POOR-LAW RETURNS-USE OF MACHINERY.] Earl Stanhope said, he had to move for certain returns, for which, as no objection would be made to them on the part of the Government, he did not feel it necessary to give a notice. The motion was for a return of the number of paupers admitted into each of the union workhouses from January 1st, 1836, to December 31st, 1841, and also of the number of persons accommodated therein, and the number of deaths occurring annually therein, specifying the cause of each death.

Agreed to.

alteration in the amount of the grants | ing the duties on the Importation of made for education in Ireland, and he Foreign Corn," should come up to that trusted he might assume that no alteration House, he would, on the question of its of any kind at least, no important altera- second reading, move as an amendment, tion-would be made in the present sys- that it be read a second time that day six tem until the fullest consideration of the months, and take the sense of the House Government had been given to the subject, on the amendment. He would now beg and until the Government should have to call the attention of their Lordships, to availed itself of the opinions of Parlia- a petition which had been intrusted to his ment on the subject. care. It was signed by only one individual, a member of one of the humbler classes, but it spoke the language and expressed the sentiments of many hundreds of thousands of those classes. The petitioner was Abraham Leach, a poor handloom weaver of Rochdale, in the county of Lancaster. He complained that he was robbed, oppressed, and brought to beggary by the manufacturers, who had taken from him the means of labour, and had substituted for it untaxed machinery. It was not his intention to detail the sufferings of large bodies of the handloom weavers; he would not enter into the extent of those distresses, but would say a word as to their cause. The petitioner said, and said truly, that the system on which the manufacturers had acted for a long time was subversive of the great bond and compact of society, by which men gave up an equal claim to the productions of nature, in order that they should be guaranteed in the enjoyment of their fair share. The petitioner asked, and he (the Earl Stanhope) would be glad to hear some satisfactory answer to the question he asked, if the Government did not give protection to large classes of the people, were those classes bound to yield obedience to the Government? It had been always held, that if the one was not granted there was no legal claim to the other. It was said, that Government was instituted for the protection of the citizens of a state, and the petitioner claimed a right to such protection. He stated, that by untaxed machinery his labour had been rendered wholly unprofitable, and that his loom which, in 1805, would have produced 80%., was now not worth as mary shillings. The prayer of the petitioner was, that their Lordships might take these matters into their serious consideration, and that he might be restored to those means of support which he formerly enjoyed as the price of his labour; but that if their Lordships should be of opinion, that this course would not be for the benefit of the nation at large, they

Earl Stanhope in presenting a petition to their Lordships would express a hope, that he should be more fortunate in getting the return which had just been agreed to than he had been with respect to certain returns for which he moved, and which had been ordered, nearly three years ago. The motion on that occasion was for a statement of the sums borrowed for each union workhouse, and also of the sums laid out in law expenses for periods of three years each before and after the passing of the new Poor-law Act; that motion was made and agreed to on the 16th of August, 1839, but from that time to the present, no return had been made to it. There was a point beyond which their Lordships' patience ought not to be carried, but in the present case he thought it had been carried to excess. Two Sessions had now elapsed, and the returns were not forthcoming. If any difficulties had arisen as to the making out of such returns, it was the business of those whose duty it was to make them to state those difficulties, that they might be removed. However, after this, he gave notice, that if not produced within a short time, he should move that the returns be made forthwith. He would take this opportunity of giving notice also, that if a bill which he perceived was now in progress through the other House, entitled "A bill for regulat

sustained. He might illustrate his meaning by a reference to a haymaking machine about which his opinion had once been asked. He would not prohibit its use, or prevent any person from endeavouring to avoid by it the risk arising from unfavourable weather, but he would compel such person to make full compensation to the labourer who had been employed by him in haymaking, for the loss of their earnings of which he had no right to deprive them.

would at least grant him compensation them compensation for the loss they had for the amount of the loss he had sustained. He (Earl Stanhope) thought that the prayer was most reasonable. All the petitioner claimed was, in strict conformity with the sacred principle of liberty which was at the commencement of the French revolution defined to be the right of every man, to do whatever he liked provided he did not injure another. He fully concurred in this principle, which ought to be applied in its fullest extent, and in every possible case, and he would contend that no man had a right to injure Lord Monteagle said, that with respect another, still less to injure whole classes to the complaint of the noble Earl as to of the community, by depriving them of the non-production of the returns for which the fair reward of their labour. The peti- he had moved in 1839, he would find on tioner, then, was perfectly right in the call inquiry, that the fault lay, not with the he made upon their Lordships, and all officer whose duty it was to make those they could say or do, would fall short of returns, but with the noble Earl himself in doing him and his class justice, if they did not having renewed the order in the ennot remedy the growing evil of which he suing Session; for the noble Earl must be complained. If he were asked what that aware, that an order made for the producremedy was, he would say it was this, that tion of returns in one Session expired those who deprived others of employment with the Session in which it was made, in one particular business should supply and no more would be heard of it if not them with an equivalent employment in revived in another. He could not sit another, or give them compensation to down without entering his protest against the extent of the loss they had sustained. the doctrines avowed by the noble Earl. The petitioner was borne out in his state- Was it to be tolerated, that in a country ment of the losses he had sustained in his like this, which owed so much of its business by the testimony even of the greatness and prosperity to the indusmaster manufacturers themselves, for he trious application of capital to machinery, (Earl Stanhope) had been told by one the people should be taught to regard with manufacturer, that for certain articles of vindictive feelings those who employed piece goods for which the weaver got that machinery, and should be taught to 4s. 6d. in 1815, he now got only 10d. look upon them as wrong doers, from Was it possible to exist, or rather, to whom they were entitled to receive comvegetate, on such a system as this? Was pensation? The petitioner, their Lordships it possible to expect that men who were would observe, was a handloom weaver. ground down by the loss of means of Was he not as such himself an employer profitable employment should feel any of a machine? Let him ask had not attachment to the present system? No, that very handloom displaced in its day a but the system would beget feelings of more simple form, by which alteration revenge, which when roused under par- manual labour was, in a considerable deticular circumstances would show them- gree, dispensed with? Were artisans then selves strongly. He would, therefore, to go back to the more simple form of earnestly entreat their Lordships to take industry, or were they not, on the conthe circumstances into their most se- trary, bound to go on with new imrious consideration. They might rest as-provements in machinery,-with those sured that the evils here complained improvements to which this country owed of, would not be remedied either by so much? If machinery was the cause a fixed duty on corn or a sliding-scale. The poor class of operatives could be relieved only in one or other of two ways -either by obliging those who deprived them of work in one way to supply it by work of another kind, or, as he (Earl Stanhope) had before said, by giving

of distress, why not go back to the primitive state of man and abolish the plough, which was a machine effecting a saving of manual labour? He must, therefore, again. protest against the doctrine, that all or any of the existing distresses were owing to the employment of machinery. The fact

had taken place in their condition, nor need he be surprised, that the peace of the country should be endangered, when the poor working men found themselves in that state from which any change must be for the better.

was, that all and everything about them was machinery; there was nothing con nected with the comfort and convenience of man which machinery did not place more easily and cheaply within his reach than it could possibly have been by manual labour. He was sorry to have The Earl of Devon did not mean to intruded upon the attention of their Lord-prolong this discussion, but merely rose to ships by even one observation on the sub- observe, that the practice of Parliament ject, but he could not restrain himself from was, that no adjournment of their Lordthus protesting against the doctrines ships' House should prevent the return to avowed by the noble Earl, who had held any orders made by them. All orders up as an object for vindictive feelings in made in the Session were considered oblithe working classes a system which had gatory out of it. produced and carried civilization all over the world, and without which they must be driven back to the barbarism of their remote ancestors.

Petition to be laid on the Table.

BAPTISTS' AFFIRMATIONS.] Lord Denman observed, that in consequence of some Earl Stanhope denied, that there was observations that had fallen from a noble any neglect on his part in reference to the Lord on a former evening, he had now to returns for which he had moved. Those lay on their Lordships' Table a bill for returns had been moved for by an address rendering the affirmation of that sect of to the Crown, to which an answer had Christians called Baptists equivalent to an been returned, informing the House that oath in courts of justice. He had reason they should be produced, and he did not to know, that the operation of the law as see why the lapse of a Session should it now stood, granting exclusively an exprevent it. With respect to the observa-emption from taking an oath to Quakers tions of the noble Baron as to his opinions, and to those who formerly had been he would only say, that when the proper Quakers, but had seceded from the socitime came, he should be able to defend ety, pressed very severely on that class of those doctrines, as the noble Lord called Christians called Baptists, who had very them. The noble Baron had charged him strong religious scruples against taking an with wishing to go back to a state of bar- oath at all, and he thought it very desirbarism. He had not said anything of the able that they should be released from that kind, but he would now say, that a state difficulty by having their affirmation reof barbarism could not make the condition ceived on all future occasions in evidence of some classes of the people worse than it in those cases where an oath was now rewas. Could a state of barbarism produce quired. This was the object of the bill such an appalling fact as that 800,000 he now begged leave to lay on the Table. handloom weavers should be in a state of Bill read a first time. absolute destitution? [Noble Lords: No, Adjourned. no, not that number.] He had heard they amounted to that number, but he would not state it with certainty, He could declare, however, that in many places the handloom weavers were reduced to a state of destitution. In the town of Stockport alone there were above 15,000 persons whose average income did not exceed 1s. 1d. per week each. What could be worse than

HOUSE OF LORDS,

Friday, March 11, 1842.

MINUTES.] BILLS. Public-1. Ecclesiastical Houses of

Residence.

2a. Incumbents Leasing; Ecclesiastical Corporations Leasing.

3a. Van Diemen's Land.

Reported.-Loan Societies; Apprentices Regulations.

that condition? Talk of the prosperity of PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Strafford, and Lord

the country, why it could not be denied, that the country was more happy and prosperous at least the people were more so

before this introduction of machinery. They had plenty of work and were well paid for it. The noble Baron need not be surprised at finding very strong language from the people on the great change which VOL. LXI. {id}

Third

Brougham, from Kerry, Monaghan, and Down, in favour of the Marriage (Ireland) Bill.

Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Friday, March 11, 1842.

MINUTES.] BILLS. Private.-10. Ferry Bridge and Bo

rough Bridge Road; Birmingham and Derby Junction Р

WEST INDIA BISHOPRICS.] Sir Charles Napier asked the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, when he would from Colne, Hepworth, and Clare, against any further proceed with his bill respecting the bishopGrant to Maynooth College.-By Mr. Muntz, from Bir-rics of the West Indies ? mingham, against certain Portions of the Borough Improvements and Buildings Regulations Bills; and from

of the Legislative Union.-By Dr. Bowring, from the
Brewers of Bolton, that Brewers Casks may not be stated.
Liable to be Distrained for Rent.-By Sir C. Napier,
for the Settlement of Portuguese Claims-By Mr. E.
Tennent, from Down, Waterford, and Dromore, in fa-

vour of the Marriages (Ireland) Bill.-By Mr. Gregory,
from St. Mary's, Dublin, for Alterarion of the present
System of Education in Ireland-From Streatham, Ep.

som, and other places, for the Redemption of Tolls on

the Metropolitan Bridges.-From H. Meggison, against the Railway Bill.From Leamington, for substituting

Affirmations instead of Oaths.

AFFAIRS OF INDIA.] Mr. S. Wortley begged to put a question to the right hon. Baronet upon a subject to which it was impossible to allude without pain, and of such importance, that he believed it would account for the question he was about to ask. The subject to which he alluded, was the late melancholy disasters they had met with in the West of India. Intelligence had been received in this country from Cabool, stating that the garrison of the place were in circumstances of the most imminent danger. Reports had reached this country lately, that those circumstances had been followed by others still more alarming-that the garrison of Cabool had been utterly destroyed, and that the troops in Candahar had been cut off from all communication on that side, and that the troops at Jellalabad were in great danger. What he wished to ask from the right hon. Baronet was, such authentic information as Government might possess with regard to the correctness of the report. First of all, he wished to know what information had been received with respect to the unfortunate troops in Cabool? and secondly, what was the position of those in Candahar and Jellalabad, and what prospect of relief they had from the government of India.

peared to have been signed with the Affghan forces, and by an act, as it would appear, speaking, as he said before, from information not strictly official, but from accounts of which the credibility could hardly be questioned-by an act marked with a perfidy and treachery almost as gross as that by which Sir W. M.Naghten lost his life, the English troops were attacked three days afterwards, and had certainly sustained great loss; but, he trusted, that there was nothing in the accounts that had been received that ought to create dismay. Her Majesty's Government would take every measure, that it might be advisable to take to repair this partial disaster. Under the circumstances, he had no doubt Parliament would give her Majesty's Government its confidence and support, whatever might be the demands which they should feel it their duty to make, in order to repair the disaster that had occurred, and to satisfy the public in this country, in India, and throughout the world, that they were determined to spare no sacrifice in order to maintain their Indian empire.

Sir J. C. Hobhouse said, in the whole course of his life, he had never been so much gratified as by the statement just made by the right hon. Gentleman. He had no doubt, but that the Queen's Government would do its duty, and the assurance just made must tranquillise all those unnecessary alarms which had before existed, and for which there would not now be a pretence for existing in the mind of any right thinking man. The right hon. Gentleman was right in saying, that this House would stand by the Queen's Government on this occasion. So far from party feeling prevailing, the House would see, that it had nothing to do but to exert itself to the utmost to repair the disaster that had occurred, but which he, at the same time, thought had been much exaggerated.

Sir R. Peel said, that to the question put by his hon. Friend he could not give a very satisfactory answer, and although he had it in his power to do so, he doubted whether it would be consistent with his duty to answer some of the questions that had been put to him. But in a matter of such importance he would not hesitate to give the information which he possessed, and which, although not entirely official, might, he thought, be relied on. The latest accounts which had been received from the Governor-general of India were dated Calcutta, January 22, giving only an account of the scandalous and perfidious act by which Sir William M'Naghten had lost his life. No account subsequent to the despatch of February 1, from Bombay, had been received. Another account, not of an official nature, but of the correctness of which there could be little doubt, had been received in a letter The Speaker having left the Chair, from Dr. Reid, dated Peshawar, 16th of Sir R. Peel rose and spoke as follows: January. It spoke of a letter which was-Sir, as the House has now sanctioned dated Jellalabad, the 13th, and from that letter, it was impossible to doubt, that her Majesty's troops had recently sustained great reverses, A capitulation, as far as it could be judged from the accounts, ap

FINANCIAL STATEMENT-WAYS AND MEANS.] Sir G. Clerk moved the Order of the Day for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means, and

the votes that her Majesty's Government considered it their duty to propose for the maintenance of the chief military establishments of the country, I rise to redeem the pledge I gave some time back, that