bound, in some shape or other, to afford assistance to those classes who were reduced to destitution by the change. The case of the hand-loom weavers, working with inferior machinery, was precisely analogous to that of those who worked with the inferior machinery called bad land. When a free trade in corn was demanded, the answer was, all those who were employed upon inferior land would be plunged fore protect the inferior machine called bad land. The power-loom acted upon the handloom weavers just as a free trade in corn would act upon the cultivators of bad land. Would not the Legislature deal out equal justice to all classes? Would it deny to the hand-loom weaver that inquiry into the causes of his distress which it had so repeatedly granted to the landed proprietor and the farmer? He trusted that equal justice would be done, and that this inquiry would be granted. He would trouble the House with one other observation. The working classes were not directly represented. In what way were they to be reconciled to this exclusion, and prevented from desiring more extensively organic changes? Only by that House acting on the principles of impartial justice, and legislating for the working classes in the same spirit in which they would be legislated for, if they themselves held the elective franchise. Now, it could not admit of doubt, that were the working classes directly represented in that House, the inquiry now prayed for would be immediately granted. The House, as at present constituted, should not hesitate to do the same. This was the way to give satisfaction, and to attach the people to the existing order of things. For these reasons he should support the Motion of his hon. friend, and vote for the appointment of the Committee. were an unfounded expectation (and he was not prepared to say it was not unfounded), the only means by which the truth could be ascertained, and the delusion dispelled, was to inquire into the facts of the case. The hand-loom weavers were a very intelligent body, and would urge no claim that could be shown to be unreasonable or mischievous. He could state from his own personal acquaintance with them, that they possessed a very surprising degree of know-in distress, and the Legislature must thereledge, and scientific knowledge too, upon the principles of commercial policy, and they would not press any demand the granting of which could be shown to be injurious to the permanent trade and prosperity of the country. He did not think that local Boards of Trade were calculated to remove the distress under which the hand-loom weavers suffered. On this point, his opinion did not vary very much from that of the right hon. Gentleman; but the difference between them was this:The right hon. Gentleman, having formed an opinion that local Boards would prove abortive and pernicious, seemed to close his mind against further information. He, on the contrary, was for receiving further information, and for inquiring into all the facts, and examining all the arguments which the weavers had to advance in support of their case. He was open to conviction. If the opinion he now entertained were shown to be erroneous, he was perfectly ready to relinquish it, and he was confident, that in a Committee of Inquiry he should either be convinced of his own error, or be able to convince the petitioners of theirs. The truth would be established either on one side or on the other. But it was stated by those who had prejudged the question, and were determined to hear no further evidence, "Boards of Trade cannot by possibility relieve the distress; what good, therefore, can result from the Committee?" He would reply, this good would result-the people would be satisfied. If the result of the inquiry should prove, that Boards of Trade could not relieve the distress, the sufferers would at least feel that justice was not denied them, and that their sufferings did not arise from the neglect of the Legislature. Even on the supposition that the Legislature could afford no relief, the inquiry would be attended by these advantages. But he denied that the Legislature could not afford relief. When the introduction of new machinery increased production and augmented the wealth of the country, the country was Mr. O'Reilly thought, that the House should grant an inquiry for the satisfaction and contentment of those suffering and patient people. Viscount Palmerston would oppose the Motion for the reasons stated by his right hon. friend, the President of the Board of Trade. He was as conscious as any hon. Member of the distress which existed amongst the petitioners-he was as anxious that a full and satisfactory inquiry should be instituted into the pressure under which they were labouring; but surely it would be impossible to institute such an inquiry with any advantage at this advanced period of the Session. He thought it would be far better for the petitioners to defer this subject until the general and comprehensive Committee of Inquiry, to which his right hon. friend had referred, was appointed next Session, and which would be a more satisfactory one for all purposes. He trusted, that the description which the hon. member for Oldham had given of the distressed condition of Paisley was exaggerated, and that there were not streets there in which a knife and fork were not to be found. That hon. Member's remedy for the distress of those manufacturers was to send them all to the infernal regions. [Mr. Cobbett.-No, no; I said the trade, not the manufacturers.] Well, if the hon. Member was for sending the trade to the infernal regions, he might as well send the manufacturers after it, as that would shorten the sufferings they would have to endure in the way to their destination. The hon. member for Oldham was, by way of relieving the manufacturers, for sending the manufactures out of the country altogether. He rather thought that the petitioners, and those hon. Members who supported the Motion, would not accept of a Committee on such terms. In his opinion, the interests of the petitioners, as well as of the manufacturing classes generally, would be most beneficially consulted by reserving all inquiry for the general Committee that would be appointed next Session. Mr. Hardy said, that if there happened to be, and it was probable there were, any hand-loom weavers in the gallery while the noble Lord was speaking, they might well say "It may be sport to you, but it is death to us." When they had petitions from this class of manufacturers complaining of distress, both in Scotland and England, he thought that it became the duty of Government to grant inquiry. He would implore the Government to grant the inquiry which was now sought, and which would be calculated to remove much of the delusion under which the people laboured. After the evidence had been heard, it would open some means for the adoption of the House to relieve these petitioners from their present state of overwhelming distress. He would vote for the Committee of Inquiry, even though it should push the duration of the Session beyond the usual limits. He could not agree in the opinion expressed by the hon. and gallant member for Bolton, that the labouring classes were unrepresented in that House; for he was sure, that the majority of the House was anxious to do justice to that portion of the subjects of the realm (he meant the labouring population) which was the main strength and support of the nation. Mr. Pryme thought the establishment of Local Boards of Trade would only increase the evils to which the hand-loom weavers were at present exposed, for he understood one of the objects of these Boards would be to raise wages, by doing which the expenses of manufacture would be increased, and consequently any trade which still remained to these petitioners would leave them and be carried to a cheaper market of manufacture, Another strong argument against the present Motion was the late period of the Session, which precluded the possibility of entering with any chance of utility upon an inquiry so extensive as that sought would necessarily be. Believing, also, that the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, would, as he had stated, institute an inquiry next Session, not only into this, but other important commercial subjects, he should vote against the Motion for the appointment now of a Committee. Mr. Lloyd deprecated any endeavour to enter upon so important and intricate an inquiry at this late period of the Session. Indeed, it would be hopeless to expect, that such an inquiry could be treated with the attention which it deserved between this and the breaking up of Parliament; and, therefore, although he agreed that inquiry should take place, if it were only to convince the petitioners of the fallacy of their views, he should vote against the present Motion, on the understanding that the subject was to be brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, early in the next Session. Mr. Bolling thought they should agree to the Motion if it were only to satisfy the petitioners and the labouring classes generally, that the Members of that House would not turn their backs on men who adopted a constitutional and proper means of complaining of the grievances which they laboured under. Mr. Fielden admitted, that distress existed among the operatives in several parts of the country, but he denied that this distress had been occasioned by the powerlooms. Much of the distress that prevailed in particular places arose from an unequal distribution of trade; and, instead of laying it to the account of foreign competition, it was almost solely the result of the compe tition at home. Now, a Board of Trade Iwould rectify this evil; it would confer equal advantages on the master as on the man; and, this being his opinion, he certainly should give his support to the proposition for the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry. Mr. George Wood, although persuaded that the inquiry, even if acceded to, would not afford the relief which the petitioners seemed to expect from it, yet, thinking that the grievances complained of by this class of persons ought not to be passed over without inquiry, he should give his vote for the appointment of a Committee. These petitioners alleged that they were suffering great distress, and surely it was incumbent on the Legislature to ascertain whether their complaints were well founded or not. It was on this ground that he should vote for inquiry now rather than wait for the ensuing Session. The Committee was appointed. COUNTY CORONERS' BILL.] On the Motion of Mr. Cripps, the County Coroners' Bill was recommitted. On Clause 6th being proposed, which increases the allowance for an inquest to 30s., and the mileage to 1s. 6d. per mile. Colonel Davies opposed the clause. There was no occasion for any increase in the allowances, as under the present system there were plenty of candidates for the office of Coroner. Sir George Strickland attached great importance to the due support of the office of Coroner, and said, that for many years it had been felt that the remuneration was insufficient. Many years ago, a Bill had passed that House to give a much larger remuneration than was proposed by this Bill. The clause had his cordial support, as absolutely necessary, in order to secure the services of just and proper men. Mr. Hutt said, that no man could be more desirous than he was, to inquire into Mr. Cripps said, the Bill was based on the distresses of the labouring classes; but, the evidence of highly respectable witnesses believing that the present Motion, even if examined before a Committee. Many readopted, could not lead to any advantage-spectable Coroners declared they would ous results, he should vote with the Go vernment. Mr. Richards said, that it was a mere delusion to imagine even that the use of machinery could be dispensed with. If an attempt to do without it were made in this country would it not still be resorted to by the foreign manufacturer? And, that being the case, how was it possible, if it were desired to compete with the manufacturer of other nations, for the home manufacturer to refrain from employing machinery? It could not be done; it was altogether impracticable. But, notwithstanding that was the case, they were bound to show that they sympathised with the labouring classes, by granting an inquiry with a view to explain to them how just the principles were on which the present system was based. Such an inquiry, he was satisfied, could only produce a happy effect, and, therefore, he should vote for the Committee. Mr. Dunlop objected to the Motion for the Committee only because he feared at that late period of the Session it could lead to no practical result. Mr. Maxwell briefly replied. It was incumbent on them, if they would not lose the confidence of the people altogether, to grant their request, and inquire into their complaints. The House divided: Ayes 70; Noes 42 -Majority 28. resign, if the salary were not increased. The Committee divided: Ayes 68; Noes 47-Majority 21. On the Clause allowing Coroners 1s. 6d. travelling expenses, or mileage, Colonel Davies proposed, that the blank of the clause should be filled up by 9d. per mile. The Committee again divided: Ayes 87; Noes 51-Majority 36. Colonel Davies then proposed that the blank should be filled up by 1s. a mile. The Committee divided on the original Question: Ayes 79; Noes 55-Majority 24. Mr Brotherton proposed the insertion of 1s. 3d. per mile. The Committee again divided on the original Question: Ayes 75; Noes 53Majority 22. The Clause, allowing of 1s. 6d. per mile, agreed to. The other Clauses were agreed to, and the House resumed. JEWISH DISABILITIES.] Mr. Robert Grant moved, that the Jewish Civil Disabilities Bill be read a third time. Mr. Shaw thought that the right hon. Gentleman had done sufficient in presenting a petition in favour of the Bill without proceeding with it to-night. The right hon. Gentleman must be fully aware that at that late hour many hon. Gentlemen were absent who were opposed to the Bill. He knew that the hon. Baronet, the member for the University of Oxford, was anxious to state his objections to it. Mr. Robert Grant said, that he was in the hands of the House, but was most anxious to go on. He had stated to the hon. member for the University of Oxford that he could not consent to postpone the third reading of the Bill. Ample opportunity had been afforded for discussing it, and he did not recollect any measure of importance having gone through the House with so little opposition. ROMAN CATHOLIC MARRIAGES (SCOTLAND).] The Earl of Rosebery said, it was not necessary for him to trouble their Lordships with many observations in moving the second reading of the Bill for regulating Roman Catholic Marriages in Scotland. He need not inform their Lordships, that marriages might be contracted in Scotland without the intervention of a clergyman. It was only necessary that the parties should acknowledge themselves as man and wife before witnesses, or even by letter. In the reigns of Charles 2nd, and of William and Mary, Acts were passed for the purpose of imMr. Hume put it to the hon. and learned peding clandestine marriages, which imMember (Mr. Shaw) whether it was prob- posed punishment on such dissenting miable, after the discussions that had taken nisters as solemnised them. These Acts place, that there was any probability of were, however, evaded by the parties apoffering anything like a successful opposi-pearing before individuals not ministers, tion to the Bill. Mr. Cumming Bruce had always been opposed to a Bill of this nature, and had divided the House upon it more than once. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman was acting unfairly in persisting in the third reading at that late hour. He (Mr. Bruce) thought the Bill of so much importance that he would put in practice the mode of proceeding suggested by the hon. member for Middlesex on another Bill in the early part of the evening, and persist in dividing the House on the Question. The hon. Member moved, that the House do adjourn. The House divided: Ayes 14; Noes 50 -Majority 36. who were willing to officiate, and who were generally persons of the lowest and most depraved description. The penalties as respected them were wholly nugatory; but, under those Acts, very respectable persons-namely Dissenting ministersmight be severely punished. The object of the present Bill was not merely to remove the hardship under which these individuals laboured at present, but also to check those secret, improper, and indecorous marriages which now took place. Many persons did not wish to be married according to the forms of the Established Church, and the Bill was framed to give them a right to have the ceremony performed by the clergyman of the congregation, or of the communion to which they belonged, rather than that they should have recourse to such low and profligate instruments as he had before alluded to. The situation of Roman Catholics, as the law now stood, was particularly hard. Persons of that persuasion looked upon marriage as a sacrament, and they were prevented from having a clergyman of their own faith to perform the ceremony. By the present Bill the grievance complained of by them would be removed. His Lordship concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill. Viscount Melville did not mean to oppose the second reading of the Bill. He thought, however, that the word "clergyman" which had no specific meaning in Scotland, should be altered. With respect to the marriage by a Roman Catholic priest of persons professing different religions, it was a subject which required deliberate consideration. He should make only one other remark. The preamble of the Bill recited four different Acts, which it was said, ought to be altered and amended; but their Lordships would hardly believe, that one of these Acts had been repealed 140, and the other 120 years ago? The Earl of Rosebery said, it was his intention in the Committee to propose an alteration of the word "clergyman" to "priest." He should willingly listen to any suggestion of his noble friend with respect to the solemnization of marriages by Roman Catholic priests. As to the third point to which his noble friend had referred, he could only say, that the Bill had been framed by an individual who, he believed, was as well acquainted with the law of Scotland as his noble friend. The Bill read a second time. POOR-LAWS' AMENDMENT-COMMITTEE. The House, at the forenoon sitting, again went into a Committee for the further consideration of the Poor-laws Amendment Bill. On Clause 45 being put, Mr. Cobbett proposed the following Amendment:-" Provided always, that no regulation be made by which husbands shall be separated from wives, children from their parents, and parents from their children; or for shaving the hair off paupers; or compelling such as seek relief in the workhouses to wear badges, or put distinctive dresses on." If the House, he maintained, did not affirm his Motion, it would tacitly approve the principle which was meant to be negatived by it. It might be said, in answer to this observation, that no such thing as his Motion went to provide against would ever be practised, and that, therefore, there was no necessity for it. Why then, he asked, not say such things should not be, if the intention to put them into execution were not the object? It VOL. XXIV. Third Series was, however, impossible not to believe that some such object was in view; and also impossible not to believe, that the Commissioners, by first denying relief to the able-bodied, except in workhouses, and then making workhouses irksome to them by every means in their power, intended to destroy the system of relief altogether. 1 That the relief of the poor was not the most expensive item in the burthens of the country he had long believed; a letter which he had this morning from the township and parish of Little Bolton, in Lancashire, confirmed him in that belief. In that letter it was stated, that the annual parochial assessment for the poor was 1,450l., of which 7451. only went to their relief; the remaining 7051. being expended on the payment of overseers for collection, and on Session fees for various kinds of litigation. It was the general taxation of the country which caused the general distress, and not the pressure of the Poor-law, with all its evils and abuses. The hon. member for Lambeth had propounded, with the gravity of an oracle, that the poor had no specific right to relief. Now, he (Mr. Cobbett) was prepared to prove, on the contrary, that every man in England and Wales standing in need of parochial relief had a clear legal right to it; that that relief, moreover, should be assessed on the real property of the kingdom; and that every woman and child of these two countries, so circumstanced, had as good a right to relief as men. He would, moreover, prove that such was the common law of the land, and the condition on which every holder of real property held his tenure. He insisted further, that to pass any law to abrogate, to nullify, or to lessen this right of the poor was a violation of the contract upon which all the real property of the kingdom was held. He was ready to maintain, that this was the law of the land. But the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said, that he did not mean to deny relief to the poor. No, he did not, he had not the honesty, the sincerity, the manliness, to deny relief directly. But he put the power of denying it into the hands of his three red herrings stuck up in London. In the whole of this Bill he (Mr. Cobbett) saw a design to grind down the people of England, and to take away their right of relief. The people of England had this right before the Reformation. The great and small tithes had always been the first |