The Express.
London, England, 1847-01-27 00:00:00

lIUSiNESS OF THE HOUSE.

Lord J. RUSSELL mid that, as there was no busi-
ness of importance before the house to be transacted to-
morrow, he would move that the house adjourn till Thurs-
day. Agreed to.
POUNDAGE ON CHELSEA PENSIONERS.

moved to a great extent, and the victim. in Liverpool were
out Ills numerous. Other parts, sod malice' irly the towns
of England, are similarly afflicted." In the same page
follow these remarks : —.• The returns of the peat quarter
prove that nothing effectual has been d ine to put a stop to
the disease, suffering, and death in which so army thousands
perish. The improvements, chill! of a showy, superficial,
outside character, have not reached the homes sod habits of
the p .ople. The house and children of a labouring man can
only be kept clean and healthy by the aesiduous labour of •
wel,-trained, i nil ust rinus wife. as any one a ho Las puhl the least
attention to the subject is aware. This is overlooked in Lanca-
shire,where the woman is often engaged in labour from home.
The consequence is, that thousands, nut only of the children,
but of the men and women theme. Ives, perish of the diseases
formerly so foal for the same reasons in barracks, camps,
gaols, and ships." In the same page an extract, given
beim a report of the registrar of Wotan Norris, Stockport,
nye: " Ot the 121 persons, 5.3 were children of one year
lIF
sad under ; and of these deaths of infants the multi were
certified by a rucilical attendant in only 29 cares. It is to be
' fear d that many at this age are lost for waut of medical
assistance and care of the mother, w ho is woe obliged to
leave her child in other hands and go further to engage in
ailment and unwholesome toil. The chill sickerva and is
soothed by opiates." In the same page, • quotation
of s similar taiture is given from the reguarar ut Deans-
gate, Manchester, who concludes thus:—" In all Man-
chester there is but one children's diepensery, and this
has hut two medical officers. Such institutions should be
numerous in large towns, and much good might be effected ;
but the unfortunate out-door occupation of the women, by
causing the withholding of nature's nutriment horn the chil-
dren, is terribly destructive to the latter" In page 4, the
Registrar—General sums up this appalling picture by stating
that—" In Manchester 13,362 children p.riehed in seven
years neer and above the mortality natural to mankind.
nose . little children,' brought up hi unclean dwelling' and
impure streets, were left al me long days by their mothers
to breathe !the subtle sickly vapours, soothed by opium—a
more ' cursed' distillation then ' hebenon '—a lid when
merited by mortal diseases, their stomachs torn, their
bodies convulsed, their brains bewildered, left to d e,
without medical aid. which, like hope, sh mid " come to
I all," the skilled medical man never being calk: liu at
all, or only summoned to witness the death, and sanc-
tion the funeral." Sir, I cannot quote these official
reports without recalling to the a•tention of the house,
that fur many, many tears, statements of a similar
nature, though perhans not so shocking in degree, have been
brought before it by the late Mr. Sadler, by Mr. Oasticr, and
more recently by Lord Ashley ; but always so strenuously
denied by the manufacturing body, that the parliament has
remained incredulous. You are now tell, from authority
and in figures not to be dieputel, how awful is the destruc-
tion of human life in oar principal manulecturing towns•
you am told distinctly that one of its chief causes is the
• constant and unwholesome toil " of mothers, who are com-
pelled to leave their offspring " long days alone to breathe
sickly vapours, soothed by opiates," " withholding Nature's
nutriment," to their destruction. I agree, sir, with the
Registrar-Oeneral, that the " holm and children of a
labour:lm man can only be kept clean and healthy by the
assiduous labour of a well-trained, industrious wife." I
agree with him also, in his just, but severe remark, that
." this is overlooked in Lancashire, where the woman is often
engaged. in labour from home." Agreeing with him, and
knowing well the truth of his remarks. I have learned this
bill with the hope that this house will no longer overlook
the fruitful cause of suelt wide-spread death as the registrars
general has retorted, but that it will sanction at one,, the
restriction which I propose with regard to females, in order
to stop this frightful state of things. I hear men talk very
glibly of the " horrors of war," and I believe that there is
in this country a " Peace-preservation Society," whose oh
ject is to chow mankind that nations, to avoid sech horrors,
should always remain at peace. I applaud their efforts; but
let me ask what arc the "horrors of war" but a wholesale
sacrifice of human life now and then occurrinz ? They are
" horrors," and I respect those who bestow the energy of
their minds in endc avours to convince the world of -their
futility and wickedness; but when the registrar-i eneral,
in the document I have quoted, notifies to us the horrible
sacrifice of human life that is annually perpetrated in our
manufacturing towns, far exceeding the average racrifice of
life by war, I think we should give an earnest of our sincere
desire to avoid ouch horrors by immediately setting to work,
in every practicable form, to effect the object at home.
(Neer.) As to the young persons between 13 and 18, whom
I roll children, no one, I should think, ean in the abstract
object to their labour being curtailed to ten hoursper day.
It is the most critical period of life ; it i. well ascertained
that they have not now the opportunities of healthful ncrea-
tion and of new -1 instruction that they absolutely require,
and that their physical powers are in many cues destroyed.
(Hear, hear.) Toe only argument that I anticipate against
it is " the tyrant's plea," the plea of necessity. I expect to
hear, that to reduce the hours of work of the child to such
as are compatible with his strength and his neceseary moral
training, will indirectly curtail the hours of labour of the
adult workman with whom the child performs ito labour;
that this is a legislative interference between master and
man, and is contrary to the principles of political economy.
I undei stand the words "political economy " to mean the
mode of rightly governing a state; and my opponent. have
always awned that any interference, by legislative enact-
ment, between master and man, is a violation of the proper
mode of governing. Let them recollect that they have all,
whether as ministers or manufacturers, defined the la-
bourer and the master to he two dealers—the first a
man who sells the commodity called " labour," and the
other, a man who buys that same commodity. They have
defined them to be two dealers in one commodity. I ask my
opponents to take their own definition, and tell me why it se
contrary to the principles of political economy to interfere
between these two dealers in the commodity calls I labour,
any more than between any other dealers ? (Hear, hear.)
If they show that it is conerary to the principles of political
economy to interfere between two adult dealers in labour,
they will then have to show that the same principle prevails
when the dealings between those two pers ins involve the
sacrifice of helpless children of both sexes. (Hear.) For my
part, sir, I think that • leading principle of political economy
is, the care of the lives, the health, and the morals of the
people—(hear)—and it is upon the ground that the life,
health, and morality of the young persons, and of women,
are sacrificed by too long hours of work in our factories,
that I ask leave to bring in this bill. I must remind the,
house that, in 1833 it passed an set for emancieating the
black slaves of our West Indian colonies, in which a claim
was inserted restricting the labour of the emancipated adult
negro to 4,5 hones in a week, • shorter period by 13 home
than the English factory child claims at our hands, many of
whom have to work in rooms of as high a temperature as
that of the colonies. (Hear.) Sir, 1 am anxious to mitre
the house, that the working people are now so anxious as
ever for the abridgment of labour that this bill would enact.
I remember a remarkable saying, put forward by the
hon. member for Stockport (Mr. Cobden) in the factory
debate on the 22nd of May last, and reported thus:—"" If
this measure were staved off for but one twelvemonth,
he was assured that the admissions that had been made upon
this subject would change the views of the working classes,
and, instead of seeking for a law to compel short hours
for their labour, they would see the superior advantages of
leaving the question to be settled by the mutual arrange-
ment of muter and man, under such circumstances as would
not cause • diminution of the wages." Now, more than two-
thirds of the twelvemonth have passed away, and I have
gained much instruction on the feelings of the working
people in factories in that time. I have attended all their
meetings that I could with convenience, and I have care-
fully watched the reported proceedings of others; and I can
safely say that not one word of this prophecy has been ful-
filled, but just the contrary. (Hear, bear.) The factory
hands are more determined than ever to have a ten hours
bit (Hear, hear.) They have entreated the masters to
shorten the hours of work voluntarily, and sustain
wages. (Hear, hear.) My hon. friend the member for
Ashton (Mr. Hindley) has been assisting them, but their
efforts have failed, and now some are working 12 hours,
some eight hours, some six hours, some • less number,
and some mills are altogether closed. Nothing like 10
hours a day, on an average, are now being worked in the
factories of Lancashire and Yorkshire, and yet there is no
" mutual arrangement of masters and men" in regard to
working their mills an uniform number of hours. While
some children are being overworked, others have no work at
all, and have to starve tor want of the necessaries of life. If
' the Ten Hours Bill had passed last seesios, I believe
, that much of the suffering now going on, and to be ex-
pected, would have been avoided, and the hands et the fac-
tories would have been working ten hours a day. (Hear,
, bear.) Short time, such u now prevails, disturbs all
things; puts workpeople on less wages, and manufacturers
take advantage of the state of things to reduce wages,
which do not rise again so rapidly as they fall. (Hear,
hear.) But the evil does not stop here. As regards the
spinners and manufacturers themselves, the weaker and
poorer manufacturers suffer by it the most. Of necessity
they sell their goods as they are produced, and almost inva-
riably at a loss in seasons of bad trade. The wealthier lay
up stocks of goods in those times of depression, if materials
, and labour are low, and when the demand revives, and
prises of materials and wages rise, they bring their stocks
into the market, undersell their poorer competitors, and
prevent them from recovering their looses for a longer
time than would otherwise be the ease, and an increase
of insolvencies and bankruptcies follows, all of which
would have been prevented by proper regulation.
(Hear, hear, hear.) When the employers are ruined, their
workpeople are thrown out of work, and have to suffer
all the evils of excessive poverty. What justification can
be urged. for working young children and women to death
in factories, to promote • system which tends to so much suf-
fering both amongst employers and the employed ? (Hear,
hear.) In conclusion I beg to state, that it is a ten and not
an eleven hours bill that those employed in factories supplicate
this house to grant. An eleven hours bill would not re-
medy threvils complained of ; it would not give satisfaction,
nor stop the agitation on this question; and as I know from
long experience that whet they seek is reasonable, and ought
to he conceded, I implore the house to pass a ten hours bill.
Sir O. OBEY said that the hill, of which the hon. gentleman
' was kind enough to show him a draft, was similar in sub-
stance to the bill of last session introduced by Lord Ashley,
and he had no objection to its introduction. He did not
mean to go into the discussion of the subject then, but
would reserve his observations till the second reading. He
merely thought it right to guard himself against the sup-
, position that he assented to the construction which the hon.
: miemmtherbenselrypepit otw to thenedpehiin tththee last report of the inspector-general,
with
mortalitymorilfiatcytoorfciy
tt.w
labourers.
greater Hateerththoaunghint
i rural districts, but that it was greater in Liverpool than is
olflantheehrth,nr.tio(lln eoafr,thheearho.; but.)Thatd heocu thmenotuwgsaht thewe remedy
malifuiredr. ;ALAI' ltriWnNgeYnt wniprotestedUrY measure,
(thlier, 611111earbeIng
allowed to proceed further, because it would injure the being
of the country. The measure was redundant and de-
fective—redundant, because it would injure those labourers
who were employed in factories ; defective, because it did

Mr F MAtiLE, in moring for lease m bring in a bill
to abolish poundage on Chelsea pensioners, explained, that
nearly a hundred years ago it was the practice to allow the
pensions of the Chelsea pensioners to get In arresr for twelve
months before they were paid. In 1754, however, the
government passed a law to the effect that the pensions
should be paid six months in advance. and that 5 per cent.
should be deducted from each pension for such accommoda-
tion. This explained the term " poundage." In 1833 an
act was passed abolishing poundage on all pensions awarded
to men who should enlist subsequent to that period. The
reduction had come very naturally to be considered a tax on
the old pensioners, the more especially as their pensions
were now seidom paid more than one month in advance, and
the object of the present bill was to do away at once and
for ever with the system -of poundage, and pay all
pensions hereafter in fall. (Hear, hear.) He trusted the
generosity of the house would allow ne obstacle to be pre-
sented to the introduction of the bill. (Hear, hear.)
Capt. Layerd, Sir D. L. Evans, and Sir H. Douglas,
congratulated the government on the introduction of the
measure.—Leave was given to bring in the bill.

LIMITATION OF LABOUR IN FACTORIES.
Mr. FIELD EN, after presenting a mass of petitions upon
the subject, moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend the
laws relating to labour in factories, and spoke as follows:
Sir, I propose to bring in a bill with regard to the hours of
labour in factories, similar, as regards persons between 13
and 18 years of age, in its provisions to one which the late
Sir Robert Peel proposed to the house nearly 32 years ago—
that is, I propose to limit the labour of young persons
between the ages of 13 and 18 to 12 hours a day, allowing
two hours out of the 12 for meals—that is, to 10 hours' actual
work per day for five days in the week, and eight hours on
Saturdays ; and I propose to carry out this alteration by re-
stricting the hours of actual labour to 63 hours in the
week until the Ist of May, 1848, and after that pe-
riod to 68 hours in the week • and I propose, further,
that the same restrictions shall apply to females above
18 years of age. My reason for proposing this mea-
sure is that the time of working young persons and females
In factories is far too long, hos been very mischievous,
and, if persevered in, will became the cause of great na-
tional evils. (Hear, hear.) I ask for it, also, because the
people employed in factories have wished for it, and have
long petitioned the legislature to concede it to them, and
because the ministers of religion, medical practitioners, and, 11
indeed, all classes who have opportunities of ohs -rving the
consequences of the present system, deprecate it as destruc-
tive of the moral and physical condition of a vast and most
important class of the community. (Hem.) It is a ques-
tion which involves the very existence of thousands who are,
I am afraid, sacrificed annually for the want of those dos
and sufildent regulations without which the late Sir R. Peel
awned that our improved machinery would become our
bitterest curse. (Hear.) I will at once call the attention
of the house to a document of authority on this subject,
cue which, I confess, startled me, though I have long been
accustomed to fear the effects of the system. we have been
pinsiung. refer to " A table of deaths registered 'in 115 '
districts of England during the quarter ending September
80, 1846"—that is, the autumn of the last year. In page 3of
ab.,11 document, which is published y authority of the Regis-
traysgeneral of Births, Deaths, anbd Marriages, it is said,
the powni.lation of the ex-metropolitan districts of Surrey
win is.. 1, 187,868, and the population of the town sub-
diat in,itinta or 7,lanehclter was 163,856; and that in Manchester,
with this „„:itiintion, the deaths registered in seven years
1838-41___nar; :4,92'2, and those in Surrey only 23,777,
making a digaTanna n;1.(1,145." He then saye—" The popu-
lation of Surrey exetedea that of Manchester; yet, in seven
years, 16,000 persons died in Manchester over and ahove
the deaths in Surrey, the „
mortalitc444iitkh, bout the
poverty of the labourer an. slight of the in-
fluences so fatal in Manchester, is higher t A... should be.
There were 23,523 children under five years in Sur-
rey, and the deaths of children of shot age were 7,384; the
Children in Manchester were 2052, the deaths 20,726!
In the seven yam 13,302 children in Manchester alone fell
a weillce to kaolin ewes, which it is believed may be re-
'elan.

THE EXPRESS, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JANUARY 27, 1817.

not apply to the number+ of labooyers who were injured in
other departments of labour. There were in London
100,000 female servant', who were traptcal with great hardship.
Why net apply leaislation to thei- ease, or to the miners of
Cornwall ? was quite as reasonable to limit the amount of
capital as the hours of labour. His great objection to the
hill was, that it would reduce the rate of wages. He proposed
to divide the house, and end the matter at once.
Mr. FEItItAND said that they bad legislated to prevent
cruelty to animals, and why not to prevent cruelty to factory
operatives? The right hon. gentleman the Chancellor ar the
Exchequer said, on a former occasion, that the workmen
did not strike in favour of the bill. They did not, because
they hoped that legislature would pass it without • strike.
He was delighted to think that the measure was likely to
have the support of her Majesty's government, as he col-
lected front the tapes ch of the Secretary to the Admiralty
(Mr. Ward) to his constituents at Sheffield. The wives and
daughters of the workmen would implore the house on
banded knees to pass the biU. He hoped no pen m would
be found to sec and the motion of the hon. memo r.
Sir G. STRICKLAND said he was a supporter of the
ten hours bill, and he hoped the house would lie allowed an
opportunity of calmly and fairly considering it. He believed
that ten hours' labour was the right and humane system for
young persona. (Hoar.) They could not possibly work
against the continuous power of steam. (Hear) He was
not one of those who cried out against p 'litieal economy,
rightly understood. But there was &sort of pedantic syst< m
of political economy which would nester listen to reason on
this subject. (Hear.) There was no analogy between the
cases of the factory children and the *errant' of Loudon,
because the former were too young to protect themselves ;
and it was on the principle of the labourers being able to pro-
tect themselves that the political economists rested their case.
Sir R. PEEL said he was sorry the hon. member for
Taviatock had signified his intention of dividing the house.
He retained with respect to the present bill the opinions
which be advocated on former occasions, not because he was
indifferent to the case of those employed in factory labour,
but because his conscientious opinion was, that the perma-
nent interests of those labourers would not be promott d by
legislative interference of this kind. (Hear, hear.) Tit it
was perfectly consistent with the maintenance of these opi-
nions to express regret that the introduction of I
the bill was opposed. In discussions of this kind, feel-
ing as well as reason must enter into consideration
(hear, hear.) and to reject the bill without'
discussion would not be respectful towards a large
class of society. (Hear, hear.) lie thought it woo the ge-
acrid impression at the commencement of the discussion,
that leave should be given to bring in the bill, and that an
opportunity should be afforded of discussing it on the merits
more fully than could le done at pr. sent. If a decision ad
verse to the bill was ultimately come to, after mature deli-
beration, it would be more likely to conciliate the feelings of
the persons interested to the doctsion of the house (Hear..)
Mr. HUME did not think his hon. friend (Mr. Trelawnyj
had done justice to his own principle, because, what he was
anxious for, was full discussion. He was convinced that the
masters and workmen should be left at perfect liberty to
make what agreements they pleased, and that any interference
by the legislature would injure the labourers themselves.
Mr. ESCOTT thought that the discussion should be
taken at a future stage. He begged to know from her
Majesty's government whether the bon. member for Knares-
borough interpreted their intentions correctly, in saying that
they would support the bill.
Mr. TRELAWNY laid he would not divide the house
after what had been said.
Mr. MUNTZ thought that the labour of those employed
in the cotton factories was an exception to the general rule.
He lately visited Manchester to see if any improvements had
taken place, but he did not find any that were of advantage
to the working classes. The length of the hours for labour,
and the heat of those factories, should take them out of the
general rule with regard to labour generally. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. ESCOTT said his question had not been answered.
He now put the question to the noble lord at the head of the
government.
Lord J. RUSSELL raid the house had agreed to the in-
troduction of the bill. When it came before the house in
its next stage, he would he prepared to announce the inten-
tions of the government. (Laughter.) Leave was then given
to bring in the bill.
NATIONAL GALLERY. . .

Mr. HUME, in moving fur returns respecting the Na-
tional Gallery, said he understood the pictures had been
much injured, and he wished to know whether the trustees
had given any directions on the subject, or whether any
report had been made. The subject had excited great inte-
rest in the public wind more than he could anticipate.
Sir R. PEEL said there was no other object on the part
of the trustees than to give the fullest information. He
perceived there was e meeting of the trustees, calling upon
the gentleman in whose immediate charge the pictures were
placed to make a full report. He trusted the house,
in consequence of the very high character of that gentleman,
and his great eminence so an artist—(hear, heron)—would
suspend their judgment till they ?received full information
on the su',,jcet, which they might depend upon having.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
fully concurred in whit the right hon. baronet had said.
LAW OF SETTLEMENT.

Sir G. GREY moved the appointment of the following
members as the select committee on the law of settlement :
Mr. C. Buller, Sir J. Graham, Mr. Bankes, Mr. J. E.
Denison, Sir 0. Grey, Mr. T. Duncombe. Lord 11.
Vane, Mr. P. Scrope, Mr. W. Miles, Mr. C. Villiers. Mr.
Borthwick, Mr. C. Round, Mr. Aldan. and Mr. Bodkin.
Mr. ',ERRAND said the committee was not fairly con-
stituted ; and their decision therefore would not give satis-
faction to the public. Out of the number there were nine of
liberal opinions; others belonged to the party of the late
head of the government; but till he knew what their prin-
ciples were (if they had any) he was not able to describe
them.—(laughter)—but as it 't sod at present the decision of
the committee would not give satisfaction. lie protested
against the selection.
Sir G. GREY said he had taken great pains in the nomi-
nation. There were seven members from his side of the house
and eight from the apposition side ; but he selected them
rather from the interests which they represented in the
house than on any other ground. Whatever the opinions
of hon. gentlemen might be on the subject of the poor-laws,
he did not think it would bias them in coming to a just deci-
sion with respect to the law of settlement. (Hear, hear.)
—The committee, as selected, was then appointed.

•
BUCKWHEAT, &c., IMPORTATION BILL.
On the second reading of this bill, Lord J. RUSSELL
said he proposed that the articles affected by the bill should
be admitted free of duty, by an order of the treasury, with-
out waiting for the other bills to be passed.
The house adjourned at half-past six.