« AnteriorContinuar »
Cured. Relieved. Not relvd. Non att. Own desire. Dead. Total. Grinders. . . 33 66 16 21 5 . 13 154 Second class 6 28 9 9 3 I 56
“The following tabular view of the relative ages of these two classes of patients, will tend to shew the comparative shortness of the grinder's life:—
Grinders. Second class. Above thirty years of age............... 124 ..................... 140 Above thirty-five do. ............... 83 ..................... 118 Above forty do. ............... 40 ..................... 92 Above forty-five do. ............... 24 ..................... 70 Above fifty do. ............... 10 ..................... 56 Above fifty-five do. ............... 4 ..................... 34 Above sixty do. ............... l ..................... 16"
But there is still an important class in the state, who, from their number and mode of life, very considerably affect the standard of mortality. These are the shopkeepers—the dealers of all sorts— the single mechanics—who form the bulk of the population in most country towns. We have been greatly struck on looking over some of the returns belonging to the late census, to find how uniform a principle prevails with respect to one point, in the rates of mortality of the portion of the community now under consideration. It is well known that females are universally more numerous than males —and this majority in favour of the former we have no doubt may be traced to the effects of laborious occupation in keeping down the numbers of the latter. So that we may establish it as a general rule, that in those districts where the males are employed in business in which females do not for the most part take an active and permanent share, there the latter will greatly prevail. Thus in Birmingham, where the nature of the employment is such as to admit of no co-operation from the ladies, we find that they exceed the amount of the males very considerably. According to the census of 1831, the proportions are, males 65,761–females 68,896. In the following towns, (which we select as being similar to Birmingham, in respect of the exemption of women from labour, whilst the male population is almost wholly devoted to active occupations), the superiority of the number of females over that of the males, is sufficiently remarkable. We beg to remind the reader, that our information is drawn from the very imperfect returns of the late CenSuS.
Males. Females. Males. Females. South Shields 3,903 5,171 Liverpool 76,626 88,549 Stoke on Trent 25,766 27,020 Newark 4,494 5,047 Tynemouth 10,560 14,218 Plymouth 13,499 17,581 Whitehaven 4,758 6,635 Portsmouth Workington 2,639 3,776 and Portsea } 20,039 26,243
In all those places the chief part of the laborious business is exclusively confined to males, and we find therefore that they are in numbers far below the scale of the females. But a very different scene presents itself if we direct our attention to those places where the females do unfortunately participate in the active vocations of the males. Here we shall find the ladies entirely deprived of their numerical superiority, and submitting to the same severe law of mortality, which in similar circumstances the stoutest males could not resist. For instance, in Macclesfield the females amount to only 12,124, whilst the males are 11,005;-at Kidderminster the males are 7,433, the females 7,548 ;—at Bradford, males 11,350, females 11,873;-at Huddersfield, males 15,648, females 15,393. At Preston the numbers were pretty equal in 1821; but in 1831, the ladies obtained a triumphant majority, being a force of 17,421 to 15,691 of the opposite sex. That the ladies are peculiarly attached to watering places, is attested by the following facts :— Population of Brighton—Females 22,418 Males 18,216
Cheltenham 12,889 10,053
It is very curious, but it seems to be substantially true, that the rotten boroughs have been all nearly deserted by the fair sex. There is nothing like the same proportion of ladies in them as compared with the males, that we observe, in most other places. We take a few examples—
Males. Females. Males. Females Boroughbridge 490 460 Heytesbury 776 769 Bramber 110 84 St. Germains 995 919
We think that the ladies also exhibit, in the choice of their places of residence, a very natural preference for the delights of a town. It is quite remarkable, for instance, that in Durham town the number of females should be 5,152 to 4,117 males; whereas if we proceed to its suburbs, we find that the number is nearly the same as that of the men. In the town of Windsor, the females are 3,213, the males 2,916: but in the delightful suburbs we find the ladies amounting to no more than 1,297, whilst the gentlemen are 1,235. In Montgomery and Great Yarmouth, there is a perfect equality between the numbers of each sex.
We have now brought forward a number of facts connected with the state of our population and its rate of mortality, which we are sure must be admitted to be highly interesting. We have shown that with a view to the general history of our species, but still more with reference to the possible amelioration of the great and increasing sufferings of large communities, that claim our sympathies as countrymen, this great subject may engage the legislature with some hope of a beneficial result. To this end our wishes and exertions are wholly directed.
ART. III.-1. An Address to the House of Peers. By a Whig Reformer. 8vo. pp. 17. London: Ridgway, 1831.
2. Lord Brougham's eloquent Speech on Reform, delivered in the House of Lords, October 7, on the second reading of the Reform Bill. 8vo. London : Harding, 1831.
THE vague apprehensions which for the last twelve months have been floating in the minds of all men, the fears of approaching change of no ordinary character, in fact of a great and wide-spreading revolution, have at length been realized. Here we are at this moment embarked upon the troublous sea of domestic commotion, engaged in a real civil war, carried on indeed without the instrumentality of arms, because the time for physical force has altogether passed away, that being the agent of the least possible power in the present condition of England: but carried on by means of speeches in parliament on one side, and by speeches, resolutions, addresses, and petitions, emanating from tremendous and unprecedented congregations of the people on the other, aided by the perpetual and well applied reasonings of the best-conducted press in the world. The whole country is up in the moral artillery of its indignation; every man has become an agitator; unions are in course of crganization in every part of the three kingdoms, and a real revolution has already commenced, to end, heaven alone knows how and when. . For all this, whom have we to thank 2 That most unfortunate majority of the House of Lords, which on the morning of the 8th of October issued a proclamation of war against the people! For a war it is and must be, inasmuch as the non-reforming peers have unanimously clung to the very principle, which is most odious and intolerable in the eyes of the people, that of retaining the rotten boroughs, and still continuing the unjust and unconstitutional interference of the peers in the formation of the House of Commons. Lord Wharncliffe, who commenced the battle upon the part of the opposition, after saying that he did not defend the nomination system, still evinced his anxiety to retain it; and it was with a view to the perpetuation of this abominable system, that he characterized the bill as a bill for the subversion of the monarchy, and the destruction of the House of Lords ! Yet this was the bill to which the whole united people of the country looked up, as the best palladium of their liberties. The Earl of Mansfield had the temerity, the reckless folly, to suggest that the bill should be rejected in the manner most insulting to the House of Commons and the people, namely, by a pure and simple vote, unaccompanied with any declaration as to the necessity of reform, and without referring to any plan which might be adopted. Nor can this mad advice be imputed to the idiotcy of that noble lord alone, for it was received with loud cheers by his party. Even Lord Winchilsea, who not long since
stated in the face of the country that he was determined to support his Majesty’s present ministers, and their reform bill, swerved from the manly and generous course which he had prescribed for himself, and declared against the people. Some reform, indeed, he thought necessary. Forsooth, many of the decayed boroughs might, he conceived, be got rid of with advantage, but in what manner” Not by disfranchising them, but giving to each of them, with some few, perhaps two or three exceptions, one member To three or four of the great unrepresented towns he would also assign a definite number of members, but to such places as Woolwich, Greenwich, Finsbury, the great parishes of Mary-le-bone, St. Pancras, and other parishes in London, though several of these count a population of more than 120,000 inhabitants, and contain at least as much property, man for man, as either Manchester, Birmingham, or Leeds, he would give no representative at all. To do any such thing would be, in his opinion, to carry reform to a most pernicious extent. The 10!. qualification he looked upon as altogether inadmissible, and in fact, though he seems to mix a good deal in the world, he kuows so little of the real sentiments of the people, as to have made up his mind to the belief, that they might be very easily cajoled by a mock reform Never was a man more mistaken. One of the most candid, and, we may add, by far the most able of the opponents of the bill, the Earl of Harrowby, went so far as to say that it ought to be rejected, simply because the measure which it embraced had received the approbation of the people. To be sure he did not use the phrase the people, for, like other noble lords upon his side of the House, he appears to have persuaded himself that the people are not unanimous upon the subject, and that only certain classes of the people were in favour of the bill. We will not say that this was a voluntary self-deception, because we are confident that his lordship has too much of sterling honesty and honour in his breast, to shut his eyes to facts that stare him in the face. But he has been for fifteen months living in retirement in Switzerland, or rather we believe at Nice, and his ignorance of the opinions of the people may be pardoned. At the same time, we can find no excuse for the insulting tone of the sentiment which he uttered, when he expressed his opinion “that the satisfaction with which the bill had been received by certain classes of the people, would not be the best recommendation of the measure to their lordships.” Why not, we ask 2 Why, because the noble lord disdains the wishes of the people, and with true aristocratical scorn, puts them aside as unworthy of his attention. He has, perhaps, by this time been taught a different lesson. We should not be surprised to find this very peer, who stated that he looked upon the bill as one which no alteration of details could justify the House in passing into a law, shortly imploring the same House to accept it with all its supposed defects, and to accept it too in the most gracious manner. We should not be in the least degree astonished to see Lord Harrowby among the first of his order, to persuade the peers for their own safety, and for the preservation of their lives and properties, to receive and sign as a treaty of peace, this very bill, “the bare proposal of which " he lately designated as a great mischief! As to the Duke of Wellington, it will soon become of little consequence whether his vote be given for or against the people. He has utterly lost his character as a statesman, in the late debates. All the world knows, that a year ago he resigned his office of prime minister, because, by his most unnecessary, and most uncalled for declaration against reform of any description, or to any degree, he raised against his cabinet a sudden and violent storm, with which it was unable, even for a day, to contend. All the principles of his political life, down to that period, were of an anti-reform character, for his concession of the Catholic claims was a violation of his principles, and was extorted from him by the menacing attitude of Ireland. And yet, when he delivered his sentiments upon the second reading of the reform bill, he had the hardihood to assert, that his famous declaration against reform, his celebrated eulogy upon the actual constitution of the legislature, a constitution so perfect, that he, if he were to devise one, could never hope to equal, much less to excel it in any respect, were both pronounced by him, not as the Duke of Wellington, but as a minister of the crown “As a minister of the crown,” he says, “.. I conceived that I was bound to resist all projects of parliamentary reform.” Take him at his word, and would it not follow, that if he meant to act with consistency, were he minister of the crown again, he must be equally opposed to any measure of that description ? But he is not, thank God! invested with any office at this moment, which might be supposed to infuse into his mind the anti-reforming spirit; and what do the
people gain by his personal opinions, as distinguished from those.
which he announced as minister ? He spoke, we suppose, in the late debates, as Duke of Wellington, though perhaps he may hereafter turn round and say, that he spoke not in his individual character, but as the leader of the anti-reform party It is difficult to catch such a political Proteus as this, and chain him to any principle whatever. We all remember how he deprecated the idea of seekin
to be prime minister, an idea which he avowed, it would be nothing short of madness in him to entertain, inasmuch as he felt himself to be utterly incompetent to discharge all the duties connected with that high office; and yet, to the amazement of mankind, this very act of madness he soon after perpetrated, and became prime minister, and attempted to do many of the things for which he had proclaimed himself incompetent! Then what were his sentiments as Duke of Wellington 2 Were they a whit more favourable to the people, than his declaration as minister of the crown? “This bill,” said he, “violates both the principles and practice of the constitution.” “It