The Sun. — London, England, 1844-05-11 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, May 10 Their Lordships met at Four o'Clock. ROYAL COMMISSION. The LORD CHANCELLOR announced that a Com mission had been issued to give the Royal Assent to cer tain Bills, and directed the Commons to be summoned to their Lordships' bar by the Usher of the Black Rod. The Cominissioners wore, the Lord Chancellor, the Duke of Buecleuch, and the Earl of Shaftesbury. The Commissioners, having taken their seats at the foot of the throne, the Speaker, accompanied by several Members of the Houe of Commons, appeared at the bar, when the Royal Assent was given by Commission, in the usual form, to the under-mentioned Bills : The Exchequer Bills Bill, the National Copyright Bill, the Dean Forest Inclosure Bill, the Great Western and Cheltenham Railway Bill, the Norwich and Brandon Railway Bill, the South-Western and Guildford Railway Bill, the Midland Counties Railway Bill, the Manchester and• Leeds Railway Bill, the Norwich and Yarmouth Railway Bill, the Manchester and Birmingham Railway Bill, and the Derby Junction Railway Bill. Their Lordships then adjourned during pleasure. Their Lordships resumed at Five o'Clock. CONFERENCE. LANCASTER AND CARLISLE RAILWAY. A Conference with the Commons took place respecting awe amendments which had been proposed in the Lan caster and Carlisle Railway Bill. The Duke of RICHMOND reported to the House that the Commons agreed to a portion of the amendments. Messengers from the Commons brought up several Bills, which were read a first time. Several petitions were presented in favour of the York and Scarborough Railway Bill. The Courts of Common-law Process (Treland) Bill, and the Bail in Error Bill went through Committee. The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL presented petitions from Doaegal, Coleraine, and several other places against tho Dirsonters' Chapels Bill. DUTY ON WOOL. The Duke of RICHMOND, after presenting a peti tion from a place in Sutherland, in favour of agricultural protection, said be wished to call the attention of their Lordships, in consequence of a notice which he had pre viously given, of a motion to order certain returns upon the subject of the wool trade in this country. He was the more anxious for the production of these returns in consequence of the proposed re duction of the duty upon this article, and be cause he recollected that the facts adduced before the Committee, appointed in 1828 at his suggestion, am ply proved that the reduction of these duties would tend materially to injure the farming interests of the country. He disliked this measure much, not because it met the support of his Noble Friend, who presided at the Anti-Corn-law League, but because when this re duction was mentioned in another place it was loudly cheered there. Another reason was, that, at the present moment the greatest distress pre vailed alrthrough Australia, and they all were aware that by taking off one penny from German wool, they would do much to injure that colony. He would ask the Noble Lord, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, whether her Majesty's Ministers had had any communication with foreign Governments on this subject—whether the Austrian Government were con tent to allow the manufactures of this country to enter Austria with equal facilities —or, if that Govern ment would take English long wool as well as short wool? He would also ask whether they had received any assurances of reciprocity on the part of the French Government, -so far as trade was concerned ? He only hoped that the same result would not now take place as when the sixpenny duty was reduced to a half penny. The United States immediately put on a higher duty upon our woollen cloths.—(Hear, hear.) He con cluded by moving for several returns relating to the im portation of foreign wool. Lord DALHOUSIE had no objection to the motion Of his Noble Friend, accompanied as it was with an undertaking to abstain for the present from going into a discussion of the substantial question. At the same time, he would not object to the returns, because he also was desirous of more exact information on the subject. However, he was not prepared to answer the question of his Noble Friend as to whether her Majesty's Government had communications with Foreign Powers in reference to the reduction of their duties on our woollen goods. He had not received any information on the subject, but he was able to say that whether foreign nations would or would not reduce the duties on our woollens, that would not affect the question. His Noble Friend had alluded to the Committee of In quiry in 1828, on the effect of a reduction of the wool duty, in 1824. But his Noble Friend did not inform the House that it was clearly made out before that Co - mittee that the depression of the wool masters was not traced and was not traceable to the reduction of the duty.—(Hear, hear.) As his Noble Friend was not going into the question at present, but only wanted the papers for information, he (Lord Dalhousie) would also abstain from going into it. But it was right that he should acquaint their Lordships with the fact, that the depression of the wool masters was clearly traced to e the high duty imposed in 1819, which caused our woollen =to be thrown out of competition in the foreign mar- ill necessarily to lessen the demand for home-grown wool. He bad lately had a communication with Mr. Bishop, a gentleman who was well known in connexion with this subject, and from whom he learned that when the duty was raised in 1819 he knew a nobleman who was a large grower of wool, that nobleman told Mr. Bishop that he would not sell his wool at 2s. 6d. a lb., but would keep it till the next year, when he would get 3s. Mr. Bishop however told him that if he kept it for one year the price, instead of being raised by the duty, would be lowered, and instead of 2s. 6d. he would get no more than Is. 6d., and if he kept it for two years he would get no more than one shilling.— (A. laugh.) The nobleman had kept the wool for three years as the prices were going clown, and at last he sold his wool for 9d. a lb.—(Laughter, and cheers.) The high tax remained for nearly six years, and in con sequence the export trade in woollens was reduced to one-half.—(llcar, hear.) The duty certainly was reduced afterwards, in 1824, but it did not follow that by re moving the cause you redressed the injury. However, since the duty was lowered, the importation of foreign wool had increased from 14 millions to 40 millions, and the. Price of South down wool was at this moment a half penny per lb. higher than it was in the last year, ~.whon the high duty was imposed.—(Hear, hear.) This was a proof that the importation of foreign wool instead of lowering the price of home grown wool was the means of raising it, by in - creasing the foreign demand for our woollen goods. He would not now go into the question, but he could not sit down without saying that our trade had never recovered the shock which it had received by the in crease of the duty in 1819. He had no objection to the resolution moved for, by his Noble Friend, and when ever his Noble Friend was prepared to bring on a dis cussion, he (Lord Dalhousie) would be perfectly ready toinitify the commercial policy of the Government. - Lord BROUGHAM said that as his Noble Friend upon- the cross-benches (the Duke of Richmond) would have to answer his Noble Friend, the Vice-President of the-Boird of Trade, it might save him trmible to hear his (Lord Brougham's) statement, so as to be able to answer both at once. The Noble and Learned Lord then read an extract from a publication of Mr. Bishop's, to - show that the effect of the increased duty, in 1819 had been to injure the woolmasters. The average exports of wool in the three years previous to 1817 were 7,630,0001b5. weight, and the average of the five years following the imposition of the duty was only 6,000,000. The price of the wool diminished in a greater ratio. The average price of Kent long - wool for the two years before the imposition of the duty sas 2s. Id. per pound, while in the two years following the imposition of the duty the price fell to is. 3d. The average price of Highland wool before the dirty was im posed was 30s. the double stone, and in the five years following the imposition of the duty, the price fell to 15s. the double stone, being just one-half. Lord BEAUMONT did not look upon the duty on wool in the same light as upon other protective duties upon agricultural produce. lie thought the proposition of the Government would prove very beneficial both to the farmers and to the manufacturers of the country. He most heartily approved of this measure, but in say ing this much, he begged also to state, that he did not at all abandon those principles of agricultural protection which he always advocated. Earl KINNAIRD said he felt conscious that what annoyed the Noble Duke most , was, that this was one of the first steps towards free trade. He (Lord Kinnaird) had been informed that, at the commencement of this session, certain gentlemen of the party to which the Noble Duke belonged, waited upon the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government, and stipulated that neither the corn-laws nor the Irish Church were to be touched, but the Right Honourable Baronet, with his usual caution, would not give a definite pledge upon those subjects. He (Earl Kinnaird) denied that the reduction of these duties Would tend t o i m p rove th e f arns i eg i nteres t s , f or they had proof that when the iniport of any article was large the price of it rose. The Noble Duke seemed to be _eery much afraid of Austria, but if they took a large quantity of wool from that country, they also exported - a large quantity of m anu f acture d goo d s to it. He (Earl Kinnaird) also denied that the tariff had produced that injurious effect which some persons had prophesied. The Duke of RICHMOND, in explanation, said he thought that no one, outside theCovent-Garden Theatre, would believe the assertions wallsof w which had been made to his Noble Friend who had u i st sat down. He certainly saw no reasons to change opinionr by any thing which had fallen from theo‘des After a few words from Lord BROUGIBAM and the I,Ukt RICIIMOND, Lord DALHOUSIE said the only source that he had from which to make up the returns sought by the Noble Duke, was from the wool-brokers, as he bad no means . of airing official information. Lord MONTEAGLE thought the Government could not have selected a fitter article upon which to reduce the duty than wool. lie denied that the agricultural in terest would suffer by it. It was no new measure, be cause 'Many years ago the Government had pledged -themselves to reduce this duty. He was confident that all artificial measures of protection tended to the injury of both the agricultural and commercial interests. • The returns were then ordered. • PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND). Lord CLONCURRY rose to move for the appoint ment of a Select Committee on the subject of public works; and proposed territorial improvements in Ire /and, founded on reports presented to Parliament, and the Government, particularly on the subjects of railroads • and drainage, with a view to the mare effectual deve- lepment of the resources of that country by a well considered and economical ap p lication ral sche mes h ad been suggested oi for the purpose of im preying the condition Ireland. An extensive system : of drainage bad been recommended by a Commission, which was entitled the Bog Commission. Others had recommended that several harbours of refuge should be constructed in Ireland, by which means extensive em ployment would be given to the people. At the time of the Union the sum of 500,000/. was placed in the bands of a Committee, for the purpose of promoting inland navigation. Two canals were constructed with this mo ney, one of which became insolvent shortly after its construction, and in the other the value of the stock fell from 110 to 5. The Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland had at present no money in hand to carry on the projects of improvement which had been set on foot. The harbour of Kingstown, which was a very va luable one, was commenced thirty years ago, and it was not yet finished. The cost of this valuable work was 700,000/, and at present the Commissioners for carrying it on had but about 8,0001 in their hands. Endeavours had been made to improve the na vigation of the Shannon, but that river was found to be very difficult of improvement. All the pr ejects which he had mentioned had beea set on foot f the purpose of employing the labouring people of Ireland, and yet at the present day there were more beggars in that coun try than there ever were ; and he thought that some steps ougbt to be taken to ascertain the cause of this, and if possible to remedy the evil. All that the people of Ireland wanted was employment. He believed that the want of employment arose in a great measure from absenteeism. There were ample means in Ireland of giving the people employment. That employment could be found by an extensive system of drainage of the bogs, which would amply repay the outlay and the labour. He had known land which had originally sold at a penny an acre realise a pound sterling per year. He trusted their Lordships would agree to this motion. The Duke of WELLINGTON, in opposing the mo tion, reminded :their Lordships that the Commission, which was at present sitting, at whose head was his Noble Friend (the Earl of Devon), had taken this very subject into their consideration. The Noble Lord evi dently wished that a sum of money should be granted for the purpose of improving the soil of Ireland. But their Lordships would remember that to do this would require between five and ten millions sterling. Already as much as 906,0001 had been advanced for the improve ment of Ireland, and for the year as much as 6,0001 had been voted for this purpose. He would remind the Noble Lord opposite that very extensive works were going on at present in Ireland. There was a railway in course of construction from Dublin to Cashel, and one from Cashel to Cork. Two years ago a Bill passed Parliament providing for the proper drainage of Ireland, and the Commission appointed under that Bill was still in existence. Money had been granted, and was still being granted, for this purpose, and he thought this was proof that Parliament was not inattentive to the wants of Ireland. Under these circumstances he did not think it would be well to agree to the motion of the Noble Lord. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE was glad to hear that a sum of money had been voted for the improve ment of Ireland. Ile was, however, surprised to hear that the Landlord and Tenant Commission had been appointed to inquire into th&means of improving Ire land. He had never heard this before. With respect to the means of improving that country, he knew that there were works which might be commenced in Ireland, the construction of which would not cost the public a single shilling, inasmuch as the works, when completed, would return at least six per cent. on the capital expended. The Earl of DEVON said, that although he could not support the motion, yet he was not sorry that the subject had been brought forward,. for he thought it was one that could not be too often brought under their con sideration. Ho admitted that employment was greatly needed [by the people of Ireland, but he did not think that such a Committee as that which had been moved for could remedy the evil complained of. He thought it would be better for their Lordships to wait until the report of the Landlord and Tenant Commission was be fore Parliament, as he had no doubt that many sugges tions would appear therein, which their Lordships would think worthy of being acted upon. The Marquis of NORMANBY rose to suggest that as there had been some misunderstandingwith respect to this question, whether it would not be better for the Noble Lord to withdraw the motion which he had made, particularly as the report of the Noble Lord opposite (Devon) from the Landlord and Tenant Commission had not been made to the House. Under these circum stances he did not think that this was the proper time to press the motion. Lord CLONCURRY said that after what had fallen from his Noble Friend, he would withdraw his motion. The House then adjourned at a Quarter past Eight. ... • HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 10. The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four o'Clock. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Slr W. Follett) took the oaths and his seat for Exeter. COMMISSION. The Usher of the Black Rod appeared at the bar, and summoned the House to the House of Peers, to hear her Majesty's Commission read for giving the Royal Assent to certain Bills (for which see Lords report). NEW WRIT FOR SOUTH LANCASHIRE. Lord F. EGERTON, in moving for a new writ for South Lancashire, in room of Mr. Wilbraham, deceased, said he regretted his inability to do adequate justice to the merits of that lamented and respected gentleman. Few men had more justly earned the good will and kindly feelings of all parties, and he was sure he would be borne out in this assertion by Hon. Gentlemen oppo site.—(Loud cries of " Hear hear," from the Liberal Members.) Mr. MARK PHILIPS fully concurred in what had fallen from the Noble Lord who had just sat down with respect to the estimable character of the late lamented Representative for South Lancashire, and felt sure that this feeling was concurred in by every Hon. Gentleman on his (Mr. M. Philips') side of the House. Mr. AINSWORTH said he should be wanting in respect to the memory of Mr. Wilbraham if he did not also render his meed of praise and admiration for that gentleman's high character and feelings. MANCHESTER IMPROVEMENTS. Mr. M. PHILIPS obtained leave to bring up the report from the Committee on the Manchester Improve ment (committed) Bill forthwith. Dr. BOWRING presented a petition against the Swansea Harbour Bill. On the motion of Mr. WILSON PATTEN, the Blackburn and Preston Railway Bill was read a third time, and passed. Sir R. INGLIS presented petitions from places in Yorkshire in favour of a ton hours' clause in the Fac tories Bill. The Right Hon. Gentleman also presented petitions against the union of the dioceses of Bangor and St. Asaph. Mr. HENRY BERKELEY presented a petition from the solicitors of Bristol, complaining of the insufficiency of the compensation allowed under the Act the 6th of Victoria, relating to Chancery Reform. Mr. FERRAND presented two petitions in favour of a ten hours' clause in the Factories Bill. Mr. AINSWORTH presented a petition from a nu merous and respectable publio meeting at Bolton, in favour of a Ten Hours' Bill. Mr. WARBURTON presented a petition from Kendal, praying that if the Ten Hours' Bill passed, there should be a reduction of all duties on corn and provisions. Lord J. RUSSELL presented a petition from the journeymen coopers of London, complaining of the ope ration of the duty on the importation of staves. Mr. S. WORTLEY presented a petition from the neighbourhood of Halifax, in favour of the Ten Hours' Bill. Lord MARCH presented petitions from Sussex and Kent, praying for a repeal of the stamp duties on in surances against hail -storms; also four petitions against the union of the dioceses of Bangor and St. Aaaph. Sir J. GRAHAM presented nine petitions—tw•o from Bradford, signed by seventy-four millowners; one from Asht•n-under-Lyne, signed by four millowners, em ploying 12,741 persons ; one from a town in York shire, signed by twenty-eight millowners, employing 10,000 hands ; one from Oldham, signed by millowners, employing 6,000 hands ; one from Staleybridge, signed by millowners, employing 6,600 hands ; one from Brid port, one from Warrington, and one from Bolton. These nine petititions, together with the one he presented from Manchester, were signed by 326 millowners, em ploying 100,000 persons, paying 50,0001. a week in wages. and 2,500,0001. a year, and they prayed the House that no diminution to ten hours should be made in the time of employment, as such a reduction would be fatal to the manufactures of the country, and prove detrimental to the manufacturing labourers themselves. or enterprise of the mill-owners and master manufac turers was in the least impaired by the change, but on the contrary the number of mills had increased from i 344 in 1819 to more than a thousand in 1826. It should be also recollected that the Ten Hours' Bill was slip ported by a great number of master manufacturers both in that House and out of it.—(Hear, hear.) In Parlift ment might he not comment upon the Hon. Members for Oldham, for Ashton, for Blackburn, and for Salford, and ont of the House there were some of the most ex tensive manufacturers in England avowed supporters of the Bill. (The Noble Lord then quoted the names of several eminent master manufacturers supporters of the Ten Hours' Bill, amongst whom he relied with especial force on the support of Messrs. Kenworthy and Har greave, as being, from the extent of their trade, business, and their long and practical experience, eminently well qualified to form a judgment.) Ho did not think a great deal of reliance could be placed upon the calculations of Mr. Senior; many of them he could prove to be inaccurate. A letter had some time since appeared in the Bolton Free Press, from a Mr. Thomas (as we understood), which disproved many of Mr. Senior's statements. The writer was un doubtedly a man of great experience and information— he stated that the last hour in the twelve hours of labour in factories, was, from the exhaustion of the operatives, particulary as regarded children, the most unproductive in quantity, and the most unsatisfactory in quality of the whole twelve. The twelfth hour he said produced more spoiled work than any other two hours in the day, and any man conversant with the business, could tell upon the cloth that portion of its material that was manufac tured during the last hour of labour.—(Hear, hear.) That restriction in the hours of labour was injurious to the operative, or to the trade generally, was contradicted by the whole history of the cotton trade. Was it pos sible—was it probable—that British industry, which had reached such a height of excellence—that the energy and enterprise of the British people, which was so re nowed—that all that perseverance and indefati gability which belonged to them were so dimi nished that the subtraction of two hours from the twelve could be productive of the disastrous results anti• cipated by some Hon. and Right Hon. Members. It could not be denied that, irrespectively of the detriment which the proposed alteration was said to inflict upon trade, it would be in other respects most beneficial. There was not the slightest doubt but that the social, moral, and physical condition of the people would be thereby greatly benefited.—(Hear, hear.) It was for Ministers to solve whether it was preferable for the manufacturing classes of England to have high wages, or to increase their domestic comforts, to give them an opportunity of acquiring moral and literary information, and to benefit their health. Was it not desirable that the humble female should be trained to the performance of those domestic duties which were so necessary in after life to make her home and family comfortable?— (Hear, hear.) Had they not had doctors and clergy men of all persuasions attesting the necessity of such a change, and entreating the Legislature to adopt it? But, notwithstanding all these things, the Minister not only refused to accept of the remedy proposed, but to pro pose one himself.—(Hear.) The House was placed in a curious po-ition. It was summoned to rescind the re solution to which it had solemnly and deliberately agreed —not because any new facts had been furnished— (Hear, hear)—not because any additional arguments had been adduced in favour of the present system—but simply because the Minister had declared his hostility to it.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") In fact they were called upon to surrender their votes and their opinions, in order to save the Government.—(Hear, bear.) He did not think the Minister had any right to expose his friends to such an alternative, that they must either re tract their formerly declared sentiments, or give up the Government. It would give him very great pain to vote against the Government, but he would not shrink, for a moment, from avowing and maintaining those views which he had formerly expressed. It had given him great pain to hear an Hon. Friend of his, who had, on a former occasion voted for the ten hours' clause, say he would vote for the Government proposition. Was it come to this, that great questions were no longer to be tried upon their merits, but regulated by the will and fancy of the Government ? He felt bound to say that the conduct of Ministers was rather arbitrary— he considered that a kind of despotism had been exercised which might prove detrimental to constitutional principles, and which would prove more fatal to the liberty and independence of that House than any other proceedings which had ever taken place. — (Hear, hear.) It was possible, nay he feared he might say it was probable, that Ministers would carry the day, but how long would that victory last?—(Hear, hear.) If they wished their victor) to be lasting they must put into operation those sentiments which were founded upon humanity and justice. They could not extinguish the feeling of sympathy which was so universally pre valent for these suffering creatures. A victory opposed to these feeling would be inglorious and short-lived—it might answer present purposes, but would entail tur moil, anxiety, and woe upon their successors. But it would not rest here ; those feelings which operated so powerfully would heighten and extend, they would em bitter the present and the prospect of the future. But he did not despair, he still hoped to see a better under standing established between the master and the servant, between the labourer and the employer ; he thought he could perceive a growing desire among the wealthy to ameliorate thecondition of the poor, and,a de termination to promote the public welfare by improving the condition of the humbler classes. He had been subjected to much obloquy, and even calumny, but he would still persevere unremittingly and unceasingly, and he felt convinced that the object for which he was contending must eventually triumph, and that he had lit such a candle in England as-could never be put out.—(Cheers.) Sir J. GRAHAM could assure the House that after the speech of the Noble Lord he felt great pain in rising to address them. He trusted he would not let fall a single expression which could be construed into unkind ness or censure, for he believed the Noble Lord was ac tuated by the best and the purest motives. So strong had been the agitation upon this subject, that an address had been presented to her Majesty praying that she would be pleased to remove him, and he had the honour of laying that address himself before her Majesty.—(A laugh.) The address stated that a Minister of the Crown was wilfully persevering in a course of cruelty and injustice towards the poorer and less protected classes. When the Noble Lord first brought his proposition before the House, he urged that it would be beneficial to the commercial interests of the country. But surely if the Noble Lord considered the contrary opinions so generally expressed by persons of the greatest information and experience upon this subject, he would not maintain that assertion. Those who thought that by adopting the course proposed by the Noble Lord, the working classes would be better paid, and the manufac turing interests improved, should vote with him ; but on b t from thatit t he could year should notb e those who thought that his proposition would have the effect only of si t x h weeks d vo ou te bt a e g d but ainst that a reduction o f th e amount o f wor k taking hiin. off six done must be attended with a concomitant reduction of wages. He was sure that even the Noble Lord himself must acknowledge that a loss of one-sixth of the work ing hours must be attended with loss to the operatives themselves. The woollen manufacturers of this country were exporters to a great extent, and every day they were meeting with competition in foreign markets and meeting with rivals. He wished to point out to the House that the price of the home market was materially affected by the state of the foreign market, and with respect to both the cotton and woollen manufac turers, the fact was not to be dissembled that the present rate of profits was reduced to the minimum. This fact was amply proved by a re ference to the money market. With respect to the great increase he could state that the United States, a few years ago only consumed 160,000 bales of cotton goods, whilst in the year 1843 the number of bales were 325,000, being an increase of 220,000, or about 200 per cent. This went to show that there was a great decrease in the price of manufactures, and also proved the application of increased capital, and the great consequent competition that the manufacturers of this country had to meet. Mr. Horner, the inspector of factories, from accurate data, stated that in the mills upon several parts of the Continent, where the l a w did not enforce any inspection, the persons em eyed worked as many as fourteen hours a day, and invariably took their meals in the factory. The same ge ntleman stated, with respect to America, that it h a d b ecome a strong competitor with England, and in many i n stances the American manufacturers were sati s fi e d to sell without reference to any profit, in order that they might drive the English manufacturers from th e mar k e t. He should have no objection to this competition, he said, if they did not keep one of their hands tied behind their back.--(Hear, hear, from Lord Howick.) He heard that cheer from the Noble Lord—he supposed the Noble Lord referred to the corn-laws.—(Hear, hear.) At a proper time and occasion he was quite ready to enter into that argument. When the position of the home and the foreign market should be considered, he should be prepared to contend that a protection for agriculture was indispensable. But he for the present postponed that argument.--(A laugh.) It would be enough if he said this, that supposing, for the sake of argu ment, that the corn-laws did unduly narrow their produc tive industry, was there common sense, was there common justice, the corn-laws being continued, that they should proceed to impose a penalty on that productive indus try, by taking one-sixth from the number of hours of labour ?—(Hear, hear.) But he was proceeding to show that a rise in the price of produce was not possible as a mode of recovering the loss the diminution of the time of productive industry would create. Everything must remain as it was in this respect, and it necessarily fol lowed that there must be a reduction of wages. If there was no reduction of wages, the loss must fall upon capi tal, and, the loss falling upon capital, ono of two things must happen—either that capital would be withdrawn from the country. and embarked in industry of the same kind in foreign countries, not subject to the same disadvantages, or, if not abso lutely withdrawn from the country, parties would retire from this particular branch of industry, and that kind of manufacture would fall into decay; in either case, by the withdrawal of this capital, a fearful fall of wages must ensue. Supposing that reduction to be only par tial, then the question came, to what amount would wages be reduced? The Noble Lord said what was morally wrong could not be politically right. He did not demur to that; but then on die Noble Lord rested the onus of proof that the system of regulation of labour in this country was morally wrong.—(Hear, hear.) But he (Sir James Graham) had yet to learn that it would be possible greatly to diminish, or even at all to reduce the general rate of wages in the manufacturing districts, without producing such, general poverty, suc h physical degradation, such an absence of all civilised manners and habits, as i n his judgment, would leave those districts in a state of confusion that would tend to throw them back into a state of primitive barbarism. Such would be the increase in crime, so widely would it spread over the face of the country, that it would be disgraceful to the Legislature that had pursued a policy that could lead to such cm- THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MA 1., 1844. LANCASTER AND CARLISLE RAILWAY. Mr. ESTCOURT appeared at the bar, and said that he had been to the House of Lords, and that their Lord ships had appointed a conference to consider the amend ments on the Lancaster and Carlisle Railway Bill. Several Members were appointed as a Conference, and they immediately left the - House to meet their Lord• ships. After a short time, Mr. ESTCOURT returned, and informed the House that he had left the Bill, and the reasons of the House for disagreeing from their Lordships' amendment, with the Conference. NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT. Mr. HUME gave notice that he would put a ques tion, at an early period, to the Noble Lord opposite, respecting the expenses of the New Houses of Parliament. DISSENTERS CHAPELS BILL. This Bill was brought down from the House of Lords, and read a first time. Mr. HINDLEY hoped the Bill would not be hurried through the House, as there was great interest excited in the country about it. Sir R. PEEL said that the Bill was only going to be printed, and that the House would have full opportunity of discussing it. INTERCOURSE WITH CHINA. . Mr. lIUME inquired whether there was any objec tion to collect, as speedily as possible, all the orders that had been printed and published regulating the intercourse of British subjects with the Chinese. Sir R. PEEL said that every order and regulation that was necessary on the subject bad been made known. SUGAR . The CHANCEL L O R of the the EXCHEQUER said that, in answer to a question from the Noble Lord op posite, on a preceding day, he begged to state that on looking at the state of public business, the 24th instant would be the day on which the Sugar Duties Bill would be brought before the House. Mr. ELLIS inquired whether it was intended to make any difference in the duties on raw, and on clayed or partially refined sugar, imported from the British co lonies? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he must give the Hon. Gentleman the same answer that he had already given to other similar inquiries on the sub ject—that it was better to reserve any question of detail till the whole subject was before the H ouse . PRISONS (SCOTLAND) BILL. On the motion ac tha re t i t s Biheoll be rde ad,rroef the Day f o r th e t hi rd reading of the Factories Mr. saidHUM:efor th t a h t is tehTeeninPrigs;onbsut(SLotilt li a and , ) Bill stood on the pap s possible that it could come on that evening he wished to suggest that it be referred to a Committee up stairs. Sir J. GRAHAM said he would postpone the Bill till Monday, and he would then state the course to be taken respecting it. IRISH REGISTRATION BILL. Mr. SHEIL asked the Right Hon. the Secretary of State for the home Department whether he intended to bring on the Irish Registration Bill, or whether it was abandoned or not ? Sir J. GRAHAM said the Bill was not abandoned, and that he would move its second reading on an early day, but that the day was not yet fixed.—(Laughter.) FACTORIES BILL. The Order of the Day for the third reading of this Bill was then read. Mr. M. PHILIPS presented a petition from Staley bridge (as we understood) against a Ten Hours' Bill, and on the motion of the Hon. Member the petition was read at length by the clerk at the table. Lord HOWICK presented a petition from the in habitants of Dewzbury, praying that ten hours be the time of labour on five days of the week, and eight hours the other. lie did not move that the petition be read at the table.—(Laughter.) Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition, signed by 6,020 inhabitants of the borough of Stockport, in favour of a Ten Hours' Bill. On the question that the Bill be read a third time, Lord ASHLEY rose. He said, after the three dis tinct declarations that had been made by the House, he need not make any further attempt, by argument or per suasion, to influence the feeling and understanding of the House. It had, by three distinct declarations, de cided actually in three cases, that the period of labour should not amount to twelve hours, and in two cases virtually that the period of labour should not exceed ten hours. On those decisions the world at large expected that a middle term would have been taken, but her Ma jesty's Ministers had refused to consent to that term. They had invited a revival of the debate, by calling on the House to reverse those decisions, and therefore they who stood by the whole of those decisions, and who protested against this novel and somewhat questionable course, were not to be charged with wearying the atten tion of the House, or wasting its valuable time, if they did endeavour to urge every argument and move every consideration that could countervail this prodigious exer cise of Ministerial influence and official authority. With respect to the moral and physical condition of the people, one way or other, the minds of all were made up; it was even admittedby many of their antagonists that if a reduction of the hours of labour could be effected without injury to the workman or the master manufac turer, it would be desirable to effect it. But they said a danger would arise to the workmen's interests, and he, who proposed the plan was actually charged with being more inhuman than those who resisted it. But he wished to reject altogether the use of such epi thets, and he would not in any way retort the imputa tion cast upon him of malignity and of cant.—(Hear.) In the whole of those debates there was but one thing that he regretted ; he did most deeply regret that he should have been charged with calumniating the whole body of master-manufacturers.—(Hear, hear.) He totally disclaimed that charge.—(Hear, hear.) He should be ashamed of himself if he presumed, either there or elsewhere, to use such language of a class of men who could boast of as many munificent and worthy individuals as could be pre sented by any class which had ever supported or adorned the institutions of this country.—(Cheers.) Neither because he addressed himself to a particular evil was he to be considered as an enemy to the fac tory system. He firmly believed--for he had labori ously examined many of the mills—that if they re moved some of the imperfections of factories they would become a iplessing—if not absolutely, certainly and relatively—to the labouring classes.—(Hear, hear.) Now, when he first introduced this question, he did not touch upon the commercial article, because he did not consider it necessary in the view which he took of the question, nor did he consider it necessary now. But he owed it to those whose interests he represented, to show that he had not left any part of the question unconsidered; that be bad not rushed, like an enthusiast, into this career, not caring what conse quences might ensue from the attainment of this end. He said at that time, what he now said, that which was morally wrong could not be politically right ; he had then, and he had still, the deepest conviction that that which was morally right could not be politically wrong. All that he had read, all the con sideration which he had been able to give to the subject, all the intercourse which he had had with persons who, from their practical experience, were the best able to instruct him, confirmed him in this conclu sion. 'And now he must entreat of the House with very much respect, and with very much earnestness, that they would be good enough to give him their atten tion while be went through a statement which was at all times dry, and which would he feared be much drier when coming from him, and which was moreover somewhat trite. Now, after much inquiry, he could discover no more than four leading arguments against this measure, and those arguments were comprised in the petition from Manchester, which had been laid on the table of the House. Those four arguments were that the passing of the Ten Hours' Bill would cause a reduction of produce—that there would be in the same proportion a reduction in the value of the fixed capital employed in trade ; that there would be a great diminution of wages to the great injury of the workmen ; and lastly, that there would be a rise in prices, and consequent danger from foreign competition. Now, upon these four points the commercial argument rested. With re spect to the first, he would observe that hitherto it had been urged that the reduction of the hours of labour by one-sixth would involve a reduction in the same proportion of the goods manufactured. Was the case so ? Was the reduction in the amount of produce in proportion to the reduction in the amount of the hours of labour ?—(Hear, hear.) He could produce evidence to disprove that position.—(Hear, hear.) In the first place he would read an extract from a letter written to him by a gentleman who employed 1,200 hands in his mills. (The Noble Lord here read an extract from the letter alluded to, in which the writer stated that a reduction in the hours of labour to ten hours would only cause a decrease of 1-12th in the amount of production, as the increased energy of the work would make up the difference; and this the writer stated to be the result of his own experience.) Another millowner in a very exten sive way of business had stated to him that the mill owners would lose very little by the reduction of the hours of labour to ten hours.—(Hear, hear.) He had, however, not been content with the opinions of the millowners. He had sought the opinions of the ope rative spinners. He had proposed to the operative spin ners two questions. The first was, Is the reduction in the produce in direct proportion to the reduction in the hours of labour? The answer was, Certainly not. — (Hear, hear.) He then asked at how much they esti mated the reduction of produce? Taking the estimate in the way most disadvantageous to themselves, they estimated the diminution would not be more than one eighth. He had never heard it argued that a reduction of the time by one-sixth would cause a reduction of one sixth of the profits. The second argument with which he had to deal was this, that a reduction would take place in the same proportion of the value of the fixed capital employed in trade. Now, it was probable that a reduction would take place in the value of the fixed capital, but not to the amount supposed, as he would be able to show from a calculation which he had in his hand. (The Noble Lord then read the calculation, which showed that, owing to the less amount of oil, candles, tallow, coals, and gas, which would be required if the hours of labour were reduced to ten, the loss of the fixed capital would only be the difference of twenty-four per cent., which was the loss when the work was con tinued for twelve hours, and twenty •and-a-half per cent. which it would be if the work was 'reduced to ten hours.) He had this calculation from one of the most ex tensive manufacturers of Europe. Those compels. sating circumstances he had mentioned he was convinced would more than counterbalance the loss that might arise from the diminution of time. But the cardinal argument he had to meet was the alleged diminution which it was supposed would take place from a diminution of time. Many of the statements of this kind were taken from the calculations of Mr. Horsier, who stated with perfect candour that he derived his statements from the manufacturers, but had never exa mined the workmen themselves. The terms " folly" and " nonsense" had been applied to those who denied that such a result would take place. But no such ex pectation was ever entertained.—(Hear, hear.) He had never said so, and he had never heard the operatives say so. The earnings of the people were not regulated by the time they worked, but by the piece, and the sum of money which the workmen received at the end of the week he received not for the sixty-nine hours ho laboured, but for the produce of his labour.—(Hear.) The operatives were of opinion that by the reduction of the hours of work they would have increased means of social and domestic economy, and that a prolongation of the term of their working lives would be conferred upon them. They held that a diminution of the time of labour would lead to a rise in price. It had been asserted that there would be a diminution of produce in conse quence of working shorter hours. This had been as serted both in speeches in that House and in evidence taken before Committees. But when the hours were reduced in 1820, from fourteen, fifteen, and even sixteen hours, to t we l ve h ours, this result had ta y i mo e n a o r u s no tf e f d o following n 6a s g 6 not followed.l cottony I c n on sw t u h om e o pl 0 o l i on B ,c o or O oe oa b t e h sd. e : importationan and the we weekly while there was no falling off in the aggregate con sumption. In the years following 1820 the exports from this country were increased to 46,000,0001. official value. Let them observe what had taken place in other countries. In France the importation of cotton wool in, 184 Q, as compared with the importation in 1820, had in creased 162 per cent., and the exportation of cotton manu factures had increased during the same period 212 percent., while in England from 1820, the first year of restriction, to 1840, the imports of cotton wool had increased 288 per cent., and the export of manufactured cotton had in creased 220 per cent. It could never be imagined that America, a new country with large tracts of fertile land unoccupied, could compete in manufactures with an old wealthy country like Great Britain. The third point to which he would call the attention of this House, was the argument of the reduction of wages. In 1818 and 1819, the two years immediately preceding the years to which the restriction upon the hours of factory labour was im posed, the wages of the fine spinner of cotton were IL 12s. a week, of the coarse spinner,ll. 55., of the women, 145.; and in 1820 and 1821 the wages, notwithstanding the restriction, continued the same. The records of many of the factory districts, which were most carefully con structed, particularly those of Manchester and Bolton, showed that in 1821 and 1822, there were the same wages for labour as in the preceding years. In fact, no one of the predictions which bad been made on the decline of labour that would be con sequent upon the restriction of the hours of labour were verified. It was sa id t h at t h e l oss f e ll on the profits of the manufactur ers . N ow, even i f so, there was quite enough of profit l e f t , It did not deem that the energy sequences, and that did nothing to prevent them.— (Hear, bear.) But whether the loss fell upon capital, or whether it would fall upon wages, was a matter to the working classes of comparative indifference. The great injury and the great loss to them would arise from the diminished demand for the only property they possessed—their labour, and which must cause a fall in the amount of the wages on which so much of their well-being, their virtue, and their hap piness depended. They might talk of confiscation; but he must say it seemed to him that this Act, if it passed, would be a confiscation of the most wide-spread kind; it would be a confiscation of the only property the masses possessed; it would be a confiscation of one-sixth part of the working capital of the country. Many kinds of confiscation had had the excuse proffered for them, that they were made for the benefit of others ; but in this case there was no such excuse. It placed in some jeopardy the capital of the country ; it placed in some jeopardy the national prosperity. What, then, was the excuse for it to the working classes ? It was said that it was calculated to benefit them. Now he (Sir J. Graham) would be satisfied, if he thought the matter was understood by the working classes them - selves. What was stated by the Hon. Member for Old ham ? No man was better acquainted with the work ing classes than the Hon. Member, and he said it had got into their heads that they worked too hard, and pro duced too much, and that if they laboured less profits would rise, and wages would not fall. Now he was com pelled to combat this opinion. He thought that by the operation of such an Act, profits could not rise, and that wages must fall. They had in their heads the in verse of that proposition—that prices must rise, and that wages would rise also. Now he (Sir J. Graham) held that those who were the leaders of this movement were more responsible than public men almost ever were, for setting before the working classes the truth of this matter. It was no slight point of difference ; and until to-night he had really believed that the Noble Lord would be slow to admit as a fact that wages would not be affected by his proposal. But at all the public meetings that had been held on this question, this was the doc trine that was maintained.—(" No, no.") He spoke in the presence of an Hon. Member who attended those meetings, and be would appeal to the words of th e Hon. Member for Oldham, who well knew the state of opinion among the working classes, and who was the coadjutor of the Noble Lord, and a great champion of the Ten Hours' Bill.—(He read the passage from the Hon. Member for Oldham's speech, as before given.) Now he (Sir James Graham) thought that on a subject of this nature it was necessary the Noble Lord should state openly and manfully his own opinion ; for if the working classes were deceived, if they were told that the effect of the measure would be of little importance to them in respect of wages—if they were led to press for the measure, and disappointment should ensue, it would be no consolation to them to know that the persons whom in their despair they would most blame were persons whom they would say, unjustly, but in the bitterness of their hearts would say, ought to have bet tered their real interests, while they had but ministered to their prejudices and passions.—(Hear.) Those, therefore, who advocated this measure were most re sponsible for the statement of their real opinions on this subject. If they contended that the measure would not be followed by a fall of wages—if they told the working classes tkey might seek with perfect impunity this abridgment of their time of labour, that was a fair questiou for debate in that House. But if they were wrong, if wages should fall, then he contended, those who supported this proposition incurred a responsibility greater than ever men had incurred, with respect to the arrangements of civilised society. He saw as clearly as anything was ever seen, that this would be the end, and there was no responsibility he would not incur, rather than the responsibility of supporting this proposition. The Noble Lord asserted that he was violating the principles of a representative government by pressing the re-consideration of this question. If, in asking for this revision, he had employed any means but those of ar gument and reasoning, then he should consider himself to blame; but being resolved mot to incur the responsibility of such a decision, he submitted that he had a right to call upon the House, while it was yet time, to reconsider the course it had taken : and if, on consideration and argu ment that judgment should be sanctioned and confirmed, then surely he had done nothing inconsistent with the principles of representative government r:nor, he hoped, was there anythiny improper or overbearing in saying that he would prefer retiring from public life rather than consent to this proposition. Having dwelt rather on the principles than the details of this question, he was unwilling to follow the Noble Lord into all those details into which he had entered. His ;positions were these— that there would not be a diminution of production, and that wages and prices would rise ; and the Noble Lord stated, on authority of a person wom he did not name, that the reduction in the price of wages, would not be equal to, orco-extensive with, the reduction of time. Now he had a statement from 328 master manufacturers, em ploying 100,000 hands, and paying 50,000/. per week in wages, amounting to two millions and a half annually. They all stated that the measure now "contemplated would prove fatal to the profits on their capital, and would entail on their labourers a large and serious re duction of wages. The Noble Lord had also mentioned that the reduction in the price of the labour employed on a yard of cloth would be of a penny per yard. This would amount to sd. on 25 yards. Now, 25 yards per day was a low estimate for the produce of each loom during the day; thus there would be a loss of sd. per day upon each loom, which in a moderate-sized esta blishment of two hundred looms, would amount to 41. - 3s. 4d. per day ; and on the week a loss of 231. 19s. 6d. On the whole year the loss would be 1,196/., or about 10 per cent. on the whole capital em barked in the concern. This statement he had attested by most competent authority. Mr. Kinnersley stated that in a mill consisting of 1,600 looms, the loss would be 131. 6s. Bd. per day, 91! 13s. 4d. per week, 9,583/. per year—a sum equivalent to a loss of 5 per cent. on 191,0001. These were the interests they were about to touch ; these were the interests which they would destroy ; their interference would give the death-blow to their manufacturing greatness. He was unwilling to detain the House at greater length ; yet it was important, taking the stand on the subject which he did, that he should show he had some reason on his side. The Noble Lord said that, putting the loss at one-sixth, it was placing it much too high, but he was ready to allow a diminution of one-twelfth. He (Sir J. Graham) would take it at the lower amount. He was informed that the fixed charges of production in such concerns were very nearly equal to the amounts paid, and a loss of one twelfth on the amount of wages would also be a loss of one-twelfth on the fixed capital. Even upon the data of the Noble Lord, the loss to the employers by the reduction of time added to the loss on the fixed capital to be transferred would amount to a reduction of one-sixth of the existing wages enjoyed by the workmen. Unless they supposed that, concur rently with the loss of 20 per cent. in their wages, there was to be a correspondent reduction on the price of the articles of the first necessity, he could not believe that any misfortune that could befal the working classes would be more disastrous and fatal than such a reduc tion.—(Cheers.) He was sorry the Noble Lord the Member for London was not in his place. That Noble Lord was the representative of the great capital of the commercial world. When, in the year 1839, his Noble Friend brought forward the proposition which they were now discussing, the last occasion which he did so while the Noble Lord was in office, the Noble Lord then, having the responsibility of the conduct of public affairs upon him, declared thrtt a proposition for shortening the hours of labour, with the present high price of provisions un reduced, was a proposition of the greatest inhumanity. His Noble Friend said he was accused of inhumanity. That was the first occasion on which the charge 'of inhumanity was preferred against his Noble Friend. It was made by the Noble Lord the Member for London. -(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord said it was a cruel proposition, and that it would be the ruin of the country. That was the view which the Noble Lord now repre senting the emporium of the commerce of the world took on the moral consideration of the question. He said it was inhuman, and would be cruel in practice, and he should vote against it.—(Cheers.) He (Sir J. Graham) who was then in opposition, and opposed to the general policy 'of the Noble Lord, did not shrink from the obloquy of voting with the Nobl e L or d aga i nst t h e proposition of his Noble Friend, and he did so because he concurred with the Noble Lord in the opinion that it would be, in its practical result, inhuman and cruel towards the working classes. That was the view the Noble Lord took of the moral part of the question. Was that all? The Noble Lord was not then the representa tive of London, but he was responsible for the conduct of public affairs.—(Hear, hear.) Had the Noble Lord changed his opinion since he went into opposition, or since the commencement of the time that he went into opposition? By no means. The Noble Lord, now the representative of the City of London—the Noble Lord who led the opposition with such abilitity and power against the Executive Government, thought— there were some rumours of deputations being sent to the Government, and that there were some interviews on the first day of the session of 1842, and, being jealous on the subject, he thought that Government were about to give way to popular impulses and feelings in a matter which he considered 'as primarily important to the na tional interests. On the 3d of February, 1842, in the present Parliament, the Noble Lord dwelt on the com mercial view of the subject—the moral view he took in 1839—and he would read to the House what that view was. After alluding to the rumours of interviews which were held by certain parties whom he described as the " social editors of some New Moral World,' " the Noble Lord said that " the limitation of labour to ten hours, if adopted, would cut up by the roots the manufac turing prosperity of this country." (Loud cheers.) There was the opinion of the Noble Lord on the moral effects of the measure when he had the responsibilities of a Minister of the Crown in 1839, that it was an in human and cruel measure.—(Hear, hear.) There was his opinion on the commercial view in 1842, when he said it would cut up by the roots the manufacturing prosperity of the country, and though the Noble Lord was absent now, he hoped before the debate closed they would have the advantage of hearing what new facts and circum stances came to light to induce him to alter his opinion since then.—(Hear.) He (Sir J. Graham) voted with the Noble Lord in 1839. He agreed with him in 1842, and, regardless of the consequences, it was his firm de termination to give the motion of the Noble Lord his un compromising opposition.—(Cheers.) His Noble Friend asked ivhy they had not declared they entertained those strong opinions. Why, had they not voted with the Go. vernment in 1839, which they laboured to overthrow, against the proposition of the Noble Lord? Was not that sufficient evidence of their opinions ? They had not yielded one inch. Did not the Noble Lord give it to be understood that he would not take part in their coun sels, because they would not compromise any of their opinions on the subject, and that it was on this ground they lost the great advantages of his services?----(" No, no," from Lord Ashley.) He understood the Noble Lord to say. that because some concession was not made on this subject he did not take office, and did not yield to the faseinations of office. lie was resolyea to tem this proposition to the utmost of his power.—(Hear, hear.) He believed it to be impolitic—to be, at this juncture, particularly inexpedient, when the c o mmerce and trade of the country were so- long languishing ; he believed the moment for proposing it was ill chosen—the measure was admitted to be dangerous. He was sat7s fied, if the hours of labour were limited, it would be most injurious to the working classes ; and, entertaining that opinion, he never could vote for such a proposition. Lord ASHLEY rose to explain. He never, under any circumstances, would have accepted office, had he known the intentions of the Government on this subject ; but nu answer was given him respecting their intentions, so that he did not know whether the Government would accept or rrject his proposition for a reduction of the hours of labour to tea hours.—(Hear, hear.) Lord HOWICK said he would accept the challenge , ' thrown out by the Right Honourable Gentleman, and state distinctly what his views were on the important point of the reduction of wages.—(lltar, hear.) But, before doing so, he begged to state that he heard with regret what had fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet respecting the course which would be pursued by the Government in the event of being de feated on th's subject. He alluded to the impression which had gone abroad, that a threat of resignation on • the part of the Ministers was held out in case they were defeated ; and the Right Hon. Baronet told them, in the most distinct language, that he would not, as a Minister of the Crown, consent to this measure coming into ope ration. He agred with the Right Hon. Baronet in the general proposition, that no tyranny could be greater than to expect that a Minister would remain in office when the House compelled him to consent to that which he believed would be fatal to 'the country. He believed that was proper upon great questions of general policy and general principle, but to apply it to cases like the pre-• sent t one confessedly of detail, was to put an end to all deliberation.—(Hear, hear.) He thought it was a dan gerous invasion of the deliberative power of the House. —(Hear, hear.) Lsaving this point, a hich incidentally arose, he came to the main question before them. In the first place, it was clear it was desirable to restrict the hours of labour, unless some convincing reasons to the contrary were shown. They had the opinions of the factory inspectors themselves on this point, and, indeed, they had their own common, ser.se to guide them.—(lronical cheers from Mr. Roe ' buck.) Her Majesty's Government already restricted the hours of labour to twelve hours for females, which was, practically saying, that they must work ten hours ; and was it true that great danger or inconvenience would arise if they carried the restriction still further? The question was, would they, by determining for how many hours a day labour should be prolonged, incur great hazard, and those evils which they were told would follow from restricting the hours of labour?—(Here the Noble Lord turned round to the Hon. and Learned Mem ber for Bath, who was speaking in a rather loud tone of voice to an Hon. Member behind him, which two or three times caused a cry of " Order" in the Howse, and said), " I beg pardon of the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath. He is interrupting, and no man is more into lerant of interruption than the'Hon and Learned Gen tleman himself."—(Loud cheers.) Mr. ROEBUCK—I will talk when I like, and I will not ask the Noble Lord's leave.—(Oh, oh.) No right to talk I Lord HOWICK—The Hon. and Learned Gentleman says he has a right to talk when he likes. I know the Hon. and Learned Member has very strange notions of what his peculiar rights and privileges are, but I always thought it was the pri v il ege o f any Hon. Gentleman who was addressing the House that he should not be inter rupted. Mr. ROEBUCK rose, amidst cries of " Order, order," and said, I rise to order. If I have in the slightest de gree interrupted the Noble Lord, I had not the slightest intention of doing so; and, if I have done so, I am sin cerely desirous of ap slogising for it.—(Hear.) Lord HOWICK said that he accepted the apology of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman as most satisfactory, and nothing but the claim put forward by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman that he had a right to talk, in duced him (Lord Howick) to say what he did. He would now return to the main question. The principal point was, as to the effect of hi s N o bl e F r i en d' s amend ment on the foreign trade of the country. He would admit, for the sake of argument, though he disbelieved the fact, that a reduction of the hours of labour would create a proportionate diminution in the amount of goods produced. But he did, not conceive if possible that women, and children, and young persons, after being exhausted by working ten hours a day, could produce the same amount of work in the two following hours which they would produce during they same time when they came fresh to their work. Then as to the ef fect which a reduction of the hours of labour would have on wages ; if it only affected those who were en gaged in producing goods for the home market, the wages and profits of manufacturing - interests would not be so affected as to fall lower than in other occupations ; that was to say, that the produce of 100 labourers, working, suppose with a capital of 1,0001., could still exchange for the same amount of produce as before— that was to say goods would somewhat rise in the market if the home market alone was concerned. But they were told that its effects would be most serious upon the goods which were produced for the foreign mar ket. The Right Hon. Gentleman stated facts to confirm that view ; he showed how close competition was, and that if the measure of his Noble Friend (Lord Ashley) was adopted, it would be impossible to raise the price. This argument seemed to him (Lord Howick) to be founded on a misconception of the nature of the foreign trade. When a cargo of goods was sent to a foreign country it by no means followed that the profits depended on the price which the goods realised. Any practical mer chant might tell them at once, if they sent a cargo of cotton goods to Rio, it was not merely the price for which the goods were sold which determined whether it was to be a profitable or losing speculation. The specu lation might be a profitable or losing one, according to what was the expense of remitting the consignment. If the premium on the rate of exchange was small, the spe culation was a losing one, but if the premium re ceived was large- for the same amount of goods sold, the speculation might be profitable.--(Hear.) That arose from a fact which, in all their discussions upon that subject, they had to a great extent over looked, that the whole of our export trade was, in point of fact, only a barter of one description of goods for an other. The whole of our export trade with foreign countries depended upon this circumstance, that we had in this country a demand for a great number of articles of foreign produce, which we either could not produce at all, or at least not so cheaply as they were produced abroad, and our manufacturers were employed in pro ducing those goods, the sale of which the experience of our merchants had decided would be the most effectual mode of paying for those foreign productions. If that was the real nature of our trade, and he thought no man could deny it—if what put in motion those vast hives of industry in Lancashire and Yorkshire was to pay for the coffee, wine, sugar, tobacco, and the multitude of other foreign goods which we consumed in this country—if that was really the nature of . our foreign trade, he wanted to ask how it was possible that, even admitting that the amendment of his Noble Friend, if carried, would increase the coat of producing these articles— how could it possibly have any effect in preventing our foreign trade ? Would the foreign de mand decrease? Would the desire to obtain coffee, sugar, wine, and those articles which were the main spring of the whole machinery of commerce—would that desire fail? , Certainly not. If those goods were still important, our merchants would, as before endea vour to find the means of paying for the importations they made; and the goods we now sent out would be as available for that purpose as they were now, and the only effect which in his opinion they , would have reason to dread from foreign competition was, that it might make them • give a larger amount of the produce of their own labour for the different kinds of goods they imported.—(Hear, hear, from Mr. Roebuck.) He was glad the Hon. and Learned Gentleman attended to his argument. They would have to give a somewhat larger amount of the produce of their own labour and capital in order to obtain the same amount as before of those various articles of foreign produce.—(Hear, hear.) He did not deny that a certain degree of inconvenience would arise from the diminution of their productive power. But what he would show them was that the burden of the inconvenience would not fall peculiarly upon the opera tives engaged in these factories or upon the manufac turers, but that it would fall upon the community at large. They would purchase a less amount than before of tea, coffee, and other foreign goods, because the foreigner being able to resort to other markets for those goods which we exported, and because more of our labour was required to produce the same amount of goods as - formerly—the foreigner would refuse to grant an increase in the amount of goods which he gave us in return. It was true that to that extent there would be inconvenience—that the whole amount of the foreign goods imported into this country, in return for the whole amount of our manufactures exported, would be to a certain 'extent diminished. But that burden would, as he said before, fall on the whole community in the shape of a somewhat increased price of the foreign commodity. But that would not in any degree endanger the safety of the foreign trade, nor cause such au extraordinary re duction of wages, as it had been contended it would. The danger was considerably less than the Right Hon. Baronet opposite would lead them to expect. Ile (Lord Howick) maintained that, instead of that exaggerated apprehension, either of the destruction of our export trade, or the ruin of our manufactures, all they would have to apprehend was a certain comparatively small di minution in the return they got from foreign countries for their manufacturing labour. He was aware that that was a different view of the nature of foreign competition from that which was generally taken.—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. Roebuck.) But he was not the less persuaded that it was a just one—be was not the less persuaded that trade was essentially merely a barter of one set of goods for another. In the history of commerce they would perceive that to be the case. When enterprising mari ners in the early ages brought manufactures to the bar barous natives of this country, it was, as everybody saw, but a simple exchange of one description of goods for another, and that was equally the case in modern com merce. Though we measure the price in bills of ex change and in money, yet it was the amount of goods we received in this country, and nothing else, which limited our foreign trade. One proof that his view was correct was the very fact which the Right Hon. Baronet opposite had stated of the close competition which foreign countries were able to maintain against us, in spite of great disad vantages with which they had to contend. The. Right Hon. Baronet had pointed out Switzerland as able to maintain close competition with us, though we knew that that country could only obtain the raw material by a long land carriage, or, by what was not less expensive, internal navigation ; and that our manufactured goods come back in the same way. The Right Honourable Baronet said that Switzerland had the advantage of a great water power ; but they well knew that that was so little of an advantage compared with a good situation, that the immense water-power of the highlands of Scot land was never brought into operation. Tier situation was against Switzerland ; yet, despite that disee i v,a ll l Switzerland was able to maintain a successfu l comp r' tion with us. And why was it so ? BCCallSe Swl land required to consume a certain amount of f ° reig' t , produce, and it was found that the cheapest w a t f tre s, which she could logy for that was by her inanufse Though the disadvantages of her situation told gr i e , f a it against he , ., though she made on the whole scarc e on o return for her industry, still she was able to carry,tilt, trade which supplied the wants of her population•h),,ed exchange of her manufactures for foreign goods'. why was that ? It was because she had not imposese;) strictions on the freedom of commerce.—(He ar;h are set There was a still stronger case. The Right Hon. 13 were had stated that the United States of Arne, ri r t.all , ) driving us out of many neutral markets. flu v• — " o far believed that to be so. He believed that the Tn.° lig turers of .the United States were successfully c ony with us in many of the third markets of the. to How did they account for that on their principte„All whatever rendered manufactures dearer ren der ts competition impossible ? It was notorious that thellos of wages was higher in the United States. 'do in this country. But he denied that , bn s price of the raw material was dearer here r ; in it was in America, because a bale of c' a s , if bond in Liverpool imported from New Orleans 1 1 go , anything, cheaper than a bale of cotton in hood „oe O sachusetts imported from the same place. The ros of the conveyance from New Orleans to Liven °t tee not greater—(Cries of "Less, less")--than fre re Orleans to Massachusetts. It was not, t h e reforec to , price of the raw produce which enabled the o ' ll 6o Curers of the United States to maintain a coor nt ite with us. Then, what was that that upon the n ' ;leo ciple of the impossibility of raising prices or wages Che t there was foreign competition—what was tha t ollf enabled the North American manufacturer to yuccas from compete with us ? He had seen a trade circulsricortli China the other day, stating the great amount of 'O l American manufactures that was imported in te stn teJ country ; and he must say, that the trade circular . 0 0 0 , the reason of that fact to be, as he believed it, tha t ; eg t North American United States no duty at all r is4 upon tea, and, consequently, tea was very rapid l y met in consumption in that co u nt r y, an d the North ito ote can manufacturer produced those goods for the P t. W it of paying for that tea which they required , countrymen. If they calculated the expense of t he r ms rican manufacturer in money, and of the Isfanche ste c iA facturer in money, on the spot, it would be found, n ° .-srd °f` that the Manchester man u f ac tur e r cou ld produce 9 ' cotton cheaper than th e American, but yet tha t ; e l .o o ' enable him successf u lly t o com p e t e w ith the -M e r to°, because the latter h a d th e a d van t age in the " e e cargo. That supp or t e d hi s pr i nc i p l e t h a t their e el ril r och tion with foreign co un t r i es was not a matter o . j o roe danger. H e was p ersua d e d that, spect to China, they must put an en d to coutk r rs 4 with America. If they received the corn of `for tlo into this country, it would be a cheaper modes c bo b American to buy tea, to send corn here, and manufactures with the price thereof, and then ser i, those manufactures to China; but we, by of C' would not allow that to take place, anw th et trary to what nature really intended, vire•L;tori , e: fully peopled country should be a manurrsey country, and that a half-settled country shotou• roar' agricultural country, we comp e ll e d the Ameriea n in tOr chant to pay for the tea which he required for e. e °e t ore s tion, not by British but by American mann ber, He was perfectly sensible how imperfectly be iL P.,:yili ° ., able to state those views to the House, but he t"'"„ q uo difficult it was, upon what was, after all, rather " s "; Lion of abstract political economy, to argue in sl u e bly like that. But unfortunately it was those f ilet" which were at the bottom of the question ; tbe l ?, f fore, it was not in his power to avoid going jaw." th e ," The argument that foreign competition would 0 . 1 1 e u trade was totally visionary, and equally visield the great fall of wages which they anticipated Ail 0, w th o e uld ima r g em in ll a y ry ha r p u p in en of w t a h s eir th m at anu t f h ac ey tu . re , : .o • u r d,er t: certain degree, diminish the productive po w o, hi this country—(Hear, hear)—and that the bor dell o w f be thrown not on one particular class, but et cos t ` ( whole country. First, by the slightly increase et, the manufactures required for the home Ina r ,7 - e t l9 l O course if manufacturing labour was less produ c ell hitherto, there would be somewhat of a dinlio7, - g, the abundance of the supply for the home inte - 0 14 r ; the cost would be thereby increased. But that WrSo grt only for a short extent of time, for they all knewl i; t to was the progress of improvement in machinerY ,t 'rAii` was no question ten hours' labour per day would.% 07, a larger amount of goods for home consuraPg fj e ist e m twelve hours would a few years previously. " L A ill ' 4 ests of the working classes were deeply involv e ' - ' w „al question, and he would recommend the House that compromise of an Eleven Hours' Bill tow P en sio," House had pledged itself on a former °e ,, o slow He owned that that did appear to him to be so br e p ot i i an experiment upon the temper and minds of t se lotion in the manufacturing districts, that even if yrie v e on previous occasions voted against .his Noble fo ie lie would hesitate much before he repeated th,a,, he would shrink from being a party to altering !'„ r ti s C° 11 ; sion to which they had already come. If iniur i " o iclt el e i sequences followed, the exclusive responsibility wactroclic with her Majesty's Government. He hoped,gp v that the working classes would petition. -`" - sr pos e j ) be certain that though what they desired was P.,, ° " er roC o i it was virtually carried.—(Hear, hear, from He said again it was virtually carried. -Lte ° f they would not find in the whole course liamentary history, any question in which ti,i fi e g ar body of the people took so deep an interest•--Vyjolt; which was not ultimately brought to a successf,a' o irj —(Cheers.) He knew not how long the struggi e ,. t eir n be prolonged, but of its ultimate issue he enter er e not the slightest doubt. He could not help askie.,,,b,eY', her Majesty's Government whether" they th e T r i were not in their hearts persuaded' that it ° ti r e terminate in one manner, and, if so, he asked thero..t it well that the struggle should continue?—(C king t,d, Mr. LIDDELL said he could not help thin"..,, Ar e ; the Noble Lord had somewhat perplexed his °T- 5 01)41 went by the manner in which he had treated the of foreign trade.—(Hear, hear.) The Nobl e L ee e' v n ; diverged into the su bj ec t of protective duties. ter i n ceived that the corn-l aws did no t n ecessarill., eli d Or e : this question. If tho se l aws were to be just liie ,r if'!" ad they were to b e justified on grounds altog et, le pendent of a Ten Hours' Bill. Never, sincexf6colgl, had a seat in Parliament, had he felt so much 10 re f ,"„a in reconciling his feelings and his judgment as y 0 1°. i$ rence to that question. His feelings went e ntire tbe ro o with the Noble Lord, whereas, after the most d e e ileti,,.) and careful consideration, he felt himself ee? P i,be fi li i e vote with her Majesty's Government—( s le There was nothing novel, indeed, in the prig el t a lab ° ".e Noble Lord's proposal. In the case of a they had practically ten hours' daily work. l e 0 1 he lb' of bricklayers, woodcutters, and others, L,-.ein IS 1. labour were rom sunrise to sunset—fro :l 5 , 1 01 ) d e morning till six in the evening, with two 11 ° er ' r s from toil—(Hear, hear) and if ten ill. 00 enough for them, with the fresh breath ' flo e be blowing upon them, it was certainly e n- solv those who were employed in factories. : 0 1 gricultur ce.of bad did not consider her Majesty's Gover n m t ios oo' acted on that occasion with their usual diser.ef.ise..°J foresight.—(hear, hear.) He must say thutl their 5.1;0 vernment were prepared originally to take d o Vi i' on this great question, if they were determinetbs ' v et to no compromise whatever, notwithstanding a , e i t st ht bet, sion of that House, they ought at least to h At their opinions, in order that their intentions le v iri t oo , b 4 en evident to their supporters and friend s ° t he it y. House.—(Laughter.) By riot having done s ; r ple s ,re vernment had been exposed to considerabl e 1„ 0 , 141 —(Great, laughter.) He said, from his own k e if it be d that there were many Hon. Gentlemen Wh ° ' it° te . 0 pit been known that such importance was „t „lag to the ten hours' clause, would n- new,, 0 voted with the Noble Lord without Closely c om e all the arguments, and they might then hsve pert',, different cunlesion.—(Great laughter.) It wa"„bjee' t o ,1 true that the reasoning which applied to this a " o vi ° ot not obvious on the surface. One feeling wa. s eie rati ° 4 , o o but a little previous reflection, and more cons' ,rain the subject, might have i n d uce d many to a h .„ e r) giving a vote which, when once given, it wsl. d , o e l cult to retract. (Hear.) But though lie dl 13sf` p of prove of the course pursued by the Right bea: r it) (Sir J. Graham), lie gave him full credit t ° , 4 llo r r it and sincerity of purpose. The Noble Lord (L or i,"cvefetile stated that this was not a quest i on which , J! ito d o e might be decided, would call for the resign etj oi Oisti Government. Had the Noble Lord thorolito,) $ dared the provisions of this Bill ?—(llear, ffec iisg i ,y, he not know that it was a question a ora tsil li n ce vast deal of property, and vast masses of the e . .„ o fer e 4 ) and that the Government had had previouscrio, e' r with the parties immediately concerned ?—il'e-ollieroi" The Right Hon. Baronet felt himself boun d te- not be the provisions of his own Bill ; and he w eber 0,0 4 , prised, therefore, at his s u g ge s tion, that re ,,onla C 0° guilty of any dishonourable compromise b e . t he pee' into private life. He felt entire c onfidence '!' w intentions of the Government. What po i SS I i n dtll It went, except a sense of duty, could possib i A r do e . 0 in coovernm the ent to take could not be a wish to please course the Crown af°ro.ll:fcrtstra; this country would so rejoice in the well til , 'Zola of habitants as her most gracious MajestY. to , be a desire to please their friends, for e r go t o them they were placed in pain fu l, o l l ' e ed cu re (Hear.) Lastly, they could not be itui ig ths'snse t u desire of truckling to their opponent s ; Or One a the they would have pursued a different course._ no sti_ tr ist alone could have induced the Government_imueff, s u gi course which they were then pursuing , of th e res rt h° sense of duty, a thorough consciousness 4 ,:) ..01 b e lie e a bility which rested upon them, and a B .;„id 0 1 ' 4 any compromise of this great question while P i d detriment and injury to those classes wnub; should intended to benefit. For these re asons _ lren e /s i r J. port the measure of her Majesty's Govern Ablef) Mr. BERNAL said the Right Hen', / Lord with hham) changinghad chhisargtaeedtietsheo on that b ee o t - i t t i b oo e had taken up the commerciathat the P one question. Now he contended t a , to dei r g le of the Noble Lord's opponents ..,./ 1 1 : s the p .s i c n o ‘ s : - 61 manifest revolution.—(Hear, hear-) It I :, b e en ch to of the Noble Lord's proposal which had re oPP °se t" on former occasions by those who we, _en doss ad (Hear.) He appealed to Hon. Genti,en h uo r , ) , n to forw er erett e° He would be the last man to refer ha d 0,. 40 0 was not e that i tt tnaelsurnedbat ea the ps t c i a o s n e w ; h i tt e n h d t hey whetherhe of r deliv ere l e que e a syn b but he nhhaving u F I trhs n te o A t oi help npiosrtet urnoit saying, the Cr ked ill e s , iSi°ll !: odnitLete, Sound,saieneidia language, but marked by goo necessity el recc!: the nece right feeling, in reference to very excellent sentiments, not Jarful In es° uhi ec. vi .S • not merely education, but hea re v ° _e vi b their poure • A ho tion and amusement for ro. He would ask the Right Hon. Barone e to wtris to 10 14 supported him in that view, how thos