The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-18 00:00:00

~~.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE Ot COMMONS, March 17.
FACTORIES BILL.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. DENNISTOUN rose to bring forward the motion of
which he had given notice, that the House should not resolve
itself into a Committee until this day fortnight. He said,
notwithstanding the violent denunciations of the Hon. Gen-
tleman, the Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Ferrand),
against those who opposed this Bill, he should not
be deterred from bringinetforward his motion, and of stating
be reasons which led -him to do so, together with the
reasons why he could not agree to the Bill ; but at the same
time he must disclaim any intention of wishing to defeat
the measure by any factitious opposition. He should not, at
the moment the House was about to rise, at six o'clock,
nova an amendment, as had been done in the former
discussions of the measure.—(Hear, hear.) When he
esoked at the history of the various proceedings which had
taken place on the subject of a Ten Hours' Bill, he was for-
cibly.lad to the conclusion that lion. Members had but a very
faint comprehension of the measure. He had taken the trouble
to look through" Hansard ;" he there found that three years ago
when they divided on the Ten Hours' Bill introduced by Lord
Ashley, that the numbers were 186 to 183, and on the
twelve Hours' Bill (as we understood the Hon. Gentleman)
the numbers were—for the Bill, 188, and against it 181.
Shortly after a Bill of the same class—a Ten
Hours' Bill —was introduced, and the same House
of Commons, who had decided against a Twelve
Hours' Bill, voted against this Bill by an overwhelm-
ing majority of 297 to 159. And now the supportere:of the
measure had increased from 159 to 195, whilst the number
of opponents of the measure had been reduced from i 97 to
87 ; therefore, it appeared to him, that the House had not a
very definite notion of the question. Then he declared that
the title of the Bill was a dishonest one, as it was termed a
"Bill for limiting the hours of labour of young
persons and females in factories." He therefore wished
to put this question to those who had charge
of the Bill: " Will the Bill not also affect the
labour of adults—Of men ?" Tney must know that if they
limited the hours of children and females to ten hours a day,
that the men would be prevented from working more than
ten hours a day. They could not work without ,their aid,
and therefore they must suspead their labour at the same
time. He slid, therefore, that the Bill was nothing more
than " a delusion, a mockery, and a snare," as it could
not fail to have the effect he had pointed out. He was
not one of those who admitted that former legisla-
tion had been beneficial. They had lately interfered with
regard to children, and tha result of that interference was,
that at the present moment there was not employed in
Scotland one single young person under the age of thir-
teen. He wished to know if it had in any way pro-
moted their interest. On the contrary, he had in his
possession an advertisement, inserted in a Glasgow paper,
calling a meeting to take into consideration the lamentable '
condition of the children who infested the streets of this, the
second city in the empire. All illegitimate interference with
labour on the part of the Government was, in his opinion,
most objectionable. They had interfered in favour of the
agriculturists by their abolition of the corn-laws. They had
interfered in favour of the shipping interest by the navigation-
laws. In the West Indies, their sugar duties were interfering
with them, and, again, there were the enormous duties they
had imposed upon silk. He would ask the House who had
been the parties? Who had cone there year after year (es
an Hon. Gentleman opposite had expressed it) whining for
protection, but those very parties on whose behalf they had
attempted to interfere? They had not only interfered with
protection but they were now about to interfere with the
rights of those who had never before asked anything at
the hands of that House. He had been very much struck
with the mode in which the Right Hon. Member for
Tamworth put the case a. affecting wages, but he had very
much understated the case. He said that their interference
would be equal to an income-tax of 12 per cent. on wages,
but it was in reality equal to an income-tax of 16i per cent.,
and more than that, for when they placed an income-tax on
all property above 1501., they did not, at the same time, tie
the hands of all the parties who were liable to it. On
the contrary, it was only an inducement for further
exertion and more determined energy to make up for
that loss. They were not only putting a tax of five-
fold upon the labourer, but they at the seine time tied his
hands, and said that no powers of his should be exerted be- '
yond ten hours of labour. That was neither more nor less
than a boon to their foreign competitors. He did think that
the House eh( uld be more cautious before it gave in to a
notion, which he knew was very prevalent, that this
country, in its manufacture of cotton, was infallible in its
supremacy, and that no foreign nation could touch them. He
believed that a more fatal delusion never went abroad ; and he
might say that the trade of a country once gone, was gone for
ever. Let the House look at the manufactures of Flanders.
What was the situation of Bruges and Ghent? At one time
they possessed the whole manufacture of lace. They
had lost it, and had never since been able to
recover the loss. They might say that there
men had not the industry and energy of those of this coun-
try, but they stood nearly NAT to thin country in the manu-
facture of cotton. Wnat was the state of the cotton trade
towards the close of diciest century, and lie might say tow. ands
the close of the war? Why, this country possessed almost
the entire manufacture of cotton, but, from one cause
or another, competition had gradually sprung up, so
that, at the present moment, in the article of
cotton, instead of being the sole manufacturers, their foreign
rivals managed exactly to compete with them ; that was
to say, that they manufactured the same amount of cotton,
and they were encroaching upon this country at a great
rate. There were many causes for that. they had great
water power and less cost of the raw material, but they were
about to step in and make an artificial restriction, which
would act as a boon to that country. He had
got a statement of the usual hours worked by
five of their chief competitors, America, France,
Prussia, Switzerland, and the Tyrol. They worked upon
the average 14 per cent. more than this country. But, said
the Noble Lord, they could not refer to America, because he
understood that during six weeks or two months they had
holidays allowed to them. He would then strike out America
altogether, which worked 13 per cent. more than thiscountry,
and there remained still an advantage of 14 per cent. in favour
of the remaining countries. They proposed to add 16 per
cent. more t, that advantage, making 30 per cent. in their
favour. But, if they looked at it in another point of view,
the magnitude of the interest involved in this country was
something enormous. Let them see what was the money
value of the inenufactures of this country? Ile should take
it at the moderate estimate which he had put, namely,
112,000,000. Now, it they struck off one-sixth of
that amount ; they would strike off nineteen millions per
cent. How would that effect the export trade? lie believed
that the great bulk of it would come into other hands, and if
their exports did increase to nineteen millions, or in what-
ever proportion they increased, he would wish to know what
would become of their imports, and what would become of
the enormous amount of trade they would be compelled to
forego. lie thought that the late Ministry had well and pro-
perly resisted this infraction, and, in point of fact, the present
Government, although the Noble Lord at the head of it was
not opposed to it, those who were at the present time more
perfectly responsible for the finances of the country were in
opposition, to it. What did the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer say ? There was no man in that House more opposed
to the views of the promoters of this measure. What said
the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Right Hun.
Member fer Cambridge, and what said the one befOre
him, the Right Hon. Member for Portsmouth? What
said 1.-ird Mouteagle and Lord Ripon ? Why they were all
opposod to it. The Secretary of the Board of Trade, Lord
Clarendon, the Secretary for Ireland, and the former Presi-
dent of the Board of Trade—every one of those, with a regard
for the finances of the country, were diametrically opposed
to it. Notwithstanding all that array of authority they had
determined to proceed. At all events, those opposed to
the measure would have done their duty in warning
the H, use of what in their opinion would Le the inevitable
result. On them alone would rest the responsibility. He
would make a short statement with regard to the amend-
ment as proposed to her Majesty's Government. He had
given the subject his best attention, and he must
say that it appeared to him, as he would show, a
very feasible one. His only objection was that the
House was going too far, because, in point of fact, they
were to admit the principle of the ten hours
altogether as applied to the number of hours to be wrought
in a week or in a year. The advocates of this measure said
that no female or young person should work more than 59
hours in a week. ✓He took that principle, and agreed with
it—all that he asked was that they should concede that
which appeared to him to be the principle of the Bill.
That they should be allowed to work during the
three days as much as twelve hours at a time,
binding themselves not to work during two con-
secutive days more than twenty hours—that was twelve
hours one day and eight hours on the succeeding day. Their
object was to be allowed to work their machinery during three
days for twelve hours, so that by a system of relays the pro-
ductive powers of the country would not be trenched upon.
If that point were conceded it would meet their views almost
to the letter. That was a fair proposal, and they would do
well at once to agree to it. He called upon the "louse, how-
ever, to delay the measure for one single fortnight. The
Hon. Member for Knaresborough said that it was a most un-
fair thing to delay the passing of this measure until after
Easter. He would ask the Hon. Member for Oldham
if there was the slightest chance of any further stage
being obtained for this Bill before Easter? Even under the
most favourable circumstances, they could not' get be-
yond the Committee; and when the report was brought
np there would be a discussion upon that. Under the most
favourable circumstances, they could not bring up the report
before Easter. lie proposed that they should go into Committee
that day fortnight, so that the manufacturers of the country
should have time to consider the provisions of the Bill. They
would be able to say " aye" or "no." If they agreed to it,
it would be preferable that the measure should have
the general concurrence of the masters and men,
and there would be less opposition in the House than there
was likely to be if they went on at present. It would be
difficult to explain, to such an audience as he then had, as to
the proposed mode of working the mills by the system of
relays, and how that system was to be got up. In his
mind it was perfectly practicable to use such a system,
and they would not require more than 20 per
cent., or one-fifth more of the amount of labour. Sup-
posing that a mill at present employed 100 operatives,
Under this clause, the same mill would be obliged to employ
120, and of course their wages would continue to be the
_

. ..
same. The mode in which this was to be brought about
he would explain. Supposing that 120 hands entered
the mill on the Mon 'ay morning. sixty of these hands would
work the entire day, and the rest would be divided into three
relays. At the hour of breakfast the first 20 labourers would
retire, and their place would be taken by the reserve twenty,
mid at three o'clock the second twenty would have their
Places taken by the twenty which had worked for the first
three hours. It would be impossible to explain the system
Properly to the blouse, , and therefore he could not proceed
v" it•—(Cries of Go on.") These would be again re-
lieved by another reserve, so that the third branch would
only have Worked eight hours. The result of that was, that
oat of the 120 sixeitg worked for twelve hours, and sixty
worked for eight houy
oThe next day the thing was exactly
reversed, for those weihOgh.wt
hours
twelve hours on the Monday
would work only oui.soon the Tuesday, and those
who worked eight hours on the Monday would work twelve
hours on the Twaday. Thu
would go on until
oirnetgstricted to nine; but
the Saturday, when the hourpspl.Te'edt-leti
the sante principle could be a
been working seven
/in.y
that Cie whole 120 woujd i
considerably less
iwyehte,se nine hours. So
hours per day during the week —an into:let a
Ten flours' Bill.
than the proposed In
short time h
thought that the system would work so well that e
they
would be enabled to carry it on with 116 instead of
120.
He had endeavoured to make the system as distinct as
sible, but if he had been at all obscure it was owing to the
difficulty of explaining these operations to such an assembly.
He had done his duty, and telt greatly obliged for the atten-
tion with which he had been heard, and would conclude by
moving that this Bill be committed thii day fortnight.
Mr. FINCH had anticipated, when he saw the notice on
the paper, that this motion was merely a factious opposition,
but he saw that the measure was a bond fide
one, and he believed therefore, whether the House
accepted or rejected it, the mover and his motion were both
entitled to respect. The Hon. Member fa. Oldham had him-
!elf allowed that the system of relays, although very ob•
actionable on many accounts, was at least an advantage.
The Hon. Member who had just sat down had stated that