I wish to put two questions to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Grey) on a subject of great interest to an important class of the community. First, whether any application has been made by the presidents of the Councils of the Colleges of Surgeons, Physicians, and Apothecaries, for the purpose of ascertaining what course the Government intended to take as to the Bill (Medical Registra- tion) now on the Table, introduced by the hon. Member for Finsbury. The second question is, whether the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Grey) is ready to abate any of the grievances to which the body of surgeons conceive they will be subjected, if a charter such as that contemplated under the Bill of the hon. Member for Finsbury is granted.

In answer to the first question, I beg to state that I received yesterday a communication from the president of the College of Physicians, requesting that an opportunity might be afforded to a deputation from the college to state the nature of their objections to the Bill of the hon. Member for Finsbury. I also yesterday received communications from the Council of the Royal College of Surgeons, and from the National Institution of General Practitioners, expressing a similar desire. Under these circumstances had the hon. Member for Finsbury been in his place, I should have asked him to postpone his Bill to some future day, so as to allow these different bodies to state the nature of their objections to it. With regard to the second question, I have only to say that a representation has been made to me by the College of Surgeons, in answer to which I am not as yet able to give any distinct assurance, as the subject is still under the consideration of Government.

in moving the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into Committee on the Drainage of Lands Bill, said, that as a similar Bill had since the second reading of this Bill been introduced for Scotland exclusively, he should move in Committee that this Bill be limited in its operation to England and Wales, and that all words having reference to Scotland should be expunged.

rose to oppose the further progress of this Bill. He had objected, and always would object, to it, because it proposed to interfere with the private property of individuals. He was for letting every man drain his land in any way he liked, without being subjected to the interference of other parties. He believed he might safely say, that no one individual had expended more than he had in draining his lands. He thought that the duty which he owed to his tenants and the country at large required him to drain his lands effectively; but he found no individual ready to assist him, he found no one willing to lend him a hand of assistance in the improvement of his property, but quite the contrary. He had expended 1,000l. in improving a single drain on his property, without receiving a single shilling by way of assistance from any party. But this Bill proposed to grant powers to Commissioners, with regard to drainage, whose fees would of course be a great expense to the parties concerned. They had the power of adjourning from day to day, and therefore the time when the improvements contemplated under the Bill would commence was indefinite. He was requested to ask the noble Lord, whether he had any objection to introduce a clause that would give security of compensation to copyholders for the large improvements which they might effect in the drainage of their lands. Under the present law the benefits of all those improvements would revert to the lords of the manors, without any compensation by law being made to the copyholders. As a lord of the manor, he should be ashamed to take any such advantage of his copyhold tenants; but he thought that the House would act unfairly and unjustly to copyholders, if they allowed it to pass without inserting a clause which would give the security to which he alluded. He felt it to be a duty which he owed to himself and the country at large, to prevent as much as possible the great inroads on private property contemplated by this Bill.

said, the objection which he had to the introduction of the clause proposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman was this: that whereas this Bill merely professed one mode of improving landed property in England, it would be a manifest injustice to introduce any provision in this Bill which should be applicable to that species of improvement and to no others. He was by no means inclined to dispute with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that it was desirable that the protection of which he had spoken should be afforded to copyholders; and the best way of affording that protection, he believed, would be by introducing a Bill for that especial purpose. The whole laws relating to copyholders certainly required amendment. With regard to the objection raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the Commissioners, he (the Earl of Lincoln) wished to observe that that objection could not be maintained, inasmuch as the duties of the Commissioners would be performed by the present Inclosure Commissioners without any increase being made to their salaries. And with regard to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's objection, that this Bill would sanction a violation of the rights of property, he would remind him that there was a maxim in the law, that "You are to use your own property in such a way as not to injure that of your neighbour." All that he proposed to do by this Bill was, to prevent a man injuring the property of his neighbour, by preventing him from carrying into effect works of drainage for the improvement of his property. He could not think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would maintain that they would be infringing the rights of property if they should prevent him from damming up the waters which might run through his estate, when the lands of another were ruined for want of them. Those were the objects of the Bill; and he hoped that the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not intend to prevent the House going into Committee on the Bill.

rose to move the Second Reading of the Registration of Voters Bill. It would be necessary for him to give the House some explanation of the principles and details of the measure he now brought before them, and he would take that opportunity of doing so as briefly as possible. There could be no question that the efficiency and integrity of our representative system depended to a great extent on the working of the machinery employed in the Registration Courts; and therefore no consideration could be more important than to see that the machinery would answer the purpose for which it was intended. At present there were many impediments in the way of an accurate and complete registration; and the object of this Bill was to obviate and remove them as far as that object could be effected. To the claims of persons clearly entitled to the franchise, there had been and were raised the most frivolous objections; and if these objections had been vexatiously used, as he would show they had been, for the purpose of attacking the most undoubted qualifications, not only on the ground that they were either deficient in point of tenure or insufficient in point of value, but on some trivial error, some casual omission, some verbal inaccuracy, then there could be no question that something should be done to stop that evil. The fact was, that hundreds of voters were yearly objected to, not for the purpose of testing the validity of their qualifications, but for party considerations; and he was sure it was the duty of the House to protect the rights and interests of their different constituencies. The Bill of which he now moved the second reading was founded on the report of a Select Committee which sat last year to inquire into this subject. That Committee was composed of men of every shade of opinion; and after having heard an immense mass of evidence from the best witnesses, local agents, experienced solicitors, and revising barristers, they submitted a number of suggestions to the House, in the propriety of which, with one exception, the Members of that Committee were almost, if not altogether, unanimously agreed. Now these suggestions related more especially to the machinery' of registration, and they were incorporated in the Bill, with the one exception to which he alluded. It appeared from the evidence before that Committee, that every county constituency underwent a complete and total change once in every ten years. By that he did not mean that every name on the registry was altered; but the number of changes during that period was equivalent to the number registered. Thus, if there were ten thousand voters on the registry of Middlesex in 1840, there would be 10,000 changes in it in 1850. One-tenth of the constituencies in all, and one-seventh of them in many cases, were struck off in that interval. No one could believe that the actual changes in the nature of the qualification were so numerous as this; and in fact it would be found that they were chiefly caused by the wholesale manner in which objections were made: no inquiry was instituted beforehand, and no pains was taken to ascertain whether the voter had or had not the qualification which he claimed for. These objections were frequently founded on the mere omission of a number, a name, or a figure; and on such grounds forty-nine out of fifty of them were made and advanced before the revising barristers. The character of the objectors was another point which ought not to be lost sight of. The objectors, for the most part, were men of no station, character, or substance; and he wished the House to bear in mind that fact, and also to remember that objections were made by persons paid for that purpose; and if the objections were very numerous, they were often accompanied by actual forgeries, for others were employed to counterfeit their signatures. By this Bill provision was made to ascertain who the objectors really were; and it also had in view the correction of another evil somewhat similar in character. He alluded to the practice of making objections against those who resided at a considerable distance, taking care at the same time that there was some trifling error which required correction; and then the inconvenience of attending the revision was that which the objector mainly relied upon; for, if the voter appeared in support of his claim, that trifling error was pointed out as a reason why costs should not be given; and if he did not attend, his vote was struck off for non-attendance. However, as the law at present stood with respect to costs, the objector could withdraw when he found the voter was coming forward, and so escape from all liability; while the latter, who might have been put to much loss of time and expense in appearing to substantiate his claim, could not recover a single farthing, as the court had no power of giving him compensation. He would confidently ask the House, therefore, under such circumstances, whether some guarantee ought not to be given for the honesty of the objector, and the bonâ fides of the objection? No doubt some advantages should be given to the objector; and the justification for it was the necessity of having a pure and accurate registry. He could assure the House there was no one more anxious than himself to keep the registry pure and accurate; but he hoped they would draw a marked distinction between a pedantical accuracy in names and figures, and a substantial accuracy which would retain every name on the list of voters that had a right to be there. The question they had to consider was, how they could ensure both these objects, how they could ensure an accurate register, while they protected and preserved bonâ fide qualifications. There could be no doubt that accuracy of registration was very important to prevent expense and useless trouble; and this and the other object were therefore both attended to in the present Bill, namely, to combine on the same registries the minimum of clerical errors with the maximum of bonâ fide and honest qualifications. This the Bill attempted to do under three general heads: the first was to give bonâ fide electors a protection and indemnity against frivolous objections when they had once substantiated their title to vote; the second, was to draw a marked distinction between those objections which were founded on the merits, and those objections which were purely technical; and the third, was to leave to the objector the fullest power of purifying the registry, but under such regulations as would restrain him from exercising that power in a vexatious manner. In order to give the elector greater security against being objected to again, when once he had proved his claim, he proposed that any person seeking the franchise should be at liberty to give notice that he intended to prove his vote in a stricter manner than usual. Having done so, to the satisfaction of the revising barrister, the latter was to write the word "proved" against the elector's name, and thenceforward he was to be entitled to the privilege of "a proved registered voter"—that is to say, as long as he retained the same qualification he should be entitled to remain on the list; and if he was objected to at a subsequent period, he should then be entitled, on substantiating his vote a second time, to recover, as of right, forty shillings from the party objecting, which would operate as an indemnity against his being objected to on frivolous grounds. There were clauses in the Bill to defeat the possibility of collusion between the objector and the voter. Secondly, he proposed that in all cases any person who objected to another's vote should specify generally the grounds of his objection, which was doing no more than was required in every court of justice. In doing so, he admitted there would be a necessity for guarding against the introduction of special pleading; and he, therefore, proposed that the objector in his notice should specify generally whether his objection would be founded on the merits, or whether it was founded on technical points. If he proceeded on the merits of the vote, he should then be entitled to go into these questions only on which the validity of the claimant's right depended, and not into matters of technical statement, as he was now in the habit of doing to save himself from costs. If he proceeded on the grounds of misdescription, or such technical points, he should then be confined to those points only, and not be allowed to object on the merits. This rule would restrict a great many objections, for the number of this character made every year was very great indeed. By the 11th Clause, a power was given of correcting misdescription. He proposed that if any person were ob- jected to on such ground, he should be allowed to go before a magistrate and make a statutory declaration as to what he considered his proper description to be; and the magistrate was thereupon to sign a certificate, on the production of which the revising barrister was to make the correction without requiring the voter's attendance. He had also introduced provision to do away with a very common cause of fraud at the time of polling, namely, double entry of votes, which gave immense opportunities of personating voters. The House would scarcely believe how many cases of this kind existed, and to what evils they gave rise. In the West Riding of York, there were between 1,000 and 2,000 of such double entries; and many of the electors were registered not merely twice, but seven, eight, nine, ten, and even eleven times over. In a division of Lancashire, of 540 electors 123 were more than once registered; and in another county a Member of the House was registered not less than sixteen times. In order to rectify this growing evil, it was proposed that each voter should be bound to elect the polling place at which he intended to vote, and should not be permitted to vote elsewhere; and wherever his name occurred on the register, the revising barrister was to make an entry to that effect. The consequence, as he hoped, of this arrangement would be, that no person could possibly be personated at different places, for the check-clerk would perceive immediately whether the right elector had come to the poll. Under the third general head of the Bill, it was proposed to leave the objector a larger power of purifying the registry, while he was, at the same time, restrained from exercising that power in a vexatious manner. Much of the efficiency of this provision would depend on the question of costs. An important part of the Bill undoubtedly was that which required the deposit of costs. All the agents informed the Committee that they could not get on with the registration as it ought to be proceeded with, in order to prevent wholesale objections, unless some deposits of costs were made. Amongst the most intelligent agents of this country were those for the West Riding of Yorkshire; and they all concurred in thinking that to make the system a really good one, some deposit was absolutely necessary. What he proposed by this Bill was, to require objectors to deposit for every objection 2s. 6d. by way of costs with the overseer. That sum would be brought into court by the overseer; if the objector failed to make good his objection, it would be handed over to the party objected against; if he succeeded, it would then be returned. Every one conversant with the working of registration was aware that there were numerous instances in which parties were put to great trouble and expense; and it was generally agreed that a larger power of enforcing costs to any extent, however minute, would be better than the present uncertain system. He doubted whether it would be advisable to make this clause applicable to boroughs; though it was made to apply to them as the Bill stood at present. He ought to mention, that there was one of the suggestions made by the Committee not inserted in this Bill; that suggestion was the first adverted to in the report, and it related to a point exceedingly important. He was anxious to have an opportunity of calling the attention of the House to it; and he proposed, at some future period, to bring the subject under their consideration. The suggestion was, that what was called the Splitting Act should receive an extended application. The House was aware that this was an Act passed by Lord Somers, one of the greatest constitutional lawyers who ever lived in this country, declaring that more than one voice should not be heard to vote for the same tenement. It had been decided by our courts within the last two years, that that Act of Parliament applied to none but fraudulent cases. Now, it appeared by the evidence of the Committee, that it was the constant practice—and this applied to all parties—for houses to be bought, and then split up into fifty votes. This had been done to a great extent, and they had it in evidence, that the majority of the West Riding, which was the largest constituency in the country, was actually turned by votes thus put on the register. If such a constituency as that could be swamped by the contrivance of any party, whether Whig or Tory, through persons being put on the registers who did not pay one shilling to the county funds, who had no connexion whatever with the county, and who took no interest or part in its affairs—if that kind of practice was to be allowed in future, depend upon it our representative system would be completely swamped. He was perfectly convinced that some such measure as that which he alluded to must be proposed to the House before a very long time elapsed; at the same time he knew full well that the measure was one of immense difficulty in a legal point of view; and he would candidly state, that he believed it would give rise to so much discussion by persons who took a different view from that which he adopted, that, to avoid this discussion, and to prevent anything like a party character to the present Bill, he had purposely excluded all mention of it. If ever he brought the topic under the consideration of the House, he would do so at the longest notice; for he was well aware that a more important constitutional question could not be brought forward. It really was not, and it ought not to be made, a party question; it was a question affecting the efficiency, integrity, and honesty of our constituency, and as such it must be discussed hereafter. He believed he ought to mention two other particulars with which the Committee had concluded their report. They stated, that though they did not think it advisable to make any distinct proposition to that effect, they considered it might be desirable to have public officers to make out the register, and that the revising barristers ought to be paid in a different way. With regard to the first point, he thought it very important; but the question immediately arose, by whom were those officers to be appointed? Who was to pay them? Who was to select them? Under whom were they to act? Whoever appointed them, it would give rise to the suspicion of partiality; and he need not say that in matters of registration, even the suspicion of partiality ought carefully to be avoided. He hoped the House would always bear in mind, if they ever thought proper to alter that part of the registration law, that the presence of the local overseers was absolutely essential for the purposes of revision. They were the only impartial persons who knew anything certain of the different voters, or who could inform the revising barristers whether voters were resident or had changed their residences, or whether their houses were properly described; and this was information which must constantly be brought under the immediate notice of the revising barrister. He hoped the House, therefore, would never dispense with the presence of the parochial overseers. With respect to the payment of revising barristers, he certainly thought that under the old system, when they were paid by the day, the business was often protracted unnecessarily. Under the present system, they were paid by the job; and in some instances he believed it to be true that the business was hurried over much too quickly. How to remedy this, he really did not know; even if a remedy was to be applied, it was one of those matters which rather belonged to the province of the Executive Government than to any individual Member. Perhaps he might be permitted to make this one observation, in case the Government should think proper to interfere—that the present system, which was every day gaining ground, of appointing persons who were to act as judges in some cases and advocates in others, ought not to be continued. No less than seventy or eighty local judges had recently been appointed, who now were placed in this anomalous position; and they might depend upon it that it would be found necessary to alter this system before ten years had passed over. It must always be remembered, that the qualities of a judge and the qualities of an advocate were totally distinct. He had now endeavoured to put the House in full possession of the provisions of this Bill. He believed it to be a Bill of great practical importance. He founded that opinion, not merely on the evidence before the Committee, but, perhaps he might add, on personal observation and practical experience, which made him very familiar with the law of registration. Without much presumption, he might be allowed to say, that, having revised, for three consecutive years, one of the richest and greatest of the manufacturing counties—South Lancashire—and for two consecutive years the county of Middlesex, he could assure the House that they had no conception of the vexation and annoyance, the trouble and expense, to which some of the best and most undoubted voters were put. The House could have no conception of the reckless, thoughtless, and indiscriminate manner in which objections were taken, or how much the electors stood in need of an improved system, in order that they might be protected in their undoubted rights and privileges; and he believed they would find that some interference on the part of the Legislature was absolutely necessary. Certainly, it appeared to him that the electors of this county had a right to require, when they had substantiated their votes year after year, that they should not be called upon again and again to substantiate what they had so often established and proved before. He thought they had a right to require, according to the principles which regulated the procedure of every court of justice, that they should know beforehand the nature of the attack which was brought against them, in order that they might be enabled to prepare for their defence. He thought they had a right to require that a mere error of description should not be visited with the same consequences as a defect of qualification; and, last of all, he thought they had a right to require that a mere man of straw should not be allowed to cast his objections far and wide, not because he had any reason to suppose that the voter's qualification was a bad or doubtful one, but rather in the hope that out of the hundreds against whom he directed his darts at haphazard, some might be unable or unwilling to support their votes, and their names would be struck off for non-attendance. These were the rights which it was the object of this Bill to support and confirm; and these were the rights which he thought that House, as representatives of the people, were bound to protect. He had only to add, that his intention in submitting this Bill was simply and solely to devise a remedy for what he believed to be a great practical evil; and in case it went into Committee, he should be happy to receive from any quarter such suggestions and alterations as would bring about that object which he proposed to effect by this Bill.

did not rise for the purpose of following the hon. and learned Gentleman into the different clauses of this Bill, the object of which he had explained with so much ability and clearness. He should only on this occasion express a hope that the House would give a second reading to this Bill under the circumstances in which the Bill came before them. It was intended to carry into effect the great majority of the recommendations of the Committee appointed to investigate the allegations made on this subject in the course of last Session. He believed the Bill strictly followed the recommendations which emanated from that Committee, being either adopted unanimously or by a very great majority of the members, omitting, as he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had wisely done, the first recommendation, as to which great difference of opinion existed. Looking at the Bill, he found that it contained what he regarded as some very valuable provisions, with others which would require very careful consideration. He did not consider it necessary now to go through the different clauses, or to state the view he took of all the points embraced in the Bill. He thought it right only to state that he gave his support to the Bill, founded as it was on the recommendations of the Committee, to which great weight was given. But he feared they could not anticipate that they would see any system free from abuse. In legislating upon this subject, it should be their aim to make such stringent regulations as would not only protect the voter in the bonâ fide exercise of his franchise, which was the great object, but also would not throw needless obstacles in the way of well-founded objections. These were the two principles which ought to be kept in view; and he should be happy to concur with the hon. and learned Gentleman in framing such provisions as might give effect to them.

did not vise to throw any opposition in the way of this Bill, by which he quite agreed that some amendments might probably be made to the system of registration now practised. He rose for the purpose of calling the attention of the House for a moment—and he thought himself entitled to it for the sake of persons out of doors, against whom serious charges had been brought in connexion with that subject—to the charges made when this Committee was moved for by the hon. Members for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) and North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley), to the effect that numbers of objections had been served by the instigation of the Anti-Corn-Law League on persons about whose real claims to vote there could be no doubt, as they were possessed of considerable property. The object of those hon. Members was to expose the system of organized registration carried on by the Anti-Corn-Law League. The report which the Committee had furnished to the House, he thought its Members themselves would admit, did not, in any degree, bear out the charges made on the occasion to which he referred. The Committee stated that certain complaints had been made by hon. Members, but that these were denied by the parties to whom they related; and it was admitted that the evidence was of such a nature that the Committee did not feel themselves competent to come to any accurate or positive conclusion on the subject. The hon. Gentleman road extracts from the evidence given before the Committee by Mr. Wilson, chairman of the Anti-Corn-Law League, relative to cases of alleged fabrication of votes which occurred in North Cheshire and North Staf- fordshire, which he contended fully established the justice of the course taken by the Anti-Corn-Law League in reference to them. With respect to the North Cheshire case, which concerned a Gentleman who was a Member of that House (Mr. George Cornwall Legh, Member for North Cheshire), Mr. Wilson said —

"At the revision for North Cheshire, last year, we objected to a great many parties, some of undoubted wealth. We objected especially to one list, and upon that list there were the names of fifteen or sixteen parties, claiming in respect of freehold rent-charge out of the property of the George Inn, at Knutsford; George Cornwall Legh, Esq., was the owner. I will read two or three names, to show they are persons of property: Thomas Blackburne, rectory, Prestwich, Lancashire—nature of qualification, freehold rent-charge; description of property, George Inn, Knutsford; George Cornwall Legh, Esq., owner. William Ireland Blackburne, Prestwich, Lancashire, freehold rent-charge, George Inn, Knutsford; George Cornwall Legh, Esq., owner. We objected to these gentlemen, and struck them off."

No consideration was given in respect of the grants of these qualifications; and though the revising barrister was asked for a case on which to go to the Court of Common Pleas, it was not judged expedient by the parties to proceed with it. With respect to the North Stafford case, Mr. Wilson stated as follows:—

"Then there were numerous parties who claimed without having any qualification; take as a sample North Stafford—there is the parish of Wolstanton, there were thirty-eight voters upon the list as freeholders in that parish, who, upon being questioned in the barrister's court, admitted they had no title to the property, nor had it ever been conveyed to them; so that there were thirty-eight in one parish who had no title whatever to the property. I believe they were squatters who had settled upon the land, and had never acquired a title; This property was at Mow, Mow Cap and Golden Hill; and these thirty-eight parties had been upon the register for years, and they were proved in the revision court never to have had the slightest title to a vote."

More than one of the revising barristers had also declared that the course taken by that body was most meritorious. The hon. Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) had omitted to state the principal cause of the difficulties found to exist at present, which was, the various sorts of qualification provided throughout the counties. He found from the list given by the Committee, that of copyhold qualifications there were not less than 400 different kinds, of leasehold qualifications 250, of occupying tenants 50, of freeholds 576, making altogether 1,276 county qualifications. He main- tained that it was totally impossible, with any system of registration, to put the matter on such a simple basis as the hon. and learned Gentleman wished. So long as you had such a variety of qualifications, you must have of necessity great freedom of objection, and the voters must be subjected to a considerable number of those inconveniences to which the hon. Gentleman had called the attention of the House. From a table, furnished to the Committee by the chairman of the League, it appeared that of the total objections made to voters by their agents in the revising barristers' courts, there had been substantiated in North Warwickshire 96½ per cent; in North Staffordshire, 98 per cent; in South Lancashire, 75 per cent; in North Cheshire, 79 per cent; in South Cheshire, 83 per cent; in East Gloucestershire, 89¾ per cent; in Buckinghamshire, 92 per cent; in Westmoreland, 100 per cent; for in the last county every single objection taken by the League was declared to be good, either by the revising barrister, or in the Court of Common Pleas. He took the League, therefore, to be entirely cleared of any accusation that had been brought against it of having improperly interfered with the registration courts. Every one who had heard or read of the proceedings of the Committee would admit that Mr. Wilson had given his evidence in the most open, clear, and direct manner; there was not one objection made against the body with which he was connected that he did not fairly meet; and he thought it would be admitted by a majority of the Committee that every objection made to the proceedings of the League had been overturned. With respect to the Bill before them, it was a matter of course that the Bill should be read a second time after the expression of the right hon. Baronet's opinion; but there were certain clauses in it most strongly objected to by persons intimately acquainted with the registration system. He had no object beyond that which the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated himself to entertain. He wanted as many persons as possible to be on the register, who had legal and good qualifications to be there. He would not however, consent to such stringency of regulation with regard to the bringing of objections as would enable persons to be on the register who had no qualification, and would operate to prevent fair objections being made; for he thought, it infinitely better that you should have a large number of names on the list, and a large number of objections brought, if necessary, than that persons properly entitled should be excluded from voting.

said, the hon. Member for Durham seemed confident that the House would not calmly consider this question; and he also seemed inclined to cast a slur upon it because there was nothing in the report of the Select Committee indicating that the charges made against the Anti-Corn-Law League when the Committee was moved for had been substantiated. Now he begged leave to say that in moving for the Committee he had only one object in view—namely, that of bringing before the House a great question which affected the rights and privileges of the constituencies, and to obtain an impartial tribunal before whom that question might be investigated. And there had never been a Committee appointed in which every shade of opinion was more fairly represented. A more impartial Committee never sat. With respect to what he had stated as having taken place in Warwickshire, he was sure that no member of the Committee would say that he was not justified in making that statement, because it was fully borne out by evidence. All the allegations he had made were distinctly proved; and the reason why no notice was taken of these allegations was, that the Committee desired that all matters which were calculated to prevent the calm discussion of the question should be excluded from the report. In Mr. Wilson's (chairman of the League) account of the North Warwickshire objections, he only gave 201 bad, 24 good: total 225. But there was evidence that there were no less than 710 notices served in the two parishes of Birmingham and Aston alone; and that a man of the name of Stafford refused to swear that he had not signed 400 notices with his neighbour's (Worthington's) name, by whose evidence it appeared that he (Worthington) had signed from 1,500 to 2,000 notices with Stafford's assistance. He stated that he began on Thursday, and was signing till Sunday morning. Mr. Hibbert, in his evidence, stated that there were 194 objections signed by Stafford in Worthington's name in Birmingham alone. There were actually signed by Worthington about 510, 340 of which were heard in the Birmingham court. Mr. Wilson only claimed for the League 225 objections; costs given in 15 or 16 cases; but as far as could be ascertained about 1,000 votes had been objected to in North Warwickshire, whilst Mr. Wilson's account only showed 245, so that there must have been 775 more notices than the objections shown in Mr. Wilson's statement. He knew perfectly well how Mr. Wilson arranged his account; he had taken no notice of the objections which were not decided upon by the court, for when the signature of Worthington was proved to be false, the objecting parties retired. The hon. Member for North Staffordshire would be able to prove that similar circumstances had taken place in the county which he represented; and he was aware that like events had happened in Cheshire and in other counties. He would not deny that abuses occurred in connexion with all political parties in the country; but these abuses required a remedy. Something had been said about the split-voting system by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Bright), and he would only mention one case in connexion with that system. In the West Riding of Yorkshire no less than fifty persons' names were placed on the register whose claims to vote were concentrated in the ownership of one set of buildings called "Bright's-buildings," at Barnsley. The property was proved to be worth only 1,900l., so that, divided among the fifty claimants, it only gave 39l. 16s. for each. He believed that Bright's buildings formed a factory; and the hon. Member for Durham should recollect, when he brought forward instances of abuse, that he was himself living in a glass house. Similar qualifications, though of greater value, were to be found in Sussex, Middlesex, Cheshire, and Lancashire. He thanked the Government and the House for having received the measure so favourably, and he was sure that great advantages would arise from the adoption of it.

said, it was true to a certain extent that the present Bill was founded on the recommendations of the Committee; but it was not strictly in accordance with all the suggestions of the Committee. The principle of the Bill went a good deal further than those suggestions; and they must take care that they did not facilitate the admission of fictitious votes into the registry, by discountenancing many of those objections which the hon. and learned Gentleman called frivolous and vexatious. The provision in the Bill which enacted that no persons except the overseers should be allowed to object, unless their property was situated in the same district as the claimant's, was calculated, he thought, to enhance materially the expense of registration, as it would oblige parties to hare an agent in each district, and to limit improperly the right of objection. Any person in the same county or borough ought to be allowed to object. With these reservations, he supported the views of the hon. and learned proposer of the Bill; approving particularly of that part of the measure which gave a sort of security to votes once placed on the registry.

thought that a provision, requiring the objector to be of the same polling district as the claimant, was absolutely necessary, as that would prevent men of straw being set up as objectors. He deprecated the introduction of irritating topics into the discussion of what was a great national question; and he should have thought that the members of the Anti-Corn-Law League—which was now defunct—needed not to be so sensitive in respect to any reflection on the means of their past success, but might have consented to consider this question now simply as a constitutional one. The danger was, lest any party in the country should become possessed of the means of swamping the constituencies, by wholesale objections, fictitious claims, or by splitting tenements. The last point was considered by the Committee as important enough to deserve a separate consideration; and the Bill, which had his support, therefore, only applied to the two other points.

was ready to concur in the view expressed regarding this Bill by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department; but thought that the measure should receive full consideration. It was not a Bill for the alteration of the franchise, but for the purification of the register. Of most of the provisions, as described by the hon. and learned Gentleman, he was inclined to approve; but he thought there were others which required improvement. He wished to ask, if costs were to be allowed in cases where a person made an objection, and substantiated it? At present, the objector ran the risk of affronting the person to whom he objected, and also incurred large costs, whilst he gained nothing if he succeeded; but if a person made a proper objection, and it were allowed—if, for instance, in a case of misdescription, the party had to alter his description—he thought the objector should have costs for his trouble, otherwise no person would be induced to make this sort of objections. With respect to the observations of the hon. Member for Durham, he could only tell the hon. Member that in the county which he represented, the League had made three or four hundred objections, and were obliged to withdraw them. He hoped that full time would be allowed for considering the measure before going into Committee.

bore testimony to the fairness and care exhibited by every Member of the Committee, whose report had been referred to, with respect to every question brought before them. Nobody who read the evidence could deny that great abuses were proved both in respect to claiming and objecting to votes. With respect to claims arising out of splitting tenements, he thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman was right in not meddling with that subject, as it involved considerations somewhat of a constitutional character. With respect to every point contained in the Bill, the Committee were unanimous; and he, therefore, thought it extremely desirable that the House should have the opportunity of considering the details in Committee, as the Bill, as far as it went, came before the House in accordance with the unanimous recommendations of the Committee.

hoped the authors of this measure would, before it went into Committee, reconsider the provision with respect to double entries. That practice was said to favour personation; but, surely, a party who was in circumstances to have a right to be registered in more than one polling district, would be likely to be pretty well known. The other provisions of the Bill appeared to be beneficial.

in rising to move the Second Reading of the Hosiery Manufacture Bill, observed, that he could have no difficulty in making out the extreme distress and misery of these work-people. The degradation and distress of the framework knitters became a subject of commiseration and sympathy many years since. In 1819 a man, to whose memory Leicestershire looked back as to that of one of the first of her worthies—Robert Hall, then a minister of religion at Leices- ter—made an appeal on behalf of the suffering framework knitters, and spoke of

—"reduction of wages such as to place the means of subsistence totally out of the reach of the industrious poor;" adding—"That the labourer is worthy of his hire, is as much the dictate of reason as it is of Scripture; and if there be any spectacle which shocks the natural feeling of justice, it is the sight of industry rewarded with famine, of a life devoted to severe and incessant toil without the power of procuring the means of its own support."

The distress returned afterwards with aggravated force, and had continued to the present time. In 1844 a Commission was appointed by the Crown to investigate the subject fully, and the Commissioner made an able and elaborate report. He adopted, in that report, the statement of a witness—

"That while stocking-making had been unpressed by any competition with inanimate power, or even factory regulations or influence, it remaining a hand domestic employment almost without exception, the rate of wages was probably of less average amount than that realized in any other department whether of skilled or even unskilled labour."

The Commissioner added, that within the last thirty years, the progressive reduction of wages would average, through the whole range of the manufacture, 30 to 40 per cent. The wages, which were 7s. when Robert Hall wrote, had fallen to 4s. 6d. for the same article in the three years ending in 1841. The Commission had issued, after a period of fuller employment than usual; but the Commissioner stated the average earnings of each frame at from 5s. to 6s. per week, and there had been a great reduction since then. The Commissioner took, not a fancy article, which might have partially gone out, but one of the most staple, and regular, and ordinary articles in the trade, made in narrow frames by manual labour, and which had never been interfered with by the application of improved machinery or steam power; and the gradual depreciation of this article was from 7s. 6d. per dozen in 1815 to 4s. 6d. in 1841. The Commissioner remarked the consequence of such low and scanty wages in the want of comfort in the dwellings of these people, and in their wretched supply of clothing. In the evidence which he took, Mr. Allen, chairman of a board of guardians, stated that the women, in their confinements, were often altogether without clothes and bedding, and that the destitution and wretchedness of knitters were so great that relief had been granted them although in work, the objection to grant relief in aid of wages being overruled by the hardships and sufferings of the applicants. Another witness said—

"Wages are reduced to the minimum of existence; no set of men in the whole country have had to endure such privations as the stocking-makers of Hinckley and the neighbourhood."

Mr. Biggs said—

"Hunger and distress are fast destroying all honesty in one sex, and chastity and decency in the other."

Another witness—

"Females are in that state of wretchedness that they are indifferent about appearances altogether; their spirits are depressed and broken."

The Rev. T. Stapleton—

"Whole families sleep in the same room, and sometimes three and even five in a bed."

Another witness, T. Chaplin, said—

"There are hundreds of people in Hinckley who have no bed to lie on, and scarcely any furniture of any sort in their houses; there are many families who exist on about 11d., and from that to 1s. a-head per week. The increase of demand brings no increase of wages. There is now more work to be done than men are able to perform, and has been for a length of time; but wages keep falling, notwithstanding there is such a demand, and the quality of the goods increases. The goods are superior almost every week to what they were."

Again—

"Almost invariably the framework knitter is wedded to his trade, and by his poverty-stricken state all his family are so too; they are born to it, they remain there, and they die there."

Education was out of the question, except at the Sunday school: the parents could not spare their children's labour; and frequently they were kept from the Sunday schools for want of clothing. The Rev. G. Dealtry stated—

"The children of framework knitters do not attend the Sunday-schools in proportion to their numbers. National schools, if established here, would be utterly useless, the parents being too poor to spare their children from work after five or six years of age."

Now, these being the facts, would the House refuse all consideration of the case? He did not ask any hon. Member to pledge himself as to details; he only asked them to assent to the second reading of the Bill, and proposed then to refer it to a Select Committee, that the responsibility might be shared more extensively, and a foundation well laid for legislating upon the subject. The causes of the distress he had described were not inherent in this manufacture; it was the manufacture of a staple commodity, an article of universal use—it might almost be said of absolute necessity. It was pressed by no competition with power; and fashion had not affected the main articles of production, those used by the mass of the people. Compare the condition of the same class of artisans in Saxony with our own. The Saxons had supplanted us in nearly all third markets; their exports to the United States alone in 1843 were three times the amount of ours to all the world; and Mr. Felkin stated in his evidence that the dwellings of the Saxon artisans were much better furnished than those of our own, and the workmen appeared clean and decent in their condition and circumstances. It was the same also in Scotland, as to which he (Sir H. Halford) had the evidence of a Leicester man, who went there and examined into the condition of the knitters; the wages there were a third more for hosiery goods than in England, and the trade was free from the vicious practices this Bill was intended to suppress. A petition had been presented to the House by Leicester framework knitters engaged under a system of no frame rent and charges, and working in frames belonging to manufacturers without being subjected to any deduction from their wages; and they from their own experience prayed the House to pass this Bill and place others on a level with themselves. The great complaint of the workmen was founded on the heavy deductions made from their wages; there was 40 per cent difference between their gross earnings and what they actually received. A heavy rent was charged for each frame, and the workman was obliged to find a place for it to stand in, and to pay for this if he had it not in his own house, and sometimes even if he had. He had also to pay the middleman. Frame rent varied in amount, and was very often excessive; it formed a deduction from the wages, regulated by no fixed rule. Many employers were themselves hostile to the system, but had not been able to meet the undue advantage which its discontinuance would give others. Mr. Biggs stated that frames were a good investment for a manufacturer, if he could sell the produce of them as it was made. He himself employed 1,000 frames in 1835 and 1836. The demand, he observed, was greater than could be supplied, though wages did not appear to have risen. The frame rent paid in for the two years was 5,100l., against which he set interest of a capital of 8,000l., supposed to be the value of the frames, at 5 per cent for two years, 800l., and cost of repairs 2,450l., that sum covering wear and tear, and putting depreciation of the property, according to his own admission, out of the question; in all, 3,2501. had to be deducted from 5,100l., which left 1,950l. for the two years, or 975l. a year net profit, be-sides 51. per cent. interest on the capital invested, and all the profits from the sale of the article; making, in all, 17¼ per cent interest on the capital. In the case of a great bankruptcy, the frames, amounting to four hundred, were sold for 1,350l.

"The rent of these frames, if employed," said the Commissioner, "would, according to the custom of Leicester, range from 1s. a week upwards, according to width and gauge, and therefore would have realized a rental of 20l. a week at least, or upwards of 1,000l. per annum, on a property the intrinsic value of which was thus proved to have been but 1,350l.; the expenses of keeping them in repair would have to be deducted, and of course the rental at any periods they might happen to be totally unemployed."

Mr. Boultbee Brooks, a framesmith at Hinckley, was asked—

"What do you think is the fair average of expense of repairs in a year, one frame with another —the common narrow frame? He answered, 3d. or 3½d. a week would keep them in capital good repair; that would allow them good insides, and everything to keep them up to the mark." "And would you undertake to do a large number for that? To be sure I would, and should like to do it—

rose to oppose the Motion, and expressed his hope that the House would bear patiently with him while he offered such remarks and facts as occurred to him to warrant his resistance to the further progress of the measure. He found himself in somewhat a peculiar position, because, from the cheers he had heard, he was led to believe that his hon. Colleague was prepared to consent to the second reading, and to the reference of the subject to a Committee up stairs. He at once admitted that the picture of distress just drawn by the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Halford) was but too true a representation. He had himself witnessed scenes, the details of which would fill every Member with regret and horror. He would not yield to any man in the desire he felt to serve those whose case was now before the House; but he was convinced that the evils sprang from different causes. In his opinion, the real sources of these miseries were to be found in the want of information on the part of the operatives; the want of knowledge how to direct themselves; the absence of proper self-control; and the habit of bringing up their children to the same way of life in which they were engaged. The children had thus to pass through the same miseries that their parents had endured. He saw no necessity, at all events, for referring the Bill to a Select Committee; for not long since, a full inquiry had been undertaken and performed by a Commissioner, and from his report the House was already in a condition, as far as information went, to legislate upon the subject. He was confident that he could show, from the report of that Commissioner, that the causes he had assigned for the present melancholy state of things were the true ones. The first extract he would read, was from page 26:—

"The amount of wages, or rather perhaps the standard by which they are regulated, in all branches of trade, at all times, and in all countries, will be governed mainly—1st, by those circumstances which affect the supply of labour; and 2nd, those which influence the demand, and funds for its employment. If labour be redundant, and exceed the demand for it, it will be cheap, in spite of strikes or combinations, or any of the innumerable expedients which have been so often and so injuriously resorted to for years past to give it an artificial value. If, on the contrary, it be from any circumstances scarce, it will increase in value in proportion to the extent in which the scarcity is felt by those anxious to employ it. The only limit to the employment of labour is the improbability, or impossibility, of the employer realizing a profit on the produce of industry. For a series of years past the supply of framework knitters has almost invariably exceeded the demand for them, and hence the value of their labour has been progressively, if not constantly, diminishing, except in a very few of the fancy branches of the trade where considerable skill is required, and in which, consequently, the number of competitors for employment has been proportionately lessened."

The following, from page 106 of the same report, was applicable to the same argument:—

"As regards the injury the framework knitters are alleged as doing themselves by bringing up their families to the same occupation, it may be observed generally, that the lower we descend in the scale of society, the less frequent is the opportunity presented of choice of employment. A tradesman, or even a well-paid mechanic, who can afford to pay a premium with his child, may succeed in getting him apprenticed to a trade of his own selection; but no such opportunity presents itself to a workman who is maintaining his family on the precarious earnings of irregular and low-paid daily or weekly labour; and perhaps constantly engaged in a painful struggle with the importunities of destitution and want. If he can get employment for his children of any kind, he will, under such circumstances, be pretty sure to accept it with avidity. Circumstances of chance, rather than choice, may be said usually to determine their occupation."

The subsequent passage related to the disproportion between supply and demand in the labour market:—

"That the leading cause of the low rate of wages earned by the framework knitters is the disproportion existing between the supply of their labour and the demand for it; the latter being usually deficient, and at all times very irregular; while there is a constant manifest tendency in the former to increase, and none to adapt itself to the irregularities, or the amount of the demand. That this excess of supply arises, primarily, from the accessibility of the trade of framework knitting to the unemployed labourers of all other classes; and from the facilities with which a knowledge of the trade, especially in the common branches, is acquired."

He was sorry to be obliged to remark that since the year 1814 the export trade had been almost entirely lost. He proceeded to read the following extract from a publication issued within the last three months by Mr. Winks, a most benevolent individual of Leicester, respecting the young women of the town:—

"If one thing has pained me more than another whilst sitting to administer relief at the board, it has been to see the great number of girls from sixteen to twenty who apply for help; and some of these with one, two, and even three illegitimate children. The others, who have not thus fallen, are on every hand in danger—great danger. When asked why they do not go out as servants, they say, 'We don't know how to do the work'—and they do not; and, 'We have no clothes to go in'—and they have not. Theirs is a most sad and pitiable case. I wish my friend Mr. William Biggs (and I hope he will excuse me), or any other benevolent gentleman or lady, would take this matter in hand, and establish an institution like the Asylum in the Newark, only on a more liberal and comprehensive scale, for these poor girls. What a blessing would such an institution be to hundreds of young women! Good and clever girls as servants are scarce—that every lady knows. Those from the Asylum are eagerly sought and secured as fast as they are ready. The vast importance of this matter is well set forth by Thomas Beggs, in one of his valuable essays just published."

These were the causes of these people's misery, and not frame rents. It had been stated, that the gross wages of 500 hands in Leicester, engaged in framework knitting was 4s. 7½d. a week each. This might be true of some branches; but he assured the House that there were much higher wages earned in other branches. Leicester, Nottingham, and Derby, were the great seats of the hosiery manufacture; and in those towns, industry, talent, and ingenuity had produced a great extension of machinery and a vast increase of wealth; although, therefore, it was true that remuneration was low in particular branches, it was not the case in all. He could point to several branches where the earnings of the workmen were larger; and the Commissioner, in his report, bore testimony to this fact. The same writer went on to show how it necessarily happened that they were bad wives and mothers, and that their husbands were reckless and intemperate. The hon. Baronet (Sir H. Halford) had last year passed an Act upon this subject; but owing to some defect in the interpretation clause it became inoperative for the principal object in view. Why, then, had he not this Session introduced a Bill to remedy that defect, and then it would have been seen how the principle operated? The hon. Baronet had, however, taken a different course. He had brought forward a measure, which the more it was examined the more it would be found that it was vexatious and expensive to the manufacturer, and injurious to the operative. It embodied also a principle which, if he were not much mistaken, the House would not consent to sanction. It had three objects: first, the abolition of middlemen; secondly, the establishment of book keeping; thirdly, the extinction of frame rents. He would take the liberty of explaining to the House what sort of persons the middlemen were whom it was proposed to do away with. They were the most intelligent and trustworthy men of the operative class. They acquired the position of middlemen because the master manufacturers knew they could have more reliance upon them than upon the other workmen. Their prudence and good conduct often enabled them to save money, with which they procured frames of their own; they hired a shop, and let out the frames at so much a week. He did not mean to say that there were not some abuses in the system; but what he maintained was, that the evils were overbalanced by the advantages, and particularly by the stimulus it held out to good conduct on the part of the workers. One of the most wealthy, amiable, and respectable men in Leicester had been originally a framework knitter, and had afterwards pursued an honourable and industrious course upward through the degree of a middleman. Would the House, then, sanction a principle which told the framework knitter that that avenue to distinction was closed against him? The remuneration of the middlemen was represented by some as excessive; but the representation was not correct. The middleman was responsible to the manufacturers for those under him; and having risen to this position, he saw no reason why the middleman should not be upheld in it. Except through the instrumentality of the middlemen, many of the operatives who had lost the confidence of the masters would be unable to obtain employment. It would be deeply to be regretted, therefore, if the House were to adopt a system which would shut out from employment individuals, who having once blemished their characters, were not permitted by their industry and ability to re-establish it. The adoption of the Bill would render it necessary for the manufacturers to build extensive warehouses, and they must derive a percentage upon the capital employed for that purpose by raising the price of their goods; but the goods would not bear an advance in price in the present state of competition with foreign manufactures. The hon. Member who had just addressed the House, said, that our manufacturers had been shut out of several neutral mar- kets in consequence of having supplied them with inferior articles; but that was not the case. The real cause of the diminution of trade was the severe competition to which our manufacturers were exposed with foreign rivals, who could obtain labour on cheaper terms than ours could. He begged to be allowed to state on his own knowledge, acquired within the last few days, that if foreign countries would but direct a little more attention to the fashion of the articles they manufactured, and would produce a commodity of a better description, which would sell in Great Britain, the protecting duty could be paid upon them, and a profit could be made upon the disposal of them. The system now sought to be established would be more detrimental to the quick and industrious than to the slow and idle operative; and he especially referred the House upon this point to the evidence of Thomas Finney. He maintained, too, that the employment of people in large factories would be prejudicial to them in a pecuniary point of view, and entered into some calculations to show that the earnings of a good workman would, under such circumstances, fall short of their present amount by 4s. 8d. a week. He likewise, with the view of showing that the hon. Member for Leicestershire had considerably underrated the amount of wages received by workmen in Leicester, read a statement, from which it would appear that in some cases workmen were earning 15s., in others 13s., in others 11s. clear each per week. With reference to wages abroad, he would read a letter which he had received from Chemnitz:—

"Chemnitz, April 20, 1847.

"I promised you I would write you from Chemnitz on the subject of rents, &c. &c. The parties who live in Chemnitz and keep stocks and sell hosiery, are not manufacturers in our sense of the term; they do not give out material and pay wages—they buy the goods (hose and gloves) week by week as they want them. They are in reality only factors. The manufacturers (really so) are men who own wooden frames, from one to one hundred, as it may happen, and let them out and take rent for them—a very small rent, varying from 3d. to 7d. per week. In the great majority of cases, they own very few frames; the goods are made in their own shops— they come and offer them for sale. The manufacture is spread over all the villages round Chemnitz for many miles. Hose hands get from 2s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. per week; the best glove hands from 5s. to 7s.; but I saw many shops where glove hands only averaged 3s. 6d. per week. There are no factories for frames—they are all let out into the villages as ours are; only, instead of the superintendent of a shop of ten frames or more being employed by the manufacturer and paid wages, as a middleman is with us, he is here a little manufacturer, who makes up for himself and sells his own goods to the factors in Chemnitz. This mode has, of course, a tendency to reduce wages to the lowest possible level, and is precisely the position to which Sir H. Halford's Bill would reduce our trade, if it were to pass, and extinguish the middlemen. We must then throw the middlemen upon their own resources, and buy of them as we wanted, instead of, as now, incurring all the risk and occasional loss of stock, Ac. But as for the workmen being employed by a small manufacturer with no capital, who could keep no stock, and could not work for a month without orders, and who would be frequently jobbing and sacrificing, employment would be first irregular, and then reduced, probably, to nearly one-half of what it is at present. If Sir H. Halford means to withdraw regularity of employment from the workman—if he means to commit him to the tender mercies of a small maker without capital, who cannot half employ him, and further by these means to get his wages reduced to the smallest possible amount, i. e. much lower than at present—he cannot do better than to press forward his present Bill."

The rent of a frame, then, in Chemnitz and its neighbourhood was from 3d. to 7d., instead of a shilling, as with us, while the wages ranged from 2s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. a week. This was the competition to which our manufacturers were exposed. To the corn laws, he contended, was to be traced all the competition that had sprung up against our manufacturers. If the corn laws had never been passed, foreigners would not have possessed the advantages they had so long enjoyed; but, now they were repealed, he feared that, if such a measure as that now proposed were adopted, the competition would be greater than this country could sustain. He thought that he could best prove his earnest desire to serve the labouring classes of the town he represented, and its neighbourhood, by telling them that they were building upon a sandy foundation if they imagined that legislation like this would be beneficial to them. They must look for far different measures, or they would have to endure trials and to pass through an ordeal for which they were little prepared. Having read two farther extracts from the report of the Commissioner, in order to put the House in possession of the fullest information on the subject, the hon. Member went on to impress upon it the injustice and injury that would be inflicted upon the owners of frames, if this Bill were passed into a law. Undoubtedly many manufacturers were the proprietors of frames; but most of them belonged to persons in a lower sphere, who had perhaps five, ten, or fifteen, and who derived a comfortable income from them in times of prosperity. He wished to know on what principle the House would proceed when it declared by statute that the whole of this property should be extinguished. As to the profits derived from the rent of frames, the hon. Member read an addition to that part of the evidence of Mr. Biggs which had been introduced by the hon. Baronet who moved the present stage of the Bill, particularly with reference to the length of time frames had been entirely out of employ from 1837 to 1843. A reference had been made to the case of an unfortunate manufacturer, in order to show that 400 frames had been sold at about 31. 17s. each; but the fact was, that some frames were worth 30l., 40l., or 501. each, and on an average they cost considerably above 20l. No fallacy, therefore, could be greater than that into which the hon. Mover had fallen, when he represented the value of frames so much below their real worth. Mr. Adcock, in his evidence, appeared to be very much opposed to the payment of rents for frames; but when the question was put to him directly, he admitted the tendency of it was to encourage the idler, whilst it injured the owner. With regard to the proposition for sending the Bill to a Committee up stairs, he feared it would be attended with the evil consequence of inducing the operatives to believe they had obtained a triumph over their employers. On this ground, therefore, he should meet the proposal with a decided negative. As to the frame rents, he would ask the hon. Baronet who proposed that they should be abolished, in the event of the Bill being carried, what was to prevent a Bill being brought in next year to abolish house rent altogether? If the principle were established in one case, it was impossible to say where it would stop. The precedent was too dangerous to be admitted into legislation; and he trusted it would be rejected. In conclusion, believing that the Bill was pregnant with great mischief both to manufacturers and operatives engaged in the hosiery trade, he should move, as an Amendment, that it be read the second time that day six months.

seconded the Amendment. He missed from the Treasury bench some Gentlemen whom he should have been happy to see on this discussion. He should have been glad to see there the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown, and the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, be- cause this measure, in fact, was a corollary to the Factory Bill, and would be followed by many others of the same description. It professed to be founded on the principle of "a fair day's work for a fair day's wages;" and as the Government by their proceedings on the Factory Bill appeared to be able to say what was "a fair day's work," they had laid themselves under the obligation of saying what were "a fair day's wages. With their sanction of the principle of the Factory Bill, the Government could not resist the case of the frame-knitters. The factory workers of this country, taking them altogether, were the best paid, the best lodged, and the best educated of all the working classes; but the poor frame-knitters were at the other extreme of the scale. If, therefore, the House held out to the working classes the idea that they were able, by legislation, to improve their condition, the frame-knitters were those who ought first to be taken in hand. Yet, after the decision of a majority of that House on the Factory Bill, and the votes of the leading Members of Her Majesty's Government, he was at a loss what course they would take upon this Bill. What excuse could they offer for opposing the claims of the frame-knitters? For himself, he was perfectly free from blame upon the subject. He had lived both in the manufacturing districts and in the frame-knitting districts, and in both he Lad always told the working classes that it was utterly impossible for the House to do anything to alleviate their distress. He knew himself that in many cases it was absolutely necessary to make up the wages of the frame-knitters out of the rates; and he had himself land in two parishes in Leicestershire where, for several years, more shillings per acre had from this cause been paid to the poor rates than he had received as landlord. The consequence of this was, that every frame-knitter in the country brought up his children to the same occupation, so that the trade really could not maintain them, it was so excessively overstocked; and no improvement could be looked for except from a diminution in their numbers. He wished Her Majesty's Government could be induced to take wider views upon these questions. The Legislature were engaged in endeavouring to solve a great social problem— the problem of how they could enable the luxuries and the ease of the highest classes to exist without the co-existence of a lowest class, indigent, distressed, and miserable. They were trying so to divide the profits of industry and skill, which formed the national income, as to give to the highest class what its increased numbers and luxury demanded, without giving sufficient comfort to the lowest class. All their Education Grants, Factory Bills, Colliery Bills, and this Hosiery Bill, were so many struggles with the difficulties of this great problem. The United States of America had wisely avoided it altogether. The aristocratic institutions of France had sunk under it. We alone carried on the struggle. Humanity and morality forbid us to allow our own people to suffer; but, at the same time, we were too rigidly aristocratic to allow the masses to rise in the social scale. He was aware that every step ought to be taken with strict and almost mathematical demonstration, and that this was hardly a fit thing for discussion in a public assembly; besides, he was willing to own that up to this time the working classes had struggled manfully against this state of things with considerable success. But if this legislation were continued, his belief was, that they would destroy their self-reliance. There was not a situation in this country to which a subject could aspire, to which members of the working classes had not attained. Men sprung from the working classes were found both upon the legal and ecclessiastical bench, in the Queen's Council, and in every department of art and science. He therefore warned the House and the Government against meddling with a system that up to this day had produced such results. The most dangerous things they could do was to bring in Bills which would take the management of their own affairs from the hands of the working classes; for it was their self-reliance that enabled them to raise themselves, and it was a virtue that might be eradicated. He reminded the House that the last Bill introduced on this subject by the hon. Baronet failed from the general want of confidence in it both on the part of masters and men. [Sir H. HALFORD had that day presented a petition both from masters and men desiring legislation upon the same principle.] He was happy to be corrected if he were in error. How, he would ask, could the House consistently give this Bill a second reading, and affirm the propositions it involved? The first principle of it was, that there should be no frame rent; but he contended they might just as well enact that the owner of a frame who had a house should not be entitled to receive rents for his house. On what principle could it be enacted that the man who had invested money in frames should not receive interest on his capital? Another principle of it was to push down middlemen. He did not know why it was to be considered an offence to be a middleman. But the fact was, the whole Bill was founded upon the assumption that the hosiers were the most destructive and hard-hearted class of men in the country. He repeated it was the greatest kindness to the poor to teach them not to rely upon that House. The House was certainly desirous of improving their condition, and every one of these Bills was a proof of it; but it could not be done by legislating between employers and workmen. The case of the Spitalfields weavers was a case in point. Their wages were regulated by Act of Parliament. They were pets of legislation and charity. From their cradle to their grave they had been the care of the Legislature, and after all, according to the testimony of their best friends, all this care had proved an evil to them as well as to the country. He warned the House against a similar result in this case. The practical suggestion of the Bill obviously was, that instead of trousers and socks, everybody should wear knee breeches and white hose. In conclusion, he repeated that after their proceedings on the Factory Bill, the Government were bound to take the frame-knitters at once under their care, and that he should have been happy to have seen the leading Members of it in their places.

in rising to move the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of the Medical Registration and Medical Law Amendment Bill, presented upwards of twenty petitions from medical practitioners, apothecaries, physicians, and surgeons, praying that the Bill might pass into a law in the present Parliament. The right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who last Session had promised to give his aid and assistance in passing a Medical Bill, had intimated, that afternoon, that deputations from some of the colleges had been appointed to wait on the right hon. Gentleman, for the purpose of laying before him the objections which they entertained to this Bill; and at the request of the right hon. Gentleman he had consented to postpone the second reading to Tuesday next. He gave notice, at the same time, that it was his intention to move that, after the second reading, the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. Those who objected to the proposed alteration in the law would then have a full opportunity of stating their objections and of having them refuted; and he trusted that when this necessary investigation was concluded, the House would consent to pass a measure which there could be no doubt would be beneficial to the profession and to the public. Seven Medical Bills had, time after time, been introduced: this was the seventh; and if there were to be seven more, this, at any rate, was the last he would have anything to do with. The state of the medical law was at present must unsatisfactory, and he thought it was the duty of the Legislature to take the subject as early as possible into consideration. Some of the various corporations, he understood, had come to the conclusion that their interests would be injuriously affected, were such a measure as this to be adopted. That might or might not be the case; but, whether or not, the House was bound, in inquiring into the facts, to look to the general interest of the profession, and not to the profit or loss to a few parties. He would beg of the right hon. Gentleman to remember that the objections about to be urged in private by the deputations he had mentioned, ought not to influence the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman on the course he would take; he ought to be guided solely by the facts, and the facts could only be brought to light before a Committee of that House. Back-stairs influence had on too many occasions swayed the decision of that House; and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman was too highminded and of too independent a judgment to give undue importance to the representations which might be made to him in private. He moved that the Order of the Day be read, in order that the second reading might be postponed to Tuesday next.

had stated that morning, in answer to a question, during the absence of the hon. Gentleman from that House, that he had received three deputations— one from the College of Physicians, one from the College of Surgeons, and one from the College of General Practitioners all pressing on him the great importance of appointing a day when they might wait on and lay before him the great objections they entertained either to the principle of the Bill or to some of its details, previous to proceeding to the second reading. He had since received three other deputations —one from apothecaries, one from accoucheurs, and one representing individual gentlemen; and the same representation had been made, and the same delay had been asked for. It was quite true, as the hon. Gentleman said, that objections urged in private ought not to influence the course which a Member of that House should take in dealing with a measure of this nature; but as those parties were deeply concerned in the probable operation of the Bill, they had a perfect right to be heard, and it was for this reason he had requested the hon. Gentleman to postpone moving the second reading until next week.

apprehended that the right hon. Gentleman would find it much more convenient to hear the parties to whom he alluded before a Committee up stairs. All the difficulties experienced by the hon. Gentleman, in inducing the House to amend the medical law, had resulted from his having been assailed privately: the facts of the case had always been carefully hid, and the appointment of a Committee was now the only way by which they could succeed in making the question understood and the truth known. He was afraid the right hon. Gentleman would experience a great deal of trouble, and lose the whole of Saturday in listening to these deputations; it would be much better to wait until they could be referred to a Committee.

thought that the appointment of a Committee would very much depend on the answer which he hoped to receive from a question he would put to the hon. Members for Finsbury and Montrose; would they undertake to employ their time, the one by presiding over, and the other by attending, that Committee, until all the complaints of all the deputations referred to had been exhausted? If the hon. Member for Finsbury would say that he would take the chair of the Committee, and if the hon. Member for Montrose would promise a daily attendance, he (Sir J. Graham) should be very much disposed to support the proposition. Let them not, however, hear of loss of time. If those hon. Gentlemen would not give up their time and attention to hearing the complaints which the Secretary of State professed himself ready to hear, it was not very unreasonable on the part of the House not to entertain with any great favour this Bill.

could make no such promise. He firmly believed that if he did make it, and were to adhere to it, it would be at the sacrifice of his life. He feared that he would have to sit in the chair till one day after eternity. He agreed with the hon. Member for Montrose that the best prospect of obtaining a settlement of the disputed points would be by consenting to the appointment of a Select Committee. [Sir J. GRAHAM: Over which you will not promise to preside.] He would at least promise to work in that Committee to accomplish the end he had in view, and to serve the profession. He did not, however, object to hearing the deputations in private also, and he should accept the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman, and visit him at the Home Office on Saturday.