The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-06 00:00:00

direct legislative enactment. He trusted therefore that th
house would pause before it gave its assent to the introduc-
tion of the proposed measure.
Lord PALMERSTON said he did not mean to offer the
slightest opposition to the introduction of the measure
which the hon. member for Oldham proposed to lay before
the house ; but at the same time he should reserve to him-
self the privilege of taking that course which he might
deem most advisable upon the second reading of the bill.
He (Lord Palmerston) had intended to bring in a measure
for the purpose of limiting the hours of the employment of
children in our manufactures, and in that measure he had
proposed to insert a provision to the effect that children
should not be employed in our factories at an earlier hour
than six in the morning or at a later hour than six in the
evening. At the present moment children might be engaged
athalf-past five in morning and kept at work until half-past
six or even seven in the evening. Those children had to
walk in many instances three or four miles from their
homes to the places at which they were employed, and had
to accomplish that journey alone in dark and inclement
winter weather. It was not, therefore, a matter of sur-
prise that in the case of those children the mortality which
was said to prevail should be considerable in its extent.
It would be no doubt a matter of considerable delicacy to
interfere by legislative enactment with the employment of
those persons who, being of age were supposed to be able
to determine for themselves, and who ought to be consi-
dered as free agents, and therefore as at liberty to work as
long
as they pleased. His own opinion was, that the mill-
owners were not pursuing their real interests in dealing
with those whom they employed as if they were mere ma-
chines, and as if the longer they could work them the
greater would be their own profits. He believed those
employers would act much more wisely if they were to
proceed upon the principle that their workmen were moral
and intelligent agents, and were to consider that, unless
those workmen obtained that moderate degree of leisure
essential to their well-being, they would be unable to get
through the same amount o work which, under a better
system, they would have no difficulty in executing. It
might be said that to limit the number of hours for labour
in the case of children would indirectly tend to limit those
hours in the case of persons who were advanced in ago.
Such might be the result of the proceeding; but he could
by no means look upon the probability of such a result
taking place as a good reason for refusing to deal with the
question in the manner which he had indicated. Ho had
no objection to offer to the introduction of the bill of the
hon. gentleman ; but he had to state that it was his inten-
tion to introduce a measure for the limited purpose he had
mentioned. (Hear, hear.) •
Lord JOHN MANNERS thought that Lord Palmer-
ston'a plan would not go far enough, and he energetically
condemned the Compromise Act, asserted the rights, of the
operatives to their charter, the Ten Hours Bill, and de-
nounced the fraudulent conduct of the millowners, pursued
for the sake of sordid pecuniary gain. He demanded that
the penalties for breach of the act should be made far
larger and more effectual. He warmly supported the bill.
Sir G. GREY expressed gratification at the results of
the acts he had assisted in passing, and he remarked upon
the exaggerations in Lord J. Manners' speech, and charged
him with stating exceptional instances as the rule in manu-
facturing districts. He defended the Compromise Act,
which, he showed from Mr. Horner's report, had mainly,
conduced to the present favourable condition of the opera-
tives, and he stated that nineteen-twentieths of the manu-
facturers faithfully conformed to that act. He regretted
that Lord Palmerston had not given a more decided nega-
tive to the principle of the proposed measure.
Mr. I. BUTT said that practices were going on in many
mills directly in violation of the law. Young women were
concealed in hiding-places to evade the inspectors; and as
these practices were resorted to, the question necessarily
raised was, whether the law was to be enforced or not ?
The factory operatives were fully justified in coming for-
ward and saying that the question was not yet settled.
They had an undoubted right to say, " You have not set-
tled the question ; if it were a compromise we had no part
in it." Upon what was the legislation on this subject
founded ? It was founded upon evidence brought before
the house that 10 hours' labour was the utmost limit that
children could endure. The question, therefore, had never
been settled, and until a 10 hours' bill were passed, it
never would be settled.
Mr. W. J. FOX expressed his concurrence in the object
contemplated by his hon. colleague in introducing this
bill. The intense interest felt by his constituents for the
last 30 or 40 years in this question was paramount to all
interest felt by them in any political questions, knowing
that the object of the present measure was to restore to
them the half-hour which the bill of 1847 was intended to
give to them, and which, by a subsequent act, had been un-
generously taken away from them. The arrangement of
1847 was satisfactory to the working people ; but that act
broke down from a technical defect, and then advantage
was taken to get rid of the arrangement itself, and a very
unsatisfactory arrangement was substituted for it. Coin-
ciding with the object of his hon, colleague, he would re-
serve his opinion as to the means of accomplishing that ob-
ject until the bill was before the house. The proposition
made by the noble lord (Palmerston) for taking care of the
children was very valuable so far as it went, but the noble
lord should remember that protection was required not for
children only, but for women and young persons. It was
not after the age at which persons were allowed to go into
the mills that mortality prevailed. It was anterior to that
time that the evil occurred. The evil was the effect of the
occupation upon the physical condition of the women, and
it was with them that the mortality required to be abated.
He admitted it was a delicate question to interfere with
the machinery and working of the factories ; but there
was another question—how else were they to enforce the
law ? Had *they enforced it? If not, would they enforce
it? Hitherto, notoriously that had not been done. If all
the power of Government could not make the employers
obey the law, then some measure must be had recourse to
to compel them to obey it.
Mr. PATTEN said, it would seem by the observations
of the noble lord that the practice was a systematic evasion
of the law on the part of the millowners.
Lord J. MANNERS disclaimed having said anything of
the kind.
Mr. PATTEN was sure the noble lord did not intend to
say it, but his words implied it. Now, representing a
county in which there were large manufacturing interests,
he should not do his duty if he did not say that in Lanca-
shire the law was generally acted up to, not only in the
spirit, but in the letter. No doubt there were instances in
which there were evasions. But he considered it would be
a very great misfortune to raise a discussion again on this
question, which could only have the effect of setting master
against man. If the noble lord (Palmerston) was contem-
plating putting a restriction upon the moving power in the
mills, he hoped an opportunity would bo given to the
country to consider what was intended by the Government
to be done. He could imagine nothing more mischievous
than to disturb the motive power with which the manu-
facturing classes were connected.
Lord PALMERSTON said, that the only motive power
he contemplated to affect was the motive power of the chil-
dren. (Laughter.)
Mr. LABOUCHERE said, the answer which the noble
lord had given was quite satisfactory. This was not the
proper time for going into the question ; an opportunity
would be afforded on the second reading of the bill ; but
there was one principle in the bill of such importance that
be could not help calling attention to it. It had always
been said that the object of the law was to protect those
who could not protect themselves—children, women, and
young persons ; but it was always disclaimed that it was
ever intended to interfere with the right of a man to labour
to such an extent as he might think fit for his own interest.
But, if he understood the hon. gentleman, he proposed to
put a stop to adult labour. It was the very greatest sub-
ject which that house, representing the greatest manufac-
turing country in the world, could entertain. He did not,
however, complain of the hon. gentleman for asking to be
allowed to bring in the bill. If legislation as it stood was
not sufficient, then it was the duty of the house to make
it effectual. But that was quite a distinct question from
what was now before the house, and ho must regret that
the noble lord the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment, when he gave his consent to the introduction of the
bill, did not state his intention to resist a principle that
would hold out any false hopes to the population. He
considered that holding out such hopes would be fraught
with danger. He respected tho manufacturing population
as much as any man could do; but ho greatly mistook the
intelligencelegislation o
uo
gf
htth
tot
inclass
fei
rf
with the ingohtt
tahweayrep
otshsae
st sne
do
they were
to dispose of their labour for such a price and in such man-
ner as they might think best.
Mr. BOOKER said ho was largely engaged in connection
with manufacturing industry, and should give his most un-
qualified assent to any measure such as was now submitted
to their consideration.
Lord J. RUSSELL was induced to address the house in
consequence of his right hon. friend the member for Mor-
peth (Sir G. Grey) and his right hon. friend the member for
Taunton (Mr. Labouchere) appearing to imagine that his
noble friend (Lord Palmerston) had held out false hopes of
legislation with respect to the restriction of the motive
power in the mills. His noble friend, in assenting to the
introduction of the bill, carefully reserved to himself the
right to retain his opinion on the subject till the second
reading. The only observation he made in which he at all
alluded to the motive power was, that he was opposed to
any restriction on adult labour. That was a principle in
favour of which ho (Lord J. Russell) had always voted.
He did not think it would be right, or that there was any
necessity, to restrict adult labour. It would be a sacrifice
of principle to make any proposition of the kind. What-
ever statement the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cobbett) might
make as to the many evasions of the present law, that was
perfectly consistent with the object of his bill, and he
(Lord J. Russell) thought it was but fair that the house
should give the hon. gentleman leave to bring in his bill,
and when it came to a second reading they could then con-
fidently and fairly discuss the question. 'The object of the
bill of his right hon. friend (Sir G. Grey), in 1850, was not
merely to correct a verbal error in the act of 1847, but it
was to put an end to a system of relays which had been in-
troduced, and which had worked most injuriously to those
for whose benefit the act of 1847 was passed.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said, if the laws of the country
were systematically violated, not by a majority, but by a
minority of the people, then, in justice to those who had
sought legislative protection, and in justice to the fair
trader, who had consented to abide by the laws, he was
prepared, if there were no other effectual means, to assent
to a restriction of the motive power in factories, at all
events, in those which should bo proved to have violated
and infringed the law.
from the reports of the Factory Inspectors to prove the
Mr. E. BALL supported the motion, and read some cases
evasions of the present law at Manchester.
Leave was then given to bring in the bill.
DOCKYARD COMMITTEE'S REPORT.
On Mr. KEATING being called on to proceed with his
motion on the subject,
Mr. DISRAELI said, he hoped the hon, gentleman
would allow him to make a suggestion. The hon. gentle-
man had given notice of a motion of a very important and
peculiar kind. It was,. in fact, a motion for a vote of con-
sureallegedAdministration,
and especially on the Board
to have acted in a manner
" calculated to reflect discredit upon that department of
osfurAedomnitrahlety late, who wer
the Government, and to impair the efficiency of the ser-
vice." He could hardly suppose that the lion gentleman
would wish, at that late hour of the evening (a quarter past
11), to bring on this question, when it would be hardly
possible to answer any ex parte statement which ho might
'flake. The late Government were perfectly ready and
anxious to meet any ohaige that could be brought against
any act of their Administration ; and, with respect to the
.dmiralty, that department which was impugned, he
should be perfectly content to appeal to the state of the
fleet at Spithead as the best answer that could be given.
(Cries of " Order !") He presumed he was perfectly in
order in what he had said.
Mr. H. KEATING would be happy to hear any sug-
gestion or proposal which the right hon. gentleman might
desire to make to him, but it was scarcely in order to an-
ticipate to the subject-matter of the motion, and to do that
which he apprehended he (Mr. Keating) was about to do
—make a sort of ex parte statement. (Hear, hear.) • If
the right hon. gentleman would confine himself strictly to
asking any question, or to making any proposition, he should