The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-02-03 00:00:00

L STANDARD.

any severe pressure, as the result of foreign competition,
and the heavy burdens which pressed upon the country,
he would seriously consider the propriety of extending the
suffrage wider than it was at present. That opinion he
bad before expressed, and he was not now prepared to re-
tract it.

The house, after some further discussion, adjourned

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-WEDNESDAY

Mr. GISBORN proposed certain resolutions for the pur-
pose of giving the committee on the petitions for railway
bills power to report not only whether the standing or-
ders had been complied with, but also whether in any
particular case they ought to be suspended and the parties
allowed to go on with their bill ; but they were opposed
by
Lord G. SOMERSET and Mr. STRUTT, and negatived
after a short conversation without a division.

On the motion of Sir T. FREEMANTLE, the Public
Works (Irelane) Bill was read a second time after a short
discussion on the adequacy of the grant, in which Mr.
Hume, Mr. O'Connell, Sir R. Ferguson, Sir H. Barron,
Mr. M. Milnes, and Mr. F. French joined. The only
feature of importance in it was Mr. O'Connell's empha-
tic declaration, that they were within three 64Nfour weeks
of an actual famine in Ireland. The bill was theu ordered
to be committed to-morrow.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-T[iURSDAY•

The Duke of RICHMOND presented petitions in favour
of protection, and reiterated his attacks on the ministerial
scheme, which he conjured their lordships to reject, and
thus force the government to appeal to the country, the
great body of which had been proof against the bribes of
the league.

Lord KINNAIRD defended the League against the
charge of bribery, and when the Duke of Richmond de-
clared his readiness to be responsible for all that was said
or done at protection meetings, wished to know whether
the noble Duke was willing to be responsible for burning
The Times, or for comparing a member of the other
house to Satan?

Earl GREY expressed his satisfaction at the proposed
measure, but regretted that it had not gone further. It
seemed to him that delay would only keep agitation alive,
and that the country required the abolition of all protec.
tive duties, which were, in his opinion, from first to last a
mistake.

Lord ASHBURTON agreed that a free trade, if it could
be established, was consistent with common sense, but
could not see how it was to be introduced in a country
like England, burdened with debt, and in which so many
complicated interests were at work. Free trade was a
fallacy. for there were certain duties, such as those on
tea, which must be retained for the purposes of revenue.
In his opinion, it would be impossible for the British far-
mer to compete with the foreign corn grower. With re-
spect to the conduct of the Anti-corn-Law League,
though not illegal, it was fatal to the constitution, and the
government would neglect their duty if they permitted
such a system to continue.
Lord MONTEAGLE could not see that the maintenance
of duties for the sake of revenue on such articles as tea
and tobacco had anything to do with the abolition of pro-
tection to native industry. Though he objected to the
three years' limitation in favour of the agriculturists, he
was prepared to look upon the proposed measure as a
whole, and to consider it as the greatest step yet made to-
wards improved legislation on the subject. After some
further observations from the Duke of Richmond, the
matter dropped.
The Earl of DALHOUSI E then brought forward the sub-
ject of railway legislation, and having called_ the attention
of the house to the vast amount

f railway business to be
transacted during the ses'ion, as well as to the immense
amount of capital involved in the projected lines, and the
consequent difficulty in dealing with them, proposed the
appointment of a committee of the same nature as that
appointed in the lower house on the motion of Sir Robert
Peel.

After some discussion, in which Earl Grey, Lords
Brougham, Kinnaird. Monteagle, and Ashburton took
girt, a numerous committee was appointed, and their
lordships adjourned till Monday.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.—THURSDAY.

Petitions were presented for various railway bills.
Mr. BRIGHT gave notice that, on Mot day, he would
move the reappointment of the Committee on the Game

Sir R. PEEL, in answer to a question from Lord John
Russell, said he had no objection to lay on the table the
papers with re-pect to the hostilities in Rio de la Plata,
as tar as they had reference to the grounds on which
France and England had united on this question, but the
papers relating to the atrocities committed he must at pre-
sent decline producing.
Loid JOHN RUSSELL, in answer to a question from
Mr. Escott, stated that he had not yet determined whe-
ther he should, during the present session, again bring in
the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill.

Mr. HASTIE, on the part of the bankers of London,
complained of their being compelled by the standing
orders to pay the money they received for railway deposit
into the Bank of England in the name of the Accountant-
General of the Court of Chancery. He thought there
ought to be some relaxation of the standing orders in this
respect, as the greatest confusion would prevail. He be-
lieved that all purposes would be answered by paying the
money into the Bank of England, and sufficient protec-
tion afforded to all bond fide railways. He would make a
motion on the subject on a future day. .

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the
deposits, when paid in to the name of the Accountant-
General, were as available for the purpose of trade as if
paid into the Bank in any other way. All that was re-
quired to get it out was the order of the Court of Chan-
cery. _ _ _

Sir R. PEEL trusted the house would not interfere in
this matter, as he felt convinced that the spirit of impro-
per speculation would never be put an end to unless the
public sustained some inconvenience.
After a few observations from Mr. F. BARING, the
subject dropped.
Sir C. NAPIER moved for a committee to inquire into
the manner in which the poor-law commissioners have
exercised the powers for the establishment of district
asylums for houseless poor in the metropolis, confided to
them by the statute of the 7th and Bth Vic., c. 101. Also,
to inquire into the effects of any asylums supported by
voluntary subscriptions, which may have been formed for
the same purpose.- Agreed to.
Lord ASHLEY, in moving for leave to bring in a bill to
reduce the hours of working of young persons in factories
to 10 in the day, observed that he was about to revive a
discussion which had often been proposed and often re-
linquished in that house. He was be more encouraged
to do this by the recollection that the last decision on this
important question was not the decision of the house, but
the decision of ministers. The house twice asserted his
proposition ; and it was only after the greatest exertions
that the minister at last succeeded in reversing it. Dur-
ing
the discussion on that occasion 33 out of 42 represen-
tatives of towns in the manufacturing districts had voted
for a Ten Hours Bill through all the division, and he ex-
pected that they would pursue the same course during the
discussion to which he was now inviting the legislature.
He believed that the same desire for a Ten Hours Bill
which then prevailed among the operatives still existed
unmitigated among them, and that, instead of having
abated, it had gathered strength and increase from the
lapse of time. Two years had now passed since his last
proposition on this subject had been rejected. In that
time events in our own country had demonstrated the
truth and safety of the principles which he advocated, and
accounts had been received from foreign countries corro-
borating in every material respect the conclusions to be
drawn from the events in Great Britain to which be al-
luded. The question might be reduced within this nar-
row compass—" Can a Ten Hours Bill be adopted with-
out injury to the interests of the trade, and without de-
preciation of the wages of labour ?" He then gave the
house a history of a series of experiments which had re-
cently been made in the manufacturing districts on the ef-
fect of reducing the hours of labour. Mr. Gardner, of
Manchester, had reduced the hours of labour- in his fac-
tory to 11 hours. Messrs. Harrocks and Jackson, of
Preston, had made a similar reduction. So had several
other eminent manufacturers. The result in every case
demonstrated that the produce of the reduced hours of la-
bour was both greater and better—that the hands were in
better health—that their children were better educated—
and that the feeling between the employers and the em-
ployed was much ameliorated. Such, also, had been the
effect of a decree issued in Prussia limiting the hours of
labour to 10 hours a-day in the case of all children under
16 years. Accounts had been transmitted to him from
Elberfeldt, in which the most satisfactory description was
given of the results of that law on the moral and physical
condition of the operatives. Passing from these indivi-
dual details, be proceeded to show that the effects of the
limitation of the hours of labour on the moral, physical,
and financial condition of our population engaged in ma-
nufactures formed a constant contradiction to all the pre-
dictions uttered by the antagonists of the Ten Hours Bill
when it was last under discussion. Their first prediction
was, that the cotton trade would be destroyed by any such
limitation as he proposed ; their second was, that the wa-
ges of the protected parties would be diminished ; their
third was, that the wages of their children would be re-
duced to a mete nothing; and their fourth was, that the
children would be dismissed, and tha t great physical suf-
fering would be the result in their respective families.
The history of the cotton trade during the last year was
the best refutation of the first part of these predictions :
the fact that there were now 30,000 children under 13
years of age working six hours and receiving instruction
three hours a-days when there were very few receiving
education in 1833, and the report of the operative spin-
ners themselves,—who formerly opposed the enactment
limiting the labour of children to half time,—stating that
the physical and moral condition of their children had
been so much improved that they did not appear to be
the same race of human beings. were the best refutation
of the latter part of them. He implored the house to
consider that the greater part of the children employed
during the present long hours of labour were females.
Was there not something cruel and monstrous to take
ybung girls of 13, the very day on which they reached
that age, and to demand from them the same extent of
labour which was demanded from the most vigorous
adult men ? How could they learn on their return home
any of those domestic arts which were so necessary to the
comforts of the labouring man when he returned jaded
and weary to his humble cottage ? There was evidence
enough to prove, though he would not quote it, that the
degraded condition of the female population was one of
the chief causes of distress and crime in our manufactur-
ing towns. He contrasted with the degraded condition of
the female population in our manufacturing districts the
great improvement which hail taken place in the intellec-
tual, moral, and physical condition of the female opera-
tives at Lowell, in the United Stat.is, since the labour had
been limited to 12 hours a-day. The fact was, that our
women were unsexed in nature and habits by being ab-
stracted from their domestic duties so lung by their pro-
tracted industry in heated factories. Society suffered by

' it—individuals suffered by it • and the operative popula-
tion would suffer by it, until legislation gave them, what
Madame Campman told Napoleon was the best gift he
could give to France, " a generation of mothers." He
impressed on the house the consideration that it would be
well both for the masters and the operatives to have this
question finally settled. Nothing could be easier than
to repeal his bill, if its effects should be found to be pre-
judicial ; for the operatives would be the first to cry out
against them ; but if its effects were likely to prove be
neficial, then they had a right to expect that the house
would assent to their just and reasonable requests He
implored the house, therefore, not to throw out this mea-
sure ; for if they did, they would destroy all hope of se-
cular improvement among the younger part of the manu-
facturing population ; they would aggravate the feud
which so long existed between the house of want and the
house of plenty; they would render poverty discontented,
wealth and property odious, and would impede the social
moral and religious improvement of all classes of the

community.
Sir J. GRAHAM did not intend to offer any opposition
to the introduction of the present bill. After compli-
menting Lord Ashley on the sacrifices which he had
made in this cause—sacrifices which were greater than
fell to the 1,,t of most men to make—he proceeded to con-
tend that everything which had occurred in the manufac-
turing districts since the passing of the act of 1844, in-
stead of encouraging further legislation on the subject,
showed that we ought not to disturb the existing ar-
rangements. If it were true that higher wages had been
gained by the operatives in consequence of a reduction in
their hours of labour, he was glad to hear it; but he
thought that it was a reason for not interfering further by
legislation between the employer and the employed.
After pointing out the advantages which had been gained
for the labouring manufacturing population by Lord
Ashley since 1833; in the prohibition of all infant labour
under a certain age, in the limitation of labour to six
hours among children under thirteen years of age, in the
prohibition of all night labour, and in restricting the
labour of all young persons between the ages of thirteen
and eighteen to twelve hours a day, he proceeded to con-
tend that any further interference by Parliament with
manufacturing labour would be an interference with ca-
pital and machinery, which would be highly dangerous
in a commercial country like our own. It might be
asked, why, if such were his opinions, he allowed this
bill to be introduced. His answer was, that on former
occasions Lord Ashley had endeavoured to engraft his
opinions as amendments on measures proposed by the
Government, but that on the present occasion he had in-
troduced, on his own responsibility, a substantive mea-
sure, which it would be discourteous to reject without
examination. He begged to remind the house that this
question was connected with the relaxation of the re-
strictions on our commercial code and on the supply of
food, which had recently been submitted to the considera-
tion of the house. He therefore thought that the deci-
sion of the house on his lordship's bill should be post-
poned until the house had come to a decision on the pro-
position of government as to the laws affecting the im-
portation of corn. So far as he was personally concerned,
no decision on those laws, be it favourable or unfavour-
ble to the government, could shake " his unalterable
opinion" as to the inexpediency of interference with .
adult labour. No arguments which Lord Ashley bad
used, or would use, were likely to obtain his support to
the second reading of his bill ; nevertheless, for the rea-
sons which he had stated, he would not object to its in-

trod uction.
Lnrd J. MANNERS would give his cordial support to
the bill of his noble friend.
After some observations from Mr. Bright against the
bill,

Mr. FIELDEN said his exncrience of factories was more
extensive thin that of Mr. Bright, and he was surprised
that Government should oppose a ten-hours' bill, for it
might be adopted with great benefit to all parties. As to
the argument that the bill was an invasion of property, it
was precisely the same argument that was used in favour
of the continuance of slavery. To protect labour, it was
necessary to preserve the labourer from !Ring compelled
to work as long as a steam-engine.
Mr. WAKLEY thought Mr. Fielden's opinion was de-
serving of more weight on this subject than that of any
man in the kingdom, and lie hoped it would have its full
influence upon the mind of Sir James Graham.
Lord ASHLEY replied, and leave was given to bring in
the bill.

Mr. EscorT asked Lord John Russell whether it was
his in'ention to renew a bill introduced by him in the last
session for re-organising the ecclesiastical courts.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL, before answering the question,
wished to take two or three days to consider the subject.
Leave was given to Lord J. MANNERS to alter and
amend the laws relating to pious and charitable purposes.
Adjourned to Monday—not so much to observe the fast
on the anniversary of the death of King Charles as in con-
sequence of the state of public business ! So, at least, it
was made to appear by Sir Robert Peel.

FOREIGN AND COLONIA r,

THE RIVER PLATE

DESTRUCTION AND CAPTURE OF THE BATTERIES OF
ROSAS IN THE PARANA, BY THE COMBINED BRITISH