The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-04 00:00:00

manufacturing towns were more unhealthy than other
large towns as, for instance, Liverpool as competed with
Manchester. The Right Hon. Gentleman had also repre-
sented him as frightened at the denser that might arise
reen
the passing of this Bill. He certainly said that in any
change which they made they should proceed with caution
and circumspection, considering the views of a great
portion of the employers of factory labour and the excited
feelings of the operatives regarding this measure; and that
therefore he would prefer an eleven to a twelve hours' Bill..
But he did not say that even if they passed a ten hours' Bill
there would be danger. He would vote in Committee for an
eleven hours' clause, though were that rejected and the ten
hours' clause affirmed, he would still consider it his duty to
give the Bill in its remaining stages his cordial support.
Lord JOHN MANNERS offered a few words of explana-
tion in answer to the Right Hon. Baronet; they were to the
effect that he did not say he wished to curb the manufac-
turers by the Bill, but that he supported it because it would
regulate the proceedings of manufacturers, and do justice to
all concerned.
Lord MORPETH said he was desirous of stating briefly,
the vote he intended to give, because already the sub-
ject had been fully discussed; and he must say he had not
come to the decision he had, without many misgivings. He
assented entirely to the principle of reducing the hours of
labour, but at the same time he thought in doing so they
should proceed as cautiously as possible. He was, therefore,
in favour cf voting to go into Committee, and then should
Hdiedm neotsseheareretar in
Secretary),
that
eleven hours; but he must say at the same time, he
ecaotnfiifdetnhcee
eolfehviesn hftigenhvtaHoenla.eFaeriewndas(dthe-e
feated he would support the Bill for the ten hours. The
main reason for his agreeing to vote for going into
Committee, was because he believed there was a point of
honour involved in it, as something had been held out to be
done when the restrictions on the importation of food were
removed. He was further fortified in the vote he was about
to give by the proceedings of Mr. Marshall, of Leeds,
a gentleman entitled to every credence and respect.
That gentleman had tried working eleven hours,
(The Noble Lord here read au extract from a letter written
by Mr. Marshall, to the effect that he had reduced the hours
to eleven hours a day, and yet, though the reduction of time
was 3 per cent. the reduction of produce was only %
per cent.—(Hear, hear.) Whether from greater punctu-
ality and attention on the part of the workpeople,
such was the result, and it gave them great confidence in
the legislation they were about to carry into effect. He
feared there was but too much truth in the statement of the
Right lion. Baronet (Sir James Graham) that the lot
of the working classes was only to eat, to sleep, and
to die.--(Hear, hear.) Yet still he thought something
ought to be done to mitigate, if possible, this state
of things, and if the reduction of the day's labour to eleven
hours would do so, it should have his support.--( Hear, hear.)
There was a great and growing tendency on the part of the
working classes to attend mechanics' institutions and read-
ing•rooms, and if this Bill gave greater time for such a pur-
pose, their legislation would not be in vain. Representing,
as he did a great constituency deeply interested in the ques-
tion of factory labour, he would not support any measure
which he believed would have a tendency to injure their
prosperity; but thinking the change to eleven hours would
not have that effect, after due consideration he had decided to
give it his support.—(Cheers. )
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK said that the Right Hon.
Gentleman who had lately addressed the House with such
ability, said that this was not a Bill to limit the hours of
labour to ten hours, but a Bill to prevent them giving labour
to adults in factories. There was also an argument which fell
from the Right Honourable Gentleman the Member for
Dorchester which rather surprised him, after the course
he had taken last year. When it was proposed and carried
that protection should be done away with, they heard no-
thing of the vested rights of agriculture--(Hear, hear)—they
heard nothing of the vested rights of the tenants in their
long leases, but the Right Hon. Gentleman spoke of the
vested rights of the manufacturers in their machinery.—
(Cheers.) Hon. Members spoke of the falling off of their ex-
ports, and argued from thence that this was not the time
to introduce a measure of this kind; but the fact
was that foreign nations, with a degree of
policy which this country might well copy were protecting
their home manufacturers; and their policy was strikingly
apparent in this, that while the cotton exports of Britain
had decreased, the exports in their machinery had increased
25 per cent. The Hon. Gentleman wl.o opened that debate,
asked if they were to stop at t. n hours, and he argued that
they would not, because Mr. Oafeler had at some period ad-
vocated eight hours. Why, he would tell the Hon. Member
that ten hours was the period most consistent with
hmuan strength, and therefore it was that they fixed this
period. But the Hon. Gentleman said that they should
not interfere with labour, because in all past experience such
a course led to further interference. The lion. Member
argued a degree of ruin to those manufacturers from these
interferences; but, although this ruin had been often threat-
ened, it had not yet arrivel •, and they had already reduced
the hours of infant labour from 89 and 90 hours to 66 and
70 hours per week, The Hon. Gentleman had referred to
the evidence of six operatives and some clergymen in favour
cf unlimited lab Air. He (Lord G. Bentinck) could bring
forward a host of evidence in opposition to such a principle.
He would give his support to the motion for going into
Committee.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON was desirous of making a few ob-
servations before recording his rote on this question, and he
would confine himself as closely as possible to the real sub-
ject before them. The Noble Lord bad not confined himself
to the question directly before them ; he had referred to
commerce, and the mercantile position of Europe, and seemed,
if he might use the expression, to wish to interfere with the
vested interests of manufacturers, because at some former
period, the interests of the agriculturists had been affected
by some measures which had passed that House.
He wished to discuss the proposition on its own merits. The
Right Hon. Member for Dorchester had so well pointed out
the interests connected with the question, that he would not
travel over the same ground. The cotton manufacture was
the greatest interest connected with it, it formed nearly
the half of the manufactured exports of the country,
and therefore any interference with it must be carried out
only after the most serious consideration. It appeared that
the various opinions of the master manufacturers were re-
gulated entirely by the amount of time they worked their
own machinery; but he must say, from his knowledge of the
feelings of the master manufacturers, that they were
in general opposed to the measure.- The Noble Lord who
had last spoken said that the late corn-law legislation was
an interference with vested rights. The corn-law was a
restraint upon the commerce of the country, and therefore it
' was removed, because it could not be shown to be beneficial
to the country, and it rested with those who proposed the
present restraint upon labour to show that it
would be beneficial. The onus probandi rested with
them, and they had not shown that the restraint would be
productive of benefit. He thought that any restraint upon
labour was per se an evil, and in the present instance it would
be peculiarly so. When they legislated for children they showed
that the compulsory leisure given to them would be of
benefit to them, but now, when they proposed to inflict a
restraint upon adults, they had alleged no such reason. They
proposed to fetter free agents upon no ground or authority
whatever. As a member of the Government, he
did not coincide in the opinion that this mea-
sure was or could be a desirable one ; on the
contrary, he thought it one which ought to be
avoided. They had not as yet been correctly informed how
far it would be safe to go. Some proposed eight hours, some
ten, some eleven and eleven end a half, and each stated that
any variation from the time he stated would be in-
jurious.
When the advocates of the measure differed so
essentially in the amount of time to be allowed, he (Mr.
M. Gibson) did not think that he had even the argument
of authority to support this Bill. He would again observe
how much the supporters of this measure varied in the
arguments adduced by them its favour of it. Some sup-
ported it on the ground that it would cause an equal
distribution of labour amongst a greater number
of hands, and others again declared that they
would not support the measure if they thought
it would diminish the wages of the operatives.
Therefore he said that his Hon. Friend, the Member for
Finsbury, ought not not to be so easily satisfied that this
Bill would not reduce wages by 25 per cent. It was, indeed,
evident that the Hon. Gentleman was not satisfied with the
precise results that might follow this measure, for he had
moved for a Committee of Inquiry, but had been re-
fused, and he was just now as much in the dark as ever.
Then another Honourable Gentleman was quite ready to
allow of the reduction of wages, for he believed that a far
greater benefit would be obtained than that which would be
lost by the reduction, for such leisure would be granted, that
there would be the opportunity for improving the moral and
intellectual condition of the working people. For his own
part he was quite ready to vote for this Bill, if it
could be shown that it really would be for the benefit of the
people themselves, for he believed that the moral and phsical
condition of the working people was an integral element in
the prosperity of the master-manufacturers of this country.
But it appeared to him that such had not been shown ; nor
could he perceive in the conflicting statements of the advo-
cates of this Bill any sufficient authority to justify the
opinion. And they had done nothing whatever to provide
for this intellectual and social improvement of the people ;
for all that they desired to do was to turn them
out of the mills.—(Hear.) The Honourable Member for
Knaresborcugh had stated this matter could net be settled
between the master and the men without legl'ation, a id yet
in his speech the other evening he had alleged that so
general was the feeling that the whole of the workmen
would enter into a general combination not to work more
th:n ten hours ,vf the day, that it wouldl appear,itin
,;
according to his own showing,
thaThenegsa it
was
was unnecessary to effect the object.
alleged byNewark
the consequences of t the Noble Lord the Memberthe
for
(Lord John Manners), that one of
ove-sevorking of the people, was the destruction of between
fitty and sixty per cent. of the infant population of the mtatei
their
fifth districts before the children had arrived
at t
fifth year, and this he ascribed to theli Bill provide anyong absence of the
111°1h-us from their homes. But did this
sufficient remedy? Certainly not; for wowld not the same
likely evils be to arise from the absence of the mothers
eleven hours instead of thirteen, and would there be any
lees occasi
on than there was now for the employment of per-
suns .
suns to look after those children ? Then, again, it was is
evidence that the loss of infantio mmufictures was fullyne life in other parts of the
country where there were no
sixty per cent., and
how did they get over that ?
The same causes were not
in operation, and yet the
same results had followed, and why should they then
as ribs them
n to factory labour ? Then, again, the Ho-
nourable
Member opposite said that lie would exclude
the Bill,
women altogether
from and how then was the dif-
ficulty to be got over, and what advantage would it be to ,
pass the Bill at all? Another Hon. Member had stated that
by shortening the hours of labour they would prevent the
• of eating opium; but for this he could practice see no suffi-
cient reason, for as it appeared to him, the people would Le
just as likely to continue the practice of eating opium as
when they were obliged to work thirteen hours, instead
of eleven. And as to the assertion that this excess of exer-
tion was conducive to the demoralisation of the people, and
that it caused them to sit boosing and drinking gin in the
public-houses on the Saturday afternoon and on the Sunday
mornings, they had the testimony of
their
own advo-
cate, air. Harrison, who had stated that his chief
reason for desiring the measure was that it
would reduce wages and prevent the people from
spending so much in gin, and thus aid the cause of general
improvement. Then as to the assertion that this Bill would
be of service in giving opportunities to the children in the
factory districts, they had the testimony of their own fac-
tory inspector that the effect of the last Bill was to prevent
the employment of children altogether in mills in Scotland,
and that so far from its having been instrumental in the pro-
motion_ of education, it was the fact, as stated by the inspector,
I that not a single school had been erected in the whole of his
district for the education of the children of factory labourers.
I He contended that the past legislation bad nothing to do
iwith the measure before the House. The question of chil-
dren was not now before the House. The Bill referred to
I adolescence and to adults. Drunkenness and other vices
I were snore prevalent in the higher classes than they were at •
that time, and the example set them had no
doubt its influence upon other classes. Let them.
not, therefore, claim for their factory legislation the
Icreditof the improvements which were now happily pro-
,
! greasing in the country.
efficacy of that very
i not all unanimous as to the
I He saw an instance of the advantages of legislation in the
li
fact that had been exhibited in one of the London N ee-
courts a few days ago, where a number of women were