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

brought before the magistrate because they had been I
found winding cotton into balls after half-past eight in
the evening. The offence was not that they had
worked for so many hours a day, but because they had been
balling cotton after half-past eight o'clock, and this wasTheln
There
an age when prostitution was rife upon their streets.
was no legislation in that case, but because some
poor women, rather than beg, or go upon the streets, chose
to wind cotton after half-past eight o'clock weretnheexyamp
le d
brought before the magistrates for their
justice
_ What
audacity. What miserable mockery of
.'
did they
wantan tyranny was this!—(Hear.) .If this Bill- was
intended as a benefit to the cotton districts, why . .
• stop there? why not extend the boon .to oth?er
Novpheryatiinv
operatives
why confine their favour to cotton-spinners
very head-quarters of the friends of humanity—in Dorset-.
shire there was no sign made of raising wages
the
of the labourer, or of elevating his social condition.—(Cheers.)
Why, if the labourer in Dorsetshire got ouly 7s. or Bs. a
week—why, in that case, not make the farmer give 10s. a
week to that labourer. The principle was the same. If it were 1
right to confer this favour on the manufacturing artisan, I
why not extend the same favour to the agricultural labourer? 1
—why not extend their legislation to nurses in
hospitals? They worked for some 16 hours a day, and
therefore were fit subjects for the friends of humanity.
It was right, if the labour in factories was proved to be
severe, that they should extend their legislation to those em-
ployed as nurses in hospitals.—(Hear, hear.) Why not also
extend it to washerwomen?—(Dear, and "Question.") That
was the question, for he held if they extended protection to a
certain class that it was but right to extend it to all classes
of her Majesty's subjects.—(Hear, hear.) Washerwomen
stood more hours than the labourers in factories; and
lie had been informed by a medical gentleman that
the greater number of out• patients in the hospitals
were women of this class, as from standing long they were
afflicted with varicose veins and ulcerated legs. If the
system of labour was to be carried out, let it be extended to
all classes of labour, and not to one. He was opposed to any
interference with labour. It was strange that at a time the
evil of the want of employment was so much lamented in
Ireland, that they should propose a restriction of the hours
of labour. Why, if they were to reduce the hours of work
in Ireland one-sixth 88,0001. a year would be withdrawn
from being expended in laborer. In Scotland, if they re-
duced
the hours of labour, 430,0001. a year would be
withdrawn from being expended in labour. He could not
understand why more than a million of money should be '
withdrawn from the operatives of Lancashire.—alear.) The
argument was still more strange when uttered by the
Noble Lord the Member for Lynn, as he wished to
send the money of the State to Ireland for the
purpose of employing the poor of that ceuutry ; yet
he wished to restrict whatever labour could be procured.—
(Hear, hear.) The people of Ireland were not troubled
with too much work.—(hear, hear.) They were not bur-
dened with the many " demon steam-engines," as the
Honourable Member for Weymouth (Mr. Bernal) had
styled them, but lived as it were in pastoral simplicity,
without energy, because they had no regular employment.
The cotton trade had not long taken root in this country—it
had flourished, and was flourishing; but if they restricted it,
it was possible that it might decline, and that the country
would suffer from the serious injury which would thereby
be done to one of the greatest staple manufactures of the
country; for it should be borne in mind that when
large quantities of our manufactures were exported,
the capital of the working man, embodied in
the produce of his labour, was being carried to
other markets, and that he was thereby turning it to
the best advantage. In return for a reduction of the hours
of labour by a legislative enactment, those who sought it had
not offered anything tangible—nothing which practical men
could accept, and therefore he felt it his duty to oppose the
Bill.—( Hear. )
Lord EBIUNGTON was perfectly convinced that the
atmosphere inhaled in the mills would render eight hour.'
work more pernicious than twelve hours in a better ventilated
mill. He would therefore propose amendments which would
empower the inspectors to remedy such detects. He would
desire that all the inspectors should be medical men.— (Ilean)
Sir It. PEEL said that he had waited in vain for some lion.
Gentleman, a decided advocate of the measure, to reply to the
speech of his Right Hon. Friend. He expected to be in a
small minority on the present occasion, and lie was desirous
to record, under adverse circumstances, his continued objec-
tion to all interference with the hours of factory labour.
There was a mathematical problem of great difficulty, which
was, what would be the point at which a body would rest, if
exposed to the attraction of three great bodies? This
was called the problem of the three bodiee, aad was
one of difficult seltuion. He hoped the Noble Lord
(John Russell) would be able to give a public solu-
tion of this problem, as lie was at present surrounded by
three great both, a ; and it would then be seen whether the
question would remain at rest or preponderate one wav or
the other.—(Laughter.) Before he concluded he 'had
a word to say on a subject not immediately
connected with the subject befere the House, and in
reference to what had fallen from the Noble Lurd the
Member for Lynn. That Noble Lord had assumed in his
speech that the result of the relaxation of the prohibitive
system on commerce and the reduction of duty had been
against the policy of last year, inasmuch as the ex-
ports of the present year had fallen far below those
of the last. Now if the Noble Lord would refer to
previous years, when the protective or prohibitive system was
in operation, he would find that the fluctuation between
former years was much greater than it had been between last
year and the present, and that, therefore, the reduction of
duties could not be the cause of what lie alleged. The
following results would show the truth of this
Experience had shown since they commenced the al-
teration of the protective system, that instead of the exports
falling off they had greatly increased. This would
he shown by taking the years from 1843 till now ; in
1843 the declared value of the exports of this coun-
try was 52,271,000/. ; in the year 1843, 58,514,000/. ; in
1844, 58,554,0001.; and in 1845, the declared value was
60,180,000/.—(Loud cries of e hear, hear.") The exports
of 1846 were, no doubt, less than the exports of 1845,
but former periods, when the prohibition and protective sys-
tem was in operation would show similar results. In 1836,
when protection existed, the declared value of their
exports were 53,000,0001. ; in 1837 it was 42,000,000/ ,
showing a great reduction over the previous vear. Again in
1838 the exports were 53,000,000/. ; in 1830, 51,000,000/. ;
in 1840 they were 51,000,0001.; in 1842, 47,000,0001—(Ilcer,
haar)—therefore the objection that the reduction of the duties
of last year had occasioned the falling off this year in
the exports.iwas not sustained, for it appeared the years of
the protective systetn exhibited as great vicissitudes as the
last two years. But were there not other moans of
explaining the falling off ? In 1816, they reduced the
duties on many articles of importance, in continuation
of the policy which they had begun three years before.
Since then they had high prices in provisions not only in
this country, but throughout the other nations of Europa
And was it not reasonable to believe that the high
price of provisions, and the consequent reduction
of expenditure in articles of luxury, or of articles
that approached that character, combined with the
increase in the price of the raw material in an important
branch of manufactures, were sufficient, independent of ordi-
nary circumstances, to account for the reduction of the ex-
ports of 1846, as compared with 1845?—('cIear, hear.)
But, at the same time, could the Noble Lord show
him, in the history of the protective system, how, under
similar circumstances, as it regarded the price of food, and
the distress which prevailed in certain portions of the empire.
The revenue was buoyant, contentment pervading the greet
mass of the people submissive to the laws existing, and patient
resignation everywhere manifested. But he would ask the
Noble Lord svhet he would have done under the same cir-
cumstances ? Would he have repealed the corn-
law of 1842, or the law of last year?—(Loud cheers.)
Would he have done so, when they had the fact before them
that during the present year they had imported no
less than five million quarters of grain, and
.3 et the average price was 71s. a quarter?—([lean.)
And now, to conic to the question, he admitted that it would
ba a narrow and restricted view to argue this question on the
rules of what was called political economy. The Italians
claimed for themeelves a more extended principle of political
economy, while the English political economists were only,
acquainted with the means of acquiring wealth and distri-
buting it. He looked at this question as it affected the
general interests of the country, and he viewed it with alarm.
Why, at this time of comparative prosperity, they were
obliged to tax property to the extent of six millions for the
purpose of giving food to those who could not get it
of themselves, and wh:.t security had they for the continu-
ance of this relief but the property, the machinery,
and the labour of the manufacturer? Other na-
liens were sharpened by the love of gain, and they
were becoming powerful competitors in the markets of the
world. It had been said that machinery had been exported
in great quantities. They had had a Committee on this sub-
ject, and the result. they-had come to was, that if they did not
encourage the trade in machinery, other countries would
take advantage of their ingenuity and make it for themselves.
The working man could arrive at Rouen, or other parts of
France, in fourteen or fifteen hours. They might go there
partly from curiasity, partly Irons the hope of gain, and
partly from the conviction that they would be well treated.
They could no lorger have that control over English
labour that they had at the time when locomotion was not
so much facilitated, and when there was a prejudice
against any removal from the workman's native land.
Now they had no command either over capital or over
labour, which at that moment was greatly expended
by competition, and yet they proposed now to place a legisla-
tive restriction on women and children—a restriction which
would practically be a general restiction upon adult labour.
(Hear, hear.) To a man who was in possession of
health and desired to labour, and who feared the day of
age, sickness, or distress, they might say that the measure
would not affect him, but he (Sir R. Peel) said that,
in a practical sense, it was saying to him, that he should not
work more than five days in the week.—(Cheers.) If they
were to cut off two hours a day, that would constitute twelve
hours in the week. With the facilities which existed for the
egress of labour, capital. and machinery, they were
about to place this restriction. If they could con-
yiece him that there were perspective dangers—if
they could convince-him that it was posible that the great
manufacturers of linen, woollen, and silk, had taken such
root in the soil, that they could not be removed —if
they could convince him that it was for the moral
and intellectual improvement of the people and their general
welfare, he should be almost tempted to yield to their
arguments, for he felt fully as much as they them-
selves felt that the welfare of the country depended
upon an improvement of the condition and an elevation
of the feelings of that class of society. He did not
think that they were safe without it. They were educating
them and giving them an intellectual improvement, and
unless they also increased their comforts it would be a source
of danger to themselves. The Hon. Member for Salford
had made a speech most honourable to him, and he was in •
fluenced by a feeling with which he (Sir R. Peel) in some de-
- Free coincided. If he were asked, as he had been, whether
fourtee
et was proper for young women and children under the age cf
ypears to work so long? he should say no. He was
quite of opinion that eight hours was quite sufficient labour
ter that class. Was it, however, not a question of compari-
son between the amount of labour and the reduction of wages,
and consequently their comforts and enjoyments? He did
not deny that
looked
ewould he advantages in a moral point of
view if they
upon
ethe question only upon that point.
But it would be
by a decrease in the comforts
would of the operatives. Itbe an anomaly to legislate if
man w
they could say that a
was to work on Live days in
Six; the week and be paid for
ander eveneeta if
endeavour
yavedukrl
succeed in doing so, the masters
obstairvtohueidold amount
in consequence of the competition to
Of produce in the shortened time.
be more ii j arious to the physical not that
the women and children than the
proper Strength . of
being given to perform a certain amount of labour? Nartzei
it not be more healthy for these women and children to
perform eleven hours' work in eleven hours than to
be compelled to perform clever'
that
work in ten?
Let them consider it as they would, he should still say
this redaction of wages was nothing more nor less than in-
come-tax.—(Hear.) It was so, for what else could they make
of it? and if they were to impose this restriction on the
labour of an adult man, they would just be laying upon him
an income-tax to that extent.—(Cheers, and counter chcers..)
gEw,. SE
.manufacturer had 1,500 people employed iirlns
41alt engaged in the process of the manufacture,.
1
"e. for the conduct of the business, by
t.
,c, ' of the hours of labour they would,
4
e.,
„..
.*, _ .1,,,,. . ,-;,e of those persons earned sixty poulids a
,
._,
~..„
ki a s