queen. He was aware that at the time of the Regency act a proposition was made in another place to make provision for the exercise of the executive authority, in the event of the demise of the Prince Regent; and had it been made in any place where he had had an opportunity of speaking upon it, he should certainly have opposed it as altogether unnecessary. Provision was made, in the event of the suspension of the executive authority, for the immediate meeting of parliament, and this he thought sufficient for the exigency of the case. With respect to the demise of the queen, the exigency stood upon a different ground; and he could see no necessity in that case for the forthwith meeting of parliament, as prescribed by the Regency act, when every requisite purpose might be answered by the summoning parliament in fourteen days. Earl Grey observed, that the noble earl had misunderstood him in imagining that he had wished to oppose the first reading of the bill. On the contrary, he had declared he did not mean to oppose the first reading, but reserved himself for a future stage with regard to those objections which struck his mind at the moment. It might happen, that, upon consideration, he should see reason to withdraw his opposition, and therefore he wished to leave himself open with regard to the question altogether. At the present moment he certainly saw objections to a part of the proposed measure, and he could not but observe, that the noble earl had erroneously argued upon the cases of the possible demise of the queen and of the Prince Regent. The noble earl had argued, that the demise of the Prince Regent would be similar to the demise of the Crown, with regard to the question of the meeting of parliament; but it should be recollected, that in the case of the decease of the reigning sovereign, as the king, in constitutional language, never dies, all the powers and prerogatives of the Crown immediately vested in his successor. How would it be, however, in the event of the demise of the Prince Regent? There must, in that case, be an entire suspension of the executive authority, and this bore directly upon the argument for providing before-hand for the exercise in that case of the executive authority. The argument, therefore, of the noble earl as applied to the demise of the Prince Regent, did not apply in the sense given to it by the noble earl as assimilated to the demise of the Crown, from which it was totally distinct, or as compared with the demise of the queen, in which case all her majesty's powers with reference to the care of the king's person, vested in her majesty's council, whilst in the case of the demise of the Prince Regent, the executive authority of the country would be wholly in abeyance. This, therefore, was an argument for a revision of the whole Regency act, as he had already stated, and his argument as to the absence of any necessity for the present measure still remained unaltered; for the noble earl opposite had not said one word to show that there was any necessity whatever for the enactment of this measure at the present moment. The Lord Chancellor said, that on the question of the second reading, he proposed to enter at large into the consideration of the measure he had now proposed. The bill was read a first time. COTTON FACTORIES BILL.] The House resolved itself into a committee on this bill. In the committee, Messrs. Warren, Scarlett, Harrison, and Evans, were introduced to the bar, as counsel for the petitioners against the bill. Mr. Warren having spoken against the bill, Lord Kenyon made a few observations on the learned counsel's argument, contrasting it with what had appeared in the report of the evidence taken before the committee of the House of Commons, and concluded by declaring his opinion, that counsel or evidence should be no farther heard. He The Earl of Lauderdale spoke strongly in support of the motion for counsel being heard and witnesses examined. charged lord Kenyon with a determination to refuse all evidence that was not favourable to the bill, and read a letter, in which the noble lord had declared he should conceive it to be his duty to take the sense of their lordships as to receiving fresh evidence at their bar. The noble earl then remarked, that the bill tended to affect the interests of the principal manufacture in the country, from which one million was derived to the revenue, and which employed a greater quantity of shipping in the importation of raw materials than any other he could name. It was really strange that any noble lord should determine against hearing evi in favour of the bill were the parents of the children? These individuals had subscribed to those petitions from the knowledge that the employment was injurious to their children's health. He was astonished to hear the epithet of "free-trade" applied by a noble earl, to manufactures of such a kind. Surely that noble lord never could mean to assert that the children so tasked were free agents! Their lordships could never be induced to be dence upon a case of which he could have really known nothing. This country was in an artificial state, and it was highly dangerous for parliament to interfere with the property and trade of individuals. At least, nothing should be done rashly, and he had little doubt, if evidence was heard, that many of the principal points upon which the friends to the bill rested, would be wholly contradicted. The allegation would be disproved, that the children were employed so many hours as to en-lieve that children would labour so many danger their health; and medical men of high professional character would testify that the employment of children in the cotton factories, so far from checking their growth, actually tended to promote it. This he would prove by referring to the appearance of the Lanarkshire militia, and the militias of Lancashire and Cheshire, which their lordships, by referring to the war-office, would find were the tallest regiments in the service, and yet these regiments were formed altogether from cotton spinners [Hear, hear!]. Earl Manvers was in favour of hearing both counsel and evidence in support of the petitioners against the bill. hours every day, if they had any choice of their own. Parliament was the natural guardian of the unprotected. He felt it due to the situation he held, to his acquaintance with the situation of the children employed in factories of the kind throughout his diocese, to state these sentiments to their lordships, and to call upon them to assert the cause of defenceless and suffering youth, more especially since, by doing so, their lordships would support the interests of society at large. rev. The Lord Chancellor said, that no ana logy could be required by their lordships for those opinions with which the right prelate had honoured them, to which The Bishop of Chester said, that he the excellence of his own character gave begged so far to intrude on their lordships so much authority, and which his situation attention as to observe, that the evidence so well justified. He hoped that some! in support of the present bill was deserving thing of the same indulgence would be of some weight. The petitions in favour extended to himself, when he assured their of it, their lordships would see, bore in lordships, that nothing but a sense of duty some instances the signatures of clergymen induced him to offer a few remarks. He and medical men. Of the clergy, he hoped no noble lord would suspect him of trusted he might presume to believe, that hard-heartedness, if he confessed that he so conscientious an order of society, would happened to be one of those who really not subjoin their names and authority to thought that philanthropy had not taken any statements which were actually false. its right course in modern times. InterHe would go farther as to medical men, ests of a varied and conflicting kind were who, from the character they had at stake, often to be consulted, and ought to be from residing in the very parts whence the well balanced, before a man of discretion petitions had come, and from the ample and honesty could pronounce a fair decimeans they possessed of ascertaining the sion. In the present case, the common public health, must be presumed to be law already made it an offence in masters well-informed on the topics of the peti- to overwork the children who are employ. tions, and could have no motive to misre-ed, and in parents to connive at it; and present the truth. Not that, while he said this, it was his intention to impute blame, much less inhumanity, to those persons by whom the children in such factories were employed. He knew many of the proprietors to be persons of the greatest humanity. The evil had its origin in the system he complained of, which governed the number of hours the children were required to work. Besides, could their lordships be indifferent to the circumstance, that some of the petitioners he apprehended that so far the legislature had the authority of common law for interfering in the present case. But, still, he certainly thought it rather hard in noble lords to conclude in favour of the bill, and yet refuse to hear what those who opposed it offered to advance on their side. The question in the first instance was, whether the children in cotton factories were overworked at all? And in deciding this, although he wished to speak with deference of the evidence then on the table, he must confess that he never yet saw evidence so collected on which he should have considered it safe to legislate. The true question then was, whether, in such a situation, their lordships would forego the information now offered to them, or, in other words, if, having no information that was satisfactory, they would refuse to have fresh evidence, and upon oath? The Earl of Liverpool would admit, that the evidence then before their lordships was contradictory, but he contended, that where opinion was mixed up with matter of fact, as latterly in the case of the climbing boys, it was always so. If their lordships went into the inquiry, as they were pressed to do by the counsel at their bar, they would have to encounter an examination as long and as minute as that already gone through, to the manifest loss of time at an advanced stage of the session, and without much benefit to either side. Whatever might be produced by the counsel at the bar, this he should be prepared still to maintain, that if the maximum of children's work in the factories in question was seventy-two hours a week, and this was admitted by the counsel at the bar, then, in spite of all the testimony that might be brought, he would assert, that it was morally impossible such labour should not have those injurious effects which called for the interference of the legislature. The noble and learned lord had himself said, that the bill, whether right or wrong as to circumstances, did nothing more than carry into effect a principle of the common law, and upon this admission of that noble and learned lord, he claimed their support of the bill. It was evidently not fitting that children should be worked to the extent which even the enemies of the present bill acknowledged them to be. The Earl of Lauderdale said, that if labour were regulated at all, reference should be had to the personal strength of each individual, and no general rule could be relied on. The employer was the person most likely to be acquainted with the different degrees of strength possessed by his workmen, and most likely to avoid overrating them, with a view to his own advantage. The inconsistency of the evidence already produced showed the necessity of hearing the petitioners. The Marquis of Lansdowne agreed that a great evil did exist in the excessive labour of the children, and that it would be proper to introduce some measure on the subject; but he was the more convinced that the petitioner's counsel and evidence ought to be heard, and that the House should not legislate in the dark. He did not, however, feel any apprehension on the ground of the mischief which it was alleged the measure would produce to trade, though it might alter the course of the manufacture; and this rendered it the more necessary to hear evidence on the subject. The question was put and carried. It was then agreed that counsel should be farther heard in a committee to-morrow. HOUSE OF COMMONS. BANK RESTRICTION CONTINUANCE BILL.] On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill, Mr. Finlay said, that after what had fallen from an hon. member (Mr. Gurney) last night, he could not suffer this bill to pass without taking some notice of the unfortunate prejudice to which that hon. member had lent his sanction, namely, that it was impossible to place our currency on its former footing. He was afraid, however, from what he saw, that it was not the intention of government ever to place it on that footing. From this course nothing but the most serious evils were to be apprehended. Without a metallic currency, nothing could happen to this country but what had happened to all other countries in a similar situation. He was aware, that there were some favourable circumstances in this country, which existed in no other-the publicity of the amount of the Bank of England notes in circulation, and the influence of public opinion as a corrective of abuse. But if once the opinion got footing, that our cir culation must depend on the amount of our taxation, which was boldly advanced by the hon. member last night, we could expect nothing but what had happened in every other country where such an opinion had been acted on. Let us look at what happened to France in the revolu tionary war-America during the American war-and what was now exemplified in Russia. It was known that Russia issued paper money according to its own wants; and the effects of this system were also well known. Unless we established the control of a metallic currency, we should be in precisely the same situation as Rus sia. Unless the House should resolve to continue no longer this unwholesome state of things, and should make up their minds at once to the inconvenience of a return to cash-payments, they would never get rid of the evil. It was absurd to think that the Bank would next year, or in any future year, be more able or more willing to return to cash-payments. He was the last man to say, that a return to cashpayments would not be attended with inconvenience: he would say, on the contrary, that it would be attended with a great deal of pressure and inconvenience; but he would say also, that it would be better to suffer this pressure and inconvenience now, than to go on in our present system from year to year, till we arrived at a state when every person in the country would be afraid to look our affairs in the face. On the principle of the hon. gentleman, it was absolutely necessary we should go on till we came to this state of things, but he did not see that we were yet come to that pass that to return was impossible. He would appeal to the good sense of the House-let them reflect that now or never they could return to a wholesome currency. If they went on longer upon this system, no man in the country would be able to look our affairs in the face. He was confident that as the inconvenience must be met some day, the earlier they met it the better. They must meet the evil, and they ought to meet it in a manly and fair manner at once, and not allow themselves to be abused longer with the farce which had been played off upon them. Mr. Hammersley knew of no opinion having ever been delivered in that House, but that we should, as soon as possible, return to a state of things in which paper should be convertible into gold. The Bank directors had pledged themselves to take measures for a return to cash-payments; and treasure, with that view, had been purchased by them. It was his firm belief, that at all times the Bank of England had been anxious to return to cash-payments. At this time agents from all the foreign houses were in this metropolis; and, if the restriction was not in operation, a great part of the loans to foreign powers would be made by means of our coin. Mr. Tierney, seeing an hon. secretary of the Treasury in his place, hoped, in the absence of the chancellor of the exchequer, he would be able to inform him, whether any and what steps were taken for paying the nine millions due by the public to the Bank of England. In an early part of the session, provision was made for six millions of that sum; but, with respect to the remaining three millions, he did not know of any provision for it. If this debt was paid to the Bank, that body would no longer have any justifiable cause for keeping up the issues to their present amount. If they were paid back these nine millions, they would stand in the face of the country with the most serious responsibility on them that ever men had. The excess would then be the act of the Bank, and not that of government. If the Bank should be paid, a reduction of their notes must take place; and if paid by this next Christmas, we should then be able to ascertain if the alarms entertained on this subject were well or ill founded. If the reduction took place gradually, though it would no doubt be attended with considerable effect, it would not produce that alarming effect which some gentlemen apprehended. It never was designed that the Bank should receive protection for the issue of a single note more, under a state of restriction, than if no restriction had taken place. It was only the wants of government during the war that gave rise to the restriction, and justified the issues of the Bank; but on the repayment of their advances there was an end to all pretences for excessive issues. From the hour of the repayment, a gradual reduction would take place. Mr. Lushington said, he could give the right hon. gentleman an answer which he trusted would be satisfactory. Preparations were making for the payment to the Bank, not only of the six millions, but also of the three millions, which had been mentioned; but the particular sums, and the periods when they were to be paid, were yet matters of consideration. As to what might be the conduct of the Bank when they should be repaid the whole of their debt, he should not then inquire; but he had no doubt it would be marked with that honour and integrity which had distinguished them on every occasion. Mr. Tierney was aware that some steps were taken to pay the six millions, for that sum had been already provided for, but he wanted to be informed how the three millions were to be paid, for no provision that he knew of had yet been made for paying them; and he did not suppose they were to be taken from funds voted for another purpose. L the House had continued what could only be considered a denial of justice. When any thing in the shape of reform was proposed on his side of the House, it was met by gentlemen on the other, with objections of various kinds. A standing one, that would serve against any useful change on any subject, was, that it was not the time. Now, as he should think no time unfit for reform, so he feared those gentlemen would think no time fit for it. When we were in prosperity it was said to be unnecessary when we were in distress it was said to be dangerous. Another objection was, that the advocates of reform did not agree as to ulterior measures. Now he conceived this was not peculiar to the present question. When the cabinet met to consider of new taxes, he had no doubt they were not unanimous as to the best imposition. When the House considered the poor laws, there was quite as much difference of opinion. The bills which were brought in, were even at variance with the principles of the report. The report proposed a radical cure, the bills, though produced with a sincere desire to do good, would, he feared, bring about no useful effect whatever. But if the advocates for reform felt a difficulty in agreeing to specific measures; they at least by that disagreement gave a test of the sincerity and honesty of their plans. Any modification, whether triennial or annual parliaments, open suffrage or ballot, would answer the same end, if they had meant reform as a covert way of attacking the fortress of the constitution. Another objection was, that the constitution was perfect, and that any change was ineligible. A constitution more perfect than ever issued from the constitution shops, from Plato down to the Abbé Sieyes, had arisen from accidents, and had constantly adapted itself to the succession of affairs, and that the result had been, that all orders in the state had been so nearly balanced, that they had been prevented from oppressing each other. But of all arguments against reform, the alarm of the French revolution was the most successful. But he begged those upon whom it operated, to look to the causes of that revolution. They would find that there was not one which had the slightest connexion with this country. The great cause of the mischiefs of the French revolution, was the total unfitness of the French nation at that time for the usages of a free constitution; to this should be added, the vacillat | ing nature of the king, who wished every thing that was benevolent, and yielded to every thing that was unworthy-the unbounded extravagance of the court, which no minister could supply, and which unsupplied, no minister could keep his place; the conduct and character of the duke of Orleans, who had been called the Monster Egalité, who had lavished his monstrous wealth for the worst purposes. But it was unfair to argue from reform to revolution. If they looked to the character of the people of England, if they traced their history through all their former revolutions, they would never find them inclined to anarchy. They were always afraid of going too far. They generally stopt short too soon. In the time of Charles the 1st, there was much blood shed in the field, but scarcely any on the scaffold, and the unhappy monarch himself would not have perished, had it not heen found that no party could trust him. In the Revolution which made way for that change of succession, which had placed the present family on the throne, not a drop of blood had been shed. The monarch was suffered to depart in safety, and none of his adherents would have suffered, but from their obstinacy in attempts against the new government. But if the revolution had been bloody, it remained to be proved that reform was revolution. The gentlemen on the other side had no objection to reform, or rather to changes in the constitution, which would increase their own power. Those only which might recover something for the people did they always oppose. The constitution required reform, and constant changes were necessarily to be made. If no changes were to take place it was to little purpose that the House met six months in every year, and the most complete subversion of the present system of government would be to determine, that no changes should be made by law. Time, by the immutable decree of heaven, was the great innovator, and without legal attempts to counteract its effects, it would gradually consume every human institution. One of the greatest obstacles to reform was corruption, and unfortunately the greater the corruption, and thence the necessity for reform-the greater the opposition to any remedy. The first act of the late empress Catharine, after the conquest of Poland was, to guarantee its constitution; that was, to declare that its parliament should never be reformed. |
