they did not attempt to find relief in con- | Long as was the period during which the spiracy or combination, but that thirty agitation existed which heralded this law, years ago, when the means of education notwithstanding it passed through a period among the working classes were more during which political ardour and party paslimited than at present-when the politi- sions occasionally produced, as they must cal instruction which pervaded that order ever in a free country produce, feelings of of society was less than it is now, they the greatest possible excitement-still, I still had confidence in the Parliament of will not say by a lucky accident, but rather a their country, and in an appeal to that happy providence, the factory question was Parliament sought relief from the suffer- never indissolubly connected with the forings which they experienced. Thirty years tunes of any political party. And when, have elapsed, according to the hon. Gen- in 1847, that important Act was passed, tleman the Member for Stockport, who it was proposed by a distinguished Memhas accurately reminded us of the dates; ber on this side of the House, it was corbut it was not until 1847 that you recog-dially supported by the Prime Minister of nised the authenticity of their convictions, the country, in opposition to the opinions and that a legislative enactment sanctioned of many of his political supporters, and it the instincts of the working community. I am not surprised that so great an interval should have occurred between the expression of the popular will and the act of the Legislature; for the Legislature has been at all times unwilling to interfere with regard to labour, and statesmen and senates have been appalled at the idea of placing any check on the powers of production. I can, therefore, Sir, easily understand that it was only after much deliberation-after anxious doubts and hesitation-after a thorough acquaintance with the wants and feelings of the population, that the Parliament of this country sanctioned the principle which the working people of this country had long desired to see embodied in the law. We all remember the predictions which were made at the time of the legislative interference with regard to children. It was acknowledged to be a great experiment. Has it failed? One would suppose, from the position in which we are now placed, that, although we might then have been justified in the course we took, yet that experience had convinced the House of Commons and the country that they committed a great error. But there is something yet more strange. It is, Sir, at a moment when the class with which that labouring population is immediately connected, is, according to its own account, most prosperous-at a time when, as they state, the condition of the operatives is morally and physically so much improved that we are called upon to retrace our steps-to annul our previous legislation-in short, to admit that the law was a mistake, at a moment when it is proclaimed that its consequences have been most successful. Now there is one circumstance connected with this question which particularly demands the attention of Parliament.

was passed, if not with the concurrence of all parties, in a manner which convinced the people of this country generally that it was the result of an unimpassioned belief, and not of any party combination. Well, this Act having been, as it is admitted, most successful, proved by experience that its consequences have been concomitant with the greatest commercial prosperity, with not only the maintenance, but the increase of wages amongst the labouring classes, with not only the maintenance, but the increase of exported commodities to those markets where we have been told the demand for those commodities would be most materially injured by the adoption of the law, without any complaint against the action of this law, by a strange combination of circumstances we are now called on to give a verdict on its character. What I want to know is this-what is the reason that, after so prolonged an agitation, and after such an elaborate and calm discussion, Parliament three years ago having passed the Ten Hours Act; we should now, in 1850, be called upon to repeal and abrogate it? If, indeed, the consequences that were predicted from the passing of this Act had occurred, I could understand our position. If the hon. Members for Manchester and the great towns of the north were to come forward and say that their mills were stopped because they could no longer afford to export to those foreign markets, which they have always said were their most important markets-if they came forward and said that the working classes were now discontented with the Bill, by reason of the want of employment and diminished wages to which they were subject-if they came forward and gave so gloomy a picture of the state of society in which they mix, and of which many of

them are the leaders, I can comprehend, | quences of that agitation, and the legisla.. not that we should hastily, precipitately, tion which followed-not on the merits of without due cause, repeal the law which the case--but by acts which an attorney we had enacted-but I could understand why this House should seriously, calmly, and specially examine their complaints; and if you were convinced that this law was the cause of their adversity, you should not be ashamed to repeal that which you have already passed. I can equally understand that, under such circumstances, the Minister of this country would be only doing his duty if he came forward and confessed an error of judgment, when, in 1847, he had lent the high sanction of his justly great name to this law. But are we in this position-have any of these circumstances occurred? Not the least of them. Night after night, whenever a fitting opportunity happens, Gentlemen opposite, who are connected with the Ministry, tell us that this country was never in such a flourishing condition. Night after night Gentlemen who represent the great towns of the north re-echo their assertions. Night after night we are assured that the working classes are in the enjoyment of a higher rate of wages, and have a greater command over the necessaries of life than they have enjoyed at any former period. Were not these tests of our manufacturing prosperity so many proofs of the wisdom of the Legislature? You are agreed in the good fortune and the avowed content of the working classes under the legislation which exists. On what principle, then, do you come forward and ask us to repeal this important statute? But you do not come boldly forward and ask us to repeal it. You cannot say that you are damaged you cannot say that the working classes are injured by the effect of this law. It is not on any ground so broad, upon any principle so clear, that you ask us to act. No, but you take advantage of a nisi prius exception to a statute. Legislating on what should influence the fruits of a great industry, and the reward of a great working community, instead of coming forward with some intelligible principle, you take advantage of a flaw in an Act of Parliament, and are about to deprive the people of the consequences of an agitation of thirty years-of an Act of Parliament which they struggled for, which was ratified by the concurrence of the great parties of the State, and sealed by the approbation of the Prime Minister. You are about to rifle the people of this country of the conseVOL. CXI. [THIRD SERIES.]

would despise. The noble Lord who has
just addressed us, says that it is not the
Government who are dissatisfied, it is not
the Government who wish to disturb the
Act of 1847. It is the Member for Bath
(Lord Ashley) who wishes to disturb the
arrangement of 1847. But what the noble
Lord the Member for Bath wanted was,
not that you should interfere with the Act
of 1847, but that you should remedy the
Act of 1844. That which the factory
workers look upon as sacred is the Act of
1847. I strip the question of all hair
splittings. The working classes of this
country imagine that, when they gained
the Act of 1847, they succeeded in re-
stricting the hours of their labour to ten
hours a day. When you tell them, in
consequence of an Act which passed in
1844, they are virtually to be deprived
of the fruits of their labours, exemplified
in the Act of 1847, you enter into a my-
stification which they cannot comprehend,
and which, as clearsighted men, they
do not wish to understand, and they ask
you, will you stand to the Act of 1847?
If you do so, amend the Act of 1844;
but if you resolve otherwise-if you re-
solve to deprive them of the fruits of
their labours, let me tell you that, while
you do not satisfy their reasons, you may
lose the allegiance of their hearts.
does not appear to me that the ground
taken by the First Minister of the Crown
is one which can be admitted into this
discussion. I entirely deny the correct-
ness of the position which he takes up.
I think we have nothing whatever to do
with the economical considerations involved
in the consideration of this question. They
have been discussed in this House, and out
of this House. The result to which Par-
liament arrived may be erroneous, but,
morally, we have no right to re-enter that
domain of argument. It may have been
most unwise and impolitic-it is not my
opinion that it was unwise or impolitic-to
have passed the law of 1847. We are not
here now to discuss whether the tendency
of our legislation is to check, or not to
check, the power of production. It is a
moral and not an economical question,
which we are now called upon to decide.
I agree with the hon. Member for North
Warwickshire that in this question what
is concerned is the honour of the Parlia-
ment of England. I implore the House

2 T

It

Duke, Sir J.
Duncan, Visct.
Dundas, Adm.
Ebrington, Visct.
Egerton, W. T.
Ellis, J.
Elliot, hon. J. E.

Enfield, Visct.
Evans, J.
Evans, W.
Ewart, W.
Fagan, W.
FitzPatrick,rt. hn.J.W.
Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Foley, J. II. H.
Fordyce, A. D.
Forster, M.
Fortescue, C.
Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.
Freestun, Col.
Gladstone, rt.hon. W. E.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Grace, O. D. J.

to consider what is contained in those mo- | Devereux, J. T.
mentous words. If it is the greatest ca-
lamity which can befall an individual to
encounter a slur upon his faith-if, under
the merited consciousness of such an im-
putation, his energy withered, and his in-
fluence vanished, do you think that the
same fearful consequences are not at-
tendant on a perfidious Parliament, or a
treacherous nation? The voice of out-
raged faith is no respecter of persons.
Its cry cannot be stifled; it will penetrate
the Senate, and reach the Throne. We
have always acknowledged that the most
important elements of Government were its
moral influences. The reason that the
Government of this country is more power-
ful than other Governments is, because the
moral influences are those which predo-
minate. What you have to decide to-night
is, whether you will taint this fountain of
security, whether you can govern millions
of freemen, except upon the principles of
justice, benevolence, and truth. I ask
you, the House of Commons, you
who are
always so prompt on all occasions to main-
tain faith with the public creditor at all
costs, and to vindicate the honour of the
country with foreign nations at all hazards,
whether you are prepared, by opposing the
Motion of my noble Friend the Member
for Colchester, to make an exception in
the brightness of your course, and, above
all, to make that exception against the
trusting and trustworthy working classes
of the community?

Question put, "That the words proposed
to be left out stand part of the Bill.'
The House divided:-Ayes 181; Noes
142 Majority 39.

Greene, J.
Grenfell, C. P.
Grenfell, C. W.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.
Grey, R. W.
Hall, Sir B.
Hanmer, Sir J.
Hardcastle, J. A.
Harris, R.
Hastie, A.
Hatchell, J.
Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.
Hawes, B.
Headlam, T. E.
Heathcote, G. J.
Heneage, G. H. W.
Heywood, J.
Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J. Somerville,rt.hon.SirW.
Heyworth, L.
Hobhouse, T. B.
Hodges, T. L.
Howard, Lord E.

Seymour, Lord
Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Simeon, J.

Smith, J. A.

Smith, M. T.

Smith, J. B.

Somers, J. P.

Spearman, H. J.

Stansfield, W. R. C.
Stanton, W. H.

Howard, hon. C. W. G. Stuart, Lord D.
Hughes, W. B.
Hume, J.
Humphery, Ald.
Hutchins, E. J.

Ilutt, W.

Jermyn, Earl

Thicknesse, R. A.

Towneley, J.

Townshend, Capt.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Talbot, J. H.

Tenison, E. K.

Thornely, T.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Adair, R. A. S.

Townley, R. G.

Alcock, T.

Anson, hon. Col.

Traill, G.

Carter, J. B.

Tufnell, II.

Earl of

Cavendish, W. G.

Langston, J. H.

Verney, Sir H.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Villiers, Viset.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Clay, J.

Baring, H. B.

Clay, Sir W.

Thompson, Col.
Thompson, G.
Thornhill, G.
Tollemache, J.
Trevor, hon. G. R,
Trollope, Sir J.
Turner, G. J.
Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Villiers, hon. F. W. C.
Waddington, H. S.
Wakley, T.
Walmsley, Sir J.
Welby, G. E.
Williams, J.
Willoughby, Sir H.
Wynn, Sir W. W.
Yorke, hon. E. T.

METROPOLITAN INTERMENTS BILL.
Order for Committee read.

Clauses from 54 to 63 were agreed to,
Clause 64.

MR. LAW HODGES begged to substi tute the following:

"And be it enacted, that the said board shall from time to time be assessed or rated to all county, parochial, or other local rates, for or in respect of any burial ground provided under this Act, and any building or place of burial therein, or other lands acquired by them for the purposes of this Act, in such and the same proportion as, but not at any higher value or improved rate than other lands lying near or adjacent thereto, are or shall, for the time being, be rated at, and as the lands to be so required and taken by the said board, would have been assessable or rateable in case the same lands had continued in their former state, and had not been acquired and used by the said board for the purposes of this Act."

SIR G. GREY had no objection to the provisions, as he found they were inserted in most Cemetery Acts.

Clause agreed to.

The remaining Clauses agreed to, as were also the schedules.

MR. LACY rose, pursuant to notice, to move the addition of three clauses: the first, giving power to overseers to charge in their accounts the costs they may incur for the conveyance of the corpses of paupers dying within their parishes to any cemetery appointed under this Act. The second gave power to the Board of Health to enter into any contract with any railway company for the carrying out of corpses in properly constructed carriages to cemeteries; and the third giving power to directors of railway companies to make such contracts, and making the contracts binding on future directors.

MR. BAINES said, he would effect the object of the first clause, by introducing a few words on the bringing up of the report.

LORD D. STUART said, he wished to make an attempt to obtain from Government information as to the mode intended to be adopted for the removal of corpses. If they allowed corpses to be carried by water they might propagate disease and contagion, for it had been observed that the cholera and infectious diseases followed the courses of rivers. He hoped Government would state the general mode to be followed of removing bodies from the metropolis. He suggested that the duty on horses should not be charged in respect of horses used by undertakers.

SIR G. GREY said, he could give no

SIR G. GREY thought it unreasonable to expect that the Bill could be carried into effect without the assistance of another paid officer, there being at present only one.

opinion as to the post-horse duty. With | Members could draw their own conclusions regard to the question of his noble Friend, from that circumstance. the conveyance of the corpses would be included in the contract; but he could not say whether the corpses would be all carried by water. There was at present no prescribed mode. He had no doubt that the clause proposed would facilitate the cheap carriage of bodies to the cemeteries, and he felt no objection to it or the similar clause moved by the hon. Member.

MR. D'EYNCOURT asked whether it was intended to have one large cemetery for London, or several ?

SIR G. GREY said, it would be clearly impossible to have one cemetery for the whole of the metropolis. As yet there had been no selection of cemeteries. It was an open question to be dec ded by the board when constituted, but it was understood that the existing cemeteries would be made available for the purposes of the Act as far as possible.

COLONEL SIBTHORP said, he wished to know whether there was to be a separate cemetery for Her Majesty's Government; and if that cemetery was to be paid for out of the public purse?

Clause agreed to.

MR. LAW HODGES proposed a clause authorising the board to pay compensation to owners and occupiers of land near or adjoining to lands taken, in the manner provided by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL objected to the clause, as, if it were adopted, owners at a distance from the lands taken might consider themselves aggrieved, and demand compensation.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be read the First Time.'

The Committee divided: - Ayes 19; Noes 180: Majority 161.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL moved the following Clause :

MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEY said, that the taxpayers would not like the additional burden thrown upon them by the Bill. He should move that the salary be only 1,0007. a year.

LORD ASHLEY assured the Committee that the charge made against the Government of seeking patronage under this Bill was unfounded. The proposition which the Board of Health originally submitted to the Government was, that a distinct Commission to consist of four paid members, should be established. The Government said, they were unwilling to extend the number of paid Commissioners, and expressed a hope that the Board of Health, with some assistance, would be able to discharge the functions the Bill would impose upon them. An idea, he understood, prevailed, that the office of paid member of the board was destined for him. notion was completely unfounded. It was his happiness to have served the public without remuneration, and it was his intention to continue in that course so long as he was allowed to do so. His experience of the working of the board satisfied him that additional assistance was necessary. It was impossible the board could go on with its present staff, even if no additional duties should be thrown upon it.

The

MAJOR BERESFORD did not dispute the necessity of appointing another paid member to the board; he merely objected to the amount of salary proposed to be given him.

COLONEL SIBTHORP said, that a salary of 1,000l. was enough, and more than enough, in these times.

LORD J. RUSSELL said, he could not "And be it enacted, that the salary of the addi-state who was to fill the office, because he tional member of such board, to be appointed and fixed as aforesaid, shall not exceed the annual sum of 1,5007., and shall be defrayed out of the fees and sums received by the said board under

this Act."

MAJOR BERESFORD thought 1,2007. a sufficient salary for the new officer.

SIR B. HALL believed that the office was to be created only for the purpose of placing patronage at the disposal of the Government. Ministers had been asked repeatedly who was to fill the office, but had never answered the question. Hon.

did not at present know. As to the salary, he would not object to fix it at the sum suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for North Essex-namely, 1,2001.

VISCOUNT GALWAY thought the House ought to act consistently with respect to salaries. It had recently been determined that a dean should receive no more than 1,000l. a year. Surely that which we thought enough for a dean ought to satisfy a member of the Board of Health.

COLONEL SIBTHORP would support the