putting cruelty aside, it was a monstrous thing that the female sex should continue to be so employed. With respect to the age of children, a clergyman had stated to him, unwillingly but conscientiously, that he feared the peculiar bend in the back, and other physical capabilities requisite for the employment, could not be obtained if children were initiated at a later age than twelve.

Sir James Graham expressed a general concurrence in the principle of the measure, reserving his opinion on some points of detail, but promising that Government would lend Lord Ashley every assistance in carrying on his measure. The same hearty concurrence was manifested in all quarters of the House; by Mr. Hume, Mr. Stuart Wortley, Mr. Turner, Mr. Ward, Mr. Protheroe, Mr. Brotherton, Mr. Pakington, and Sir R. H. Inglis, and leave was unanimously given to bring in the Bill. The Bill having been brought in, passed rapidly through its several stages, and underwent no material alteration in Committee. On the third read ing being proposed, some discussion took place, and symptoms of hostility were manifested in certain quarters. Mr. Ainsworth said, it would throw thousands of children out of employ, and, in Scotland, widows and children would b driven to the Kirk sessions for relief. He insisted that the report of the Commissioners was highly coloured, and he read extracts from the evidence of medical gentlemen to show that, in the coal districts, the children were healthy and well clothed. Hitherto the colliers had not engaged in any political squabbles, but as a county magistrate he would not be

answerable for the peace of the country if the Bill passed. Mr. C. Villiers said, the report was in many respects partial and inaccurate, and the Bill would deprive many children of a livelihood; and therefore he was glad that it would yet undergo discussion in another place. Mr. M. Attwood expressed similar opinions. Mr. Brotherton thought there could be no impropriety in legislating without delay to prevent the employment of children of no more than four, five, or six years of age, for twelve or fourteen hours a-day at the bottom of mines and collieries. Viscount Palmerston said, he hoped the measure would pass into a law, without any alteration that might affect its principle; and he was convinced it would pass, if it received the cordial and sincere support of the Government in the House of Lords. The Bill then passed amidst loud cheers.

Before the measure came under discussion in the Upper House, it was announced by Lord Wharncliffe, that the Government had determined to be perfectly passive respecting it: the individual Members of the Government would of course take what part they thought proper in the progress of the Bill.

The second reading was moved by the Earl of Devon. He entered into a general vindication of the measure; contending that, without any evidence at all, the House would be justified on the obvious principles of humanity at least to prevent the employment of women in the places described. Having quoted some parts of the Commissioners' Report, the Earl explained the alterations which it had been thought advisable to make in the Bill. The principal were, the postponement of the

time at which the employment of females in the mines should cease until the 1st of March next, allowing nine months instead of six; the abandonment of the clause for regulating the hours during which children should be employed; and the restricting the term of apprenticeship in any mine or colliery to eight years instead of a total prohibition; no boy to be apprenticed under ten years of age.

Lord Hatherton concurred so entirely in the proposed alteration that he declined to proceed with a motion of which he had given notice for a Select Committee to inquire into the probable effect of the Bill. The clause to compel the employment of boys on alternate days only would have prevented his acceding to the Bill. It was notorious at present, that when trade was bad the mines were not worked more than two or three days in a week; and when trade was good the wages of the colliers became high, and they would not work more than two or three days in the week; so that the employing the boys on alternate days would be attended with the greatest confusion, if it were not impossible.

The Earl of Radnor objected to all legislative interference with the labour market.

The Earl of Galloway supported the Bill, taunting the Government with lukewarmness, after Sir J. Graham's promise of support in the other House.

The Duke of Wellington objected that the evidence of the Sub-Commissioners had not been taken on oath; but he desired to vote for a Bill to remedy the evils which appeared on the face of the report; and he should consider the details in committee;

The Marquess of Londonderry contended at some length, that no faith could safely be placed in the statements of the report. He thought that if female labour were excluded from the mines, great numbers would be deprived of all means of subsistence; and that boys were as fit for the work required at eight years of age as at ten. He moved, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

Lord Wharncliffe, though he should support the measure as it was now modified, could not but think that the House of Commons had passed the Bill in too hurried a manner, without taking due time for consideration, and allowing that inquiry which justice to all parties concerned in the subject required. He thought it had not been satisfactorily proved, that it was desirable to exclude, in all cases, grownup women from these employments. However, notwithstanding some objections of detail which he entertained, he should support the second reading; and he believed every Member of the Government would do the same.

After a few words from the Duke of Buccleugh and the Earl of Mountcashel, the Bill was read a second time; the Amendment of Lord Londonderry, finding no one to second it, fell to the ground.

Previously to going into Committee on the Bill, Lord Brougham, in a speech of considerable length, delivered a caution to the House against the evils of too much legislation:

66

Nothing, he thought, as a general principle, should be done by means of legislation to carry out of their usual channels, out of those channels into which they would naturally flow-capital and

labour. He did not say that there were no exceptions to this rule. If any kind of employment amount ed to an offence, to a crime, as in the case of the Slave-trade-then it became the duty of the Legislature to interfere. Again, if any species of employment, which was not actually criminal, was yet immoral in its nature, or if it had a tendency to produce immorality, it was also the duty of the lawgiver to interfere, and to prohibit its existence; but everything in that case depended upon degree-upon whether that tendency was certain, direct, and immediate, or not; and upon these grounds he was disposed to support that part of this Bill relating to the employment of female children."

"With reference to the effect of trades on health, it was the lot by which men lived, that they should earn their bread not only by the sweat of their brow, but by the wear and tear of their constitutions, as in the case of white paint and lead-workers, and in trades using braziery and steel-filings; and, if it were admitted that the Legislature could not or should not interfere in such cases, then he averred, that a certain inference followed, which could not be escaped that to a certain degree young persons must be allowed to enter into these employmentswhich could only be properly learned by commencing at an early age. Colliers, however, were not the only parents whose conduct to their children was extremely to be lamented. It was bad, it was lamentable, to see young children carried to the mines, and there made to crawl through damp caverns, to crawl and work for a greater number of hours than their strength permitted, and then to

be sent home in a state of mental and bodily exhaustion, fit for nothing but sleep: but this, bad as it might be, was not much worse than the cautious provision which was made by some parents, in order to stunt the growth of their children, to prevent them from attaining a certain stature, and the due proportion of their strength, lest they should also attain a certain height. This was done that they might be exhibited at a certain small size, and consequently light weight; and then these unhappy wretches, old before their timethese stunted individuals, after performing the services of those who hired them, died without attaining anything like old age, and during their lives never had a healthy constitution. Great evils also arose to the children of the poor, whose mothers were induced to become wet-nurses to persons in the rank of life of Members of either House. But were any one to procure a Bill to be hurried through the other House to prevent such a measure, nine-tenths of their Lordships would reject it. It might be feared that it would cross the minds of many, how ready they were to interfere with the working-classes, but how apt they were, when practices were de nounced in which they themselves were sharers, to turn a deaf ear. Would it not be said, that they were great dealers in cheap virtue?"

The Marquess of Londonderry observed, that the Bill would not come into operation till March, 1843; and it would be better to employ the interval in further inquiry.

The Earl of Devon was pleased to find Lord Brougham's generalities as much in favour of the measure as against it.

The Bill was supported by the Earl of Galloway, and (in its altered state) by Lord Hatherton. It was opposed by the Earl of Radnor.

The Motion for going into Com mittee was carried by 49 to 3.

Amendments on various clauses -by Lord Beaumont, to permit women under eighteen to remain in the mines till March, 1843, instead of being excluded within three months; by Lord Lyttleton, to make the Bill come in force in May, 1843, instead of March; by the Earl of Dunmore, to permit single women, above twenty-one years of age, to work in the mines; by the Earl of Mountcashel, to make the age of admission for boys twelve, instead of ten; by Lord Skelmersdale, to permit women above forty years of age, in cer tain cases, to remain at workwere successively rejected; the last, on which there was a division, by 29 to 15.

The several clauses were agreed to with some verbal amendments; and the Bill was reported.

The third reading was again opposed by Lord Londonderry, but without success; and the Bill passed.

Upon the Amendments which had been made in it in its passage through the Upper House coming down to be considered in the House of Commons, Lord Ashley entered into a statement of some length, to explain the nature of those Amendments, and to defend himself against the attacks made upon him. "There existed no longer any security against the employment of females; for if they were admitted into the pits, it would be impossible to guard against their being made to work. The system of apprenticeship would be retained, and the restriction on the time of

working for boys above ten years of age was removed. His assertion, that the coal-owners of the north were not opposed to the Bill, had been described as "chicanery;" but he read letters to the House to prove the truth of that assertion. He would, however, accede to the Bill as it stood, because it still affirmed a great principle.

Lord Palmerston taunted the Ministers with not having given that cordial support to the measure which Sir James Graham had promised. He would not accuse them of backing out of their intentions; but their reluctance to object to these amendments, proved that there was a power greater than their own, which exercised a sort of coercion over them. When the Members of the present Government were in opposition, they were in the habit of taunting the late Government with allowing themselves to be coerced by a portion of their supporters; but it appeared that the present Ministers were subject to the same species of coercion. The late Government, however, only yielded to such pressure for the sake of forwarding the progress of improvement, while the present Cabinet were driven to abandon improvement by coercion.

Sir James Graham vindicated his own consistency, and main tained that the principle of the measure was untouched. The employment of boys under the age of ten years was still prohibited; there was a limitation of the period of apprenticeship, and the employment of females in the mines was also prohibited. All the great principles for which Lord Ashley had contended, stood as they were originally meant.

Mr. Charles Buller said, that

the fate of this Bill would deprive the Government of one great source of their strength, namely, the belief hitherto entertained, that they possessed the confidence of the House of Lords. What trust could they have, after having seen the support given by Sir J. Graham in this House to the Bill, and heard another Member of the Government, in the House of Lords say, that the Government was passive on the question; and another, sneer at the evidence on which the Bill was founded? True, the House of Lords had passed the Income-tax and the Tariff; but they were prevented by the rules of the House of Commons, from making any alterations in those Bills. He feared, however, for

other measures.

Sir Robert Peel ridiculed Mr. Buller's interference. The House of Lords, he said, had, during the present Session, given their ready assent to the Corn-bill and the Tariff; two measures, making measures, making greater changes than any which had been introduced of late years -yet all that was of no avail; but because the House of Lords had made some alterations in a Bill not brought in by any Member of the Government, this circumstance was assumed as a sign of disunion. As to other measures, of course, he would not pledge himself that the other House would adopt all the details of any measure. The House of Lords was a deliberative body, and had a perfect right to make any modifications in this or any other measure which they thought fit.

Ultimately, the Amendments were agreed to.

One of the subjects which engaged a large portion of the time of the House of Commons during

this Session, was that of bribery at Elections; attention thereto being forcibly called by the disclosures which in several instances took place before the Committees appointed upon petitions against returns made at the General Election in the preceding year-on which occasion an unprecedented extent of corruption appears to have prevailed. The proceedings in several cases which came before Committees, presented these novel and remarkable features.

The return of the two sitting Members for a particular borough being petitioned against on the ground of bribery, and the investigation being entered into, and the charges in part substantiated, the Committee was suddenly informed, that the petition was withdrawn ; and, of course, had no other course but to declare, that the sitting Members were duly elected.

The sudden stoppage of inquiry, at the very time when the charges preferred by the petitioners appeared in full course of being substantiated, naturally excited a strong suspicion of some collusive arrangements behind the scenes, which was much confirmed, when it was observed in more than one instance, that the decision of the Committee in favour of the two sitting Members, was quickly followed by the voluntary abandonment by one of them of the seat of which he had just been declared in possession.

Even in those cases where this event did not immediately take place, it was strongly reported that a similar arrangement had been effected, performance of the condition of resignation being postponed only for a limited period, or until the end of the Session.

This state of things having be