The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-11 00:00:00

SUN LONDON, THURSIIAY
employed was rather less. It was therefore self-evident
that a young girl attending to those spindles must
have an increased amount of duty to perform. The
question was, was this a sort of labour for such persons?
It was said the labour was not hard; granted. He would
like to know how Hon. Members would like to be kept walk- .
ing up and down a slippery floor for 13 hours,• in an mince
sphere ranging from 65 to 80 degrees? Why it would be
bad enough to shut an Hon. Member up in a hothouse
heated to 80 degrees, even if he had nothing to do.—(Cheers.)
Se' he, the people of Birmingham would be ashamed to see .
such person, as these factory-girls in their town.—(Cheers.)
Mr. BRlGHT—(llear, hear.)
Mr. MUNTZ—Did the Hon. Member suppose that none
but a cotton-spinner could tell whether a girl looked healthy
or unhealthy?—(Laughter.) The lion. Member himself got
up a petition in the year 1833 in favour of the Ten Flours' Bill,
and paid all the expenses of it himself. If the Hon. Member
had altered his opinions since that time, he ought to explain
the reason of his change to the House.—(Cheers.) The
manufacturers complained of being compelled to work only
ten hours a day; why, upan an average for the last ten
years. no mills had worked more than ten hours a day ; they
could not,therefore, lose anything by the passing of the present
measure. He believed the greatest enemy the manufacturers
had were the manufacturers themselves.—(Hear.) It was
competition carried to excess that did the mischief. This
competition came home to the manufacturers here at last,
even in those cases where competition had begun with the
foreigner.—(Hear.) He was satisfied if the workpeople were
required to work only ten hours a day, that they would
neither lose in their wages, nor make less produce.—
( Hear, hear.) It was asserted, however, if a different
regulation was made in the hours of labour, a differ-
ence would be made in the rate of wages. Why should
this be? But then we were told it was wrong to adopt the
principle of restriction; why, then, adopt it with respect to
omnibuses? why not let as many get in to ride as chose?
Why limit the cab charges? -Why prohibit the growth
of tobacco? You had already interfered with labour,
and with advantage, not only to the labourer, but to
the manufacturer. The Honourable Member for Dur-
ham (Mr. Bright) paid for wages to his card-loom hands, in
the year 1820, 85. per week ; in 1830, Bs.; in 1844, Bs. 6d. ;
in 1846, 9s. Did this, then, bear out the assertions of those
manufacturers? It was only fair to ask the lion. Member,
or some other lion. Member, to explain to the House
how it was that such an amazing alteration had taken place
since the year 1815, when only 6,000 bales a week of cotton
were spun, and in the present year the quantity spun was
30,000 a week, being an increase of five times the quantity.
It seemed extraordinary that while there should be
this increase the value of the goods produced should
have also been one-third less, contrary to the
opinions of those " feelosephers " who maintain that
nothing but the application of the principles of
political economy should be allowed, and that all in-
terference should bo deprecated, and yet that, in spite of the
interference of the Government, there had been an increase in
the rate of wages paid to the workmen.—(Cheers.) The
consumption of cotton was—
In the year 1815 6,000 bales.
1846
The price of the raw material was—
In 1815 ls. 71eicl. per lb.
1846...........
The selling price in
1815
1846 lod. per lb.
The number of revolutions per minute of the throttles of the
machines was in the year
1815
1846
The number of spindles to each mules was iu
1815 lBO
84
These werlefa6cts demanding the most attention of the
House.—(Cheers.) The rooms in which the operatives were,
were of the most unhealthy nature, no current of fresh
air was allowed, and it seemed to be necessary
that the unfortunate creatures of factory labour
should be kept in a state of continued perspiration, in order
the better to perform their work.—(Cheers.) Since he bad
had a seat in tt:at House he had never given a vote against his
conscience, but he never gave a vote in that House with
more honesty of feeling than that which lie should give
upon this occasion in support of the present measure.
Mr. BRIGHT hoped, after the pointed allusions which
had been made to him by the Hon. Members for Dorsetahire
and Birmingham, and by several other Hon. Members, that
the House would allow liim to state the grounds on which he
was compelled to differ from many Hon Gentlemen on this
important question. In addition to the means of
udging, which many Honourable Members possessed
from political economy and from other sources, he
possessed this additional knowledge. He had lived
all his lifetime amongst the population for whom
they were legislating; he was very largely connected
with this particular trade, and had not a farthing in the
world beyond what was invested in it; but in his op-
position to the Bill he was actuated by no belief
that it would injure his property or prospects,
because it was clear to . him that if the measure was
really cseculated to advance the interests of the 1,200,000
persons more or less dependent for their support upon cotton-
spinning mad other textile employments, that his interests
would be consulted. The agitation in factories in favour of a
Ten Hours' Bill had been conducted on the political economy
of the lion. Members for Birmingham and Oldham, and of
the late Michael Thomas Sadler, on those principles of poli-
tical economy which that House last session declared un-
sound and rotten, and which, if persevered in, would
injure the great interests of the coo-try and de-
stroy the menufacturing and commercial supremacy of the
kingdom.—(Hear, hear.) When it was first commenced, it
professed to have only the labour of children in view, and
Lord Spencer brought in a Bill with that view
but last session. The late Secretary of State for the
Home Department carried a Bill through the House,
which limited the labour of children under thirteen years
of age to six hours a day; but, not satisfied, those who pro-
fessed themselves the friends of the workers, now asked the
House to interfere to prevent young persons from 13 to 18,
and women of all ages, from working more than ten hours
a day; but their object really was to interfere with the
hours of work of persons of all ages, and of whatever sex,
engaged in labour in this country, in the belief that the pre-
sent rate of wages would be maintained—a higher rate than
their labour could command in the free markets of the country.
Many-of the exaggerated statements which had been put
forward by Lord Ashley had not been urged upon the
House on that occasion, but the Noble Lord the Member for
Newark (Lord J. Manners) had read a letter from Mr.
Fletcher, physician, in Bury,which however hedid not consider
more worthy of belief than official documents furnished by
persons appointed to make such investigations. From them
it appeared that, in 1831, the mortality in Leeds was lass
than in 1801, and less than the mortality in Bristol for the
same Liver
pyoeoalr:
ien ms
uo
or trat i
ttlyl
mi no
rlNtlaal
tcyhiens tlearrgwas a lneus Ms
athanmanufacturing
in
towns was not larger than in other towns in which there were
no manufactories. Dr. Phillipps, who had published a book on
" scrofula," had stated that the health of those engaged in
factories was not worse than the health of the rest of the
population employed in large manufacturing towns. It was
stated that the labour of women in factories was long and
severe, but he considered the fact of women being so
employed was conclusive evidence that the work was not
laborious.—(Ohl) If Hon. Gentlemen doubted this, let them
make inquiries, and they would find that he was correct. If
it Was so severe as it was stated to be, why did not women
forsake it, and work as stonemasons and with spades ?-
-(Oh, oh!) They did not, because factory work
was superior ; they naturally turned to it. They
must turn to those employments where they were
sheltered from the weather, and which were light.
The experiments in France had been equally con-
clusive, that there was nothing injurious in factory-
labour to females. (The Honourable Member then
read a long extract from a report of the
Committee on the Ten Hours' Bill appointed by the Con-
gress of Massachusetts on the 12th of March, 1845, which
went to show that manufactories did not injure the health of
those employed in them.) And the report further stated, that
in the town of Lowell the hours appointed for manufacturing
labour far exceeded those appointed in these countries for
textile manufacture. Let him not he misunderstood: he
was not advocating a twelve hours' labour Bill, he was
only defending himself, and arguing against the state-
ments put forward in behalf of the present Bill ; and let
the Hon. Member recollect that children up to thirteen years
of age were exempt from the system now complained of.
lie himself never went to school after he yeas fifteen
years of age, and he held himself to be a proof
that some kind of infbrmation might be obtained up to thir-
teen years of age. Under the old system their forefathers
used to put out every person to earn at fourteen.
And to show that those employed in manufactories were
not so wholly uneducated and immoral, he would tell them
that Dr. Peirce had divided the community into twenty classes,
and amongst the first and the worst of these were
grooms, such a class as most gentlemen in that
House were in the habit of employing. Number
nineteen in that class were domestic servants, and
number twenty were females engaged in factory la-
bour. There was not a magistrate in any manufacturing
town that could not bear witness to the sobriety and good
conduct of these operatives. The Hon. Member said that
he presented a petition from Manchester, signed
by twenty-two thousand persons. Now, when he (Mr.
Bright) presented a petition in favour of the repeal
of the corn-laws, the same Honourable Member
would not pay the slightest regard to it. He
was as much in favour of paying attention to the evishes
of the poor as any man, and he would go farther than the
Hon. Member, for be was prepared to give them votes,
by which they would be enabled to send men to that House
to represent their feelings and wishes. But if the short time
was enforced, they would be obliged to receive loss wages.
He could not conceive a guilt more dreadful than the prac-
, tieing of such a delusion on the working classes, a delusion
likely to bring upon them the most serious disappointment,
and greater evils than any other measure had ever inflicted
d
publication
snst
aTat, ileclproportion
thatHarok
et'haTth
upon them. He had in his hand a publication called
at
civniarletuhuemeuloe:rtssss'ecaAnrntetdedl Advocate,"
sdtto
telt) datedtad December n
thse rfirst
, ancon-
nexion with the question, advocated the fact that the effect
ofy
ts
the Ten Hours' Bill would be a diminution of wages
aialcri
act
thsetuipi reperldeyu,i, c,fet
airoennna
article
numerous
eirnotues,
increasedsst
es
where the hours had been reduced and the rates of wages were
advanced. Mr. Oastler said,
in speaking of Mr. Ackroyd, in
Halifax, that if he were one of the operatives, and he
were asked to sign for the Ten Hours' Bill at the
present rate of wages, he would not do so, as any re-
duction in the hours would be followed by anincrease,
in order to show how these persons endeavoured to persuade
the working classes that they would have the
same
The Ten Hours' Advocate said that when children wer were wages
ade.
to work only six hours, their wages had been increased.m
Such was not the case, for, in every instance, the wages
were reduced in exactly the same proportion as the
time was reduced ; and a child twelve years and eleven
months old, and working only six hours, received only half
of the wages that a child 13 years and one month old re-
ceived. With regard to the case of foreign competition, he
believed that it was not properly understood by the Hon.
Member for Oldham. He had in his hand a statement of the
raw material consumed in the manufacture of this country.
In the cotton trade alone 600 millions of pounds of cotton
were used, and in the wool and worsted trades there were
not less than 260 millions of pounds used. In the flax trade
there were 177 millions of pounds imported, and in the
silk 600.000 pounds, making in all 12,000,175,000 pounds.
If that were divided by six, it would give a diminution in
the consumption of the raw material of 176,000,000 of
pounds, and how was it possible to dispense with one-sixth
of this description of munufacture? The difference in the
revenue would alone amount to 7,000,0001 annually.
net was a questiorr worthy of the considera•ion if the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, as it would make a reduction of
7,000,0001. per annum in the expenditure. lie had attended
many meetings at Manchester, and was aware that not one
single individual of the working classes would accept of this
Bill if he did not believe that no reduction would take place
in the rate of wages, Many of the work -people lie employed
had petitioned that House in favour of the Bill, and
1 he was gist that they bad done ee, as it showed that
1 they were independent, and could act, for themselves. carry 4
That 1,7 N the CS :1111 many of the largest and best establish-
ennt ecioi theirtusrainge d
the
tNrsa,odrili;intigu but Iliaesseevsartnoedcotinhee Itlooutsfl,statouifsethfeoyr
legislative enactments to limit their hours of labour, and to

FEBRUARY

PATENT MILE INDEX.