rose to move the appointment of—

"A Select Committee to inquire whether the Oaths required to be taken at the Table by Members of this House have been duly taken by Benjamin Hawes, esq., and to report their opinion thereupon to the House."

He was sure the hon. Gentleman would give him credit for having brought forward the Motion, not from any personal motive, but from a sense of public duty. The course taken by the hon. Gentleman and the officers of that House had, however, raised a question as to the right of the hon. Gentleman to sit and vote in Parliament; and, as there was no strictly analogous case, he thought it extremely desirable that a Committee should be appointed to consider the circumstances of the transaction, for the purpose of laying down a rule for the guidance of the House in similar cases. It was well known, that every Member of that or the other House of Parliament ought to be sworn at the table; and the omission of any Member to be sworn involved an incapacity to sit in the House, and other penalties for which he was answerable under the general law of the land. Cases were recorded in which parties, having failed to comply with the requisite formalities, had been obliged to resign their seats. New writs had been moved for the election of Members in room of those who had failed to comply with the rules; and, in consequence of the omission on their part being a mere act of inadvertency, the House had proceeded to pass an Act of Indemnity, which freed such Members from the penalties which they had incurred. It had been suggested to him, that he ought to move for a new writ in the case of Kinsale. But there were distinctions in this case which made it different from those which had preceded it. He thought, therefore, it would be much better that all discussion upon the point should be calmly conducted in a Committee, where they would have the means of obtaining the necessary information, which could be only partially adduced in the course of a debate in that House. He had, however, preferred a course which he trusted the House would agree in adopting, viz., that of referring the case to a Select Committee, for the purpose of inquiring into the circumstances. The facts of the case were simply these:—The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hawes) was elected for the borough of Kinsale on the 11th inst.; on the 15th he presented himself at the table of the House to be sworn as Member for that borough; and it appeared from the papers which had just been read by the Clerk, that his return was not certified by the Clerk of the Crown till the 18th, three days after the hon. Gentleman had taken the oaths at the table. Now, it might be contended on the one side, that as the hon. Gentleman had been elected by a majority of votes at Kinsale, and as he naturally believed that the returning officer had made a proper return of that election, he was, therefore, the Member for Kinsale within the view of the statute; and that by his having taken the oaths since that period he had been declared and acknowledged to be a Member of that House. But he thought that it could be equally maintained, on the other hand, that the provision of the law which required that a Member should take the oaths at the table had not been fulfilled until the House had the means of knowing and recognising the hon. Gentleman as a Member of the House. The only means the House had of recognising him was by ascertaining that the return had been transmitted to the Crown Office. The Clerk of the House had no right to administer the oath to any individual who came to the table to be sworn unless he (the Clerk of the House) had evidence that the party so presenting himself had been duly elected; and he (Mr. Goulburn) need not inform the House that an oath administered by a person incompetent to administer it, was, in the eye of the law, no oath whatever. Now what evidence had the Clerk of the House for believing that on the day the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hawes) was sworn he was Member for Kinsale? The 7th and 8th William III. required that the return should be sent to the Crown Office; and the grounds for that requirement were, that the transmission of the return was the necessary proof of the election that had been made; and until the House was in possession of that proof, the Clerk of the House was not authorised to administer the oath. The oath, therefore, was altogether null and void. That the oath should not be taken before the return was made to the Crown Office, was established by various circumstances. In the first place, no instance had occurred from 1696, when the Act for making the return to the Crown Office was passed, until the present, of a Member having been sworn before his return had been made to the Crown Office. In 1806 Sir John Newport was debarred from taking his seat on that very account; and Mr. Fox having complained to the House of the grievance to which Sir John Newport had been subjected on account of the neglect of the returning officer, that functionary was called to the bar of the House to answer for his negligence; but it was not until the return was made that Sir John Newport was allowed to take his seat. In 1831, two Members were elected for Great Grimsby; but the returning officer having omitted for some time to make the return, they were not permitted to take their seats until the duty had been performed. His neglect was also made a subject of complaint in the House. This circumstance, occurring as it did at a period of great political excitement, showed that the oath could not be taken before the return was received at the Crown Office. Indeed, it had been always admitted that the person elected was not a Member within the purview of the statute until the return was made. Perhaps it might be said on the other hand that the transmission of the return to the Crown Office was a mere matter of form, which might be dispensed with, and that a Member might be sworn, even though that return had not been received. He (Mr. Goulburn) doubted the validity of that opinion. In the case of a double return neither of the Members were permitted to sit in the House until the House was satisfied which of them was entitled to that honour. If the opposite principle were admitted, then, in case of a double return, the person who arrived in London first and took the oath at the table, would be the Member, in spite of the resolution of the House that in such cases neither party should be admitted till the House had decided as to which of them the right of sitting belonged. The House had, in the Pomfret case, decided that if a Member was duly elected, but not properly returned, he should not sit until the return was received at the Crown Office. But it appeared that the hon Gentleman (Mr. HAWES) did not consider himself entitled to sit until the return was received. [Mr. HAWES: I did.] If so, then why did the hon. Gentleman absent himself from the House on three nights, when the important business before the House required the fullest attendance of Members of the Government? The hon. Gentleman, as he had already stated, was sworn on the 15th inst. Finding that the return had not then been received at the Crown Office, the hon. Gentleman forbore to appear in the House on the succeeding Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, notwithstanding the importance of the business then before them, and did not appear until after the return had been received at the Crown Office. But if the hon. Gentleman was incapacitated from appearing in that House antecedently to the receipt of the return, surely the oaths ought to have been taken by him subsequently to the removal of this incapacity. He stated these facts, subject to further inquiry before a Committee; but he thought he had stated sufficient to show that further inquiry was necessary.

did not rise to oppose the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. On the contrary, he quite assented to his general opinion that an inquiry should be instituted in the case; and he had not the smallest fear of the result. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for having given him previous notice of the Motion he had now made; and he assured him at the same time that he entertained no idea that he had been actuated by any personal or party feeling in bringing it forward. He had a very plain statement to make to the House. He admitted that on the 11th instant he was duly returned and declared a burgess to serve in the present Parliament for the borough of Kinsale; that on the 15th he had presented himself at the table of the House, in order to be sworn and take his seat, as he believed he was bound to do at the earliest possible period after his election. He had never previously been elected during a Session of Parliament, nor was he aware there was any difference in the practice as regarded the swearing in of Members during the Session of Parliament from that which prevailed at a general election; and, certainly, though he had several times been sworn in after a general election, he had never been called upon to produce a certificate of his return, or to prove that he was a Member of the House by a reference to the Crown Office. He had acted on the recent occasion precisely as he had acted on all former occasions. He had been introduced according to the forms of the House, and had taken the oaths and his seat in the usual way; and he contended, in opposition to the right hon. Gentleman, that upon these forms being complied with, he was entitled to all the rights and privileges, whatever they were, of a Member of that House. He admitted, moreover, that the return was not received at the Crown Office until the 18th. He left these facts entirely to the decision of the House. He would interfere no further. At the same time, he begged the House distinctly to understand that, in absenting himself, as he intended to do, while this matter, which affected himself personally, was pending, he waived no right, he abandoned no privilege; that he should feel it to be his duty to assert by every fair and proper means all the rights of those constituents who had sent him to Parliament, whatever might be the consequences. The hon. Member then left the House.

said, it appeared to him that, though there had undoubtedly been a departure from the ordinary, although not the universal, practice of the House—for he had just had his attention called to a case somewhat similar—no actual illegality had occurred in the mode of taking the oaths in this instance. His hon. Friend (Mr. Hawes), finding that a departure from the ordinary practice had occurred, had abstained from voting during the three days between his taking the oaths and the arrival of the return at the Crown Office, not under any legal advice, but simply out of deference to that House. Without entering into the question which had been raised by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn), he admitted it was right that a Committee should be appointed in order to inquire into the subject, thinking it was very desirable that the practice should be, ascertained, and one general and uniform system adopted. In consenting to the Committee, however, he did not wish to be understood as prejudging the question.

was not aware whether his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Homo Department intended to object to the second reading of this Bill. Since he had introduced it, a noble Lord in the other House of Parliament, and a Member of the Government (Lord Campbell), had introduced a Bill of a somewhat kindred character. The Bill of that noble Lord, however, proposed to give a power of appeal on questions of law only. His (Mr. Ewart's) Bill proposed to give a power of appeal on questions of fact. There was, therefore, a considerable difference between the two Bills. Since he had introduced this Bill, he had received numerous suggestions from hon. Gentlemen for its amendment. Those alterations however, did not affect the main principle of the Bill, and could be all duly considered in Committee. He must say that he regarded this as a matter well worthy the consideration of Government; and he hoped that, whatever course the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department intended to take in regard to it, it would be a course which would not be opposed to the principle of the Bill; but rather that he would admit the soundness of the principle, although he should delay the consideration of the mode of carrying it into effect. It would depend upon the nature of the right hon. Gentleman's statement what course he should take with regard to the further progress of this Bill.

admitted the importance of the question which his hon. Friend had submitted to the consideration of the House in the Bill which then stood for a second reading; but this could not be considered as an isolated question. It was connected with other important matters. It was connected, for instance, with the establishment of a public prosecutor, and it was also essentially connected with the establishment of a new court of appeal, to be constantly sitting, in order to carry out the object which the hon. Member wished to see effected. It was true that he had declined the responsibility of introducing any measure at an early period of the Session; but his hon. and learned Friend must be aware that a Bill had been introduced into the House of Lords proposing material alterations in the mode of reserving questions of law, and obtaining a satisfactory decision of the Judges upon those questions, and giving the prisoners the benefit of those decisions, if they were in their favour, by entering a verdict of "not guilty," in lieu of the present plan—which was very inconvenient, and which did not give full justice to the prisoners—of obtaining the opinions of the Judges in an irregular and private manner; and if they thought the prisoners were not properly convicted, of recommending them to the pardon of the Crown. It was very probable that a Committee of the House of Lords would be appointed to consider the question, before whom the Judges might be examined; and he should be sorry to assent to the principle embodied in the measure of his hon. and learned Friend until this Bill before the House of Lords had been fully considered. He therefore thought that his hon. and learned Friend would exercise a sound discretion in postponing his measure until the Bill was before the House.

, pursuant to notice, moved for—

"The appointment of a Select Committee to take into consideration the Report and Evidence laid before Parliament in 1844 by Her Majesty's Commissioner for inquiry into the condition of the Framework Knitters, and to make such further inquiries as may appear necessary, in order to ascertain whether any, and, if any, what legislative measures can be devised for the relief of their long-continued distress."

The hon. Member observed, that the present distressed state of the framework knitters was not to be imputed to any temporary or transitory causes; and he hoped that the House would at once see the justice and expediency of acceding to his Motion. On this subject the Commissioner entered into a full inquiry, and his report had been laid on the table of the House. The report fully bore out the allegations of the petitioners in 1843 as to the extent of their distress, and the grievances and depression under which they laboured. An Act had been passed to carry out a portion of the views of the petitioners; but that Act had been frustrated in consequence of the technical construction put upon it; but where it had been fairly brought into operation a beneficial result had been the consequence. Last year he had proposed a Bill on this subject; and the Motion he had now to make to the House was to take into consideration the report and evidence laid before Parliament in 1844, and to make such further inquiries as might appear necessary to ascertain whether any legislative measures could be devised for the relief of the long-continued distress of the framework knitters. He did not know whether any objection would be made to this proposal; but let it not be said that it would be mischievous because it would create exaggerated hopes, for the Commission had already raised and justified hopes, and all he desired was to see the legitimate consequences of that Commission carried out. The House, surely, would not sanction such a mockery as that of entering into an inquiry into the distress of a particular class, and then letting a large blue book be the only result. When the Commission was applied for, an official answer was given, cautioning the parties against entertaining too sanguine hopes; but that answer at the same time set forth the conditions on which the petitioners might be allowed to entertain hopes; for the Government admitted that alleged grievances and oppressions formed a fit subject for public investigation, and that when they were proved to exist, it was the imperative duty of the Legislature to afford every just and practicable remedy. Now, he maintained that grievances and oppressions in respect to the condition of the framework knitters had been proved to exist. It might be said that the Commissioner recommended no specific remedy; but he was justified in saying that that arose from the circumstance of the Commissioner thinking that such recommendation was not within his province. Admitting, for the sake of argument, that grievances and oppressions were not made out by the report, further inquiry was nevertheless necessary to satisfy the minds of this miserable and wretched body of persons. Some might object to Parliament taking any steps in this matter, on the abstract ground that noninterference in matters of trade was the proper course; but he protested against an abstract principle of that sort being so far allowed to prevail as to exclude all consideration of the specific circumstances of particular cases. It was argued that the condition of workmen must always be governed by the relation of the supply of labour to the demand; but in the particular trade to which his observations had reference the excess of the supply of labour, he contended, was influenced by the vicious system carried on. Such was the conclusion at which the Commissioner had arrived, for he observed that this excess of supply was very powerfully influenced and encouraged by the system of frame-rents, and the long-recognised custom of heavy deductions, on one pretext or another, from the wages of the workpeople; which made it the interest of employers to spread any given amount of work among a larger number of workmen than was necessary to its performance; a practice that was' further greatly facilitated by the superabundant amount of machinery which had been created and brought into the trade by others than the legitimate employers in it, as profitable investments of capital, induced by the customary exorbitant rent of the frames. This practice, he believed, admitted of correction. He did not know that it was necessary for him to go further into the subject; and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would not object to the Motion.

said, that nothing was more unpleasant to him than to offer any opposition to a measure which was represented as one for the improvement of the working classes. If there was anything to which he had more particularly directed his attention, it was to the removal of every kind of oppression from the working man, and to the establishment of perfect liberty for masters and men to make their own bargains. The hon. Member had introduced a Bill on this subject, and failed in carrying it; and the circumstances of the population rendered it impossible for that House, by any inquiry or by any means at its disposal, to give the relief sought for. He put it to the House whether the hon. Member was not seeking to introduce a principle of extreme danger? In a neighbouring country they might see the effects of such a principle. There the workmen had come forward and applied to the Government, and the Government had been foolish enough to promise wages not only to the industrious, but to all that were idle. The hon. Member's proposition was one of the same sort; and he knew of no proceeding more dangerous than that of the Government giving power to the mass of the community to dictate to the masters who employed them as to the way in which they should carry on their work. Before another year was over they would discover the effects of this interference on the part of the Provisional Government of France in respect to wages. The masters were quitting their occupations, and, if the system continued, there would not be in France at the end of five years any manufacturers except for articles of domestic consumption. Already a deputation of manufacturers had applied to the Provisional Government for protection in favour of their produce, on the ground that they would be no longer able, on account of the limitation of day labour to 10 hours, to compete with England and other countries. He mentioned this circumstance to show the absurdity of all such interference. There had already been attempts made to relieve the unfortunate body of persons to whom the present Motion referred. There had been "truck" Bills, and regulation Bills, but what had been the result? They had failed. Whilst masters and men were at liberty to make their own bargains, every interference with them was mischievous. There had been three inquiries respecting the handloom weavers, and, after all, every attempt at legislation on the subject was obliged to be given up. He concurred with the Commissioner that it would be utterly impossible to relieve the framework knitters by any legislative measure. No permanent improvement could be looked for except in the diminution of their numbers, or in such an extension of the manufacture as would affect the amount of employment. Now, every interference by law in the shape of dictation to the masters was likely to prevent the extension of the manufacture. If no inquiry had as yet taken place on the subject, he should have been the first to desire the fullest information; but as that information had been already obtained, he was of opinion that the proposed inquiry could effect no good, whilst the principles advocated by the hon. Member, if acted upon, would bring ruin on the trade. He therefore appealed to the Government not to give any countenance, by acceding to the Motion, to such principles.

advocated the proposed inquiry. If there was danger in legislation on this subject, there was also danger in refusing legislation. In the Midland Counties there were about 36,000 frames, each of which sustained from three to four individuals, so that there the population employed in and dependent on framework knitting amounted to about 120,000 or 130,000 souls. No man would deny that for a long period these poor people had been in a state of great destitution, and he was persuaded that the master manufacturers themselves would join in the inquiry. He considered that the House was deeply indebted to the hon. Baronet for bringing this subject under their consideration, and he had no doubt they would agree to the appointment of a Committee. He hoped the Government would assent to the Motion, for he believed that such an inquiry as would he instituted by the Committee would be satisfactory both to the manufacturers and to the workmen.

observed, that as he had lived in the immediate neighbourhood of a large district where framework knitting was very extensively carried on, he possessed some knowledge of the situation of the persons engaged in that employment, and he must express his hope that the House would agree to the appointment of a Committee. He had been surprised at the observations of the hon. Member for Montrose, who had referred to recent events in France. Did the hon. Gentleman wish to see the scenes which had recently occurred in France repeated in this country? He (Mr. Newdegate) contended that it would be unjust, upon the abstract principles advanced by the hon. Member for Montrose, to refuse inquiry into a subject which the House had repeatedly acknowledged was one that deserved investigation. The hon. Member for Montrose had contended that the Ten Hours Act which had been adopted by the Legislature involved an improper interference with labour. He thought that measure had produced most beneficial results. He considered that every Englishman had reason to be proud of the conduct of the working classes in the manufacturing districts; and he put it to the House whether, when the Ten Hours Act had produced so much satisfaction and contentment, they were now prepared to adopt a precisely opposite course of legislation.

said, the hon. Member for Leicester had spoken of the danger of refusing inquiry into this subject; but he thought there was a far greater danger which the House ought to avoid—that of deluding the people into the belief that the Legislature could provide a remedy for all the grievances of which they complained. Experience had proved that legislative interference between masters and workmen could never be completely successful. With regard to the Ten Hours Act, he might state from his own knowledge that many of the working classes—even of those who had been most clamorous for the measure—were now convinced of its impolicy; and he had no doubt that the manufacturing operatives would petition that House for the alteration of a law which had brought severe calamities upon them. He believed that great mischief might be done by exciting expectations among the working classes that it was possible, by legislative interference, to prevent the depreciation of their wages under any and all circumstances. A comparison had been made between the conduct of France and England, and it had been said that the noninterference of the French Government on this subject had caused great distress and discontent among the working classes. But he begged to remind the House that the experiment of interference between masters and men had been tried at Lyons, and the result of that interference was a disastrous and fatal struggle between the two classes. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not assent to the Motion of the hon. Member for Leicester.

thought that if they granted the Committee, they should at the same time state distinctly that they did not at all intend to give any countenance to the opinion that by legislation it was possible to improve the condition of the working classes by obtaining higher wages for them. But if the inquiry were to be directed to the frauds committed on the working classes, then he apprehended that, with respect to that matter, which was widely different from the other, it might be possible to prevent fraud, and thereby improve their condition. Payment by truck, which was one subject of complaint, was a great and enormous evil, against which the working classes had at present no means of defending themselves; for he knew, by inquiry in many parts of England, that the laws against truck were not effectively enforced. If the result of an inquiry should be to prevent frauds in this respect, it would go far to convince the humbler classes that the House was determined to throw over them the shield of its protection in every case of real grievance which they could reach. Even if it should turn out that no great practical benefit would result from the Committee, would it not be of great advantage to have satisfied those people, and to show them that they were willing to remedy their grievances where they could? One of the great evils persons engaged in manufacturing employments had to complain of, was the fluctuation that took place in the demand for labour. With reference to this, it was most important to give the humble classes an opportunity of ensuring themselves, from their savings in a period of high wages, against the recurrence of periods of low wages. An Act had been passed some years since giving increased facilities for this purpose, in pursuance of recommendations made by a Committee appointed upon his Motion. Many societies had been formed under its provisions which had been found most useful; and if it were possible to remove the defects that had been found to exist in the Act, and give greater extension to its provisions, he thought a very important object would be gained. He hoped Ministers would assent to the appointment of the Committee.

said, it was not without real concern that he felt it his duty to oppose the Motion. He gave full credit to the statements which had been made as to the distress that existed among the class of persons to whom the Motion referred; and he readily acknowledged that they had a claim upon the consideration of the Government and of the Legislature by their general good conduct, often under the pressure of very severe privation and distress. If he could make up his mind that the appointment of this Committee would really be beneficial to that large class of persons, so far from opposing it, no man would be more ready to give his cordial support to the Motion; and if no previous inquiry had been instituted on the subject, he would have run the risk—whatever it might be—of exciting hopes and expectations which might not ultimately be fulfilled, by assenting to some such inquiry as that which was proposed. But so recently as three years ago a Commission was appointed, which instituted a very full inquiry into the whole question. That inquiry was conducted by Mr. Muggeridge, who was appointed by the Board of Trade, and who had presented to Parliament a very full and able report, accompanied by ample information in the shape of evidence; and he believed that it was impossible for the House to obtain more ample, correct, and minute information than had been afforded by Mr. Muggeridge. Now if, under these circumstances, the House agreed to the appointment of a Committee to ascertain what legislative measures could be devised to relieve the distress existing among the framework knitters, he feared they would give currency to an opinion which he believed would be entirely unfounded—namely, that it was in the power of the House, by legislative measures, to strike at the root of those causes which had hitherto produced so much distress among this class of operatives. Mr. Muggeridge referred, in his report, to the causes which had produced the distress existing among the framework knitters; and he stated that this particular class of labour was open to almost every unskilled labourer; for as no proficiency or experience was requisite to enable a person to perform the work properly, the result was that the moment there was a glut of labour in any branch of the industry of the country, the unemployed labourers were able to resort to this trade of framework knitting, without any previous education or training. Nay, more, the Commissioner stated that this was a species of industry that could be carried on, to a very great extent at least, by women and children in their own houses. Could we, then, be surprised that this particular description of labour should at all times be liable to periods of great depression and distress? Could we suppose, if that statement were true, as he believed it was, that any legislative measures would remove a cause of distress of that nature? The Commissioner stated that there were but two modes in which, in his opinion, this distress could be permanently remedied; one was the reduction of the numbers employed in this manufacture; the other an extension of the manufacture itself; and then he added—

"An extension of the manufacture is most likely to be attained by the improvement of which it appears susceptible in the manner of conducting it; by a more judicious appropriation and division of labour, whereby the cost of production would be diminished; and by an increased application of taste and skill in the designs and patterns of the articles manufactured, especially in the fancy branches of the trade;"—

not at all adverting to these subjects as matters to which legislation could apply, but as to be attained by internal arrangements in the trade itself, and by experience and a good understanding between employers and labourers. The hon. Baronet (Sir H. Halford) proposed a Bill upon the subject last year; but those who recollected it would agree that it afforded no very favourable specimen of the power to remedy by direct legislation the evils the hon. Baronet complained of. Almost every Gentleman who expressed his opinion on the second reading, acknowledged that however much he might desire to attain the end the hon. Baronet had in view, it would be quite impossible to do so by the measure proposed. The hon. Baronet's measure interfered in the most violent manner between the employer and the working people, and imposed heavy penalties on the employment of middlemen in this trade—a class of persons most useful in this and in other trades, against whom a most unfounded prejudice existed in some quarters, but whom he believed to be quite necessary to the right conduct of business of this description. The hon. Baronet absolutely proposed by direct enactment to prevent their being employed, and also to prevent the letting out of frames for handloom labour to the operatives. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Slaney) had said, that though he did not anticipate good from any large and general measure of this description, yet there were some minor and incidental points on which Parliament might legislate with advantage for the distressed operatives; and he adverted to some amendment in the system of savings-banks, and to some alleged frauds in regard to the contracts between masters and workmen in this branch of manufacture. But it would be most unwise to appoint a Committee of Inquiry with such large powers as now proposed, with a view to attain such very narrow and limited objects. If any hon. Member, not proposing a Committee of Inquiry, but making use of the full and ample materials before the House, should offer a measure to remedy any frauds said to exist in this trade, or any defect in the system of savings-banks, such a measure, when brought forward in the shape of a Bill, would receive the most attentive consideration of the Government; it was to a general proposal of a Committee of Inquiry upon a subject so recently investigated by a Commission that he (Mr. Labouchere) objected. That would only be holding out hopes and expectations of legislative remedies which Parliament could never supply. Under these circumstances, however painful it might be to refuse an appeal made on behalf of a class of his fellow-subjects, of whose good conduct he was well aware, whose distress he admit- ted, and whose condition he would gladly ameliorate as far as lay in his power, he felt it in his duty to vote against the proposition.

thanked the hon. Member for Shrewsbury for putting the subject in its right light. It was not a mere question of raising wages, nor had it anything to do with the short-time question; but here were 100,000 persons employed in a particular manufacture, who were suffering under the grossest tyranny and oppression, and unable really to get the true and proper amount of their wages fairly into their hands. If the Committee were granted, legislation would result. The only error made by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury was in supposing that there were times when these men were in high wages. Why, the wages of men, many of them with families, ranged from 5s. to 6s. a week.

considered that as both masters and men wished for an inquiry, it was too bad to refuse it. Although it might be very desirable not to induce the working classes to suppose that legislation could do everything for them, there was also a danger in this age of the application of abstract principles of science without due allowance for circumstances.

thought the division would show who were the real friends of this unfortunate class, and who were their pretended friends—Gentlemen who talked about the danger of creating a sort of war between master and operatives, but had never been afraid to raise their voices in the Anti-Corn-Law League to create a difference between landlord and tenant. These Gentlemen were afraid of a Committee to examine into the frauds committed by masters upon their workmen; could they show any such fraud on the part of landlords towards their tenants, or tenants towards their labourers?

deeply regretted the course taken by the Government. He had been met with the abstract theory of "supply and demand;" but according to that theory there should have been a process of self-adjustment after a time, whereas here a whole generation had passed away, and the excess of supply was as great as ever. Allusion had also been made to French affairs, as if there was any danger of our imitating French legislation in regard to workmen! The greatest danger lay in refusing all inquiry, where fraud and oppression existed.

rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to facilitate the removal of Schoolmasters in Scotland. The Bill was rendered necessary by the difficulty which was experienced in putting in force the provisions of the 43rd of George III. for the removal of schoolmasters. In the event of a schoolmaster being guilty of cruelty it was found to be extremely difficult to remove him; and in case of incapacity the difficulty amounted almost to an impossibility. It was not his intention to abrogate the jurisdiction of the Presbytery, but merely to give a concurrent jurisdiction to the Lord Advocate and the Sheriff Substitute. The Bill would empower individuals to lay before the Lord Advocate a charge against a schoolmaster for any of the causes enumerated in the 43rd of George III. The Lord Advocate would investigate the charge; if he should deem it insufficient in point of importance, or of proof, the matter would of course proceed no further; but if it should be properly substantiated the charge would be referred by the Lord Advocate to the Sheriff Substitute, who, after notice, would try the case, and his decision would be final. He concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.