Lords Sitting of 11 July 1871

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Railway Regulation Amendment* (253); Sewage Utilization Supplemental* (254); Election Commissioners Expenses* (255).
Second Reading—Public Libraries (Scotland) Act (1867) Amendment (241); Public Health (Scotland) Supplemental* (227); Kingsholm District Boundary* (215); Clerk of the Peace* (180).
Committee — Report—Union of Benefices Acts Amendment* (219); Ecclesiastical Titles Act Repeal (184).
Third Reading—Burial Grounds* (231); Life Assurance Companies Act (1870) Amendment* (243): Gas and Water Provisional Orders Confirmation* (244); Courts of Justice (Additional Site)* (218), and passed.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES (SCOTLAND) ACT (1867) AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 241.)
(The Earl of Airlie.)
PUBLIC LIBRARIES (SCOTLAND) ACT (1867) AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 241.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the Bill had been brought in to remedy some defects which had been found to exist in the Public Libraries Act (Scotland) 1867, and to give additional facilities to the local authorities to whom was intrusted the management of those institutions. Under the existing law, while the rate which might be raised by a library committee was restricted to one penny in the pound, the power of borrowing was unlimited; and the result was that although corporations could borrow plenty of money for other purposes, they could only obtain money for the purposes of a library by
  1398
  paying a high rate of interest for it. It was proposed by the present Bill to limit the amount to be borrowed to one-fourth of the amount of the rate, and to extinguish the debt by means of an annual sinking fund equal to at least one-fiftieth part of the money so borrowed. It was also proposed to incorporate in the present Bill the provisions of the Commissioners' Clauses Act 1847, instead of the provisions already icorporated, of the Companies' Clauses Act, which were inapplicable, as they applied to joint-stock companies, and did not apply to bodies having charge of public libraries. Then, under the existing law, there was power to make bye-laws and rules, but no power to enforce them. It was now proposed to give that additional power, and to simplify the mode of procedure for recovering such fines and penalties as could now be imposed. A provision was also inserted in the Bill authorizing the Committee of Management to lend books, and to make and issue catalogues. The Bill had received the approval of the Government and of various public bodies in Scotland which were interested in public libraries.
  LORD COLONSAYsuggested that a provision should be inserted in the Bill for the auditing and publication of the accounts of the Commissioners.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEexpressed his willingness to add such a clause to the Bill, and hoped the noble and learned Lord would assist him in framing it.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ACT REPEAL BILL—(No. 184.)—COMMITTEE.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
House in Committee (according to Order).
EARL RUSSELLsaid, that when he introduced the measure about to be repealed in 1851, he did so because it was then his impression, and that of the country in general, that a great change was to be inaugurated, which made it necessary to assert the Queen's authority in some effective and formal way. The Act accordingly asserted that authority, and imposed a pecuniary penalty upon those who assumed territorial titles without the authority of the Crown; but he took care to insert a

1399
provision that the penalty should not be sued for except with the consent of the Law Officers of the Crown—thus preventing the institution of vexatious informations and prosecutions, and providing that the law should not be enforced unless the Queen's authority was openly set at defiance. He considered that the Act had fully answered the end for which it was intended. There had been no ostentatious assumption or assertion of such titles, and no persons had suffered from its enactment, for no penalties had been sued for, and the Act for the purpose of inflicting fines remained a dead letter; and while the authority of the Queen had been asserted, no suffering had been incurred. At the present time—more especially as the Irish Church had been disestablished, it was quite right that these penalties should be repealed. He could not, however, assent to the assertion made in the Preamble, that titles of this kind were only regarded as "titles of office." This was not the view of the Roman Catholic Bishops, or of airy Roman Catholic lawyer in this country; for they had repeatedly asserted before Committees of both Houses that the only persons having spiritual and real jurisdiction over the inhabitants of the places to which the titles referred were the Roman Catholic Prelates, and that the person calling himself Bishop of London, for instance, had no proper jurisdiction over London, it being part of the diocese of the Archbishop of Westminster. If, however, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack thought it proper to state in the Preamble that such titles were only assumed by Prelates as titles of office relating to their connection with their own adherents, he saw no harm in it. It was only adding another fiction to the thousand fictions already existing in the English Law; and as there were a Thousand-and-One Arabian Nights, there might as well be a thousand-and-one legal fictions. If any person thought it conduced to his dignity or authority to assume a title which, according to this Bill, was not assumed by any proper authority and which rested on no legal basis, no great harm would be done by such an idle assumption, any more than by a man styling himself Duke of Westminster without possessing any legal claim to such a title. The reasons which existed in 1851 for passing the Act
1400
having now passed away, he gave his willing assent to its repeal.
EARL STANHOPEsaid, that though when the noble Earl introduced the Bill in the House of Commons he entirely concurred in its provisions, and gave it his support, subsequent circumstances had proved to him that the Bill was in operation a mere nullity, and that it would be advisable that it should be repealed. The Bill had proved inoperative, for not only had the prohibited titles been publicly assumed, but no penalties had been inflicted or even sued for; and though in one sense it was true, as stated by the noble Earl, that nobody had suffered, it was urged by accredited representatives of the Roman Catholics in both Houses that the Act was most offensive to their feelings. Feeling the statute to be obnoxious to many and useful to none, he obtained the appointment of a Select Committee of their Lordships to consider the matter; but his view, though supported by a considerable minority of the Committee, was not adopted by the majority, and the Act would probably remain unrepealed but for the fact, which could not have been foreseen at the time of its passing, that some Bishops of our own persuasion would come under its provisions. Since therefore the Act did no good to one party, and inflicted pain on others, he thought the time had come when it should be repealed.
LORD LYVEDENsaid, he was glad to think that he opposed the Act in 1851 at every stage, deeming it wholly unnecessary and little creditable to a country where religious liberty prevailed. It had proved a brutum fulmen; but though the penalties had never been enforced, it had done great mischief in Ireland.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it would be unmanly if he did not avow that when the measure was first proposed it had his hearty concurrence. He had at that time no anticipation of holding office; but afterwards, as Solicitor General, he had charge of it in the House of Commons. He then supported the Bill because he regarded it as a properly-timed and desirable measure; for a certain distinguished person, a subject of this realm, acting under the authority of a foreign Power, had introduced a change in the entire system of management of the Roman Catholic Church in this kingdom. Until the issue of the

1401
famous Letter from the Flaminian Gate the different districts were under Vicars General, who usually bore the name of a place wholly unconnected with the locality, and had special charge of the Roman Catholics within the districts, no mention being made of governing the districts themselves. In that Letter a person professing to act under a foreign authority announced that he governed whole districts—an assumption of power which would never have been tolerated before the Reformation or long after it, our Statute Book being full of Acts repressing such a power. Therefore, he thought that a distinct declaration of the law was required. He should have been content with a mere demonstration and declaration of the law, and he admitted that the paltry penalty of £100 was a great mistake, though it was borrowed from the Emancipation Act of 1829. In his opinion, it was expedient to make a legislative declaration of the law in order that our Roman Catholic brethren should know the exact position in which they stood, and that the Pope, who was then and had ever since been on terms of amity with us, should not be misinformed as to the state of public opinion, but should be told what the state of our law was, and how far he was infringing it if he authorized such assumptions. At the present time it was right to recite the exact state of the law, and the assertion in the Preamble objected to by the noble Earl was inserted, not as a statement of fact, but of law, so that it might be understood that as "titles of office" these titles were not prohibited, but that the assumption of any jurisdiction or authority within these realms was prohibited as heretofore.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid he was at a loss to know why the noble and learned Lord consented to the repeal of the Bill, seeing that the Pope had recently claimed greater authority than he had done at any former period.
Bill reported without Amendment, and to be read 3a on Thursday next.

CHILDREN'S EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION—BRICKFIELDS—THE FACTORY ACTS.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY, in rising to move an Address to the Crown relative to the state of children employed
  1402
  in brickfields, said: My Lords, this numerous class is excluded, only by a technicality, from the protection enjoyed by children engaged in other occupations, and yet they stand as urgently in need of legislative care. Your Lordships will perhaps remember that, in 1842, after the Factories Act had been in operation a few years, I moved for a general inquiry into the employment of children and young persons in various departments of trade. That Commission made its Report, and upon it certain remedial measures were granted; and in 1862 I moved for a renewal and an extension of the Commission and for further inquiries, several trades having in the meanwhile risen up and others having become extinct. The result of their inquiries was the passing of the Factories Act Extension Act and the Workshops Act; and I am glad to be able to say that for both these beneficial measures the country is indebted to both sides of this and the other House, and to the Governments which have respectively done their best to enact these laws. When, however, the trades to be included in the operations were to be settled, the children and young persons engaged in the manufacture of bricks and drainage-tiles—for what reason I cannot say—were excluded, those employed in pottery and porcelain works alone being included. Now, the state of things existing in the brickfields has risen to such a height of cruelty and abomination that a cry has gone forth through the whole country, and I most earnestly appeal to your Lordships to step in and arrest it. I shall not require much time to prove my case. I will only cite the evidence drawn from the Reports of the Commissioners, the Report of Mr. Inspector Baker, and a pamphlet by George Smith, of Coalville, near Leicester, the zealous and long-tried friend of these sufferers, and who has himself been a lad in the brickfields, and has described what he endured during his childhood. The brickyards in this country number about 3,000; there being more in some parts of the country than in others, and the number of children and young persons employed in them amount to nearly 30,000, their ages varying from 3½ to 17. A very large proportion of them, especially in the Midland districts, are females; and the hours during which they are kept to

  1403
  this monstrous toil are from 14 to 16 per day. Such being their tender age and their sex, I feel sure that your Lordships, after I have produced some illustrations on unquestionable evidence of the cruelty and hardship to which these persons are exposed, will readily assent to my Motion. I will first quote the evidence of Mr. Smith, who has worked in a brickyard for many years. Here are his words—
  "As a child and lad I have myself gone through what thousands are going through to-day. It is the very bondage of toil, and a home of evil training. When seven years of age I was employed in making bricks. At nine years of age my employment consisted in continually carrying about 40 lb of clay upon my head from the clay heap to the table on which the bricks were made. When there was no clay I had to carry the same weight of bricks. This labour had to be performed, almost without intermission, for 13 hours daily. Sometimes my labours were increased by my having to work all night at the kilns."
  In a yard which he described were several children,
  "Mostly nine to ten years. They were of both sexes, and in a half-naked state. Their employment consisted in carrying the damp clay on their heads to the brick makers, and carrying the made bricks to the 'floors' on which they are placed to dry. Their employment lasts about 13 hours daily, during which they traverse a distance of about 20 miles. It may be asked why the Inspector did not interfere? He could not, the Act not applying to establishments in which less than 50 persons are employed. … As a further proof of the severe and extremely heavy nature of the toil undergone by the children, I would submit to your inspection a lump of solid clay, weighing 43 lb. This, in a wet state, was taken a few days ago from off the head of a child nine years of age, who had daily to walk a distance of 12½ miles, half that distance being traversed while carrying this heavy burden. The clay was taken from the child, and the calculation made by me, in the presence of both master and men."
  To give an idea of the physical effects, Mr. Smith continued—
  "I had a child weighed very recently, and although he was somewhat over eight years of age, he weighed but 52½lb. and was employed carrying 43lb weight of clay on his head an average distance of 15 miles daily, and worked 73 hours a week. This is only an average case of what many thousands of poor children are doing in England at the present time, and we need not wonder at their stunted and haggard appearance, when we take into account the tender age at which they are sent to their Egyptian tasks."
  Your Lordships will understand that Mr. Smith's testimony may be received without the slightest hesitation, for it has been before the public for sometime and has been circulated in the brickyards, while nobody has ventured to
  1404
  gainsay it. The description given by Mr. Smith applies to what is actually being done and suffered by thousands of children at the present moment. Can, then, your Lordships wonder at their degraded condition, when you consider the tender age when they are condemned to such an Egyptian bondage? Let us now take the evidence, quoted by Mr. Inspector Baker, of a master brickmaker, as to what he has seen in many yards but has corrected in his own. This is a specimen he gives of the work—
  "Those who carry clay to the moulders, called clay carriers, remove on an average 21 lb to 40 lb of clay on the head and about 10 lb to 20 lb in their arms; say one of 10 years old, carrying in all 30 lb of clay, each journey of 40 yards, and traversing 250 journeys per day, removing 3½ tons a distance of 40 yards daily, walks 4½ miles in doing it and 4½ miles back; walks three miles in 'rearing,' 'gorming,' and 'hacking' the bricks, and, on an average, two miles going to and returning from work, giving a total distance traversed by the younger clay carriers of 14 miles."
  I will next quote the observations of a distinguished American writer, a distinguished and venerable man of whom your Lordships must, have heard, Mr. Elihu Burritt. Speaking of a little girl about 13 years of age, whom he saw during an inspection of the fields, he said—
  "She first took up a mass of the cold clay, weighing about 25 lb upon her head, and while balancing it there, she squatted to the heap without bending her body, and took up a mass of equal weight with both hands against her stomach, and with the two burdens walked about a rood and deposited them on the moulding bench. No wonder, we thought, that the colour in her cheeks was an unhealthy flush. With a mass of cold clay held against her stomach, and bending under another on her head, for 10 or 12 hours in a day, it seemed a marvel that there could be any red blood in her veins at all. How such a child could ever grow an inch in any direction after being put to this occupation was another mystery. Certainly not an inch could be added to her stature in all the working days of her life. She could only grow at night and on Sundays."
  Now this is not exaggerated by an hair's breadth. Indeed, from my own personal observation I can state that it is under the mark in regard to the abominations which are practised. But, mark, my Lords, the fact mentioned—"a mass of cold clay held against the stomach," and this for many consecutive hours during the day by poor little females just emerging into puberty. The thing is horrible. The

  1405
  moral results are such as may be expected. Let us again hear Mr. Smith—
  "Of course, the natural results ensue. Ignorance and immorality prevail to a fearful extent among the workmen and children so employed. How could it be otherwise? All goodness and purity seems to become stamped out of these people, and were I to relate what could be related, the whole country would become sickened and horrified."
  The master brick maker bore the same testimony in equally strong language. Those are his words—
  "But there are often phases of evil connected with work in brickyards and clay yards generally which I must not overlook, especially the demoralizing effects ever accruing from the mixed employment of the sexes. A flippancy and familiarity of manners with boys and men grow daily on the young girls. Then, the want of respect and delicacy towards females exhibits itself in every act, word, and look, for the lads grow so precocious, and the girls so coarse in their language and manners from close companionship at work, that in most cases the modesty of female life gradually becomes a byword instead of a reality, and they sing unblushingly before all, while at work, the lewdest and most disgusting songs till oftentimes stopped short by the entrance of the master or foreman. The overtime work is still more objectionable, because boys and girls, men and women, are less under the watchful eye of the master, nor looked upon by the eye of day. All these things—the criminality, levity, coarse phrases, sinful oaths, lewd gestures, and conduct of the adults and youths, exercise a terrible influence for evil on the young children."
  The whole may be summed up in the words of Mr. Inspector Baker, who has so judiciously and calmly carried the present Act into operation, and who, after visiting these brickfields, deeply regretted their exclusion from the beneficial provisions of the Act—
  "I consider the employment of children in brickyards absolutely cruel, and that the degradation of the female character in them is most complete. I have known parents in receipt of two, three, and four pounds a-week send their children out to work at clay works, for a few shillings per week, hung in rags, while the parents themselves rioted at home in luxuries and drink."
  My Lords, shall we ever hear again the old objection, so often rung in our cars, that children may, in the matter of labour and wage, be safely left in the arms of parental kindness? I trust, never. My Lords, I will add the testimony of my own experience. I went down to a brickfield and made a considerable inspection. On approaching I first saw at a distance what appeared like eight or ten pillars of clay, which, I thought, were placed there in order to indicate how
  1406
  deep the clay had been worked. On walking up I found to my astonishment that those pillars were living beings, They were so like the ground on which they stood, their features were so indistinguishable, their dress so besoiled and covered with clay, their flesh so like their dress, that until I approached and saw them move I believed them to be products of the earth. When I approached they were so scared at seeing anything not like themselves that they ran away screaming, as though something Satanic was approaching. I followed them to their work, and there I saw what Elihu Burritt has so well described. I saw little children three parts naked tottering under the weight of wet clay, some of it on their heads and some on their shoulders, and little girls holding up their shifts with large masses of wet, cold, and dripping clay pressing on the abdomen. Moreover, the unhappy children were exposed to the most sudden transitions of heat and cold; for after carrying their burdens of wet clay they had to endure the heat of the kiln and to enter places where the heat was so fierce, that I was not myself able to remain more than two or three minutes. Can it be denied that in these brickfields men, women, and children, especially poor female children, are brought down to a point of degradation and suffering lower than the beasts of the field? No man with a sense of humanity or with the aspirations of a Christian could go through those places and not feel that what he saw was a disgrace to the country, and ought not for a moment to be allowed to continue. Therefore, my Lords, I hope that not a day will be permitted to pass until an Address is sent up to the Queen, praying Her Majesty to take the condition of those poor people into her gracious consideration, in order that such abominations maybe brought speedily to an end. Let it not be said that these things are the result of poverty and necessity. No doubt there is much poverty and necessity—I have myself seen too many cases—but confirming the words of Inspector Baker, avarice, and where poverty does not exist, profligacy have stifled all the feelings of nature, and these poor children are sent to slave in the brickfields in order that they may minister to the luxury and rapacity of their parents. On this point the master brickmaker said—

  1407
  "I have known parents in receipt of two, three, and four pounds a week send their children out to work in the clay fields for a few shillings per week, hung in rags, while the parents themselves rioted at home or in the pothouses, in every form of beastly excess."
  When children are thus treated by the parents it is time for the State to come forward and stand in the place of the parents, and rescue the children in the earliest stage of what must otherwise be a life-long degradation. I need not urge further arguments in support of my Motion. In those days, when the right of every child to be educated is no longer contested, I am certain that the benefit of that just and humane provision will not be denied to these small and helpless sufferers. The principle of State protection to those who are unable to protect themselves has been admitted over and over again, as well as that they are entitled to such a limitation of the hours of labour as will enable them to enjoy some physical repose, and acquire the elements of education. I do not believe that in the whole of England a person can now be found to question that right. It has also been proved that the Factories Act has worked, in every instance, for the benefit both of the employers and the employed. The employers now admit that they have suffered none of the evils which some of them anticipated from the Acts; and the employed, on their side, admit that under the present limitation of the hours of labour, labour so far from having lost its price has risen in value. I may mention that this very day I have received a letter from a very high authority saying that the limitations of the Factory Acts have been brought into operation in the Middlesex yards, and in some of the yards in Kent, with this result—that the work done by the men is not only better, but is greatly increased in quantity, because the effect of the limitation of the hours of labour and of the regular, but restricted attendance of the children, is that no time can be thrown away or lost in idleness. It seems to me, moreover, to be a matter of great importance in these days that Parliament should do all it can to wipe away such blots as those to which my Motion refers. The more that Parliament interferes to abate the difficulties of the labouring classes and to assert and protect their rights the greater will be the union between the Parliament and the people; and the final reason why I now call upon your Lordships to
  1408
  repress this great evil is in the justice we owe to that immense majority of English employers who have cordially accepted the Factories Extension and the Workshops Acts. It is greatly to their credit that such numbers of them have made these large concessions, and have cheerfully consented to carry into effect these Acts, because they believe them to be for the benefit of the whole community; and it is very unjust that the fair fame of the great body of English employers should suffer reproach because a small, but a very rapacious number of them refuse to give their workpeople the benefit of these wise provisions.
  Moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to take into Her consideration the state of the children in the brickfields as reported by the Commissioners in 1864, with a view to their being brought under the protection of the Factory Acts.—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that he was sure the Motion would be unanimously accepted by their Lordships. He could fully bear testimony to the necessity for action in the matter. Middlesex was a county in which a very considerable number of persons were employed in the clay industry; and although, perhaps, the darkest features of the description drawn by the noble Earl would not be found in the Middlesex clay fields, he was yet prepared to say that few subjects better merited the attention of Parliament. Its evils were such as could only be cured by the action of the Legislature. There were considerable difficulties in limiting children's labour in brickmaking, partly arising from the custom of the trade, and partly from the peculiar character of the manufacture itself. Brickfields were generally divided into certain sections, each of which was worked by a separate gang, the man at the head of it paying it, while he himself was paid by the master brickmaker. A gang consisted generally of two strong men and one woman; the other three members of it might be, and generally were, children, whose age varied from 6 to 13 years. Each gang was only just strong enough to carry out the work assigned to it, so that if any one member was absent the whole work of the gang was stopped. The ordinary hours of labour in summer were from 5 in the morning to 7 in the evening, with three short intervals for

  1409
  meals; and the three children in each gang were, for the reason that he had explained, obliged to work the whole of that time. There was another reason why the work of the brickfield, although intermitted, was extremely severe at times. The manufacture could only be carried on in fine weather; so that not only were there months together in the winter when no work could be done, but even a 10 minutes' shower in the summer time put a stop to the whole of the labour for that day. The natural result was that there was a great desire on the part of the employers and of the labourers themselves to work every hour that they could; and he had been told by the manager of a brickfield that they thought they did very well if they kept it within 60 hours a week. He had already pointed out that the evil was one which could only be cured by the intervention of Parliament; and under any circumstances some difficulties must be experienced, because in this instance they would have to apply the half-time system not to children who were employed day after day all the year, but to children for whose labour there was a great demand in fine summer weather, and none at all in many of the winter months. The employment of girls in these brickfields was a serious point. The effect of that employment was the entire deterioration of their moral character. In this part of England the girls so occupied in summer went out to service in the winter, and returned to the brickfields in the summer, being tempted by the higher wages; but the outdoor work and life so roughed them that generally they could only obtain in the winter months places of the wost kind, and they were unfitted to become wives and mothers. He trusted that the appeal now made by the noble Earl would meet with a ready response from their Lordships, and that a remedy would be speedily applied, and would be effectual.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had drawn a most graphic picture of the condition of the labourers in our brickfields, and he regretted that he was obliged to corroborate what he had stated. No one could deny that the reports that had been made from time to time of the condition of these persons were deplorable. The noble Earl had said that brickfields were excluded from the Act of 1864;
  1410
  but he must remind the House that they were included under the two Acts passed in 1867, one of which included all brickyards employing more than 50 people, and the other—the Workshops Act—included all brickyards employing less than 50 people. There was no doubt that those workshops in which the smaller number was employed had not the provisions of the Workshops Act applied to them. No one who had listened to the description which the noble Earl opposite had given could deny that he had made out a case for the interference of the Legislature. A Bill had been introduced in "another place" by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) to extend the application of the Act of 1864 to brickfields; but with the view of obviating the necessity of having two Bills, where one was sufficient, he (the Earl of Morley) proposed to introduce into the Bill of which he had the honour to move the second reading on the previous night the main provisions contained in the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Sheffield. The chief points of these provisions were that no female under the age of 16, and no boy under 10, should be employed in a brickfield under any circumstances. The provisions now carried out under the Workshops Act would, if the Bill became law this Session—of which, notwithstanding the scant encouragement given by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) last night, he was sanguine — be enforced by the local authorities, and would not therefore, as in many instances, become a dead letter.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid, he also could corroborate the statements of the noble Earl in moving the Address. On reading Mr. Smith's pamphlet he thought the statements contained in it utterly monstrous, but he had seen the gentleman himself and questioned him very closely about them. After a careful cross-examination he had arrived at the conclusion that, if anything, the writer had rather understated his case. Many of their Lordships would remember the state of things disclosed by the Committee appointed to inquire into the gang system, as connected with agriculture. But great as was the amount of vice disclosed by that inquiry it fell very far short of what might be seen and heard every day in some of the brickfields. There was, also, one

  1411
  very important difference between the two cases. The difficulty of legislating for the agricultural poor had always been that the wages of the agricultural labourer were so very low that he was often removed one stage from the workhouse. But that was not the case with brickfield labourers. He had ascertained from Mr. Smith that the average wages which a workman received in the brickyards were sufficient to maintain him and his family in decency and comfort if he was only steady and sober. But working men in these yards were in the habit of working only a certain number of days in the week and spending Sunday in "fuddling." As a consequence, they were unfit to go to work on Monday, and very frequently they did not return to work on Tuesday, and even on Wednesday there were many absentees. The wretched children were constantly kept at such work as could be intrusted to them in the absence of the adults; and the men after returning to work in the middle of the week had to make up in the last three days for the time they had lost by drunkenness, and this re-acted upon the children. This state of things was absolutely intolerable, and the result was what might be expected—an utter absence of modesty—vice beginning at an age when vice ought to be utterly unknown, stunted frames arising from over work and vicious indulgence, songs and stories of an improper character, young women universally becoming mothers before they were wives and bringing up their children to the same wretched fate to which they themselves had been brought up long before they could be considered accountable beings. He regretted that the terms of the present Motion had not been extended to females as well as children. He knew the difficulties of legislating in that direction, but Parliament had already banished females from underground work, and he would not be unwilling if their Lordships would go the length of asking Her Majesty to widen the scope of the Commission, and inquire how far the labour of females could be dispensed with. There would not be a single doubt in the minds of their Lordships as to the desirability of stepping in and protecting those wretched people who were not able to protect themselves.
  Motion agreed to.

RUSSIA AND TURKEY—THE DARDANELLES.—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFEsaid, the subject of the Question which he was about to put to the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had been brought to his notice by the public Press, particularly The Times, in which a paragraph appeared stating in the most positive terms that the Porte had given permission to a Russian squadron to pass through the Dardanelles and Bosphorus on its way to Odessa. That was a very alarming statement, and he wished, in the first place, to know whether it was true, and then, if true, how far it was in accordance with the existing treaties between the Porte and other Powers? Whether there was any truth in the statement he could not pretend to say; but, as far as he had observed, it had not been contradicted, and the great credit attaching to the leading journal made him believe that there was some foundation for it. He wished, therefore, to ask whether it was true, as stated in the public journals, that the Turkish Government had given permission for a Russian squadron to pass up the Dardanelles and Bosphorus to Odessa; and, in that case, whether such permission accorded with the terms of the Porte's existing engagements with other foreign Powers?
EARL GRANVILLE: In answer to the noble Viscount, I have to state that I have no information whatever to the effect implied in the Question, and I think it exceedingly improbable either that the Russian Government should have made the application or the Turkish Government have granted it. I say this the more positively because an application was made the other day by the captain of an American frigate to pass through the Dardanelles, and it was immediately refused by the Turkish Government.

ROYAL SCHOOL OF MINES.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, on rising to move an Address to Her Majesty relative to the proposed transfer of the Royal School of Mines to South Kensington, said, he believed there had been a recommendation on the part of the Science Commission, at the head of which

  1413
  the Duke of Devonshire sat, in favour of the removal of the Royal School of Mines to that bourne to which all scientific institutions seemed destined to be transferred—namely, South Kensington. This common lot of scientific humanity had drawn a terrible shriek of despair from the officers of the Royal School of Mines. He believed the recommendation, though favoured by one party of eminent scientific men, had strongly roused the feelings of other men of great scientific eminence in opposition to it. The school had done very good service. A large number of persons desired to pursue their studies in that direction. He thought the Government ought not to sanction a transference of the school without giving, not only to Parliament but to the public, who specially took an interest in this question, an opportunity of thoroughly discussing the proposal.
  Moved that an humble Address be presented to Hey Majesty, praying that a letter addressed by Sir Roderick Murchison to the Privy Council, enclosing a letter from the officers of the Royal School of Mines relative to the proposed transference of that institution to South Kensington, may be laid before this House.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, the Report referred to by the noble Marquess was only preliminary, and he had reason to believe that the Science Commission would very shortly make another Report. The letter of which the noble Marquess had spoken was referred to the Commission for their consideration. That letter, together with other public documents, would be presented with the Report of the Commission. Under these circumstances, he hoped the noble Marquess would not press his Motion.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: On the understanding that no action shall be taken until these papers are produced?
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: Certainly.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, the Government would, perhaps, give some information as to the new building.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the noble Earl should have given Notice of the Question.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREsaid, the terms of the Report had been fully considered and agreed to by all the members of the Commission. He understood that only three officers of the School of Mines objected to the removal,
  1414
  and that the shriek of despair described by the noble Marquess had not been heard within the institution. The recommendation of the Commission for the removal to South Kensington was not founded on any reason of preference for that locality, but because sufficient space and accommodation could be found there. There was not sufficient space and accommodation in the present building to carry on the School of Mines satisfactorily.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYreplied, that when he saw the letter he would be able to judge of the censure which the noble Lord had passed upon him.
  Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter before Four o'clock.