The Sun.
London, England, 1839-07-02 00:00:00

i

E ING EDITION.

( Hon. Baronet near him were entitled to gre con i•
deration. On behalf of the manufacturers, he could
assure the House they did not seek to free themselves
from the vigilance which Parliaa.ent had thought proper
to establish. They wished to b iospected by gentle-
men who vv,uld not obtrude upon them in an improper
manner, for it was possilme, un:lcr the present system,
that appointrucots might be made which would be
extremely obnoxious to the manufacturers.—( Hear,
hear.) The manufacturers were in an extremely
awkward position, becatu,e parties might be appointed
who would betray the trust reposed in them. He begged
to be understood as not meaning in these remarks toe Ist
any imputation on the present inspectors. If there
should be one resident io-peetor in each district. he
would he fairly Envied to look over every :,ranch of
the mantOactories. What was for was some
re-modelling of the appointment of inspectors.—( Hoar.)
Mr. F. Al AULE said thot a greit deal of what had
fallen from Hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House
would better be urged when they came to consider the
various clauses of the Bill. But with respect to the
question of the lion. Gentleman opposite, as to the sa-

lades of inspectors, it was not proposed to raise thos
salaries, as wouil be seen from the elitism But as to
giving the sub-inspectors the power of making rules,
along with the inspectors, he was perfectly convinced
that it was necessary that power should be given, in
order to secure the due administration of the Act.

Altogether it was exceedingly difficult to steer clearly
between the manufacturers on the one and the
friends of the factory children on the other.
Mr. W. FATTEN asked what increase their was
to be
Mr. F. MAULE said the Secretary for the Home
Department would, if be found it necessary, appoint ad-
ditional sub-inspectors (as we understood), and come to
Parliament for authority.
Lord STANLEY said that was just what the manu-
facturers obj"cted to. They did not desire to protect
themselves against just inspection. But they did object
to inspectors having the almost unlimited power of ap-
pointing sub-inspectors. They wished that in each dis-
trict there should be a district inspector, whose duty it
would be, specifically, to inspect that district.—(Hear.)
Mr. BROTHERTON wished the Act to be made
more simple and efficient : if it were such a measure as
carried along with it the feelings of the people, the ex-
pensive machinery of the inspectors would be almost un-

necessary.
Lord ASHLEY said he was-sorry to be aware that
the Act had caused to the manufacturers great annoy-
ance. He agreed that it was desirable to give as great a
degree of respectability—he meant financial respect-
ability, to the inspectors as possible. And he had sug-
gested this two years ago. If the Act were so simpli-
fied as that one certificate should suffice, not only
would the increased salary be saved but the system of
inspection might bo got rid of altogether. He would
be quite willing, if the House thought it necessary, to
give the inspectors increased salaries. But if the sub.
inspectors were to be got rid of, he trusted that the
inspectors would not be fewer in number than the pre-
sent inspectors and sub-inspectors—(Hear)—for the
duties were very onerous.
Mr. HIN D LEY wished to know if the Government
meant to persist in any alteration in the hours ?
Mr. F. M MULE answered in the negative.
Mr. FIEL DEN presented a petition praying, (we
believe) for a Ten Hours' Bill-
Lord ASHLEY rese to protest aganst the manner

in which this most important Bill had been delayed.
It had been introduced on the 14th of February, and
here it was, on the Ist of July. By reason of this de-
lay he i,hould be deprived of much of that assistance in
debate and support in division which he had expected.
Lord J. RUSSELL (very contemptuously)—l will
not detain the House by any reply.
Lord ASHLEY—Sir, if I have uttered a word
offensive to any Member of this House, I will instantly
apologize.—(Hear, hear.) I certainly do not think I
deserve the tone which the Noble Lord has thought fit
to adopt towards me.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")
The House then went into Committee.
On the question being put in the usual way—" That
the preamble be postponed,"
Mr. W. DUNCOMBE said, there is no preamble.
—(Laughter.)
Clause 1, " repealing clause," was agreed to.
On clause 2,
BROTHERTON rose to move an amend-
ment, of which he had (long ago) given notice. He
hoped this subject would be discussed with calmness
—(Hear, hear)—important as it was to the interests
of 400,0U0 persons engaged in the woollen, cotton, and
other manufactures, and having for its object the pro-
tection of children and young persons engaged in facto-
ries from exceosive labour, he gave the Government
credit for intending to effect this object, in which he,
of coursc, heartily concurred, and only disagreed as to
the means for carrying it into effect. He thought he
could propose means more efficient and simple than
those provided in this Bill. The Committee would re-
collect that in 1817, a Bill passed, establishing a 12
hours per day, or 72 per week system, which was found
very inefficient. In 1825, the Legislature refused to
reduce the hours of labour to less than 69 per week.
In 1831, these hours were retained, the age being fixed
at 18. In 1833, the present Act had passed, enacting
that children under 13 might only labour eight hours
per day ; kinder 18, twelve boors ; and above 18, any
time. And certificates were required from surgeons as
to the ages of children. There was this anornaly,how-
ever, that where's a child of six years old might be la-
boured ten hours' per day in the silk factories, a
child of twelve might- only labour eight hours per day in
a cotton factory. This Act had proved inconvenient
to the masters, oppreevive to the workmen, and unsa-
tisfactory to all parties ; 2,704 convictions had taken
place under it, and penalties to the amount of 5,3001.
been inflicted. Yet the Inspectors represented that it was
next to impossible to preve,lt frauds and offences against it.
It might be said by some of the inspectors that the
Act was carried into effect. 'That might be the case in
some instances, but he had seen enough of its working
to be able to state that the Act did not give protection
to children under 13 years of age. In 1835 the num-
ber of children under 13 years of age, ,employed in fac-
tories, was 55,430, and the total numbe employed in
the factories wa's 354,684. The result 0:f the Noble
Lord (Ashley's) returns showed that at the present
time the total number employed in factories was
413,635, and the number under 13 years old was
.32,464. In 1835 the number of children under 13, in
proportion to the enti.re was one in six, while in 1838
it was only one in twelve, making a difference of 2.2,000
children. Now in Scotland it was roundly asserted
that no children under 12 years of age were employed
in the factories. That statement, however, was proved
not to be founded in fret. It was ascertained that in
1835 the proportion of children was one in seven, while
at present it was as one to thirty-two. There must
have been some great deception made use of to produce
these discrepancies.—( Hear. 1 iie understood that in
many cases only half the nunr,ber of persons were em-
ployed to do the same work as. in 1831, and it must
naturally follow that these unto.-tunate persons were
immured for 15 or 18 hours pt r day in these mills.
What was the use of that House' talking of educating
the poor, and providing public wal.V, and other recrea-
tions
, for them if such a system was persevered in ?
(Hear.) If these persons were condemned to incessant
toil from morning till night it was .absurd to talk of
providing for their comforts or imnrov.ement. It was
well known that females employed in these factories
were fitted neither for wives nor mothers---.'heir physical
as well as moral character was deteriorats-al, and the
more the manufactures of the country exte.aded, the
greater was the amount of suffering which was en-
tailed upon that unhappy class of the comm unity.
What he (Mr. Brotherton) proposed was, that .they
should have one uniform plan applicable to all agsls,
and that all ,the mills should be placed upon one footing.
He saw no reason why a silk mill should be treated
differently from a cotton mill, or a lace mill differently
from a silk mill.—(Hear, Hear.) The House was
aware that there were certain mills which at present
were exempt from the operation of the Act..
He thought all the mills should be brought
under it. He had heard many instances of
people working thirteen and fifteen hours a (lay—
persons who went into the m ills at six in the morning,
and did not leave till nine at night, being obliged even
to take their meals there. It was.• the duty of the House
to see that the masters were not induced to act oppres-
sively. or illegally by the temptat:on of having a larger
quantity of work done. If a mill turned out 1,0001.
worth of work by working ten ho itrs a day, if he could
only get his people to work an hour longer every day, it
would add 1000/, a week to the pnacluce, and thus leave
him a large profit. The master was: -tempted from these
considerations to violate the provisions of the Act, and
it was their duty to impose such r ststrictions as would
counteract that. He would propose that the age be 21
instead of 18, and if the House was. in earnest in pro-
tecting the children employed in theca factories, they
would accede to that alteration. e was anxious to
have a uniform time fixed for all ages, .and he thought
ten hours a day would be enough for a.ll. He stood
there as the representative of a martufact uring district,
and he was convinced that the trade of ;the country
could be carried on satisfactorily to the master and with-
out oppression to the working classes, if tln plan he
proposed were adopted. The Hon. Member coroluded
by moving as an amendment that the age be altered
from 18 to 21.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bernal) sr id it would first
'be necessary to make an alteration in the first clause.
It commenced, " And be it enacted, the .t from and after
the Ist of July."—(A laugh.)
Lord AS said that was a pm of of the great
delay that had taken place with revere ace to the Bill.
When the Bill was introduced it was pr °posed that the
Bill should come into operation on t.ha.t very day (Ist
July).—(Hear, hear.)
The date was then altered to the l.st of October.

Lord ASHLEY said—With respect to the Hon.
Alember'samendment, the age had b.een 21 in the former
Bill, but it was altered when the Rill -went up to the
Home of Lords.
Mr. P. THOMSCN objectall to 'tile ain,ndawnt.
Tha analogy of property did not hold pod with respect

to labour—the property which the poor man had to dis-
pose of was labour, and they must not control him in the
disposal. He was inclined to think that one of the evils
of the fac!ory system was making children at too early
an age independent of their pmts.
Mr. BROTH ERTON explained.
Mr. O'CONNELL said, nothing wit:, so IN tong •,s
to interfere bfiween the eniployeT and the cnifao)eil,
except for the protection orc;iildrea. Th,,t C ,urt at

Chtincery extended its protection to children till then,
and if they chose !o become ChaticAors for the pi otection
of these children they ought to make the age 21.
Mr. MARK PHILLIPS oppo•,ed the amendment.
He objected to the present arrangement being dis-
torbed.

Mr. BAINES said the twisters were extra
.idvi_rse to any alterati )11 be:ng inade in the txisting
arrahgemeats. It was the f;nty of the L-g;slatore to
tw.tke the Bill a 3 acceptable pftssible to the in ;,ter
spinners—to those who found employntont; and he did
not think the amendment would be acceptable e•it her to
them or the youths who would consider themselves
stigmatised by it.
Mr. HIND LEI said the question was, whether
youths between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one
should be compelled to work more than twelve hours a
day. Surely, considering the age of the parties, that,
period of labour would be considered sufficient.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw. The Huuse
divided, when there appeared—

For the Clause B7
For the Amendment ... 44

Majority —43

Lord ASHLEY then moved to omit those words in
the clause which exempted silk and lace factories from
the operation of the law. He did not see any good
reason for treating children differently who were em-
pleyed in one species of factory from those employed in
another. It ought to be remembered that the greater
part of the youth employed in the silk and
the lace trades were females, and of a very tender
age—many of them being under the age of
six years—the consequences of their long continued la-
bour, were disease and deformity. He would be told
that the labour was light—no doubt it was so, but when
it came to be so long continued, even light labour be-
came a toil. An Hon. Member might easily stand for
five minutes, or even an hour, but he would feel very
fatigued if that standing posture were continued for six
or seven hours. The effect of labour in lace-mills was
peculiarly injurious. A great part of it was performed
by gas light, and he had been informed, on the autho-
rity of two ladies, Sunday-school teachers, that in Con-
sequence of their protracted toil, the fineness of the
work, and the period at which it was performed, in al-
most numberless instances, the eye sight or the youngest
children was so materially injured that it was ne-
cessary to have bibles and prayer-books of very large
t3pe, so as to enable the children to make out a word:
Unless these few statements he had made could be
overthrown, it was the duty of the House to include
these poor children within the provisions of the Act.
Mr. P. THOMSON had no objection to place
children working in silk factories, with regard to hours,
under the same regulations as the cotton factories, but
he thought there was good reason why the age of nine
should stand in the Bill. There were circumstances
connected with the silk manufactories at the time the
Act passed which justified their omission, and evidence
was given to show the temperature of the silk factories
differed materially from that in the cotton factories.
With regard to the lace factories, he thought it would
be but fair to give the parties the opportunity of bring-
ing forward such information as they might think ne-
cessary, but unless they made out a case justifying their
exclusion, he would certainly include them within the
operation of the Act.
Mr. JOHN HEATHCO AT addressed the House
in a very low tone of voice, but we understood him to
say the Noble Lord would defeat his own object if he
carried his amendment. If the Noble Lord would take
the question up next Session, he would gladly lend his
assistance to applying it to lace factories.

Lord STANLEY was decidedly opposed to the em-
ployment of children under nine years of age in any
factory. He would recommend his Noble Friend not
to press for the exclusion of the words from the inter-
pretation clause, but to make his proposition on the pro-
posal of the third clause.

Mr. HUME was surprised that the Right Hon.
Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade
should have yielded so readily to the Noble
Lord without evidence. They had now no
evidence before the House respecting the silk and lace
trade. He thought there was a great deal of misplaced
humanity in adopting measures to prevent children ob-
taining employment for their daily bread. He saw no
reason for interfering with a very important branch of
trade employing many thousands of individuals. It
would be better for them to endeavour to make bread
cheap.—(Hear, hear, and " Oh, oh.") The Noble
Lord had voted against cheap bread—had voted against
education.—(" Oh, oh.") Vas not that a fact ? If
the Noble Lord did not vote against cheap bread he
was very much mistaken.—(" Question, question.")
He was against the Bill altogether. He would ask,
had there been any petitions for it? Was it not a
gratuitous interference ?
Lord ASHLEY said it was not correct to state
that the lace-manufacturers had no notice of his propo-
sition to include them in the operation of the Bill, for
he had given notice of his intention months ago, and
these parties were included in the Bill of 1833.
Mr. F .MAULE suggested that those parties had
no idea that the Government would support such a
proposition.

Mr. BROTHERTON said he would postpone his
amendment till the Noble Lord's was disposed of. He
was informed there would be at least fifty lace mills in-
cluded in the operation of the Bill if the Noble Lord's
proposition succeeded—mills where children, at the
early age of seven years, were laboured at all hours of
the day and night. He wished that the hours might
be ten, for then the children might secure Saturday for
a holiday, working only five days a-week.
Mr. P. THOMSON said he must decidedly nega-
tive the Noble Lord's proposition if it was perse-
vered in.

Mr. O'BRIEN avowed that he for one required no
evidence that a child under nine years of age should
not be engaged in any labour, but sent to school, or
allowed to amuse itself in' healthful recreations.—
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. VILLIERS agreed it was a great pity that
children under nine years of age should have to work ;
but would Hon. Members who talked in this strain
show how the parents of poor children were to maintain
them ?—(Hear, hear.) It was all very well for Gen-
tlemen to speak of the miseries of those poor people who
had to labour so many hours ; but why did they not try
some method of alleviating those miseries ?--(Hear,
hear.) I\l,w he ventured to say that he had proposed
a measure with this object—he had pointed out a mode
in which the condition of the labouring classes might
be raised,—a mode, to enable them to command the
necessaries of life at a cheap rate—(Hear, hear)—which
the present laws would not allow—(Hear)—and it was
astonishing that Honourable Members should now be so
anxious to support a Bill of this description, who had
strenuously resisted the alteration of these laws.—
(Hear, hear.) When these poor people asked for .bread,
they received a stone,—they were met with a 8111, the
object of which, common sense would teach, was utterly
unattainable by any legislation.—(Hear )
Mr. WILBRAHAM bore testimony to the cheerful
appearance and happy condition of the factory children.
Mr. SLANE 17 suggested that the President of the
Board of Trade could not wish to postpone the conside-
ration of the lace manufacturers' case for a year, but only
till he could communicate with those parties, which was
reasonable..

Mr. DARBY hoped the Right Hon. Gentleman
would give some assurance that be would make this
coomunication. _ _ _

Ur. P. THOMSON said he wished for time, in
order to do this, and would communicate to the House
the resu!t of the inquiry, at a future stage of the Bill.
Lord ASH LEY, upon this, at once consented to
withdraw for the present his proposition. •
Mr. M. PHILLIPS asked if the words " clipping,
shearing, and cutting," would include the woollen ma-
nufacturers?
Mr. F. MAIILE thought the words referred to
necessary for the efficiency of the Bill.
Mr. C. WOOD hoped they would be further con-
sidered.
The clause was agreed to.

Clause 3 having been proposed,
Mr. P. THOMSON moved that words be intro-
duced including the silk manufacturing children.—
Agreed to.
Mr. BAINES said he believed it was generally ad-
mitted that in the woollen manufacture children might
be permitted to labour at an earlier age than in the cot-
ton or the silk,—the temperature of the factories in the
woollen trade not being so high as in the others ; and
it should be remembered that it was not altogether a
question of humanity to prevent children from acquiring
a livelihood. He would leave it to the House whether
the limitation as to age might not be under eight instead
of under nine.
Mr. P. TIIOMSON could not consent to the
propositions
Mr. SL ANEY hoped the House would not agree
to the proposition of the Hcn. Member for Leeds. The
principle they were to keep in view was that children
at the tender age of nine years and under should not be
sac-rificed to the rapacity of their parents. It was the
duty of that House to throw its protecting shield over
children of that age, so that they might be able to re-
ceive, even in a slight degree, the benefits of education.
He hoped, instead of permitting children of eight years
old to work in woollen manufactories, they would limit
the age of children both in woollen and silk manufac-
tories to nine years of age.

Lord MORPETH believed that many manufac-
turers were in favour of the Hon. Member for Leeds'
amendment. But after the feeling expressed by the
House, he hoped the Hon. Member would withdraw
his amendment.
The amendment was then withdrawn.

' Mr. WILSON PATTEN then proposed to strike
out of the sante clause the words "not being a silk
factory."
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
Ave, 55
Nues
tae ankuideaAn —6
Toe as tinwntie oiThtCd.
Dart ofthe Bill.
Clause 4 ty:t4, Lifir a few words from Mr. Brockle-
horst, agreed to, with ti,t omission of the words " not
being, a silk tactor."
On clause 5 beLiz. read,
Mr. BRO:KLEHURST moved that the clause be
postpont.:ll V.ra week.

-Mr. P. THOMSON objected to the postpone-
dutl zu.f, 14u:ut wa, wit:J(lnm n.
2,1 r. BROTi-IEaToN feared that whatever amend-
mohts wer• Ina•Ati ii,e 8..1 not work tvull.
Toe cause was then ie:reed to.
Clausf! G Was struck out.
Clauses 7 and S were agreed to without observation.
On clause 9 being read, _ _

Lerd ASHLEY said he would now propose the
amendment of which he had given notice, namely, to
substitute 58 fbr 69 hours per week. He feared, in
the present state c.f the House, and at that advanced
period of the Session, it would be impossible to carry
the proposition be was about to submit to the House,
and which he had so long contended for. He should,
however, offer to the House a short abridgment of the
many thousand reasons he could advance in favour of
it. The principle was not a new one. In 1815, a Bill
embodying it bad passed that House. That Bill, which

had been introduced by the father of the Right Hen.
Baronet (the Member for Tamworth) limited the
hours of labour to ten and a half hours. The total
labour of the country had greatly increased, and the
consequence was that disease had very greatly and
lamentably increased. The inspector, Mr. Horner, in
his Report, said that the population generally en-
gaged in these mills wore not able to gain any
instruction after they once entered into them. It was

often said that they could not have short hours while

the Corn•laws were in existence—was that shown in
any of the countries where no Corn-laws existed.
What said the Report of their own Commissioner ?
Even in Switzerland the hours of labour in factories
were twelve and a half per day.

Mr, E WART did not think the Noble Lord had
given a satisfactory answer to the arguments that bad
been urged relating to the Corn-laws. The Noble
Lord had not shown that we would not be better able
to compete with other countries if this country was
supplied with cheaper food.—(Hear.) The reason
why he should vote with the Noble Lord was, that
he objected to females being employed at so tender an
age in factories, but he did not agree with the Noble
Lord in the arguments he had used. He considered
that if the Corn-laws were repealed the hours of labour
would be greatly diminished.
Lord ASHLEY was much obliged to the Hon.
Gentleman for his vote.—(Laughter.)
Mr. FOX MA ULE hoped the House would not
agree to the amendment. The number of hours of
labour did not produce all the evils mentioned by the
Noble Lord. These calamities might be traced to un-
healthy localities, and so forth.
Mr. VILLIERS was glad the Noble Lord had been
compelled to notice the Corn-laws. They would not allow
the produce of the labour of this country to be exchanged
for the produce of other countries, and thereby they
limited the demand for labour. Poor people were,
therefor?, obliged to compel their children to work, and
that was the history of the operatio❑ of the Corn-laws
on the manufacturing population. The Noble Lord
was not very fortunate in the cases he had quoted. He
had mentioned the case of Switzerland, where a perfect
free trade existed, as being a country in which there
was a limitation of the hours of labour, and where
children were not allowed to work under twelve
years of age ; but in France there were Corn-
laws, and every mischievous restriction on commerce,
restraining the free employment of labour, and there-
by producing the same mischievous effects.—(Hear,
hear, hear.) If the Corn-laws were repealed, th•
people would stipulate with their masters on terms that
would very much improve their condition. Could the
Noble Lord prove that if they worked less they would
receive the same wages ?—(Hear, hear.) And if they
did not, how would their condition be improved ?
( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord ought to consider
whether lie was adopting the best means for improving
the condition of the manufacturing population, and
whether by working less time they would receive the
same wages they did now ?—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. CAYLEY observed that was exactly the ques-
tion he had asked in the debate on the Corn-laws—
whether, when there bad been a fall in the price of corn,
there bad not always been a diminution in the price of
labour ?—( Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) When
the price of corn was low the farmer could not afford to
employ many labourers.—(Oh, oh.) That was noto-
rious in his part of the country. Now he wanted to
see such a state of things as that in which the master
should seek the labourers instead of the labourer seeking
the masters.
Mr. VILLIERS explained.

Mr. BAINES asked would it be humane to tell a
family •' hitherto you have distributed among your
family 20s. a weck—henceforward it shall be only 16s.
a week ? Where would the humanity be in this
(Hear, hear.) If the principle of the Noble Lord were
carried into effect, it would demoralize and pauperize
working families, it would ruin manufacturers, and it
would eventually ruin the agriculturists.—(Hear. heap)
Mr. M. PHILLIPS said it must be self-evident that
if you reduce the hours of labour you must also reduce
the wages for labour. If we were to shorten the hours
of labour, we could no longer compete with the manu-
facturers of the Continent, especially as there was no
doubt that the machinery of the Continent might equal
that of any establishment in this country. This was
not a question of humanity but one of existence, and
we could not stand our ground if were to give up the
present system, for it should be also remembered that
several of the manufacturers were now obliged to work
short hours. He must resist the proposition of the
Noble Lord.
Mr. BROTHERTON said that in factories in Not-

tingharn and the neighbourhood work was done during
13, 14, and 13 hours in the day. This was too long
for human nature to endure. He would make the ad-
mission, that when they reduced the price of labour, they
increased the cost of production, and if they were not
able to compete with foreigners when they worked 12
hours a day, they could not when they worked 10 hours
without a reduction of wages. But in this he was con-
sistent, for he had alwass voted for a reduction of taxa-
tion, which would cause a reduction in the price of
labour.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. O'CONNELL said the Noble Lord bad got
great credit for his humanity froth many quarters. He
should have been glad if th it had reached his own class,
and that he could have sacrificed his own individual
interests by giving the people cheap bread by repealing
the Corn-laws.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had
alluded to the King of Pruss'a, who had laid hold of
two Archbishops ; but would he like a King of this
country to lay hold of the Archbishops of Canterbury
and York.—(" Hear, bear," and laughter.)
Lord ASHLEY said if the Archbishops of Canter-
bury and York had done the same thing they would
have been rightly served.
Mr. O'CONNELL said they were correct in main-
taining the discipline which they were sworn to maintain,
and it was therefore doubly criminal thus toltyrannise
over them.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the Noble Lord had
not answered the question of the Hon. Member for
Wolverhampton, who had asked if the hours of labour
were reduced, could the same remuneration be given as
for the present hours, and also did the Noble Lord
mean to fix the wages by a law or not ? If he did, of
course there could ha no objection ; but if he did not,
with the present high price of provisions, to reduce the
amount of wages to artisans would, instead of promoting
the cause of humanity, be a cause of the greatest

inhumanity.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord ASH LEY said he never had any intention
of proposing to reduce the amount of wages, and he
did not entertain any apprehension on that subject,
because when in 1818 and 1819 the question was before
the House, the same objection was adduced ; and al-
though in 1819 the hours of labour were reduced, the
aaiount of wages was not reduced ; and they continued
at the same amount for some years afterwards, until
reduced from other causes. The operatives now were
ready to stand all consequences, if the House would
concede what they demanded.
Mr. PEASE said when the hours were shortened,
the distress brought on the children would be greater
than at present, because their exertions would be much
more intense. As an individual engaged in manufac-
tures, he could only say in his individual case, that if
the hours of labour were abridged, he must close his
manufactory, unless the machinery was driven at a
greater speed.
Mr. SLANEY felt compelled to vote against the
Noble Lord opposite in this case. He doubted the
propriety of rashly diminishing, by legal enactment,
the hours of labour of the manufacturing classes. The
result of such a diminution must be a diminution of
wages.
Mr. FIELDEN. (who was nearly inaudible), sup-
ported— it was understood—the amendment.
The Committee divided And the numbers were—
Ayes
Noes 62

Majority against the Amendment —32
After a few words from Mr. HINDLET and Lord
STANLEY, clause 9 was agreed to.
Clause 10 was then agreed to.
On clause 11 being read, which provided that in all
cases where machinery worked wholly by water power
was stopped for a want of a sufficient supply of water,
the children should subsequently work 51 instead of
4S hours per week, to compensate for lost time,
Mr. M. PHILLIPS proposed, as an amendment,
to insert the words u a partially" after " wholly."
After a few scords from Sir JitifE;', qILAIIAM and
and Mr. Fox MAULS,
Mr, AG L lONBY thought it would be most unjust