2 MAY 1846, Page 2

Bebatts ants Vrotetbings in Varliamtnt.

STATE OF BUSINESS IN PARLIAMENT.

In the House of Peers, on Monday, Lord BROUGHAM, in moving for re- turns connected with the importation of corn from foreign places and from Ireland, already granted to the other House, took occasion to show how their Lordships might profitably occupy the'hiselves in the Free-trade line should business in the House of Commons continue much longer at a stand-still-- The state into which the business of the country had been brought, aceording to the Votes, (which were the only records he bad access to by the constitution of the country, by the law of Parliament, and with the most perfect regularity, be was bound to admit,) was such, that in the foreign capital from which he had lately returned, he had heard grave doubts expressed respecting the expediency of our system, by persons with whom, no doubt, he differed upon nearly all poli- tical questions. He had in vain defended our system against his friends at the French bar, and among French politicians. He had argued with them, that what they looked upon as the radical defect and vice of our system, was only of a passive, temporary, and accidental nature; that it must be accounted for by the varied caprice of fortune, which placed certain men in certain positions of which they availed themselves affecting to be in favour of a measure which in their hearts they hated, or affecting to be against a measure which in their heal ti they loved, complaining only that It did not go far enough, but using their posi- tion for the purpose of postponing it. He had given this explanation to his friends in France of the present state of things with regard to the Corn Bill. "Bu " said they, "facts are against you: you do not get on • your business is stop ; tbere is an utter incapacity to carry on the business Alm country; and how long it is to last, or what is to happen, who, can tall ? " His other answer had been this: the nature of the British constitution, and its singular excellence, is, that wherever there shall happen to mile any temporary mischief from the friction of the parts of the machine, or any resistance in the medium through which it moves there is in that great political engine (the perfection of human polity, as he fide] ., conscientiously, and seriously believed) a well-regulated constitutional y,yelthfs bt means of a well-regulated representative system—a via medi- mtiixralerverof justment, self-corrective and adaptative, which never failed teget'r'toraq obstruction, and to restore harmony in the working of the great machine. Their Lordships possessed a power within themselves of ap plying the corrective, and of administering an effectual remedy. If in any quarter, of whatever colour of politics, the desperate hope was entertained of frustrating the intentions of Parliament and of the country by endless and vexatious delays or of postponing the arrival of that great, and, in his conscience he believed, most salutary measure into their Lordships' House till it should be too late to discuss it (for without ample discussion God forbid it should be carried) this session, then the remedy was in their Lordships' own hands: for they bad the power of anticipating the discussion, and of coming to a deliberate and well-considered opinion. And if, in the course of a fortnight, he should, by having recourse again to the Votes, still find the same obstruction to this, and indeed to all business elsewhere—for it was not to the Corn Bill, but to all other business that the obstruction referred— he should deem it his bounden duty, as their Lordships had the unquestionable right, to bring on the subject for discussion without waiting for the bill; and thus give noble Lords an opportunity of discussing and deliberating, and pronouncing their opinion upon the general principle of that great and most important com- mercial change. And when their Lordships, after discussion, should have pro- nounced a favourable opinion upon the principle, as he earnestly hoped and confi- dently expected would be the case, then he might venture, without any gift of prophecy, to foretell that the passage of that and other measures would no longer meet with obstruction elsewhere. With the view, therefore, of preparing for the discussion—which might be wholly unnecessary, but which might also become absolutely necessary—he moved for the returns mentioned.

The returns were ordered without comment.

PACIFICATION OF IRELAND.

The adjourned debate on the first reading of the Irish Protection of Life Bill was resumed on Monday.

Mr. MTARTHT opposed the bill; his conviction being that it was neither calculated to suppress crime nor to cure the evils under which Ireland laboured—

It was a lamentable characteristic of the outrages complained of, that they were committed for the greater part in the noon-day. Unlike other delinquents, the perpetrators of these outrages sought not the covert of night. They were for the most part strangers to the locality where the crimes were com- mitted, and were men of most reckless character. He disapproved of levying rates for the payment of additional policemen, or for any other purpose contem- plated in the bill. He was sure that a measure so defective could not have ori- ginated with or been fashioned by Sir Robert Peel and Sir James Graham. It did not look like the work of statesmen. "But I think I can trace it to its source; I believe I can point out the hands by which it has been wrought. It is the misfortune of the Irish Administration and not merely of the present, but of almost every Administration which has preceded it, that the government of that country is not conducted by statesmen, but is a government of law- officers." He entered with some minuteness into the history of Ireland, to show how unfortunate her connexion with England had been; and concluded by calling i upon Sir Robert Peel to exhibit the same firmness and the same ability n deal- ing with the wrongs of Ireland as he had shown in dealing with commercial griev- ances.

Mr. H. J. BAILLIE expressed his surprise at the opposition to the first reading of this bill—

Though the Irish Members insisted upon remedial preceding coercive measures, no two of them were agreed upon any measures.

Colonel VERNER also supported the bill—

He thought the Government ought to suppress all societies and associations and meetings which circulated through the country pernicious principles, keeping the people at variance with each other, discontented, and disunited. Let there be an end to "conciliation," and all uncalled-for concession. Every attempt at concil- iation and concession bad been met with insult, contempt, and scorn.

Mr. IIA.WES denied that the bill was justified by the necessities of the case—

Taking the reports of trials and committals which had been laid upon the _gig of the House for 1845, and which he thought were much more satisfactora Lam the statements of Stipendiary Magistrates and Police Constables, founderi'lipon by Sir James Graham, he found that the number of committals for:1845 presented a decrease of 14 per cent as compared with previous years. As regards the crime of murder, the return showed a decrease of 28 per cent in the year 1845 as com-

pared 1844; and under the head of attempts to murder, there had been a decrease of 69, or nearly 5311 per cent. It was also shown that a decrease of crime had taken place in those counties which were deemed the worst. But, taking the returns which had just been supplied on the motion of Mr. Charles Buller and furnished by the Police, the only increase worth noting was under the head of "threatening notices." Neither was "undetected" crime on the increase, nor had any difficulty been found in getting convictions. Mr. Hawes founded much upon the tranquillity which prevailed in Ireland under the rule of Lord Nornurnby, who did not govern by coercion bills. He hoped the Government, looking at the difficulties which encompassed legislation with regard to Ireland, as well as to the stoppage of all English measures, would cease to press a bill which must encounter stage by stage, clause by clause' and line by line, the most determined opposition; for he knew little of the Irish Members if they were found to shrink from that contest on which they had entered, and the only result of which must be the absorption of time to no useful purposes. Sir ROBERT PEEL, in allusion to a remark by Mr. Hawes, said that the question of popularity, as involved in persevering with the measure or in abandoning it, was hardly a consideration which ought to influence the con- duct of those who are responsible for the peace of Ireland: to abandon the bill might be more popular than to persevere with it, but that popularity would be gained at too costly a sacrifice if it were accompanied by in- creased danger to life and property— His course was not adopted from any punctilious adherence to established usage; but what were the circumstances? The first practical measure recommended to the notice of the House in the Speech from the Throne was a measure forgiving, if possible, increased security to life in Ireland. In answer to this, an assurance was given by the House, that it was deeply impressed with the importance of the sub- ject, and that it would take into consideration any measures that had for their object the prevention of the grievous crime of murder. A bill intended to accom- plish this object passed the House of Lords with very little opposition; Irish Peers who in political sentiments agreed with the opponents of the measure in the Commons assented to the bill. It has been the uniform, the invariable prac- tice of the Commons, with respect to a measure brought down from the House of Lords under such circumstances and introduced by the Government, to read it a first time without delay. In treating the measure with such deference, it showed a willingness to give it consideration, at least to allow it to pass through the pre- liminary stage of a first reading; in like manner as in the House of Lords, evy bill, by whomsoever introduced, was read a first time as a matter of course. He did not deny the right of the opponents of the measure to contest this practice, the invariable usage a the Commons; he was only considering whether or not the Government would have been justified in allowing the measure to lie on the table without the slightest notice being taken of it. "Sir, I do not know that the House of Lords would not resent our doing so. It was not under the influence of a mere punctilious deference that we took the course we did; but of this we felt deeply convinced, that if we had permitted this bill, so recommended from the Throne, and agreed to by the House of Lords, to lie on the table without notice, the Representatives of Ireland would have accused us, and justly accused us, of

offering an insult to that country by so doing:: .

"I will now allude to an injurious &manse which I have heard thrown out, that her Majesty's Governmeat are indifferent to the progress of the Corn Bill; and that they interposed this discussion, or rather the motion for the first reading of this bill, with a view to the defeat or the delay of that measure. I have heard some honourable gentlemen say, not that they thought so themselves, but that such was the impression on the part of the public. Sir, in answer to that state- ment, I will only say, without any unnecessary boast, that I shall be prepared to give whatever proof may be required of the sincerity of my intentions. (Cheers.) lt is sufficient for me now to say, that the progress of the discussion, the lapse of time, and intervening events, have more strongly increased the feeling with which I s_eke when I proposed the permanent and final settlement of the corn question. (Cheers.) I will not deny that during the debates on the question, my opinions on the subject have undergone a change; but it is this—that restrictions which I at first believed to be impolitic, I now believe to be unjust. Consequently, the sense of their injustice preelades any compromise on my part. (Cheers.) That which I have proposed both as to the amount of duty and as to the continuance of that duty, is allI am able to offer; and in answer to those injurious suspicions, I think it enough to say, that I shall be perfectly ready to testify, by any public act, the sincerity of my intentions. (Repeated cheers.) Thereibre, Sir, 1 say that the first consideration which entered into the minds of the Government bi proposing, pursuant to uniform cnstorn, the first reading of this bill, was not any lurking dmr' e to interpose any difficulties to the progress of those commercial measures Which they had proposed to this House, or to defer for a single day the final de- cision of the question which they embrace."

In reference to the measure now under consideration, he agreed Bith an obser- vation which fell from the Member for Drogheda—" We are bound to prove that at the present moment, from the nature and the frequency of crimes, (I speak more Inaticularly of assassinations and crimes affecting the public peace) J1eland is in an unusual position; we are bound to prove that we have ex- hausted all the ordinary means provided by the law; and we are bound also to establish by moment (for proof in such a case is impossible) that the measure proposed will condoce to the end in view. The future cannot be proved. All we can do is to attempt to establish in the minds of those whom we invite to con- sult on the subject, a strong moral conviction that it is probable that the proposed law will be effectual for the purpose intended."

Mr. Hawes had contested the facts adduced by Sir James Graham on a pre- vious occasion as to the extent of crime; but Sir Robert Peel did not think that Mr. Hawes would be able to contest the facts to which he was now about to refer. " I am about to contrast the year 1843 with the year 1844. In 1844 there was some increase of crime, but we were unwilling to appeal without necessity to the House for extraordinary powers. Let us, however, take the comparison, though to com- pare one year with the one immediately following may sometimes be fallacious."

HAWES--" To what document are you referring?" Sir ROBERT PEEL—" I believe that the documentI refer to has been published. What I hold in my hand is a document furnished by the Police in Ireland; a com- parative view of the extent of crime from 1835 to 1845, and which is, as to the later years, I believe, exactly concurrent with that which is laid on the table of the House."

Mr. BAWLS—" What I quoted from was the special report of the Constabulary in Ireland from 1842 to 180."

Sir ROBERT PEEL—" Yes; and therefore including the years to which I refer. I will leave you to judge whether my selection of crimes is a good one. The dif- ferent heads are homicides, conspiracies to murder, assaults on the police, aggra- vated assaults, demand for or robbery of arms, administering oaths, sending threatening notices, attacking houses, firing into dwellings. Offences which do not involve any serious disturbance of the public peace I shall exclude; I shall take only crimes, the frequency of which is characteristic of a diseased state of society. I begin with homicides. In 1843 the number of homicides reported at the Con- stabulary Office was 122; in 1845 they were 139. Are those numbers the same as the numbers in the return to which the honourable gentleman referred? [Mr. Hawes—" Yes."] Then the returns are the same. The number of crimes, then, in the two years 1843 and 1845 are stated as follows."

Return of Outrages specially reported to the Constabulary Office—Offiences against the Person and Public Peace.

In 1843.

In 1845.

Homicides 122 • - 139 Conspiring to murder

8 Assault on Police and Magistrates 48 • • • 72 Aggravated assault 444 . • • 540 Demand or robbery of aura 119 • • • 551 Administering oaths 51 • • • 22$ Threatening notices 980 . • - 1,944 Attacking houses 215 .. • 483 Firing into dwellings 87 . • • 138

One Member had said that threatening notices ought hardly to be included; but Sir Robert thought that an increase from 940 in 1843 to 1,944 in 1845 was a significant circumstance. Though threatening notices themselves inflict no in- jury, they are enough to disturb the tranquillity of families, and the families know that the execution of the sentence of vengeance often follows. There may be instances in which threatening notices are fabricated: but he had made every deduction on that account Sir Robert referred to the adtnissions of some of the Irish Members, opponents of the measure, to show that, as regarded the nature of the crimes, the national character had undergone an unfavourable change. Sir William Somerville said—" I fear a change in the national character has taken place; I see that neither age nor sex is any guarantee against outrage": and the Member for Kilkenny had remarked that he was overwhelmed with disgust and shame at the hideous crimes perpetrated in some efts of Ireland. Sir Robert proceeded to read from official reports the details of some of the murderous out- Ines which had taken place; and, quoting results, he showed that the poor and helpless were more exposed to murderous attacks than the rich: if Parliament could afford protection to men of that class, though some constitutional principle should be violated in consequence, he thought the sacrifice ought to be made. "Prom the frequency of crimes endangering life—from the nature and quality of the crimes—from the frequent instances of complete impunity—from the fear there is of giving evidence either before a Magistrate or in court—from the dan- ger there is that these crimes will become contagious and spread to other dis- tricts, there is an imperative call on the Legislature to consider whether precau- tions are not necessary."

This brought him to the second point—has Government exhausted the means which the existing law put at their disposal for the repression of crime? He contended that such was the case. There is a Police force of 10,000 men; and he did not think that a mere addition to that force would be accompanied with any great advantage. Special commissions had been recommended; but unless you have the prisoner and the evidence to convict, special commissions are use- less, or worse than useless. He was not aware in what single instance Govern- ment could be charged with not using every instrument that the constitution and the law have placed at their dispoeal for bringing crimirusls to trial and deterring from the commission of crime.

As to the third and most important point—that the measure now submitted will be efficacious for the object in view—Sir Robert remarked, that to propose any measure which is not likely to answer the end, would be an evil not compen- sated by the intention. "To demonstrate that the act we propose will have the effect we wish, is impossible. But can we show that this is not a superfluous breach of the constitution? I think I have shown that there are ample reasons for attempting something, if that something appears likely to be efficacious. In the year 1835, what course did the Government at that time take to prevent the frequency of crime, the horrid character of the crimes, and the impunity for crime at that time prevailing ? The course which that Government took shall we not take who are responsible for preserving peace in Ireland now ? We are told now that we dis- regard the opinions of the Representatives of Ireland. But the Representatives of Ireland, who mast be supposed to be best acquainted with the state of that country, in a time of political excitement—in the year 1835, the Representatives of Ireland, without remonstrance, consented to a measure the principle of which is the same as that we now propose. (Cheerstand expressions of dissentfrom the Irish Members.) Sir Robert proceeded to examine the bill of 1835 and the one under consideration; showing wherein they agreed, and wherein they differed. Both bills empowered the Lord-Lieutenant to proclaim certain districts, and to compel persons to remain within their houses from sunset to sunrise. One difference is, that by the act of 1835, the person found out of doors was bound to prove his innocence, while by the present bill the prosecutor is bound to prove the man's guilt. Another differ- ence is, that by the bill of 1835 the offence of being found out of doors was a misdemeanour, while by the present bill it is made a felony. " Rut is that a round for rejecting the measure ? When we find you, the Representatives of Ireland, in 1835 consenting to a law the principle of which is the same as this, which you denominate the Curfew Act, are we wrong in proposing that to be the basis of the measure we now propose ? The honourable Member for Lambeth has read accounts of the progress of tranquillity under another Government from 1835 to 1840: why, during the whole of that period you enforced that very mea- sure. I should be sorry to exaggerate, and I admit there is a slight difference between the two measures; but1 challenge honourable Members to a closer in- spection of them. In the bill of 1835, the Grand Juries were to make a present- ment to the Lord-Lieutenant, who thereupon issued his proclamation. We thought it of great importance to alter this feature of the law of 1835. We thought, if we proposed to give Grand Juries or Magistrates a similar power to cause the act to be put in force, you would make that a ground of objection: we thought you would have said that the Executive alone should take the responsi- bility of putting the act in force. (Cheers.) You have said that the landlords will avail themselves of the powers of this act for the purpose of clearing their estates: is it not better, then, to put it out of all suspicion that those who will have to administer the law are actuated by such motives? (Cheers.) If that is your opinion of the Irish landlords, or of many Irish landlords, which is the best course—to throw upon the Executive the entire responsibility, or to permit Grand Juries or Magistrates to invoke the aid of the law ? We thought this a great and important alteration; but if you think otherwise' you will have an opportunity of altering it." Sir Robert thought he had shown, that there is no such departure from the law of 1835 as to expect that such a decided opposition as that now made would have been experienced. As regards penalty for being found out of doors, there is certainly a material difference: in the one case the offender might be punished as for a misdemeanour, but by the present bill he may be trans- ported for seven years. Still the principle and most of the leading details of the present bill were assented to by Parliament, and the Irish Members, in the case of the act of 1835. But although such powers be given it

does not follow that they should be exercised. The beat result would be that this law should not have to be called into practical operation. You argue that the existence of this power will exasperate the people of Ireland, and make bad worse: but I show you that, during five years, this principle of law was upon the statute-book. If I remember rightly, there was but one division upon the former bill. I believe the honourable Member opposite proposed some alteration." Mr. W. S. O'Bities—" I protested against the bill, and endeavoured to shorten its duration."

Sir R. PEEL—" And only four Members divided with the honourable gentle- man. ("Hear, heart') Well, then, in 1835 you permitted this bill to pass; you permitted it to pass for a period of five years, without a motion being made for its repeal."

Mr. W. S. O'Brirrna—"There was another motion afterwards for repeal."

Sir R. PER1.—" And how many voted for it? Two. ("Hear, hear!") The honourable Member for Limerick proposed a duration of two instead of five years, and found only four Members to support him; and at a subsequent period it was proposed that this disgrace to our statute-book, this blot upon our legislation, should be expunged, and only two Members were found to support that motion I I am the last person to blame those who now think that enactment unwise, for opposing the present bill; but I did not believe, until I heard it from your own mouths, that particular censure would be cast upon the Executive Government for having, in deference to the local experience and knowledge of gentlemen of Ire- land as to the best means of repressing crime, proposed, as the basis of the mea- sure of 1846, that which you accepted as the best measure in 1835, which you preferred to endure for five years instead of two, and of which, at a subsequent period, and in calmer mood, only two Members voted for the repeal. (Cheers.) You may be justified in opposing this measure now; I have no right to question your discretion: but do not accuse us of the wish to inflict injury and insult upon Ireland, if, in 1846, relying upon your superior judgment and authority, we have taken a course which you yourselves sanctioned in 1835. (Cheers.) Let us hope that there will be no practical occasion for the law to be called into operation; that it will be dormant; that the existence of this instrument of repression will of itself be sufficient to prevent the recurrence of the formidable evils it is meant to suppress; that by its dormant energy it will deter men from crime, without in- flicting those grievous penalties of keeping persons within their doors, or subject- ing a district to the petpuniary penalty the law provides. Let us hope that the knowledge of the law beffig in existence will be as efficacious as it was before, and that we shall be able at no distant period—even earlier than before—to dispense with it altogether. For that was the case before, that the law was on the statute- book, but was not called into operation for a period of its existence."

'Going into some minor differences which existed between the two measures, Sir Robert thought that the provision which authorized the imposition of a penalty for the benefit of the families of murdered persons would have a salutary effect.

As to the proposed measure being a remedy for the evils in Ireland, no such thing was imagined. It partakes in no degree of a perfect remedy; it were an unmitigated evil if not justified by a great necessity. The passing of such a law did not dispense with the necessity of maturely considering the causes of existing evils and the best remedies to be applied. Much had been spoken in favour of extending the principle of the English Poor-law to Ireland; but he did not think that such a course ought to be rashly entered upon. All the social peculiarities of Ireland required to be taken into account, otherwise fatal mistakes might be committed. It is impossible, to contemplate the state of landed property in Ire- land without being compelled to admit that at present it is in a most unsatiafac- tory condition. In no country does a greater necessity exist for upholding the great principles of property; but at the same time, it is impossible to read with- out deep apprehension the accounts of the great number of tenants evicted from certain estates. The difficulty is, how to devise a remedy. Mr. Sharman Craw- ford's bill provided for tenants receiving compensation for improvements; but it did not prevent a landlord froIn . ejecting a pauper tenantry who have made no improvements. Addressing the jsish landlords in particular, Sir Robert said— "You will excuse me if I speak with freedom when I say that I think you are apt to rely too mach upon the power of the Executive Government. If you would meet together—I speak of absentees as well as of resident proprietors—and seri- ously consider what are the real evils of your conittry, and what are the obliga- tions imposed upon you as possessors of propert7—(0 flear, hear !")—it' those who are armed with legal power, who eject their tenantry without considering how they are to obtain shelter and subsistence, would reflect on the consequences 01 such an exercise of their power—and if the exertion of this power be necessary, if they would maturely consider the duty imposed on them of providing in some measure against the dreadful consequences of such a course, which a very little libe- rality and forbearance would enable them to do—you would confer greater benefit on your country than the Government or legislation can effect- I need only remind you of the improvements effected in Ireland by Lord George Hill. Is it true that, so late as the .year 1838, that nobleman purchased some 18,000 or 20,000 acres of land in the wildest part of Ireland; that he said to himself'I will perform my duty as a landlord; I will persevere against all difficulties; 'I will not be deterred by any opposition I may encounter from my tenants or neighbours, but I will persevere in my attempt to improve the condition of the people?' is it true that the noble Lord has succeeded in his attempt? Has he not succeeded, without the advantage of

those prejudices which ancient hereditary descent might have created in Ids favour —for he purchased the property as a stranger—in conciliating the good-will of the people? Is it true, that by perseverence,by forbearance, by deference, in the first Instance, perhaps to the ignorance or prejudices of the people, by kindly feeling, and by evincing determination to effect Improvements, he has effected the revela- tion he contemplated in the country? And has not this been done consistently

with the promotion of his own interests? Has not the value of his property im- proved? Have not his rentals increased? I must say, I think that gentleman,

by the example he has set, has entitled himself to be regarded as a public bene-

factor to his country. (Cheers.) I honour and respect the motives which have led him to adopt this course; and I envy him the reflections of his own con- science. [Colonel Conak here made an observation to Sir Robert Peel.] My honourable and gallant friend says that my statement is strictly correct. (Cheers.) My own impression is, that though much may be done by good legis- lation, by. which the foundation at least of social improvement may be laid, yet

that the immediate practical improvement of Ireland will be most efficaciously promoted by a combination of the landlords, resident and absentee, to follow the

example of Lord George Hill, to improve their own property, and to increase its productiveness, while at the same time they conciliate the affections andgood- will of those who stand towards them in the relation of tenants." (Cheers.

In conclusion, Sir Robert hoped, that in stating the reasons which had induced the Government to introduce the present bill, he had said nothing calculated to give offence. "I do not censure the Irish Representatives for the course they have taken with respect to this bill; nor do I mean to blame them for being soli- citous about it: all I will say upon this point is to express regret that, as they were anxious for discussion, they did not permit a continuous discussion. I could have

wished that they had permitted us to proceed from day to day with the debate upon this question. I have no desire, nor, indeed, any right to question the exer-

cise of their legitimate privilege; but I do think that all interests would have been better served by an uninterrupted discussion, and that the practice of occu- pying two days in the week with an Irish motion was calculated very much to impede the progress of public business. Five weeks have elapsed since this bill

was first introduced ; and after the long discussion which has taken place, and I will say after the great ability that has been displayed in that discussion, I

do hope the Irish Members will feel it consistent with their duty to permit the

sense of the House to be now taken, without further delay, on this the preliminary stage of the hill. I wish to avoid one word that can pique them into a continua-

tion of the discussion. I do not question the exercise of their discretion. But

when it is remembered that this is only a preliminary debate, and that measures of vast public importance are still pending, I do entertain a hope that they will now yield to what appears to be the prevaihng opinion on all sides of the House, even amongst those who join with them in their opposition, and, feeling that they have already performed their duty to their country, that they will at length permit the sense of the House to be taken on this the preliminary stage of the bill." (Much cheering as Sir Robert resumed his seat.) The remaining speakers were Mr. WYSE, who spoke against the bill?, Colonel CONOLLY, who expressed his hearty approval of it; and Mr. Rion, who spoke in opposition.

Mr. WYSE regretted the delay to pass the commercial measures of the Govern- ment; but he thought that part of the blame was chargeable on Ministers. There

would have been no disrespect to the other House in leaving the Coercion Bill un- discussed for the present. As to debating a bill on its first reading, there was a precedent for it. In 1833, a bill similar to the present was brought down from the Lords, and it was discussed on the first reading almost as long as the present

bill. Mr. Wyse did not think that the statistics of crime were so alarming as they had been represented. The real crime in Ireland was the connivance of the people

and the sympathy which they betrayed. The duty of a paternal Government was not so much to deal with individual offences as to endeavour to raise the general tone of morality among the people at large.

Colonel CONOLLY had been directed by the constituency and the Magistracy of the county he represented to support the bill; and he felt glad in responding

to the call. As to remedies, the root of the evil would never be reached so long as the House countenanced that factious and seditious assembly which exists in Dublin. It is from that body that proceed all the pernicious doctrines and all

the frightful lessons with which the people of Ireland had made themselves so fa- miliar; and it is only by destroying the source of the evil that they could over- come the evil itself.

Mr. Ricn did not see that Sir Robert Peel had made out his case. The only effectual manner of legislating for Ireland was by such laws as were in harmony with the common notions of right or wrong among the the people. In proportion as a law was in opposition to the common notions of a people, in that proportion would it be inoperative. Sir Robert Peel had cited the example of Lord George Hill, and said to the Irish landlords, "Go and do likewise ”. but if he would treat the people of Ireland with the same kindness and consideration as Lord George Hill had displayed on his estate, there would be no need of coercion bills.

Mr. P. SOMERS moved the adjournment of the debate; and some at- tempt at arrangement took place.

Sir ROBERT PEEL hoped those gentlemen who had motions on the paper for Thursday would give way for the adjourned debate. Mr. HAWES bad a motion for Thursday, but he would readily give way on that evening for the resumption of the debate.

Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN also had a motion for Thursday, and he declined to give way.

Sir ROBERT PEEL would consider the debate fixed for Thursday, and, failing that evening, for Friday.

The debate was then adjourned.

MR. SMITH O'BRIEN AND THE SAXON PARLIAMENT.

On Monday, Mr. Esxcounr, the Chairman of Railway Group XL Com- mittee, reported that Mr. Smith O'Brien had not attended to discharge his duty as a Member of the Committee. Mr. Estoourt recited the circum- stances attending his refusal, contained in a oorrespOndence commented OD in the Spectator of the 11th April; and move4rthat Mr. O'Brien be ordered to attend the Committee on the followinwwlay. The motion having been put and agreed to, 14. SMITH O'BRIEN begged to state, with all respect to the House, that' he 'attended the House to dis- charge the duty which he owed to his constituents in Ireland; and, for reasons which he had already stated in his correspondence with the Com- mittee, he did not consider ,1,;_iiroself bound, and he should therefore de- cline, to attend the Committee upon any English or Scotch railway.

On Tuesday, Mr. HENLEY, on the part of the Committee, reported, that Mr. Smith O'Brien had not attended the Committee that day, as ordered by the House.

The SPEAKER having asked if Mr. Smith O'Brien was present, Mr. O'BRIEN rose, and, after thanking the.House for giving him an opportunity for explanation, referred to his previous correspondence with the Chairman of the Committee as embodying his views on the question of attendance. To these views he adhered; and with this statement he left the House.

A long discussion followed; in which questions of law were mixed up with prudential considerations in deciding the course the House ought to adopt in vindicating its authority.

Mr. Esreounr entered into a detailed statement of the cll.' cumstances under which a resolution of the House was passed rendering it compulsory on the part of Members chosen to act on Railway Group Committees to give their attendance. In consequence of the deliberate refusal on the part of Mr. O'Brien to obey the orders of the House, it became absolutely necessary that measures should be adopted to uphold the authority of Parliament Under these circumstances,. it was Mr. Esteourt's painful duty to move, "That William Smith O'Brien, Esquire, having disobeyed the order of this House, by refusing to attend the Committee to which the Railway Group No.11 had been referred, has been guilty of a con- tempt of this House." Mr. O'Comism asked the House to pause before adopting the resolution. On two grounds, he thought more consideration ought to be given to the case. The first question was, how far the Act of Union with Ireland gave power to the Im- perial Parliament to enforce the process of contempt against the Representatives of Ireland. There could be no common law jurisdiction in that House for this purpose; and up till 1800 there could not be a question that there was no juris- diction at all; for both that House and the Parliament of Great Britain, by a statute passed in 1783, disclaimed any species of interference with the repre- sentation of Ireland. The second consideration related to the Committee of Se- lection. Up to the 12th of last February it was voluntary on the part of Mem- bers to attend Committees on private bills; and now the question was, whether Parliament could delegate to a 'Committee the power of making regulations the neglect of which should be punishable as contempt. He took it that the House

had no such common law power; and consequently, Mr. O'Brien was only guiltyof a violation of the secondary and subsiduary jurisdiction of the Committee of Selection.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL observed, that the importance of the question had been much increased by Mr. O'Connell. The House had not only to consider

whether it would interfere with a Member who refused to obey its orders, but fur-

ther, whether there was a portion of its Members who were beyond its control. He was surprised at Mr. O'Connell's objection founded upon the Act of Union; for the third article of that Act is, " That the said Unit- Kingdom be represented

in one and the same Parliament, to be styled the Parliament of the United King- dom of Great Britain and Ireland"; provision being made by another article for incorporating into this Imperial Parliament a certain number of Irish Members, who were to form part of the House of Commons. It is difficult to understand what Mr. O'Connell meant by saying there was no statutable power given to the House to proceed to extremity against a refractory Member; for it was inherent in every body which had great public functions to discharge. It is true that no ex- press power of the kind in question is stipulated in the Act of Union; but for this reason, that there was no necessity for it. The resolutions under which the Com- mittee of Selection acted were passed in 1839; and every Member of the House was supposed virtually to have given his consent to them. Mr. O'Brien perfectly well knew that he was guilty of wilful disobedience to the orders of the House by refusing to attend the Committee; and the Attorney-General thought that the House could adopt no other course than to accede to Mr. Esteourt's resolution.

Mr. E. B. ROCHE regretted that the subject had been introduced, lest it should compel those Members who eoincided in opinion with Mr. O'Brien to take measures

to impede the business of the House rather than submit to injustice. Besides; the people of Ireland, who could not enter into Parliamentary technicalities, might think, if extreme measures were adopted against Mr. O'Brien, that the House was actuated by personal hostility to him. Mr. WeEnuRroN had not the slightest doubt that the House had a right to see its decision carried into effect. He admitted the power; but he did not think it was a matter of wisdom to call that power into exercise. If, for any foolish reason given by a Member of that House for not serving on a Select Committee on railway bills, the House was to take up the matter in this way, he did not know how many foolish Members might start up with foolish reasons to court an unenviable

notoriety of this sort. And what would be gained by compelling attendance? Unwilling Members might make their appearance and take their seats; but could

the House compel them to take part in the business? He thought a better course would be, to exempt Members from serving on Committees who assigned special reasons, but that the Select Committee should report their names. With these views, he moved this amendment—" That William Smith O'Brien, Esquire, and

any other Members of this House who in the coarse of the present session may think proper to signify to the Committee of Selection' that they lay claim on

special grounds to be exempted from serving on Select Committees on Railway

Bills, shall be exempted accordingly; and that it be an instruction to the Com- mittee of Selection to report to the House the names of all such Members as may

so claim to be specially exempted, and the grounds assigned for such exemption." Mr. Jorrw O'CoriziELL stated, that he had himself unwillingly sat on a Railway Committee; but he denied the right of the House to compel Ms attendance. His attendance on that Committee, however, had enabled him to oppose the Coercion Bill. But Mr. O'Brien having considered that the first brunt of that battle was over, had resolved to try the principle of his liability to serve on Railway Com-

mittees. Mr. BROTHERTON, In seconding Mr. Warourton's amendment, said, he had no wish to gratify Mr. O'Brien's desire for notoriety by sending him to the Tower: he did not wish to make a martyr of him. Mr. MORGAN O'CONNELL said, that Mr. O'Brien was not shrinking from the discharge of any duty which he deemed himself called upon to undertake. If he had any idea of shrinking, there was nothing easier for him than to have set off for Ireland; from which the House would not have found it very safe or easy to bring him back. Sir ROBERT PEEL could see another course for the House to adopt than to affirm Mr. Estcourt's resolution. He thought that Mr. Warburton's amendment was a way of meeting the difficulty totally unworthy of his Parliamentary standing. On all

such occasions, Sir Robert bad felt it to be his duty to endeavour to support the dignity of the House of Commons as the popular branch of the Legislature. If

the power in question was not given at the time of the Irish Union, the same thing must apply to the Scotch Union: but the power was inherent in the House of' Commons. He was very sorry that the House had been forced into this contest. It might be that gentlemen might wish to be made martyrs but that was not a ground on which to call upon Parliament to abandon this necessary power. Mr. Ottawas and Mr. C. POWELL spoke in defence of Mr. 0 Brien. Mr. HUME upheld the power of the House to compel attendance. Sir THOMAS WILDE expressed his regret that Mr. O'Connell should have sanctioned the delusion entertained and acted upon by Mr. O'Brien. As to the power of Parliament, it itzluded everything that IS necessary for the due perform- ance of its duties. This is an axiom applying to all times and to all persons. All that the Irish Union had done had been to make certain Members of the Irish Parliament Members of the Imperial Parliament; the character of that Parlia- ment remaining the same as it was in ancient times, and possessing all the pow- ers and privileges that ever belonged to it. What could Mr. O'Connell mean by saying that the authority now claimed was not according to common law? The

common law had nothing to do with Parliamentary law. The Parliamentary law, which that House had often had occasion to consider, was a peculiar law ?weed for their own convenience; and it was of as high authority, as old, and as necessary as the common law of the land. When his learned friend, then, used such an a ent as that, he must have been influenced by a desire, exceedingly

natural in t to relieve a friend from a difficulty; and could not have consulted

his understanding and his knowledge as a profound lawyer, which undoubtedly he was. The House had a right to command the services of every Member, in any way which it thought proper. Sir Thomas hoped the motion would be acceded to without hesitation.

Mr. DISRAELI, with a sarcastic allusion to Sir Thomas Wilde as never happier than when speaking on a privilege question—always making a triumphant speech on it, and always counselling the House to a course which led to defeat—suggested a little delay before coming to a decision on Mr. O'Brien's case. It was admitted on all bands that no technical notice had been served upon him. So far as Mr. O'Brien was concerned, the House might fairly give Inns another opportunity of reconsidering his case. Mr. CHARLES BULLER observed that Mr. Disraeli's ingenious pleading dis- played rather a wish to serve his new friend, Mr. O'Brien than that judgment and acumen which usually distinguished him. It appeared to Mr. Buller that the House was bound to notice the contempt. Any plea founded on want of notice was untenable: the most distinct notice had been given, by the order of the House, passed in Mr. O'Brien's hearing, and formally communicated to him in writing. Sir ROBERT INGLIS decidedly supported the motion. Mr. FITZGERALD Op- /wed it.

The House divided—For the amendment, 15; against it, 139. A division then took place on Mr. Estcourt's motion—For the motion, 133; against it, 13. A discussion followed as to the manner in which the resolution should be followed up. Mr. Esrcounr as the Chairman of the Committee, moved Mr. O'Brien's com- mittal to the custody of the Sergeant at Arms.

Lord MORPETH wished that some little time should be given to ascertain whe- ther Mr. O'Brien would not himself be prepared to bow to the clearly ascer- tained and decided expression of opinion on the part of the House. He suggested the withdrawal of the motion, and the substitution of another—that the Speaker call upon Mr. O'Brien to attend in his place and hear the resolution just passed by the House. Mr. WA RD and Mr. O'Cousau.. approved of the debate being adjourned. Sir ROBERT PEEL concurred—" My own opinion is, we had much better avoid placing any impediment in the way of the honourable gentleman's calmly con- sidering the matter. And I hope the honourable and learned gentleman, [Sir Thomas Wilde,] whose opinion I so highly value on this question, and who is entitled to the gratitude of the House for the manner in which he has fought its battles of privilege, will concur with me in thinking that we shall not m the slightest degree endanger the authority of the House, which, in common with me, he upholds, not for the dignity of the House itself, but for the maintenance of the essential rights of the people, by using some forbearance, and affording some time to the honourable Member for consideration."

Sir THOMAS WILDE did not think that any harm could arise from the delay.

Daring this conversation, Mr. E. B. Roma intimated, that he had just re calved a communication from Mr. O'Brien, stating that his determination re- mained unaltered, and expressing a wish that the discussion might not be pro- longed.

Sir ROBERT PEEL suggested that the House should take its own course, irre- spective of the communication thus made.

The debate was adjourned till Thursday.

[During the latter part of this discussion, Mr. O'Brien was sitting at the extreme end of the gallery. After other business was entered upon, he took his seat in the body of the House. On observing him, the Speaker advised him to leave the House till the termination of the adjourned de- bate. Mr. O'Brien retired.]

On Thursday, Mr. ESTCOURT introduced the subject by expressing a hope that some Member was authorized to make a communication to the House on behalf of Mr. O'Brien. No response having been given, he moved- " That William Smith O'Brien, Esquire having been guilty of a contempt of this House, be for his said offence committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at- Arms attending this House, during the pleasure of the House; and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant accordingly. Mr. E. B. ROCHE, on the ground that Mr. O'Brien complained that he had not been allowed a fair opportunity of addressing the House in ex- planation of his conduct, moved as an amendment, that he "do attend in his place forthwith," for that purpose.

This proposal gave rise to some discussion. Mr. O'CowNELL assigned as a reason why the House should consent to the amendment, that Mr. O'Brien felt dissatisfied with the manner in which Mr. O'Connell had argued his case. Sir ROBERT PEEL thought the House should be guided by precedent; and asked the opinion of the Speaker. The SPEAKER stated, that he knew of no precedent according to which Mr. O'Brien could be al- lowed to address the House. Mr. E. B. ROCHE bowed to the opinion of the Speaker, and withdrew his amendment.

Mr. HENRY Gaarrau read a statement from Mr. O'Brien, mentioning that when he declined to address the House on a previous occasion he acted under a misconception. Mr. MONCKTON MILNES, with the view of enabling Mr. O'Brien to take part in the debates, moved that this debate be adjourned to that day six months. Mr. Ceranr.ss BULLER seconded the amendment; but no division took place, and the original resolution passed nem. con.

Shortly afterwards, the Sergeant-at-Arms appeared at the bar, and re- ported that he had taken Mr. O'Brien into custody. Subsequently, Mr. O'CONNELL announced that tomorrow he should move that Mr. O'Brien be discharged. Still later in the evening, Sir ROBERT PEEL, referring to an entry in the Votes of the 16th March, stated, that as the Lords Com- mittee on the operation of the Irish Poor-law had expressed a wish to exa- mine Mr. O'Brien,—who had assented, and the House had given him leave,—he thought that Mr. O'Brien should be allowed to go before the Lords Committee tomorrow, the last day of the Committee's sitting. Sir Robert submitted a motion to this effect; and it was at once agreed to.

RECLAMATION OP WASTE LANDS IN IRELAND.

On Tuesday, Mr. PouLarr SCROPE moved for leave to introduce a bill for the reclamation of waste lands in Ireland—

If measures of this kind had been adopted at an earlier period, the present un- fortunate state of things in Ireland would not have existed. There are no less than 6,290,000 acres of waste lands spread here and there almost over the entire mime of the country, of which about 4,500,000 acres are capable of reclamation. As to the practicability and advantage of turning these wastes into arable land, Mr. Scrope quoted passages from the report of Lord Devon's Commission; and then proceeded to state his plan. He proposed to authorize the Board of Works to purchase tracts of land in lots of not less than 1,000 acres; that those portions of land should be paid for by valuation; that the powers given to the Commis- sioners should be similar to the powers usually given in cases of compulsory pur- chase; that this Board should open up roads, make drains, and let the land which they purchased in farms of from five to 100 acres, with or without temporary accommodation for the tenants; that in certain cases, according to circumstances, the Board should reclaim one acre of each farm, and let the whole farm, including that acre, either wholly or in part reclaimed; that the tenure should be a long lease or else a grant in perpetuity, and that the grantee might pay a rent or be permitted to purchase by instalments: he further proposed that power should be given to the Board to make purchases, following the example of the Waste Lands Society. A million-and-a-half of money might be well laid out in the manner he proposed. Such an undertaking, with the reacting influence of a poor-law upon landlords, would enable the unions to send to these districts those whom they could not employ; and the plan would repay its expenses. Farmers in Irektel had a good deal of capital, and could purchase these farms; the farmers in tee neighbourhood of Cork had more than 200,000/. lodged in the savings-bank. Mr. Scrope's proposal did not confine itself to the sale ot farms, but would include the location of persons without any capital, as in the case of the tenants of the Waste Lands Society, who were enabled to cultivate an acre at a time; and that society bad placed under a system of reclamation no less than 18,000 acres, which they expected would become profitable land.

Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD seconded the motion—

By having the waste lands in their possession, Government would be able to provide allotments where there is an overflow of population; and the means of remedying the horrors of the clearance system would be provided.

Sir JAMES Ga&usar would not refuse his assent to the introduction of the bill — It is impossible to deny that there is in Ireland a vast district of country uncul- tivated; but how far it would be advantageous for the Government to undertake its reclamation is questionable. In noticing some minor points of difference be- tween Mr. Scrope and Mr. Crawford, Sir James remarked that he agreed with the latter in thinking that one essential part of the plan. should be the erection of proper cottages. There were other parts of the scheme which would require con- sideration; but it was not necessary to pursue the subject further at present, as he did not resist the introduction of the measure.

Mr. E. B. ROCHE, Mr. LEFROY, and Mr. Wrss, gave the motion a hearty support; and leave was given to introduce the bill.

RELIEF FROM RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES.

In the House of Peers, on Thursday, the LORD CHANCELLOR moved the second reading of his bill for repealing several statutes imposing penalties upon Roman Catholics and others for their religious opinions— There are as many as thirty acts of Parliament imposing penalties on religions grounds; and he undertook to say, that to repeal those acts, or at least to abolish the penalties, could not be objected to on good grounds. He enumerated the dis- abilities and penalties imposed by the several statutes, beginning with the 8d of Henry the Third, and going downwards, and which he proposed to abrogate. The following are a few of the more prominent: the prohibition of persons of the Jewish persuasion from holding lands; requiring Jews, male and female, to wear a badge, denoting their religious opinions; imposing penalties upon Dissenters for attending any place of worship different from the Established Church; requiting members of the Established Church to attend that church every Sunday; pe- nalties upon Popish recusants who may appear in the presence or house of the Sovereign; requiring every person to attend the parish-church on the anniversary of what is willed the Gunpowder Plot; inflicting imprisonment for life on any person who shall say mass, and giving a reward of 100L to any person who shall swear that he was present when mass was said; rendering any person subject to a preemunire who shall persuade another to be reconciled to the see of Rome- prohibiting persons from keeping a school or acting as tutor in a family without a licence from a Protestant Archbishop or Bishop. In addition to these, there is relief from the abominable statute of recusancy. As to the act of supremacy, it is proposed to relieve Roman Catholics from the penalties attached to the asser- tion of the spiritual authority of the see of Rome. This did not involve by any means the repeal of the Act of Supremacy itself. The supremacy of the Sove- reign in all spiritual matters is part of the common law of England; the sages of the law have always recognized it; and acts of Parliament have over and over again confirmed it. Still he was willing to introduce a proviso declaring that re pealing the penalties shall in no way aftect any other clauses of the bill, or in any way impair or affect the supremacy of the Sovereign of this country. It is pro- posed also to repeal the law which makes it high treason to import any bull or document from the Pope of Rome. There is no such statute in Scotland, or in Ireland; and no harm has arisen in consequence. In fact, the communication with Rome provided against by the statute was practically allowed the moment the practice of the Roman Catholic religion was tolerated. It is idle to say that these acts are obsolete, seeing that they can be brought into activity at any time by ill-conditioned persons for vexatious purposes.

Lord BROUGHAM was of the Chancellor's opinion as regarded the dis- graceful character of the great bulk of the statutes referred to; and that although they were considered obsolete they were not without a certain degree of pernicious vitality— He agreed with what bad been said on the subject of the Pope's supremacy: and by repealing the penalty no lawyer could assert that anything WAS enacted 111 favour of that supremacy. He agreed also in the opinion that the penalties enacted for bringing over bulls from Rome were absurdities; but he was not pre- pared to go the length of sweeping away all penalties whatever for doing so. If a bull were libellous, the person publishing or declaring it became liable to prose- cution and punishment; but the ingenuity of the Vatican would avoid this. The impediments, therefore, to the receiving of the orders and commands of the Pope should not be taken entirely away; and he hoped the Lord Chancellor would en- deavour to devise a penalty which could not be objected to by any party. As to religious processions, he thought that, if permitted, the public peace would not be safe; and as to the ringing of bells, he thought it would be a great nuisance. On the subject of foreign interference with the religious opinions and practices of another nation, he had heard of an extraordinary incident. "The story was, that last autumn the French Government gave orders that prayers should be offered up in Paris, by the Archbishop of Pans, for the conversion of the people of this country from their heresies and sins to the Catholic religion. ("Hear, hear! • and laughter.) Now this really was a little strong; and, as I am sure that my most excellent friend, my most learned friend, M. Guizot, is anything rather than a Catholic, I am the more surprised, that with, I suppose, his sanction, such an occurrence should have taken place. I am indeed, so incredible is it, inclined to think that it was an oversight. There can be nothing more to be reprobated than the public religious authorftles of one country offering up a solemn service for the conversion of the people of another country." In offering up these prayers in Paris, they forgot that the prayer was, that the Queen should forfeit her crown; and knowing, as he did, the love which the French nation bore to the Queen of England—knowing that the Selection with which they re- garded her equalled, he might almost say, the loyalty of the people of England themselves—knowing also, as he did, that they were most desirous to see that noble lady arrive among them—it was altogether impossible that they could have taken into account the real meaning of the prayer to which he alluded. (Cheers.) Anything more unbecoming than the prayer of the reverend Prelate of Paris he had never heard; and he could not therefore but anticipate., that the moment the attention of the French Government was called to the subject, a re- petition would be prevented.

The Bishop of LONDON expressed his approval of the principle of the bill, but his doubts as to whether the Queen's supremacy would be un- touched by its enactments.

Lord Castors thought the relief should be more extensive, and embrace the disabilities which were incorporated into the Emancipation Act, pro- hibiting Roman Catholics from exercising church patronage, and Roman Catholic dignitaries from assuming certain titles &c.

The Bishop of EXETER heard with astonishment and pain that it was proposed to break in upon the settlement of 1829—

Much gratitude had been expressed for the boon of the Emancipation Act; but where was that gratitude now? So far from assenting to the repeal of the enact- ment against the use of titles by the Roman Catholic clergy, he thought a penalty ought to have been extended to all who gave those titles to them. As to the supremacy of the Pope, he objected to the removal of the penalties for teaching it. Even at the present day the supremacy of the Pope is carried to a frightful extent. If they permitted themselves to declare it no longer penal to extol that supremacy, they must prepare themselves for nothing less than another religions war: nothing short of that could happen if they declared this extolling the su- premacy of the Pope to be no longer penal. Lord BEAUMONT denied that the measure affected in the least degree the supremacy of the Crown.

Lord CAMPBELL gave the measure, so far as it went, his hearty support; and pressed upon the Government the propriety of establishing a concor- dat with the Pope: he believed that there would be no difficulty in gaining that object, and that it was a misapprehension to suppose that diplomatic intercourse with Rome was forbidden.

The bill was read a second time.

HOURS OF LABOUR IN FACTORIES.

On Wednesday, Mr. FIELDER, as the substitute for Lord Ashley, moved the second reading of what is popularly called the Ten Hours Factory Bill—

The object of the hill is to limit the hours of work of children between thirteen

and eighteen, and females above eighteen, to eleven hours a day (exclusive of time for meals) for one year, beginning August 1846, and to ten hours a day (ex- clusive of time for meals) from August 1847. Those two classes of persons have now to work twelve hours a day; which, with the time spent hi going to and from the factory and the time of meals, makes fourteen hours occupation,—a period of labour much too long even for -adults: but, if fourteen hours' occupa- tion be too long for adults, who can deny that that length of daily labour is a shameful infliction upon children from thirteen to eighteen. He refrained from

going into a detail of the bodily sufferings and the other injurious effects which W. arisen from the existing system; because Lord Ashley had so often and so ably presented them to the House, and with such minuteness, that the matter must be in the reeollection of every one. He would merely mention one fact, as showing the progress which public opinion is making in favour of shortening the duration of labour; and it is, that the clergy both in England and Scotland have become its strenuous advocates.

Mr. Fielden's own opinions on the subject have been formed from experi- ence. He and his brothers employ from 2,000 to 3,000 hands; they are increas- ing their works greatly, and Mr. Fielden is bringing up all his sons to the same business. If the course he recommended, therefore, should prove to be wrong, the ruin of himself and family was involved. Thus it was unlikely he would recommend a measure of this kind if he had the slightest doubt of its good working.

The measure had hitherto been opposed on the ground that the present long hours of work were necessary to maintain our present eminence in manufactures and commerce. It devolved upon him to show that restricting the hours of labour would not cause a diminution of production and a diminution of manufac- turers' profits. Upon this head he reminded the House, that never had a bill for limiting the hours of labour in factories been passed but predictions of rain to the manufacturers and starvation to the workpeople were uttered. But have these evils overtaken us? He challenged everybody to show that wages for labour in factories generally were not as high in 1845 as at any time since the act of 1819 for regulating factory labour was passed; and as to diminished produc- tion, nothing of the kind had occurred. On the contrary, the consumption of cotton had largely increased under the operation of the existing Factory Acts: in 1819 the quantity consumed was 109,000,000 pounds, but in 1845 it was 52,000,000 pounds. As to the profits, he had no means of giving any compa- rative estimate of the wealth of the body to which he himself belonged; but from the assertions made by manufacturers at the meetings of the League about their ability to buy up the aristocracy, and from the amount of their subscriptions to the League-fund, he did not think there was anything to show that profits had diminished. But additional proof could be supplied from the Factory-returns of Mr. Horner: it appeared that the increase in Bk. Horner's district since 1842 was 529 factories, 10,041 horses power, and 50,222 workpeople; and the increase in power-looms, within the last ten years, was 79,088. These facts show that no one need be scared by the cry, always set up when a ten-hours factory-bill is asked for that we shall he ruined by foreign competition. Mr. AiNswortria seconded the motion; and expressed a hope that Minis- ters would consent to a compromise, by adopting eleven instead of ten hours.

Mr. HUME opposed the measure; and, to get rid of the bill in the present stage, moved the second reading that day six months— He had never shown himself the enemy of the working classes; and if he be- lieved that the limitation proposed in the bill would benefit the persons employed in factories, he should at once give his assent. He believed, however, that the contrary result would follow: He thought it contrary to the principles of cons- men sense for the House to be one day adopting measures to relieve capital and industry from the trammels of monopoly, and the next day to impose them on the capital of the labouring man—his labour. If the bill became law, it would end ha the ruin of the employer and the employed. Free trade would do more to correct existing evils than any act of Parliament. Sir GEORGE Sraticicr-asna supported the bill ; stating that many of the manufacturers who previously opposed the restriction were now in favour of it.

Sir Jatriss GRAHAM, in consideration of the importance of the question, had deemed it his duty to review and reconsider his previous opinions • and he was bound to state that he had seen no reason to induce him to change rany one of them—

As to the proposal to compromise the matter and adopt eleven hours, it could not be entertained; as it was found that the workmen employed in factories which did not work more than eleven hours were not satisfied, and had petitioned the House for the Ten Hours Bill.

There is one important fact which the House ought to consider—that every interference with the labour of children, young persons, and females operates, not indirectly, but virtually, positively, and stringently:, upon adult male labour and the working of machinery. Keeping this vital consideration in view' he asked tba limn to consider what proportion the exports of the four great articles of

manufacture in England, cotton woollen, silk, and flax, bore to the general ex- ports of the country. They formed, he should say, three-fourths of the entire; amounting in value to between 35,000,0001. and 40,000,0001. annually. It was calculated that 225,000/. were weekly distributed as wages to workers in those articles of manufacture, and that three-fourths of the operative population were dependent upon them for support. If, therefore, there should be an error in their legislation upon the matter, it would be no slight mistake, no trifling error, which they were about to commit.

He thought it wrong to urge the meastwe under present circumstances. In the first place, 'Parliament had already pronounced an opinion against it; and in the

next place, other circumstances existed which rendered its introduction at the

present moment most inopportune. The House had come to some important deci- sions on commercial questions; some of which were in operation, and some not. The portion which had become operative was that which had at once exposed, by the removal of restrictions upon commerce, the manufacturers of this country to direct and immediate competition with their foreign rivals. Twenty per cent of the duties on cotton, fifteen per cent of the duties on woollen manufactures, had

been already removed; and the protection upon the silk trade had been also ma- tonally reduced. The removal of protection to British manufactures was there- fore in full operation, whilst the proposed benefit to the consumers of corn was still suspended; and he thought it hard upon the manufacturers to interfere, by the imposition of further restnctions upon them whilst they were placed in their pre sent position. The question had been called one not of pounds, shillings, and pence, but one if capital and labour: what were capital and labour? Some said, "Don't treat this question as one of pounds, shillings, and pence": but he would reply, "What were capital and labour but pounds, shillings, and pence?' lithe House were to sanction a reduction of two hours a day, a loss to the manufacturer would arise which could only be compensated by a reduction of profits, a rise in prices, or a reduction in wages. The intensity of foreign competition rendered a rise in price hopeless; and as the capitalist never consented willingly to a redaction of profits, he would reduce the wages of his workers, with the view of lessening his loss. Assuming that a diminution of the hours of labour from twelve to ten would fall upon capital in the first instance--and it could not be less than a tax of sixteen per cent—his belief was that the larger portion of that loss would be defrayed by a redaction of wages. For the sake of the working classes them- selves, therefore he thought the House should not abridge the hours of labour.

Sir James proceeded to test the assertion that eleven hours' labour had been found to be as productive as twelve hours', by the results of the experiment made by Messrs. Honrocks of Manchester. These gentlemen had reduced the working hours to eleven, that is to say, from sixty-nine hours to sixty-four hours a week. In the longer period, the quantity produced on an average of four weeks was 307,525 yards per week. The proportionate quantity for sixty-four hours' work should, consequently, have been 285,240. What, then, was the actual quantity? If the assertions were correct, that the workers could get through as much during the eleven hours as they could daring the twelve, the produce should have been, of course, the same for the sixty-four hours as for the sixty-nine: but instead of this, with all the exertions of the workmen to give effect to the experiment which was to have borne out the statements, and afford an argument in favour of their petition, the produce could only be brought up to 287,000. Abroad, the hours of labour were much longer than in this country. In France, they were from seventy-two to seventy-four hours a week; in Austria, from seventy-two to eighty hours; and in other countries in a similar proportion; while in this country they were sixty-nine. Adverting to the Free-trade measures of the Government, Sir James said- " I have reviewed my opinions upon a most important branch of commercial law. I have satisfied myself that the law is injurious as it stands, and further, that it is unjust to the great body of consumers. I have exposed myself to all charges ofinconsistency. I have sacrificed all personal prejudices preconceived opinions, and presumed interests. I take no credit for doing so. f supported the measure proposed without any hesitation. I have come to the conclusion that the law as to the importation of corn ought to be altered. If I could have satisfied myself that I had come to an erroneous conclusion on a former occasion when this sub- ject was submitted to the House, I should certainly have adopted the same course, and would not have hesitated to give my support to the honourable Member for Oldham."

Mr. MARIE Pamirs supported the amendment. He characterized Sir James Graham's speech as sound, judicious, and statesmanlike.

The debate was adjourned to Wednesday the 6th May.

RAILWAY LEGISLATION.

In the House of Lords, on Monday, the Earl of aslant:an moved the adoption of the new Sessional Orders for the guidance of the House in dis- posing of the Railway Bills going through their Parliamentary stages. With the view of making these orders identical as far as possible with the resolutions passed last week by the Commons lie moved some verbal addi- tions; the principal of which was, that a banker's receipt for the payment of deposits should entitle the person in whose name the receipts were made out to vote at the meetings of shareholders. He also proposed that those bills which stood at a third reading should not come under the operation of the new Sessional Orders.

The discussion which followed chiefly turned upon the propriety of making any exception in favour of the more advanced bills. The general opinion however, was in favour of the resolutions as proposed; and they were agreed to without dissent.

On Tuesday, Lord DALHOUSIE moved the second reading of the Disso- lution of Railway Companies Bill; intimating an amendment to the effect that every share should count as a vote. The bill was read a second time.

On the same day, Earl FITZWILLIAM, with the view of exhibiting to the House the vast amount of capital which would be required to carry the projected schemes into execution, moved for a return of the estimated expense of the railway projects for which bills had been applied for during the present session, distinguishing those which had been withdrawn or re- jected, and those still pending—

Railway schemes ought to be dealt with as public measures, and should be con- sidered with the view of forming the best system of railway communication for the interests of the country. He had suggested the formation of a Railway Board ten years age, and he did not think it was yet too late. Lord MOWTEAGLE, in moving some additions to the return, approved of Lord Fitzwilliam's suggestions for the appointment of a Railway Board: the failure of the Board of Trade last year ought not to deter their Lord- ships from considering the subject. A similar opinion in favour of a Railway Board was expressed by Lords CAMPBELL, B.ROUGHAM, and ASKEURTON.

The returns were ordered In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, Mr. HUDSON obtained leave to bring in a bill for enabling or facilitating the winding up of the affairs of joint stock companies for making railways, which shall have been formed subsequent to the commencement of the last session of Parliament, and for which acts of incorporation shall not be obtained during the present session.

THE BRIDPORT Erraerroar. On Monday, the Committee appointed to try the petition presented against the return of Mr. Beillie Cochrane for Bridport, reported, that on a scrutiny it was found that one of the votes given for Mr. Rondlly had been recorded as if for Mr. Cochrane: this transferred the majority of one to Mr. Romilly; and the Committee declared him duly elected. On Tues- day Mr. Romilly took his seat. PENSIONS TO VISCOUNT HARDINGE AND LORD GOUGH. On Tuesday, messages from the Queen were submitted to both Houses, stating that her Ma- jesty was desirous to confer some signal mark of her favour on Viscount Har- dinge and Lord Gough, for their distinguished services during the campaign of the Satlej and the Panjaub, to descend to their two next surviving heirs male; and recommending the respective Houses to adopt such measures as may be ne- cessary for the accomplishment of the object. The message is to be considered in the Commons on Monday, and in the Lords on Tuesday. THE DANISH Clams. On Thursday, Mr. HAWES submitted as a motion, that the House resolve itself next Wednesday into a Committee to consider the pro- priety of addressing the Crown on the long-standing claims, so often brought be- fore the House, arising out of the seizure of British ships and cargoes by the Danish Government in 1807. Mr. GO ULBURN assigned the old reason of all Chancellors of the Exchequer for resisting the motion. On a division, however, 59 voted for it, and 41 against it. So the House is pledged to go into Committee on the subject. RAILWAY LABOURERS. On Thursday, assent was given, on the motion of Mr. Borrvertre, to the appointment of a Committee to consider the condition of the labourers employed in the construction of railways. Mr. HUDSON did not think that any good would arise from the inquiry; but he was sure that the facts which will be elicited could not fail to redound to the credit of the Railway Com- panies.