Page images
PDF
EPUB

sacrificed for them my reputation.” felt himself under with regard to (Cheers.)

this subject. He could not con. The amendment was supported sider it a final decision of the by Mr. W. Brown, Mr. J. Williams, question ; and therefore at a deand Mr. Bright, who strenuously sirable opportunity, he should concombated a deference to ignorance sider it his duty to restate the and sentimentalism. It was op- claims of the persons whose inposed by Mr.Aglionby, who assented terests he had supported. to the Government compromise Accordingly on the Bill being re" by compulsion as it were ;" by ported, Lord Ashley renewed his Mr. B. Denison, who testified to former attempt to restrict the Lord Ashley's high principle and hours of work in regard to young wisdom in a difficult position ; by persons, by moving a clause to preMr. Brotherton, who thought the vent the labour of children (already Bill would be better than a ten- limited in its duration) from being hours bill, or than any other mea- taken at any other period of the day sure likely to be carried ; and by than between six o'clock in the mornMr. W.J. Fox, on the ground of ing and six o'clock in the evening. compact and honourable obligation. Sir George Grey resisted this mo.

Mr. Elliott's amendment was re- tion, on the ground that the Bill jected by 246 to 45.

did not relate to the labour of Another amendment was moved children, but only to that of woby Lord Ashley on the same clause, men and young persons, and that by which he proposed to change it would be practically inconthe hours at which children should venient. After a very short debegin and leave off work, to six in bate, the House divided—For the the morning and eight in the even- amendment, 159; against it, 160; ing. He only asked that children Ministerial majority, 1. (Loud of tender age should enjoy the cheers from the Opposition.) same benefit as was enjoyed by

Lord John Manners proposed adults and females above the age another amendment, introducing of eighteen years. Sir George words in various parts of the Bill Grey opposed the amendment as the effect of which would have been tending to place a limitation on to restrict the labour of all hands adult labour, whereas it was not to ten hours daily. Sir George intended to interfere with the Act Grey, in opposing the motion, vinof 1844. Mr. Brotherton, Mr. dicated the Ministerial measure as Walter, and Mr. Alderman Sidney, a just and convenient settlement, supported the amendment. Mr. purchasing for the work-people, by Bright protested warmly against a concession more apparent than the Bill altogether. Mr. Slaney, real, the general concurrence of Mr. Milner Gibson, Mr. Tre- the mill-owners. Lord John Ruslawney, and Mr. Heywood, opposed sell contended that if this Bill the amendment, which was nega- were refused, the mill - owners tived on a division by 102 to 72. would agitate to prevent any fur

Lord Ashley said, that in con- ther legislation, and so maintain sequence of the decision to which the Act of 1847 with the interthe Committee had just come, he pretation of the Law Courts aushould consider himself relieved thorising shifts and relays. Mr. from the obligation which he had Disraeli supported the amendment

[ocr errors]

as the champion of the working the same ground, that it introclasses, on whose behalf he claimed duced a new restriction, not called a sincere treatment of their claims for by any large body of men, nor by the Legislature, and he dealt contemplated by the Acts of 1844 rather severely with the Govern- or 1847. He excepted strongly ment for the course pursued by against the joint condemnation of them on the question. The amend shifts and relays ; defending rement was supported by a ma- lays, as unobjectionable in themjority of Members representing selves, and as contemplated by the northern constituencies. and even carrying out the in

On a division there appeared- tentions of the Legislature ex. For the Amendment 142 pressed by the Acts of 1844 and

1847. The amendment was negaAgainst it.

187

tived, by 58 to 25 — majority, 33.

The Duke of Richmond then Majority

39

brought forward the amendment In the House of Lords the Bill of which he had given notice, with underwent some searching dis- the object of limiting the hours of cussion, several amendments being labour for women and children to moved and urgently pressed in ten hours a day. This was opCommittee with the view of im- posed by the Earl of Granville posing a further limitation on the and the Marquis of Lansdowne, hours of employment of women as a disturbance of the “comproand young persons.

mise," or rather "the happy unThe Earl of Harrowby moved derstanding,” which the masters to insert in the first clause the and operatives had come to, and words “no child,” with the view which the Bill carried into effect; of limiting the labour of children and they used the authority of to the extent proposed in the case Lord Ashley's name in support of of women and young persons. He their views. The Government said that children would be placed in looked at the arrangement now a worse condition than their present made as founded on reciprocal one, by the Bill as it stood ; as a concessions of an equitable chafresh stimulus would be applied to racter, and Lord Granville inthe manufacturers to substitute timated, that if their Lordships their labour for that of women and should come to any resolution young persons. To a certain de- which would tear from the manugree

the labour of adults would facturers the very small advaninterfered with, no doubt; but the tages which the Bill proposed present measure denied the same they should receive from the other protection to children that was side, it would be impossible for given against the abuse of females Her Majesty's Government to carry and young persons. The amend- on the Bill. Lord Stanley comment was opposed by Earl Gran- plained of this unconstitutional ville, chiefly on the ground that it threat that Ministers would abanintroduced a foreign and disturb- don the measure ; contended that ing element into a controversy there had been no compromise ; which the Bill had good prospect and declared that if the Bill of closing. Lord Stanley also should pass in its present shape, spoke with decision against it, on the consequence would only be renewed agitation and further delay liament. The Bishop of Oxford in a settlement of the question. supported the amendment; deem

The Duke of Richmond de- ing the Bill as unamended to be a clared, that if Ministers should breach of sacred compact, and an throw the Bill overboard, he would act of deliberate injustice more himself take it up in that House, calculated to produce disaffection and should easily prevail on his in the minds of Englishmen than friend Lord John Manners to take open violence. On a division, the it up in the House of Commons. amendment was negatived, by 52 The Bishop of Ripon said he would to 39— Ministerial majority, 13. carry out consistently those views Thus the Bill passed unaltered which Lord Ashley had formerly through the Committee. urged him to labour for, rather than On the third reading the Duke assist to foment the dissatisfaction of Richmond and the Earl of which the Bill would cause among Harrowby renewed their opposithe factory population. The Bishoption to the Bill. The latter of Manchester came to a conclu- moved the insertion of a clause sion opposite to that of Lord Stan- restricting the labour of children ley, who had appealed to him per- within the same hours of the day sonally; holding that the present as those fixed for women and measure was the best that under young persons. This clause was all the present circumstances could rejected by 30 to 24, and so the be passed by both Houses of Par- Bill passed.

CHAPTER VII.

DEATH OF SIR ROBERT PEEL-Occasion and circumstances of that men

lancholy eventDistinguished 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. Peels 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 withdrawsSir R. H. Inglis then proposes a Resolution against altering the form of the Oath, which is debated at much length; Šir F. Thesiger, Mr. W. P. Wood, the Attorney General, Mr. Stuart Wortley, and Lord John Russell, being the most prominent SpeakersMr. Hume moves an Amendment in favour of administering the Oath to Baron Rothschild on the Old TestamentThe 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 Ou 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 larAfter much discussion the matter is again adjournedThe Attorney General gives notice of tuco 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 Generals 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 quartersProceedings of the Clergy-Publication of Lord John Russell's famous Letter to the Bishop of DurhamCounty 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.

E now come to the most me.

lancholy feature in the his. sembly in which so large a portion tory of the present Session-an of his life had been spent, and his event which deprived the House of most brilliant triumphs had been Commons of its foremost Member, won. Such testimonies indeed were and England of one of the most sa- not limited to his own country, gacious and disinterested of her for the National Assembly of restatesmen. Within a few hours publican France had thought it after the delivery of that speech on due to the memory of a statesman of the Foreign policy of the country, of European fame to enter on its jourwhich we havegiven a summary in a nals a minute, expressive of its sorformer chapter, and which had won row for a calamity which was felt by the admiration of all parties, no less the friends of peace and civilization by its moderation than by its vigour all over the world. But if anything and eloquence, Sir Robert Peel was could have soothed the feelings of

The particulars of the the bereaved friends and relatives fatal accident which cost the coun- of the deceased at such a time, the try so valuable a life, and of the proceedings which took place in almost universal sympathy and both Houses of Parliament, with mourning which attended the last the cordial concurrence of men of moments of the expiring statesman, all parties and opinions, must have will be found elsewhere, but it be- afforded them no common consolalongs to this part of our annual his- tion. The first tribute of respect tory to record the high tribute, not paid by the House of Commons to more honourable to the deceased its deceased Member was a sponthan to the survivors, which was ren- taneous and unconcerted one. On

no more.

« PreviousContinue »