The Sun. — London, England, 1846-05-23 00:00:00

standing order, which was also doubted by other Hon. Mem • bers, he thought that Mr. O'Brien ought to have the benefit of the doubt, and was entitled to his liberal ion from confinement. Sir R. PEEL said that the Right Hon. Baronet who had preceded him in his remarks, had not said that there was con siderable doubt as to the true construction of the order, but he observed that there was doubt on the merits of the case. 'He thought that if there was any difficulty at all it existed in the interpretation of the words "be appointed in standing order." The words meant that the Committeewas in existence. The House of Commons, for the purpose of insuring regularity s in its proceedings had placed the rules to be determined by its standing orders out of its own power to alter, or to interfere with, except by repeating the order. There were instances in which the House of Common s had, by a preceding regulation, bound themselves to abide by the standing order. He would take a case which appeared to him to possess some analogy to the present. It was one of the standing orders that every private Bill not being the Royal Bill should be referred to a Committee of Selection. How was that to he decided ? He apprehended it could not be settled by the question in the House. As a matter of course the matter would be referred to a Select Committee, which would not be refused unless the standing order was specifically repealed. So, in the present case, it was not a question whether Mr. Smith O'Brien ought to be excused because he had refused to obey an order of the House. If the Hon. Members of the House thought the authority of the House had been sufficiently vindicated, why then release him at once by a special order. But to say that the present was a doubtful case, and that they should slink out of a compliance with the standing order in order to shake hands with Mr. Smith O'Brien would be derogatoryto the dignity of that House. Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL did not think the comparison of the Right Hon. Gentleman was very good. He did think the character of the present debate was calculated to have a very bad effect in Ireland. It would be as well to endeavour to conciliate the feelings of the people of Ireland, and not to exas perate them by endeavouring to explain away doubtful words. The proper course to be adopted would have been to allow Mr. Smith O'Brien the benefit of the doubt, in order that he might be liberated from confinement. Sir GEORGE GREY made a few observations, which were inaudible in the gallery. Sir ROBERT INGLIS said the Hon. Member for Devon port had expressed an opinion that there could be no doubt as to the common sense construction of the standing order. Other Hon. Members had corroborated that opinion. With reference to the observations of the Hon. Member for Cork, there was no doubt tke construction of the standing order might be improved, but as there was no doubt as to the real meaning of the order, he should certainly oppose the motion. Mr. WATSON said, when the House was proceeding to decide on a standing order on which the conse quences were of a nature that affected the liberty of the subject, it behoved them to be very careful before they came to any decision as to its real construction. He had serious doubts as to the construction which had been put upon it. He must give his vote in support of the motion, because he was not satified that the meaning of the order was sufficiently clear for him to give a proper vote on an occasion when the consequences might be attended with punishment of a harsh nature. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the motion 36 Against it Majority against Mr. S. O'Brien's release Mr. SHAW gave notice that he would persist in the motion of which he had given notice for Monday next, namely, that the group on which Mr. O'Brien was selected to serve having terminated its labours, that Hon. Member should be discharged from custody. Mr. O'CONNELL was understood to say that, under those circumstances, he should refrain from pressing on the attention of the House the motion which he had intended to make that night for Mr. O'Brien's discharge. THE TEN HOURS' BILL—ADJOURNED DEBATE. The order of the day for the adjourned debate on the second reading of this Bill having been read, Mr. WAKLEY presented a petition from the town of Not tingham, in which the petitioners stated that the present fac.. tory system was most pernicious to the health and morals of children ; that it produced premature death, was most dange rous to the manufacturing portion of the community, and they therefore prayed the House to enact the Ten Hours' Bill. Mr. G. BANKES then rose and said, that in giving his sup port to the principle which was now under consideration, and in opposing the amendment which had been proposed by the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home De partment. he was aware that he was bound in the first place to show that the principle of this Bill was consistent with the wel fare, the interests, and safety of the community at large. He was aware also that it was incumbent on him to show that this Bill, while it proposed to confer a benefit on the operative classes, would not produce at the same time on those classes any injury to preponderate over that benefit. It was incumbent also upon him to maintain and to prove, as he thought he should, that the principle of this Bill would not necessary occasion any injury tie the employers of those operatives for whose benefit it was brought forward.—( Hear, hear.) He hoped he should be able to show that whilst the operatives received a benefit, neither they nor their employers would receive any harm. He thought that it would be unwise and unsafe to reject this measure ; and when he used those terms he was far from wishing them to be taken in the same light as some Hon. Members had done during the course of the session, when other topics were brought under their consideration. The danger to which he referred was one of a very different kind. It was the danger of destroying the physical energy, and the moral character of those with respect to whom they were about to legislate. (Hear, hear.) The number of children employed latterly in factories had greatly increased, whilst the number of adults had proportionably decreased. Those young persons were growing up to become adult labourers in their turn, and they would find that there was nor sufficient to absorb that number, and the consequence would be that they must seek to earn their livelihood from some other sources of employment. Let the House then endeavour to secure to such a population some other employment, which would be preserving them as honest and industrious members of the State. They would find, however, under the present factory system, the education of the younger persons had been so much neglected, and their physical powers so diminished, that they were totally unfit to enter into any other employment than that in which they were brought up. In their youth, there had been a total neglect of the instilment of religious truths and moral discipline, as regarding the persons employed in fac es ; and when they grew up, the necessary consequence was that they were unfit for any industrious or honest employment. The Legislature had, he believed, provided for the education of the younger classes of operatives, namely, of those under 13 years of age, who now only worked six hours a day ; but were they to be told that education had ceased at 13 years of age ? ( Hear, hear.) He appealed to those who heard him, many of whom were fathers, whether education ceased, or had ap proached to anything like perfection, at 13 years of age? Was not that a period when something else was springing up besides the good seed which had been sown ? Was not that the time when there was springing up seeds of a nature opposed to religion. And did they not know that the cultivation of the mind consisted not merely in what was sown, but in what was to be eradicated ? and that period he took to be the most important with regard to the cultivation of the human mind. He alluded to the period between thirteen and eighteen years of age. It was, therefore, safe and whole some to pass this Rill, and it was dangerous to i eject it. They bad been told, in the course of the debate which had lately occurred in that House, that the people of Lancashire and the manufacturing interests were to govern Great Britain. He admitted that those districts were the very life and heart of the income ; and, taking the words of Hon. Members, he would say that they should take care that the blood which cowed through the veins of the people of that portion of the kingdon, and their morals were preserved in a moral condition. The Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department had entirely misrepresented the opinions of the late Sir Robert Peel on the factory question—(Cries of " Hear, hear")—because, although the Bill passed in his time was only an Eleven Hours' Bill, he was yet in favour of a Ten Hours' Bill. He did not think that the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth was then u nfriendly to the Eleven Hours' Bill. He had then called the elder Sir Robert Peel as a witness in support of his views. He 'ould now call another gentleman, and he be lieved his testimony would carry with them considerable weight, as he and all his connexions were largely connected with manu factures, he meant the Member for Oldham.--( Hear, hear. ) That Hon. Gentleman said, that if his support of the present measure would bring ruin upon the manufacturers, he would be bringing ruin upon himself.—(Hear, hear.) He told them, however, that it would not ruin his interests, nor any of those who were engaged in manufacture. So far from any diminu tion taking place, there bad been an increase in cotton manufac ture since 1819, when a different system prevailed. He had other witnesses to call of the same description, whose testimony valuable. He had the evidence of the Hon. Member 7oars most Sund erland, who spoke the other night, and that of other gentlemen ; he did not think that their evidence would be counterbalanced. He had other witnesses also. He had the operatives themselves. In the county which he represented he felt it to be his duty to collect all the informat i on he could upon the subject, and th e resu l t of that investigation had been a most decided conviction on his part of the justice of the pre sent m easure. It was said that the o per atives had made no strikes on the present question, and had e xhibited no violent demonstration in its favour. That he considered was a reason why their demands should be acceded to. . 'fhe B ill n for yli cru ln e s l t ty . to animals was met with g reat ridicule ; it was a it. H, but it was taken up by a g entleman who finally carried e mentioned these circumstances, in order to show . how litt t le arguments of this kind, urged by the Right Hon. Barone, should be attended to. The Hon. Member for Montrose said that if they passed the Bill, the operatives would be the first to desire that it should be repealed. Well, if that was so, they would be happy to do so.--(" Hear, hear," from Mr. Ward.) lie could not see the danger of such an experiment.—( Hear, I f he attairkshed the point that a very considerable benefit to the publid laotsl.d accrue from the passing of the measure, he was entitled go to those views o. t e ' 4 h subject on which they were all agreed, th at if it were for the f,:sblic good t o effect . the object he proposed, that it was their duty ai`. once to give it their assent.—( Hear, hear.) They heard the other in the speech of an Hon. Member, of the great increase Bible in the d eman d f or the among the operatives; why, then, he would be an advocate for giving them time to read it. It was true they had been silent , and if the measure was reject e d h e trusted that they would continue so. Mr. WARD said he represented, to the best of his a bilities, the people of. Sheffield, but he would certai nl y admit that he did not represent their opinionr upon the subj ect, because he was not a con vert to the doctrines contained in the preamble of the measure, nor was he nor ould he ever be a demagogue. The Noble Lord quoted Mr. Carlyle in defence of his prin ciples ; but he would remind him that he was treading on dangerous ground, for he would adopt none of Carlyle's opinions respecting corn, for on no subject had he written with so much force and consistency. He h would be most anxious to be convinced that the opinion; he held on this subject to express his se we' were those of the Noble Lord ; h ewbutelinot so convinced, and he felt it his duty !Its. The Hon. Member laid down that if they could no e t t le m a t n e d fo h r all they should legislate for as many as they could, a there was no injury done to any' interest they sh . oul . :a s t a o id nee if concede the measure he sought. He perfectly coincided with the expression, "your if is a great peacemaker," for if all the things which the Hon. Gentleman assumed were true, why, he (Mr. W ard) would say, pass the measure b y all means. That was one of the results of this experimentalising on the question. He did not deny the right of Parliament to legis late for the protection of those who were unable to help tbemselvee • but he objected to the interference with adult labour. If they . could show that women could do without em ployment, then, indeed, he would be one of the first to support such a proposition. That, however, was not the case, for he beli eve d that the was not ii more helpless creature than a poor woman, wit h er out friends to assist her ; and instead of Par liament interfering to prevent females from employing their industry, it would be better, if possible, to interfere so as to ensure her a proper amount of labour. An interference, such as the present, would have the effect of reducing the female working classes to the miserable pittance of slop labour. He tO midered that they were already sufficiently trammeled by the combinations of the working men, who shut them out from many trades. How was it on the continent—how was it at Rouen, and other places ? At those places it was well known that the most respectable portion of the female population— tie daughters of the most respectable middle classes, were employed in factories. Well. then, there was nothing of a Ten Hours' Bill known there. Labour was not restricted, End the results were not injurious, but, on the contrary, the toed effects were most apparent in the condition of that class of persons. The Hon. Member for Oldham said that the Bill 'MB to be a Ten Hours' Bill, and no compromise. Ho said that that would not reduce the amount of labour nor the re muneration, but, on the contrary, it would cause an advance in some branches of female labour. He felt that this was most contradictory, fur he could not see how the advance in wages was to result, as labour was not increased—the quantity of work would not be more: In another part of the Honourable Member's speech, he was found stating that if the diminution of the hours of labour should be calculated to reduce wages, the working classes were quite willing to take their share of the injury. The Hon. Member would have it that the Bill was not calculated to reduce wages ; but this was a most vague s calculation, and he would prove it by a reference to Adam Smith, who was a great authority on such subjects. The Hon. Member then read an extract from Adam Smith to prove the fallacy of the arguments of the Hon. Member for Oldham. He begged to tell the supporters of this measure that he was not one of those who was at all in clined to regard the reduction of a penny or even a halfpenny per yard upon shirting stuffs as a matter to be slighted, but it appeared to him that those who supported this Bill did not seem to know what it was they were supporting—they did not seem to understand the principles of the measure. The Noble Lord, the Member for Newark, had found fault with the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite for dealing with facts and figures in illus trating his case, and appeared to think it was what no man ought to do ; but let him remind the House that in dealing with this question they should bear in recollection that it in volved the welfare of mere than half a million of people, of a vast amount of property, and of the interests of the manufactu rers; and let him then ask were they not to have a due regard for facts and figures? He could tell them that if they had not they would only involve themselves in irre trievable mischief by a bungling piece of legislation. Another principle which an Hon. Member near him had broached, was that capital and labour were antagonistic powers —that was the doctrine of his Hon. Friend, but he begged to tell him that before . ..e. had enunciated it, he should have read Adam Smith, in which he would find it laid down, that as labour derived its remuneration from capital, the one was necessary to the existence of the other, and here was an in stance of it—here, in this country, millions of capital were in vested in manufactures, for the production of which large masses of the people were necessarily employed. This was a fact and a principle, and it would be neither wise nor judicious to interfere with it. Let care be taken how they were deprived of their foreign market, for it was quite clear, that without the foreign market they could not employ their people at home, and even now it was only by producing a superior article, and by having cheap labour, that they were enabled to rival foreign manufactures.—(Hear, hear.) In fact, the attempt at legislation on this subject only showed that those who attempted it did not understand the question at all.— ( Hear, hear.) Hon. Members had stated authorities in sup port of their arguments, bnt he begged to tell them that if they had no better support than those, they had no support at all ; but, on the contrary, they were practically undermining the best interests of the country.—( Hear, hear.) He begged to tell the House that this Ten Hours' Bill was identical with the system of the combinations and strikes so common in the manu facturing towns, and of which Hon. Members who supported this Bill knew nothing whatever. By that system, at present what he would call the tyrannical interference of the overseers with the masters was such that the management of the con cerns was, for the present at least, in the hands of the men. Some of their resolutions were most absurd, and were to this effect—that a workman having three sons could only put one of those to his trade, and could not put the other two to any trade, so that the likelihood was, that those two wandered into the agricultural districts, and became outcasts or dissolute characters, while the system of intimidation amongst the men was so great, that threatening letters were as rife there as in Tipperary. Another result of their system was, that where a man could earn from 51. to 61. per week, by working every day, they now earned only from 50s. to 60s. If such, then, was to be the result of this pernicious system in one town, what world it be when it had spread to all the others? In fact it would be better for all the masters to combine for a universal free trade, now that the great monopoly in food had been removed, than submit to this. He could tell the House that they were too much in the habit of under-rating the pernicious effects upon the minds of the workmen, of many of the debates that bad taken place in that House ; they little knew the amount of poison instilled into the minds of those men by those speeches, and for which the em ployers would have to pay. The results of this system of com bination was to leave the town of Norwich in a state of desola tion and ruin, or if it still retained any vestiges of its former prosperity, it was owing to the enterprise of a few; but he would just give an instance of the feeling entertained in that town towards the masters, and he should say it was one of the most horrible exhibitions he had ever heard of. A manufacturer having died, his body was brought to Norwich to be interred—it was met by a large body of the workmen, who, believing that he had in jured them, followed the funeral to the churchyard, uttering the most foul imprecations. Now, he begged • to tell the House that there was no remedy for this but time. The Bill now before the House was certainly no remedy ; on the con trary, it was a step backwards—a step in the wrong direction —and he should give the second reading of it his most strenuous opposition. He had heard it said that this question involved one of importance to the present Government—that this was a critical time to oppose it—that it was regarded as a great national measure, and that it was probable the Govern ment might be defeated on it ; but he could only say, that if they shou d be defeated, he would have the honour of sharing in that defeat.—( Cheers. ) Lord GEORGE BENTINCK said that his Hon. Friend who had just sat down had charged his friends around, that in supporting the measure which was then before the House they were making themselves parties to a great party move ment, and that the only interest entertained on this question was by the Hon. Gentlemen on the benches near him. As for the charge made against him by the Hon. Gentlemen op posite, he could refer them to the corn-law question, for he thought that, during the debate on the second reading of the Corn Bill, the opposite side of the House was en tirely deserted, and not one single gentleman could be seen sitting on the Opposition benches. He had however, a right to say for his Hon. Friends around him that which he could not say for himself, that, far from being a party question with them, the great majority of his friends were supporters of a similar measure two years ago. In the year 1844 his Hon. Friends around him, he might say almost in a body, supported Lord Ashley's Ten Hours' Bill, and he should like to know what right the Hon. Member for Sheffield had to charge his friends with supporting the measure from party views? It there were any party in the House, who had a better title to claim for themselves an honest and disinterested course on that subject, it was that composed by the Gentlemen sitting near him. The Hon. Gentleman had said that it was very easy to purchase cheap popularity by joining in this humanity-cry ; and they retorted the charge, by asking who had supported the cry for cheap bread, in the question on the repeal of the corn-laws ? In this measure, they were not joining in the humanity-cry, nor were they risking all the great interests of the country. If there was any question on which they might be said to have proceeded with great caution it was on this question. Two years ago they reduced the hours of labour, and what had been the result of the experience of the two years which had since elapsed? Had this destroyed the cotton trade? Had they reduced the wages of the labourer? or had they diminished the export trade ? Far from it. The cotton trade, both in the export trade and the home consumption, had greatly in creased in the year 1845, and they had reason to believe so had the wages of the operatives. Where was the danger or the risk of a further extension of the principle? They were not treading on untried ground, they had gene cautiously to work. They had tried the reductien of the hours of labour to twelve hours in 1844, and they now asked to reduce the hours in 1846 by five hours a week. There was another consideration mixed up with this Bill, a great measure had just passed this House, and should that measure become the law of the coun try, there was great reason to believe that a num ber of unskilled artisans from trades, amongst the agricultural labourers, would be thrown into the market. They must feel that in those trades, now the subject of legisla tion, some protection and some division of labour would be required. He admitted that the same quantity of work could not be done in ten hours as could be done in twelve hours ; of that there could be no doubt; but, at the same time, he did not admit that there would be one-sixth more work done in twelve hours than could be done by the same hands in ten hours, especially as they were dealing with persons under 18 years of age. The Hon. Member for Sheffield said that no such regulations were made as regarded the agricultural inte rest, and the labourer engaged in agriculture —for the best of ihadn the o n rmar sen h e dsou winteruufnnocedor et et r i dmron etmeeo daplti eighteen n tenenyye e r dh , ha s oi ydnsue, There only r d ams rhsa all reasons, no suc h regu l at i ons were requ i red. The agricul tural labour err h a d t we l ve h ours o f l a b our, out of whic they w a noa l euf f ntrfedeaan a eg n ltt iehuhm h erot eyi o hnt. u ereo s r dns lalThyfaimoobhreueo wishedrni b sr r : e toni a fdt n k hl o f aenf a fbov s ori t nu ; gr and tfoh re wase thh labour le a s a a l e l b m s o a t e e r o m t r t i es i which full-grown men, by practice and custom, were entitled to. Had they not legislated for the negroes in the West In dies ? Had they not limited the time of labour to nine hours? And was the air of the West Indies more foetid or unhealthy than the atmosphere o f our manu f actor i es, in which our childreny laboured. It had been said in the course of this debate, by the Hon. Member for Paisley, that by a reduction of the hours of labour from twelve to ten hours, they would be reducing the cotton manufacture, to the extent of the whole of the home consumption of this country. That statement was not founded in fact. The Hon. Gentleman had said that the cotter, manu facture of this country amounted to one-seventh of the goods imported. If that were the case, the consumption of cotton in this country would just exceed in value four millions sterling; and was there any man in that country who believed that its home consumption did not exceed four millions sterling? Twenty years since Mr. Huskisson had said that he had taken the greatest pains to ascertain the real has upon this point, and the result of his inquiries was, that the home consumption of the cotton in England in the year 1823 had amounted to 32,000,000/. sterling. The export of cotton goods in the year 1844 amounted to no more than 25,000,0001., including cotton yarn. If that were so, and if the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, who ought to be well informed on the subject, was right, that there were but 3i millions of cotton goods used in this country, with their population, this would be but half-a-crown a-head. In the Canadas, the consumption was 7s. per head, and in our West Indian possessions, dividing the value of the cotton by the population in 1840, it would appear that the consumption in the West Indies amounted to I/. 6s. per head. Was it not ridiculous to suppose that the popula tion of this empire, consumed but at the rate of half-a. crown a head, while the West Indies consumed 11.65. ? When they saw this measure supported by great men, the Hon. Members for Oldham, and Southwark, it was rather too much to charge them with supporting this measure to purchase cheap popu larity by an humanity, cry. This measure would be for the interest of the manufacturing classes, and the change would not be made too suddenl y . The children in the factories re quired more protection as the cotton trade increased, for then it was that the m illowners committed the greatest nu m b er o f operatives. The Bill would benefit that oTences against their portion of had df not the had opera tives andmfoorßthpiEs rreHasosnaihde, s t r a u t ld he giv b e op h e is d support to o t u o s t e he w ß ou il l i d . Lord and manufacturing labourers,. n on this Bill two years since, to allow a Member who re opportunity of giving presentedagraenattl of envy those who, feeling make a short trespass h re garded with a considerable could feel a com fortablei;poopnintioheir time. He owned that he on the other side of the question, . He confessed that he looked on both sides of the question,doubt, assurance as to the truth of their own opinions. He whichever one he would side with he viewed with much and he confessed much misgiving. Whatever course the House might adopt, he looked with much misgiving to the consequences of any rash er premature measure. He should feel an inexpressible relief only to be cure that he was right, but to be sure that be thought that he was right ; for on the one hand he was ready to admit to some degree the representa tions put forward by the promoters and supporters of the Bill, but he thought they took rather an exaggerated view of the case. He did not believe that factory labour in the average number of instances, though it might be wearing, could be regarded as severe or injurious. He did not believe that in the average condition of the factory labourers, though it was not so good as if they had greater enjoyment—( Hear, hear) —greater exercise, and time, there was so much effect produced upon their health. Their real condition, and health depended much more on the proprietor of the mill, and the arrangements he might adopt with respect to the cleanliness and ventilation than upon the hours of work. In all respects the master of these mills had more intelligence than they usually received credit for. As an instance he referred them to many mercantile houses who were distinguished for their efforts in the cause of the working classes. He was sometimes ready to admit that the condition of the men, women, and children, engaged in the manufacturing labour, would derive great benefit from shorter hours of labour. Ho believed that they would derive solid advantage from having more time for recreation—( Hear, hear) = both with regard to their moral and social condition ; and it would be better for their minds, bodies, and souls. So far he went along with th promoters of this Bill ; but then in such a state of society al theirs, in which all departments of labour had such a relation to each other, and all kinds of business ran into each other, they could not calculate the effect of any disturbing clause which they might introduce. He need not remind Hon. Members who were familiar with the history of the colonies, of the cirs cumstance of Spain, in order to relieve the red Indian, intro dneing the black negro.—( Hear, hear.) Thus it was they often tound their benevolence defeat the very parties they were endeavouring to serve. But on reference to the present Bill, he conld not consent to any reduction in the hours of labour beyond one hour ; or, in other words, he was in favour of its being restricted to eleven hours labour per day. But he might be asked, was not the proper way, in that case, for him to go into Committee, and to propose that reduction ?—(Hear, bear.) Under ordi nary circumstances, that course might be advisable, but, at present, he felt that he could not consent to that course. Judging from what had already fallen from Hon. Members on the cisestion, there was no certainty of that proposition being carried in Committee. He thought other quarrels, and feelings arising out of other questions, had been introduced into the discussion of the present Bill.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord who last addressed the House, who, lie (Lord 3lorpeth) believed, was actuated by the mast honourable motives, had said that he had changed his opinion on the present question. If so, that should teach him to regard with a little more allowance the change which had taken plate on another question in the minds of others.---(Loud cheers.) His Noble Friend bad admitted that an experience of two years had led to that alteration; why not, then, concede a si milar change to the three years' experience of others.— (Cheers.) But beyond this he (Lord Morpeth) was firmly persuaded they should confine the reduction to eleven hours a day. He could not consent that the Bill should go so far as ten hours, and even with respect to the former reduction he did not feel prepared on the present occasion to go into Com mittee. With regard to going into Committee the session and the time was adverse. They ought, in his opinion, to suspend their decision, :for he thought the present Bill was so much connected with the Bill for the repeal of the corm laws, or, in other words, the Bill for regulating the payment of labour, that he could not consent to the one till he had ascertained the fate of the other.—(Loud cheers from the pro tectionists.) Why was he interrupted by that cheer ? He was persuaded the Bill before the House would greatly injure the working classes—those who subsisted by labour—unless they were sure of the other measure to augment their wages. Would the Hon. Gentlemen on the other side who had cheered consent that the other Bill to which he referred should pass into a law in order to give effect to this?—(Cries of " No, no.") He believed that prudence and procrastination were necessary on the present occasion, and that the state of the Bill for the repeal of the corn-laws offered a consideration why they should not press the question to so early a decision. They should not only wait to ascertain the fate of that measure, but they should.wait until they had further learnt the experience of the effects that had arisen from voluntary experiments between masters and men for the abridgements of the hours of labour. Already, experiments of this kind had been made, and he did not abandon the hope that they would be carried out much further, if the Legislature did not interfere. His Right Hon. Friend had been much disappointed in what he had stated respecting strikes to abridge the hours of labour. He did not advise strikes to obtain that end, but what he said was that the operatives, while they had struck repeatedly for an increase of wages, had never entered into strikes for the reduction of the hours of labour. They had never struck for a reduction of the hours of labour. Nay, he was persuaded that if the operatives asked the masters for a reduc tion of the hours of labour, and if they would submit to a com mensurate reduction in their wages, he had no doubt it would be conceded.—(Hear, hear.) They had but to go to the masters and state this determination, and it would be done. But the fact was, in some parts of Lancashire there were some of the operatives working long hours, and others short hours, at a proportionate reduction of wages ; and it was a remarkable fact that they preferred the longer hours with the increased wages, than the shorter hours with the reduced wages. Much has been said of the superiority of the English labourer—of their sinewal muscle. He admitted that superiority. He acknowledged their strength and skill, but he could not see hew it could maintain itself if this Bill were passed against the labourers of foreign countries. Ac cording to a report which had been made to that House, which was an authoritative statement, the factory labourers had to work 75, 84, and 92 hours a week. In Prussia and Austria the hours were from 92 to 80 ; in the Tyrol from 72 to 80 ; in Belgium from 80 to 90 ; and in other nations they were of a similar character. In England, however, it was proposed to reduce them to 59 hours a week. If so, he was sure no in feriority of strength or skill could avail to balance 91 hours against 59. Now in regard to the great immorality which was alleged to exist in the manufacturing districts, according to the returns which had been made to that House, giving the commitments which had taken place all over England, it was shown that in Yorkshire and Lancashire a great decrease had taken place in the years 1843, 1844, and 1845. In Yorkshire it had been in the last year as much as nineteen per cent. In Leicester also, which was extensively engaged in the silk, lace, and hosiery trades, a great decrease in those years had also taken place, last year ; it had been as m uc h as 22 per cent. In Staffordshire and Warwickshire, the great seat of the hardware trades, there h a d b een a grea t re d uct i on in the last three years. So h a d th ere • a l so b een i n Glouces tershire, to the extent of 9 p e r cen t. Thi s must sat i s f y t h em as e e y mwmtohi. of otheret a h a t presentcointhnfshoajytaruthsltgie. immorality, eaga.shtuewtgreatv e r consideration, t wasbe athought seeke o a ft s oo the ws disturb sbt t rl theaiect they r e h a r il i eset whichhf r e o y mw were z a ph s oes y e e t dht thought ignorant uei o v the oe nn.t Members who had introduced the Bill, and the House, should h ti e on co a ul g d net reae o r m r i e t d d u e c e t l io a n rin t g h , an tha o t on no neho acc ura ou d n a t could y,orfixh suspend their decision. But, whatev er th ey m i g h t d eterm i ne, fixing sanc tion n the e - number of hours at eleven; and further, that, under present circumstances, he was not prepared to accede to any reduction at all till the fate of the Bill with which it ought to be accom panied was known.—(Cheers.) Mr. MACAULAY, in rising to support the Bill, said that if, as complained of by the Hon. Member for Sheffield, any unjust aspersions had been cast upon the manufacturers of the country for opposing the present Bill, such aspersions met with no sympathy from him. He had no sympathy with such aspersions, as be was fully convinced the interests of the manu facturers of this country—the interests of the whole of soeiety —hut especially the interests of the labouring classes, was de pendent on the present question, and the vote they should give that night. Under no circumstances should feelings of political hostility be allowed to interfere, or any ruse of political party and political warfare, be allowed to interfere with a question so deeply interesting to the great body of the people. He could assure the Hon. Member for Sheffield, and his Hon. Friends on his side of the House, that he had no desire to obtain any credit for humanity at their expense. He believed that their feelings in all respects were as kind and cordial as his own. They agreed with him as to the end to be obtained, but their present difference of opinion was in regard to the means. Dis missing from their minds all extraneous considerations, the real point they had to consider was—was the present' subject a legi timate one for them to interfere with and settle, or was it one that was likely to settle itself? It was important that there should be no mistake on this head. There were two kinds of ' Government to which he had great objection, and he did not know which was the greatest pest; the one was the patriarchal form of Government, or a meddling Government, who thought they could do every other persons' business better than they could themselves, and the other form of Government was a careless, indolent one, who would suffer the greatest social abuses to exist without interfering—a Government who said that things should go on without interference, as they would be sure to find their level.—( Hear, hear.) If he had any objec tion to the past proceedings of Government in this country, it was that they had assumed too much function of the patriarchal form, and meddled with things that were not within the legitimate sphere of their influence. Great philosophers, during the last generation, had drawn the attention of the speculative to this object. He did think he saw some danger in the carrying these principles to the other extreme, for it was a very remarkable circumstance that they should have lived to see that all the great communications of the empire had been abandoned by the Guv2rnment to private spe culation.—( Hear, hear.) Another instance of an error was the manner in which 'one Gentlemen looked at the question before the House. The Hon. Members for Sheffield and Montrose (Mr. Ward and Mr. Hume) resolved it into one merely of free-trade, and told them not to legislate upon the subject, the contract between the master and the labourer being merely one like any other commercial transaction. They said we did not interfere with the hosier at what price he was to sell his stockings, or with the grocer as to what kind of stock he should lay in, and whether he was to give long credit and charge high prices. They argued that the labourers and the grocers would judge much better for themselves than the legis lature could do for them. He believed he was as much attached to the principle of free-trade as any other man in that House, but that was when the principle was rightly stated. It was casting ridicule on the principle of free-trade when they were pushed to an extreme. They had restricted the number of cabs; it was a rainy day, and there were few upon a stand ; in fact, there was none ; and why was it not competent for any man to bring out his own cab and charge what price be liked? That was the principle of free-trade; but they had yielded that principle to the consideration of the police, and so also had they sacrificed it when a question of revenue came to be considered. Well then, the health of the community was a matter to which it should be yielded also. He had read with much satisfaction a report signed by two of the officers of the Government, the Duke of Buceleuch and the Noble Lord, who was lately at the head of the Woods and Forests, and who was now Secretary for Ireland, and there was not any document more repugnant than it to the principle of free trade, for he found in it, that a man could not on his own ground, build a house less than thirty feet wide, nor could he build a new one in a new street, without giving notice to certain Commissioners. He was obliged to make a drain to his house, and if he refused, the Commissioners could make a drain, and send him in the bill to pay, and he was obliged to pay it. Those who took their stand upon the extreme principle of free trade, would tell us, that they were to buy cheap and to sell dear. Now, why should not that apply to the man who ran up a cheap house without a drain, and endeavour to get the highest price for it ? Because the health of the community was concerned. He defied them to defend free trade upon these extreme prin ciples, and that was the reason that free trade, which was so excellent in itself had so much to struggle with to obtain the general assent of society. But there vs ere other interests which demanded their attention—interests far higher than those which were merely commercial—they were those which concerned the public weal—and they were to decide whether the great masses of the people should live in a method the effect of which was to abridge life, to send them to untimely graves, leaving behind them a miserable progeny.—( Hear.) Whenever the public health or the public morality was con cerned, the Legislature ought to interfere. Take, for instance, the case of lotteries. What had they to do with the contract between the parties in the case of a lottery ? A man put his hand voluntarily into his pocket, and paid the money—there was no delusion—no injustice practiced by any one—and one would think it a fair commercial transaction, in which they could not interfere to prevent a party from risking his money. They had, however, nothing to do with the matter in a commercial point of view. They interfered with the system because they felt such things as lotteries gave encouragement to certain habits of mind and body whic were incompatible with every good quality of either happ iness or health.—.(Cheers.) They o ught therefore, to interfere with the public health and the would ask whether the public lc morals were not concerned in health and the publ 7 Did an one who examined the time of labour • Y pu blic morals; and . he desirable for health, hours a day labouring in a factory was. . morals, or education. Were they . not justified thin in inter feringhis own feelin.Y,s upon this matter, doubt whether twelve Did any one doubt that of premature and excessive labour . Well, then, after twelve leisure was necessary for education ? _ to prevent the poor from injuring themselves . themselves by means hours a day had been consumed in factory' abour, and the few hours devoted to refreshment and rest, wl at time remained for the operative portion of this country to devote to that educa tion which they ought to possess? Was there enough? No. He was sure they must all answer that question in the negative. —(Cheers.) He repeated, then, that the same principle which justified their interfering to prohibit contracts which they believed would be prejudicial to public morality, justi fied their interfering to prevent contracts which might r prove h injuri ous t o pu bli c h ea l t h.—( H ear, h ear, an d c h eers . ) 5 temporal inconvenience of these laws were so great that they were not observed, and were finally allowed to fall into disc etude. Were Hon. Gentlemen aware that the Long Par- THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MAY 23, 1846. liament abolished Easter, Whitsuntide, and the Christmas holidays, but in lieu of these they provided an extra holiday once during the month for the recreation of the people. Then again, under the French Revolution, they had holidays set apart of a curious nature, when the Sabbath observances. arid saints' days were abolished. It was not necessary to go into any religious argument with respect to the observance of the Sabbath. He would ask, was there one single argument in the speech of his Hon. Friend which would not be turned into argument for a holiday on a Sunday. He had not the re motest doubt, that if all the shopkeepers of London were put to the vote, aye or no, whether they would open shop en a Sun day, they would decide by a majority of 10,000 in the affirma tive. They troubled themselves very much about the practical effect of their legislation, but they knew that in most cases its effect was obsolete. The law with respect to the observance of the Sabbath was, however, beneficial in its effects, as it operated in promoting the good morals and health of the com munity. The opponents of the measure said that it was im possible to take an hour from the time of labour without di minishing production, and that in consequence the con dition of the labourer would he lowered. He thought that this argument was fully deserving the most attentive the consideration. They had already, however , legislated on subject, and they had shortened the hours of labour. The late ldSreirn Rober teigh tPeel sa e t a d rs in of age tb ought ede read those debates over be would find precisely t he same senti ments uttered then as now. But no ruin had followed—pro ditction had not been less in cons e q u e nce of reduced hours of bat e t thirty t o h e years ero h ago Pl°Ye t . i a n late hours of labour. If any person would tak e the trouble t e labour. Suppose in 1546, t he time of the reformation and a period of great religious c han g es, some p erson had p ro p osed the abolition of Sunday observance , and the fifty y ears of industr y which would be gained was thrown into the sc ale, would the people of England be richer now ? No ; his firm belief was t hey would be poorer. Do not let them forget what a curious machine man is, and how fearfully and wonderfully he is made. The day of rest recurring every week elevated the whole man both morally and physically, and this elevation told beneficially on the commercial prosperity of the character. Hie Hon. Friend had quoted Adam Smith, but in the very first chapter of that work the labour of men was alluded to as a thing requiring great care that it was not carried to too great an extent. Could they doubt, then, that if time were given for amuse ment and education, similar instances of men of talent would rise up from the operatives of the country? While, if this time were not given —if no opportunity were allowed for im proving the intellectual ingenuity of the operative portion of the community—would not men of the class and character he had mentioned go down to the grave unknown and undis covered, in so far as their mechanical ingenuity and mechani cal talent had never been developed. --(Cheers.) It seemed, then, to him, that by far the most important point of view which they could take of the matter related to the commercial part of the question. The greatness of a nation depended upon its wealth, and whence sprung wealth ? What was it made one country richer than another ? It was not the fertility of soil, the possession of minerals, or the superiority of position. All these things were valuable, indeed, when human intelligence and human energy used them, but human intelligence and human energy could do much without them, while the things he had mentioned could do nothing without human intelli gence and human energy; for they had heard of a miserable population, living in the most fertile and favourably situated parts of the world, while, on the other lea amount t e nwt t ot h usa e nt r tt e hme e o existed sdi wealth,s made e o d t H t ho l e l greatest Holland, d d,that the and greatestmthaamountedeads veaa o omn f t tl amount ugh n ned d ts,u ofs and r nf hyda, thoseptph the greateste hand, they saw the moststerile land, u n d er th e most i nc l ement rln sun, eus ts e. h w m h countries could not be traced to the fertility of the soil or the superiority of climate.—(Cheers.) To what did the United States owe their great prosperity ? Large as that country was, a century ago it was a perfect wildernesss, tenanted by buffalos and wild animals. See what it was now. No change had taken place in its physical properties, for its rivers, arid valleys, and fertile lands, were as numerous now as they were a century ago; nor was its present prosperity attributable to the transfer of capital from this country. It was simply be cause the country was tenanted by the Englishman instead oi the red man—it was simply because the intelligence of the Englishman had cut down the forests and hewn them into fleets, and built cities upon their sites.—(Cheers. 1 The greatest instrument, then, in the production of wealth, was man, and they found the greatest amount of wealth where the greatest amount of moral and intellectual culture prevailed; while they found the greatest amount of wretchedness and misery where there existed physical, moral, and intellectual degene racy. The wealth of a country could never be diminished by ample opportunity being afforded to the people for education and amusement. It was true the operations of the mechanical machine were suspended on a Sunday in this country, but it must be remembered that the great machine of all—the mind of man, was still at work. The operative spent the day in winding up his concerns of the past and - preparing himself for the coming week, and on the following Monday he returned to his labour with renewed energy, and renewed vigour.-- (Cheers.) He for one believed then that the wealth of this country would not be diminished, or its commercial aspect changed by improving the physical, moral, and intellectual culture of the people, nor was he alarmed at any anticipated Competition with nations whose labourers worked seventeen hours a day ; for in those countries the vigour and health of the mechanic was so diminished by his labour, that even their own public authorities complained that they could not find a man amongst them of sufficient stature to make a sol dier. No ; England could only be deprived of its superiority by the energy, the industry, and the enterprise of a population superior to the English. For these reasons he was satisfied that the principle of this measure was good. He was con vinced, that this being a question relating for the most part to the health and to public morals, the Legislature ought to in terfere ; and so far he approved of the Bill. But the ques tion of degree was another matter, and he agreed with his Noble Friend who sat beside him, who said that they ought to move in this matter with the most cautious steps ; they ought to do so, in his opinion, for the sake of the principle itself, because he conceivefl—indeed there could not be a doubt about it—that if they made the change suddenly it might fail, and a considerable time would have to elapse before a reaction could take place in favour of the principle, or before the Legis lature could be induced again to take it up.—( Hear, hear.) For these reasons he agreed with his Noble Friend near him, and should not be prepared to vote for a reduction of more than eleven hours.—(Hear, hear.) He considered that they stood in the situation of a physician who had satisfied himself of the fact that there was a disease—that there was a remedy —but who had not satisfied himself of the degree in which the patient's constitution would at present bear the application of the remedy. The physician, in a case like this, proceeded cautiously. He applied the dose in small quantities, and watched its operation ; and, in his opinion, this was the course which they themselves had to adopt.—(Cheers.) The present appeared to him to be the most favourable time for making the change, for in this session they would be cor recting two great deficiencies of the Legislature. They had done that which they ought not to have done, and left undone that which they ought to have done—they had afforded relief to those who ought not to have been relieved, and they had left unrelieved those who ought to have been relieved. They had afforded protection to the landed interest while the public health, and the public morality, they had left entirely without that protection which it was their duty to give.—(Cheers.) They prevented the labourer from getting his loaf where he could get it the cheapest, but they did not prevent him from prematurely destroying the health of his body and of his mind. —(Cheers.) He felt rejoiced at finding that they were ap proaching the end of a pernicious system of interference, anil the end of a pernicious system of non-interference. They were repairing while they had the power the greatest of all errors of commission, while also they were repairing the greatest of all errors of omission.--( Cheers. ) Sir JOHN HANMER sa i d, t h at as regar d e d this q ues ti on , they were obliged st e p by step to feel their way, and they must all feel that they were t rea di ng on very d e li ca t e ground. Th e y had already interfered with factory labour, as had been ad mitted by the Right lion. Gentleman himself. Formerly they might work young persons fifteen hours a day; now, however. they could not work them more than twelve hours a day.— ( Hear, hear.) That was a very considerable reduction, and he was very far from saying that he should not like to see that principle carried out still further; but great difficulties lay in the way of the Legislature on this subject. When they first proposed to interfere with this kind of labour, the sort of in • terference proposed was such as to induce even its very advo cates to shrink from the measure ; even the Hon. Member for Finsbury himself, although lie voted for its principle, frankly declared that he could not vote for its details. He did not believe that the question to be decided at this moment was that of interference, but of time and degree. He had heard many Hon. Gentlemen say that it might be very desirable that arrangements should be made between masters arid men as to th e hours of labour, and he certainly agreed with them as to the desirableness of such an arrangement. But this Bill was not for that purpose. The Bill, he believed, proposed in one of it, clauses that they should restrict the hours of labour to ten hours per day. He believed that the measures which had been sent up by that House to the other House of Parliament a few dm s ago, would receive the assent of the Legislature; but he thought it might impose a very considerable difficulty as to the final and beneficial settlement and arrangement of these great measures, if they raised at the present moment questions which might tend to disturb the present relations between the employer and the employed, upon the question of the value of labour And with regard to this question, he thought that considerable stress ought to be laid upon the sort of mills in which the manufac turing classes were now employed. If they disturbed the pre sent state of things in the manufacturing districts, they might compel manufacturers to construct such mills as were constructed some years ago. He had seen himself a very great difference as to the building of mills in the present, compared with former years. Mills that were built now-a-days were well built, filled with the best machines, and well ventilated. The old mills were quite the reverse. Now, be thought that if this measure were passed, the mills to be constructed hereafter would have the same faults as those erected years ago. He did not retract the opinions that ho had expressed on former occasions in sup port of a restriction of the hours of labour ; but he thought that, looking at this Bill, he could not give it his support, because he did not believe that it would effect its object of elevating the condition of the wording classes, and he did sincerely believe that he was better discharging his duty to those for whose bene fit the measure was introduced by voting against it than giving it his support. Mr. WAKLEY amid st loud cries of " " • Divide, divide," said, that he was delighted with the argumentative and conclusive ibf Enuth eye weres of speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Edin. burgh.—( Hear, hear.) And he hoped that the House would the not Ltoegiinsltaetr;f_err-. on its attention for a few moments after the most able speech which had just been delivered.— ( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman's argument as to non-interference was most conclusive, in fact, he had never in his life heard anything more conclusive. For what other pu pardon him for trespassing for the purpose of protecting the weak against the strong. e Would he be told that the infants of gland, whom power of protecting, were to be left to the mere ( po ff s e e ar w , as he le a g r. is ) latu T re ha c t on w st a i s tut th ed e of they load the oppression ? Why every Act they passed was an interferenceavarice and with the rights of some class or other of the e n Was it to be said that the legislature m ust , community. protect that weak infants employed in the ma nu f actoriesof trade, and must be left unprotected ? Why, during the last t f h e i r s country under the system of protection the manufactures of try years, try had been continually increasing--( Loud laughter is coon - cheering from the protectionists) —and he confessed it did a" boldly and chillingly diecon his ear, when he heardthe strßiikes Hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Hi ment, the other night, in the debate en this subject,tme Depart that the English labourer was now to enter into announce toil without armour, and in a naked state. Wag the arena of that, with free trade in commerce, no W lie to be told protection was to be allowed to the labouring classes of thi s country. to be so, he was very sorr y th a t he votecltf for that If th at were that measure— (Protectionist cheers)—fe him t r it would g i veh he had felt a long tim e . But he thatbelieved e great es t pa i n which he alluded wa s calculated t o improve the condition the measure to working classes of thi s coun t r y. The Ho and o f t h e Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Ba n k es ) , course o f t hi s the and L earne d debate, seemed to take a very great i nterest in the welf are o f the manfacturing population of this country; Hon. and Learned Member for his good fe h ei e in thanked th e that class of the people, but lie hoped Ihers towards and Learned Member would pardon him if he venturedionoable to ex press a hope that I- e would extend his benevolent intentions and feelings towards the agricultural labourers of his own neigh bourhood.—(Hear, hear.) He co uld not, in his opinion, exe cute a more agreeable duty than that of imor • oving the condition of his fellow man.—(Hear, hear.) But the Hon. Member for Sheffield had delivered t o the [louse a pretty lecture that evening. That lecture was, in his (Mr. Wakley's) opinion, what Hudibras would have called the greatest piece of rigmarole he had ever heard.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) The Hon. T Gentleman had (he believed unintentionally) misrepresented his (Mr. Wakley's) opinions on this question, for he had stated that because certain of his constituents of the labouring classes required the Bill, he would be compelled to give it his support. Now he (Mr. Wakley) could assure the Honourable Member that he was not so much troubled by his constituents as the gentleman himself.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) The Hon. Member for Sheffield stated that he had learned more from the working classes of Sheffield than he had learned during all the period which he had sat in the House. He thought the Hon. Member took an extraordinary mode of showing the knowledge which he had thus obtained.—( Hear, hear.) He stated that he bad read the pamphlet written by his Hon. Friend the Member fur Oldham over and over again, but was not able to understand it in the least. The Hon. ltlember for Oldh am was not answerable for that. He did not herth f u n de rtake when he w ro t e hi s pamphlet to give the Hon. Mem- The H e faculty of un d erstanding.—(Cheers and laughter.) Hon. M em b er for Sheffield also s t a t e d, that he had lie tene cl with pleasur e t o the speeches which had been made 'by Hon. M em b ers on his side of the Hous e ,4u: ie eould not for i t ( h a e s life of him un d ers t and them. He (Mr. to know wh a t sort of a mind that wasav hich ' co Y u ) ld wa li s t n at a to an argument with pl easure, but which did not for the life of e it un derstand it.—(Cheers and laughter.) And then his Hon. Friend the Member fin Sheffield turned round to the H on . Member for Oldh am and his suppor t ers, ,,nd and called.this move ment merely po uu l ar i ty .b untizi stated that popularity upon such a subject could be easily conc l u d e d obtained; and observations to hi s H ou. Friend d (Mr. Fi e ld en ) b y ing that there was not hi ng w hi ch he (Mr. Ward) denoun ced so much as amateur l eg i s l at i on. Now, it struck him, that he (Mr. Ward) was the amateur legislator. The Hon. Mem her for Oldham was an amateur, who for a period of fifty years had been engeged in spinning, and who gave employ ment to two or three millions of hands—( Laughter, occs sioned by the mistake whh reference to the nmuber of hands employed by the Hon. Member for Oldham.) At that mo ment he ( Mr. Wakley) was thinking of the millions which he had created by the exercise of his skill. He was, however, a man of experience of nearly half a century's standing. This was the person whom the Hon. Member for Sheffield had called an amateur legislator. It seems a most extraordinary course for the Hon. Member to pursue. He wondered how he could have had the boldness so to have designated the la bours of his Hon. Friend. In his experience, however, he (Mr. Wakley) confided his judgment. He believed the Hon. Member for Oldham was one who knew more upon the sub ject than almost any man in that House—a gentleman who, in stead of having his mind governed and controlled by the perse • cuting and insatiable spirit of avarice, was ornamented and adorned by the highest feelings of humanity, and which ever swayed, undirected, his consistent conduct. His Hon. Friend, to whom he had just alluded, had stated in his pamphlet, that there might be a rise in the price of a shirt or a gown to the extent of a halfpenny or a penny. " said his Hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, like a second Cocker, " a halfpenny or a penny—these are no light considerations." No, put a child in ore scale and a halfpenny and a penny in the other, and see which will weigh the lightest.—(Laughter.) His Hon. Friend had further stated in his pamphlet that, during the forty years which they had been interfering, an in crease had taken place in the consumption of cotton goods five-fold, and challenged the accuracy of his statement; and that wages were as high as the present time. Well, then, had they arrived precisely at that point where they should stop ? had they just discovered the point of perfection ? Would the House refuse to interfere in the protection of infantine life? Were Hon. Members who opposed the Bill prepared to repeal the existing law ? No. Then let them go on with their righteous interference till they had given an efficient protec tion to these wretched and helpless beings. They had the labouring classes themselves, in Yorkshire, and, indeed, in all parts of the ki ng d o m, p r aying for the Bill. Great weeping and wailing would tbeir be in the West Division of Yorkshire when the speech was read there which the Noble Lord the Member for the West Riding had delivered that night. That speech, he must say, was one which he did not expect to hear from a Noble Lord after the speeches which he had read as having been delivered by the Noble Lord at the last session. There was one portion of this subject which had not been, in his opinion, sufficiently stated in the course of Ibis debate. He alluded to the subject of mortality occasioned by this overworking - of the p mulation. From the report of Mr. Chadwick, it appeared that in the whole of England and Wales, out of a population of one thousand, one hundred and forty-five had died at the age of seventy, while in Manchester out of the same population but sixty persons arrived at the age of seventy. Out of 4,629 deaths which occurred in the labouring classes at Manchester in the year 1840, it appeared that 2,649 had died under the age of five }ears. From five to ten years of age the proportion of deaths had been as one to twenty-two. From the ages of 10 to 15 the proportion had been one to forty, and above the age of fifteen years it was as one to thirty-five. The average age of deaths in Manchester among the labouring classes was seventeen years, while in Rutlandshire the average was thirty-eight years.—( Cheers.) The Hon. Member for Edinburgh particularly dwelt upon the circumstance that there were many and higher considerations than those of commercial prosperity. He (Mr. Wakley) thought if there were not they might soon cease their duty. There was another point which he would not at that late period of the night press upon the attention of the House. It was the dreadful effect which they were producing upon the manufacturing population by withdrawing from the homes of the operatives the natural protectors of their children—their wives ; and by not inter fering with this case they made a dreary and desolate place of the poor man's home when they took from that home his wife, the natural protector of his home. After his work was over, the poor man, instead of going home and finding there a smiling wife to receive him in a cheerful and comfortable home, to spread before him a well-laid board, he takes with him to his home his weary and exhausted partner, and in a state of wretched debility they retire to rest, and, in the morning, when they leave for their accustomed toil and drud gery, their children are left at home to the protec tion of some wretched and withered harridan.—( Hear. ) By pursuing a system of non-interference, they were striking at the very root of all society in the country. Its effects were frightful. Would the House believe it, that out of every 4,600 individuals, 2,400 died yearly ; and could any worse misfortune happen to a family than the death of its mother?—(Hear, hear.) He had no desire to create an unpleasant feeling in the'minds of any persons but he could not help appealing to their knowledge of the benefit conferred upon a family by the mother. Whenever they saw a thrifty family governed by good conduct, and industrious, they night be sure that a good mother and father were there. The mother had every motive for making her home comfortable. She could not; like the raan, enjoy herself from home, the forms of society prevented her. So, therefore, it was her interest to make her home as happy as possible. Now, by their present system, they de stroyed the mother, by requiring that she should perform the labours of a man. lie did trust that these reflections would have their due weight. He was sorry to press them into so small a compass, but he did so, as he was aware of a desire which generally existed, that there should be a division on the sub ject. The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, who made so able a speech upon the subject, stated that in going into Committe on the Bill he would not approve of more than one hour. Well, one hour was better than nothing; if they could not get the ten hours, he should vote for the eleven, as he considered that it was a step in the right direction. It was a most important question, and involved the :feelings of thousands and hundreds of thousands of their fellow creatures, and he trusted that th - e decision of the House would be such as to give them future encouragement. Mr. BRIGHT said he cordially concurred in one thing that had fallen from the last speaker, end that was, that the present was a most important subject; and it was because he had that opinion that he had ventured to offer some few observations to the House, for the purpose of setting it right with regard to some statements made to it. He must say that he had listened to the speech of the Hon. Member for Edinburgh with consi derable astonishment—( Hear, hear)—And he never had heard a Member get up to address the House upon any subject, and keep so far wide of it.—(Cries of " Oh, oh.") They had ancient and modern history quoted to them ; they had religious considerations urged upon them—(Oh, oh) —they hail a lecture on the institution of the Sabbath ; they had heard free trade caricatured as they might expect it to be by a man who had not dared to open his mouth during the three months it had been tinder discussion, —( Cheere.) And with respect to the Sabbath, it was a day on which people did not ordinarily work. There was no mill in any part cf the world which worked on a Sabbath; but because people did not work upon the Sabbath, it did not satisfactorily follow that a Ten Hours Bill was requisite. The question before the House was whether they thought it advisable to limit the hours of labour? But they should recollect that they could only limit it in one country, and it was a meter of deep concern what would be the amount of competition which they would meet with in other countries. The Hon. Member for Edinburgh did allude to what he censidered to be the effect of manufacturing operations upon the inhabitants, and the Member for Finsbury had gone into statistical researches to show the prevalence of mortality in manafactories, but had the Hon. Member compared Man chester with Liverpool he would have found it was much greater—( Hear, hear)—and if he compared Liver pool with Bristol he would have discovered it to be greater. So therefore his argument was not worth a straw for the case under considera tion; and if he looked into statistics, he would have found that longevity had been increasing for the last fifteen years, and the average rate of mortality was less now than it was in 1801. The statement of Lord Ashley in reference to the kind of la bour done at manufactories were very much contrary to fact, and he was surprised that lie had made them. The Hon. Member for Oldham said, that if they limited their production to what it was twenty years ago, the result would be more beneficial both at home and abroad. With respect to this diminution, he weuld say that several experiments were made, and the whole of there went to show that no injury was sus tained by the workinan from the continuance of the hours of labour at what they were at present. Mr. Horner also showed the same thing. He would not dwell upon the subject at all, but that many gentlemen opposite knew nothing whatever of the nature of the work in cotton-mills. ( Hear, hear.) He maintained that, by working ten hours, the machine would only turn out ten-twelfths of the quantity which they would do if they worked twelve hours.—( Cheers.) The quantity turned out at present was 532,000,0001b5. of cotton, but by the proposed reduction in the hours of labour, the quantity would be reduced 76,000,0001bs—the whole quantity manufactured in this country at the close of the late war. Was there a Member of that House, who would vote for the passing of a measure which would do away with this annual consumption? It was said by the Right Hon. Member for Edinburgh, and other Hon. Members in that House, that experiments had been made in the reduction of the hours of labour, bnt that no injury had resulted.— (Hear, hear. ) The i<oncern which he was connected with had been in exis tence for more than f , rty years, and never worked on an ave rage more than twelve hours a day, but the Hon. Member for Oldham had been in the habit of working for many years for fourteen hours a day, and it was certainly rather strange that he had not found out the inhumanity of the system before. it was, however, much better to have a late repentance than none at all.—( Hear, hear.) It was really too bad for the Hen. Member to state in that House as a fact, that which any o ne acquainted with the cotton-spinning trade could at once contra dict with the greatest confidence. He could assure the House that there were many establishments peeing more wages now than they had for years before, and at the same time they were receiving not a fatthing of profit.—(" Oh, oh," from Colonel Sibthorp.) The Honourable and Gallant Mem ber for Lice-do was well acquainted with the the spinning trade; the Hen. and Gallant Gentleman Lad many things to be thankful for, and this acquisition amongst all the rest.—(Laughter, during which the Hon. and Gallant Colonel rose, and bowed most gracefully.) If was said that many of those in the. cotton spinning trade had made large for. tunes; he honed it was not a c r i me f or a co tt on sp i nner to ma k e a fortune.,-('Hear, hear.) Some years ago, they had limit the hours of labour to twelve hours a day, but the inie ; that -‘'' not so great as it would be under the present Bill. 4:0 'o.n.laswatts period machinery had not been brought to suchzei .a i r i m i the present day. Now, however, machinery as it could be, and the injury which must attend so grea t a re striction as that proposed mu s t be a ll th e more felt by the em ployer and the employed. Th e itnprovements hi machin er y had taken place since th e c h ange had enabled th em e ° meet it, but there was n o roam now for additi ona l i mprovemen t He had in his own employment about eight hundred persM and he was satisfied that they would ra th er wor k t en h ours a ' 413 . than twelve, but he was cer t a i n th ey wou ld not rather 4z so, if they were o n ly t o h ave t h e wages of till hours. If he were to o ff e r th em th e pr i ce o f twelve hr labour for ten hours, they would all accept it, but he was ve sure that if they wer e t o b e res t r i c t e d t o t en h ours labour, L' ten hours wages, n o t one o f th em wou ld accept it. I.`ha never was an instance of where the offer was made to r e d the men to ten ileum labour and ten boars remanerati on: 7 • _ _ -- was accepted—it was in var i a bl y refused' He should be glad for his own part to have the hours of labour reduced, but when it could net be done with advantage to either party, but on the contrary when it would be attended with injury to all, he c , :uld not support such a change.—( Hear. ) If it was true, as the Hon. Member for Oldham had said, that this plan would not be less productive, why did not he try it ? That Hon. Member he (Mr. Bright) well knew exported his goods to all parts of the world ;, t but he need not tell the Hon. Member that at present America was able to meet the English manufacturers with the very same goods on the same counter. Nodoubt the Nt ble Lord (the Member for Newark) said a good many things which he could not help admiring; he said that he would like to see the men play at crieket, and in dulge in other recreations. Why, so should he; but let him ask any man is that House eng aged in any honest empl oyment, whether he would take ten b riefs instead of twelve, and ten fees instead of twelve ?—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) He begged to tell the House that workmen liked money as well as their masters, and would do their best to earn it; and the House might rest assured that the workmen would consider this House their greatest enemies, if they tied one of their han,is, and thus prevented them from earning it, which ibis Bill would ceri airily effect. But there cL.uld be no doubt about it, the men were not in favour of ten hours' time for which they were to get only ten hours' wages) and the Legislaturedid not propose to give . it to them (andif theydid, - it would result ,r) a fatal mistake, The Honourable Member for Ashton proposed a compromise of eleven hours, and he certainly was the man for compromise. But the result of all this would be to convince the workmen that the House had the power to fix a limit to the hours of labour without being able to interfere , with the amount of wages, and if they sent on this way, it might be that the men would eventually look for eight hours, and perhap s for six. He maintained that if a voluntary arrange t,hveassatti merit, as tar as such an arrangemenLwas possible, was u e rCla e y as a ° f n ter o n f After ng neces sary,wh before they were five years older f? • would have it everT -o,,hne? Ma e n r c e l;este W r 7h o a n t o s f om th e e st s r h en op u s ou m s effor! son both sides, the half holid a y S well and as sc ru p u l ous l y observed asti on who!e holidaye on the Sabbath. The early closing of shops, o'clock, was goin g on i n many towns ns irottosdkt?f ten or el even therefore, desirabl e th a t some arrangement shou ir b o e m, it was, com e Let their decision o n thi s su bj ect be once and for ever, and t i n e . r t them not indulge in any suc h uncertain speculation. , It was merely legislation for pe rsons a b ove thirteen years of age, but them avoid any interfe rence , an d they would find an entirely different channel for the endeavours of the workin g classes. The manufacturer had b ecome more civilised during g the last thirty or forty years, and there had been an improve ment in all classes of society. That was not the effect of any legislation, it was a more kindly, a more- gentle feeling, that had sprung up amongst all classes. He was sorry to appear to set his opinion against those of the Hon. Gentlemen opposite, but he would state, that no master of any mill would now dare to perpetrate the cruelties, or inflict the hardships, which were formerly attempted to be put forward in that House. There was an esprit de corps amongst all the people that would effec tually resist such an attempt. He had said that, two years since, he advocated the same side that he did at present, and he believed that he took the side best for the interest of the working classes. Further consideration confirmed him in the opinion that a great portion of the miseries of that class had arisen from the interference of that House. That was the reason they did not take measures to assist themselves, because they looked to the interference of that House- He was sorry to hear Hon. Members get up on the opposite side, stating facts which at best were mischievous delusions, and misled the working classes. The Hon. Member had spoken as if they were not the friends of the working classes. Could anything be more absurd than to suppose that it was his interest to be opposed fo so large a body of the population. His Hon. Friend had pointed to the strike in 1842, and had opposed it. He (Mr. Bright) thought that it was one of the greatest triumphs in modern times. Had not the manufacturers ob tained vast wealth, and yet the people scorned the idea of raising a hand to a capitalist ? It was a scandal to the Government of the country that the manufacturers should have amassed such immense fortunes; leaving their labourers unprovided for. He would tell the Hon. Member that he opposed the Ten Hours' Bill, and he would do it with the conviction that the present measure was founded on a principle on which the House ought not to legislate. Free trade would soon pass, and it was not wrong to suppose that the people would increase in intelligence and wealth—for their was wealth amongst the poorer classes. The manufacturers would become more kindly and gentle to their labourers, and they would both feel the conviction that they could gain by a voluntary arrangement all they could gain by legislation. Such a state of things would materially benefit trade and the condition of the labourers of all classes. Mr. B. DENISON hoped that the House would permit him to say a few words on this subject, on which the House had legislated on various occasions. He had thought it to be its duty to interfere, and the question then before it was, whether they should proceed in their legislation, or whether they should not go one step further ? The proposition was to go into Com mittee to take into consideration whether the hours of labour of children between the ages of thirteen and eighteen years of age should or should not be shortened? The case had been too much argued, and the Hon. Member hadproposed that the hours of labour should be shortened to ten hours. He must with all respect say that that course was premature. The question was whether the time should be shortened or not, and that question was to be considered on goinginto Committee. If they went into Committee he was not prepared to vote for ten hours, as he thought it would be much ,too large a step in the reduction of the hours of labour which the manufacturing and working people ought to give to their employers. What mast pressed on his consideration, was the females working in the mills from thirte en to eighteen hours a day. He put it to the House whether females of this tender age should be compelled to work twelve hours a day. He thought the hours of labour in respect to females ought to be reduced. He regretted his Noble colleague (Lord Morpeth) had inti mated that he would vote against the Bill, though he must say that with the exception of the speech of the Hen. Member for Edinburgh, it was the best speech delivered in favour of the Bill. His Noble Colleague said he was willing to consent to some alteration in the hours of labour, providing the Corn Bill was carriee. Now, that Bill had been sent to another House, having been passed by a Urge majority of the present House, and they had a right to assume that it would be carried there. —(Hear, hear.) He thought, therefore, they ought to legis late independent of such considerations, and he regretted the 1 course which the Noble Lord proposed to take. He (Mr. B. Denison) would vote for the second reading of the Bill. Sir R. REEL rose and said, I have listened with great attentionto the speech of the Right Hon. Member for Edin burgh, and feel h;ghly satisfied with it as a rhetorical composi tion, but as it respects the part of it consisting of argument against the Bill, I think it exceedingly limited. The greater part of the argument he has put forward is that the principle of free trade should not control the Legislature to prevent it interfering to promote the social comforts and health of the country. But who contradicts this proposition ? That argu ment was addressed to about ten gentlemen in the House (for there was not more, if so many) who think that the pure prin ciple of free trade should be rigidly carried out, and that the Legislature should not interfere to regulate such matters. I adroit, with the Hon. Member, the truth of the principle that the Legislature should interfere in matters involving the health and moral improvement of the people. But because I concede this position, it does not fellow that I must admit the present Bill to be one that claims our special consideration and interference. The Right Hon. ' Gentleman has made a great impression on the House ; in beautiful lan guage he has enforced the argument to which I have referred. He had gone among the hackney cabs, in order to satisfy every Hon. Member who might not have been previously convinced of the necessity of the Legislature to interfere. He has re ferred to draining and sanatory regulations sanctioned, as evi dence in support of interfering in the present case. The over loading of omnibuses and hackney cabs, the regulations for draining hav e a ll been brought forward by the Right Hon. Get.tleman in order to strengthen his case; and, as if these were not enough, in order that there may not be a loop-hole for escape, he has told us that if a young boy of thirteen years of age was to sign away his inheritance, that the Legis lature would step in and interfere. The whole of that part of the Hon. Gentleman's argument I admit to be perfectly con clusive ; hut is it politic to impose a tax indirectly to prevent him from employing his labourer more than ten hours a day? Let me establish the weakness of the position which the Right Hon. Gentleman has taken by reminding him of what is the state of the law at present. It is too late to contest the principle now, though I will admit that, thirty years ago, I took an active part in co-operating with one for whose character and whose memory I must ever en tertain the deepest respect, in violating the principle of free trade.—', Hear, hear.) But what is the s t a t e o f l eg i s l a ti on upon this subjec ? No child under eight years can be employed is a factory at all. No child, under eighteen years of age s can work by night. No female can work by night at al Nr:, child, between the age of eight and thirteen can work for more than six and a half hours, and the child betwee n eight and thirteen must bring a certificate that three he'ars' instruc tion had been given to it previously en the s'lme day. That is the state of our legislation at present. 1 must, therefore, admit the force of the whole of the Right Hon. Gentleman's preliminary principle, but then came another and a far less conclusive part of the Right Honourable Gentleman's speech, namely, that which considered whether it be for the advantage of the working classes, that there should be a further reduc tion in the hours of labour. I admit that merely commercial considerations ought not to determine our policy in that res pect. I admit that there are higher considerations than those of a commercial character. I admit that the principle that ought to guide us in the consideration of the question is, whether or no the further restrictions in the hours of labour, will promote the health—will promote the morality, or be conducive to the interests of the adultfh e labour,Right working classes. I admit that these great considerations arc far superior to the mere commercial interfere clues w ti i e t e h . ' h il e o w n. ag Ge n n n t w le i m ili a n n e s t a o id p h r e ev w e o n u t ld th n e ot a adult wusinghoseshecapitalthought was from th e insult it t insult of restrict proper—he would not com m it ing his discretion on a to . tnt connected with his own health. Now what are we dint to do? Although the Right Hon. Gentleman admits the i njustice of the inte r f erence , he was supporting a with rot Ill; which indirectly establi s hed regula tionsrcct to adult l a b our . W e are a b ou t t o impose wit, , , goin e g tn is equivalent to an income Y ..tax of fifteen per .4,- zent. upon the l a bour of the operative. ea are '.ell him that he shall not have an opportunity of work ing in 'snore than a certain number of hours per day. Now do Yell really believe that in establishing that restriction—do you commr with him in his belief that for ten hours' labour, he can, reeei - re twelve hours' pay?—(Cheers.) The Right Hon. Gess. tler'i,an says, " See of what importance it is to the comme.e , l ty that the workman should have some command over his 4,1-I„._ tier! what the Dutchman has done—see what the P - . hes done—see how the i n h a bit ants o f t h e United, sp.a, honglo-Saxon blood, h ave c l eare d t h e f orest. 'arA ? nr .,e :i.. s isha with the sterile land. S ee w h a t t h e Dateremaimed }-irr n has done in reclaiming from th e d om i n i on o f t h e ocea%, • p rat by waves." See how he 4 , P 5 done all tkis—but did Li - g which was once .ie. yQu restrict hi m t o t en h ours ' l a b or : ~:a. (Cheers.) Did you tell th e D u t c h man , w h o has reclaims. d his dominions from the ' sees, that he should only work ter hours ? Did you tell the Erglishman who has supplanted f' tie red man, that by legisl a tiva restrictions he could pill* work ten h ours a day.— (Cheers.) See, said the Rip. , ity of the working man for im- ' rat Hon. Gentleman, how much • you are i n d e bt e d t o th e ingee laity provements in machinery. I t i s no t, h e sa y s , by the great mithematicians or the 4 . says Mr. Ada- , s ' a d . 9 a, Zitcs - ir.genuity of the working man. He, dosopher that these discoveries were made, but only be " i m nd en eb ti tZ i ti. in the commencement of his work, e, wood e. f ul improvements for which this country is made 'of restrictive labour? In the time of A 1.- ,nnier a state , . to the l'Arrenuity of the working man. But were they ten, hours a day ? labouring more than , - r .. .right was there a law passed to prevent the working ma , of the working classses— if wish to preserve the ingenuity *sh No , there were. no restrictions then, and 1 for one believe, that you da ou ate at liberty to do so. We C ) work fourteen hours a d y, y ta es of the non-restrictive sys. Of oploy your time and your labour as you please—if you wi _ to consult the wishes tern ; it is said, however, cats there be a doubt that it is their of the working classes ; nave all experienced thea rs am nf o l u a n h t nn o v f that ven w g e ought same ou remuneration in the even nt. Why, Mr. Greg proposed to his as they receive at present. impression that you can ee t s r e n e f u a re red to ne t t h in e n m n t f h t e heh men that they should work his machinery for eleven d pay them at the rate of eleven he would y hours, and w ho insisted upon working twelve hours a rejected by the men , o and a half hours a day, . the proposition was unanimously ' finitely preferable to a le g islative enactment if a n am i ca bl e y in ts between the masters and men could be come to in es and receiving twelve hours' pay. In my opinion it would b e I arrangement Well, then, the experiment was made by men 1 this matter. I in favour of the eleven hours, but they found they o n ly t urne d t a pro p or tionate quantity of work, and they gave the men notice beforehand. They said to them, we wa, firjyourpir sakes, that the experiment should succee toy jteilie re.P. insure the work, formerly accomplished en, ielverentits,, eleven, and, then, let us consent to an , ;Poles' Bit ,;:. \O Bat th result of the experiment was, t 'eoule . tkr" ~.., more in the eleven hours than they had 9 .. Slit•tri4V..-: • •glitryt .4 t i k ‘ against all interference, and particularly , -s t ;: i 4 r4riels.;- ;: q at the present time; and I would be cony . OsuPll. did not state to you that I think we hav ..e.iititta,isist:- , :. can safely go in the matter of interfereqgp ee %tee encii ....tie to give a full and fair triul to `s ilo ellefrNAtit://w but if you do interfere don't suppose that you will give general satisfaction, don't believe that there are other parties w ho• will seek to apply the same principle to you. They will tell you not to talk to them of manufactories, that they will show without undue interference, or depending en the aid of the common informer, the principle is not carried cut. Here is a letter that I have received with respect to the state of the operative papers. (The Right Hon. Baronet then read a lett( r of their _ unparalleled dis.ress, in consequence of the present law state of wages and high price of provieons.) That hey laboured eighteen hours out of the teeny-four, and that their average weekly earnings was about 9.., a such totally inade quate to the support of a man, but less for a man and his family, and they stated it was absolutely necessary to render some pro tection. It was a very strong case, and it would be impossible for the Legislature to interfere,_ and to divi:l e th e l a b our b etween t w o men, and prevent attacks upon the human frame. But, are we quite sure that the restriction in factory labohr will not adi to the labour in other occupations. Why, the Hon. Gen tleman who spoke last, made an impression up. .n the feeling of the House, (which is not a very difficult matter) t y describing the importance and the happiness which a wife produced in a man's home. He says truly, that the wife should be kept at home, and that she should be prepared with the well-Tread board, to welcome her husband on his return home. —( Hear. ) Why, who can doubt it? But what is the remedy for the pre sentHheusrar.,)haeurW.h)y, B it u is t toitrevet gives eleven-twelfths w ,. f or a k ii . shall have passed. Who can doubt the importance . of the wife the in g i n e s v v i fai l i s c? o t—o f r present (i t e h lis e : , system will exist even after this Bill being enabled to devote her attention to domest ic comforts but admitting c it a t m in f g or th ts fenverythelrintmanufacturingcipleth at you promote districts b themo; ality and th e the passing of the Bill, will you prevent women, mother, and children from working in factories ?—( Hear, hear.) Can you insure the attendance of the wife of the manufacturing opera tive at home? And does it not more conduce to the comfort of a family, that they should have large wages than that the wife should have more time to attend to domestic duties. We had an instance of this lately ; there was the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury, came forward the other day from lessonpu r e l ben y ofth e a vol that Bill l motivesme asure. tsnetlos w t it u h po a nhi m ._, I ( H ea do r , hope hear . ) that lx t i h v the the Hon. Gentleman the credit he deserves, as I believe that y he was actuat e d b y nothing but by pure and ' honourable mo tives in bringin g f orward his measure - with respect to labour in lace factories. We had a discussion upon t the subject of the domiciliary visit, and th e system of in quite sure that something of th e same descri p tion , with respect to the hand-loom weaver, and with respect fo all thos o e u r mf u n e i u t e e factures that are connected with fa c t ory labour —are y sure that while you establish these strict r egu l at i ons withq re spect to adult factory labour—are you quite sure that you are not giving a direct premium and encouragement to those sye terns of labour which are beyond your control, and that you are not defeating your own benevolent ends by your own unwise legislation?—(Hear, hear.) Now on this ground I must resist the second reading of this Bill. I sincerely believe that we have carried interference as far as it is desirable. But there may be others who do not agree with me—( Hear, hear)—but there must at the same time be many who must feel that this is not the moment when it is wise to make this great experiment.—( Hear, hear.) It is an experi ment with the four great branches of our manufactures, which, enter into competition with the manufactures of other countries, and if you pass this law, it will have the effect of cutting off one sixth of the labour, and as I believe, of the profits and remuneration of the manufactures of this country.—(Hear, hear.) Well, is this the exact time? You permitted the export of machinery, not upon the principle of free-trade, but because in point of fact, there was no use whatsoever in continuing poor-laws which prevented that exportation.—( Hear, hear.) The plans of the machines were taken, and there was no use in continuing the law which prevented the exportation of machinery. It was better to encourage art in the manufacture of machinery than to have laws which would lead to the smuggling of machines. But you have to give foreign countries opportunities of benefitting by your skill in respect to these machines.—( Hear, hear.) You have also passed a law, the object of which is to enable the guarantee against sudden and extracedinary rise:pit:l.l7 working classes to insure permanence, and to give them na r t that .a ruary, pasusenstilil present form in —(Hear, l . l a a a w rie i s s o n f o oat to f r e t; (Hear, hear.) Suppose the law ) effe W ct el f l n , r h t u hr t ee observe. - -ec-..- e _as hence.— the House of Lords, there will not, a free trade in corn. During the jute. ' - re at agriculture, same an d en 1 849, 'be that it would b a p n o_liti: same restrictions will still exist , aievereg period, the h i a r v u e uu r d emo l ved th p iu r k otection yon n t to give a longer trial to this experiment, which you have already sanctioned; and I intreat the House to refuse to give its assent to the Bill of the Hon. Gentleman, and to permit them to have a fair opportunity to effect this desi • rable ar rangement as to labour by a voluntary agreement between the masters and the employed, and, above all, to postpone taking this irrevocable s t ep —f or irrevocable I think it will be —until you have better ground than youh ave at the pr esen t moment for drawing s a f e conclusions a s - to the effect cf this measure. (Cheers, and cries of " Divide.") Lord J. RUSSELL did not wish, at tEat late period of the night to trespass upon the attention of the House, but he should be sorry to go to a division without taking some notice of the answer which the Right lion. Gentleman had given to the argument of his Right Hon. Friend the Member for Edin burgh, because a more powerful argument he thought he had never heard.—(Cheers.) There were already on the statute-. book Acts authorising any interference with factory labour, and unless they were prepared to repeal those Acts, they were prevented from using the argument that the Legislature had no right to interfere with labour.—( Hear.) The present Bill would not interfere in any way in the hours of labour, the principles of which had not already been esta blished before by other Acts ; they already interfered in the labour of children from eight to thirteen, and from thirteen to eighteen, and the last Ant that was passed interfered with the labour of women in factories. The Right Hon Baronet al luded to the arguments of his Right Hon, Friend the Member for Edinburgh, and stated that his rhetoric was very beautiful, but altogether unnecessary, and proceeded himself immediately to argue precisely in the same manner.—(hear, hear.) The great question then was, whether they would sanction any further interference in the hours of labour. Before thee House gave its sanction to the measure they should be convirced of two propositions. Ist. That the measure was desirable for the safety of the health, morals, and the good conduct of the class to whom you propose to give a further limitation of the hours of labour, The second proposition was„ that the House must have good reason to suppose that this might be done without any mischievous interference with the labour of parties employed in factories, and whether by de priving their masters of the profits of their labours. they would not be inflicting a great injury upon the labouring classes. The first proposition required little or no argument from him to recommend it to the notice of the House. The Hon. Member for Durham had said that it had been the cus tom for the last thirty years, in most factories of the country, to confine the labour to twelve hours a day. Then they were told that, in other countries, the labour was extended to eighty and ninety hours a week. He thought that the labouring: classes of this country could not contend with the present high price of provisions, against such serious odds. Notwithstande ing these disadvantages, what had been the result in this: country, as to the amount of exports in the year; 1824. The exports, in round numbers, we re 33,000,000 ; in 1834, 70,000,000; and, in 1845, 135,000,C00.—(Hear.) When the question was formerly before the House, the manu facturers stated that the tax on the raw cotton pressed very heavily upon them. It was stat , ,,a to hire, as well as to many other Members in that House, that tile tax amounted to almost eight per cent. on the rr e w material. One house alone paid 4,5001. in the cotton tett alone. Another house with a fixed capital of 100,0001. ; s aid, XO,OOOl. alone in the cotton tax. They had been relieves, froen that tax, an d they were relieved from no less a sum t'nau 1,600/. a year with this, but the evages were only effected to the amount of tenpence a week, whilst the amount sa ve d A v el the cotton tax was no less than thirteen per cent., but he believed that the repeal of the corn-laws we.vld effect great advantage to the working classes. Mr. Ashford. stated that the tax on e tin imposed no Iless '..nan two hours a day, and whatever might be the effect of `. o ne repeal, it would surely make them more able to compete t with foreign nations. .He never believed that the sam t s d air ,e ou fe n r of wages would be given for eleven hours as th e re the reduction of twelve; but he considered that the question n d for labour, and wages would mainly depend upon the deman which had received. such was his confidence in the measure bea greater their sanction, that he believed there would consequent increase in de mand of labour effectuated by itanti o a rking man; and believ ingthe comforts of life enjoyed by the w social hap p iness of the Bill would induce the greater the peop l e , he was resolved to g ive it his support. M 13 r. CODEN said he would not w i sh Hon. Gentlem en to be under any misapprehension with respect to his vote, and that they had placed him in the position of being ob.iged to give an unpopular vote. He was satisfied that no greater delusion had ever been practised on the working classes than had been done in the " short-time agitation." He would not say it was done tkesignedly, but gentlemen had some particular notions of their own that the legislation of that House could limit quantity yet maintain the price. The originator of this agi tation was Mr. Oastler, who followed in the wake of Mr. Sad dlr..n. ; and he would just show, by an extract from evidence taken before him, what the delusions of this agitation were— (The Hon. Gentleman read some extracts from the evidence in proof of his assertion.) The parties who agitated for short time were not free traders. They attended free-trade meetings and denounced them. He did not mean to speak disperagingly of them, for he believed they were honest in their en.deetvours. But he showed that their exertions bad a very different effect from what they contemplated, and that the consequence of a diminution in the hours of labour would ice a diminution in the wages of labour.—(O h, I He reusintained that by dimninishing the quantity o f w or k o was in woleld have the effect of diminishing t h w e ' ea- e se s. of infants, and ktronr of legislating for shortlioursi o , he did so on the same pri ncip l e s children as the Lord Chancellor would who were improperly treated But by their parents talse the guardianship of with regard to large bodies and adults the case was very different. If it was proposed to treat the question on a p hilosophical point of view he could understand was it. But it not rested upon those grouni. The supporters of (the present system had been accused of want of benevolence, and that they had •no bowels of compassion for their fellow-men. lie begged to say that he had done his best in his own sphere to reduce the hours of labour, and in Manchester he was a vice-patron of an institution for that purpose. He wished Hon. Members would bring their head s along with their hearts to this question, for if they , a di d t h ey oit would come to a very different conclusion. ,Ltnrsets b e ai hpire, otit the to present from the parish of Gilmington i n to comp el the farmers object of which was to petition the Ho use to give the labourers their due. HHe w ished to know, therefore, feelings would be lf from Honourable Members what their he brought in a Bill to give the labourers of Dorsetshire and He • weu'd ask the Noble Lord Someisetshire 12s. a week. the Member for Newark if he would refuse to comply with be would such a Bill ? He believed not, on the ground of b e nevolence or on but the ground of justice, he would propose on the ground of political economy. He wished to tanskdo so the Hon. Members who said that they should not employ men more than twelve hours a day, whether they could engag e to employ them at all ? When men who knew nothing of medicine started up as doctors, they were called quacks, and it was the same thing when they attempted to le gislate for that with which they were unat ie to cope. He hoped they were approaching that period when, they would only legislate for such things as they were cal culated to understand. hie o bj ec t e d t o all interference - with to the wo rking classes labour, and he hop e d t o see t h e t i me w hen Parli am e n t House ha would not interfere at all, fo r it was w ell known that t re presented the employers and not the employed . If they legis lated at all they would do g reater injury than good. They would f o rce ip the had heard e it whispered that thento combine for keeping up the price'of labour, and he to be revived. The men were paid by the piece, and if they combination laws were about res tricted the amount of labour, they would force the m en to strike to maintain a remunerative price. The manfact had made all thei r arrangements on. the present system— t h e y were paying thousands of pounds in ' rent d Y t was now proposed to reduce their from the protectionists.) for their mills , and it interests one-sixse ._Meer, hear, on the part of the working re u ) But ha opposed th i s measu re up