The Express.
London, England, 1847-04-22 00:00:00

REPORT.—Facto ire Dm.
HOSIERY MANUFACTURE BILL.
Oa the order of the day being read for the seeoad reading
of this bill,
Sir H. HALFORD proposed to postpone the second
reading for a fortnight, in order that the discussion on
the Factory Bill might not be delayed. On that day he
should take the sense of the house on the measure.

ii;7FERRAND expressed a hope that no• unnecessary
impedimenta would be thrown in the way of the bill.
Sir J. EASTROPE was confident that the hill would pro-
duce greeter evils than those it proposed to remedy.
The second reading less then postponed for & fortnight.
FACTORIES BILL.

On the motion that the report on this bill be received,
Mr. TRELAWNY said he felt it his duty to give his
utmost opposition to this moat improper bill. Its inevitable
effect would be to reduce wages ; and unless the legislature
was able to fix the rate of wages and the price of provisions,
it had co right to pees inch a bid as this. By restricting the
labour of young persons, it restricted also the labour of
adults, for factory work could not be carried on at all without
the labour of children. It also interfered directly with the
labour of adult women. The neceseary result would be to
drive out of the country all the able-bodied men who could
work a greater number of hours than this bill permitted ;
or, if not out of the country, it would throw them upon other
branches of industry ; and tem the interference, if once
begun, must be extended to all branches of industry. lathe
event of the Mum of the measure, the operatives would ea-
, tunny blame the legielatnee ; thereftwe, there weenie hew
is the argument that the operatives themselves demanded
the restriction. It was the duty of the legislature to take an
extended view of the subject, and to act as it thought best for
the operative..
Mr. HOME referred to the increase of manufactures
abroad, where as much cotton was now consumed as was
consumed in this country twelve years ago ; and said that
under such circumstances it we. absolute insanity to place
restrictions on the labour of this country. By rWucing the
production of this country ten per cent., the rate of wages
would be reduced at lean 20 per cent., and thus the most
eatensive suffering would be inflicted ' • for the number of
persons affected by this bill could not be taken at lees than
550,000, or, with their families, at 2,000,000. He blamed
the government for not resolutely opposing this hill at the
first ; at least, let them send the bill upstairs to a select
committee. He had beard yesterday from a gentleman en-
gaged in manufacture., that it required ten hours' labour to
return hint his capital and expenditure, without any profit
whatever. He moved that the report should be read this
day six months.
Mr. BROWN feared that this bill would greatly increase
the difficulties with which the English manufacturer had to
contend, by giving advantages to the Am...lean producer.
Mr. M. PHILLIPS said that if this bill became law, and
was likely to be permanent, more factories would be built;
but probably in the course of a few years it would be die-
covered that the legislation was untenable; and after giving
an impulse to the creation of new machinery and establish-
ments, and even to the manufacturing population, the con-
sequences would be most serious in the event of a failure.
He trusted these anticipations would prove groundless ; but
he strongly advised the house to pause before agreeing to
such hasty and ill-dieeated
Mr. P. HOWARD wan convinced that the commercial
greatness of this country rested on no such narrow basis as
to be affected injuriously by this measure. Recollecting that
recruit& were not admitted to the army under eighteen years
of age, it might be contended that a restriction should be
placed on the employment of young persons in other occu-
pations. It was to be hoped that this measure would lead to
an equalisation of labour, and that the mills would not he
alternately working long hours end half time.
Mr. S. CRAW FORD said, if ever there was an unfair and
ye:edam opposition given to any measure, it had been done
with regard to this bill. After the house had affirmed the
principle by so many majorities, this renewed attempt to
defeat the measure was calculated to take its friends by
surprise.
Mr. B. ESCOTT said, that so far from the opposition
being vexatious, the members who were opposed to the bill
had been blamed for not availing themselves of every oppor•
tunity to prt test against the measure. The bill was sup-
ported by the uoble lord at the head of the government, and
the right hon. gentleman, the Secretary of estate, supported
this measure 011 the condition that they should make it an
i eleven.kours bill when they should getlute committee. The
bill not having been so altered, the noble lord and the Secre-
tary of State should now withdraw their support of the bill.
At all events it could not be fairly objected that under such
circumstances those who continued to oppose it were acting
factiously or unfairly. He believed that the bill would paw
this house, and if it did, it would undoubtedly peas the
giber Mew, where they knew it would be supported and
carried through spite against the manufacturers.
. . . .

Mr. FEREFAIIID said that, before he entered parliament,
he had read many speeches which were delivered by the hon.
member who had just sat down, and they contained very
different arguments indeed to those which he heard him
utter that day, and for three or four years ; sines he eat in
parliament he heard hint support principles which he now
opposed. He would give his determined support to this bill,
for he believed that if it passed it would work for the benefit
of all thaw whom it concerned ; and he hoped it would be
carried with that good feeling and good spirit with which all
acts of parliament should be carried.
Mr. MUNTZ said that he supported this bill through the
whole of its stages, and the more he saw sad the more he
heard of it the more satisfied was he that its passing would
not only do good to the working-classes, but would benefit
the interest of the masters themselves. He was charged
with not being &judge on the matter ; but though he did
not pretend to be a manufacturer, yet he was a merchant,
and he should like to know who could be a more competent
judge on the matter?
After an explanation from Mr. B. ESCOTT,
Mr. TANCRED said that this bill pretended to be a mea-
sure for the restriction of labour, and it was, in fact, a bill to
reduce the time of labour from twelve hours to ten. They
ought to remember that the right hos. gentleman the mem-
ber for Tamweith told them on a former occasion, that when
they were dealing with the time of the poor operative,theywere
dealing with his only capital. They would by this bill re-
duce his capital by one-sixth, and they thereby would levy
on him an income tax to the amount of between 16 and 17
per cent. It was hardly within the competence of a legisla- '
tore to do so. He would resist such a measure in every way
possible, as he believed that it would injure every body affected
by it
Sir H. D. L. EVANS said that he would give his on.
port tc this bill. There were no arguments which he had
heard against it, which were not equally applienble to the
sets far the abolition of alavery, and for the reduction of the
period of enlistment, to which he felt it his duty to give
his steady support. He liked the honesty of the hon. gen-
tlemen who opposed this bill, but he disliked intolerance of
all kinds, no matter how disinterested were the feelings of
those who exhibited it. . .

Lord J. RUSSELL did not expect any discussion to arise
to-day on this subject; he did not think that it wax intended
to oppose this stage of the bill, but a discussion had arisen
with which, of course, he had no right to complain. The
hoe. member fur Winchester stated, with regard to himself
(Lord J. Russell) having taken a certain course in a stage
of this bill, that be did so on the condition that, in com-
mittee, it should be made an eleven hours bill instead of a
ten hours bill, and that, that not having been done, he was
at liberty to oppose this bill in its present or any fature
stage. That was a very correct statement, and if he sbewed
any opposition to this bill in its present stage, he should say
that he thought that the traintenance of the ten hours clause
gave a character to the bill which made it so dangerous that
he could not any longer assist in its being carried. He
would admit that he thought this measure a far less safe
measure than it would have been if the clause restricting
labour to ten hours was struck out, and they restricted the
hours of labour to eleven hours instead of to ten, With re-
gard to the working of the eleven hours, they had a great
deal of experience in favour of it. They had the experience
of a great many mills in Yorkshire, and from that experi-
ence they had conclusive proofs that it did not go against
the carrying on of trade by reducing the amount of profit
to a sufficient degree to justify the manufacturer in discon-
tinuing that line of business. They had no such proofs with
regard to the working of the 10 hours clause, and he did
not, on that account, feel the same decree of confident* in
the safety of the bill. lie very much lamented that the
house had decided t Ist thatelaum should remain pa-t of the
bill, but he could not say that that determination of the hoses
made by a great majority was sufficient to induce him to
withhold his vote in favour of this bill. He certainly con-
sidered if it had been a bill for restricting labour to 11
hours that, while it would have produced great satisfaction
among the working claims, the manufacturers would have
received it, and probably they would have heard no
more on the subject He could not be sure that
with respect to a bill of this kind the working of it
would be eatisfaclory, and that the question Watt not
be revised in a future session. The great argument used
against this bill was, that while it appeared only to
restrain the labour of young females, it would indirectly
restrain the labour of adult females, and diminish their
wages. He did not think that it could be admitted that be-
cause it might have that indirect effect the house may not
entertain this question. They had already entertained the
I question with respect to collieries, and the prevention of adult
women from working is collieries had a very beneficial effect.
He, therefore, did not think that there was any justice in the
argument that the house was not competent to pass this bill.
The effects that a measure of this kind was likely to produce
were an important matter, and he should expect that on a quer
Lion which would no doubt affect the working clauses in the
manufacturing towns, if it was likely to produoe bad effects
many of dime working classes would have addressed and
petitioned this how, and asked it not to pass a bill which
would diminish and act as an income-tax on the amount of
their wages. He had not heard that there were such peti-
tions, and be did not find that any considerable number of
the working closes bad proteeted to this house against this
pruoetding. Though he did vote for this bill with tar lue