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

1, standing order, which was also doubted by other Hon. Mem bers, he thought that Mr. O'Brien ou g ht to have the benefit of the doubt, and was entitled to his liberation 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. Ile 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 Committee was in existence. The House of Commons, for the purpose of insuring regularity 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 Commons bad, 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 be decided ? Hs 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matter would be referred to a Select Committee, which would not be refused unless the standing order was specifically repealed.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 !louse. 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 thP 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 the 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 satitied that the meaning of the order was sufficiently clear for 'ins to give a proper vote on an occasion when the cortsesAences might be attended with punishment of a harsh mature. The, House then divided, when there appeared — For the motion Against it Majority against Mr. S. O'Brien's release ... —144 Mr. SHAW gave notice that he would porsist in the motion cf 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, und er th ose cir cumstances, he should refrain from pressing on the attenti on e f . the H ouse t h e mot i on w hi c h h e h a d i n t en d e d to make that tutght 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 hatiing been read, Mr. WAKLEY presented a petition from the town of Not.. tingham, in which the petitioners stated that the present fac e . y_ system wa s mos t pern i c i ous to t h e h ea l th an d morals of children ; that it produced premature death, was most dange rous to the manufacturing portion of the community,and they theref ore praye d t h e H ouse to enact the Ten Hoursy:Bill. Mr. G. BANKS then rose and said, that in 1 sup port t o th e pr.nciple which was now under g°mg his consideration, and 1 1 10 ppoting the amen d ment w hi c h 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 sho w t h at the principle of this Bill was cons i stent w i t h te wel fare, th e interests, and safety of the community at large. He was aware al so th at i t was i ncumbent on him to show that this Mill, 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 maint a i n an d to prove, tto a t s . h n e e thought he should, that the principl e o f t hi s Bill would to the em pl oyers o f t h ose operatives fo ss r ar w y whose occasion benefit a n injury ta3 brought forward.—( Hcar, hear.) He hoped he should be able to show th a t whilst the operativ es rece i ve d a b ene fit, 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 sa me li g h t as some H on. Members had done during the course of the se , sion, when other topics were brought under their consid era ti on . Th e d anger to which he referred was one of a very different kind. It was the danger of destroying the physical enemy, 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 too_ earn their li ve lih oo d f rom some ot h er sources employment. L e t th e H ouse t h en en d eavour 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 heglected , and their physical powers so diminished, that they were totally unfit to enter i n t o any ot h er emp l oyment t h an t h at which theywese b roug ht up . I n t h e i r yout h , there had been a total neglect of the instilment of religious truths and Moral discipli ne , as regarding the persons employed in fac tories ; a n d w h en they grew up, the necessary consequence was that they were un fi t f or 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 mot that a period when something else was springing up besides th e 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. ire alluded to the period between thirteen and eighteen years of age. It was, therefore, safe and whole some to pass this Bill, and it was dangerous to reject it. They had 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 _ll?wed through the ve i ns o f th e peop l e of that portion of the kingdon, and their morals were preserved in a moral condition The Right Hon. B arone t t h e S ecretary of State for the Home ' Department had entirely misrepresented the opinions of the late Robert Peel on t h e factory question—(Cries of Hear, hear")—bec ause , although the Bill passed in his time was only an Eleven Hours' Bill, he was yet in favour of a Ten Hour s ' Bill. H e di d not think that the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth was then unfriendly to the Eleven Hours' Bill. He hat' then called the elder Sir Robert P ee l as a w i tness in support of Mils views. He would now call another gentlem an , an d 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.—( !fear, 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.) Ile 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 had been an increase in cotton manufac ture since 1819, when a different system prevailed. fie had ether witne ss es to call of the same description, whose testimony 'was most valuable. He had the evidence of the Hon. Member for Senderland, 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 oeeratives themselves. In the county which he represented he felt it to he his duty to collect all the information he could upon the su bj e ct, and the result of that investigation had been a most de c ided conviction on his part of the justice of the pre sent measure. It was said that the operatives had made no strikes on the present question, and had exhibited no violent demonstration in its favour. That he considered was a reason why their demands should be acceded to. The Bill for cruelty to animals was met with great ridicule ; it was annually lost ; but it was taken up by a gentleman who finally carried it. He enentioned these circumstances, in order to show how little arguments of this kind, urged by the Right Hon. Baronet, 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.) Ile could not see the danger of such an experiment.—( Hear, If he established the point that a very considerable benefit to the public would accrue from the passing of the measure, he was entitled to go to those views of the subject on which 'hey were all agreed, that if it were for the public good to effect the object he proposed, that it was their duty at once to give it their assent.—( Hear, hear.) They heard the other day, in n the sipeech of an H on. M em b e r, of the great increase the demand for the Bible among the operatives ; read. it then, he would b e a n a d vocate f or g i v ing them time to . It Vr a was rejected he s tr tr s u t Mr. WARD slide true they had been silent, and if the measure it.ilothat they would continue so. the people of Sheffield, r b epresented, to the best of his abilities, did not represent their ut he would certainly admit that he nor was he nor cold was not a oil ert to the°Noincti"r upon the subject, because he ited Mr. contained in the preamble Carlyle in defence of his prin ciples ; but he would remind hi .üb _ n t o i t had of Carlyle's m th a t dangerous ground, corn, for w on ci on i o d ado t he was treading on opinions respecting d on this subject so much force and consistency. He wjohuelahhbeaoldmheoswt arintxteionuwaittho convinced, be convinced that the opinions wbhnitc f T o he Hon. were those of the Noble Lord ; duty to express his sentiments. h h e Was not t so r all and he felt it his an d Member lai I down that if they could not legislast.e should legislate .for as many as they could, he said i there was no injury done to any interest they should at f concede the measure he sought. He perfectly coincided once wit the expression, "your if is a great peacemaker," for if all the h things which the Hon. Gentleman assumed were true, why, he (Mr. Ward) wou ld sa y , p ass the measur e by all means. That was one of the results of this experimentaiising on the ' He did not deny the right of Parliament to question.legis late for the protection of those who were unable to help themselves; 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 believed that there was not a more helpless creature than a poor woman, without 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 considered that they were already sufficiently trammeled by the combinations of the working men, who shut them cut from Many trades. flow 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— the da ug ht ers 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, and the results were not injurious, but, on the contrary, the good effects were must apparent in toe condition of that mass of persons. The Hon. Member for Oldham said that the Bill in 3 to be a Ten Hoar,' Bill, and no compromise. He 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, for 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, be was found stating that if the diminution of the hours of labour should he 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 redice wages ; but this was a most vague calculation, and he would prove it by a reference to Adam Smith, who was a great authority on such subjects. The lion. Member then read an extract from Adam Smith to prove the fallacy of the arguments of the Hon. DI-amber for Oldham. He begged to tell the supporters of this measure that he was not one of those who was at all in clinedp e r ya yard do upon regard shirting r h t e i n s d t u ti c if t : o reduction of sa a matterpenny to b uis or e vena bu halfpenny t appeared to him that those who supported tbcTß slighted, he Nobleidillddidnnottsseeeemm to know what it was they were supporting—thee Lord, to understand the principles of the ure mb to think it was what no man gd with the A le Member op, o e r i f ) or ;s e , w for a dealing k, had found i t e t a ae fault su t r s w e . andith the fig inures Right Hon. Gentleman illus trating his case, and l ouightattoisdqoe;esbtuiotnlettbehyaipmpsbeaornemidinbdearthien H re o e ns i e i ee t t h io at n t ir dealing wth in volved the welfare of more 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 hich 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 he 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 hew 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 begeed 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 distric's, 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 61. to 61. per week, by working every day, they now earned only from 50s. to 60s. If such, then, was to he the result of this pernicious system in one town, what would 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 had 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 Wl° 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 tee 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 n 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 tip. Opposition benches. He had however, a right to say for his Hon. Friends around him that which he could not soy 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 cha..ge 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 asklng who had supported 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? Hind 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 subjlect of legisla tion, some protection and some division of labour would be required. He admitted that the same quantity of work could tot 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 persocncuitauurntadbleartlnBo suchyearsroefgualgatei.ons ereTwhetl unMember fur S th h e chi a e g i r d f made as regarded inte rest, and th e l a b ourer engaged in agriculture—for the beat f s a o b n o s u , r no ser sbuacdh twelve w e g e u v l e a t b i o n n u s r a w e o r f e a r b e i q u u r i c out o T f The i a e g b r i t c h u e l ; a tu ll r r a e l had one hour for dinner, and half an hour for breakfast • d in the winter time they had only ten hours labour, having and r m ar sen e dsu u f nn o cdo r eetar meals. etmoigp hlt et, eighteen eeTndhhoi)en, hours, limited:sawnoaeufnrfdeaaegttehuertmanufacture. eo ns hours Their time le a s a a o l cour custom labourers laboura by, wisher]ly e kind tshu which full-grown men, by practice and custom, twbeereweenstitlled t d o i e . s ? Had a they b e not n o l l t egislated thefor ttihmeenoefglraobeosuirr: to nine ho t ur u s? And was the air of the West Indies more feefid or unhealthy than the atmosphere of our manufactories, in which our children laboured. It had been said in the course of this debate, by the Hon. M em b er f or P aisley, that by a reduction of the uis 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 cotton 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 facts 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 32,000,0001. 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 theia population, this would be but half-a-crown a-head. In the Canada?, the consumption was 7s. per head. and in our West Indian possessions, dividing the value of the co' ton by the population in 1840, it would appear that the consumption in the West Indies amounted to 1/. 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 I.dies consumed IL 6s. ? Wh-n they saw ;his measure supported by greatmen, the Hon. Members for 01.1 ham, and Southwark, it was rather too much to charge them with supporting this measure to purchase cheap popu la- ity by an humanity cry. This measure would be for the interest of the manufacturing classes, and the change would not be made too suddenly. The children in the factories re quired more protection as the cotton trade increased, for then it was that the millowners committed the greatest number of The Bill would benefit that oTences against their operatives. class, and for this reason he should give his support to the Bill. Lord MORPE f H said, that he hoped the House would allow a Member who represented a great portion of the opera tives and manufacturing labourers, and who had not had an opportunity of giving his opinion on this Bill two years since, to make a short trespass upon their time. He owned that he re garded with a considerable feeling of envy those who, on the other side of the question, could feel a com fortableconfessed assuran ce as to the truth of the i r own op i n i ons . He confessed th at h e looked on both sides of the question, and whichever cu h c e h looked misg ore he in ewould side with h e v i ewe d w ith muc h d o ubt, premature i v w ing. tb m be h a a ,m t u e r v i se e g. r v c i le o g u e r s s t h e o u the e consequence s o f any rash or House might adopt, feel an i nexpressible relief but to b e sure t h at he thou onlyto b e sure t h at he was right, admitgt that t he was r i g h t ; for on the one hand he was ready to a tions put f orwar d b y the promoters usome degr ee t h e representa tions and supp or t ers of the Bill, but he thou g ht th ey took rathern egerate case. He did no t b e li eve that factory labour d vie w o f t h e labou r in the average number of instances, thous , h it might be wearing, could be regarded as severe or injurious. lie die] not belie ve t h at ao though it s me in the average c on di t i on o f t h e factory labourers, was not so good as if th ey had greate r en hear)—greater exercise, an d t i me, there waioyurers, s ont mnet(iear, H 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 sumennies 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, lie believed that they would derive solid advantage from having more time for recreation—( Hear, hear)—both with regard to their moral arid social condition; and it woul d be better for the such a relation to promoters o m tr i r n s ds o , f bii ;h d i ie s s ß , i a ll n ; d b s u ou t l t s h . theirs, in which all departments of labour had en So in fa s r u h ch e a we s n ta t t a e l o o f n- g so w c i i t et of any disturbing clause which they might introduce. He need not rem ind Members Hon. to each other, and all kinds of busin e s s ran into each other, they could not calculate the effect who were familiar with the history of the colonies, of the cir cumstance of Spain, in order to relieve the red Indian, intro ducing 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, be 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 ?—(Bear, hear.) 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 q estion, 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 discu,sion of the present Bill.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord who last addressed the House, who, he (Lord Morpeth) befieved, was actuated by the most 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 pla e on another question in the minds of others.—(Loud cheers.) His Noble Friend had 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 corn-laws, or, in other worits, 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 sere 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 int. a law in order to give effect to this ?—(Cries of " No, no.") He b°lieved that prudence ansi procrastination were neceaaary cn the present occasion, and that the state of the Bid for the repeal of the corn-laws offered a consideration why they should not press the quesi ion to so early a decision. They should trot only wait to ascertain tie fate of that measure, hut they should wait until the, had further learnt the experience of the effects that had arisen from voluntary experiineroa beterean 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 lope 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 hail 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 reinction of the hours of labour. Nay, he was persuaded that it the operatives asked the masters for a reduces Lion 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 determina• ion, 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 how 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 stateneent, the factory labourers had to work 75, 84, and 92 hours a week. In Prussia and Austria the hours were from 92 to SI ; in the Tyrol from 72 to 83 ; in Belgium from 81) 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 much as 22 per cent. In Staffordshire and Warwickshire, the great seat of the hardware trades, there had been a great reduction in the last three years. So had there also been in Glouces tershire, to the extent of 9 per cent. This must satisfy them a 3 to the charge of immorality, and was a just reason why they should not, without great consideration, seek to disturb the present system. Whatever might be thought of the abstract merits of the measure, while they were as yet ignorant of the fate of that other measure which was proposed as an equivalent for any injury that might arise from this, he thought the Hon. Members who had introduced the Bill, and the House, should suspend their decision. But, whatever they might determine, he could not omit declaring, that on no account could he sanc tion a greater reduction than one hour a (lay, or fixing the 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 'or opposing the present Bill, such aspersions met with no sympathy from him. He had no sympathy with such aspersions, as he was fully convinced the interests cf the manu facturers of this country—the interests of the whole of so. iety —but especially the interests of the labouring classes, was de pendent on the present question, and the vote they should give that night. Under no circumsteeces 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 sow 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 Government to private spe culation.—( Hear, hear.) Another instance of an error was the manner in which some Gentlemen looked at the question before the House. The Hon. Members for Sheffiel d and 'Montrose (Mr. Ward and Mr. Hume) resolved it into one merely of free-trade, and told them not to legislate upon the subject, th e con t rac t b etween t h e master an 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 he 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 Buccleueh arid 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 were 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. Wnat 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 encoutagement to certain habits of mind and body which were incompatible with every good interfere with the public heath and the ought therefore, to ask whether the public public morals; and he would quality of either happ iness or health.—(Cheers.) They health and the pu blic morals were not concerned in d ne the time of labour ? Did any one who examined his own feelings upon this matter , doubt whether twelve hours a day labouring in a factory was desirab le for health, morals, or education. Were they not justified then in inter- firing to prevent the poor from injuring themselves by means of premature and excessive labour ? Did any one doubt that leisure was necessary for education ? Well, then, after twelve hours a day had been consumed in factory labour, and the few hours devoted to refreshment and rest, what 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. hjustifiedbelieved wouldthei r interfering prejudicial to to prohibit public contracts morality, jwhichus justi fied wi (. , Cheera. ) He repeated, then, that the same principle ) The temporal inconvenience p t h r i r n i i y; e, injurious to puit. health.—( e Hear, hear, and cheers. fied their interfering e prevent oti,ese nt s r w a e c r t e s s N o vhiclv they were not great might ha that observed, and were finally allowed to fall into di3uetude. Were Hon. Gentlemen aware that the Long Par. THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAy MORNING, 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 vote, a y for e ll or e a would n , any religiou s argument w i th respect to the o b servanc e of the Sabbath. the speech of his H on . F r i en d which would not be turned into argument o , w holidayhe whether r a they Sunday. n w d o a u y l . d open fie shop ha re motest doubt, thatall the shopk ee p ers of Lond d on o were ntth it e utto the Sun day, they wo u ld d ec id e b y a majority of 10,0 00 i n theen a Suna a fflrm: tire. 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 taise an hour from the time of labour without di minishing p:od ue ti on , an d th a t i n consequence the con dition of the labourer would he lowered. He thought that this argument was fully deserving the most attentive te consideration. They had already, however, legis lated on h childrenls s u t b e je s c t t r , Ru a 0 : h d d ee rrtthepei eight he tl ys hadsaid , tadr9i shortened onf at gh ee the ou debatesg hours htnotti,tt ro o t y f h labour. eyeeami sp ,a.gyoe The dth in late hours of labour. If any person would take the trouble to read those debates over he would find precisely the same senti ments uttered then as now. But no ruin had followed—pro duction had not been less in consequence of reduced hours of labour. Suppose in 1546, the time of the reformation and a , period of great religious changes, some person had proposed the abolition of Sunday observance, and the fifty years of industry which would be gained was thrown into the scale, would the people of England be richer now ? No ; his firm belief was they 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. His 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 ti me wer e given for amuse ment and education, similar instances of men of talent would rise up from the op: ratives of the country ? While, if this time were not given —if no opportunity were allowe d f or 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 u, dis covered, in so far as their mechanical ingenuity and mechani cal talent had never been developed. —(Cheers.) It seemed, then, to him, th a t b y f ar 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 va'uable, 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 arm favourably situated parts of the world, while, on the other hand, they saw the most sterile land, under the most inclement sun, where there existed the greatest amount of industry, the greatest amount of wealth, and the greatest amount of happi ness. It was the Scotchman that made Scotland, and the Dutchman that made Holland, and the advantages of those countries could not be traced to the fertility o f th 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 wildernesse, tenanted by buffalos and wild animals. See what it was now. No change had taken place in its physical properties, for its rivers, and valleys,and ferthe 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 of 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.) 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 peo b pl e e ent f h o d r l e s. d tr u o c n a g ti . o_n 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 these crantries 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 htoahnesdaißill.said he that agreed gt ß l t,. theeuhetedy with ou gqhut hisets 0- ; 11 e t i h p e l ey oughtitself, aeuotifoutihsetepprst tr ntti, Noble , 0 00 r n d f vb e oel r e o e s f iFo :d i: e et a i g hnn n r id d e s h e wmi s sh w o aoaotfstpaseri ar n t opinion, anotherob,enietbeside d p fote p hr r eotv mhhim, e eo d matter, ss o taw f ke because he conceivefl—indeed there could not be a doubt about it—that if they nude 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, proepeded 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 nut to have done, and left undone that which they ought to have done—they had afforded relief so those who ought not to have been relieved, and they had left unrelieved those o ho 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 tbat protection which it was their duty to Five.—(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, and 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 said, that as regarded this question, they were obliged step by step to feel their way, and they must all feel that they were treading on very delicate ground. They had already interfered with factory labour, as had been ad mitted by the Right Hon. 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 he 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 and men as to the 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 its 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 days 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 ouite the reverse. Now, he thought that if this measure were passed, the mills to be constructed hereafter would have the same faults as those erected yeaanrds ahgeo.didH:inelciedronefulooystrebrEweetlodrieuainvelde,t the opinions that he 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 that did a nott he e conditionwas believe ao s fhtbetter t tet thater wordingi discharging tw o c u i AaG ld nse in e h. ff t hIl eesecmdthuaoi duty hoped ettdoohbettjhhe that tstf those o hlnfao f ehrf e elewl l rw e h y om a s t eo i n m g e t n h t the bene fit the measure was introduced by voting against it than giving a o i f ns t t he it his support. in fact, haerghnamd argument as in Mr. W A K L E Y amidst loownu which itsi cries t attention ti ' jo t un D ,Ft i fo v or i r d N e v , h d a divide," otheri d e ,' ' said,pur. weakusin e s a s g that he was delighted with the argumentative and conclusive the strop pardon him for trespassing Gentleman's e lvered.— pnh(aspeech Edin burgh.—( . delivered.— (Hear, s jherfe (fe l ae most t e al irhr g rdee i 3 a i r a n: t Rightable y m bwhTt r hl ea e eh i as nel Ig. constituted nmost i s. speechr t Hon.ci conclusive, i .for tl the a r, purpose h of T protecting at w a s the Would he be told that the infants of England , whom they had the power of protecting, were to be left to th e mercyf n oppression ? Why every Act they passed was an iavarice and with the to be said that t rights of some class er other o f the community. W unity. he legislature must protect trade, and thatweak infants employed in the manufactories of this must be left unprotected ? Why, d ur i n _ g the last forty country under the system of protection the manufactures of this years, try had been continually increasing—( Loud laughter coun - cheering from the protectionists) —a n d he confessed it . and boldly and chillingly upon his ear, when he heard it did strike the Ri g h t Hon. Baronet, the Secretary of St ate f or the II b . u ment, the other night, in th e d e b ate on this s Home Depart that the English labourer was now to enter into subject, an nounce ar ena o f ect, ann ounce toil without armour, and iiia. naked state. Vas that, with free trade in comm erce, no rot a he to be t o ld protection was to b e allowed to the labouring classes of this country. to be so, he was very sorry that he voted for thatlf that were (Protectionist cheers)—for it would g i ve hi m the greatest naeasure— he had felt a long time. But he believ e d that themeasure eatest pain which he alluded was calculated to impro ve the condition to working classes of this country. Th e Hon. and Le arne d Ho of the Member for Doi setshire (Mr. Bankes), in th e course debate, seemed to take a ver y great interest in the of thi s welfare of the manfacturing p o p ulation of thi s country; he thanked the Hon. and Learned Member for his good feelings that class of the peop le, but h e hoped the Hontowards and Learned Member would p ardon hi m if he ventured ou t o ra e b x le press a hope that l• e would e xtend his benevolent intentions and feelings towards the agricultural labourers of hi s own ' bourhoocl.—( Hear, hear.) He could not, in his opinion, exe cute a more agreeable duty than that o f improving the condition of his fellow man.—(Hear, hear.) 11 ..tit, th e Hon. Member for Sheffield had delivered to the House a pretty lecture that evening. That lecture was, in his (Mr. Wakley's) opinion, i what Hudibras would have called the greatest piece of rigmarole he had ever heard.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) The Hon. Gentleman had (he believed unintentionally) misrepresented his (Mr. Wakley's) opinicns 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 th e wor ki ng 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 o bt aine d.—( H ear , hear.) H e stated that he had fo read the pamphlet written by his Hon. Friend the Member r Oldham over and over again, but was not able to understand it in the least. The Hon. Member for Oldham wasanswerable for that. He did not undertake when he wrote not b t s pamphlet d to give the Hon. Mem ber the faculty of understanding.—(Cheers The Hon. Member forSheffieldg.—(Cheers and laughter.) with pleasure to the also stated, that he had lis tenedspeeches which had been made by Hon. Members on his side of the House, but could not for the life of him enderstand them. He (Mr. Wakley) was at a lass to know what sort of a mind that which co u ld li s t en t o an argument with pl easure, but which was hei s d not for the life of it un derstand it.—( Cheers and laughter. ) And th en hi s H on. Friend the Memb er for Sheffield tru ned round to the H on . Member for Oldha m an d h i s supporters, ment merely popularity-hunting' andstated upon such a subject c ou ld be easily obtained; and concluded popularity is observations to his Hou. Friend (Mr. Fielden) by say ing that there was nothi ng w hi c h h e (M r. Ward) denounced so much as amateur legislation. Now, it struck him, that he (Mr. Ward) was the amateur legislator. The Hon. Mem ber for Oldham was an amateur, who for a period of fifty years had been engaged in spinning, and who gave employ ment to two or three millions of hands—( Laughter, occa sioned by the mistake with reference to the nmuber of hands employed by the Hon, Member for Oldham.) At that mo ment ho ( 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 lion. Member for Sheffield had called an amateur legislator. It seems a most extraordinary course for the lion. 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. " Ala l" said his lion. Friend the Member for Sheffield, like a second Cocker, " a halfpenny or a penny—these are no light considerations." No, put a child in one scale and a halfpenny and a penny in the other, and Fee 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 kingdom, praying 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 bad 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 this debate. He alluded to the subject of mortality occasioned by this overworking of the population. 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 years. From five to ten Yeats 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 horns 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 person, 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 might 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 man, enjoy herself from home, the forms of socity 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. He 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 he 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 Csmmitte 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 feeelings of thousands and hundreds of thousands of their fellow creatures, and he trusted that the 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, and that was, Uiat the present was a most important subject; and it was because be 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 mciern history quoted to them ; they had religious considerations urged upon them—(Oh, oh)—they had alecture on the institution of the Sabbath ; they bad 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 under discussion.—(Cheers.) And with respect to the Sabbath, it was a day en 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 matter of deep concern what would be the amount of competition which they would meet with in other countries. The Hors. Member for Edinburgh did allude to what he considered 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 mortalities in manufactories 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 he 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 would say that several experiments were made, and the whole of these went to show that no injury was sus tained by the workman 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 prevent 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 concern which he was connected with had been In exis tence for more than forty 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 Hon. Member to state in that House as a fact, that which any one 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 paying 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 Lincoln was well acquainted with the the spinning trade ; the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman had 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 tilt many of those in the cotton spinning trade had made large for tunes; he hoped it was not a crime for a cotton spinner to make a fortune.—( Hear, hear.) Some years ago, they had limited the hours of labour to twelve hours a day, but the injury was not so great as it would be under the present Bill, for at that period machinery had not been brought to such perfection as at the present day. Now, however, machinery was as improved as it could be, and the injury which must attend so great S re striction as that proposed must be all the more felt by the We ployer and the employed. The improvements in machinery had taken place since the change had enabled them to meet it, but there was no room now for additional improvement. He had in his own employment about eight hundred persons, and he was satisfied that they would rather work ten hours a day than twelve, but he was certain they would not rather do so, if they were only to have the wages of ten hours. If he were to offer them the price of twelve hours labour for ten hours, they would all accept it, but he was very sure that if they were to be restricted to ten hours labour, and ten hours wages, not one of them would accept it. There never was an instance of where the offer was made to reduce the men to ten hours labour and ten hours remuneration, it was accepted—it was invariably 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 could not support such a change.—(Hear.) 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; but he need not tell the Hon. Member that at present America was able to inset the English manufacturers with the very same goods on the same counter. No doubt the Nible 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 in that House en g aged in any honest employment, whether he would take ten briefs 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 hands, and thus prevented them from earning it, which this Bill would certainly effect. But there could 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 Legislature did not propose to give it to them ; and if they did, it would result in a fatal mistake. The Honourable Member for Ashton proposed a compromise of eleven hours, and he certainly fixbe a to limit con was the m an f or compromise. But the result of all this would thatvti o nc tb e e ti h ie ou w ra or o kfmlaebnoorwithout the House hadth t c o r being able with the a mount of wages, and if th e y wen t on t hi s way, it might be that th e men would e er fe t r o e eventually look for eight hours, and perhaps for six. He maint • ained that if a voluntary arrange ment, as far as such an arrangement neces sary, before th e y were five yeasolde was possible, was where. Wh a t was t h e reason of thethey would have it every- Manchester o n th e S aturday afternoon closing o f t h e s h ops i n efforts on both sides, the half holiday After some strenuous well and as scrupulously observed as heonwhafurday became as holiday on the Sabbath. The early closing of shops, insteaodeotden or eleven o'clock, was going on in many towns in this kingdom, it was, therefore, desirable that some arrangement should be come co Let their decision on this s ubj ec t b e once and for ever, and t l o e . t them not indulge in any such uncertain speculation. It was merely legislation for persons above thirteen years of age, but let them avoid any interference, and they would find an entirely different channel for the endeavours of the working classes The manufacturer had become store civilised during 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 cops it de corps amongst all the people that would effec tually resist such an attempt. He had said that, two years since, be advocated the same side that he did at present, anal 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 scary 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 asurd than to suppose that it was his interest to be opposed to 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 had proposed 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 beshortened or not, and that question was to be considered on going into Committee. If they went into Committee he was not prepared to vote for ten hours, as be thought it would be much .too large a step in the reduction of the hours of labour which the mannfacturing and working people ought to give to their employers. What most pressed on his consideration, was the females working in the mills from thirteen 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 Hon. 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 carried. Now, that Bill had been sent to another House, having been passed by a large 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 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 eaid, I have listened with great attentionto the speech of the Right Hon. Member for Edin burgh, and feel highly 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 admit, 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. i But because I concede this position, it does not follow 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 have all been brought forward by the Right Hon. Gentleman 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 ; but 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 state of legislation upon this subjec ?. No child under eight years can be employed in a factory at all. No child, under eighteen years of age, can work by night. No female can work by night at all. No child, between the age of eight and thirteen can work for more than six and a half hours, and the child between eight and thirteen must bring a certificate that three hours' instruc tion had been given to it previously en the same day. That is the state of our legislation at present. I 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 a that considerations ought not to determine ou . r_po a lify ns i res pect. I admit that there are highe r . com of a commercial character. I admit that con sider a t i o ns principle °t han theset at ought to guide us in the consider ation of the question is, whether or no the furt her restrictions in the hours of labour, will promote the health—will promote the morality, or be conducive to the interests of the working classes. I admit that these great considerations are far superior to the mere commercial question. The Right Hon. Gentleman said he would not interfere with adult labour, he was unwilling to prevent the ad u lt w h ose cap i tal was his tnocf commit ma point mind, towards c connected nn fromect e him d theusing it hi I pi o nr b go o p u he r ri s , — a dh n i es d cwr w eo h tui o lodn w n a oo s i n t h s insult o h o w e f n th r e h o s e t u a r g i l c t i h t i - t . Now what are we about to do ? Although the Right Hon. Gentleman admits the injustice of the interference, he was supporting a Bill which indirectly established regula tions with respect to adult labour. We are about to impose what is equivalent to an income tax of fiftetn per cent. upon the labour of the operative. You are going to tell him Chat he shall not have an opportunity of work ing for more than a certain number of hours per day. Now do you really believe that in establishing that rest r i c ti on —d o you concur with • him in his belief that for ten h ours ' l a b our , h e can receive twelve hours' pay ?—(Cheers. ) The Right Hon. Gen tleman says, " See of what importance it is to the community that the workman should have some command over his time— see what the Dutchman has done—see what the Englishman has done—see how the inhabitants of the United States, with Anglo-Saxon blood, have cleared the forest, and reclaimed the sterile land. See what the Dutchman has done in reclaiming from the dominion of the ocean that which was once overwhelmed by waves." See how he has done all this—but did you restrict him to ten hours' labour ?—( Cheers.) Did you tell the Dutchman, who has reclaimed his dominions from the sea, that he should only work ten hours ? Did you tell the Englishman who has supplanted the red man, that by legisla . tive restrictions he could only work ten hours a day.— (Cheers.) See, said the Right Hon. Gentleman, how much you are indebted to the ingenuity of the working man for im provements in machinery. It is not, he says, by the great mathematicians or the philosopher that these discoveries were made, but only by the ingenuity of the working man. He, says Mr. Adam Smith, in the commencement of his work, mentions the wonderful improvements for which this country is indebted to the ingenuity of the working man. But were they made under a state of restrictive labour•? In the time of Arkwright was there a law passed to prevent the working m an labouring more than ten hours aday that ? No, there were no restrictions then, and I for one . believe, canse if you wish to preserve the ingenuity of the worlring I you wish s— employ your time and your labour as please — ifyo t u liberty to do so. We to work fourteen hours a day, you are of a the non-restrictive sys temhave all experienced the advantages ought to consult the wishes it is said, however, that ; w there be a doubt that it is their of the working classes c ; an no s r e can there to them the same amount of impression that i you in th u e event of a reduction of the hours of labour v em enerat.orli at resent. Why, Mr. Greg proposed to his :„ they receive p should work his machinery for eleven • that they men and he would pay them at the rate of eleven hours, . hours a day, the proposition was unanimously and a hat. men, who insisted upon working twelve hours rejected by ti. -dive hours' pay. In my opinion it would be and receiving • to a legislative enactment if an amicable infinitely preferabh. the masters and men could be come to in arrangement bet went. o the experiment was made by men this matter. Well, the. iurs, but they found they only turned in favour of the eleven I. work, and they gave the men e prOpOrollgt° (Plant" notice beforehand. They said' to them, we wish, for your, sakes, that the experiment should succeed to enable us to insure the work, formerly accomplished in twelve hours, in e:even, and, then, let us consent to an Eleven Hours' Bill. Bat the result of the experiment was, that they could do no more in the eleven hours than they had done formerly. lam against all interference, and particularly against interference at the present time; and I st ouid be concealing the truth if I did not state to you that I think we have gone as far as we can safely go in the matter of interference. lam inclined to give a full and fair trial to the experiment, but if you do interfere don't suppose that you will give general satisfaction, don't believe that there are other parties who 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 out. Here is a letter that I have received with respect to the state of the operative papers. ( The Right Hon. Baronet then read a letter of their unparalleled distress, in consequence of the present low state of wages and high'price of provisions.) That they laboured eighteen hours out of the twenty-four, and that their average weekly earnings was about 95., a sum 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 divide the labour between two men, and prevent attacks upon the human frame. But, are we quite sure that the restriction in factory labour will not add to the labour in other occupations. Why, the Hon. Gen tleman who spoke last, made an impression upon the feeling of the House, (whirls is not a very difficult matter) by 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-spread board, to welcome her husband on his return home. —( Hear. ) ) Bu N t y w it hat yrit is is th t e n remedy w fo i r ve th s e w p o r rk e- - s W en h t y' e u vi h l o ?— ca ( u li d e o a u r b , t h it ea ? r. ing in factories.—(Hear, hear.) But eleven-twelfths of all the evils of the present system will exist even after this Bill shall have passed. Who can doubt the importance of the wife being enabled to devote her attention to domestic comforts but admitting the very principle that you promote the morality and the comforts of the great manufacturing districts by the passin g 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 outifa.„ Sfahmouillyd,htahvaut m th u e r y e s t h i e rn u e ld tu ha a v t e ten la d rg to e _wage! than th . at the had an instance of this lately • there was domestic e llo ic n. de G ti e e n s tlem iA a r n e the Member fur Finsbury,.eame forward the other day from purely benevolent motiyes upon a measure. Ido hope that the isntohteloeswrteldiptoliiehdime.—( Hear, hear.) I give l t e h s e s e l n o n f that Gentlemanß i Bill p s u e r r e ve a s u , d a t I believe that he was actuated by nothing but by no tu ur i a honourable itl mo tives in bringing forward his measure with respect u lace factories. We had a discussion upon the subject a o u f r the domiciliary visit, and the system of information, and are you quite sure that something of the same description with respect to the hand-loom weaver, and with respect to all those manu factures that are connected with factory labour —ar e yon quite sure that while you establish these strict regulations with re spect to adult factory labour—are you quite sure that you are not giving a direct premium and encouragement to those sys tems 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 working classes to insure permanence, and to give them a guarantee against sudden and extraordinary rises in the neces saries of life.—( Hear, hear.) Well but observe, that that law is not to come into full effect for three years hence.— ( Hear, hear.) Suppose the law passes in its present form in the House of Lords, there will not, until February, 1849, be a free-trade in corn. During the intervening period, the same restrictions will still extst, at the same time yen have removed protection from agriculture, and on that ground I think that it would be politia 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 f a i r opportun i ty to effect this desirable ar rangement as to labour by a voluntary agreement between the masters and the employed, and, above all, to postpone taking this irrevocable step—for irrevocable I think it will be—until you have better ground than you have at the present moment for drawing safe conclusions as to the effect of this measure.— (Cheers, and cries of " Divide.") Lord J. RUSSELL did not wish, at tl:at 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 Hon. Gentleman had given to he 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 21 , :t 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 . . but altogether unnecessary, and proceeded himself immediately to argue precisely in the same manner.—(Hear, hear.) 7he great question then was, whether they would sanction any further interfere in the hours of tabour. Before the House gave its sanction to the measure they should be convir ced of two Fvopositions. 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 2nd proposition was, th.tt the House mu - A have good reason to sun - lose that this might, be done without any mischievous interference with the ' labour of parties employed in factories, and whi.ther by de priving their masters of the profits of tilcir 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 extendod 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 odd;. Notwithstand ing these disadvantages, what has been the result in this country, as to the amount of exports in the year 1824. The exports, in round numbers, was 33,000,000 ; in 1834, 70,000,000; and, in 1845, 135,000,000.—(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 stated to him, as well as to many other Members in that House, that the tax amounted to almost eight per cent. on the raw material. One house alone paid 4,500/. in the cotton tax alone. Another house with a fixed capital of 100,000/. paid 20,0001. alone in the cotton tax ; they had been relieved from that tax, and they were relieved from no less a sum than 1,600/. a year with this, but the wages were only effected to the amount of tenpence a week, whilst the amount saved by the cotton tax was no less than thirteen per cent. but he believed that the repeal of the corn-laws would effect great advantage to the working classes. Mr. Ashford stated that the tax on corn imposed no less than two hours a day, and whatever might be the effect of the repeal, it would surely make them more able to compete would with foreign nations. He never believed tha t the same amount be for of wages ould be given for eleven bour,,. a o s tohfer the reduction of e would twel se; but he considered that th e q uest wages would mainly depend anon the demand for labour, and such was his confidence iLI the mess ire w.Lich had received their sanction, f that he bell eyed there would be a greater de mand o labour effectuated by it, and a consequent increase in the comforts of life enjoyed by the working man; and believ ing the Bill would induce the greatep social happiness of the people, he was resolved to give it his surport. Mr.COBDEN said he would not wish Hon. Gentlemen 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 designedly, but gentlemen had some particular notions of their own that the legislation of that House eould limit quantity yet maintain the price. The originator of this agi tation was Mr. Oastley, whe followed in the wake of Mr. Sad dler ; and he would just show, by an extract from evidence taken before him, what the delusions of this agitation were— ( The Hon. Gentleman road 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 deccunced them. He did not mean to speak disparingly of them, for he believed they were honest in their endeavours. But he showed that their exertions had a very different effect from what they contemplated, and that the consequence of a diminution in the hours of labour would be a diminution in the wages of labour. —(Oh, oh.) Ile maintained that by dimninishing the quantity of work it would have the effect of diminishing wages. He was in favour of legislating for short hours in the case of infants, and he did so on the same principles as the Lord Chancellor would take the guardianship of children who were improperly treated by their pprents. Bat with regard to large bodies and adults the case was very different. If it was proposed to treat the question on a philosophical point of view he could understand t. But it viasnot vested upon those ground. The supporters o f th e present system had been accused of want • benevolence, and that they had no bowels of eompasseion. fsr their fellow men. He begged to say that he had done his best in his own sphere to reduce the hours of labour, and in Manchester he wee a vice-patron of an instaution for that purpose. He wished Hon. Members would bring their heads along with their hearts to this question, for if they did they would come to a very different conclusion. He had a petition r to present from the parish of Gilmington in Som:..=etshie, the object of which was to petition the Hou se to compel the farmers to give the labourers their due. He wished to know, therefore, from Honourable Members what their feelings would be if he brought in a Bill to give the labourers of Dorsetshire an d S omersecs hire 12s. a week. He wenld ask the Noble Lord the Member for Newark if he would refuse to comply with such a Bill ? He believed he would not, on the ground of benevolence or on the ground of justice, but he would propose to do so on the ground of political ecenomy. He wished to ask the Hon. Members cc ho said that they should not employ men more than twelve hours a day, whether they could engage tip 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 unabe to cope. He hoped they were approaching that period when they would only legislate for such things as they were cal culated to understand. He objected to all interferenc with labour, and he hoped to see the time when Parliament would not interfere at all, for it was well known that that House re presented the employers and not the employed. If they legis lated at all th e y w o u ld do greater injury to e t o h m e b r o o e r foinrgkecleasigsoes than good. They would force the mento up the price of labour, and he had heard it whispered that combination laws were about to be revived. The men were paid by the piece, and if they restricted the amount of labour, they would force the men to strike to maintain a remunerative - price. The manfacturers bad made all their arrangements on Ithe present system—they were paying thousands of pounds in rent for their mills, and it was now proposed to reduce their interests one-sixth.—(Hear, hear, from the protectionists.) Dut he opposed this measure upon the put of the working --4 01