Star. — London, England, 1818-04-28 00:00:00

Di Df le ch he use It. 4) tit . s) ith he xn Cie 7 a evil aces ;plc act, 4 1 ); ,. 1 i, was the heated atmosphere in which the chil were obliged to work, and the degree of tem nercure in which they were kept for holding the rd., „Is. in particular branches of the manufacture. o w evil were a small one, then legislative interpo. t ieo may be unnecessay. on the maxim, de minimis vograt la, but here the evil was confessedly Ft eat, iv ill tiudiester alone no less than:11.800 children 0/employed in this trade. The Noble Lord had eeted to any interposition, on the ground that it mould alter the relations between the pare-at and the c hi,ci, the child and the master, and affect that ar izgement of free labour, or, as he afterwards quail- E : ‘ci it, by saying, " what was called free labour." Lord STANLEY here explained, that it was call e2. free labour, though it was in fact at the command or the parent. Mr. PEEL continued. Every parent whose voice had been at all heard, had said, that they could not erj eise a f r ee discussion, and wished them to legis dge for them as they thought proper. The Appren ' Bill had been mentioned; but between children 11 a manufactory and apprentices there was a consi derable difference. There was a less interest for the boy in the factory, than for the apprentice. Thee* •vas no tie between the master and the child, what I;te strength of the latter failed. It was easy to sup r'.y his place with another, and that was done. Mr. bad stated, that in Manchester the nranufac nrers were near the market for labour. If the chil -zo were overworked, the manufacturer went into .1e market for labour, and always could find a sub• stitute for the labour of the child. It was proved by tat fact, that in the interest of the master alone they I not sufficient security against the overworking the child. He should leave out of the question the pamphlets and ex-parte statements that had made and issued, and' should proceed to show an from the evidence on the other side of the question, the necessity for the Bill. In one manu factory 374 children were employed for 12, 13, 14, 15 hours. In all Manchester, the number of children e mployed in cotton manufactories were, according to Mr. Sandford, 11,600. He implored the House to contemplate for a moment such a number of chil dren occupied at the uniform toil of cotton-spinning for 15 hours out of every 24 hours of their existence hear) —and to say, whether such a system um to be longer endured ? Every natural instinct ,:oanteracted, every feeling and inclination na oral to a child was thwarted and suppressed—(hear, ions. He was not romantic enough to maintain • ? mons, even of their tender age, were not to work; he did not deny the necessity of young chil dren earning their bread by the sweat of their brows. LC was it therefore to be inferred that no limitation or measure should be set to their weary toil—(Hear, tear. hear)? There was a paper produced by Mr. Sandford, which affected his mind more than any , speech or evideace upon this subject. It was the return by the Master. of a Sunday School of the children a:tending his school, who were employed in manufactories. He stated that they were" cleanly, orderly, and as healthy as other children, though they did not look so well."—Hear, hear, hear.) — This surely spoke to the heart of every Member who dated upon the slow but wasting sickness that Mu: affected the looks, and sapped the foundation of pamanent health—Wear, hear.)—This paper also stated, that the children employed in the manufac tories did not come so early as others to the writing mast?, on week-days, and especially in winter. This, to his mind, was a picture of cruelty and.misery al most beyond example. A poor child, unnaturally confined to coastant and cheerless toil for 13 holm and a half, was, after all was over, obliged to go and be confined still longer under the eye of the vrry inganaster—(Hear,sear.)—Was he to be charged with being against the education of poor children , when he deprecated with horror the idea of a poor 1, whose every faculty was benumbed by the in.. . toil of the day, being obliged to exert her ienumbed fingers afterwards with the writing-nu/A -il? Education was a great blessing; but,..so in licted, it was a cruel curse—(Hear, hear.)—Beides :11 this, it should be recollected, that some of those erildren lived at a distance from the cotton-mills, 4 ,1 had thus the labour of travelling to their homes, Isperadded to all their other labours. He again en treated that the House would reflect on the serious hjury done to the best interests of the country by rating 12,000 young children in this manner. These considerations were amply supported and enforced hr the evidence before them. To the Petition which he had the honour of presenting on this subject, were attached the names of 30 medical men and 20 cler nin Manchester. The Noble Lord (Stanley) had professed the highest respect for the first name attached to the Petition, brother to the Honourable Member for Lancashire; but lie was so kind and so guileless, that he had not inquired coolly into the btti; he had given way to fanciful representations, and stood at every door till he got the principal in nate of the house to give his signature to the Peti fonl—But was it really a man misled by excessive badness, that could think it cruel and injurious to employ 12,000. young children for 15 hours every day--(hear, hear)? But the Noble Lord had taken I. ..is 7 principal stand on the impolicy of interferes. -ith labour. He admitted, indeed, that during this -4.sion the House had in one instance interfered with hbour. They had abolished the practice of employ iag children in chimney.sweeping—(Hear, hear ). — !y that interference the House had, in fact, decided tae principle of the Bill. It had declared, that neither tile interests of trade, nor the humanity of masters, were a sufficient security for the proper treatment of riiiire n . Oh bat, says the Noble Lord, here is the c:ference: the one BM abolished, the other only re— Plates. But surely, if it were fit to abolish in one !se what was insufferable and pernicious, it was fit. la another to regulate what was excessive ar.d injun : 31 4--(hear, hear). But there was evidence brought -cArard to prove, that long continued labour iii czon-mills was most salutary : according to this tiaence, cotton-mills were among the most favoured, l'e•cs o n the face of the globe—(a laugh). He should ' iect from the Hon. Member who gave this faseinate. l description of the health of children employed in "ton manufactories, ax amendment to establish totton-mills for promoting health —( Hear, hear. ) rhere Was a cotton-mill in Glasgow, in which, ac rd''.* to this evidence, 878 children were employed t_a,lSl, 671 in 1812, and 891 in 1813. Among the "e were only three deaths: among the 871 691, two deaths- And, after this state- im- bcar lode , by Y al' ttim Atrs merit, he exclaims,. who is the man of practical ea perience that can say that a system so favourable to health can require any alteration on that ground? This was, indeed, so mech against the common eourse of nature, that he must have doubted its correctness, had it come from a less respectable authority—(hear, bear). The average mortality in England and Wales was one in .fifty. In the year 1801 it was one in 44. When he should, on this account, express his surprise at the very different propoitionof deaths in the cotton mills at Glasgow, he was told that one in fifty was indeed the average mortality, but that there were some favoured spots where the proportion was much less. In Cardiganshire the mortality was only one in seventy-four ; in several other counties it was less than one in fifty ; in Gloucestershire it was one in sixty- one ; but even in Cardiganshire, the most fa voured spot, in this respect, of Englipd and Wales, the mortality was tone in 74, while in the Glasgow cotton-mills it was only one in 445! (Laughter and cheering.) Mr. Thomas Warton had addressed an ode to Health, and anxiously inquires, " In what retied and craggy cell " Delights the Goddess HAALIX to dwell ?" &c. After asking ahem the abode cf this coy Goddess was to be found—whether at Matlock, Bath, etc.—or among woods and streams—or on the sea shore, it would certainly have been an extraordinary solution of the perplexity of the Poet, if, when he asked-- " In what dim and dark retreat " The coy nymph fix'd her fav'rite seat?' It had been answered, that " The dim retreat" was the cotton-mills of Messrs. Finlay and Co. at Glai gow—(.3,bich laughter and cheering).—He begged to press upon the House, in opposition to such delusive statements, the evidence of persons to whom no sus picion of interest could attach, and of those whose interest was entirely in opposition to the Bill. At a general meeting of master-manufacturers in Ashton under-Line, it was resolved, that it was absolutely necessary to limit the hours of labour. This was the opinion, not of too kind and guileless men, not of speculative physicians, but of practical experienced men. Let the hour fixed be 12 hours, 13 hours, or 14 hours, they all agreed in the necessity of some, fixed limitation, and thus admitted the principle of the Bill. They said, if there should be no Act of Parliament to iegulate the hours of labour, the hu mane and merciful man injured himself, since others would not act on equal terms with him. If, then, to the evidence of medical men, of clergymen, of manufacturers, be added the feeling of every man, it surely was not too much to expect the limitation of labour to eleven hours per day—(Much cheering.) Mr. PHILLIPS said that great pains had been used out of doors to excite' prejudices on the subject under ' discussion. Great and unreasonable prejudices had ' been raised against the masters ; but the same might be done against the managers of any trade or busi ness if the same arts were had recourse to. The fa vourers of the Bill said that regulations were neg lected in cotton factories, but no evidence to support that had been adduced. They spoke also of the bad state of morals ; but in his opinion, the natural ten dency of such establishments was to produce habits of order, regularity, temperance, and general more lity. The statements regarding the health of the la bourers were equally unsupported. Here the Hon. Gentleman referred to the written opinions and tes timony of Messrs. Harding, Turner, Bardsley, and other medical Getilemen, all going to establish the fact, that in Manchester, Preston, and all through Lancashire, the number of patients of every class in the hospitals of late years, was less in proportion from cotton than any other factories, and that they had in some instances contributed libe rally from such factories to the wants of the more distressed part of the population. The Right Hon. Gentleman had also referred to the opinion of Gentlemen of the faculty • but there was this difference between the opinions of the latter and those he had quoted, that the former were derived from general reasoning, the latter from fack—he held too in his hand a certificate from two Gentlemen, who professed their sorrow for having been induced to sign. a Petition in favour of the Bill, having since, on accurate investigation, discovered that there was no necessity for Legislative interference. It was subscribed by Messrs. Henry Harding and David Hamilton. He would himself assert most de liberately and conscientiously, that the poor employed in cotton factories in Lancashire were in abetter condi tion than the poor labourers in any other manufacture or occupation. In the farmer, the labour and wages were regular and uniform—in the latter, both were fluctuatir.g. Ti:e consequence was, that the workers in cotton factories were best fed, • best clothed, and most healthy. The condition of children was su perior to that of apprentices ; apprentices were to tally under the authority of their masters—children under the authority of their parents--(hear, hear) — He conceived it most dangerous to adopt any measure tending to derange the system of the • free exchange of labour and taagest and deprecated the legislating in compliance with the feelings of humanity alone, with lout a regard to the great principles of national policy. Experience had invariably proved the attempt of such interference most mischievous. The consequence of generally reducing the hours would be, to cause la•necessary increase of buildings and hands, and, till the enlargement of the buildings, an advance in wages. But the enlargement of buildings would pro- I duce an addition of population: in the mean time, we must export less, and the deficiency of the mar kets would be supplied from the Continent, where no restriction existed ; and when, in the end, the labour lug population was increased, the wages of the indi iridual must be diminished; so that the ultimate ten dency of the measure was to inflict the severest injury On the poor man. He defended the conduct and Imanagement of the factory in which he himself had in interest. The population of Lancashire were not inferior to that of any other part of England.-- Less parochial relief was there afforded, in proportion to numbers, than in any county, except Cumberland. No occupation was exempt from hardships and evils —(hear.)—High temperature was not required in cot ton factories. Mr. Holdsworth declared. that 74 was the highest degree ever .oLessary, and in the sort of spinning to which that was adapted. not more than 600 or 700 men were employed ifi ill England. The Bill had tended, and it carried into a law would tend to encourage a practice most prejedicial to the best interests of the country—the practice of combination among workmen—a practice directly at valiance with the morals, oanquillity, and happiness df themselves- He could see no reason why the Legislature should interfere mote in the cotton than in the wooilln ma- nufsetures, except,- indeed, that cotton yarn was ex ported, while woollen yarn was not. He prayed the House to pause before they sanctioned the principle of interfering between masters and their labourers, sad:eject the Hon. Baronets Bill. Mr. WILBRAHAM BOOTLE expressed his un willingness t 6 trespass upon the House, but there weir one or two points to which he should beg leave tredieect their attention. The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Phillips) bad endeavoured to make an impression upon the House, by seeming to insinuate that the Petitions in favour of this Bill proceeded from some discontented manufacturers, or from the rivalry of the woollen manufacturers. This, however, could not have been the case with respect to the Petition from Manchester, for it was signed by the Clergy and by the Medical Men of the town, all of whom concurred in representing the length of time em ployed in labour as inconsistent with the health of the children. The sincerity of the 1,500 Gentlemen 'be signed it could not be better proved than by the circumstance that if. as had been stated, all persons under siateen years should by this Bill be thrown out of employment, these Gentlemen were, in fact, promoting a measure which would throw a very grsat additional burden upon the poor laws, to be "!rayed by the petitioners. He remarked, that the principle of legislative interference between labourers land their employers, had already been sanctioned by Ithe Chimney-sweepers Bill, which had passed the House by acclamation ; and he entreated the House, having adopted a principle in one case, wherein the objects of it were under their immediate inspection, not to abandon it in another case, merely because the objects of it were at a distance of 2 or 300 miles. Mr.W. SMITH agreed with his Honourable Friend (Mr. Phillips), on the impropriety and danger of giving the slightest countenance to combinations among the labouring classes ; but the best and most legislative way of preventing such combinations was to remedy their just complaints. Ile also assented generally to the danger of interfering between la bourers and their employers ; but he could not ex tend that principle to two points, which were per fectly tangible and distinct, namely, the age of the workers and the time of employment, and he thought the House could with safety and propriety prevent children, under the age of ten years, from being employed at work for more than eleven hours.— He was willing to concur with his Honourable Friend on the advantage of giving children, even of tender rats, a certain occupation ; but he could not consent to have them confined to labour for a greater time than was assigned to adults in any trade, or even in agriculture, the most healthful employment of any. The evil now complained of, it had been said, might be remedied by the parents of the children . • but to disprove this assertion, he read an extract from the evidence before the House, shewing that the masters had in this respect combined so strongly against their work-people, that it was impossible for them to cor rect the evil. He then alluded to the unhealthful ness of such extended occupation, and said, that the theories entertained by physicians upon that point, which had been exposed to so much ridicule, were such as had been founded upon the experience of' centuries, and held by all physicians, from Machaon down to Doctor Solomon—(Match laughter.)--r They were-formed cn the plain principle that air and imercise were necessary for the enjoyment of health. The manufacturers of Manchester had, however, to ' prove the healthfulness of their employment, stated that out of a working population, amounting to nearly 12,000 people, the average annual deaths were not more than twenty. But what credit could be attached to such a statement, when it was known that in the Pays de Vaud, reputed the most salubrious country , n the world, the deaths are averaged at seven per annum in every thousand ? He concluded by pray kg the House to sanction the measure. Mr. FINLAY said, that if the Goddess of Health alluded to by the Right Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Peel) were to cast her eyes over the Report on the table, he would make bold to say that the Divinity ifrould make choice of no place for her residence in reference to certain of the cotton manufactories. — was indeed ready to admit that the number of hours consumed by children in labour was too great (hear, hear, hear)—and he would even acknowledge I that it was fully competent for the Legislature to in terfere in correcting the evil ; but he feared that the remedy proposed would not be attended with that I salutary effect. He was convinced that if the Bill were passed into a law, it would have the effect of driving children from a state of comparative ease and happiness to one of severity and hardship.— The measure had been supported by some Petitions, and these were in favour of it—in particular from the workpeople in Mr. Owen's manufactory. Mr. Owen, it appears, had, probably with a good view to his own interest, consented to reduce the hours of labour to ten and a half. It was very natural that the labourers in that manufactory should desire that their brethren elsewhere should share an equal advan tage, and no less so. that Mr. Owen should desire to have other manufacturers equally limited ; but if the hours of labour were thus abridged, he could assure the House, that this country could no longer enjoy [ her present superiority in manufactures in the foreign markets. He hoped they would not, by acting on a I principle of mistaken humanity, and without having sufficiently investigated the subject, endanger the national prosperity. On such a principle the Poor Laws were originally founded, and the results have been distress and confusion wholly unparalleled.-- 1 There was one consideration which appeared to him as an inconsistency in the Hon. Baronet's conduct, which was, that in limiting the time of labour for free children, he made no provision for apprentices, I whom he still left under the provisions of his own former Act, to work twelve hours a day; so that. while the present measure was endeavouring to limit the time of work for free children to ele .en hours, the masters or parents had only to bind them as ap prentices, and they could then, under the Apprentice Act, compel them to work for twelve hours a day. He could not conceive the motive of the present Bill, unless, indeed, the Honourable Baronets own manu factories were all worked by Apprentices. After having given the subject his fullest consideration, and being convinced that the measure not only would not produce any advantage, but would abso lutely create a great mischief, he should vote for the Noble Lord's motion. Mr. TOHN SMITH said, he had a right to doubt the justice of the argu :rents adduced by the opponents of this Bill, since precisely the same objections wt made against one of the moss important measures ever submitted to Parliament, the Abolition of the Slave Trade—(hear, hear, heat.)—llis Hon. Friend had alluded to a Petition presented by the only body of manufacturers who appeared to have considered this subject. He referred to the Petition from New Lanark. That Petition was put into his hands by the individuals who had drawn it u nd a more mo dest or respectable body of men lie never saw. With respect to some of the allegations contained in it, he should like, if it were possible, that these Gentlemen who opposed the measure, should give an answer to them: It was there stated, that the hours of labour had been decreased by the . kindness of their master—but that they nevertheless did a greater-quantity of work in the shorter, than they used to perform in the longer period—( Hear, hear.)—He inquired iuto the cause of this, and was informed, that the workmen, having no more labour allotted to them than they could conveniently execute, they went through it with cheerfulness and spirit—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable FREDERICK ROBINSON ob served, that every feeling of humanity was necessa rily enlisted in favour of this measure. The only doubt he had on the subject was, that if they passed the present Bill, they would be bliged to extend the same principle to every branch of trade. But, how ever unwilling he might be to sanction legislative in terference -generally in matters of this kind, yet he conceived such a case had been made out in this in stance as called for the interposition of the House. Of course, that case depended more or less on the correctness of the statements that had been made , with respect to the effect of labour on the children. But he conceived it could scarcely be supposed that children could work for so many hours without ha zarding their health. What struck him as a most pregnant fact was, that on looking at the list of those who were employed in cotton factories, not one a-- peared above forty years of age. How could this circumstance be accounted for except by supposing that their strength was exhausted by their youthfal labours? —(Hear, hear l ) The Right Honourable Gentleman concluded, by stating that he would vote for the measure. The House then divided, when there appeared— For going into the Committee - - Against it Sc Majority The House then went into the Committee. Mr. FINLAY, on account of the lateness of the hour, hoped the Honourable Baronet (Sir R. Peel), would not press the measure. Mr. LAMB moved, " That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again." Sir R. PEEL hoped the House would not dela., the progress of the Bill any longer, as it was a mea sure of the utmost importance. Sir J. GRAHAM trusted the Honourable Baronet would not press the Bill forward.to-night, as, in all probability, amendments wouliibe offered to every clause—(hear, hear.) Mr. LAMBTON thought the opposition to lettir.g the Bill go through the Committee came with a bad grace from the enemies of the measure, who com plained of the lateness of the hour, and yet did not care to- what unreasonable hours those unfortunate chi' dren were worked in the cotton factories—(hear.) Sir JOHN NEWPORT conceived that they might consider one or two of the clauses to-night—and, they found the hour growing inconveniently la; they could postpone the consideration of the rest. Sir CHARLES MONCK was anxious that tt Committee should be put off, as the measure was ' finitely too important to be disposed of at that hc. Sir FRANCIS BURIIF,TT conceived that the B; should now proceed through the Committee, as involved a most important regulation—and the 1' nourable Baronet who brought it in had already peatedly given way, even at the hazard of losing measure altogether. After some further observations from Mr. Per. Lord STANLEY, Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH, Mr. LAY, Mr. LAMB, and Mr. ItobissoN— Sir ROBERT PEEL rose, and stated that would not object to the motion—but he hoped -.she the Committee ;net tkis day, no opposition would given to the further progress of the Bill. The House then resumed—and Mr. BROADEN ported progress and obtaioed leave to sit this day. LOAN BILL. On the motion for the second reading of the Loan Bill, GRENFELL observed, that by a clattie this Bill it was provided, that the Bank should ceive 8001. per million for their trouble - in receiv; the deposits of the Loan to be raised by convert S per Cents. into Si f per Cents. and 4oa per. me on the funding of Exchequer Bills. This wa., unfair'a charge, that he should, when the Bill w into the Committee, - move to have that clause omit The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER if the clause in question were struck out, it w , destroy the Bill ahogether. Mr. GRENFELL inquired, whether the Subseri bersto the Loan had the option cf depositing whole of their subscription, or any part of it,• in chequer Bills ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCIMQUER they had the option of depositing to the amount tke whole, or any part of their zabscription, in chequer Bills. The Bill was then read a second time, Tc be witted to-morrow. THE HAM Mr. GRENFELL wished to ask a cy.estient subject that had this day created great agitation the City. It was understood that. the Bank of land had thrown a difficulty in the way of the opera.. tion of the Right Hon. Gentleman's Plan of Fins Those who had sul-,..cribed to the Lean, and to-i row or Wednesday had 15 per cent. to deposit on Loan now raisi.ig by converting the S per cents. i Siper cents. were informed, he understood, that transfer must be made in the identical name of person who had subscribed. This was very incoir went—for many persons had gone to the cour leaving their deposits with their bankers, so that was impossible they could conform to the regulation of the Bank. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER it was true such a regulation had been made. correct, in point of law and principle , though , venient, that the stock should only be accepted the person who subscribed, or who had a power attorney authorising the transfer, and nt.: by a pC7.SOII. It WaS a matter of form. zr..l the incon, that fact, tha had not suffi of the child. all the paalP l been made as teen from I question, the factory 374 c 15 hours In em ployed in to Mr. Sandf to cantempla area occapie for 15 hours {tear, heal •-•, was to be sot sras counters cud to a chi Sear). He t hat persons, work ; he di drea ranting But ras it t a measure Sear. hear)? Sandford, speech or e return by children ay.. ennufactor orderly, as they did nc This surely afklted thus Auto permanent stated, elm sprits did mast r- on to his min most beyo confined o and a half and be coy :ben . ' then he d girl, who: cessant toi ienambed ter? Ed: Sicced, it all this, it children I and had ruperadcli treated . . tigury no stating considers • kr the el he had ti attached .gyrnen had pro attache( Member guileless brs ; h and sax mate of kindnes iemploy pnn th lal hbour. Sag chi] ny that sae pi t the ino were a caf e cieres Plates w asrta tc.au . CZon tidal 1 •••CtS pest g de ou r teno r There %rd . , 1 1 19 „ 1 i I 1 1 I'. • • ' ' 1 4 t , , ' ! I 0 • . ; u 1 , ! iI, ti' 1 . I ; It , I , i ; 1 • 1 , 10 ' ii 11 11 • ' t ' , ! • 1 I • i f . 1 • I I ' I 1 I . • i ' ii i l 1 ,1 i j e i , I e 4 , i _.. $ *i ' i e • .,, ' It'i /‘ e tOl I ' t l. It 'i 1 i 4 1, a- ' -ik 'ln t ; 1 st ;e ,lii il ' * A ' -•..' . ' 4 1 i S II 1 I 1 I l i 1 . Le to • . i IT, i i hi ! i. yrt i 1 ' ' ta- 1 I let . Il i ' • all i my -1,, I i , , r.g i lad i ‘ m- l i 1 are ail- gh .i , , :f . ! ' t ate, . . the la- t LAW. ; i • ' Bill . J lc' s it i A Flo- - • I Pi ; Te- tl . .e + i 7 ' EFL, 41 ".. i'll.- - I . J t he Id be 'i ry ,: re- 1 'I 4 d Iy. 'Bill, i il i le of , t t 4 ' al te-. 1 t I , iving rtiag 't a , if i , biota al .!, , ,t, 1 went i !iced. 4,, . said, 4 co.dd • k 't'l • bscri- . g the :f :a E- ; , id 1 , tsa , , k? , il.r. i int of 11 i in F,s,- , i e COl3ll- N ,II ' non a , 1 . 11 , don in . ,` 1 F Eng- opera- r t I name. D-MOT. on the [s. into into go , ti hat the • of the 1 iconve- : i . ountry., that it 4 1 ; elation ' ,R salt:, • It was ~ incon- 4d from Nwer of a . third motive- Al r ti(