fected, however, that the Duke of Cumberland did not obtain the same increased allowance when his marriage took place; and therefore his was quite a different case. His Royal Highness having since had a son born to him, not now two years old, but six, there was surely nothing injurious to his character in the proposition now made for an allowance to him on account of the education of that young individual. He would be quite willing to insert any words which would give a positive pledge to the House, that this young person should not be educated abroad, but in England. This was the real object of the bill. (Hear!)

Dr. LUSHINGTON contended that the precedent of such a grant was a very dangerous one, and might lead to consequences mischievous in the extreme. For his own part, moreover, he did not see that the Duke of Cumberland had not already allowance enough to discharge all these luties of education and maintenance, if he was really disposed to discharge hem. (Hear!) But suppose the Duke should come back to this country, how came it that the Duchess of Kent, with ber 12,000l. a year (that she would now have) would be able to provide for her young daughter, who was so near in succession to the throne, to maintain her rank and state on their present footing, and to provide all the education suitable for that daughter, while the Duke of Cumberland was incapable of managing the same duties with 18,000l. a year? (Hear, hear!) Surely there was a gross inconsistency at the outset. After some further remarks, Dr. L. moved an amendment for leaving out the words, "Duke of Cumberland," and putting in," the United Empire."

Mr. CREEVEY declared that he could not submit to pass the original motion, or the amendment. He had never witnessed so gross an outrage as that which was now put upon the good sense and consistency of the House, by this attempt to get 6,000l. a year out of the House of Commons for the Duke of Cumberland. (Hear, hear!) For that was the fact the money was wanted for the Duke of Cumberland. (Hear!) This was neither more nor less than an attempt to raise 6,000l. a year under false pretences. (4 laugh.) Six thousand pounds a year for the education of a child five years old! It was nonsense to talk of it. Was ever so absurd a thing heard of? In truth, this was the old motion in a new form; but that was the most insulting and contemptuous in which it could have been produced. It was very true, that 6,000l. a year had been voted to the Duchess of Kent, but the application, he was very sure, never came from her, nor from those around her. (Hear, hear!) She and the Princess, so far from being voluntary applicants, had been made the mere tools to justify the application on behalf of the Duke of Cumberland, and carry that with their own. (Hear!) If the House agreed to the resolution, they would disgrace themselves for ever. (Hear, hear !)

Mr. CRIPPS expressed himself to be friendly to the principle of the amendment, and declared his intention of voting for it.

Mr. H. GURNEY said the Duke of Cumberland had, in his opinion, been very unjustly treated upon a former occasion, and he hoped the House would now redeem itself from the imputation which its former injustice had cast upon it.

Sir G. ROSE said, the Duke of Cumberland had been driven out of England by ill-treatment. He had known his Royal Highness for years. Upon the first commencement of his intimacy, some of his friends remonstrated with him upon the danger he run from the bad repute in which his Royal Highness was held. He (Sir G. Rose) replied, that he saw his Royal Highness surrounded by men of the most distinguished probity, of the most scrupulous delicacy of conduct, and as he had never known such men attach themselves to bad men, he would not believe the disadvantageous reports he had heard. The subsequent experience he had had, convinced him that the opinion he had formed was correct. He had never known any man behave in a manner more becoming his station, and with kindness and consideration to all who were about him.

Sir W. CONGREVE said a few words which were nearly inaudible. The Hon. Member was understood to say, that the Duke of Cumberland was remarkably punctual in the payment of his debts.

Mr. C. SMITH complained of the cruel insinuations which had been made against his Royal Highness.

As

soon as the scions of the Royal stock attained their 5th or 6th years, the House should be expected to vote 6,000l. per annum for their education. He decidedly opposed the grant, as altogether unnecessary, and as an abuse of that power which the people so largely intrusted to the House. He would oppose it also because its tendency was to lower that true dignity of the Royal Family, which consisted in the respect felt for them by the people.

Mr. CANNING said, the House, he believed, would agree that this child must be educated, not because it was the Duke of Cumberland's child, but because the duty of educating it devolved upon the State, of which it might one day be so important a member. What was now proposed, therefore, was, that by a resolution the most coercive, it should be provided that this education should be carried on at home, and that the Royal parent should either return to England himself, or send hither his child, which might be accomplished by not annexing the parent's return. Thus would be avoided that rude and harsh interference, which it would on all accounts be inexpedient to attempt.

Sir F. BURDETT could not see by what possible device an infant of six years old was to be made capable of expending 6,000l. a year. For himself, he denied that the child stood in any such near relation to the throne as to make any provision necessary, and thought that he might fairly be left to the chance of that education which the Duke his father would bestow upon him. And, if he was to come to this country, what occasion -except to do mischief, and attract a crowd of ill-meaning people about him was there for such a stipend as 6,000l. a-year? How could he be better educated than as young men of rauk and fortune generally were? He (Sir F. Burdett) protested that he thought the 6,000l. a year would be less mischievously employed in giving it even to the Duke of Cumberland, than in bestowing it on what was called the education of his son. The best course would be to negative the vote altogether.

Mr. BROUGHAM, amid loud cries of "Question," suggested whether it would not be better for his learned friend (Dr. Lushington) to withdraw his amendment, and let the question be put at once to negative the grant. Dr. LUSHINGTON understood it to be conceded that some satisfactory provision was to be made as to the education in England; but he objected to the course of the money being voted to the King, specifically "to pay over to the Duke of Cumberland." That distinct arrangement would deprive Parliament of the control which it ought to have over the money, if voted.

The House then divided; when the numbers were-For the grant, 120— Against it, 97—Majority, 23.

Mr. BROUGHAM gave notice, that, on constitutional grounds as well as because he perceived a disposition to take advantage of a temporary coolness on the part of the people respecting questions of economy, and a tendency to spend the people's money as if they were never more to be in want of it, he should therefore continue to give the measure his strenuous opposition. (Loud cheers.)

Sir F. BURDETT presented a petition from a publican at Chichester, complaining that he had been deprived of his license. He understood it was a very hard case, and that the man possessed a most excellent character. This was really a grievance which demanded redress.

Mr. POYNTZ said, he was the more surprised at the refusal, because this man bore an excellent character.

Mr. HUME said, that many such acts of oppression were practised all through the country. There were in Chichester 34 public-houses belonging to one firm of brewers, Messrs. Humphries, and there were only three free houses; and it appeared that every one of the 34 had given a boud to Messrs. Humphries to use no beer but theirs.

Mr. HUSKISSON said, that this was not a case of commercial regulations, but one that concerned the police of the country.

DELAYS AND EXPENCES IN CHANCERY.

Mr. BROUGHAM, in reply to an observation that had been made, that a father had a right to direct the education of his child in the way he thought best, said, that this was only true when that father paid for the education of the child. It appeared to him dangerous and novel to admit that as

Mr. JOHN WILLIAMS, alluding to the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the delays, &c. of the Court of Chancery, observed, that when serious reformers set about the correction of an evil, they were not in the instruments of reformation. The very proposition of such a Commission, so constituted, and for such a purpose, required the greatest gravity of countenance. Indeed, he did not believe that the gravest Chaplains in our Church could take up that list of Commissioners, and peruse it, without a most convulsive feeling of laughter.- (Hear, hear!) There remained in the Court of Chancery now, for hearing and appeals, four hundred causes. Excluding those causes which waited for judgment, and petitions, altogether there were twelve hundred of what was called, "matters and things to be disposed of," at that moment waiting for decision! Taking the average at which causes were disposed of since 1813, it would actually take Forty-eight years to obtain a hearing for the causes as they now stood on the paper! Did any man expect that the public would be satisfied with a mere revision of the forms of proceeding-the regulation of the process for the serving of a subpoena? Such a regulation would produce this much advantage; if the average duration of a cause was thirty years, and the average expense 10,000. the corrective of the Commissioners would reduce the duration to twenty-nine years and nine months, and the

and cheap administration of law. (Hear!) Ministers ought to be ashamed of longer allowing the subject to remain in its present state. (Hear!) The King of Bavaria had very recently introduced into his realm a very general penal code, In a neighbouring country, also, not long since, reigned a man of singular qualities, and still more singular fortunes, who, though like Cæsar, nimium assueverat militaribus ingeniis, yet found time, while engaged in the conquest of the world, to frame a system and a code of laws, which would remain an ever-living monument of his glory, and would be remembered when his victories were forgotten. (Hear, hear!) The experiment had been tried, and had succeeded in France, and the late and great Ruler of that country had left his code as the best legacy to posterity. Whatever might be asserted by lawyers, puffing the craft by which they lived, he would assert that the great body of the people of England, the growing information, the march of intellect, the glorious progress of art and science among them, demanded that some effectual remedy should be applied to the evil. Mr. J SMITH said, that in commercial dealings it was well known to be a common threat on the part of a debtor, that he would file a bill, and it not unfrequently happened that an honest claim was defeated by the apprehension thus excited. A case illustrating this point had occurred to himself. He had lent an individual 4,500l. upon the bond of A. B. a respectable and wealthy person, and that bond became payable in eighteen months. When application was made for the money, the reply was, that the grantor of the bond would not pay more than 4,000/ because only in such a sum was he indebted to the grantee. He (Mr. Smith) consulted his solicitor, who told him that the state of the accounts was nothing to him, and that he was entitled to the whole 4,500l. Accordingly, he had again applied to A. B. for payment of the bond, and being refused, he had threatened an action. The reply was, that if he (Mr. Smith) commenced an action, the grantor of the bond would throw the whole into Chancery. This threat had occasioned so much alarm, that he (Mr. Smith) had again resorted to his legal adviser, who recommended him to relinquish his just claim rather than run the risk of a Chancery suit, as the solicitor's bill would, in all probability, amount to more than the 500l. in dispute. (Hear!) He put it to the House, whether it was not notoriously true, that no man could enter the Court of Chancery who was not prepared to expend a large sum of money; so that, in fact, it was only open to the opulent. He fully concurred in what the Honourable Gentleman had said regarding the Code Napoleon, which would long be remembered, or rather would never be forgotten. The law might not be as purely administered in France, but justice was obtained ten times or perhaps twenty times as cheaply and expeditiously.

Mr. ELLICE said, that the property vested in the Court of Chancery amounted to thirty-four or thirty-five millions, nearly as much as the whole floating capital of the country. In a case in which he was personally concerned, he was required to make an affidavit for the satisfaction of the Court. His affidavit was deemed inadmissible, and his succeeding attempts were equally abortive. The point was of little importance, but after the Court had refused to admit five successive affidavits, it at last was satisfied with that which was first made! The property in dispute was about 1,5001. and the expenses of litigation amounted to between 300l. and 400/. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL noticed the five petitions before the House. The House, he said, ought to be aware, that cases as often stood over for the accommodation of Counsel as for the convenience of Judges. Delays were often the result of petitions being badly got up by Solicitors. The Commission of Enquiry consisted of Gentlemen of unquestionable talents, of great application, and of undoubted integrity. It was impossible for his Learned Friend to say whether the labours of the Commission were or were not adequate to the object for which it had been appointed, until the report was made. He did not wish to intimate any thing disrespectful to his Honourable and Learned Friend, but he must say, that sufficient unto the day was the evil thereof. With respect to the four petitions, he pledged himself to prove, to the satisfaction of the House, that four more unfair, deceitful, false, fabricated, fallacious, and deceptive petitions, had never been laid on the table of the House.

Dr. LUSHINGTON, as a Member of the Commission, declared that it was the anxious desire of all the Commissioners to fulfil their duties with as much expedition as the nature of their own avocations and the difficulty of the undertaking admitted. He was anxious, however, that the House should not expect from the Commission more than it could possibly effect. The Commissioners had no power to enquire whether the present system of jurisdiction which prevailed in the Court of Chancery was right or wrong. (Hear!) Their enquiry was confined to an examination of the practice in the Court from the commencement of a suit until it was brought to a final bearing, and to ascertain whether any branches of the present jurisdiction of the Court might be advantageously taken away, and attached to other Courts. It was impossible, he thought, that with common honesty, reasonable diligence, and ordinary understanding, the radical defects of the resent system might not be altered and amended.

Mr. M. A. TAYLOR said, the present Commission was a mere sop to muse the people; nothing but the active and determined interference of that House could afford a remedy for the grievance. (Hear, hear!) In his view of the matter, the Court of Chancery was the greatest evil and the greatest curse the country had to bear.

Mr. Secretary PEEL denied that any inference could be drawn unfavourable to full enquiry, from the nature of the Commission. He held the conscience of a lawyer in higher estimation than the Learned Gentleman, and he thought an honourable minded man was better qualified for being

HOURS OF LABOUR.

On the motion of Mr. HOBHOUSE, the House went into a Committee on the Cotton Mills Regulation Bill.

Mr. HOBHOUSE then said, that at the suggestion of others he had been induced to alter a little his original purpose. It was his intention to reduce the hours in the day which children were compelled to work in cottonmills; and when he found that no person in any robust employment, nor even those persons who, having incurred the penalties of the law, were sentenced to hard labour, were compelled to work for so many hours, it grieved him to find that any opposition at all should be given to a proposition so reasonable and so unanswerable, that children should not be forced to work in cotton mills for more than eleven hours out of the twentyfour. (Hear!) Perhaps the better course would be to state at once to the House what the object of the bill was. Within the last few days, be had taken the trouble of inquiring the number of hours that men worked at other trades, and he found the following to be the fact the machinemakers work ten hours and a half per day; moulders of the machinery 10, house carpenters and cabinet-makers 103; bricklayers, blacksmiths, millwrights, &e. none of them work more than ten hours and a half per day; and some of them, in winter, only eight and a half. (Hear!) An allusion had been made to the persons employed in the silk trade, but the two were widely different, although he found that they did not work for more than eleven hours; and there was one circumstance which deserved to be remembered, which distinguished cotton-manufacturers from all others, namely, the high state of the temperature, and the variations of heat and cold. (Hear!) An objection had been thrown out, that in cases of this description it was ridiculous to legislate. It had been said, "Will you not let the mothers regulate their children?" He remembered having read a similar argument against the abolition of the slave trade; but did not the House legislate? What he should propose was, that the children should work for five days in the week, twelve hours a day, and how any man could have the face to ask for an extension, he could not understand. On the Saturday, he should propose to curtail the hours of labour still farther, by taking off three hours, in order to enable the poor children to wash and repair their clothes, and prepare for the repose of the Sabbath. He was happy to state that this measure had the concurrence of Mr. Holdsworth, and 32 other manufacturers.

Mr. JOHN SMITH expressed his regret that the hours were not eleven instead of twelve; and instanced the case of one of the most respectable and influential cotton-spinners in the country-he meant Mr. Owen; he, from motives of humanity, reduced the hours to ten and a half a day, and such was the effect of his kindness, that the children working for ten hours had done infinitely more work than before. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by alluding to the condition of the children in the flax mills, which he contended to be just as bad as those in cotton mills.

Mr. HUSKISSON thought that the general principle should be, to leave all trades free between the labourer and the master; but, as Parliament had already interfered, he did not see any objection to the present measure.

Mr. W. SMITH did not think that the labour of the children at Manchester was a bit more free than that of the slaves in the West Indies, and he thought that, as to quantum of work, the children were the worst off of the two.

Mr. PEEL thought that the most important point in the bill was that which empowered the magistrates to interfere.

After further conversation, the bill was reported with amendments.

Thursday, June 2.

Mr. W.4. WHITBREAD presented a petition from the proprietors and promotes of the Oil Gas Company, complaining of the manner in which (after m expense of 30,0001.) their bill had been thrown out in the Committre. Mr. W. contended, that the conduct of private committees in general was full of injustice, and that it dissatisfied the public.-After some conversation, in which several Members spoke of the scandalous conduct of those Hon. Gentlemen who had defeated many projects of public utility because their own personal interests were opposed to them, -Mr. S. W. WHITBREAD gave notice of a motion on the subject, unless it was taken up by Mr. Brougham.

IGNORANT MAGISTRATES.

Mr. BROUGHAM presented a petition from Mr. Bayes, of Cambridge, attorney, complaining of the ignorance of the Magistrates who presided at quarter sessions. The petitioner said, that the excellent manner in which the Magistrates of Middlesex and Westminster performed their duties was a perfect contrast to the slovenly manner in which the Magistrates in the different counties of England performed theirs. Instead of being persons well acquainted with the law, many of them were arbitrary and fox-hunting persous (a laugh)—men given up to spiritual rather than to temporal concerns-surgeons, apothecaries, and, in short, anything but lawyers. (A laugh.) He therefore prayed, that before their appointment, they should in future undergo an examination. The petition was laid upon the table.-Mr. BROUGHAM, in moving that it be printed, said, that he understood that his Hon. Friend, the Member for Westminster, denied that arbitrary and fox-hunting principles went together. Perhaps his Hon. Friend would like to be heard by the House on the subject. Sir F. BURDETT shook his head, but said nothing.-The petition was ordered to be printed.

FREE DISCUSSION.

Mr. BROUGHAM presented a petition from Richard Carlile, and six other individuals. The petitioners stated, that they had been prosecuted, and were immured in different prisons for not being Christians according to the forms of the Established Church, and for stating their reasons why they were not so; and they prayed that the House would rescind the various sentences which had been passed against them, and admit them to the same toleration that was enjoyed by other Dissenters. No one who knew him (Mr. Brougham) would suppose that he was inclined to patronize any species of indecent ribaldry against the received doctrines of the country. He considered such ribaldry to be a crime in itself, and to be the very worst mode which could be adopted to propagate any kind of opinions. At the same time, he thought that if the petitioners had taken a bad way to attack the religion of the country, it was incumbent upon us not to take a bad way to defend it; and the worst of all possible ways would be to inflict severer punishment than their offences required. He could conceive no harm likely to accrue to religion from free discussion; and that until the mode of discussion became so offensive as to excite against it the feelings of almost every man in the country, prosecutions for blasphemy were among the very worst methods of defending religion. Mr. PEEL concurred with Mr. Brougham that prosecutions should not be instituted on the score of religious opinions, so long as those opinions were expressed in fair and temperate language; but he contend. ed, that as soon as they vented themselves in scurrilous attacks on established institutions, they deserved the attention of the civil authorities. He maintained that the libels published by Carlile and his fellowpetitioners were revolting to the feelings of every moral man in the country, and were therefore properly selected for prosecution.

Mr. MONCK ridiculed the idea of defending religion by prosecuting blasphemy.

Sir F. BURDETT contended, that all prosecutions for religious opinions were inexpedient. It was agreed on all hands that religious opinions ought to be tolerated so long as they were expressed in temperate language; but it was now argued that as soon as those opinions were so expressed as to disgust every honest mind, then they ought to be visited with punishment. It appeared to him that under such circumstances they ought not to be noticed, because, if they were so poisonous as was represented, they carried along with them their own antidote. (Hear!) Mr. W. SMITH and Lord BINNING severally made a few observationsthe one in favour, the other in condemnation of the prayer of the petition. The petition was then laid upon the table.

Mr. BROUGHAM, in moving that it be printed, said, that so far was the punishment inflicted on these petitioners from having put down publications of this character, that they were now sold openly in all parts of the town. (Hear!) He pointed out the glaring inconsistency of denying to the poor the right of reading any discussion upon Christianity, and of allowing to the rich the privilege of having in their libraries the works of Gibbon, Voltaire, &c.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL defended the course which had been pursued by the law-officers of the Crown with regard to these petitioners. The petition was then ordered to be printed. TAXES ON THE PRESS.

Mr. BROUGHAM presented a petition from Mr. Giffard, a bookseller, of Paternoster-row, praying that the House would give greater means of circulation to the cheap publications on science, philosophy, and literature, by diminishing the duty on printing paper-by reducing the excessive tax on advertisements by lowering the exorbitant duty on newspapers, and by allowing periodical publications to be conveyed by the post to all parts of the empire, on payment of a moderate sum for the postage, not exceeding the amount of 25 per cent. on the value of the article transmitted.-Laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. HUMB presented a petition from 7,950 inhabitants of Nottingham and its vicinity, against a renewal of the combination laws.-Ordered to be printed.

FOREIGN CORN.

Mr. WODEHOUSE brought forward a motion, the object of which was to obtain further information respecting the prices of foreign corn; which was agreed to.

THE BUBBLE ACT.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL obtained leave to bring in a Bill to repeal that part of the Bubble Act which applies to Joint-stock Companies. The effect of the Learned Gentleman's proposition will be, to remove the penalties which stand in the way of those great commercial combinations which are the main spring of all national wealth, and at the same time to protect the public, by making every individual member of a Joint Company liable to the full amount of his property. Instead, too, of the infinite number of statutes now necessary (for every Company requires a separate act), one statute will serve for all; for a Charter will be granted on all bona fide applications, on the sole condition of the liability of the applicants to the general clause of the bill now in progress.

JUDGES' SALARIES.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in a Committee, proposed that the 500l. taken from the salaries of the Puisne Judges should be added to their retired allowances, and that these should be increased to 31007. a-year. At present, he said, the retired allowance of a Puisne Judge was 26004. He also proposed 3,3001. for the retired allowance of the Vice-Chancellor. He proposed the same sum for the Master of the Rolls. The retired allowance of the Chief Justice was now 3,8001. and he thought it but fair and reasonable to raise it to 4000/. the same which the Lord Chancellor now had. With regard to the fees that were now to cease being taken by the Judges, they were to be carried to the Consolidated Fund. A conversation arose. Mr. J. WILLIAMS thought the proposed allowances on retirement were too small; and he moved an amendment, that the retired allowance of a Puisne Judge be 3,500l. instead of 3,100%. a year. This motion was carried, and so was a resolution, granting a retired allowance of 3,750l. to the Master of the Rolls, Vice-Chancellor, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and Chief Baron. ROYAL ANNUITIES.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the second reading of the Duchess of Kent's Annuity Bill.

Mr. LEICESTER said, that if this bill was as respectful to her Royal Highness as it ought to be, instead of granting 6,000l. a year for the education of her daughter, it would grant 4,000l. or 5,000l. distinctly and substantially to herself, and 1,000l. or 2,000l. to her daughter. The Bill was then read a second time.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the second reading of the Duke of Cumberland's Annuity Bill.

The SPEAKER put the question, that this bill be now read a second time. The Noes seemed to predominate. The House divided-For the second reading, 59-Against it, 48-Majority, 11-The bill was then read a second time.

[The proceedings on the above bill were curious. A debate was fully expected; and many Members paired off to go home to their dinners, &c. agreeing to return by ten o'clock, thinking that they should then be in time for the division. About nine, the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the second reading. Nobody rose to oppose it; whereupon a division was called for. The gallery was ordered to be cleared for a division; and the doors of the House, according to the usual custom when a division is about to take place, were locked. There is a "division bell," which is rung as a notification to those Members who may be in the neighbourhood; but as the Serjeant at Arms forgot to call out "clear the gallery," which gives warning for the ringing, the said bell was not rung. Thus the doors were locked, and excluded many Members. Six Members, however, got into the lobby, but as the door of the House was locked, they could not get in. They complained of this exclusion, and were let in. The fact was communicated to the House, and some debate took place, but strangers were still excluded; and the six Members were brought out of the House, previously to any division, into the Speaker's Secretary's room, and kept excluded till the division was over. The House then divided :-On the locked out. They had run from the Coffee-house, hoping to get in before the locking of the doors, but they were too late. Had the division bell rung as it ought to have done, those Members would have been in the House at the division. Many of these were Opposition Members; and it was said that a considerable majority of them would have voted against the bill.]

Mr. PEEL declared it was quite ridiculous to talk of the prisons being filled with sufferers for religious opinions, when there were not more than eleven persons confined for blasphemous publications.