting this principle, which they had been told was an aggressive principle, and which they had seen enough of during the last two years to know that it was a dangerously aggressive principle—he was at a loss to understand how they could fail to record their votes against it. He wished any hon. Gentleman supporting this measure would show the House what the consequence of interfering with labour had been during the last five and twenty years. Could it be shown that the comforts of the labouring classes had increased exactly in proportion as these Bills had passed? Not one of the grievances which they were intended to remedy had ever been remedied; but they had led to the forming of still further measures which proved equally inefficient. The first measure they passed interfered with the labour of apprentices. The effect of that was to render necessary the introduction of another Bill interfering with the labour of those who were not apprentices, because the first Bill had forced them into the places which apprentices formerly occupied. The consequence of this second measure was, to force an undue quantity of workmen into the factories, and the effect of that had been that the House was again obliged to interfere with the labour of women. The principle was still going on, and they were properly and justly taunted by the hon. Member for Manchester that they would not extend it; they dared not extend it to the agricultural districts. [Lord Ashley: Why not?] He begged the noble Lord's pardon; he did not mean anything offensive to him; the noble Lord did not so extend it because the thing was utterly impossible, and, therefore, it was wise in him not to do so. That was what he meant. He was astonished that there was no opposition to the measure. He had no interest in the question himself, but he considered it was a petty peddling measure, and if the House were to be divided, he should vote against the Bill.

cordially approved of the course taken by the noble Lord. He had been a spinner in Manchester for the last thirty-one years; and for a long time he stood alone in advocating legislative interference with the labour of children. In 1815, the late Sir Robert Peel took up the question: he proposed to limit the work to ten hours and a half a day, but he was then opposed by all parties, although it was given in evidence that children of six and seven years of age were worked in factories for the space of sixteen or seventeen hours a day. He, however, obtained a Bill, limiting the employment of children to twelve hours; and that measure was found to work well. He thought the noble Lord had exercised a wise discretion in accepting the present concession; and he was convinced that if they proceeded with caution, the masters in the country would find that the measure was not opposed to their interests, nor to those of the working classes. He trusted that all measures of this kind would carry public opinion along with them. He thought the noble Lord entitled to great credit for his exertions.

was glad to hear those opinions which had been expressed by one who, peculiarly on a subject of this kind, had the strongest claims on the attention of the House, from the experience of a long life, during which he had been connected with the manufacturing industry of the country. He did not know from what quarter of the country the hon. Member for Winchester had obtained his information; but he must say that, as far as his own information extended, he believed that, upon the whole, great and substantial benefit had been derived from the legislation which had taken place with respect to the manufacturing industry of the country. He would not, upon this occasion, enter into the discussion of the various questions of political economy connected with this subject, or into the distinctions of different kinds of labour, so far as they became the subject of legislative interference. With respect to the machinery invented by man, it was found that there was a disposition to attach to labour for too long periods those connected with it; and it was found that legislative interference and regulations were necessary with respect to those engaged in these labours. With respect to agricultural labour, it might be said that that was also connected with machinery—the machinery of the earth. But there was this distinction, that the machinery of the Mighty Architect was one which worked silently and in secret, unlit by their gas and unviewed by their light—it still worked on silently and beneficially in its operations. With respect to the machinery invented by man, it was necessary to interfere occasionally by legislative regulations. He admitted that that principle might be carried too far, and required to be watched with care. He would be far from wishing to apply that principle rashly or intemperately. He had hitherto concurred in and supported the measures of his noble Friend. At the same time, if he thought that his noble Friend was proceeding too hastily, he would be ready to oppose him. He was happy to say, that on the present occasion he fully concurred with him. He congratulated him on the success that had that night attended his labours, and which would not only redound to his credit for the moment, but would conduce to the best interests of those whose interests it was his object to promote.

begged to thank the noble Lord, on behalf of his constituents, for his exertions on this subject. He thought that, in matters of this kind, those whose interests were concerned, namely, the working classes themselves, ought to be able to form an opinion as to what was best for their own interests. He wished that the hon. Member for Winchester had been present, to see the way in which the working classes of Bolton had expressed their thanks to the noble Lord for his exertions in their behalf. He wished that the hon. Member would pay them a visit, and look into their mills, and see the improvements that had taken place in ventilation, in baths, and in various other ways conducive to the comfort of the working classes, and all in consequence of the system of inspection that had been established. Why, the state of things had been altogether changed within the last twenty or thirty years. He knew an establishment in his own neighbourhood, in which a large room was kept for the amusement of the working classes. The benefits derived from the exertions of the noble Lord had been very great.

, in reply, would only detain the House by reading five lines of a letter which he had received. The effect of the letter was, that the improvement that had taken place in the morals and manners of children and young persons engaged in mills and factories was so great, that they did not appear to be the same race of human beings; and that so sensible were those most interested of the im- portance of the change, that they would suffer any hardship sooner than go back to the old system.

said, before the House proceeded to a Committee of Supply, he hoped he should be strictly in order in recalling the attention of the House to the subject of the petitions which he had presented in an early stage of the evening's proceedings. He thought he should obtain the indulgence of the House when he stated that these were cases of very serious hardship upon very helpless and very defenceless persons. He was aware that he required that indulgence, but thought it would be found not to be ill bestowed, as he would occupy as short a time as possible. The first case was that of a man of the name of Thomas Lakin, who was sentenced to imprisonment for the nonpayment of 5s. 4d. assessed upon him for poor rates. A benevolent individual hearing the particulars, paid the amount, and the man was released from prison. He was then summoned by the parochial functionary for the sum of 20s. for costs. He was summoned before the magistrates of Leicestershire. He went to the place at which the magistrates met, but was not permitted to go into their presence. The policeman in attendance told him that if he had not got the money he must go to gaol. He was accordingly taken to gaol, and he now lay in the county gaol of Leicester, a prisoner, and with hard labour for a month, in consequence of not being able to pay the costs, 20s. He was a poor man, with a wife and four children in extreme indigence. He had no goods whereon the distress of 5s. 4d. could be levied, and of course he had no goods upon which to levy the larger amount, and, consequently he now lay in gaol at Leicester. The next case was that of Anne Ward, and this was a very aggravated one. This woman was a widow with four children. She was also in great indigence. She was not a householder, but had a lodging, where she lived upon a very bare subsistence. She was summoned for 3s. 4d. In that case also the money was paid by some benevolent individual, and who the person was, was unknown to the parties at this moment, and she was set at liberty. She went to her house five or six miles off, but was again summoned before the same ma- gistrates, and was now under a second commitment in the gaol of Leicester, with hard labour, for a month. As soon as the petitions were placed in his hand on Monday, he concluded that it was impossible but there must be some exaggeration. He thought it utterly impossible that educated gentlemen, engaged in the administration of justice, should have acted in the manner described; and he wrote to the committing magistrates, stating the circumstances, and requesting them to instruct some person to appear in that House and explain the true state of the facts, in order that the whole matter might be cleared up, and that he might not, in endeavouring to obtain justice for these individuals, commit an injustice to others; but the reply which he had received that morning, he was sorry to say, admitted in substance the facts of the case. There was no denial that the parties were committed, upon the second warrants, to hard labour for the longest periods for which it was possible, under the circumstances, to commit them. It was not denied that the magistrates did not hear that case; but it was stated that the parties were summoned and did not appear. Now, in their petitions they stated that they did appear, but were prevented from going before the magistrates, or into the room where the petty sessions were held, and told that if they had not the money they must go to gaol. They did not appear, because they were prevented by those whose duty it was to have brought them before the bench. But was it not the duty of the magistrates to inquire whether the parties were there, and to institute a rigid inquiry before they made out their commitment for the extreme time, and under the extreme circumstances, for which they could by any possibility inflict the punishment? This was a very painful case; and he assured the House that it was with the utmost pain he felt compelled to ask for an explanation with reference to it. He did not, envy the feelings of those who would unnecessarily impugn the conduct of gentlemen acting in the administration of the law; but this subject had created considerable excitement in the neighbourhood, and particularly in the town which he had the honour to represent, and the public waited with great anxiety to learn the determination of the question; for it was not extraordinary that persons living in large manufacturing districts, and feeling the im- portance of maintaining the supremacy of the law, should feel intense pain at finding the persons entrusted with the administration of the law execute their duties carelessly, severely, unjustly. They felt that the humbler classes were bound to bow to the administration of the law, even when it pressed severely upon them in their distress; and if they were so bound to obey the law, it was felt that it ought not to be inflicted upon them with a severity that it was impossible to bear; good men of all classes must regret that persons should be placed on the bench who acted carelessly in inflicting the penalties of the law. He begged to ask the right hon. Baronet whether the facts of this case had come to his knowledge, and if so, whether he had obtained such information as would justify him in recommending that these persons should be immediately released? He begged to know if any and what return had been made from the magistrates, and whether the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to take any step which would prevent his (Sir J. Easthope's) further troubling the House on this very painful subject.

said, the hon. Baronet had been so obliging as to notify to him, in the course of the morning, his intention of bringing this case before the House, and early in the evening he had presented two petitions on the subject to which it referred. If it were not for this previous information he should not have been prepared to answer the hon. Baronet's question; but what the hon. Gentleman stated was quite correct, that the circumstances of this case had excited in Leicester and the neighbourhood considerable sensation. From other quarters, unknown to him, copies of the petitions had been sent to the Home Office, and on receiving them he felt it his duty, seeing the primâ facie case they contained, to call upon the magistrates named for some explanation. He had received, during the course of yesterday, that explanation, and he was bound to say that it was not satisfactory to him. He was of opinion that an indiscretion had been committed, probably without the know edge of the magistrates, in not allowing persons who had been summoned to appear before the bench to come before it. They were summoned to appear before the justices. They were not allowed to enter the room, but a preliminary question was put to them, whether they had brought the money. They had it not, and were refused permission to enter that room. This he conceived to be a gross violation of justice. Nor did the matter end here. The parties were in arrear for poor rates, and upon the nonpayment of that arrear it was competent for the justices to issue a warrant for that nonpayment; and if costs were to be charged, it was competent to the justices to issue at the same time a warrant not only for the poor rate in arrear, but also for the costs. As he understood this case, the warrant was issued for the non-payment of the arrear of poor rate. If the magistrates intended to embody in the commitment not only the non-payment of poor rate, but also the nonpayment of costs, they should have set forth not only the non-payment of the rates, but also of the costs, in the commitment, and both documents ought to have been issued at the same time, and the parties to have been committed for the arrear and the costs. In this case, however, the warrant was for the poor rate alone in the first instance, the amount due being under 5s. in each case. That warrant was discharged, and the matter ought to have ended; but the parties having been liberated with respect to the poor rates, it was illegal in his opinion, and in that of persons more competent to form a judgment upon such points, to issue a second warrant for costs amounting to 20s. in each case without their further appearance before the magistrates. He had heard of these circumstances with the greatest possible regret, and would not for a moment attempt to justify them. He was sorry they had not sooner come to his knowledge, for the parties were committed on the 5th of March, and their imprisonment would expire on the 5th of April. He had now obtained a knowledge of the circumstances; he had formed his opinion upon them, and it would be his duty to advise Her Majesty immediately to liberate the parties.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had stated the circumstances quite accurately, for last week the same parties who sent the petitions to the right hon. Gentleman called upon him (Mr. Duncombe), and it was by his advice that the petitions were so sent. His hon. Friend (Sir J. Easthope) was not in town, and as Parliament was not sitting — it being in the recess—he thought the best thing they could do would be to send the petitions to the right hon. Baronet. He believed every circumstance stated in the petitions to be correct. These poor persons were undergoing hard labour in Leicester gaol. They had been prevented by a policeman from going before the magistrates. The right hon. Baronet said, he would immediately order their release; but, unfortunately, their imprisonment would expire on Friday next, the very day on which they would receive the order for their discharge. He wished to know what redress they were to have? The one was a poor man in very indigent circumstances, the other a widow, who had lost her husband by an accident in a colliery. What redress were they to have? Was there to be no redress for these unfortunate people? He hoped the right hon. Baronet would go one step farther than releasing them. He hoped he would advise Her Majesty to strike these two magistrates out of the Commission of the Peace, and take care that they should not any longer disgrace it by either their ignorance or their intentional perversion of justice, nor any longer abuse their power by acts of gross tyranny, oppression and cruelty.

, as Chairman of the Quarter Sessions, begged leave to say a few words on behalf of the excellent gentlemen against whom this complaint was made, Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Abney. He quite agreed with the opinion that had been expressed, that there had been an error in the act of these gentlemen. He was convinced that it was a mere error, and that no corrupt motive could have possibly influenced, or could be imputed to these respectable persons. He had known these two gentlemen for a considerable length of time, and he had acted at Quarter Sessions with them, and he could bear testimony to their proper conduct. He trusted that what had occurred now would be a useful lesson to gentlemen in the country, that they would now know that the 18th George III. ought not to be separated from the act authorising the payment of rates. He was sorry for the unfortunate individuals concerned in this case; but he trusted that no further steps would be taken to the injury of those respectable gentlemen, and whose characters, he would say, were not deserving of any reproach being cast upon them.

knew nothing of the persons whose names had been mentioned; but the question, he said, to be considered was this—what redress were these poor people to get? He had looked to the right hon. Gentleman whose observations on this point had been addressed to the House, because he hoped to hear from him that redress should be obtained for them. Let them call the act of these gentlemen error, or what else they pleased—here were two unfortunate individuals suffering unjustly. Here, then, were circumstances, when it became necessary that an example should be made. His hon. Friend had told them of the injury, the severe injury that had been done. Then how were they who had suffered to be redressed? They had heard of actions being brought, and heavy damages being given, for a few hours' or a few days' unjust imprisonment; but here there was something worse—here were poor persons for a few shillings sent for a month to prison and condemned to hard labour. Was it not, he asked, in such a case as this, the duty of the Government to protect the poor, to secure to them relief, to ensure for them redress? He did think that this was the duty of a Government, and therefore it was that he asked of Her Majesty's Government to do something for them. He did not know what that should be, nor what was the best mode in which it could be done. There was another point, also, to be considered. Here were 20s. costs on that which was originally but 5s. How long, he asked the right hon. Baronet was that to continue? Here it was plain that the law did not protect poor persons—here unfortunate individuals were conveyed to prison, irregularly, improperly, and as it plainly appeared, contrary to law; for they were told by the Secretary of State that these convictions had been wrong. Then, if the law could not relieve these persons, could it not punish the wrong doers, or was it to be stated that there was no remedy for them? Was it to be said that gentlemen could act thus, and no compassion be shown—that they should deprive persons of their liberty, and the Government afford no redress? This was, he said, an instance in which the Government ought to throw its shield over and protect such poor persons. He was sorry to hear nothing said by the right hon. Gentleman as to his determination to obtain justice.

After what had been said by the hon. Gentleman, he hoped the House would excuse him for saying a few words. The Prerogative of the Crown would be immediately exercised in favour of these poor persons, and then the magistrates would have the opportunity either of vindicating their conduct in a court of law, or of satisfying those individuals for the injuries they might suppose they had done them. Saying this, he thought that from a Minister of the Crown, anything like a threat would be most unbecoming in this state of the case.

considered the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman perfectly satisfactory.

said, that there could be no doubt that here the parties had a right to complain of the injustice, and it might be said of the ignorance of these persons; for, if he were rightly informed, they had no power to commit, unless it had been proved that property had been secreted to avoid the payment of rates [Cries of "No, no."] What! was it possible that they committed persons for their poverty? It was a monstrous thing if a person could be committed to prison for his poverty; that a person should be liable to be committed if he could not pay 5s., and then in order to add to his misery, 20s. costs put on the original sum, and the person destined to prison and hard labour for not paying.

trusted that the House would further indulge him for a moment to express his acknowledgments to the right hon. Baronet for the frank manner in which he had met this case. He must, however, implore of the right hon. Gentleman not to let the first post tomorrow pass without ordering the release of these poor people. It was painful to think that they had been confined so long, and that, too, most illegally and unjustly. He felt strongly that not a moment should be lost in directing their release; and he thought the House would be of the same opinion, that the right hon. Gentleman could not so well discharge his duty as in hastening their relief—ay, if it were even but by six hours. The remedy ought to be applied the first moment that the grievance was thus known and proved.

wished to state, for the purpose of preventing mistake or disappointment, lest any delay should occur, that before those persons could be released from prison, an instrument must be submitted to Her Majesty for her sign manual.

considered this a very proper case to be submitted to the attention of the House and the Government. It was one of those deplorable cases which occurred under the existing law, and that law he hoped to see soon altered. He hoped that the time was coming when the power of thus mulcting parties with costs would be put an end to. It was, however, to be observed, that though the Statute gave the power of ordering costs, it did not give the power to magistrates to order any illegal payments. If the costs in this case were examined, he doubted whether it would be found that they were sanctioned by law. This was an important point, and it was one to which he wished to call the attention of his right hon. Friend. It did not follow that because the Act of Parliament allowed costs, that therefore illegal fees should or could be demanded.

presumed, that as to the fees in this case, they would be found hung up in the clerk's office, duly inscribed in some old table, sanctioned by some old judge, whose name was now forgotten. Perhaps it would be found, that if these tables of fees were examined, that where there was a common conviction the fees should be 4s., but where there was a game conviction, the costs should be 10s. Such, he knew, was the case in Derbyshire; and, if they made an inquiry, perhaps it was the case in Leicestershire. [Mr. Packe: No, no.] He was glad to hear it; it showed that they were more civilized in Leicestershire than in other parts of the country. He wished to ask the right hon. Baronet (who appeared to him to have done everything that could be done in this case) one question; it was whether he had received an explanation of this matter from the clerk?

replied that it was quite true that he had received an explanation from the clerk, who was of course more cognizant of all the circumstances than the magistrates, and he must say that nothing could be more frank than the explanation given.

would not oppose the Vote of 100,000 men for the army at that period, provided it were understood that he should not be prevented from bringing forward the subject on a future occa- sion. His reason for consenting to postpone the matter was, that the Government desired to proceed with the Mutiny Bill.

said, that if the House consented to this Vote they would, in fact, be passing the whole Army Estimates, amounting to 6,000,000l. It would not afterwards be in their power to refuse any other part of the Votes proposed to them. Wednesday night was not a proper time to call upon the House to vote away 6,000,000l. of the public money; and no less a sum of money than that was involved in the Vote in question. There was no necessity for pressing on the Vote on account of the Mutiny Act, as three weeks would elapse before the Act would expire.

said, the hon. Gentleman could not but be aware, that although 129,000 was the number of men stated in the Mutiny Bill, it did not follow that that force would be maintained during the year. The Act stated the number of men which the Crown might during the year raise for the standing army; but then the number actually employed must, of course, depend on the money granted to pay all the troops in the service; and the hon. Gentleman would have as good an opportunity of bringing forward his proposal of a reduction on the question of the amount of money to be paid, as on that of the number of men to be employed. As the Mutiny Act expired on the 22nd of April, it was necessary to hasten its renewal. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman would not object to the Government taking the first Vote.

said, if he were to state the reduction he wished to make, he did not believe any accountant in England, after a month's application, could tell the precise cost of a given number of men. There were so many contingent items, that no correct result could be arrived at.

would undertake to promise, that if the hon. Gentleman would state what reduction he intended to propose, his right hon. Friend would furnish him with the exact cost, and by that means the hon. Gentleman's object would be secured.

would state in a few words what reduction he wished to have made. The reason which had always been assigned in the discussions which he had heard on this subject in favour of having a large standing army, was the necessity which existed for affording better reliefs to the regiments stationed in the Colonies. Now, he would show how that object might be accomplished, and the amount of the army be reduced by 11,000 men. There were three regiments of Life Guards, which performed no duties in the Colonies; there were also three regiments of Foot Guards, to which the same remark applied. Those regiments, with the exception of one of them, which had been in Canada since the termination of the war, had not performed any active duty. In all they were 6,561 men, and the cost of these six regiments was equal to that of 11,000 infantry. It was by no means his desire to see Her Majesty deprived of that sort of outward display which she was usually surrounded with when she appeared on occasions of state; but what he objected to was the small amount of duty that was performed at so great a cost. He had never seen on duty more than six of these Life Guards—he meant as sentinels—at one time, except perhaps six times in the course of a year when Her Majesty had levees, and on no one of those occasions had he ever seen more than one of these regiments employed. If then these troops were placed on the same footing as regiments of the line, they might make a saving equal to the cost of 10,000 men. The only argument that he had ever heard for keeping up our large standing army at its present numbers was the necessity of having reliefs for the Colonial duties. With that necessity his proposition would not interfere, for they would have precisely the same means of relief if they abolished these regiments altogether as they had at present.

wished to understand the hon. Gentleman correctly. The hon. Gentleman proposed, he thought, to retain one regiment of Life Guards, as at present; but that the other regiments of Life Guards and the Foot Guards should be put on the footing of regiments of the line, without any reduction of their numbers.

said, he wished to go into Committee pro formâ merely. He did not think it right that the operation of the Bill should be confined to works of art in any particular locality; and he had therefore considered that it would be desirable to extend the provisions of the Bill as it stood at present, and he was about to move an instruction to the Committee to effect that object. There were many valuable works of art to which the Bill as at present limited would give no protection. For instance, the statue of the Duke of Wellington, near the Mansion-house, ought to be brought within the protection of the law. His noble Friend (Lord F. Egerton) had most liberally thrown open to the public his valuable and extensive collection of paintings and works of art, and it would be monstrous that any mischief should be done by means of a breach of his noble Friend's hospitality without the possibility of due punishment reaching the offender. The painted window of St. Margaret's Church might be broken by a stone thrown at it, and as the words of the Bill stood they would not reach such an offence. He therefore wished to give the measure a more extensive operation, and he begged to move that it be an instruction to the Committee that they have power to extend the provisions of the Bill to all works of art, and scientific and literary institutions; and, if the House agreed to that instruction, he proposed to go into Committee pro formâ, so that the provisions of the Bill might be made co-extensive with the mischief.

rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the amendment and better administration of the laws relating to the Relief of the Poor in Scotland; and stated that he should, with the leave of the House, explain as briefly as possible the grounds on which he ventured to make the Motion, as well as the nature of the measure which, if permitted, he intended to propose for the adoption of the Legislature. It was known to the House, at least it was known to many Members of the House, that public attention had been for some time past a good deal directed to the state and condition of the poor in Scotland; and an impression existed that in some parts of that country, particularly in the great towns and some rural districts, the condition of the poor was not what it ought to be. He was not speaking now with reference to those occasional visitations of extraordinary distress which were so deplorable, and to which every country was more or less liable — commercial and manufacturing districts, from extraordinary depression and vicissitude of trade—agricultural districts, from extraordinary periods of sterility and vicissitude of season. Those were extraordinary occurrences. They overcame all ordinary precautions, and baffled all ordinary calculations, and must be met by extraordinary exertions befitting the occasion, calculated as much as possible to mitigate the sufferings which such occurrences always bring, and to repair the damage they create. But such a state of extraordinary exertion could not possibly be the constant condition of any system or of any permanent establishment for the relief of the poor. The impression to which he had alluded as existing in Scotland, and the measure he was about to submit, had reference, not to those extraordinary visitations of distress, but to the ordinary condition of the permanent poor. In reference to that condition, so far back as 1838, by desire, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland had appointed a Committee to inquire, and a Report was made by that Committee to the House of Commons, which contained a great deal of valuable matter, both as to the condition of the poor, and as to the law and practice of Scotland in maintaining them. In 1842 Returns were moved for in the House of Commons (he believed by the hon. Member for St. Andrew's), with reference to the condition of the poor in all the parishes in Scotland. Those Returns were printed in 1843, and they also contained a great deal of valuable information. In January, 1843, a commission of inquiry into the state of the poor of Scotland was appointed. That Commission pursued its labours for nearly a year, and it was impossible to speak in too high terms of praise of those labours, or of the anxiety, industry, and judgment evinced by the noblemen and gentlemen by whom that inquiry was conducted. In May, 1844, they made their Report, and that Report was now on the Table of the House, together with the evidence col- lected by them in reference to the state of the poor and the administration of relief in every district in Scotland. That Report, and the evidence upon which it was based, established, he thought, beyond all doubt, that the feeling which had previously obtained as to the condition of the poor in many parts of Scotland was not without cause. In some parts of the country, especially in the large towns, a great deal of poverty and misery existed, and the application of means of relief was not what was to be wished. The same might be said of some of the rural districts. That was the conclusion come to by the Commissioners who had examined the evidence. He would take their words. They said,—

"That the funds raised for the relief of the poor, and the provision made for them out of the funds raised for their relief is, in many parishes throughout Scotland, insufficient."

Then they say,

"There is undoubtedly abundant evidence to prove that the allowances are often inadequate, both in town and country parishes; and that the amount of relief given is frequently altogether insufficient to provide even the commonest necessaries of life. Throughout the Highland districts, and in some parts of the Lowlands also, where the funds consist solely of what may be raised by the Church collections, the amount is often inconsiderable. In many of these places, it will be seen that the quantum of relief given is not measured by the necessities of the pauper, but by the sum which the Kirk Session may happen to have in hand for distribution."

Again:—

"In adverting to the inadequacy of the allowances, we must not, however, be understood to confine our statements to those parishes only in which no fund, except church collections, is raised for the poor either by voluntary contributions or by a legal assessment; as there are many of the assessed parishes to which the same remarks are almost equally applicable. We cannot cite a stronger instance than that of the city of Edinburgh, in which the Town Council have for years declined to increase the rate of assessment, notwithstanding applications made by the managers of the poor, and their representations that the necessities of the poor were increasing, and the funds raised insufficient."

Now he was bound to say that, having weighed the whole of the evidence with the best attention in his power, and having no inconsiderable acquaintance with the parties examined, he had found himself obliged to come to the same conclusion, that the condition of the poor was not what it ought to be, and that some legislative interference was absolutely necessary. He should not detain the House by citing from these volumes the evidence which confirmed that conclusion; any citation would be easy; and it would be very easy, by means of a selection of passages, to excite the sympathies of hon. Gentlemen; but he thought there would be no use in that. He felt confident that the conclusion to which the Commissioners had come, and in which he concurred, would not be disputed by any one who took the trouble to peruse the evidence with attention; and in dealing with a matter of this kind, where the object desired was sound and permanent legislation, he would rather seek to obtain his end by addressing the dispassionate judgment of the House, than by endeavouring to excite any transient and temporary feeling, Now, if the fact were as the Commissioners reported, and if it was a just impression on the minds of many persons in Scotland that the poor were not sufficiently attended to, and that something must be done, he need not advance further in endeavouring to show the reason why he asked the House to interfere. He had sometimes been congratulated in this end of the island on the absence of Poor Law in Scotland, and he had been met by expressions of astonishment when he said that there did exist in that country a complete system of Poor Law. To Members of the Mouse of Commons it was of course known that there existed such a law, and to such of them as had read the Report of the Commissioners, it might not be necessary to explain what the law was; but he might be permitted to state, in a few words, the leading characters of the law, in order that the House might understand what were the defects of it, and what remedies it was proposed to apply. The substantial provisions of the Poor Law of Scotland were contained in a Statute passed in the reign of James VI. of that kingdom in 1579, and in two Proclamations of the Privy Council in the reign of William and Mary. This was all the law that existed for any compulsory provision whatever. That Statute and these Proclamations, with the explanatory decisions of the Court, and the consequent usage, might be said to constitute the Poor Law of Scotland. It was in a small compass, therefore, and was easily understood; and if the House would permit him to do so, he thought that he could, in a very few sentences, explain all that was necessary to be understood for the present purpose. In the first place, as to the persons who were the objects of the care of the Legislature, the substance of the law was, that provision should be made for the infirm and impotent poor. This related to persons labouring under bodily infirmity in consequence of age, or in consequence of non-age, or in consequence of disease or accident. All these persons, being unable to support themselves, were the objects of the law. It was not necessary, however, to entitle them to be recipients of the relief that they should be totally disabled—if they were partially disabled they might, under the law as it stood, have relief awarded to them in aid of what they could earn, so as to make up sufficient for their subsistence; but they must be either wholly or partially disabled, to bring them within the provisions of the law. If they could work at all, they must work to a certain extent. That being the state of the case as to the persons who were entitled to claim relief, he might now state, that when such persons fell into a situation of poverty, their claim for relief lay against the parish of their settlement. Settlement in Scotland was gained in four ways—by birth, parentage, residence, or marriage; and it was the law of Scotland that a settlement once acquired could not be lost except by acquiring another in another parish. Then as to the funds which existed for the maintenance of the poor: these consisted, in the first place, of contributions at the doors of the parish churches. Such contributions were made on Sabbath at every parish church, and produced no inconsiderable revenue. There were other voluntary contributions. It sometimes happened that the people of a particular district agreed to contribute on a scale which they settled for themselves; these sums were very considerable, and they were on the increase. There might also be sums "mortified" as it was called in Scotland, or bequeathed for the use of the poor. The remaining source was the fund raised by legal assessment. In Scotland there was full power by the Statute of 1579, and the Proclamations to which he had alluded, for the parochial authorities to assess for the maintenance of the poor, and that without any limit as to amount other than the necessities of the case. That had been the law since 1579; it was the law now, and in several parishes it was acted upon to a large extent. In landward parishes—that was, parishes which were not boroughs or towns—the proprietors or heritors of land paid one-half of the assessment, and the other half fell upon the inhabitants and householders. The former part of the assessments was laid on according to the value of the land; the latter was imposed, on the principle of the Property and Income Tax, according to the "means and substance" (as it was called) of the parties; and although he had heard complaints as to this mode of assessment being made arbitrarily, and without sufficient means of knowledge, he had never received any authentic information, or even an allegation, from any person that he had been assessed beyond his substance; but, if there were such a case made out, relief would be given. The law then made full provision for the support of the poor; and it put into the hands of those who had the administration of the law the power of assessing to any extent necessary for the purpose. He would now explain to whom the administration of the law was committed. In towns the administration of the law devolved nominally on the magistrates, who were responsible; but practically, it rested, in a great measure, with the kirk sessions,—that was, the minister and elders of the parish. In landward parishes the administration was with the proprietors or heritors and the kirk sessions. It was not prescribed by Statute that the relief should be in any particular form. The requisite was that the poor should have needful sustentation, and that might be given in clothes, food, money, house-rent, or any way most advantageous to them. The amount depended on the opinion and discretion, in the first place, of the administrators of the fund. Of course, that amount must depend on many circumstances, and would vary in different districts. Needful sustentation must depend on the other resources of the persons receiving relief, on the rate of living in the part of the country where they resided, and the style of living to which the labouring classes in the same district were accustomed; for it could scarcely be contended, nor could it be a salutary principle, that the support given to the poor should be greater than that which was earned by the labourer in full employment, supporting his family. A discretionary power thus existed as to the amount of relief to be given. But it might happen that a poor person was denied relief—the parish might refuse to consider his case or listen to his application. If that occurred, the Sheriff of the county, who in Scotland was a local judge appointed by the Crown, holding office for life, and therefore perfectly independent, had full power and authority under the law to require that the parochial authorities should meet and take the claim into consideration; and when, having so met and considered, if they should deny the right of the applicant to be admitted on the list of the poor of that particular parish, or if they should award him an amount of relief insufficient for his support, there was still a remedy for the pauper, by application to the Supreme Court, which had power and jurisdiction to compel the parochial authorities to receive the claim, and place the party on the roll amongst those who were receiving relief. The Supreme Court had also full power to compel the parochial authorities not to defeat the intentions of the Legislature by giving mere illusory relief, but to do their duty honestly and faithfully. From what he had now stated, it would be seen that in Scotland every impotent poor person has a statutory right to relief—that in every case there is some parish liable to him—generally the parish which has most recently had the benefit of his healthful labour and industry for a course of years, and in which poverty has overtaken him;—that in every parish there is an administrative body charged by law with the duty, and armed by law with the power, of giving relief and raising funds for that purpose; and finally, that if that body neglects or refuses to do its duty, the courts of law have power to compel it. There was then a right and an obligation; there were persons to perform that obligation; and there was the power to compel them to perform it. That being the state of the law, its general scope and provisions were sufficient for the attainment of the object in view. Now, it could not be said that the state of things which he had described, and the existence of which was proved by the Report to which he had referred, was, because the law was framed in a different condition of the country from the present—when it was in a less advanced or improved state. It could not be said that the country in its improvement had outgrown the law and its provisions; because (and he thought this would be conceded on all sides) the provisions of the law which he had stated were suited to any country; and it was also notorious that the operation of the law was most efficient and perfect in districts of the country that had advanced most in civilization and become the most improved. The improvement of the country, therefore, had not outgrown the law; but, on the contrary, the law had obtained strength and energy as improvement advanced. That law was very similar to the law established in England in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. But he had almost forgotten to mention that the law of Scotland went further—it also provided for the education of the poor; and in every parish there was a system of education supported by the parish funds, and the teachers were obliged to teach the children of the poor gratuitously. It might to some be surprising to observe, that while the contemporaneous enactments were so similar in the two countries, practically the results of them in the progress of time had been so materially different. Whether the balance of advantage was on one side or the other, he did not stop to inquire; but he thought there were two considerations which he might point out to the House, as perhaps the main causes of that difference. In the first place, it would be observed that the law of Scotland, in so far as regarded its compulsory enactments, was limited to cases of infirm poor, whether permanently or occasionally so, and did not embrace the case of the able-bodied. That limit amounted to a plain line of distinction as to the parties entitled to relief. The limitation operated in a double manner. Poverty alone was not enough; neither was infirmity alone enough. There must be poverty conjoined with infirmity, to entitle a party to relief. Poverty might be the result of mere idleness, drunkenness, or dissolute conduct, and there was, therefore, no limit or effectual check to it; but infirmity was not, generally speaking, under the power or control of parties to be extended at pleasure; non-age and old age would not come and go at the bidding of parties; and even infirmity from disease or accident was not likely to be purposely induced by many in conjunction with poverty. This condition of the law had the effect of materially limiting the numbers of the poor admitted to relief in the one country, as compared with the other, and perhaps it had also the effect of stimulating the able-bodied to greater exertion. In the second place, there was this other characteristic of the Scotch system, that the provision primarily depended on for the poor was the voluntary contributions of the parishioners of the different districts; and the power of the law had only been called in to aid those contributions where they proved insufficient. Accordingly, there was in many parts of Scotland a great reluctance to have recourse to the system of assessment, and also a reluctance on the part of the poor to receive relief in that shape; and there were not wanting at the present day able and eloquent and pious and benevolent advocates of the system of voluntary contributions as preferable to assessment, both as regards the physical and the moral condition of the people. These circumstances might account for the different state of matters now in the two countries, notwithstanding the apparent similarity of the contemporaneous enactments. But whatever might have been the cause of the difference, he ventured to say that no proposal could excite more alarm and dissatisfaction among the people of Scotland, than a proposal to introduce there a Poor Law system similar to that of England. Whatever might be the reason, undoubtedly that feeling prevailed. They had heard a good deal of the heavy burdens imposed upon those who were bound to pay, of the dissatisfaction amongst those who received, and of the frequent attempts, from time to time, made to alter the law; and, rightly or wrongly, they had come to the conclusion that the people of England had not yet arrived at a settlement of the matter satisfactory to themselves. They therefore desired to avoid anything that partook of the English system rather than of their own. He would now advert to the evils described in the Report of the Commissioners as at present existing in Scotland. Those evils did not arise from any want of charity, or from any unwillingness on the part of the people to relieve poverty; for in those parishes in which there was no legal assessment, as well as in those in which assessment was made, there was a gradual increase of the funds contributed for the use of the poor, more than proportionate to the gradual increase of the population. But in many districts the circumstances of the people had materially changed; and in others, perhaps, there was some indifference—or rather, he would say, a want of attentive observation—especially in towns where there had been a great influx from the country beyond the efflux from the towns to the country. In many districts, too, a great change of cir- cumstances had been occasioned by the alteration of the system of management of land. Small farms had been thrown into large farms, and the consequence was, that there were fewer people able to contribute for the relief of the poor now than formerly. Then, again, in some extensive localities along the coast, the entire annihilation of the kelp manufacture had thrown many persons out of employment; and while the means of the contributors had decreased, and the funds for relieving the poor had become lessened, the poverty and misery of the labouring classes had materially increased. The question then was, what was to be done to remedy the state of things as proved to exist, resulting, as it had done, not from the law as he had described it, but from various circumstances? In many parishes the poor did not receive sufficient in relief to support them. As to the actual amount received, that (as the House would be aware) was no test of the relief afforded, unless taken with reference to other circumstances, as the habits of life in the district, and the kind of subsistence the applicant would be enabled to obtain by his labour; and the aid of various kinds which he might derive from other sources. Upon that subject the Commissioners had reported as follows,—

"The amount of the money allowance made by the administrators of the poor funds gives, in most cases, but a very imperfect notion of a pauper's resources and actual means of livelihood. There are very few of those receiving relief in the country parishes who are not able in some way or other to earn a little towards their own subsistence; besides which, the standard of living varies so much in different parts of Scotland, that with 1s. a week in one parish, a pauper may be in fully as good a condition, as compared with the independent labourer, as he would be with 2s. a week in another."

The condition of the able-bodied labourer when employed in his own district was a far better test or standard of comparison, than the condition of a person of the same class in another part of the kingdom. It was well known, too, that in Scotland people did not usually possess the same wealth as in this country, and it was equally true that the labourers did not live on the same fare. They were more frugal but not less hardy. Neither those who had to give, nor those who had to receive, were in the same condition in the two countries; and nothing could be more erroneous than to test the one country by the standard of the other—as gentlemen from this end of the island were apt to do, when they went down at a certain season of the year to occupy the mansions and sport over the manors of Scotch proprietors—forgetting that it was generally the poverty of the one and the wealth of the other, that enabled them so to enjoy themselves. But after making every allowance for the difference between the two countries, it could not be denied that evils existed which ought to be remedied; and the practical question was, what remedy ought to be applied? It appeared to him that two things were to be aimed at: 1st, To facilitate to the party entitled to relief the means of admission to the receipt of relief; and, 2dly, To secure due attention to his condition after his right was admitted. If these two things were accomplished, what more could be desired? As he had already explained, the power of assessment was already unlimited, and might be extended according to the wants of the poor: therefore, if it were effectually provided that relief should be given according to the condition of the parties requiring it, little more could be desired. It was essential that the means of obtaining relief should be easy; but to secure this there were obstacles to be removed, which he would state to the House. At present no parish was bound to relieve a pauper, except that in which he had a legal settlement; the result of that might be that a serious obstacle was opposed to him. The parish of his settlement might be at a great distance when he wanted the relief, and he might find it difficult, or perhaps impossible, to reach it; and even when he got there his claim might be disputed, and the result would be litigation, perhaps expensive litigation, to prove his right. Suppose that the parish authorities, after meeting to consider his case, should refuse positively to admit his claim, the pauper now had no redress except by going to the Supreme Court—a remedy distant and tedious. And even if these difficulties did not arise, there was still a want of persons whose duty it should be to examine into and look after the condition of the poor in their respective districts—of persons whose duty it should be to notice those who require relief, but were unwilling to come and demand it. Now he proposed that all such obstacles as he had described should be removed. He proposed, in the first place, to enact that every poor person should be entitled to obtain relief, in the first instance, in the parish in which he might happen to be when the necessity for that relief arose. He would remove from the pauper the onus of establishing his claim against any other parish. He would give the pauper a right against the parish in which he was found; and if that parish should seek to relieve itself from the burden, it must do so by ascertaining the parish of settlement against which the claim lies, and enforcing that claim. The pauper was not to be the party upon whom this duty should devolve. He should get relief from the parish in which he was found, until that parish should have established the liability of a different parish. Having so established that liability, then he proposed that the parish in which the pauper was found should have relief from the parish so found to be liable. This would get rid of all litigation as to the parish ostensibly liable. The arrangement he had to propose would be attended with other advantages; for in the next place he proposed that the pauper should not only get relief in the parish in which he was found, but that he should get it immediately. Supposing that the parish whose duty it was to give relief refused to do so, by the present law the remedy of the pauper lay in an appeal to the Supreme Court. But this means of redress was distant, tedious, expensive, and liable to other objections. In dealing with that point—namely, the right of the pauper to claim and obtain relief from the parish, which was a question partly of fact and partly of law, he proposed that, in the first instance, the local judge—the Sheriff of the county—should decide upon the question; and if the Sheriff decided in favour of the applicant, and the parish determined to appeal to a higher tribunal, that, nevertheless, in the meantime, the decision so pronounced by the Sheriff should be acted upon, and the pauper should receive relief. The amount of the relief would be fixed, in the first instance, at least, by the parochial authorities. Having thus secured the pauper's easy and speedy admission to the roll of persons entitled to relief, the next object was to secure due attention to his case and circumstances, to provide that he should obtain adequate relief. There was at present a want of local activity and constant attention as to this point; there was an evident need of some central power to keep the local authorities in motion, and the public had no opportunity of ascer- taining the conduct of those authorities in distant parts of the country. In order to remedy these evils, he proposed that in every parish a person should be appointed, whose duty it would be to attend to the condition of the poor, to keep a list of the persons entitled to relief, and to distribute the amount awarded to them; and he proposed further the appointment of a central authority to which the local authorities in each parish should make regular reports of their proceedings, and which should exercise a general supervision over all the parishes in the country. He intended that those reports should not only include the names of all persons in receipt of relief, and the amount of that relief, but also the names of all persons who had applied for relief. Then came the question—what was to be done in case any of the local authorities refused to grant a just and adequate amount of relief? This was said to be the great source of the existing evil, and the want of a proper corrective was said to be the chief defect of the present system; the only door open to the poor man for obtaining redress, if proper relief was withheld, was an appeal to the Supreme Court. He (the Lord Advocate) thought some authority ought to be constituted, or some means devised, which might afford speedy redress in these cases; and he believed such a measure—the known existence of such a power—would tend most effectually to check injustice wherever there was a disposition to exercise it. At present, although a poor man was entitled to sue in the Supreme Court in formâ pauperis, the remedy he might expect to obtain was at best distant, and while his case was pending he had no means of support. The existing system of appeal to the Supreme Court also imposed great hardship upon parishes in many cases; for it was in the power of any obstinate pauper, or speculative attorney, to drag a parish into Court, and compel them to expend in litigation the funds which ought to be devoted to the relief of the poor. It was undoubtedly the fact, that instances of this kind had recently occurred in different parts of Scotland, and parishes had been subjected to, and in other cases threatened with, tedious and expensive litigation. The system of appeal to the Supreme Court, as it now existed, was therefore objectionable as regarded the interests both of the pauper and of the parish. What then was to be done? The Commissioners had stated that, upon a consideration of these evils, they were "inclined to suggest" the abolition of the right of appeal to the Supreme Court, and they had not proposed to substitute anything in its place. That course, however, would take away all power of control over the local authorities; and when he (the Lord Advocate) found it necessary to come to the House, and ask for an amendment of the law, because full justice was not done by the local authorities, he could not concur in the propriety of such a course. The Commissioners expressed their conviction, that if proper supervision was exercised over the local authorities, and publicity was given to their proceedings, public opinion would have so strong an influence, that the parochial authorities would, in a short time, do ample justice to the poor. He (the Lord Advocate) believed that opinion to be well founded; but a considerable time must elapse before such an object could be attained, and the paupers of the present day could not be fed with the mere hope that future generations of paupers would be in a better condition than that in which they were placed. Holding, then, that some power of control ought to exist; holding, also, that the system of appeal to the Court of Session, as now in use, was liable to serious objections, as regarded the interests both of the pauper and of the parish, the question came to be, whether some other control was to be substituted for the Court of Session, or whether the appeal to the Court of Session should be so regulated as to remove the chief objections to it? The Commissioners, who had bestowed great attention on the subject, had been unable to suggest any other safe tribunal in place of the Court of Session. They had considered whether it would be advisable to leave the determination of the amount of relief to the sheriffs or the local magistrates; and their opinion was decidedly adverse to such a course. The opinion expressed by them on that point was more clear and decided than perhaps on any other point noticed in the Report; and the reasons in support of that opinion were also fully given. They say,—

"The evils attendant on an appeal to the local magistracy as to the proper amount of aliment, are, we think, so great, that we have no hesitation in stating our opinion to be decidedly adverse to such an innovation. It is obvious that the opinions of individual judges or magistrates may vary so materially on the question of what ought to be the proper amount of relief, that cases of the same description might be differently decided according to the feeling and prejudices of the parties appealed to."

Then, after citing proofs in support of that opinion, they proceed,—

"These examples are sufficient to show how little reliance can be placed on the opinion of any one person as to the proper quantum of allowance."

He concurred in the opinion so decidedly expressed by the Commissioners, against leaving the determination of the amount of the allowance to the mere discretion of any one person. The difficulty of finding a new tribunal would be so great, and the objections to adopting such a course so strong, that, in his opinion, they must have recourse to the other alternative, and endeavour to regulate the appeal to the Court of Session so as to obviate the objections stated to it. He hoped, indeed, that they would be able to place the appeal to the Supreme Court under such regulation as would effectually accomplish the objects which they had in view. He would now state how he proposed to attempt this. He had already stated his belief, that some central authority was wanting. The Commissioners had suggested that there should be established a board of supervision in Edinburgh. He agreed with this suggestion; and he thought, too, that the Board should have considerable power, both as to superintending, and in some degree interfering, when necessary, with the proceedings of the parochial authorities. This Central Board, to be safely invested with such powers, must be carefully constructed. It should be a Board, some of the members of which would have a clear inducement to attend to their functions—while others should be selected from those who from inclination and disposition would be most likely to be willing to devote some portion of their time and labour to the duties imposed upon them. It should consist, too, of some persons of legal knowledge, and of others not necessarily possessing such knowledge; but men well acquainted in general with the state of society in Scotland, and the wants and claims of the poor. The Board, to be efficient, should be composed of men who would bring into it a combination of all these requisites. He proposed, then, that the number of its members should be nine. Of these, he proposed that three should be appointed by the Crown; one of them to be paid for the performance of the duty to be devolved upon him, and who, along with the Secretary, should give constant attendance to the duties. The other two to be selected from among those who might be expected to take an interest in the management and welfare of the poor. Besides these three, he proposed that there should be six ex officio members of the Board. As two of those ex officio members he proposed the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, and the Lord Provost of Glasgow, for the time being. The distance from Glasgow to Edinburgh was considerable; but the communication between these cities was now rendered comparatively easy by railroad; and he was sure that any individual who occupied the high station of Lord Provost of Glasgow would willingly devote some portion of his time to a matter of such great importance, especially to that city. He proposed, also, that the Solicitor General of Scotland, for the time being, should be another ex officio member of the Board. Then, for the remaining three members, he proposed to take the Sheriffs, for the time being, of three of the most important Scotch counties—proposing, also, in the case of these three latter gentlemen, to reward their services by a small addition to their regular salaries. He proposed to take first the Sheriff of Perthshire—a county called the Yorkshire of Scotland—of great extent, and varied character; partly highland and partly lowland, partly agricultural, partly pastoral, partly manufacturing. Another of the sheriffs he proposed to find in the Sheriff of a large Highland county, in which great destitution was stated at present to prevail—he meant the county of Ross. As the third member of this department of the Board, he would propose the Sheriff of Renfrewshire—a manufacturing, a mineral, and an agricultural county—containing, amongst others, the towns of Paisley, Renfrew, Port Glasgow, Greenock, and Kilbarchan. The Sheriffs of these counties were all resident in Edinburgh. They were all gentlemen of high legal acquirements; and were also obliged, at stated periods, to repair to their counties; and they mixed generally with society there. The nature of the causes that came before them in their courts was also calculated to give them knowledge as to the condition of the humbler classes. They would, with these qualifications, he trusted, be able to render the most efficient assistance to the Board; and, by making the addition he proposed to their salaries, he would have considerable claims upon their attention. Having described the constitution of the Board, he would now state what was the remedy he proposed, by means of it, to apply to the evils which he had already alluded to as encompassing the present system of appeal to the Court of Session. He proposed that a certain control over the power of appeal should rest in this Board. He proposed that if the parochial authorities should have given to a poor person an amount of aliment which he considered insufficient, that he should be empowered to state his complaint to the Board of Supervision; that it should be the duty of the Board of Supervision to inquire into the circumstances of the case; and considering that the Board would be in communication with every parish in Scotland, would be cognizant of the different habits of each district, and would have within its reach easy means of obtaining any information it might require, he thought that an investigation so conducted would most probably prove a satisfactory one. If the Board of Supervision, constituted as he described, and possessing all these means of information, should concur with the parochial board in thinking that no injustice had been done—that the complaint was an unreasonable or a speculative one, then he thought it might safely be held that justice had been done; and he proposed that the judgment of the Board of Supervision, confirming the judgment of the parochial authorities, should be conclusive in the matter. If, however, on the contrary, the Central Board should be of opinion that injustice had been done, that the complaint was not unreasonable, and if the cause of the complaint was not removed—then he proposed that the enunciation of that opinion by the Central Board should be sufficient to entitle the pauper to maintain an action in formâ pauperis; and he proposed further, that in such a case the Central Board should have power to determine what they considered a reasonable amount of relief, and to order the pauper to receive that relief until the decision of the Court appealed to should be known—if, after the expressed opinion of the Central Board, the parish chose to carry the matter to the Supreme Court. It would be observed that this plan of procedure, while it gave immediate relief to the pauper, would prevent any accumulation of speculative or ill-founded actions in the Supreme Court, brought against parishes, and which might involve them in tedious and expensive litigation. It would substantially remove the evils to which the pauper was at present exposed, and it would also substantially remove the evils to which the parish was exposed. He proposed, too, that the Board should have the power of inquiring and investigating, generally, into all matters connected with the administration of the Poor Law in all the districts of Scotland. As to local or parochial Boards, he proposed that in regard to landward parishes, when such parishes resolved to raise the funds for relief of the poor by assessment, that, in addition to the heritors and Kirk Session, there should be associated with them in the management of the poor, a certain number of representatives chosen by the ratepayers. The local Board would thus be composed of the heritors, the Kirk Session, and representatives chosen by the ratepayers. He was now speaking in regard to parishes which were of a purely landward character. But there were some parishes of a mixed character, partly landward, and partly burghal. By the law as it at present stood, and especially since a decision pronounced some years ago in the House of Lords, considerable difficulty was found to exist, in regard to the administration of the law in such parishes. He would propose that all parishes which were now partly burghal, that was to say, every parish in which there was a royal burgh, should henceforward be dealt with as a burghal parish, and that the same principle should also apply to every parish in which there was what is called a parliamentary burgh or town sending, or contributing to send, a Representative to Parliament. All these parishes would be treated as town parishes. At present the administration of the law, in regard to the poor in towns, was vested nominally and responsibly in the magistrates, but practically it devolved in many towns on the Kirk Sessions. He would propose that in every town an administrative body or local Board should be constituted, partly of members of the Kirk Sessions, and partly of persons elected by the ratepayers. But that was not the most important change which he intended to propose in the town parishes. He need scarcely remind the House, that it was the practice of poor persons living in towns frequently to change their residences; and a change, though only from street to street, might often be a change from one parish to another; and thus, though living for many years in the same town, they frequently resided too short a time in any one parish to acquire a settlement by residence. He considered this to be a hardship, and in order to obviate it, he would suggest that all the parishes in any town, or extending into the parliamentary district of any town, should be formed into a combination of parishes, and should be considered as one, so that a settlement obtained in the district thus formed, would be a settlement in the place. Another advantage to be derived from this arrangement, would be that of uniting the poorer with the richer portions of each town—thus effecting a more perfect equalization of the burden of pauperism than existed at present. It would be said, however, that there existed generally a considerable influx from the country into towns, and that as he proposed to afford new facilities for settlement in towns, there might be cause to apprehend an inconvenient accumulation of pauperism in towns. To prevent such a result, he thought it would be proper to extend the period at present sufficient for the attainment of settlement. That period was a residence of three years. He proposed to extend it to seven years. With respect to the providing of funds, it had been suggested that it should be made compulsory on all parishes to impose an assessment. He did not think it requisite to make it compulsory upon all parishes to assess themselves. If the funds were provided, if the poor did receive sufficient relief—it was a matter of no general importance in what manner they were so provided. The parties interested ought to be allowed to raise the necessary funds in the manner most agreeable to themselves. In many cases there might be good reasons why a parish would not choose to resort to an assessment. [He then quoted, from the Report of the General Assembly, a statement as to the relative expense of management in parishes assessed and parishes not assessed.] In cases, however, in which an assessment should be resolved upon, he proposed to give the authorities power to classify property for that purpose, and to allow them to impose different rates of assessment on the different classes of property, provided that all property of the same class should be assessed at the same rate. He also proposed to allow them to take the value of property, or of the occupancy of it, as a criterion for assessment on means and substance, if they thought that desirable. It was important that the manner of assessment should be left as optional as possible. What was suitable or convenient in the circumstances of one parish might not be so in another. Whenever recourse was had to compulsory assessment, it was desirable that it should be laid on in the manner that was least burdensome or distasteful. It was therefore desirable that the system should not be a rigid and inflexible one, suited to an average or majority of cases, but should be an expansive and flexible system, which admitted of being accommodated to every case. He had now stated most of the principal provisions of the Bill he proposed to introduce. By means of these provisions, he hoped to be able to compel a particular and constant attention to the condition of the poor—to afford to the pauper in cases of injustice a speedy and efficient redress against wrongful refusal of relief—to compel relief to the pauper from the parish in which relief first became necessary, without putting the applicant to unreasonable and unnecessary expense. [An Hon. Member asked what would be the course proposed to be adopted in cases of removal.] As to removal, he proposed that when the parish of settlement should be ascertained, the parish in which the pauper was resident at the time might give notice to the parish of settlement, and make it responsible for the sum advanced after the date of ascertainment; and unless the parish of settlement should remove the pauper immediately, or enter into some arrangement for his regular support, that then the parish in which he was resident should be entitled to pass him to the parish in which he had a legal settlement, at the expense of that latter parish. He proposed also that settlement by residence should not be prospectively acquired by any persons who had not been themselves born in Scotland, or whose father had not been a Scotchman domiciled in Scotland at the time of their birth. He likewise intended that the funds raised for the relief of the regular parish poor should be applicable to the relief of occasional poor, and that medical relief should be provided from such funds in cases of sickness or accident, and that there should be a power to apply part of the funds to the education of the poor. Further, he proposed to give to towns power of erecting poor-houses for the accommodation of their pauper population. He did not propose, however, to make the erection of such buildings compulsory. He thought that it was by far the most advisable course to leave their construction optional to the parties interested. In cases, however, where they should be established, the rules and regulations to be observed by the inmates would be placed under the superintendence of the Board of Supervision, as well as the plans for the construction of the buildings. He now came to the case of lunatics. He did not mean to deal generally with the laws relating to lunatics in Scotland, though he did not think they were altogether satisfactory; yet this was not the proper occasion for reforming them. With regard to pauper-lunatics, he proposed that they should be sent to an asylum of some kind, unless the Board of Supervision should dispense with such removal in any particular case. There were some cases in which such a removal would be cruel, as it would deprive the harmless lunatic of the benefit of moving about in good air, and of the care of his relations. The learned Lord then referred to a paper by Dr. Hutchinson, of Glasgow, relative to lunatics in the Island of Arran, which had been printed in the Appendix to the Report of the Commissioners. That paper had been noticed in the House last July by the hon. Member for Lambeth, when he (the Lord Advocate) was necessarily absent from town. He hoped he might now be allowed to say a few words in reference to that paper, which certainly, on mere perusal by a person unacquainted with the facts, was calculated to produce the impression it had made on the hon. Member. The paper by Dr. Hutchinson bore no date, and the Report of the Commissioners, in which it appeared, was dated in May, and printed in June or July, 1844. About a year before then, it had been discovered that a number of pauper lunatics had been privately sent to Arran, contrary to law, from various parts of Scotland, probably from motives of economy. He had in July 1843, in conjunction with the Sheriff of the county, resolved to take measures to have these lunatics removed, and to put a stop to the system; and in August, 1843, sixty-eight lunatics were removed from there. The moment attention was called to the state of matters, active steps were taken to remedy the abuse, and, by the prompt and judicious arrangements of the Sheriff, most of these lunatics were removed in one day; threats of prosecutions for penalties were held out to those who sent them there, and they were compelled to pay the expenses incurred. On seeing the notice on this subject by the hon. Member for Lambeth, he had thought it right to make further inquiry, and had addressed a letter to the Sheriff of the county with that object, and the answer returned was exceedingly satisfactory. [He then read several queries he had addressed to the Sheriffs, and stated the answers returned.] The Sheriff had gone to the island, accompanied by a medical gentleman from Edinburgh, and had examined into every case mentioned by Dr. Hutchison. There was reason to believe that some of the persons who had been represented to Dr. Hutchison as lunatics, were really not so, but were residing in Arran in consequence of delicate health, or being addicted to habits which rendered a certain degree of seclusion necessary. Those who were lunatics had been removed, or placed under the provisions of the law. [Mr. Hawes: Where were they sent?] Fifty-nine were sent to Glasgow, and other places—nine to Paisley. [Mr. Ellice, jun.: To what asylum?] They were supported at the expense of their own different parishes. There was no provision for their being sent to an asylum under the present law, unless they were dangerous. He believed he had now stated the chief details of the measure he proposed to introduce. The leading benefits which it was calculated to confer on the poor were, 1st. Compelling periodical and constant attention to their condition, and preserving a record of what had been done, or refused to be done. 2d. Giving speedy and effectual redress against wrongous refusal of relief. 3rd. Also, against illusory or inadequate compliance with the right to relief. 4th. Requiring relief to be given in the parish where the pauper was found, leaving to the parish, not to the pauper, to find out the liability of another parish. 5th. Authorising the poor funds to be applied for procuring medical relief. 6th. And for the education of poor children. 7th. And for relief of occasional claims. 8th. Facilitating compulsory assessments for all those purposes. 9th. Authorising assessments for the erection of poor-houses. 10th. Uniting burghal parishes so that settlement by residence shall not be interrupted by removal from one parish to another in the same town, and other advantages will be gained. 11th. Requiring that insane paupers shall be sent to asylums, except in special cases. He should conclude with moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the amendment and better administration of the laws relating to the relief of the poor in Scotland.

congratulated the Government and the country on the fact that they (the Ministers) had not only turned their attention to the question of the Scotch poor, but grappled with the difficulties that beset it. He was not prepared to say that the measure just introduced would be effectual for the purpose in view. He was not then in a condition to pronounce a positive opinion on its provisions. There were several opinions broached by the learned Lord which admitted of controversy, and he should reserve for the second reading the suggestion of such Amendments as he thought desirable.

, jun. said, he unfortunately was not present during the early part of the learned Lord's Address, and must reserve any distinct opinion on the Bill until the second reading. He might be permitted to say, from what he heard of its provisions, that though he gave credit like his noble Friend to the Government, for grappling with so difficult, and to the people of Scotland, so important a question; still he doubted whether the measure was sufficiently comprehensive in its details to meet the case. From personal attention to the condition of the poor in a considerable district, he doubted whether any but compulsory assessment would be effectual, which should, in his opinion, be levied under the superintendence of persons not locally interested. There could be no doubt of the distress of the population, or of the necessity of some comprehensive measure of relief. That part of the learned Lord's speech which related to lunatics was not quite clear. Every one knew that the present system was a disgrace to a civilized community. The manner of taking care, or rather no care, of persons so afflicted, was as disgraceful as the old prison discipline before the system was amended. He understood the learned Lord to propose that pauper lunatics should be confined in asylums. If, however, he supposed that parishes would voluntarily assess themselves for the erection of such buildings, he begged to tell him that such an idea was not to be entertained for a moment.

had listened with attention to the very clear and distinct statement of the learned Lord. He did not concur in the opinion that assessment should be compulsory. If the learned Lord was correct in saying that the law as it existed gave the power to assess adequately in Scotland as in England, he thought the Government right in not going beyond the existing law. The only thing that remained for legislation was to see that those who had such powers did their duty. If once the compulsory system were adopted, it would be hard to recede. He hoped adequate means would be provided for the care of lunatics; and he was disposed to think that the Bill made a cautious beginning.

thanked the learned Lord for the manner in which he had taken up the inquiry into the state of the lunatics in the Isle of Arran, and he was sure, when the learned Lord's attention was promised, that it would be effectually done. He must say, also, that a more comprehensive or luminous speech, or one more calculated to carry conviction throughout the country, he had never heard delivered in that House. The main difficulties of this question had been grappled with with great caution, and the noble Lord was introducing a new system under the most favourable auspices. Reference had been made to the necessity for a compulsory assessment; now, as he understood the present proposal, it did contain the germ of a compulsory assessment. He did not say this to prejudice the measure; but, as he understood it, supposing inadequate relief were given, the party had an appeal to the Board of Supervision, and on hearing they were fully authorized to order a sufficient allowance, and when a few such cases were determined there would be a general standard of allowance; and as funds must be raised, the present proposal came to the compulsory assessment by the most moderate, most unexceptionable, and the safest way. Speaking generally, the Government deserved great thanks for this Bill; and, so far as those who were free from the great interests of property involved in the proposal, could give the Government their support, they ought to give it freely, being assured that if there were any details requiring amendment which would be proposed, and if they were backed by reasons, they would not find unwilling attention, With regard to lunatics, in particular, he hoped the learned Lord would see the necessity for some provision. Although the learned Lord stated that the lunatics, who had been illegally confined in the Isle of Arran, had been released, he was not satisfied that they were much better off now; and unless they provided public asylums, or compelled the parishes to furnish proper medical aid at an early period of the disease, they would not have taken all the means in their power to mitigate this greatest of all calamities. One of the enormous burdens which pressed upon England, and which was likely to go on increasing, arose from the number of persons who were permanently lunatic; he believed that many of these cases, if they had received medical treatment at an early stage, would not now be burdens: if, therefore, the learned Lord would suggest the means of providing public asylums, he believed it might in the end be found the most economical plan. It was known that there was a tenacity of life amongst confirmed lunatics; and he thought that if public lunatic asylums, under proper medical direction, were provided early, they would be the means of lessening the great burden now felt.

only wished that Her Majesty's Government would act towards Ireland as they were acting towards Scotland; but the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in answer to a question put to him by the hon. Member for Mallow, had refused even to inquire into the Poor Law system in Ireland. With respect to the nine years' residence proposed before a party not born in Scotland could be entitled to relief, he doubted whether many persons deserving aid, especially from Ireland, would not be excluded.

said, that the hon. Gentleman laboured under a mistake as to the answer he was supposed to have given to the hon. Member for Mallow. He had said, that it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to institute any inquiry into the Poor Law as connected with Ireland; but he had not said, that if any hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House, or on that side, should make such a Motion, and if it should receive the general concurrence of the House, that the Government was not prepared to consent to such an inquiry. He must observe, that Her Majesty's present Government were not responsible for the application of the Poor Law to Ireland; and he had himself expressed great doubts, when it was introduced, whether it would be found to answer; but now having to administer the law as he found it, he had done his best to make it work well, and he did not despair of its being rendered progressively more conducive to the interests of the country. The hon. Gentleman had expressed surprise that an industrial residence in Scotland for a short time should not give a settlement to the Irish; but the hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that if an unfortunate Scotchman were resident in Belfast, he might labour for forty years without obtaining a settlement, however productive his industry might have been. This was no argument indeed why an Irishman should not obtain a settlement in Scotland; but there must be some reciprocity, and the hon. Gentleman must consider that an Irishman in the manufacturing districts of Scotland, would obtain a settlement, whereas a Scotchman in Ireland would be entitled to no relief; and he must not be surprised that a country which did possess an equality of burdens, should not wish to increase them. He could not sit down without cordially thanking the hon. Member for Lambeth for the frank and generous support he had given to the measure, stated with so much ability by his learned Friend, the learned Lord—a more able statement had never been presented to an intelligent people by any officer. He was persuaded that his learned Friend, who well knew the habits and feelings of his country, by giving his aid to the Government, and his talents in preparing this measure, had rendered a valuable service to the people of that country of whose bar he was a distinguished ornament, and that no measure could be introduced upon any authority to which the people of Scotland, without distinction of party, would give a more favourable consideration.