Debates anV Vrocettings in Iparliament.

Tars CORN BU.L.

In the House of Lords, on Monday, the Duke of WELLINGTON moved the first reading of the Corn Importation Bill, without remark.

The Duke of RICHMOND immediately rose, and said, that although he would not go into the question of the dangers to be apprehended from the bill on its first reading, he must make a few observations— Sir Robert Peel was not authorized in proposing such extensive changes to the present House of Commons. He was not justified in abandoning those principles of protection to agriculture and British industry which for many years he had so ably and eloquently advocated: and to maintain which, a large majority of the present House of Commons had been sent to Parliament. He was sorry to see in the present day the great distinction which some men make between public and private honour. Sir Robert Peel, who in private life bears the most unexception- able character, does not hesitate, as Prime Minister, to withdraw from the agree- ment which was unwillingly acquiesced in in 1842 by the agricultural interest. He not only does that, but he abandons and throws overboard all his former principles, repudiates his previous speeches, and denies the truth and soundness of the argu- ments which through a long life he heretofore adduced. Not content with this, Sir Robert Peel yields to the clamour of his opponents—joins with the enemy and abandons his party; and, as if this was not sufficient, he leads these very leaguers to the assault against those friends whose only fault was that they placed too great reliance in his steadiness as Prime Minister of the Crown, and reposed too generous a confidence in the consistency of his public character. Instead of throw- ing pp his office in November last, Sir Robert Peel ought to have adopted the straightforward course of advising his Sovereign to dissolve Parliament.

Other measures had been promised in connexion with the Corn Bill, which their Lordships had not before them; and this would form of itself a good Parlia- mentary reason for delaying the bill till these measures were produced. The Pro- tectionists in that House, however, are willing to waive that point, to show that they are not actuated by factious motives, and to take the discussion on the second reading.

Lord BROUGHAM expressed his entire concurrence in the course the

Duke of Richmond proposed to take, and his entire dissent from every other wail he had uttered— "Nothing could be more fair, and candid, and open, and manly—in one word,' in eying way mote fitting and consistent with the character and conduct of my noldellmiend, then the course he has taken in objecting to the first reading of a bill sent sap from the other House, and in waiting to discuss the measure fairly and fully on this dirs sennight. RIlt, ray Lords, I enter in one sentence my so- leirin yrotest against its being said that a statesman who, yielding to reflection, and reason, and conviction, conscientiously changes opinions which he formerly entertained, and acts upon his altexed convictions, has not only committed an act of dishonour—an act impeaching the integrity of his character, and lowering his fair fame and name among statesmen—but that a statesman, in such circumstan- ces placed, is called upon to vindicate his honour, his integrity, and his motives. ' Bat,' mays my aoble friend, why not dissolve Parliament, and appeal to the peo- ple?' My Lords, I am guilty, if my right honourable friend at the bead of Government deserves reproach for not dissolving Parliament on a great question like this; for I was a friend of the Reform Bill in 1831, and I never dreamed of dissolving Parliament and appealing to the people till we were defeated by the Parliament which was then assembled. If that Parliament had not been against us, who was wild enough to fancy that we ever should have dissolved Parliament in the spring of 1831? It may, however, he said that I was always a Reformer —that I was always a supporter of Parliamentary Reform, and that I had not changed my opinion on that question. But, my Lords, some of my colleagues, some of my most esteemed colleagues—if I mistake not, my noble friend himself, who now charges Sir Robert Peel with not dissolving Parliament and appealing to the people—did, upon reflection, honestly, conscientiously, and without the shadow of imputation resting upon them, come round to my great delight, to the great glory of themselves, to the great edification of that cause, and to the great bene- fit of the people of this country, and became advocates of reform: and they never proposed a dissolution, or talked of a dissolution, till the Parliament then assem- bled was found not so fit as we could have wished for effecting our objects." (Laughter.) The Duke of Riestatomin--" I never voted against reform all my life: I voted for the Reform Bill."

The Marquis of LorenorenERRY reminded the Duke of Richmond, that he as well as others in their Lordships' House had changed their minds oftener than once: it was wrong to withhold from Sir Robert Peel the same right. The Marquis was prepared to give his unhesitating support to the Government.

The Duke of RICHMOND said, that lie had resolved to state upon that occasion the opinion he entertained of her Majesty's Athaisters, be- cause he was most anxious that nothing of a personal nature should take place on the second reading of the bill.

The Earl of RIPON was glad to hear that the Duke had exhaled his feelings on that occasion, and that he was not likely to repeat his per- sonal attack— For his own part, and on the part of his colleagues, he was prepared to meet his share of the awful responsibility of having introduced the measure. " My noble friend has talked of a distinction which, he says, prevails in our days between pub- lic and private honour: that, my Lords, is a distinction which I do not recognize; and I should not think that I retained my character privately as a man of honour if I could not maintain my public character in the same way. I beg to say to my noble friend, whatever threats he may hold out- . There ie no terror, cassias, in your threats ;

For I am arm'd so strong in honesty,

That they pass by me as the idle wind,

I Which I respect not."

The bill was then read a first time; a solitary " not content " being uttered by the Duke of Richmond.

The Duke of WELLINGTON intimated that he would move the second reading of the bill on Monday the 25th:

THE TARIFF.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, on the motion being made that the report on the Customs Duties Bill be received, Lord GEORGE BEE- TING% moved as ari amendment, that the report be received that day three months—

Instead of reducing the duties on imports for the benefit of foreigners and the injy of native industry, he thought it would be far better to reduce the duties levied by the Excise on home manufactures. He quoted the example of Pi Canning, and Huskisson, to show that the principle upon which they cond their commercial policy was that of reciprocity; they did not act upon the im- practicable and self-destroying principle of attempting to meet hostile tariffs by free imports. As to the Canadas, he asserted that there was nothing to indicate that the Legislative Assembly or the people were favourably disposed to the new policy. The agricultural party in Canada were in a most hopeless condition. They saw that coalition which threatened to annihilate the agricultural interest in this country arrayed against themselves; and they did not venture to resist, because they had neither hope nor power to do so. In fact, it was in despair and not in approbation that the measures introduced into the Legislative Assembly had been passed. Lord George objected to the measure before the House, because in it the Ministry seemed to carry out their favourite policy, and dealt with fo- reign nations as they dealt with their friends.

Mr. LAWSON seconded the amendment.

The CHANCELLOR of the ExcumatrER replied— Lord George Bentinck, in dealing with the financial part of the question, had laid down some principles of finance which at the least had the merit of being en- tirely new; and he had also stated some trade principles not less extraordmary. The noble Lord supposed in matters of trade that the consequence of advantage to one country must be a disadvantage to the other. But that was only the en- vious feeling with which one man looked upon the prosperity of his neighbour, without reflectiug that that prosperity might be one great source of his own. With regard to Canada, the despatches which had been moved for by the noble Lord were laid on the table; and what was the result? It had been said that there would be a great outcry in Canada on the reduction of the timber-duties; but the House was now in fall possession of the facts; and amongst them the re- corded assent of the Legislative Assembly to the Government measures. Had they treated the reduction of the timber-duties as a matter likely to affect their interests and alienate their affections? Had they said a syllable about the timber-duties? Their prayer was that the duty of is. upon corn there should be reduced to ld. It would be unjust to Canada, and to the feelings of its Legislature and inhabitants, to say that there were indications of a desire to unite themselves with the United States, or of an opinion that they would gain increased advantages by so doing. By continuing their connexion with this country, their trade would be extended, their capital increased, and their means of improvement in every respect developed; and if the province could be polled man by man, the minority in favour of a separation would be small indeed. After remarks fro: Mr. BANKES, Mr. BORTHWICK, and Mr. PLUMPTRE, in opposition to the motion, and from Mr. HAWES and Dr. Bowline() in support of it, Lord GEORGE BENTYNCK withdrew his amendment ; and the report was received.

On Tuesday the bill was read a third time, and passed, without division or discussion.

On Tuesday, the first reading of the Tariff Bill was moved in the House of Lords by the Duke of Buecteoca; when there was a repetition of the Duke of Rionstosn's angry dissent—

This measure was adding insult to injury. He thought it most unfair that two measures attacking the agricultural interest should be brought in, before the re- medial measures, as they were called, had been produced. The Tariff Bill was inconsistent with the declaration of Ministers themselves. What they wanted, they said, was free trade: but there was not a single line in the bill establishing free trade. It was certainly a free trade measure with reference to the agricul- turists and the landed interest; but they would find, on looking into the bill, that protecting-duties were retained on many articles of manufacture. He objected to free trade altogether; and, though the Minister might propose to take away all protection from the agricultural interest, he was not prepared, because the Mi- nister robbed the agricultural interest, to turn robber himself, and by establishing free trade to throw out of employment the great body of the operatives of this country. If they allowed corn to come into this country from the United States

duty-free, to the great injary of their Canadian provinces, he asked whether, on the principles of free trade, they ought not to permit the Canadians to buy their cotton in the cheapest market? If they did this, the coarse cottons of this country would no longer be consumed in Canada. The Americans would then beat us out of the Canadian markets, as they had already done in the South American, and were fast doing in the Chinese. The inconvenience of entering open such topics at that stage of the mea- sure was spokeh of by most of the Lords who followed the excited Duke. Lord MONTEAGLE denied that the principle of free trade demanded the sacri- fice of all revenue-duties. It demanded the sacrifice of the principle of protec- tion; but it was perfectly consistent with a system of entire free trade to levy du- ties forrevenue. Lord Beatimoier spoke of the course adopted by the Duke of Richmond as not only consistent, but absolutely necessary. Lord BROUGHAM recognized the distinction between duties levied for proteetion and those levied for revenue, and he would maintain that the food of the people was a very bad sub- ject of taxation. Earl GREY concurred in some respects with the Duke of Richmond; for he could not call this anything like a measure of free trade. He was opposed to

protection of all kinds. He wished to see duties levied for revenue, and for reve- nue only. He was prepared (and he was convinced the country was prepared) to advance as rapidly as possible in the general reform of our commercial system, in

order to give the greatest possible liberty to industry. He was persuaded that

all classes, producers as well es consumers, would feel the advantage of that pokey. His noble friend said it was hard upon the Canaries to compel them to compete with foreigners in our markets with respect to corn, if they were to be obliged to take our cottons: on behalf of the manufacturers of this country he would say, that as they wished to buy corn where it was cheapest, so they did not expect that the Canadians should be compelled by a differential duty to give the preference to their cottons. The manufacturers of England did not look to legislative interference, but to energy, enterprise, and skill, as their best protec- tion.

Lord ASHBURTON looked upon the Colonies and the Colonial system of this (*en- try as the greatest security against the restrictive system of the Continent—against

the Zollverein of Germany, and the protective duties of France. Our Colonies were enormously expensive; and this country would have all the charge of them and foreign nations all the benefit of them under the system proposed.

The bill was read a first time.

Lord STANLEY suggested that the second reading should be fixed for Thursday the 28th, pro forma, in order that it might be postponed so as to come on immediately after the discussion on the Corn Bill.

The Duke of RICHMOND said, if he had not agreed with Lord Stanley before, he should have been prepared to agree with him now; for he leaked upon his noble friend as their mainstay in their opposition to these mea- sures. (Great laughter.)

The second reading of the bill was then fixed for Thursday the 28th.

CHARITABLE TRUSTS.

On Monday, the Lord CHANCELLOR moved the second reading of the Charitable Trusts Bill— He confessed that he submitted the motion with no very pleasurable feelings, seeing that it had been read a second time on two different occasions, and had not yet passed into law. But his greatest discouragement arose from the exten- sive combination which had taken place against it in the country, which he appre- hended might be the means of creating a strong impression against it in the minds of their Lordships. He hoped a sufficient corrective for such impression would be found in the history of the bill, a fair investigation of its provisions, and the necessity for its enactment.

The only tribunal which has power to inquire into the administration of chari-

ties is the Court of Chancery; and no tribunal is better calculated to effect the object in so far as its machinery is concerned. But for one circumstance, there- fore he should never have thought of bringing in the bill; and that is the enor- mous expense attendant upon resorting to that Court. As far as the great cha- rities are concerned, the Court of Chancery is a tribunal without exception in some respects; but, even in regard to these, it is impossible not to feel that enormous expenses are incurred, and that great deductions are made from those funds which ought to be solely employed in the purposes of the charity.. In the cuse of charities of a moderate amount, ruinous expenses are incurred m an applica- tion to the Court. But with respect to the smaller charities to which this bill relates, the doors of the Court are absolutely closed against them. Now, there

are no fewer than 15,000 charitable trusts in this country not exceeding r annum in value; of charities not exceeding 101. annual value there are 18,

and of charities not exceeding 201. there are 24,000. This showed the necessity of measures being adopted to secure the due administration of charitable funds in a less expensive manner. It was proposed by the bill that three Commissioners should be appointed by the Crown, to hold office by the same tenure as the Judges; and that they should be invested with a summary jurisdiction over cha- rities; the selection to be made from Masters in Chancery, barristers of long standing, or from persons who had held high office in India. To these Commis- sinners-he proposed to give power to call upon all charities for the production each year of their accounts of income and expenditure. This he thought would be a good check on mismanagement. The smaller class of trusts have not ob- jected to this power; but those of a larger description have strongly opposed it, and particularly the City Corporations. In consequence of that opposition, and believing that the clause if it remained would not pass through the House of Commons, he had resolved to append a schedule containing a list of exemptions. He admitted that this greatly impaired the efficacy of the measure, but there re- mained notwithstanding provisions of infinite importance to the country. In illustration of the abuses which had occurred in the management of chari- table funds, Lord Lyndhurst instanced the Mercers Company of London, one of those which! had raised the loudest eatery against the measure. In the reign of James the First a charity was established by the Earl of Northampton, at Greenwich, for a Warden and twelve objects of charity; and the whole establish- ment was put under the government of the Mercers Company : twelve of the members ot that Company were to proceed yearly on Trinity Monday to examine the accounts, Ranee that everything was properly. conducted; and 51. was ap- propriated by the founder to the payment ot their boat-hire and dinner. To show the manner in which the Company had carried into effect the will of the

tai

founder during these visits, lie referred to the accounts of the visitation which occurred is June 1836. Breakfast for eighteen gentlemen coat 41. 12s.; six car-

riages and pair, and incidental expenses, 101. Sr. fid. • three dozen of flowers for

the hall, 11. Is.: there was luncheon: then came the dinner, of many dishes; and the wine, sent from town, but charged with so much a bottle as commutation for the innkeeper's profit. The bill amounted to 631. 3s. 6d..; making with the other

charges a total of 891 12s. 2e. for the day's excursion. The average expense, have been 1001.; which would in twenty years amount to 2,0001., or, with into-

rest, to the sum of 3,0001.; and thus a sum safficient to have founded a very bene4 ficial charity has been consumed in one day of the several years. An informs ,ion was filed against them for the abuse of these charity funds: when it appeared that these funds were mixed up with the Corporation fends; that a small sum was doled out to the charity; and that the rest was applied for Corporation purposes.

There have been in fact two informations filed; and large sums of money have been received from the Company at a great expense for costs. " Is this confined

to the Mercers Company ? By no means. Against nineteen trading Companies

of the city of London, from eleven of whom petitions have been laid on your Lord- ships' table in opposition to this bill, sixty-nine informations have been directed to be filed on the recommendation of the Commissioners; and large sums of money have been received in almost every instance from them, in consequence of their mode of administering their funds. Lord Corruainam gave his history of the measure; and complained that the Lord Chancellor had introduced his bill in its original objectionable state, regardless of the amendments made upon it by their Lordships in * previous session—

The Lord Chancellor now stated it to be his intention to introduce some im- portant ; but of these the House ought to have had previous notice. ft

was to exempt Corporations which by his own showing stood most he need ofbeing included. He said that certain London Companies had been guilty of great malversation, that inquiries had established the fact, and that they had consumed more for purposes of their own than they applied for the benefit of the charity; and yet they were now to be left out of the bill altogether. He put them into the schedule ; and because he had proved that particular Companies had abused their trusts, therefore he excepted them from the operation of the bill. If they saw the schedule, it would probably show such a general description as would render the bill nugatory. Lord Cottenham contended that there was no necessity for establishing a sepal- rate tribunal for the management of charitable trusts. The Court of Chancery was, with its increased strength, perfectly capable of managing the whole of the business. In that Court there was no pressure, no arrear whatever; and there- fore did he contend that the Legislature ought to avail itself whenever they could of the machinery which the Court presented. The new tribunal would be as ex- pemive as the Court of Chancery: it was a great mistake to suppose that beeauee Judges went by the name of Commissioners the expense to meters was necessa- rily lessened. He objected also to the measure as increasing most unnecessarily the patronage vested in the Greta Seal. He concluded by expressing a hope that their Lordships would not consent to the second reading of the bill•, which was bad in principle, false in construction, entirely repugnant to the rights of the in- dividuals affected by it, and unavailing for the purposes in view. He moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months.

Lord BROUGHAM defended the bill, and vindicated the Lord Chancellor from the charge of having been actuated by a desire to increase his own patronage— No Minister or Chancellor ever Stood higher or more impregnable as regarded the exercise of patronage: on many occasions he had abandoned the right of ap- pointment and handed it over to others, in order to avoid political imputation. Lord Cottenham, in stating his objections to the bill, had taken care to avoid the dirty parts of the case; he seemed to dread being splashed with some charity abuse. He had avoided any allusion to the cases mentioned by his noble and learned friend on the woolsack; he had shunned all cases of malversation and misappropriation of trust fonds. He would remind Lord Cottenham of a few cases. He would first mention the case of the Goldsmiths Company, which, since 1491, had had at Its disposal a hind bequeathed by the donor for granting loans to young men. The Company had been in receipt of the rents and profits since

the donor's death; but no loans had been made by them, and they had applied the profits of the property to their own use. The Corporation of Leicester was one to which several benefactions had been made for charitable trusts: these trusts were faithfully administered for many years, and it had been the practice

of the outgoing Mayor to hand over the balance of the funds to his successor; but they soon got tired of that: for some years the balance was received by the Town- Clerk, and retained by him; in 1835, the balance remaining in the hands of the Town-Clerk amounted to no less than 6,000/, which had been lent by that func- tionary to the Mayor, from whom he received interest. And yet this Corporation prayed the House not to pass the bill, on the ground that it would create addi- tionalft.e, .nage! Lord Brougham trusted the House would go into Committee: for those who opposed the hill did not know its real character. Various trustees of Dissenting pels had petitioned against the bill. Now if there were one class of charities that had been less abused than another, it was the charities belonging to these chapels; and if these were excepted from the operation of the bill, ninety out of one hundred of the petitioners against it would not oppose the measure. Lord Caatrnera. said that the state of the law as to charitable trusts was a reproach to the country; but it was not in the appointment of a commission of this sort that a remedy was to be found— The remedy would be found in such a reform of the Court of Chancery as will allow justice to be administered cheaply. He objected to the bill also as confer- ring a lower of centralizing in a manner wholly unexampled in the management of these charities. Persons were to be deprived of the management of their own affairs, and there was to be a meddling and an intermeddling that was extremely

pernicious.

Lord ELDON said, the schedule with its exceptions formed a great temp- tation to vote for the second reading: still he would vote against it.

The Bishop of SALISBURY supported the bill; because there were great, and acknowledged abuses; and because, unless some such measure was passed, he had not any hope that these enormous abuses would be in any manner remedied.

Lord WROTTESLEY also supported the bill: he believed that three-fourths of the small charities were without trustees properly appointed.

The House divided—Content, 40; not content, 41; majority against the • bill, I.

HOURS OF LABOUR IN LACE FACTORIES.

On Wednesday, Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE presented a petition from Not- tingham, signed by 4,984 operatives in the lace-manufacture' in favour of the Lace Factory Bill; and Lord Joint Maisamis presented petition to the same effect from 479 master lace-manufacturers in Nottingham and Derby.

Mr. DUNCOMBE then moved the second reading of the bill for limiting the hours of labour in Lace Factories—

The work began every Sunday night at twelve, and was continued with little intermission till twelve o'clock on &turday night. A great portion of this la- bour was carried on by the aid of children, many of them of very tender years, and if the Legislature did not interfere, there would be, as there was now, no re- striction as to the age at which infant children might be introduced into these factories. Many of the children employed were not older than from six to eight years. Some of them never saw a bed: when their term of employment was over they lay and slept on the floor, and were called again at the end of two hours to wind up the bobbins. Could it be a matter of surprise that children worked in that manner were not brought up as they should be? In the summer days the children were let out for a few hours at three or four o'clock in the morning, or late at night; and how were they occupied in those hours? In robbing gardens and orchards. To these practices they were directly sent by the adults, with whom they shared the plunder; and it often happened that the peasantry in the vicinity were suspected of the thefts thus committed. These were some of the effects on their morals. The effects of the system on their health were equally prominent. Dr. Hutchinson, whose experience extended over a period of sixteen years, states that the diseases engendered by such protracted labour are dyspep- sia, nervousness, and dangerous affections of the brain. Mr. Sanders, the Inspec- tor of Factories, and Mr. Bury, the Sub-Inspector, had expressed themselves strongly in favour of interference. But the system of excessive labour was not confined to factories; it existed in private houses; and he wished the remedy to extend to them also. Taking the steam and water-work and the bobbinet ma- chines, there would be in all 3,100 machines in the lace trade which would be affected by the bill. What he proposed was, the restriction of the hours of labour to sixteen per day; that is, from six o'clock in the morning to ten o'clock at night. To effect this, he would prohibit the opening before six, and keeping open after ten. The bill would also prohibit the employment of children under eight years of age; at present they were employed, and in the night; but surely there could be nothing very injurious to trade, or hard upon these manufacturers, in that prohibition. It might be asked, why not confine the bill to infantile labour? That would be a point to be decided by the House in a future stage; and if the opinion of the House should be in favour of so confining the bill, he should be ready to consent to that. As an argument in favour of his measure, Mr. Duncombe refer:red to the legislative interference which had taken place in the case of the cotton, flax, and silk factories.

Sir JAMES Gassiest moved as an amendment, that the bill be read that day six months— The question of interference with the lace-manufacture is not a new one: the difficulties in the way of introducing restrictions have hitherto appeared to Par- liament, to its Committees, and to Commissions, to be insuperable. This arose from the peculiarities of the case. In the first place, by far the greater part of all the lace manufactured is produced, not by machinery wrought by power, but by hand-loom machinery, scattered either in small work-shops adjacent to the dwelling-houses of the weavers, or if not, in single apartments upon floors of the dwelling-houses. To carry out the work of interference, therefore, the Inspectors must have access both by night and day, not only to the dwelling-houses of the weavers, but to every house where a weaver may lodge, occupying perhaps only a single room in that house. There is another peculiarity—the great expense of the machinery. The power-looms employed in the cotton-trade cost from 501. to 1001.; but the cost of a single lace-loom, with the whole of the modern ma- chinery, is not less than from 3001. up to 1,0001. None within the last three months had, been prepared at a cost of much less than 2,0001. This consideration of expense bore very materially on the question how many hours that machinery shall be allowed to run. But there is another pe- culiarity: the demand for lace varies with the fashion, and the taste for any particular pattern does not ordinarily last more than six or seven months: new, when a change does take place, it is necessary to make a considerable and expensive change in the loom itself. As to the labour and the hours of employ- ment of the workers, there is a great difference as compared with the cotton-manu- facture. A girl between thirteen and eighteen years old is quite competent to conduct the manufacture by four power-looms in the cotton-trade, and it is much the same in the silk and woollen trades; but in the lace-trade there must be one adult male person to each power-loom; and two if it is employed for twenty hours, and in some cases it is necessary that there should be one boy employed to each adult. It should also be borne in mind, that from two-thirds to a half of all the lace manufactured in this country is exported, and the manufacturer conse- quently has to compete with foreigners. "Now we used to export lace to France; but within these few years, at Calais, in sight of our own shores, lace-manufac- tories have been established, with all the improved machinery, without any.limi- tation of hours, with lower wages; and we have to meet the French lace in the German and other third markets, often at a lower rate than our own, and also in the British markets, and in considerable quantities. (" Hear, hear!" from the Protection benches.) I do not at all dispute, that if you place the English manu- facturer in all respects on an equal footing with the French, there is no fear that the Nottingham lace-manufacturer will beat the French, either in your own or other markets • but you have had that competition while the English manufac- turer was exposed to undue disadvantages, which I hope are now certain to be re- moved; and that competition will be no longer formidable, unless you add new restrictions, perhaps no less galling and fatal." Sir James admitted that a feeling in favour of interference undoubtedly existed among persons who had become possessed of inferior machinery; their conviction being, that any restriction upon the hours of working improved machinery is a regulation in favour of the owner of inferior and less costly, and decidedly disadvantageous to the proprietor of the modern and more costly machinery. Mr. Duncombe openly avows his intention togo ore step farther than has yet been attempted—he is to restrict adult labour. Sir James thought the House would pause before they introduced a principle so new and so dangerous. He disputed the accuracy of Mr. Duncombe's statement about the hours of labour in lace-factories. He believed that the utmost extent is twenty hours in the day, and that the labour is conducted by spells or reliefs. As re- gards children the labour is remarkably light. If the House resolved to interfere with this manufacture, it was impossible that interference could stop there. It would have to be extended to other trades; and the commencement of such a career of intermeddling will be the downfal of England's manufacturing pro- sperity. A long discussion followed. Colonel ROLLE/ITCH, Lord Joan MAN- VERB, Mr. FERRAND, and Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD, heartily supported the bill; Mr. STRUTT and Mr. BRIGHT opposed it; Sir JOHN CAM HOB- HOUSE, Mr. Minas, Mr. GISBORNE, Mr. WA.KLEY, Sir ROBERT PEEL, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, and Mr. MARK PHILIPS, expressed their willingness to consider a measure for the protection of children, but objected to inter- ference with adult labour.

Colonel ROLLESTON said, that a strong feeling existed among machine-holders in Nottingham in favour of the measure. He quoted papers to show the exces- sive labour to which the workers, young and old, were subjected; and remarked, that as Chairman of Quarter-sessions where the lace-manufacture iscarried on to great extent, he could state that hardly a Court was held without some of the children being brought to the bar as criminals. Mr. Sraurr said, that the effect of the bill would be to prevent any poor workman who might wish to earn some- thing more than usual for his family from getting up at five o'clock in the morn- ing.and working as long as be liked. Sir Joust tAM HOISHOUSE spoke strongly against the proposal tout restrictions upon the employment of adults. In all previous legislation the House had carefully guarded itself against trenching upon the right of adults to make the most they could of their labour. As to the question of morality, there is ten times more immorality and misconduct among those who worked in private houses than there was among those who worked in factories. As to Infant labour, he had the best authority for stating that the master manufacturers were not unwilling to submit to restrictions. Lord Jons MANNERS referred to the committals and convictions which had taken place since September 1844, for offences committed by lace-workers in the night; and to the number of premature deaths which had taken place, as arguments in favour of interference. Mr. GIS- BORNE spoke of the impossibility of devising machinery for carrying out the bill; all that Mr. Duncombe could offer was the choice of domiciliary visits or common informers. As to the 469 master manufacturers who had petitioned in favour of the measure, they are persons who have become possessed of old and inferior machines. Mr. WAELEY said, that the bill was so badly framed as to lead to the supposition that the framer had desired rather to defeat than accomplish the object: still he would vote for the second reading, in the hope of improving the details in Com- mittee. He did not see why the children employed in lace-factories should form an exception to the general course of legislation. He did not approve of inter- ference with adult labour.

Sir ROBERT PEEL called upon Mr. Wakley, then, to oppose the bill; for its principle was to restrict adult labour. Sir Robert reviewed the provisions of the measure; remarking that no choice was afforded between domiciliary visits and the common informer. If you would not subject a man to the vindictiveness of his next neighbour or rival in trade, you must have domiciliary visits—that is to say, whenever a light is seen in a house after ten o'clock at night there is to be the right of entering into the house—domiciliary. visits on suspicion that a man is toihng for the relief of his own family. Neither was there any provision for the making up of lost time by accidents or sickness. The bill would actually legalize the employment of children above eight years of age for sixteen hours. " If we are to interfere with the regulation of infant labour, let us do it in a differ- ent way. It will be better to have a new bill than to attempt to amend this. Let us at all events have a new bill—not one framed as this is."

Lord Jolts RUSSELL said, that if infant labour alone had been involved the bill might have been allowed to go into Committee. But there were two objects in the bill which seemed to him to violate every principle of prudent legislation; one was interference with adult labour, and the other was sanctioning interference with private houses, an act of the greatest tyranny. Mr. BROTHERTON could not support the measure in its present shape. Mr. Manx PHILIPS and Mr. WILLIAM COWPER advised Mr. Duncombe to withdraw his measure and introduce another for the protection of children. Mr. DUNCOMBE would only consent to withdraw those clauses which related to adult labour.

The House divided—For the amendment, 151; against it, 66; majority against the second reading, 85.

THE BRIDPORT ELECTION.

The case of Rockett was brought forward on Tuesday, by Mr. BANKES; who moved,

" That William Rockett have leave to state his case at the bar of this House with reference to the Bridport election."

The Committee which sat on the petition presented against the return of Mr. Baillie Cochrane had decided, on the evidence of a person named Welch, that Rockett had voted for Mr. Romilly, but that the vote was recorded for Cochrane. The lists were accordingly corrected; and the transference of Rockett's vote to • Mr. Romilly's minority gave him the seat by a majority of one vote. Mr. Banks. asserted that the Committee were not called upon to go into a scrutiny by the terms of the petition. The allegations were altogether of a different kind. The Committee appeared to have neglected both the law and the fact. Rockett's vote had been changed on the testimony of a man of which nothing was known.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, the Committee were justified in enter- ing upon the scrutiny by the prayer of the petition, which was that Mr. Romilly be substituted for Mr. Cochrane: still he thought that Rockett's complaint ought to be referred to the consideration of a Select Committee. . Mr. CHRISTIE moved as an amendment,

"That the petition of William Rockett be referred to a Select Committee, which shall be appointed to inquire into all the circumstances under which Joseph Welch gave evidence before the Select Committee on the Bridport Election peti- tion that William Rockett votes' for Mr. Romilly; and whether any compromise or arrangement was entered into by the parties to the petition, their counsel, or agents, to prevent the disclosure of bribery and treating; and also, whether and to what extent bribery and treating were practised at the last election for the bo- rough of Bridport."

The limitation of the inquiry before the Committee to the case of Rockett's vote was matter of arrangement between the counsel, in order to prevent the dis- covery of bribery and treating; a discovery which could not otherwise have been prevented. No fewer than thirty-seven votes were objected to as the votes of persons who bad received bribes. There were-objections to six others who had voted for Mr. Cochrane, because they had bribed or corrupted others, and so had disqualified themselves. Mr. Cochrane gave many proofs of a desire to avoid in- quiry; and inquiry was at last avoided, in consequence of a proposal from Mr. Cochrane. The House, however, could not allow such a compromise as had taken place to pass without inquiry. Mr. CHARLES WOOD, the Chairman of the Committee, rose to address the House, but sat down again; Sir JAMES GRAHAM having suggested that it would be better to abstain from taking part in the discussion.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not object to the inquiry specified in Mr. Christie's amendment; but a Select Committee was not the right tri- bunal-

Lord John Russell's Act, as it is called, specially provided for such a case, and the mode prescribed in the amendment was much more imperfect and unsatisfac- tory. If the demand for a Committee rested on the charge of bribery, he con- tended that the act he had mentioned was a better tribunal than the one Mr. Christie proposed to resort to. An opportunity ought to be given to the parties to sift the matter thoroughly; and appointing a Select Committee would rather i tend to defeat the object in view. A long discussion followed; most of the speakers expressing an opinion that the inquiry should be conducted before a Select Committee.

Mr. GISBORNE was glad that the Committee was likely to be granted. The case of Beckett was far from a solitary one. So well was the practice known, that agents had a technical term for it; it was termed "jobbing the lists." It was so great an abuse, that he could hardly conceive the Legislature would suffer it to exist. Sir RoBERT INGLIS and the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER gave it as their opinion that the inquiry could only be satisfactorily conducted in the way recommended by the Attorney-General. Mr. WAKLEY supported the in- qtury, and asked why Beckett himself had not been examined ? Mr. ROMILLY expressed his readiness to assist the inquiry to the utmost in his power: he had been a party to no compromise. Mr. CHARLES WOOD explained the mode of proceeding before Election Com- mittees. They could not call for evidence, but must be contented with that which was adduced by counsel; and it was upon the evidence so adduced they were called upon to pronounce their decision. This was what the Committee in ques- tion had deny, No .doubt had been thrown upon the evidence that was adduced; no adverse testimony heel been given to prove its falsity; and therefore the Com- mittee had no option but to receive it as true, and decide accordingly. The Com- mittee wished to call Beckett himself; but a point of objection was raised by counsel, who proved that the Committee had no power to make any such call, and showed that it was incompetent for them to act on such evidence. Sir ROBERT PEEL agreed in thinking that Rockett's case should be inquired into by a Select Committee, rather than at the bar of the Howe; but as to the

more extensive inquiry, he thought it would be much better to adhere to Lord John Russell's Act. There was nothing he should regret more than that the House should undertake such an inquiry by means of a Select Committee. There was a constant tendency on the part of the House to draw within the sphere of its own functions those matters which should be referred to tribunals constituted under the law, and with functions defined by statute. He had no reason to doubt the adequacy of the act to meet the case; and such being his opinion, he should resist a reference to any other tribunal. Mr. Cainsvis withdrew the latter words of his amendment,—namely, "and also whether and to what extent bribery and treating were practised at the last election for the borough of Bridport,"

Mr. BUNCOMBE remarked, that if any one possessed of common sense read the evidence taken before the Committee and printed by order of the House, he would at once see that it had been completely bamboozled. Mr. LABOUCHERE said, the whole question for investigation would be, whether or not a fraud had been Cractised on a Committee of that House. Mr. HENLEY said, that unless Mr. hristie's amendment was agreed to the public would say that the proceeding from the beginning to the end was a solemn farce.

Mr. BANKES then withdrew his motion; and Mr. Christie's amendment, with the exception of the latter clause, was put as the original motion. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then moved as an amendment, that the whole of the motion after the words "voted for Mr. Romilly" should be left out.

The House divided, and 47 voted on each side. The SPEAKER gave his casting-vote against Mr. Christie's motion.

The Speaker having assumed that the question was disposed of, Mr. Law reminded him that the question had yet to be put in the affirmative. The SPEAKER stated that this was correct; and he was proceeding to put the question, when Mr. HUME suggested that the debate should be ad- Turned, as Mr. Christie and several other Members had left the House. he suggestion was agreed to.

Innenam PACHA. In reply to a question, on Thursday, from Mr. MONCKTON Maxus, as to whether any intimation had been given to Ibrahim Puha of the desire of the English Government that he should visit this country, Sir ROBERT PEEL stated, that as soon as the Government were aware of the probability of Ibrahim Pacha visiting this country, a direct assurance was given to that dis- tinguished personage, that if he did visit this country he would be received with every possible attention and respect that it was in the power of her Majesty's Government to show him.

MR. Siam O'BRIEN. On Thursday, the SPEAKER read a communication from Mr. Smith O'Brien, containing copies of letters which had passed between Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Ley, Clerk of the House, as to the regularity of the appoint- ment of the Committee of Selection, for he had seen no notice of the appointment in the Votes. Mr. Ley stated in reply, that it was not considered necessary at the beginning of the session to read the Standing Order which referred to the appointment of the Committee, and no entry therefore could appear in the Votes. Mr. O'Brien claims his release, on the ground that "there is no evidence in the 'authentic records of the House of Commons that Mr. Estcoart and the other gen- tlemen who have acted as a 'Committee of Selection' have received due authority from the House to act in that capacity during the present session."

On the motion of Mr. O'Coxizu., it was agreed to take the correspondence into consideration on Friday.

Quanawrisa. On Tuesday, Dr. Bowinsci'moved an address for " such cor- respondence or extracts on the subject of the quarantine laws as has taken place with Foreign Governments since the last returns to Parliament; and that the House will see with pleasure such relaxations in the existing system as may be compatible with a due regard to the public health and the general interests of the nation." In support of his motion Dr. Bowring adduced a number of facts to show that the plague was not contagious. Dr. M`Lean, a great authority on the subject, held that opinion; Dr. M`William, who had investigated the case of the Eclair, entertained a like opinion; and the result of the scientific inquiry undertaken by the Royal Academy of Medicine at Paris was that the plague is an epidemic disease, propagated by atmospheric influences. The experience of England down to the middle of the last century confirmed that view. There were no facts to support the present system of quarantine; still these laws were kept up, causing great inconvenience, and taxing the commerce of the world to a large amount. Dr. Bowring felt indebted to the Government for what they had already done, and hoped they would persevere in their efforts to remove the re- mains of this ancient but exploded system.

Sir GEORGE CLERK agreed to produce the papers. He was happy to say that the quarantine-laws were not only engaging the attention of the English Govern- ment, but of the Continental Governments, particularly of those connected with the trade of the Mediterranean. He was extremely desirous that every relaxa- tion of the quarantine system should be made that could be made so as not to excite the apprehensions which were still entertained by some nations. Mr. MACKINNON expressed an opinion, that had the quarantine regulations not been in existence, one half the persons who perished on board the Eclair would have been saved. After approving remarks from Mr. HUME and Captain FITZ- MAMUCE, the motion was formally agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS. On Tuesday, Mr. STAFFORD O'Branzr inquired into the progress which Government was making in organizing a system of agri- cultural statistics. He believed that little had been done, as the Poor-law Com- missioners were found unfavourable to the plan proposed: Agriculture had no- thing to fear from the fullest publicity. Sir GEORGE CLERK said, that the Government had endeavoured to proceed cautiously in the first instance, as was wished, with the view of avoiding any jealonsies on the part of the farmers. An effort had been made to ascertain whether the information could be collected by means of existing machinery, and voluntarily, from the occupiers of land, rather than by any new and expensive machinery. The experiment had been tried upon a small scale; the Northern division of Hampshire had been taken, the county of Edinburgh, and a large union in the county of Cavan, extending over 6,000 acres. In Ireland the information had been obtained by the voluntary assistance of some intelligent landowners; in Scotland the means employed had been the parochial schoolmasters. With regard to Hampshire the effort had not been successful. Schedules to be filled up had been left with the farmers by the Poor-law officers; but from jealousy or some other cause, the returns had not been made. Under these circumstances, he was bound to say that it might become expedient, in order to get the desired information, to make these returns compulsory within a certain time. Lord GEORGE BENTINCK asked if some means could not be devised of procuring statistical details in regard to the manufactures of the country. Mr. BRIGHT remarked, that the Customs and the Factory Inspectors could supply a great deal of information on the subject of manufactures. Mr. litmus thought it would be better to leave the returns to be made entirely voluntarily; and he sug- gested that all the information required might be obtained through the medium of the taxgatherers.

THE ZOLLVEREIN. On Thursday, Mr. WODEHOUSE, after a reference to the

German Customs Tariff for 1843, 1844, and 1845, which increased the import- duties on certain descriptions of goods, and an allusion to the statement of Sir

Robert Peel that the opinion of the Prussian Government was shaken with respect to the principles of commercial liberty, asked Sir Robert, if it was his intention to submit to the House any documents which could in any shape confirm the expec- tation he had held out ? Sir ROBERT PEEL answered, that it was not his inten- tion to lay on the table of the House any correspondence that had taken place on the subject of the German Customs laws; but -he had no objection whatever to lay before the House the Customs Tariff of Germany, passed in the end of 1845, for the years 1846, 1847, and 1848; which would show the variations between the duties then imposed and those in force in the years 1844 and 1845.

NEW ZEALAND. Mr. CHARLES BULLER, in consideration of the state of the public business, withdrew his notice of motion on the subject of New Zealand; re- serving to himself the liberty of renewing it when he might deem it necessary. He hoped, however, that Sir Robert Peel would give an assurance which would be most satisfactory to the settlers, that it was not the intention of Government to allow the session to pass without introducing some measure in reference to that colony. Sir ROBERT PEEL assured Mr. Buller, that he adhered to the opinions he had expressed last session on the subject of the government of New Zealand; and no efforts had been spared to give effect to that expression of opinion. The Govern- ment, however, was placed in apeculiar position. Captain Fitzroy having been recalled, a gentleman eminently distinguished for his success in another govern- ment had been appointed. When the last accounts arrived, he had only bma in New Zealand a few weeks; but, as far as the reports received from him went, they entirely confirmed the opinion entertained by the Government of his ability, firmness, and resolution. At the date of the last accounts, he was about to leave Auckland for the Bay of Islands, with almost the whole of the disposable force of the colony, to attack a chief who had formerly been associated with Heki against the British Government. As there was every reason to believe that the next ac- counts from the colony would have a most important bearing on the administra- tion of the colony, by bringing the result of this attempt to reduce the Northern tribes, he did not see how he could give Mr. Buller any assurance beyond what he had already stated.

BROAD AND NARROW GAUGE. In answer to a question from Mr. E. DEN- nos, Sir ROBERT PEEL stated that the report of the Gauge Commissioners had been referred to the Board of Trade for their opinion; but as the Great Western Company were naturally anxious to communicate their views on the subject be- fore the decision of the Board should be given, some delay had taken place in consequence. Sir Robert hoped that in a few days the documents would be sub- mitted to the House.

THE WHITSUNTIDE VACATION. In reply to a question from Mr. REDHEAD YORKE, Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that if no business was fixed for the Wednesday in Whitsuntide week, he should have no objection to move the adjournment of the House from Friday next to the Thursday in the week following.