advantage might be taken of them. The intention, I believe, was generally under. stood. The witness was then examined at length, respecting the meeting of electors, at which he presided as chairman on the 27th of May, but no fact of material importance was elicited. On being questioned as to the source of the dissatisfaction with Mr. Swann, which he had described as prevailing amongst the electors, he stated it to arise from his not having paid the bills given at the preceding election; and that, although the respectable electors had not been engaged in any corrupt transactions with him, they did not approve of his not performing his engagements, and many of them withheld their support when he was last a candidate. Sir C. Burrell put several questions with the view of proving, that the disapprobation expressed of Mr. Swann's parliamentary conduct in the resolutions which were printed and circulated in Penryn, was but a mere blind; the real ground of disapprobation being, that Mr. Swann had not given a public breakfast -that was, 247. to each elector. The first meeting at which these resolutions had been passed was on the 25th of May. At a second meeting on the 1st of June, Mr. Anderdon was present. The general object of that meeting was, to praise Anderdon, and to blame Swann. Mr. F. Douglas asked several questions respecting conversations with Anderdon.-Mr. Williams examined him as to Mr. Swann's having employed many in sending up stones from a quarry at Fenryn to London, and pleaded such employment as an equivalent for the usual breakfast. It was a generally-received opinion at Penryn, that employment at the granite quarries was equivalent to a breakfast, or 241. The witness seemed to deny that he had put the question at one of the public meetings, whether Mr. Swann would pay 241. There had been a meeting to invite sir Masseh Lopes, but the witness had not been present at it. Mr. Swann had not given a breakfast at the two last elections. That might have been the cause of inviting sir Masseh Lopes.The witness being asked whether, since his arrival in London, he had consulted with various persons on the line of evidence he ought to pursue to prevent the borough of Penryn from being thrown open, answered, that he had conversed with several people on the subject, but had not agreed to alter his evidence in conse+

quence. Being pressed with this question in different shapes, he answered equally indefinitely. He had heard it mentioned in society that the evidence of particular witnesses would go to prevent the borough from being thrown open, and he mentioned the names of some of them. He allowed that two-thirds of the electors had received bribes. The lower orders expected a breakfast, which meant a bribe, for at that breakfast the bribes were distributed. They had endeavoured to influence the meeting at which he presided during the election against Mr. Swann.Joseph Sewell was called in and examined, first by sir C. Burrell. He denied that he had conversed about the evidence he was to give. He gave his interest against Mr. Swann at the last election, because Mr. Swann had not paid his bills on former occasions. He had never heard the electors complain of Mr. Swann's not giving breakfasts, but of not paying his bills. He knew what was generally understood by an election breakfast at Penryn; it meant 24/.-The examination of the witness was continued by several other mem. bers. Witness stated, that his connexion with Mr. Anderdon arose from his having been employed formerly by Mr. Anderdon's father, to purchase the borough in Cornwall for him. He did not think that the wealth of a candidate would have any effect in the borough of Penryn. When he brought down Mr. Anderdon, he received a letter from the electors, stating the cause of their dissatisfaction with Mr. Swann. He had lost that letter. He did not know that any voter at Penryn had been bribed, or had taken a breakfast, either in 1806, 1807, or 1812. Since his arrival in London, he has had no conver sation with Mr. Anderdon about the effect of his evidence as to the opening of the borough. He had asked Mr. Wingfield, and also the solicitor for Mr. Anderdon, if he was bound to give evidence that would implicate himself; but he had not asked those persons how far he was implicated by being an agent. He had written many letters to Mr. Swann on the subject of the election; he might have recommended the giving of breakfasts, but he had no recollection of having so. advised him. Anderdon had said, that even if the election were lost, he was not to bribe, and he could say on his con science that he had not bribed for Mr. Anderdon. He had no recollection of having said, that he would support the,

devil himself against Mr. Swann; but he could not answer for what a man might say in a moment of passion. He was of fended at Mr. Swann, because that gentleman had prosecuted him for 2007., and had commenced proceedings against his daughter.

William Rawlins was next called in and examined. His evidence tended to prove, that previous to the year 1807 there had been an organized system of bribery and corruption in the borough, but that during the last ten years it had most materially diminished. He had never known the bribery oath put to the electors except in 1802. The demand of it at that time caused no very great sensation. Being asked to re-consider his answer, he replied, that he supposed himself to know what the examiner alluded to; it was the circumstance that the commissioner, appointed to administer the bribery oath to the electors, administered the oath of the returning officer to them, instead of the proper oath against bribery and corruption.

The chairman then reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Thursday, May 13.

RIBBON AND SILK WEAVERS REGULATION BILL.] Mr. Peter Moore presented two petitions, one from the mayor and corporation of Coventry, stating the distresses under which the ribbon weavers of that place were now suffering, and praying that their case might be taken into consideration by the House; and another from the employers of the ribbon-weavers, corroborating the statements and concurring in the prayer of the former petition. These distresses originated in the reduced wages which were now paid to the ribbon weavers; and the petitioners in order to give the House some idea of their extent and magnitude, declared that they were obliged to pay in poor rates, by which the weavers were almost entirely supported, 45s. per acre on their landed property and 19s. in the pound upon the rent of every House of which they were occupiers. They also stated, that unless some relief was granted them, they must all perish in one common ruin. The mayor and corporation of Coventry, in their petition submit to the House, that during these scenes of unparalleled misery and distress, no inclination to disorder or tumult had (VOL. XL.)

exhibited itself among this suffering body. He was happy to be able to add his own testimony to theirs, and to say, that if ever patience and tranquillity under distress deserved the careful attention of parliament, the present was a case to which it ought to be extended. It was on this account that he had now come forward to the House with a bill, whose clauses were principally founded on the report of the committee appointed to examine into this subject during the last session. In 1816, the distress among the weavers had been very great, and the master manufacturers had, out of compassion to those who were in their employment, agreed not to pay them for their labour by the week, but by the value of the work which they performed. This agreement, however, was not of any long duration; first one and then another of the manufacturers disregarded it, till at last it was entirely rescinded. The ribbon-weavers wanted to make these parties stand to their agreement, and the bill which he should ask leave to bring in was intended to effect this purpose. A rumour had gone abroad that he wanted to fix a maximum and a minimum of wages: he wanted no such thing, he merely wanted a standard regulation to be appointed, by which a due remuneration might be paid to the artisan for his labour. If that had been previously done, the House would not have had to listen to the melancholy details which he felt it his duty to make, in order to show, the necessity of some legislative enactments on this subject. In the town which he had the honour to represent, there were five classes of manufacturers, each working 96 hours in the week, or 16 hours in the day. The first of these classes gain, in return for their labour, 10s. a week, or twopencehalfpenny an hour, which was but a very trifling share of what they were formerly in the habit of acquiring. cond class gained 5s. 6d. a week. The third 2s. 9d. The two remaining classes received 2s. and 1s. 6d. per week. consequence of this reduction of wages was, that the weavers had been obliged to resort to the funds of their friendly societies; and he was sorry to say, that not merely had these funds been exhausted, but also the funds of their saving banks, which were now becoming a mere mockery. The hon. member then went into some farther details of the distress of his constituents, and argued that if a similar sys(Z)

The se

The

sons employed in the cotton manufacture, and that the regulations to a similar effect in the silk trade had been laid before them: but that, after the most mature deliberation, they had resolved unani

Mr. F. Robinson could assure the hon. gentleman, that no man sympathised more deeply than himself with the individuals whom the hon. gentleman represented, and whose condition that hon. gentleman had done his duty in laying before the House. Entertaining that feeling, as he did, it was with great regret he found himself under the absolute necessity of declaring, that in his opinion, the measure proposed by the hon. gentleman was not calculated to remove the evil. If he understood the hon. gentleman his principal object was to extend to the silk trade in general the existing legislative regulations, respecting the wages of persons employed in that trade in London and Dublin. Objecting to the principle of such a proposition, he should be acting unjustly, were he not to take the earliest opportunity of expressing his sense of its impropriety. He was sure the hon. gentleman would not be disposed to deny, that on all general principles by which such matters ought to be regulated in a commercial country like Great Britain, it was "inexpedient to allow the wages of labourers, of whatever denomination, to be settled by any other means than by the natural demand for their la bour. Indeed, he was almost ashamed to use so trite and acknowledged a principle -a principle maintained by every able writer on the subject of political economy; and which received a farther confirmation by the recorded opinion of a committee of that House, appointed in 1809, to investigate grievances in the cotton trade, similar to those now represented to exist in that of silk. The committee to which he alluded came to an early and unanimous resolution "That the committee had taken into their serious consideration the proposition for passing an act, establishing a reform in the wages of per§

would aggravate, rather than alleviate the evil. That the committee, not conceiving that by any mode of legislation a beneficial effect could be produced, felt it their duty to come to as early a decision and declaration of their opinion as possible, in order that false hopes might not be entertained by those whose sufferings, arising from natural and political causes, could be remedied only by the change which time would occasion." The committee from which this report proceeded was composed principally of those members of the House who were qualified to form the most accurate judgment on the subject, viz. Mr. Blackburn, Mr. D. Giddy, Mr. Eden, Mr. Horner, the hon. mover of the present bill, Mr. Rose, Mr. Whitbread, sir R. Peel, Mr. Wilberforce, Mr. H. Thornton, Mr. Davenport, &c.; so that the report was entitled to the highest consideration. If, then, the general principle, that it was inexpedient to interfere in such cases, was firmly established, it remained for the hon. gentleman to show that there were some peculiar circumstances in the ribbon and silk trade which entitled it to be treated as an exception. For his own part, lamenting as he did the condition of the individuals in question, he could see nothing in their case to distinguish it from that of persons in other trades. There was one argument, indeed, urged by the hon. member in favour of the proposed measure which was very portentous in its nature, and which of itself would induce him decidedly to object to it. The hon. member had expressed his hope that his example would be followed by all members whose constituents were suffering pressure; thus stimulating the representatives of all the manufacturing districts to make similar propositions for the relief of similar distresses. Should that take place, and should the House accede to such propositions, there would be an end to the system of free labour in this country. But he was persuaded that the House would never acquiesce in any measure that set at defiance all general principles founded on the soundest views of political economy; and it was on that account, and not from any disposition to dispute the

facts alleged by the hon. gentleman, that he felt bound to oppose the motion.

Mr. Davenport while he lamented the state of great distress in which the ribbon and silk weavers were placed, contended, that of all the measures which it was possible to devise on the subject, none could be so generally prejudicial as that recommended by the hon. gentleman.

Mr. Ellice, in answer to the remark of the right hon. president of the board of trade, that the great object of the bill moved for by his hon. colleague, was to extend the interference of the legislature with respect to the wages of labour in the silk trade of London and Dublin to the silk trade generally, and that he saw nothing in the circumstances of the silk trade different from those of any other trade, which rendered the adoption of such a measure expedient, maintained that the silk trade was peculiarly circumstanced. In the first place, there were excessive duties on the raw material. The right hon. gentleman had talked of general principles; but was it a good general principle to lay a heavy duty on the raw material of any manufacture? It was very well to argue in favour of general principles; but it was sometimes necessary to look at the state of particular cases. If parliament had always acted on general principles, the present application would have been unnecessary. It was because they had departed in some instances from general principles-it was because they had adopted, in some instances, temporary expedients, that other expedients became indispensable to correct the evils of the former. He maintained that his hon. colleague and himself had a right to call on the House to adopt some expedient to prevent their constituents from starving; as the House had adopted expedients to relieve the distresses of the constituents of the representatives of the landed inter. est. One of the right hon. gentleman's arguments, though urged against the measure, was, in his opinion, decidedly in its favour. He had said, that when in 1809 the manufacturers were in the same state, a committee of that House had declared they must look for relief from the change which time would bring. But that relief had never arrived. And so great was their present distress, that relief, in some way or other, was absolutely necessary. If the mode proposed, was an improper one, he entreated the House or govern. ment to point out some other course by

which the enormous evils that existed might be alleviated, if not removed. The present was no interference of one party with another. Both the master manufacturers and those employed by them, were unanimous in their wish for legislative interference.-There was another point of view in which he wished to put the subject. It was calculated that above 30,000l. were levied in poor-rates in Coventry and the adjoining districts in Warwickshire, in order to feed those persons, and to supply the deficiency of their wages. Now, it was stated by the weavers, that all the increase of wages that they wanted, was the eighth of a penny on every yard of ribbon, which would produce a sum exceeding that at present raised by the poorrates. He wished to know, therefore, with what justice a tax of above 30,000l. was laid on the landholders of Warwickshire, in the shape of poor-rates, in order to save the consumers of a luxury from paying what they ought to pay. It ought to be also considered, that in a bill at present pending in the House, called the poorrates regulation bill, there was a clause preventing the magistrates from giving relief to able-bodied labourers from the poor-rates. Now, if a ribbon weaver, earning with all his exertions only five shillings a week, was to be denied assistance from the poor-rates, what was to become of him and his family? He did not advocate the proposed bill on general principles, but he advocated it as an expedient to relieve the distresses of people who, he believed in his conscience, could not go on without relief. An additional reason for allowing the bill to be brought in was, that there were some parts of it to which he was persuaded even the right hon. gentleman would not object. instance, a system had many years ago been introduced of employing poor children in the ribbon and silk trade, as what were called half-pay apprentices; the meaning of which was, that half their earnings were withheld by their employers and the other half went to their parents. While the trade went on well, that was a good plan enough, but the moment any unfavourable change occurred, the unfortunate children were thrown on the parish. One of the provisions of the proposed bill went to remedy that evil. There were other provisions for regulating the silk trade similar to those by which the cloth weavers were at present regulated, and which he was sure would be found wholly

For