sacrificed for them my reputation." felt himself under with regard to (Cheers.) this subject. He could not consider it a final decision of the question; and therefore at a desirable opportunity, he should consider it his duty to restate the claims of the persons whose interests he had supported. The amendment was supported by Mr. W. Brown, Mr. J. Williams, and Mr. Bright, who strenuously combated a deference to ignorance and sentimentalism. It was opposed by Mr.Aglionby, who assented to the Government compromise "by compulsion as it were;" by Mr. B. Denison, who testified to Lord Ashley's high principle and wisdom in a difficult position; by Mr. Brotherton, who thought the Bill would be better than a tenhours bill, or than any other measure likely to be carried; and by Mr. W. J. Fox, on the ground of compact and honourable obligation. Mr. Elliott's amendment was rejected by 246 to 45. Another amendment was moved by Lord Ashley on the same clause, by which he proposed to change the hours at which children should begin and leave off work, to six in the morning and eight in the evening. He only asked that children of tender age should enjoy the same benefit as was enjoyed by adults and females above the age of eighteen years. Sir George Grey opposed the amendment as tending to place a limitation on adult labour, whereas it was not intended to interfere with the Act of 1844. Mr. Brotherton, Mr. Walter, and Mr. Alderman Sidney, supported the amendment. Mr. Bright protested warmly against the Bill altogether. Mr. Slaney, Mr. Milner Gibson, Mr. Trelawney, and Mr. Heywood, opposed the amendment, which was negatived on a division by 102 to 72. Lord Ashley said, that in consequence of the decision to which the Committee had just come, he should consider himself relieved from the obligation which he had Accordingly on the Bill being reported, Lord Ashley renewed his former attempt to restrict the hours of work in regard to young persons, by moving a clause to prevent the labour of children (already limited in its duration) from being taken at any other period of the day than between six o'clock in the morning and six o'clock in the evening. Sir George Grey resisted this motion, on the ground that the Bill did not relate to the labour of children, but only to that of women and young persons, and that it would be practically inconvenient. After a very short debate, the House divided-For the amendment, 159; against it, 160; Ministerial majority, 1. (Loud cheers from the Opposition.) Lord John Manners proposed another amendment, introducing words in various parts of the Bill the effect of which would have been to restrict the labour of all hands to ten hours daily. Sir George Grey, in opposing the motion, vindicated the Ministerial measure as a just and convenient settlement, purchasing for the work-people, by a concession more apparent than real, the general concurrence of the mill-owners. Lord John Russell contended that if this Bill were refused, the mill - owners would agitate to prevent any further legislation, and so maintain the Act of 1847 with the interpretation of the Law Courts authorising shifts and relays. Mr. Disraeli supported the amendment In the House of Lords the Bill underwent some searching discussion, several amendments being moved and urgently pressed in Committee with the view of imposing a further limitation on the hours of employment of women and young persons. The Earl of Harrowby moved to insert in the first clause the words "no child," with the view of limiting the labour of children to the extent proposed in the case of women and young persons. He said that children would be placed in a worse condition than their present one, by the Bill as it stood; as a fresh stimulus would be applied to the manufacturers to substitute their labour for that of women and young persons. To a certain degree the labour of adults would be interfered with, no doubt; but the present measure denied the same protection to children that was given against the abuse of females and young persons. The amendment was opposed by Earl Granville, chiefly on the ground that it introduced a foreign and disturbing element into a controversy which the Bill had good prospect of closing. Lord Stanley also spoke with decision against it, on the same ground, that it introduced a new restriction, not called for by any large body of men, nor contemplated by the Acts of 1844 or 1847. He excepted strongly against the joint condemnation of shifts and relays; defending relays, as unobjectionable in themselves, and as contemplated by and even carrying out the intentions of the Legislature expressed by the Acts of 1844 and 1847. The amendment was negatived, by 58 to 25-majority, 33. The Duke of Richmond then brought forward the amendment of which he had given notice, with the object of limiting the hours of labour for women and children to ten hours a day. This was opposed by the Earl of Granville and the Marquis of Lansdowne, as a disturbance of the “ compromise," or rather "the happy understanding," which the masters and operatives had come to, and which the Bill carried into effect; and they used the authority of Lord Ashley's name in support of their views. The Government looked at the arrangement now made as founded on reciprocal concessions of an equitable character, and Lord Granville intimated, that if their Lordships should come to any resolution which would tear from the manufacturers the very small advantages which the Bill proposed they should receive from the other side, it would be impossible for Her Majesty's Government to carry on the Bill. Lord Stanley complained of this unconstitutional threat that Ministers would abandon the measure; contended that there had been no compromise; and declared that if the Bill should pass in its present shape, the consequence would only be re newed agitation and further delay in a settlement of the question. The Duke of Richmond declared, that if Ministers should throw the Bill overboard, he would himself take it up in that House, and should easily prevail on his friend Lord John Manners to take it up in the House of Commons. The Bishop of Ripon said he would carry out consistently those views which Lord Ashley had formerly urged him to labour for, rather than assist to foment the dissatisfaction which the Bill would cause among the factory population. The Bishop of Manchester came to a conclusion opposite to that of Lord Stanley, who had appealed to him personally; holding that the present measure was the best that under all the present circumstances could be passed by both Houses of Par liament. The Bishop of Oxford supported the amendment; deeming the Bill as unamended to be a breach of sacred compact, and an act of deliberate injustice more calculated to produce disaffection in the minds of Englishmen than open violence. On a division, the amendment was negatived, by 52 to 39-Ministerial majority, 13. Thus the Bill passed unaltered through the Committee. On the third reading the Duke of Richmond and the Earl of Harrowby renewed their opposition to the Bill. The latter moved the insertion of a clause restricting the labour of children within the same hours of the day as those fixed for women and young persons. This clause was rejected by 30 to 24, and so the Bill passed. CHAPTER VII. DEATH OF SIR ROBERT PEEL-Occasion and circumstances of that melancholy event-Distinguished honours paid to his memory by the British Parliament and by the National Assembly of France-On the House of Commons meeting for the first time after Sir R. Peel's death, Mr. Hume moves the adjournment of the House, paying a feeling tribute of regret to the deceased Statesman-Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Napier, Sir R. H. Inglis, and Sir W. Somerville, in eloquent speeches, concur in the proposed mark of respect, and the Motion is carried nem. con.- -In the House of Lords, the Marquess of Lansdowne passes a touching encomium on the character of Sir Robert Peel-Lord Stanley, Lord Brougham, and the Duke of Wellington, emphatically express their sense of his public and private virtues-Lord John Russell, in the House of Commons, descants in an impressive manner upon the great loss which the country has sustained, and offers the sanction of the Crown to a public funeral-Mr. Goulburn, on the part of the deceased Baronet's family, respectfully declines the proposed honour, as inconsistent with the expressed wish of the Deceased-Lord John Russell, on the 12th July, proposes the erection of a Monument to Sir Robert Peel in Westminister Abbey, his family having declined both a public funeral and a peerage-The Motion is carried nem. diss-Death of the Duke of Cambridge-His amiable and popular character-Expressions of condolence and tributes to his memory paid in both Houses of Parliament-Debates on proposed Annuity to his Successor-Opposition made to the amount proposed by Government-The Annuity of £12,000 is ultimately granted-CASE OF BARON ROTHSCHILD, AND ADMISSION OF JEWS TO SIT IN PARLIAMENT-The Baron comes to the Table of the House of Commons on the 26th of July to take the Oath, desiring to be sworn on the Old Testament-Sir R. H. Inglis opposes that attempt, and the Baron withdraws-Sir R. H. Inglis then proposes a Resolution against altering the form of the Oath, which is debated at much length; Sir F. Thesiger, Mr. W. P. Wood, the Attorney General, Mr. Stuart Wortley, and Lord John Russell, being the most prominent Speakers-Mr. Hume moves an Amendment in favour of administering the Oath to Baron Rothschild on the Old Testament-The Motion of Sir R. Inglis is negatived, and that of Mr. Hume is carried by a majority of 54.-The next day, the Oaths are tendered to the Baron on the Old Testament-In taking the Oath of Abjuration he omits the words "On the true faith of a Christian "-He is thereupon ordered to withdraw-Sir F. Thesiger moves a Resolution, that a new writ should issue in his room for the City of London-Mr. W. P. Wood argues with great ingenuity, that there has been a valid taking of the Oath, and that the Seat is full-The Attorney General opposes that view of the lawAfter much discussion the matter is again adjourned-The Attorney General gives notice of two Resolutions; one denying the right of Baron Rothschild to sit without taking the Oath in the prescribed form, the other pledging the House to a measure for the relief of the Jews at the Commencement of the next Session-Mr. Hume proposes an Amendment-After a debate, in which Mr. W. P. Wood, Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Anstey, Mr. Bright, Mr. Disraeli, and other Members, take part, the Attorney General's two Resolutions are carried by majorities of 72 and 36 respectively-MINOR MEASURES OF THE SESSION-The Metropolitan * Interment Act-The County Court Extension Act-The Ecclesiastical Commission Amendment Act-TERMINATION OF THE SESSION-Parliament is prorogued by the Queen in Person, on the 18th of August— Address to Her Majesty by the Speaker of the House of Commons, and the Royal Speech-THE PAPAL AGGRESSION-Extraordinary excitement occasioned in the Country by the appointment of a Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster and suffragan Bishops with territorial Titles, by the Pope-Demonstrations of Public Opinion in various quarters-Proceedings of the Clergy-Publication of Lord John Russell's famous Letter to the Bishop of Durham-County Meetings-Popular Demonstrations on the 5th of November-Dr. Wiseman Addresses an Appeal to the English People-Style and character of the Document, and its effects on the Public Mind. W E now come to the most melancholy feature in the history of the present Session-an event which deprived the House of Commons of its foremost Member, and England of one of the most sagacious and disinterested of her statesmen. Within a few hours after the delivery of that speech on the Foreign policy of the country, of which we have given a summary in a former chapter, and which had won the admiration of all parties, no less by its moderation than by its vigour and eloquence, Sir Robert Peel was no more. The particulars of the fatal accident which cost the country so valuable a life, and of the almost universal sympathy and mourning which attended the last moments of the expiring statesman, will be found elsewhere, but it belongs to this part of our annual history to record the high tribute, not more honourable to the deceased than to the survivors, which was ren dered to its late Member by that Assembly in which so large a portion of his life had been spent, and his most brilliant triumphs had been won. Such testimonies indeed were not limited to his own country, for the National Assembly of republican France had thought it due to the memory of a statesman of European fame to enter on its jour nals a minute, expressive of its sorrow for a calamity which was felt by the friends of peace and civilization all over the world. But if anything could have soothed the feelings of the bereaved friends and relatives of the deceased at such a time, the proceedings which took place in both Houses of Parliament, with the cordial concurrence of men of all parties and opinions, must have afforded them no common consolation. The first tribute of respect paid by the House of Commons to its deceased Member was a spontaneous and unconcerted one. On |