The Express.
London, England, 1847-02-11 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, THURSDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 11, 1847.

a mill in Manelmeter 111
t• and being seh op rids beak genrismont, if he was . oonviaced that the pnizisle
inked why the doom nen sot opened ? The If of the measure was sag. so p to it .. y ,
the temperalureLrens limo, the cotton wcridd Olt. so and call upon his subordinates to go with him.
well. (Helahlseae.). Another ream whirl. lig ebsW add If the noble lord supported it ha should make it
was, that theyeeng girls required to hae a imbdi tritons a cabinet question, and let the government of the country
on their skins to enalAe them to handle theineedlentbreads. take upon Itself the responsibility of this enormous change.
(Load ales of ,! Hain., hear.") Knowing these hat, and If, however, the noble lord was not prepared to take the tu-
be thought it s "
b - __

sPonillillity in the change; if he w._ dangerous ex-
periment, the whole weight of the
_government should be
given to the opposition of the bill. But believing as he did
that the proration was a dangerous one, anti otinirary to
every recognized principle of sound legislation • believing
that it wan a delusion practised on the working classes, rd.
vacated by those who had no knowledge of the internal ar-
rangements and economy of our manufactories, he should op-
pose it. (Hear, hear.)
Sir A. L. HAY moved the adjournment of the debate.
Lord J. RUSSELL: I rise merely to say a few words, in
consequence of the attack which has been made upon me by
the hon. member for Uniiiam, at a few minutes before aix
o'clock. (Cheers.) If the hon. member intended to make
such an attack, he bad much better have done so at five
o'clock, when I might have had an opportunity of replying
to it. But the hon. gentleman has allowed his zeal on
behalf of the cotton manufacturers, of those on whose part he
has spoken, to blind him to that which fairness and candour
demand. (Hear.) Now Ido nut happen to agree with him,
that this is so great a question of principle ashe impress. I
do not conceive that the difference between 12 hours and 11
boon, or 11 hours and 10 hours' labour in the day, is a ques-
tion of principle. (Hear, hear.) The question of limiting
the hours of labour for persons betweeen the ages of 13 and
18 is not a new principle. It is one that has been affirmed
by the house—if I remember rightly, on the proposition of
Lord Althorp and is sanctioned by the statutes of the
realm. (Cheers.) There is, then, no new principle, nor
any change of principle, sought to be introduced
by this law. (Hear, hear.) Neither is it any change
according to the old laws of the realm; for under
those old laws apprentices were protected from being
overworked during the period of their apprenticeship. The
question, then, is, if the legislature chooses to throw its
shield over persons of early age, to what extent should it be
given ? Whether the limit should be 13, 12, 11, or 10 hours
a day—and that I call a question of detail on which the
several member, of a government may fairly differ, without
at the same time differing in
.principle. (Hear, hear.) We
have already affirmed the principle of interference • and if
the hon. gentleman differs from it, and thinks the legisla-
ture wrong in interfering, his course should be to propose the
repeal of the existing law, and to leave for the future per-
sona of that tender age to make their own bargains as to
their hours of work. (Hear.) I know net whether I can
now enter further into the question of principle
I have stated what I consider the general prin-
ciple is on the subject, and if the debate be adjourned—
(No, no )—I shall be ready at a future time to state, in a
very few words, my opinions more particularly as to the
matter. (Cries of "Go on.") I consider, then, that this
being not a principle but a degree, the period during which
young persona now labour in factories being twelve hours,
or in all thirteen or fourteen hours a day, is, I conceive, too
much for their bodily frame, which is not matured, but in
progress of development, and too much also for that moral
and mental improvement which, during that pried of life,
ought to be attained. (Hear, hear.) Believing, then, that
a shorter period than twelve hours would be a preferable
limit, am I to be deterred from adopting it by that
which the hon. gentleman has put forward as a
very formidable objection—the fear of foreign com-
petition? That is a question undoubtedly of great im-
portance ; but in regard to it, I feel greatly comforted by
the fact, that though the same fears of distress and ruin to
our manufacturers have been repeatedly urged against every
change that has been made—urged in 1831, urged in 1833,
and urged again in 1836—those fears have never been realised
—(cheers)—but that on the contrary, notwithstanding
those changes our manufacturers have continued to flourish,
while these young persons, on whose behalf parliament has
interfered, have been benefited. (Hear, hear.) And with
regard to America, the hon. gentleraaß must remember
that young persons employed in manufactures there, arc
' allowed, I believe, from three to four months in the year
for recreation and improvement; whereas, if 11 hours were
now fixed ea the limit here, the leisure thus given would
not be more than 25 days in the year. (Hear.)
The question of adjournment was then put and carried,
the debate being understood to stand adjourned till Wed-
nesday next.
Six o'clock having arrived the Speaker leR the chair.

=tooth with which he would not tree....e the louse, he
sire a conscientious vote in favour of the bill.
Kr. BRIGHT, as one who had lived all his lifetime
the population for whom they were legislating, who
was laegety connected with this particular trade, and
who had not • farthing in the world beyond what was in-
vested in it, considered that he bad as good a right to speak
se is the wishes and feelings, and also as to the true
hiMente of the operatives engaged in it, as the hen. member
who had just sat down. But in his opposition to the bill
ha was aetnated by no belief that it would injure his pro-
party or praports. because it was clear to him that if the
ameaure wee really calculated to advance the interests of
the 1,200,00 persons more or less dependent for their
Nippon wpm cotton-spinning and other textile em.
hie Interests also would be cousulted by it.
hi flavour of • ten hours' bill was founded on
the essesiny of the hon. members for Birmingham,
Mk
and and of the late Mr. Sadler, on those principles
of "NNW entoomy which the house last session declared
memied sad rotten, and which, if persevered in, would in-
Wieesigreat interests of the country, and destr the manu-
and commercial supremacy of the kingdom. (Hear,
boar.) hen it wee first commenced, it pro clued to have
only the labour of children in view, and a bill passed limiting
the labour of children under 13 years of age to six hours a
day ; but, not satisfied with that, those who professed them-
selves the friends of the workers, now asked the house to in-
terfere to prevent young persons from 13 to IS, and women of
all ages, from working more than ten hours a day ; but their
object really was not that only, but to interfere by law
with the working hours of all persons (of what
ever age or sex) engaged in manufacturing labour,
and to extend to those dames a mearure of legislative protec-
tion which, while it should diminish their labour, should se-
cure to them the existing rate of wages, and thus, on the
monopoly principle, give to their labour a higher rate of re-
muneration than in the free market of the country it could
command. (Hear, hear.) That such was the object there
could be no doubt, for the noble lord, the member for Lynn,
had, in a speech of his, said that if the result of such a met-
ier, should be to bring about a fairer division of profits be-
tween the master and the workmen, be thought there would
be but little reason to regret it, when they saw a quarter of
a million subscribed out of the surplus profits of the cotton
iiisnufacturen to promote, the repeal of the corn-laws.
(Cheers from the Opposition.) If it were proposed to
, take the surplus profits of the landlords and agriculturists
and hand them over to the agricultural labourer, he '
(Mr. Bright) should denounce it as strongly as he should do
easureMo interfering with the interests of the manufacturer.
great mortality among the factory operatives had been
spoken of. But was the mortality ter in this than in '
ether branches of industry ? In , which was a great
manufacturing town, he found the mortality was lower than
in Bristol, and in Manchester it was lower than in Liver-
poo ,1 . and with regard to general health, he quoted Dr.
Phillips and other medical authorities to show that the fac-
tory operatives were, at least, as healthy as those engaged in
other trades, aa shoemakers tailors, masons, ftc. Then
it was said the labour was !mid and of long oontinuanee.
and unfit for women and young persona ; but the fact that
women were engaged in it proved that it was not hard. (Oh,
oh!) Women always reported to employment in which they
were sheltered from the weather, and the labour was light.
1 The experience not only of this country, but of France and
America, proved that actory labour was not injurious to
health, though in the latter country the hours of labour far
exceeded those in this country in the same kind of employ-
meat. He was not advocating a twelve hours' labour bill:
he was only defending himself, and arguing against the state-
ments put forward in behalf of the present bill. And let
hon. members recollect that children up to thirteen years of
age were exempt from theaystem now complained of. He him-
self never went to school alter he was fifteen years of age—
(" Hear," and laughter)—and he held himself to be a proof
that some kind of information might be obtained up to dar-
t= of age. Under the old system, the period of ap-
ip began at 14 years of age. He could mere the
rene7"—that the education of the factory operatives was not
lam that of the working classes generally; and their par-
chases of books and newspapers were certainly not lea.
(E•ar.) The Rev. Mr. Clay, the chaplain of the Preston
Hoene of Correction, in comparing the state of crimi-
malty of all classes in Lancashire, and classing the various 1
warm twenty numbers, the greatest amount of
edge No. 1, and the lowest No. 20, I placed domestic
servants under No. 19, female factory operatives
under No
20, and grooms and coachmen—a class who came much more '
immediately under the observation of members of parlia-
ment than persons engaged in factories—under No. 1.
(Hear, hear.) He now came to the question of wages, which
after all was the real object with the work-people. He
should be the last person to say that their reasonable
wishes should not receive due attention ; and in this respect
he would go further than the hon. member for Detectable',
for he was prepared to give them votes, by which they would
be enabled to send men to that house to represent their feel-
leas and wishes. (Hear, hear.) All other classes bad the
privilege of providing for themselves and their families by
their labour, without any interference of parliament as to
how many hours a day they should work. And with regard
to the factory operatives, parliament would violate a privi.
lege and a right which was as deer to them as to any other
class, if, by so interfering, their power of earning wages was
diminished. (Hear, hear, hear.) But it had been
argued that these people were willing to accept less wages
if they worked fewer hours. He denied that the question
had ever been put to them in that shape, and he denied fur-
ther that they had any idea that the result of the interference
would be a diminution of wages. And if it were a fact
that reduced wages would follow a reduction in the hours of
labour, of which he was convinced—and if the house, be-
lieving such would be the result, passed the treasure, he
could conceive no guilt more dreadful than that which would
then attach to them, nor any delusion more serious or dan-
gerous than would be then practised by the legislature on the
working classes. (Hear.) The people were taught to believe,
by Mr. Ostler, sod others who were favourable to this mea-
sure, and by " The Short-Time Advocate," or " The Ten Hours
Advocate,' that the consequence of limiting the hours of
labour would—as in the case of other articles—by lowan
the supply, enhance the value—(" hear, hear,' from Kr.
Ferrand)—and the hon. member for Knaresborough o♦
peered to be of the same opinion. (Hear.) But it was • hat
that you could not reduce the hours of labour by five shades
a day, without reducing in the same proportion the prods.-
tion of the mill. But it was said the wages of children under
13, whose hours of labour had been reduced, first to eight,
sad then to six, had not been reduced but increased. (Hear.)
The child of 12 years and 11 months old, working in a fac-
tory, might be reasonably expected to earn nearly the same
wages as the one 13 years and a month old : but thedifferenoe
in the wages was as nearly as possible equal to the difference
in the number of the working hours. There was another
point he would touch upon—foreign competition. On this,
however, he did not appeal to the hon. members for Oldham
sad Birmingham, for he believed they were not capable of
understanding it. (" Hear," and a laugh.") The point,
however, was an important one for the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. The amount of raw material consumed in the
cotton, woollen and worsted, flax and silk trades, was 1,067
millions of pounds annually. Divide this by six, and the
diminution in our manufacturing productions consequent
upon an equal reduction in the hours of labour would be
176,000,0001. How was it possible that a measure which
should thus cut off one sixth of the great manufactures of
this country could be passed without occasioning the great-
est confusion and disaster? Our exports of cotton goods
were, in 1844, in value 26,000,0004 ; of woollen, 9,000,0001.;
of linen, 4,000,0001. ; and of silk three quarters of a mil-
lion. Divide the total by six, and they would find 6,600,0001.
of the trade of the country at once cut off by this
measure. And if the exports were thus affected, the
imports would suffer in the same proportion ; and
let him ask how would it be possible for any Chan- ,
cellos of the Exchequer to carry on the financial l
affairs of this country with a diminution of between six and
seven millions a year, which, taking imports and exports,
it would amount to. He would also call the attention of the
hon. member for Dorsetshire to the fact that of the wool
used in our manufacturer., a very large proportion was
grown in this country, and if the consumption of that ar-
t were reduced by 12 or 15,00011 m. a week, and other ar-
tistes in the same proportion, it would be impossible to cal-
salute the distras and raisery whith must fall upon the
farmers and all the subsidiary trades which depended upon
the great manufacturing establishments. Then, if the
working classes were encouraged to come to par-
lismost and ask for enactments against the capi-
tal*, a very different feeling would be engen-
dered on the part of the latter to those who were em-
ployed by them than at present existed. Some of his own
w pock pie had petitioned in favour of this measure, and he
wee of it, for it showed their independence . • and at the
at Rochdale it WU -hewn that the workpeople were
entirely uncontrolled by their masters. In his own esta-
blishment, and most of the best factories, schools and libra-
ries were established, and every effort made by the masters
for the benefit and comfort of their workmen ; but if
the latter were to be armed against the capitalists by
laws which should fix the hours of labour, regu-
late wages, and interfere with the established cut
toms of the country, • it would be impossible that
the good feeling which hail hitherto obtained could continue,
and the manufacturer would, in self-defence, be compelled to
take the steps necessary to ward off the ruin which must
inevitably come upon them if such a course of legislation
was persevered in. (Hear.) The hon. member for Bir-
mingham had charged him with getting up a petition in
favour of limiting the hours of labour. That was one of the
follies of his boyhood—(a laugh)--and he regretted to see
that those weaknesses and follies of his youth seemed
to attach themselves to the honourable member for
Birmingham in hie mature years. (" Oh," and a laugh.)
The proposition to compromise the matter by an eleven-
hours bill he was equally opposed to; the working claim
wererightor wrong in their demand, and the house was either
right or wrong in interfering ; any compromise would be but
a cowardly shirking of the question. (Hear.) If they
pawed an eleven hours bill in this parliament, the workman
would say the house had sanctioned the principle, and the
ohject he had in view : and he would come, with redoubled
force, to the next parliament for a ten hours bill,which those
who voted for the eleven hours could hardly resist. (Hear.)
Hs was astonished at the conduct of the ministry on this
question. Was this • subjectto be left as an open garters
government ? For his part, he looked upon it se a
net inferior in importance to that which had been settled by
Sir R. Peel last yaw. (Hear.) That was • question to
raise rents by raging the price of food, and this was •
measure to ruse wages at the expense of the capitalist. In
both CANS it was Ks same principle that was invekrad.
(Hear.) Could tho laare, having mealy last year—ohm
generations of ernies—denonneed Wit peimelple, wow
at it w Ole toy et do sags keg at tike Mad 01%