The Sun. — London, England, 1844-03-19 00:00:00

THE SUN, LON'DON, TUESDA VENINO, MARCH le, 1844. T ., 8 question, he was aware, was one of great difficulty; : k o he was h appy to see so many li on M em b ers, feet were practically acquainted with the sub un t t come f orwar d an d ex p ress th e i r o pinions c ', e",. it. He did not wish to raise any discussion con tilnig extraneous matter but he should say that he 14 ought the difficulties which surrounded the question 1 , considerably increased by impolitic restrictions ti ro trade, which upon the one hand limited the corn ti„eree of the country, and, on the other hand, pro th.ced the greatest fluctuations. He felt that the amend- Z en t of his Noble Friend would be attended with the '3:t beneficial results, and he should vote in favour of it. f ro L L ir J. GRAHAM said he did not wish to exclude th: this discussion any matters which might tend to th.'"w light upon it. This Bill had been brought in for t4purpose of limiting the duration of labour in fac tit." to twelve hours; for many of the operations in of Manufacture of cotton and the higher branches ,woollen t ra d e , f u ll- grown men an d women were not r7apted, and the labour of young persons was indis flisahle. He should take a cursory review of all the s e ti g i slative en ac t men t s w hi c h h a d b een f rame d upon the b . Jeet of inf an t l a b our . U p t o t h e y ear 1802 there totil no' aw to limit the labour of young persons, in fac thries• In that year a law was passed which prohibited no , employment for a period exceeding twelve hours ~,L , of the twenty-four. This was the first instance of t „) i nterfererenee for the protection of this most unpro ,4l-ted class of individuals. So the law stood until 1819, e n an Act was passed, declaring that in cotton manu .B.e• t ones no child ren s h ou ld b e com p e ll e d or a llowed to ffork mor e t h an twe l ve h ours . I n s i x years a f terwar d s urther provisions were introduced for the regulation of the f a lu i llr of persons under sixteen years of age in factories. i n 4831 , a Bill was introduced by Mr. Hobhouse, enact ii%g that no person under the age of twenty-one should ° l l ,k night btween the hours of half-past eight and n 'Past five in the morning. He had now traced the e ; il t r,se of legislation on this subject from 1802 till 1831. s „ nr year 1833, the Noble Lord, the Member for Dor- Jl`shire, introduced for the first time his proposition for 4 ,7 t ,oing the hours of labour, in the shape of a Bill, '11; 11e ,Plg the time of labour from twelve hours to ten. 'Malt of labour before that was always twelve hours, IA it was never sought to be altered till the Noble brcl introduced his measure. In 1833, he (Sir James , ho „ 1 !'n?) had the honour of being in the councils of ' Majesty, together with Lord Spencer, a most humane 1 ) 11, and one on whom the statements of the Noble th :u were lik e ly t o p ro d uce a grea t impression, yet tkY thought it their duty to resist that motion, and in ti l 'g so Mr. Poulett Thomson urged the very argu-. th e4 t . which he (Sir J. Graham) addressed to the House „ last time the subject was discussed ; he pointed out tuillat though the Noble Lord's intention was humane— hiiiugh the facts he stated were most distressing—yet, , n g a dispassionate view of the policy the Noble r u wished to introduce, considering its bear isg • between the employer and the employed, a united Government they said this propo -,1 must be resisted. It would not be expedient 'race the cour s e of a ll th e l eg i s l a ti on on this subject 1833. He might add, however, that the Act of 0 33 placed silk manufactories on the same footing as t 'Ve of cotton, wool, and flax. In the following year to ill was brought in by Mr. Hindley and Mr. Brother yen, which Mr. Hobhouse again, on the part of the Go ,oernmen t, apposed. The measure made no progress in that li r 3i ° ll , and was not renewed in the following one. In 1836 to • P. Thomson with the support of Lord John Rus ", introduced a Bill to amend and explain the Factory t at of 1823. This measure repealed that part of the St:tute which permitted children between the ages of th e lve and thirteen to work for twelve hours a day; th er e was a division, and he (Sir James Grahatn), eugh opposed to the Government, voted with th e Majority, but that majority was so small thuat it was thought advisable not to press t 411. In 1838, the Honourae Member t ( h 4. Taunton brought in a Bill whic bl h provided ti 14 Children not more than nine years of age should not 12 ` ) r i l l c more than twelve hours a day, still keeping the ours as a limit. In 1839 the Factory Bill was again h ro duced, still keeping twelve hours as the number of b o urs to work ; there was a Committ ee o n th e Bill, and ' 1.(1 Ashley moved that the blank in the clause should ei .ulled up with the words fifty-eight instead of sixty ,ppt, this being practically a reduction of the hours nic iabour from twelve hours to ten. He could not state qu ire forcibly the objections to this proposal, than by I . , o () ting the words of the Noble Lord the Member for i,, 1140 0, who said, " It seems to me that the Noble 1 5 , 1 4 has not answered the question of the Hon. Mem for Wolverhampton, whether, having reduced the t g A lrs of labour, he could provide at the same time that t , e Stine remuneration should be given for those short th e hours of labour." That was exactly the objection to th e Proposition at present; if the operatives believed that i t e Y would get twelve hours' wages for ten hours' work, 1: 84 a delusion so gross that the Government was i f, lind to exercise its care not to adopt any measure 11 1 11 „ tic ied on such false expectations. The Noble Lord Its -4 went on to say, "Does he carry his principle so far fiX the rate of wages by law ? If he means to do ' t he Committee must know the impossibility of such e b,nrse ; instead of the proposition being one ounlanity, it would be one of great in g:lnanity. He must, therefore, resist it." The ,‘ltiority in that Committee against the proposal as 94 to 62, and he (Sir James Graham) voted in that ),4 % . l t ) rity with the following gentlemen—Sir G. Grey, 1 4 1 7 Hawes, Sir J. Hobhouse. Lord Howick, Mr. t 4 uoUchere, Lord Morp e th, M r . F ox M au l e , w h o w as s: of the tellers, and, lastly, he had great pleasure in (4 l og on that occasion with Lord John Russell.— ( 1 4 e ar, hear.) In 1841 anoth er F ac t or y Bill was intro e(l, but the law, as it at present stood, had existed for 40,/ears, had been confirmed bysix or seven Parliaments, in all the me asures i n t ro d uce d on th e su bj ec t th ere 1i 4 4 , (1 . been an uniform adherence to twelve hours as the b e to the ti me o f labour. The Noble Lord the Mem r for Dorsetshire had quoted evidence from the Re ilt}rts of Mr. Saunders, showing that twelve hours of fi 'our was too long, but he believed he would not 11(4'ner evidence to that effect in the Report of Mr. th e He (Sir James Graham) had distinctly put th at question to these gentlemen, whether they believed i n ;: t a tell-hours' Bill would be beneficial to manufactur leratives, and they were of opinion that such a Bill Ou • li e have the worst effect upon them.—(Hear, hear.) tOras aware that the Noble Lord had influential au , ta li 'l e in support of his proposition, but the matter 1 1 4, 1 , 1 ' decided on reasoning, and he could not persuade 1 1 , 0 elf that anything had fallen from those authorities the arguments with which he had met the Nt .. 7e Lord. The Honourable Member for the p rn "' .., ' Riding of Yorkshire stated that the 01,- Hers was very generally assented to by the mill -o.ers of the West Riding ; but those null . o a r ' s were mostly engaged in the simpler manufacture 41 .0 01 in it s earlier stages; their workmen were paid t& the Piece; and, provided they supplied the demand of i kt tr customers, the period of labour was to them a thZer of comparative indifference. But if they went to as who were engaged in the more expensive stages of shillafacture, with more expensive and complex ma thellerY, in which greater capital was invested, there 0 1 , 1 3 Would find no great desire on the part of the /44 4 per manufacturer to limit the hours of labour to ten. tl ec tY-niae out of every hundred would have no 8 8 I t ! to make the change.—(Cries of "No, no.") 6,-"a 8 Perfectly dispassionate, and he wished to make N 7 a rt e lf master of all the facts, for this was a most im or` Pt question: He would most gladly avail himself th e - , 6 e1l hours' Bill if he considered that it would be for tq l aterests of th e wor ki ng p eo pl e of the country to do tos t. l le Hon. Gentleman opposite, who was well known tl k ' l ls humanity, and for the interest which he took in o t w elfare of his workmen, was obliged to avail himself !a ro. " privilege of the law. This arose entirely from • It, Pe t, ition. There was an overwhelming necessity for let - " t ell he could not escape. The Noble Lord oppo (%Ttould allow him to proceed step by step. When he 4% 3 ,1. Graham) last spoke on the subject, he did not ikt : g at Machinery should be replaced in sixteen years, G et ;;; twelve or thirteen years. (The Right Honourable laaileraan then quoted from Mr. Horner's report, in Which stated, that the work of machinery was so % — i and improvements in it so constant, that it should -Pled within 12 or 13 years, in order to re „'lle capital with ordinary interest of stock.) Ik e ,./: r oposition of his Noble Friend would abridge, by tat e ,,l l3( tb,_ the operations by which that machinery, with to ti,' S t of stock, was restored. He said he would advert kr er e °lily means of escape open to master manufac• I %4_if the present amendment were passed. He was ta ltt ea that in the present state of the labour market ter manufacturers would be able, under ex gait" circumstances, and at the present moment, to to t i:Ler their losses from themselves, the stronger party, Llabourers, who were the weaker .—( Hear, hear.) 11 ,,ee es ' 1 „ ° Use, he knew, disliked calculations, but it would be lo t ,,: a rY for him to enter into the facts, and he hoped the L`,,would give him its attention while he did so. Hor4l,l4lB'q quoted in a former debate the ',opinion 'of Mr. n er z--and he still believed that opinion to be true 44ftt" the present state of the cotton and worsted ma tlttee,tores, the effect of this measure would be to re- Plas„,., b Y 25 per cent., the wages of the operatives em it, v wh at those manufactures.—(Hear, hear.) Let wh ltt e oserve if that were the state of the case, , lah ou ' r w ,,, ?uld be the effects of this amendment upon the ', l leh d ','? whose comfortable position he heard with Ott% Bright detailed by the Hon. Member for Durham ea oh.riitit). The Hon. Gentleman stated that work javesit; Rayed on his own property received, on an thi, 93 a year. Now, considering that he was right "ouhi :,'tatement, the effect of the present proposition 9 4 ' O , that those families who were now in receipt Ntr,) 4 ,„ Year would have only 701. a year.—(Hear, tot b e Therefore a more important proposition could_ Whi ch 4, cussed. All that' he would ask on the part of ',hi s f,"ent was, that they would adhere to the law w ho l imited limited the hOurs of labour to twelve. They 4 t.W 14 111 derstand those matters in all their bearings. 4 ° ' ev er t he duty of every Member to consider them, and PoblibY„Government, more es p ec i a lly, o n w hom the re 4n.th,,„_"itY of their effects would rest, to reflect deeply (Hear, hear.) This was not a case for catch \vitt. Passi n (10 th e f .g Popularity. That was nothing compared h h rightful responsibility which attached to it, 4ar.) e l i t) It might be ruin to the country.—(Hear, bid' with .e could not contemplate it, feeling as he he ln to :hare horrornothing should induce v,Rged th r e in that responsibility.—(Hear, hear.) He which he e attention of the House to the arguments by w: 44 ur e hoped to prove that the inevitable effect of this ea stes 0 1 - ti Zuld be a reduction of 25 per cent. on the e operatives employed. He would take one w 'e w as °fled in Mr. Horner's report of 1842. One a s t o be e c ll_ °ugh to exhibit the argument. The case , th e m iyund in rage 79 of the report. He would est er, w ‘' l a;sure by the case of a cotton mill in Man , .th! Pou 4d. 1 1 ,employed 520 hands, spinning fifty hanks th' e oagh the le would not weary the House with going r e wa , _ _items of the fixed capital ; suffice it to say au 'eafted capital to the amount of 8,914/. The total p oti .er th e , T °um during which the operatives wor k e d to 4104 present law in a week was 69. By the pro aiXtv „ 11 's Noble Friend the hours would be reduced vfas nine hours less than they *ere at present—there would be a loss to the ,manufacturer by the hour, which was calculated at 2/.165. 10d. Now, if this 2/. 16s. 10d. were multiplied by 9, it would giva 25/. ns. 6d., and this would be the loss of capital to the manufacturer in a week. In • his establishment 170 operatives were employed at 15s. a week, and 250 at 10s. The weekly wages paid in the mill amounted to 127/. 10s. for the 170 workers at 155., and 1251. for the 250 at lOs , making a total of weekly wages. to the amount of 252/. 10s. He had already stated that 251. 1 Is. Gd. was the weekly loss, therefore the interest of the capital bore to the weekly *ages the proportion that 25/. lls. Gd. bore to 252/. l Os , which was about one-twelfth of the weekly wages. There could, therefore, be no ques tion that if twelve hours' wages could be made by ten hours' work, they must admit than a reduction of wages would be commensurate with the reduction of time, ..nd master manufacturers would reduce the wages 1-6th. He said one-sixth, but he would not take so high a cal culation. He would take the positive reduction of the wages at one-seventh. He had shown that the loss of capital from the reduction of the time by nine hours was one-twelfth; and if one-seventh were added to one twelfth, the loss would be nineteen eighty-fourths on the whole, or less than one-fourth, but considerably more than one-fifth. He did not know that he had made himself clearly understood to the Committee.— (Hear, hear.) He believed the calculation was perfectly accurate, and he was not able to discover any fallacy in it.—(Hear.) It was, he believed, a fair calculation, and if that were so, it proved that the inevitable conse quence of passing the Noble Lord's proposition in the present state of the commercial world, at least in the cotton and worsted manufactures, would be a reduction of wages less than one-fourth but greater than one-fifth. He was bound to call the attention of the House to mat ters of this kind. He begged to call the attention of the House to the opinion of Mr. Poulett Thomson, a gen tleman who ought to be of some authority with gentle men opposite.—(Hear hear.) He said, " It would be better to have a duty of 2d. per pound imposed on the raw cotton, than that an abridgement of the hours of labour from twelve to ten hours should be carried into law." The loss which it would occasion to the master mauufacturer would amount to 1001. a week. The Honourable Member for Salford, when they proposed to reduce the working hours of young persons from 13 to 12, took occasion to taunt the Government with breaking the engagements made under the measure of 1833. It was an arrangement; and he only asked the Committee to maintain the com promise entered into between the manufacturing inte rest and the advocates of a Ten Hours' Bill. That was a settlement which ought not to be disturbed.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Warburton) . put irresistibly the statement which he (Sir J. Graham) made the other night, that the-conclusion of his Noble Friend was at variance with his facts. (Hear, hear.) His Noble Friend made a statement with regard to collieries and mines, similar to that which he made in proposing the present amendment, but his conclusion was different; for in the former case he proposed that females- and children under twelve years of age should be prevented from working in mines altogether, but he shrank from coming to that con clusion in the present case.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord the Member for South Lancashire felt the force of this. If this were a matter of feeling he would go along with his Noble Friend's proposition, but when be con sidered the state of the manufacturing population— assuming that he was right in his calculation that if this Bill passed the wages of both males and females would be reduced 25 per cent.—he was bound to ask himself the question, " Shall we limit labour to an extent which will reduce it from twelve to ten hours. under the certain evil that it will reduce the wages of women, and children, and husbands 25 per cent.?"— (Hear, That was the balance of disadvantage. He was persuaded that this would be the ease with all the certainty that he would be persuaded of a mathe matical truth, In his opinion a measure more fatal to morality, and to all the decencies of civilised life, could not be adopted. The Noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, declared his object was to equalise the distri bution of labour. He said he desired to place factory labour on the same footing with other kinds of labour throughout the country. That was an ominous warn ing. —(Hear, hear.) This was but a small step ; and, by and bye, steps would be taken to deal with the whole labour of the country.—(Hear, hear.) A more disastrous course of legislation could not be entered on.—(Hear, hear. But, setting aside that view of the question, he begged to ask whether the tendency of their legislation was to equalise the distribution of labour ?—(Hear, hear.) He would ask any gentleman conversant with the manufacturing districts whether, though to a certain extent by their legislation of 1830 they had secured young persons against excessive la bour, that legislation had the effect so much desired by the Noble Lord the Member for Liverpool?—(Hear, hear.) It had a directly opposite effect, and unless the House was prepared to go the whole length of dealing with every species of labour, it could not be otherwise. With regard to children, it had the effect of driving them from employments which their legislation controlled to employments to which it did not extend.—(Hear.) He understood that 35,000 children under the age of thirteen were employed in the printing of cotton. The effect of interfering by legislation to shorten the time of labour, and to prevent women and children from working, would be to produce a congestion of labour where they had not legislated.—(Hear, hear.) He had gone into the subject more fully than he intended, but he wished to show that her Majesty's Govern ment did not desire to resist the wishes of a large portion of the labouring classes with out full deliberation—without duly considering the reasons on which they acted, and on which several suc cessive Governments had acted.—(Hear, hear.) He would conclude with a few general observations. In politics, as well as in morals, there was a retributive justice inherent in the order of affairs, clearly percep tible in matters of Government, and he had never yet seen a wide departure from the principles of sound le gislation without, sooner or later, producing confusion. —(Opposition cheers.) Yes, inextricable confusion.— (Renewed cheers.) They might taunt him. He cared not for those taunts. He was decidedly of opinion that such a departure .from sound legislation would create and must end in a labyrinth of error, out of which there would be no escape.—(Opposition cheers.) It would in the long run produce evils, formidable evils, which it would be difficult, if not impossible to regulate at all, but particularly difficult to regulate for those whom it was intended to benefit.—(Hear, hear.) He begged particularly to impress upon the Committee, that it they increased the stringency of certain restric tions, the inevitable consequence would be, that they must relax others of a countervailing nature.—(Opposition cheers.) This was a highly artificial system.—(Hear, hear.) It was like a house of cards, from which if one was taken, the whole tumbled down. It was a system which, if they touched, he was afraid evils would be created, which he did not wish to contemplate. Sir GEORGE GREY rose to explain. The Right Hon. Baronet had charged him with . inconsistency with regard to this question, because he had voted differently in 1839. He thought the Right Hon. Baronet ought himself to show charity in bringing against him a charge of inconsistency.—(Cheers and laughter.) But it should be recollected that this was a subject on which they had obtained a great deal of new information — (Hear, hear)— and no regard for consistency would in duce him to reject the light of that information. — (Hear, hear.) He recollected that the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, and the Right Hon. Gentleman the Paymaster of the Forces, had voted with him on that occasion, and he was very anxious to see how they should regard their consistency.—(Laughter.) Mr. M`Geachy and Mr. Labouchere rose together, but the latter gave way, and Mr. M`GEACH,Y addressed the House. He com menced by saying that the Noble Lord who introduced the present amendment gave an example that a public man could pursue a great public benefit through life.— (Hear, hear.) It had excluded the Noble Lord from office, because he would not accept office, lest it might stand in the way of that entire self-devotion with which he gave himself up to the pursuit of his high and noble objects.—(Hear, hear.) He thought a Ten Hours Bill had great claims upon the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, for a Ten Hours' Bill was in troduced by the late Sir Robert Peel, and the principle was always warmly advocated by him. The present Government had come into power upon the shoulders of the people, and he (Mr. M'Geachy) appealed to the House whether they had shown any attention to the wants of the people. Had they done so, they might have remained one of the strongest Governments that ever existed. Although he did not com plain of their conduct with respect' to the Factories Bill of the last session, considering the bigotry which was shown respecting it by the Dissenters, yet he could not help thinking that a bolder course might have been adopted. From the time of the passing of the Catholic Emancipation Act and the Reform Bill, when a Minister did not think it inconsistent with his duty to receive a deputation of 150,000 persons belonging to political unions, to the time of the Chartist insurrections, —from that time to the present, redress of grievances had only been consequent upon agitation. Agitation had always preceded redress.—(Cheers from the Oppo sition.) He thought the time was now come when the' truth should be spoken. This country bad gone upon the principle of amassing wealth, but the condition of the labouring population had not been considered. He hailed the proposition of the Noble Lord with satisfac tion. It was a step in the right direction. So long as the the present system existed—so long would there be discontent among the people.—(Hear.) What, after all, was it that was asked ? Why it was merely to reduce the hours of labour in the manufac turing districts to the usual period in other districts. lie did not believe this would have the effect of reducing the wages of the operatives, and in this opinion he was borne out by many practical men.--(Hear, hear.) It was said that those who wished to abridge the period of labour wished to diminish the comforts of the poor. He did not think such would be the effect of the Noble Lord's (Lord Ashley's) proposition. Previous restric tions upon labour had not proved injurious to the into rests of the labourers. The Hon. Member then quoted from the report of Baron Dupin, a Member of the French Chamber of Peers, who approved of restric tions upon labour. He disapproved of the employment of children in factory labour, as he thought it injurious to their constitutions. He would feel it his painful duty to vote against the measure brought forward by the Government. Mr. LABOUCHERE said he never rose to address the House with feelings of greater fear and anxiety. It was painful to him to separate himself from those with whom he was accustomed constantly to act ; but when he saw the Government pursuing a course which he sincerely approved he could not shrink from giving them all the assistance in his power.—(Cheers.) The Right Honourable Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had divided his speech on 'that question into two distinct portions. The first portion consisted of a lengthened appeal to the consistency of those who sat on that side of the House, and especially of ,those who composed the late cloYern mont. He confessed that if the argument of con, i,tency was the only one which he had t urge, he would throe that argument to the winds.—(liear, hear.) If subse quent information bad convinced him that he had formerly acted wrong, La should feel it his bounden duty not to shrink from avowing that he had changed his opinion. This question had been discus , ed over and over again in the House of Commons ; it had been repeatedly examined in Committees and by Com missioners appointed for the purpose, and they had all uniformly recoiled from the measure which his Noble Friend the Member for Dorsetshirt recommended to the House.(Hear, hear.) The point before them was a very simple one ; it was as important as it was simple. It was the point which was commonly designated the Ten Hours' Bill. The question was nominally, whether they would take the step of restrict ing the hours of labour for young women to ten hours. but practically and really the proposal was to limit the working of the factories to those hours.—(Hear, hear.) To that proposal the Legislature had hither refused to accede. Some Hon. Gentlemen, in arguing this ques tion, had said in effect, " We are in a new and untrod den path ; we have sanctioned interference with factory labour, and having done that we cannot go on too ra pidly." He confessed that he drew a very different conclusion.—(Hear, hear.) Believing that they were treading in a very perilous path he was anxious that they should walk in such a path with great caution.—(Hear, hear.) It was not enough to ask him whether it was right that a woman or a young person should be employed fur twelve hours a. day in a factory. He was prepared at once to say, he wished to God they could prevent it.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) It he could view the case as an isolated one, unconnected with consequences, no one could be more anxious than himself for the proposed alteration. Bat that was not the sole question before them —(Hear, hear.) In all human things good and evil were mixed together ; and, as legislators, they would act a most unwise, and a most narrow part, nay, they would act in opposition to the interests of those whom they wished to benefit, if they did not pause before they came to a decision. Honourable Gentlemen asked, what was the great difference between ten hours and twelve; and they reminded them that in the Factory Bill, which had passed through that House, they had already li mited the period of labour to twelve hours. Now he would state why, in his judgment, they had acted on safe grounds in the course they had hitherto pursued, and why he thought that the course now pursued was one of peril. He believed that when.inquiry was first instituted in 1833, it was found that all well conducted factories in this country were not worked practically more that twelve hours a day. If that were the case, so long as they did not interfere with that arrangement, any other regulations which they might adopt were likely, impera tively speaking, to be safe. What did they do under those circumstances ? They applied their care princi pally to children, and they regulated the hours of labour in such a manner as to oblige the manufacturers to adapt their work to the twelve hours' system. By doing that they had doubtless, to a certain degree, raised the charges upon the manufacturer, but still they never in terfered with the possibility of his working his mill for twelve hours.—(Hear, hear.) He maintained that this was a very important distinction.—(Hear, hear.) They could not confine their views to this country alone in discussing that subject ; they must look abroad.— (Hear, hear.) The measure which they were now discussing was to apply chiefly to those vast and important branches of their manufac tures which depended for their existence upon the export trade, which were subject in every instance, and at every step, to a very close competition with fo reign rivals. And what was the case with regard to the foreign manufacturers ? lie apprehended that at that moment there was not a country in this world where cotton manufactures were established, in which the common period of working was not twelve hours a-day, and generally more.—(" No, no," from Lord Ashley.) His Noble Friend the Member for Dorsetshire expressed his incredulity on that subject. He would be glad to hear from him if in any country in the world there was a law which prohibited mills from being worketl more than twelve hours a-day-?—(flear, hear.) He would be glad to hear him mention any country in which the mills were not actually worked twelve hours. He would refer to one country—a very important manu facturing country—a country which, with respect to the cotton trade, was one of our most dangerous rivals—he meant the United States of America; and he selected that country the more readily, because it was one in which the competition was not so intense as to drive the population to subject themselves to intolerable la bour. What was the state of the cotton manufactories of that country? He begged to quote the evidence of a very respectable gentleman in America connected with the cotton manufacture. He was asked what was the number of daily working hours, and his answer was, " The actual number of working hours averages twelve hours work at some seasons, at some seasons it is nearly fourteen, and at other seasons it is little more than ten." —(Hear, hear.) Now he thought that the House would at once perceive that they were taking a much more dangerous step in reducing the hours from twelve to ten than they had taken formerly in reducing them to twelve. They were going on quite a new ground—a ground quite different from' that which they had oc cupied in preventing infant labour from being unneces sarily severe and burdensome.—(Hear, hear.) He would not trouble the House by entering into the details of this question, which had already been so ably dealt with by his Right Hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham). It was quite evi dent that the effect of the Noble Lord's proposal would be a material diminution of wages.—(Hear, hear.) No one who had any acquaintance with the manufacturing districts would undervalue this effect.—(Hear, hear.) The seasons when distress and famine stalked abroad in our manufacturing districts, were not seasons of over work, but seasons when there was a difficulty in obtain ing employment. It was then that disease was rife, and crime was found to abound.—(Laughter.) And if, by the mistaken legislation of that House, they should pro duce a real and permanent stagnation of the trade of this country, they would inflict far more misery in a week than they were now seeking to rem e dy.—(H ear . Th e y were told, to be sure, that manufacturers had always shown a great disposition to amendment, and that this was a reason for adopting the Noble Lord's proposal. Why, manufacturers were, he imagined, much like other people; nobody liked to be interfered with if they pos sibly could avoid it.—(Laughter.) He admitted that the apprehensions which the manufacturers had formerly expressed with regard to the Factory Bill had proved to be unfounded; but he did not think that they ought on that account entirely to disregard their representations, especially if, on examination, they proved to be founded on reason. He could not join his Hon. Friend, the Member for Kendal, in regretting that Parliament had ever undertaken to regulate factory labour; on the con trary, he thought that experience had shown that they had conferred most important benefits on the youthful population in the manufacturing districts by Parliamentary interference; and he believed that even the manfacturers themselves who had been most opposed to the change, were now convinced that such was the case. But with regard to the effect which their interference might produce on foreign countries, it was highly important in his opinion that they should not take any rash or precipitate step.—(Hear, hear.) If they saw them crippling their manufactures by unwise and hasty legislation, it was very unlikely that they would follow them in the same course.—(Hear, hear.) Though the circumstance of great masses of people being there congregated together gave facilities for the regula tion of labour in factories, yet there were circumstances connected with factory labour which ought to make them particularly cautious, and which ought to prevent them from pushing the principle of interference to an unwise and dangerous extreme.—(Hear, hear.) He did not wish to introduce into that discussion any question which might interfere with the dispassionate considera tion of this subject ; but there was one point involved in that question, to which, from its importance, he could not omit alluding. They had in this country established a protective system ; in various ways, he would not then say whether wisely or unwisely, successfully or unsuccessfully, they had protected various interests But there was one thing which they could not protect, and that was their export trade. He warned the House that if they adopted this proposal—if they entered upon this new course of legislation, they would have to adopt many other measures, or else see a degree of ruin and misery inflicted on various great interests in this country, which it was lamentable to contemplate. He would not follow the. Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir James Graham) in his description of the effect which the adop tion of the motion of his Noble Friend must inevitably have, first upon the wages of the labourer, then upon the profits of the manufacturer, and, lastly, upon the general trade and industry of the country. But he found the effect so clearly and ably stated in the Report of the Commissioners in 1833, that he would take the liberty of reading a very striking, passage to the House. (The Right Hon. Gentleman then read an extract from the Report. It stated, that if the ten hours' system were enforced, there might, indeed, be a temporary scarcity of manufactured goods, so as, in the first instance, to occasion a rise of prices, which might, as long as it lasted, allow of the main tenance of wages ; but this result could not in the nature of things be of long duration ; the small factories would soon be swept away and the more opulent would even tually share the same fate ; the ultimate result would be a general recuction of wages.) In this the whole case was so clearly, though so shortly, stated, that he would be unwilling to weaken its effect by adding to it any arguments of his own. He knew that those who took the course which he was taking might possibly be charged with inconsistency. He had cheerfully consented to interfere with labour under certain circumstances. He thought cases might' be brought before the House, so revolting, so shocking, so out traging to the common feelings of human nature, that he would listen to no arguments against alteration, but, rather acting from impulse than reason, he would feel sure that he was right in putting an end to such abomi nations.— (Hear, hear.) ' With that view he had sup ported the measure of his Noble Friend the Member for Dorsetshire last year, prohibiting the employment of women and girls in mines. He had never regretted having done so, and he believed that he never would regret the course which he had pursued in reference to that question. But he could not but feel that there was the greatest danger, if they did not look well and cir cumspectly to consequences, that, with the best inten tions in - the world, they might strike a blow at the ma nufacturing interests of this country, and thereby inflict injury on the working classes generally.— (Hear, hear.) On these grounds he was pre pared to offer all the opposition in his power to the motion of his Noble Friend ; and he was prepared to share with the Government the odium and unpopularity which might attach to such opposition. He had seen no reason, from what he had heard on that debate, to alter the opinions which he had hitherto entertained ; he felt bound, therefore, to give a decided vote against the proposal of the Noble Lord.— (Cheers.) Mr. COLQUHOUN said it was no easy matter to meet authorities so great and arguments so strong as those w hi c h h a d been urged against the proposal of the. Noble Cord ; but he could not help referring to the argument ,f his Right Hon. Friend that a blow was about to be Amick at our manufactures which would affect the profits Of the manufacturer and the wages of the labourer. It t as, he thought, a remarkable circumstance that so manufacturers should petition for that Which, according to the Right Hon. Gentleman, would be so injurious to , heir interests. To escape from the pressure of this trgument, his Wght Hon. Friend threw himself back upon a distinction. He said that the petitions in favour of the proposal of the Noble Lord represented only the woollen manufactures; they did not represent cotton and other manufactures, which were produced by a finer and more costly machinery. Amongst the three hundred manufacturers who petitioned in favour of the measure of his Noble Friend, there were one hundred engaged in the manufacture of the finer sorts, which required the most costly materials.—(llear, hear.) He had asked a -*riend, who sat now within two of him, and who repro iented a district in which only the finest sorts were manufactured, what did they do in his place? and his answer was, that they had always limited the time of work to ten hours a-day.--( Hear, hear.) This was a proof hat the limitation proposed could be effected , without in c, iurin the capitalits, without suffering to the labourer, and with 'benefit to both.—(Hear.) His Right Hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham) had referred to the calculations of Mr. Horner as proofs against the Bill. Mr. Horner was an inspector, of very great intelligence and respectability. But he (Mr. Colquhoun) had inquired of an inspector, of equal respectability with Mr. Horner, and was as sured that the calculations of that gentleman were er roneous.—(Hear, hear.) That was an authority quite equal to that which his Right Hon. Friend relied on; and he (Sir J. Graham) had, therefore, not made out his case. The operatives were not unaware of what the ,ffeets of the measure would be upon themselves; 'and they said that they preferred to have no more wages than 751. or 791. a year, with which they would enjoy some daily relaxation, and preserve the bloom and vi vacity of their children, to 9:3/. a year with the long hours and intolerable toil.—(Hear, hear.) They said that they had rather do without those simple luxuries of which the Hon. Member for Durham spoke, than continue the system of slavery which caused paleness and deformity in the child, and premature decrepitude and old age in the adult. When he (Mr. Colquhoun) formerly opposed this . measure, he had not that experience which now compelled him to change his mind. His Noble Friend.did not propose to bring the Bill at once into operation, but by a safe and sound gradation, so as to enable them to stop its progress if it were found to work disadvantageously.—(Hear.) His Right Hon. Friend had told the House that he was willing to prohibit the labour-of women of any age in .any employment more than twelve hours a day. But that enactment took place in factories (as we under stood) in the year 1833, and it had not been found to produce the evils which were professed to be appre hended from it. He (Mr. C.) found that in all depart ments of agricultural labour, the hours of work were limited to ten a day, and that was found to be as mueh as the human frame could support. He was satisfied by his own experience and observation, as well as by the sound reasoning and humanity by which this Bill was supported, of the justice of 'the measure, and he would give it his cordial support.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. FIELDEN then rose, and for some minutes ad dressed the Committee in a tone utterly inaudible, amidst repeated cries of " Speak up, speak up." He was understood to say, that he had no fear that the measure would disturb manufactures. The im pression upon his own mind was that the factories could not go on with twelve hours a day. If they looked back to the last ten years, how many factories would they find had been stopped altogether for a month in that pe riod, and how many more had worked only half hours ? —(Hear.) Would it not be better to equalise the dis tribution of labour, and to go on regularly with the short hours as they were called, but which were quite as long as the people could work without injuring themselves and their families?—(Hear, hear.) But, in fact, this was made a question of money against mercy, The sufferings of the people were made a secondary consideration. — (Cheers.) The Right Hon. Baronet told them that it was wrong to legislate on this question. What ! was it wrong to legislate for the protection of life and limb, and property ?—(Cheers.) They expressed sympathy with the poor people, but they told them at the same time that they could do nothing for them—(Hear)—and con tinued to keep them in the abject slavery which was destroying the people of this country.—(Hear, hear.) They were bringing up a race of human beings, whom, by-and-bye, they would not be able to govern. The people felt that they received no svm pathy from the Legislature. They sucked in hatred for the Legislature with their mother's milk—they saw it in her eyes—they heard it from her lips. He told them that he was not for a Ten Hours' Bill—he was for an Eight Hours' Bill.—(Cheers.) The manufacturing com munity would never be what it ought to be until the hours were reduced to that.—(Hear, hear.) It had been asked, would they not go to some other employment ? What ! were there not domestic employments ? Was there not the education of their children ?—(Hear, hear.) Twelve hours were too 'much for adult or child. (The Hon. Gentlemen then proceeded to refer to a measure for abridging labour in factories, introduced by the late Sir Robert Peel, and he was understood to infer from it that Sir Robert was in favour of eight hours ; but from the lowness of the Hon. Gentleman's tone we could guess but vaguely at the tonour of his observations.) He held in his hand a petition signed, in July last, by thirty-two delegates of the working men employed in the mills and manufactories for thirty miles round Man chester, and a meeting for a similar purpose had, he be lieved, been recently held at Bury. These thirty-four delegates, representing this mass of human industry, had unanimously agreed to submit to that House that nothing would be efficient or satisfactory unless they prohibited working for a longer period than ten hours per day for five days in the week, and eight hours for the Saturday. They had further agreed that no child should be employed until it had completed its tenth year. These delegates had determined that until these propositions became the law of the land, there could be no satisfactory solution of this question. Now, there was the opinion of the working people upon this ques tion. They understood the subject as well as any Hon. Member of that House ; and as to what had been said about a reduction of wages consequent upon a reduction of the hours of labour, they were willing to take the risk of that.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Dur ham had said a great deal about this question of wagei, and had brought forward a great heap of calculations of his own, but all his statements amounted to nothing— all he had said was delusion.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Not merely the operatives of Rochdale, Manchester, and Oldham, but many of the largest mill-owners, men of probity, and property, and talent, were now strongly in favour of a Ten Hours' Bill. Nearly all of them were anxious for it, and very many of them had signed a document to that effect.—(Hear, hear.) Aye, and amongst the number who had thus signed it were to be found the names of Mr. Bright., sen., and Mr. Bright, jun., the father and the brother of the Hon. Member for Durham, but he supposed the last-named gentleman had latterly become more enlightened than his two es teemed and talented relatives. The lion. Gentleman concluded his speech, which throughout by far the greater portion of it was quite inaudible in the gallery, by stating (as we understood) that he would support the motion of the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Ashley). Sir R. PEEL said he thought the Committee would give him credit for disinterestedness in opposing his Hon. and Learned Friend. No personal or party interest could be attributed to the Government in the course they were about to take. It was impossible not to see, in the progress of this debate, that the Government were opposing those who generally supported them, and in whose principles they generally coincided, and that they were supported by Hon. Members who on most occasions opposed them. The first duty of the Govern ment was to overcome the danger of gaining party sup port, or conciliating t em po ra ry popular favour by i acquiescing n the proposition which they conscientiously believed to be injurious to the permanent interest of the country. And influenced by that motive, and that alone, they must now oppose the proposition of the Noble Lord. There were two propositions before the House—a proposition made by the Government, which imposed a restriction on the labour of children, gave new facilities for those who had not an opportunity of protecting themselves, which arrested the evil where it was found of the employment of female labour, prohi bited the employment of females in factories for more than twelve hours a day, but imposed no restrictions upon the labour of adults, finding twelve hours to be their general time of labour. The counter proposition to that was a restriction nominally imposed on the la bour of females and children, but practically preventing the labour of male adults for longer periods than twelve hours. The Hon. Gentleman who spoke last declared that the Noble Lord had not based his proposition upon principle—he admitted the propriety of re straining female labour for the purposes of education and recreation ; but the Hon. Gentleman added that eight hours would have been more in accordance with principle. He said that poets and philoso phers had divided the day into three compart meats of eight hours each, eight for labour, eight for sleep, and eight for recreation ; and he con fessed he did not see that the Noble Lord acted upon any fixed principle. The Noble Lord's proposition would apply to cotton, woollen, flax, and silk manufac tures. For the last forty years the general rule of labour was sixty-nine hours a week ; that was the number of hours tolerated by the law, and now it was demanded that the hours of labour should be lessened. Mr. HINDLEY—The number of hours during which the operatives are at present employed in the factories are sixtynine. Sir R. PEEL—I said sixty-ninse hours. That was twelve hours a day for five days in the week, and:nine hours on Saturday. Now the proposition of the Noble Lord was to limit the number of hours to fifty-nine ; and this restriction was to apply to the four great branches of domestic industry—cotton, woollens, linens, and silk. Let them take the foreign trade of the country from the last returns. The value of British produce and manufactures exported last year amounted t 044,500,000/. sterling. What proportion did they suppose the ma nufactures of cotton bore to this 44,000,000/.? Cotton manufactures, including yarns, amounted to 23,500,000/. ; linen, 4,500,000/., and woollens 7,600,000/., making a total of 35,000,000/. ? What would be the effect of the restrictions proposed by the Noble Lord ? There were about 300 working days in the year. Five days in the week the labour was to be two hours less than ut pre sent ; 250 of the 300 days the labour was to be reduced by two hours, or 500 hours in the course of the year. Five hundred hours were equivalent to seven w eeks. Now only think of the cotton mills and woollen factories of this country being idle for seven weeks in the year— seven weeks less labour than was at present performed ! How would this answer with their foreign rival ? Could they proscribe to him to work seven weeks less in the year ? The Honourable Gentleman said that" they had done more harm to manufacturers by allowing machinery to be exported, than they pus eibly could by limiting the number of the howl of I labour even to eight.. Was the Hon. Gentleman willing to bring in a Bill flyr the repeal of that Act ? Mr. HINDLEY—I objected to it. Sir R. PEEL—It would be very gratifying to the manufacturers to be told that the Hon. Gentleman had opposed the eish of both :Houses of Parliament —(A laugh.) The Hon. Gentleman said that, if the hours of labour were restricted, the wages of labour must be in creased. Why, surely that was the natural conse quence of restriction. The manufacturer might in crease his wages—but for how long a period?—(Loud cries of "Hear, bear.") When they entered into competition with a foreign rival, would not the increased expense of manufacture operate against them, and give a new stimulus to the foreigner? The fact was that the material would not be increased in price, and he would come into competition with the manufacturers of this country while the House would have raised the price of manufactures by their inter ference with labour.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentle man had described the master manufacturers as being in clined to reduce the wages of their workmen. That might be so, but he did not believe such was the case; but sup posing it to be so could it fsr one moment be supposed that for ten hours' labour as much wages would be given as for twelve ?—(Hear, bear.) It was repugnant to common sense to suppose snch a thing.—(Hear, hear.) There could be no doubt that the great suffersrs, if the present proposed measure was to pass, would be the workmen, who would have to give a less amount of labour than before. If he thought that that would add to the comfort of the workmen, he would at once adopt it.—(Hear, hear.) But when he heard the account given by the Hon. Member for Durham of the state of the workmen, when he stated that they were getting 93L a year, he felt bound to pause before he consented to a measure that would mulct them of a great part of the wages they now received.—(Hear, hear.) Then it was said that they ought to separate the consideration of the comforts of the people from pecuniary gain. How, he would ask, could that be done ?—(Hear, hear.) It was impossible. It was tried in Scotland, and what was the result? Why, he should never forget the state of Paisley some years ago, when no less than 50,000 persons were out of emp'oy there.— (Hear, hear.) If his wishes could prevail he would have women now working eight hours a day, but wishes could not prevail on this question. It must be looked to in a commercial point of view. It was impossible to say that they could disregard commerce and• consider humanity alone. If ten hours was the natural amount of labour, that might be true with a certain class of agricultural labourers, because at certain periods of the year women could not work more than ten hours a day on account of the night coming on. (Hear, bear.) He was sure that it was not for the ad vantage of the manufacturer or the working man that a Ten Hours' Bill should be passed. Why such a measure would impose an income• tax of 15 per cent. on labour, and it was his firm belief that the workmen themselves cherished a hope the measure would not pass into a law. He thought there never was an impression more errone ous than that by which the supporters of the Noble Lord were actuated. He would prove that there were other great manufacturing branches which required legislative restrictions quite as much as those contemplated by the present measure. He asked why, if a really tangible case was proved to exist, he should not correct- it because another existed ? He was sure that if he cor rected the evils existing in one branch of labour he would do harm if he left untouched any other. It had been said that after he had imposed restrictions on one description of labour, he was bound to do the same with re spect Ito others, or he should give a premium to those who were excepted, and also that he would disturb capital. What were those descriptions of employment which he left untouched ? The agricultural labourers. It was said he could not touch them. It was true if he could control those matters he would most willingly prohibit the employment of women in many of the agri cultural occupations in which they were at present em ployed—where women were employed working for eight or ten hours with wet raiment and without shelter, he would be disposed, provided he could do so without in jurieg any ether interest, to interfere legislatively. Now, he was about to leave untouched, according to Hon. Gentlemen opposite, all the other manufacturing inte rests. He shouldrefer to the manufacture of earthenware, of calico; hosiery, rope-twisting, but, above all, dress making—of all those he should say that he was not going to touch one. He was going to leave to the masters the employment of women and children in what manner they pleased. He thought if Hon. Gentlemen carefully read the Report of the Commissioners, they would con clude that, by any undue restrictions, so far as the cotton-manufacturers are concerned, they would be giving a premium to over-employment in other branches of manufactures. In that Report it was stated that in a great number of the dif- ferent manufactures which were not included in this Bill, almost the whole employed were women and children. It appeared from_the Report, that in the ma nufacture of metal wares women and children were em ployed to a great extent. In the manufacture of screws alone, it appeared that the proportion of females em ployed far exceeded that of the males. In one screw manufactory there were only 50 males employed, while there were 300 females. In the chain manufactories there were ten times' as many girls employed as there were men. He alluded to those Reports to show the extreme difficulty there was in legislating upon this subject, for if they said that all should be subject to the same law, then he would advise them to contemplate the results. Let them look to other manufactories where females were employed— let them take calico. In that branch there were by far more females employed than men. In the earthenware manufactories a vast number of children were employed, who were compelled, in the carriage of the plates and saucers to and from the furnace, to undergo a tempera ture of nearly 143 degrees, and (according to the Re port) the instances were rare in which the regular hours of work were less than twelve hours nominally, but some times it exceeded sixteen, seventeen, and eighteen hours —(Hear, hear)—and he was called on to restrain labour in cotton manufactories alone, while calico and the various others were to be left untouched ! He could not have credited it, without the strongest proof of its accuracy, that human nature could undergo such toil as that de scribed in the evidence given in that report. One per son, named Thomas Whitbread, stated that on a Wed nesday he began to work between eight and nine o'clock, and never stopped until Saturday. A boy who assisted him, from excessive fatigue, became almost insensible, and to enable him to carry on his work, he tied him to a post. The Right Hon. Baronet then read another extract from the evidence of a man employed in a cotton print. ing-works, who, having worked from six in the morn ing till nine at night, was asked by the foreman of the works if he could not return to work again at twelve. , Now, here was a case (continued the Right Hon. Baronet) in which the hours of work were from six o'clock till nine, and yet the man was asked to come again at twelve at night, thus allowing him only three hours' interval for repose. The man said, " I did not go, because I considered it rather unfeeling of them to expect me, as my child had worked with me all these hours, and he was only eleven years old." Now let them read the accounts of the lace manufactory; let them go from the lace manufactory to the accounts of the hosiery trade ; but, above all, let them read the accounts of the dress-makers and milliners who were employed in this very town—(Hear, Bear)—and then let him ask, was it right to subject to such new and peculiar restrictions the labour in factories, and leave untouched all other de partments of labour in which the female child and the adult woman were frequently employed fourteen, fifteen, and sixteen hours a-day ?—(Loud cheers.) If they were prepared to legislate for them—(Renewed cheers)—they would then be prepared to legislate on the labour in factories. They must not legislate for factory labour only, but for all the labour in this country that came within the same principle. (Hear, hear.) They were not about to legislate on the labour that af fected only women] and children, but to provide regulations which should apply to children, that should apply to adults, in respect of every kind of labour where they might think it more severe than the human frame ought justly to undergo. That principle he certainly could understand. If, then. this were the commencement of that work, he could not make an objection to it as being an unjust inter ference with a peculiar class of labour. But if, as it now seemed to, be, their impression, and perhaps a just one, that they were imposing these restrictions upon adult labour, they would engender the necessity of fur ther restrictions applicable to all labour—(Hear, hear) —and he saw not why they should not extend those restrictions to agricultural labour.—(Loud cheers.) Before he adopted a principle which necessarily led to such extensive consequences, namely, an invariable and almost universal interferefice with labour in this country —before he adopted this principle, although he admitted that an universality of application was not inconsistent with justice, as showing no preference of one deserip tion of labour to another, yet, foreseeing that he was involving himself in a duty he should never be able satisfactorily to perform— seeing that although it was possible perhaps to deal with the labour of factories, yet where he was called on to enter the pri vate shops, and the private houses, and to impose obli gations upon every individual, as to the degree of labour which he should impose, not upon 300 or 400 children, but upon every individual, as to the degree of labour he should impose upon the members of his family whom he employed—if he was to be involved in such a difficult, and, as he thought such a perilous enterprise— (Cheers)—if he was to understand that it would be his duty to prescribe by legislation, not only how long the steam-engine should work, but to inculcate to every pri vate establishment, and every private family, the duty of humanity by legislation—then he thought he should be involved in a task above all human strength, and full, as he believed, of individual injustice.—(Cheers.) His wishes and feelings would be as much in concurrence with effecting that object, as those of any man ; he should like to see the father more proud of the education, the instruction, and moral train ing of his child, than anxious to increase his earnings by his labour. Could lie effect that by law ? If they once undertook it, they must not be deterred by diffi culty in individual cases. The more he extended legis lation, if he went from factories to the potteries, from thepotteries to the manufacturing of hosiery, and from the hosiery trade to the lace manufactories—by that which he left incomplete, lie should give a fresh encou ragement to excessive labour. It was not the magnitude of great establishments only they had to contend with ; if they carried out the principle fully and fairly, they must descend to all the details of daily occupation? that was admitted. The principle of a due interference with labour involved that question. What, then, would be the effect on the general employmeut of the country from such interference? It was pregnant with most important consequences. After that legislation should have been carried into effect, see what other conse quences must follow. He believed that upon the whole they had attempted as much of legislation with these great branches of manufactures as it was safe and wise to attempt for the welfare of the country and the manufactures, but above all for the interests and the co mforti of the working classes, He believed they had done all they could safely attempt at the present tine. If he were to authorise the forcible restriction of labour to the extent P h : preventing the aclu't in cotton factories, in sill: ffictories, in the lace and woollen factories, to ten hours ; whatever his sympathies might be, whatever might be his feelings, he, with his colleagues, had no other motive than that of promot:ng what he believed most consistent with the public welfare; and acting, from that motive, he could not acquiesce in the proposal of his Noble Friend for forcibly limiting labour to the extent of ten hours in mills and factories. Lord J. RUSSELL said he had listened with great anxiety to the speech of the Right lion. Gentleman opposite ; there was never a question on which he felt it more difficult to come to a conclusion, or one the issue of which was more important. lie would not attempt to gire an answer to what the Right Hon. Baronet ( Sir 3. Graham) had laid some stress upon, as to his ( Lord J. Russell's) having taken a part on a former occasion inconsistent with his support of the present motion. He slid not think this was an opportunity to return any taunt what ever.— ( Sir James Graham intimated it was not meant as a taunt.) If it was not so meant he should certainly say, whatever might be the apparent inconsistency of taking that course, where the interest of so many thousands of the working classes was involved,he should be ashamed of himself were he not ready to expose himself to any charge of incon sistency., if he were persuaded that those interests would induce him to take one course now, rather than another that he had taken formerly. He was not satisfied with the statement, able as it was, of the Noble Lord, the Member for D rset. He was of opinion that the argument of the Noble Lord was liable to the reply of the Right lion. Gentleman, that the con clusion he ought to come to was, that women and children, at all events, should be totally excluded from working in factories, and that the system ought to be altered, if not abridged in es sential details. But he must say that the course which the discussion had taken, and the various speeches made by gentle men thoroughly acquainted with the details of the factory system, very much tended to clear the question of the difficulties in which the too comprehensive statement of the Noble Lord had in volved it. Let him consider fora moment what the amount of difference was in the proposition made by successive Govern ments, and that proposed by the present Government, and the course which the Noble Lord now proposed.,—( Hear, hear.) He must say that, listening to the Right Hon. Gentleman's Speech, and his arguments on the subject that night, he would suppose that he objected to any legislation on the subject.— ( Hear, hear.) When he told them that persons were employed for sixteen and eighteen hours iu calico•printing and in the manufacture of silk, it would be supposed that he was an enemy to all interference ; yet the Right Honourable Gen tleman himself proposed that the hours during which young persons should labour, should be limited to twelve. Let it be recollected likewise that they had limited the time of labour to eight hours for children between the ages of nine and thirteen, to twelve hours for young persons from thirteen to eighteen years. The Government were not satisfied with the extent of this limitation.—( Hear, hear.) They pro posed a still further restriction, limiting the time of labour to six and a half hours, for children from nine to thir teen years of age, and limiting, by a very important change in the law, the hours of labour for adult females. Now he must say that if a new principle was to be introduced, this was a very doubtful one.—( Hear, hear.) They gave some sanction to it by their legislation with regard to mines two years ago. It was no great encouragement to them to proceed in that course, if what had been told was true, that the Act was evaded in Scotland, and that women there dressed themselves as men to evade the Act. At all events it was a principle which it was very . difficult to justify. —( Hear, hear.) It was interfering with the natural guar dians of the children to prevent their being employed in a n anner destructive not only to health and life, but which pro duced contortions, deformity, decay, disease, and death at an early period. The Legislature undertook the charge of chil dren and y:our b -, persons, but with regard to females of 25 and 30 years of age, it seemed hard to justify a departure from the principle, so far that these women were not restricted as to the number of hours they worked. That was not in the proposition of the Noble Lord—it was introduced for the first time in factory legislation by the Government themselves, and let it be observed, that the introduction of women, who were above 18 years, formed one of the objec tions to the proposition of the Noble Lord.—( Hear, hear.) The proposition of the Noble Lord was, that the hours of labour should be reduced from twelve hours to ten, but the Right Hon. Gentleman said that if they entertained such a restriction they must introduce it for all who laboured in mills, and not for those alone to whom the Bill applied.—(Hear, hear.) Why ? Because the Bill applied generally to women. It appeared from the Report of the Commissioners that though the law as it stood at present confined the time of labour to twelve hours for those between the ages of thirteen and eighteen, it did not prevent the working of adults for fifteen and sixteen hours. Mr. Horner referred to cases of this kind which he said ought not to be permitted. There was one point which appeared to him to be the main point in which he thought the arguments of the two Right Hon. Gentlemen were unsatisfactory. If they limited the right of adult males to labour any number of hours they thought proper, and placed any undue restriction on adult labour, it would be quite against all sound principles of legislation ; iiut it would be too much to say that, to obtain that labour from adults, they thereby injured the health of youn g persons. If they found it necessary for their physical health and moral well-being, and in order to make them good members of society, to place certain restrictions upon them, he (lid not think it could be argued as any decisive reason against those restrictions, that they thereby restricted the labour of male adults, because their ar gument was one to which there was no sufficient answer; and they were not to sacrifice young persons, in order that another principle might have way. They found that an increase during the last few years, according to the statement of the Noble Lord, in the number of females employed, espe cially young females, had taken place, and they had medical testimony that young girls of thirteen and eighteen could not be employed for twelve hours together without serious injury to their constitutions, and without the loss of those feelings which in after life would be likely to render them good wives and good mothers. If this was se, it was a principle that should be predominant with them. He could understand the principle that they ought not to in fere on the subject—( Hear, hear)—that if they in terfered in the subject at all it would lead to an interference with all the employments into which this great community was divided. That argument he could understand if he had been opposed to any legislation with regard to facto ries ; but if they began to legislate on the subject—if they had a Bill proceeding on the principle of interference—. if they legislated in a course to :undertake the guardianship of one hundred thousand persons undergoing severe hardships, they ought to make that interference effectual.— ( Hear, hear.) It was difficult for him to speak of foreign countries, but his Right lion. Friend the Member for Taunton quoted an example of an American factory in which they were allowed to work more than twelve hours in the course of the day, but in a subsequent part of the evidence it seemed that the children and the young persons employed went away for three or four months in the year to attend a school. That was a totally different state of things. It very much weighed with him that a great number of the manufac turers themselves were in favour of the amendment, and he was very much struck with the statement of the Hon. Member for Leeds, that out of seventy owners of mills forty were ready to agree to a Ten Hours' Bill—at least they petitioned for it. They were told that at a moment when trade was reviving there would be a great objection to legislating upon this sub ject, on account of the tendency of this Bill. But they found such laws produced good as well as bad effects, and this Bill might have the good effect of more equalising the quan tity of employment, seeing the prodigious power of machinery in this country, and the immense quantity of goods that could be turned out in a few weeks. More continuous employment at ten hours per day throughout the year might be secured to the operative by it than occa sional employment at twelve, fourteen, or fifteen hours per day at one time, and only six or eight at another, according to the present system. There was another part of the subject, or ra ther it was the subject which was naturally allied to the present one, which had been touched upon by Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House. Those said, that if the Government wilhed to benefit the working classes, they ought rather to take off the restrictions upon food. He (Lord J. Russell) was one of those who took it that the con sequence of the proposal of the Noble Lord (Lord Ashley), if adopted, would be a diminution in the wages of the working classes. That was not quite certain, but it had been as nearly proved as anything could be, and he had had some doubts as to whether he would give a vote for a measure under the sup position that the wages of the operative would be reduced from their present rate by it.—( Hear, hear.) But he thought that in taking a view of this subject, the question of the corn-laws ought not to be kept out of sight. It was one which they might well consider in conjunction with this question, particularly if the operative could obtain a greater supply of food when earning 12s. per week on those restrictions being removed, than he could now when earning 16s. per week. For it was his belief that in this country the people had too much toil and a defi ciency of food. Certainly it was difficult to try to interfere with the subject by legislation; but he believed they were under the necessity of so doing. But there was another task which they ought likewise to undertake—he meant the admit ting a greater supply of food into the country, so that they might look forward to the people having less toil and a greater abundance of food. He should give his vote in favour of the Noble Lord's amendment. Mr. HINDLEY, amidst cries of " Divide, divide," moved that the Chairman report progress. Lord ASHLEY requested that the Hon. Member would withdraw his motion, and proceed to address the Committee. Mr. HINDLEY said he would yield to the request of the Noble Lord and withdraw his proposition, but in following the Prime Minister and the Noble Lord the late Secretary for the Colonies, he could scarcely hope to command the attention of the House. Never did he feel more anxiety in addressing the House than at the present moment—not that he was in any doubt, like the Noble Lord the Member for Sunderland (Lord Howick), as to the vote he ought to give, but it was a question in his mind of vital importance to the interests of the country. The interests of humanity ought to be attended to before those of commerce._( Hear, hear.) Practical men were in favour of the proposition of the Noble Lord.—( Hear, hear.) As to the evils resulting from the system of leng hours, no difference of opinion prevailed. His Hon. Friend the Mem ber for Durham admitted that there were great evils; but he said the Noble Lord took a telescope and looked the right way when he examined the evils arising from the factory system, whereas he reversed the evils resulting from agricultural labour. The Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) had informed the House that a deputation had waited upon him to state their opinions on this subject, and that one of th em was a person who had formerly been an operative, but who h a d now ra i sed himself above that condition.—( Sir James Graham— .. H e has a share in a fact ory .") B ut was this an argument in favour of th e present system ? As well might it be contended that there was no danger in a rapid stream, because some strong and brawny, individual had been able to breast it. It h a d b een hi s pr i v il ege to ta k e part with others in efforts f or th e i mprovement o f t h e wor ki ng people of his own locality ; and he had always found that long how's offered a great impediment to improvement. Though the women as well as the men earned more money by working so many hours, they were so ignorant of the commonest domestic pursuits that a large portion of the money, under their management, was completely thrown away. —( Hear, hear.) A friend of his, a magistrate, had gone round to the houses in his locality on a Sunday, for the purpose of ascertaining what proportion of persons attended public worship. Meeting a woman in a cell, lie asked her whether h er daughter had gone to attend public worship. The reply was th a t she was asleep in bed. It appeared that this girl, who was fo ur t een or fifteen years of age, had been employed in a factory from six o'clock on Friday morning, during the whole of Friday night, and until six o'clock on Saturday e ven i ng .—(H ear, hear.) This was neither consistent with Christianity, nor with the real interests of the country. 'With regard to what had been said of improvements having lately taken place—he was prepared to admit that there had been im provements, but there was still room for a good deal, and what had been effected should encourage the House in future legislation.—( Cries of " Divide, divide," and " Oh, oh.") He had himself been at the head of a concern, where children of nine years of age were worked twelve hours of positive work, which, with two hours' interval for food, made fourteen, hours; and then many of them were occupied three hours in walking to and from the factory, making seventeen hours, which left only seven hours for sleep, recreation, and education. He did not allow that system to be carried on by his own choice, or for the purpose of making money at the expense of their suffering; but he was compelled to carry on his Works upon the system that prevailed, and there was a , - - —4 neighbouring house that employed the people an' bour more daily —( Renewer! and continued cries of " Oh, oh," and " Divide, divide.") It had been said that the gentlemen engaged in trade should make some arrangement amcm;st themselves to pelt an end to the system.—(Divid4aVide.) But he had no hopes that the gentleman could dcip•so, nor would any thing effective be done by the freedom ofitilljvidual industry. —( Confusion, cries of " Oh, oh," and " Diviacr) The operatives of L ancas hi re h a d b an d e d themselves like ige peop"e of Ireland—( Oh, oh)—to force their employers; but such a state of things was pregnant with the greateat evils.— ' ( Extraordinary interruption, with cries of " Divide.") 1 If he were not interrupted, he would not detain the House long.—(Cries of " Divide,"and " Go on, go on.") He (Mr. llimiley) wished it to be understood by the House , that the working men were quite alive to the probable conse quences of the proposed abridgment of the hours of labour, and were quite prepared and willing to abide by them. It should be recollected that in 1833 they were warned of the fearful consequences that might arise to families, their employment, their wages, and their comfort, by the interference with chil dren's labour, which then commenced. But in spite of these warnings and prophecies, control and interference were or dained, and at the present moment there were more children in factories than ever.—(Hear, hear.) He believed that s - lne of those Honourable Members who intended to support the amendment of the Noble Lord (Ashley) still were perplexed with doubts as to the working out of the prin ciple ; but, for his own part, he had no fears whatever either of its soundness or its results in practice. There was proved to exist in the factory system a great moral and physical nui sance, and therefore it was the duty of that House to interfere for its abatement. He asked the House to give a security to the country, that the comforts of the labouring classes should not be further abridged, and their condition rendered still more miserable. Mr. COLLETT and Mr. Hardy rose at the same time, amid loud cries of " Divide, divide." Both Hon. Members remained for a considerable time on their legs, at length the latter gen tleman gave way, and Mr. Collett attempted to address the House, but a scene of indescribable confusion ensued. At length the Hon. Member was understood to say that he was opposed to the motion, on the ground of its interfering with the rights and freedom of labour, and with the liberty of the subject. Mr. HARDY then rose, but his attempt to address the House was the signal for a renewal of the confusion which pre viously prevailed. There were loud cries of " Oh, oh," " Di vide, divide," and the Hon. Member finding it impossible to obtain a hearing, said he would move the adjournment of the House. He then moved the adjournment amidst most mani fest and vociferously expressed signs of disapprobation, and sat down. There were loud cries of "Go on. go on," •he Hon. Member again rose, but was again received with the same dis couraging symptoms of impatience ; he again sat dawn, but rose a third time and begged that he might be heard for a few minutes, if only for the sake of those who sent him there.— (Loud cries of " Hear," " Oh, oh," and " Divide, divide.") No arguments had been adduced to convince him that the Noble Lord who had brought forward this motion was not pursuing the right course. —( The Hon. Member was repeatedly interrupted by cries of " Divide, divide.") Mr. MUNTZ would vote in favour of the motion of the Noble Lord, not because he believed it sound—( Hear, hear) —for he thought the whole measure unsound—( Hear, hear) — but because he thought, if they intended to try a principle, they should try it well.—( Hear, hear.) For his own part, he thought the whole subject was out of the reach of legislation.— ( Hear, hear.) He believed that it was not the disposition of the working classes to overwork themselves or their children. It was their necessities made them overwork. He thought all the people in this country were worked beyond what they ought to be. Lord ASHLEY rose to reply amid cries of " Divide, divide." If he succeeded in the motion he had brought for ward, he should be most happy to agree to the proposition of his Hon. Friend the Member for Leeds. His reason fur advocating this amendment was because he thought it wo u ld tend considerably to promote the permanent prosperity, happi ness, and stability of the empire. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the Committee divided, when the numbers were— For the amendment Against it Majority against Ministers -9 On the gallery being re-opened we found that Mr. COLLETT had moved an amendment, for inserting the hour of " six o'clock" in the clause, instead of " eight o'clock." On this the Committee again divided, and the numbers were— For the amendment Against it' Majority for the amendment — 8 On the opening of the gallery, Sir J. GRAHAM was en his legs. He said that the Com mittee having, at that late hour, decided that they would adopt a Ten Hours' Bill without any modification, to which he must confess, with all due respect to the decision to which the Committee had come, he had an insuperable objection— ( Cheers)—he still did not think it necessary to drop the Bill upon the Bth clause. The Committee would have an op portunity of reconsidering the question in a form more sub stantial than that which they had now discussed. He would therefore, proceed with the Bil, up to the Bth clause, when he thought that his Noble Friend, consistently with the decision to which the Committee had just come, would move that a Ten Hours' Bill be substituted for a Twelve Hours' Bill. Having stated this to the Committee he would now move that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again on Fri. day next. The House having resumed, Lord JOHN RUSSELL begged to know from the Noble Lord in what mode he intended to move for a Ten Hours' Bill ? Sir JAMES GRAHAM suggested that the Noble Lord ought to take time to consider the subject. INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT BILL This Bill was read a second time. The Gaming Transactions ( Witnesses' Indemnity) Bill was read a third time and passed. IRISH REGISTRATIONS. Lord ELIOT gave notice that, on Thursday, the 28th, he would move for a Bill to regulate the Parliamentary franchise in Ireland ; also, for a Bill to amend the Municipal Corpora tiors (Ireland) Act. The House then arljourned at a Quarter to Two o'Clock. SALE OF THE DUKE OF DEVON- SHIRE'S COLLECTION OF COINS AND MEDALS. Yesterday this splendid collection was submitted to public competition by Messrs. Christie and Manson, at their rooms, King-street, St. James's. All the well known Savans and Antiquaries were present, and the bidding continued very brisk durinc , the entire day. Mr. Manson, on opening the sale, observed that he had to offer one of the most splendid collections ever exhibited in this country, though many persons were of opinion that such a collection ought not to be broken up, yet he thought far greater advantage would be afforded to science and the arts by its diffusion. The collection was to be sold without reserve, with the ex ception of one lot. The sale then commenced, in lots, of Greek copper coins of the several cities of ancient Greece, but they did not bring high prices, varying from one guinea to two guineas and a half the lot. In the Greek silver there were many beautiful specimens, particularly the Syracuse medallion head of a female laureated, sur mounted by four dolphins—reverse figure, " Friga, above a victory," below a lion running. This is very fine, the old medallion of Syracuse is very rare, only one having been sold in this country, which brought 1261. ; and it was only within the last three years the British Museum possessed one. After great competition it was knocked down at forty-one guineas. There were many beautiful specimens in Greek gold, amongst which were, the Head of Apollo, on the reverse an Eagle standing upon a thunderbolt. Agathocles, head of Pallas hel metted—reverse, thunderbolt, very fine. Those did not bring high prices. The Imperial Greek copper coin brought, in lots, very fair prices, varying from two guineas to five. The Roman weights were a very cu rious collection. Upon each side of " The As' was a thunderbolt, a fish, a helinetted head, a female head, a tortoise, a wheel, the head of Mercury. These_brought very fair prices. In the Roman middle brass there were maay fine em blematic specimens of ancien t Rome, such as Mark Antony and Cleopatra face to face, with Augustus on the reverse, all of which brought high prices. The Roman large brass comprised many exquisite specimens, and the prices they brought was but a due estimate of their value. Amongst them were the heads of Pompey, Julius Caesar, Augustus Tiberias, new and many others. The Roman Consular silver sold well, particularly that of Emilia, the restored coin by Trajan, scarce and rare, and those legionary coins of Antonia. The Roman Imperial silver were objects of great competition, and brought very high prices and were greatly admired. The Roman silver medallions bearing the heads of Augustus, Claudius, Domitia, Titus, and Nerva, with the head of Julia ; and on the reverse Vesta seated, were specimens of great curiosity. The last lot was the one of the greatest interest. It was the Roman Consular and Imperial coins in gold, the sale of which excited the greatest competition, the coins bearing the head of Brutus, which was not mnch larger than a half sove reign, brought from 16 to 40 guineas ; and even at those prices were most eagerly sought after. The day's sale amounted to upwards of 730/. ENTERTAINMENT AT THE MANSION -HOUSE : On Saturday the Right Hon. the L'ord Mayor gave a very splendid entertainment to several of the members of the Court of Common Council and their ladies. The company sat down at half-past six o'clock to a table covered with the most delicious dishes. The long parlour was magnificently illuminated, and decorated upon the occasion, and there was some admirable singing by professional persons of both sexes. His Lordship will give dinners on the 19th, the 21st, the 26th, the 28th, and the 30th, to the other Common Council men and their ladies. THE AUTHORSHIP OF " CHITSWORTH. "— CaII any one answer the question that everybody is asking—" Who is the author of Chatsworth ?' " It is evidently a " secret worth knowing," for we have it on the authority of the ac knowledged oracles of the day in such matters, that, whoever he may be, he is, as a writer, " made up of every creature's best." One writer says that his work displays "the wisdom, wordly knowledge, and book learning of the author of 'lremaine ;' " another, that it " unites the ideal beauty of 'Beck,' the ever fresh nature and charming simplicity of Boceacio,' and the sparkling brilliancy of Mrs. Gore ;' " a third says, of a single tale of its contents, that it has "more cleverness in the very simplicity of its construction than scores of three-volume pretenders ; more beauty and tender ness of design than as many poems ;" a fourth declares that " Chatsworth," of its class, is " among the most remarkable productions of the day, if not the most remarkable." Who then, we again ask, is the author of " Chatsworth?" The most experienced and practised critic of the day has pro nounced him, from internal evidence, to be no other than " The author of Tremaine ' " himself ; but this Mr. Ward has expressly denied, though without in any manner hinting at the real author, beyond speaking of him as a " valued friend," and "one in point of ability far beyond any assis tance from me." The motive for this mystery, however, we can guess—when we recollect that the work contains many brilliant Portraits, which everybody says are likenesses. — Court Journal. To LADIES.—The high and universal celebrity which Rowland's Kalydor continues to maintain, as an active yet mild and soothing extirpator of all impurities of the skin, is, during the period of Spring, most pleasingly evinced. This preparation, eminently balsamic, restorative, and invi gorating, is equally celebrated for safety in application, as for unfailing efficacy in removing all impurities and discolours tion • and imparting a healthy freshness and transparency to the Skin and Complexion. Its universally great demand excites the cupidity of unprincipled shopkeepers, who give the title of " Genuine" Kalydor to compounds of their own manufacture, of the most deleterious character, containing mineral astringents utterly ruinous to the Complexion, and, by their repellant action endangering health. It is,. there fore, imperative on purchasers to see that the words " Row land's Kalydor" are on the wrapper.—All other 4 are fraudu ,. lerit CoUnterfeits.