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

IMPE UAI PARLIAMENT.

(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at Twelve o'clock, but it
was Twenty Minutes :incl. Twelve before a sufficient number
of Members attended to constitute a House.

RAILWAY TOLLS.
Mr. STRUTT moved that the Committee on every Railway
Bill shall fix the tolls, and shall determine the maximum
rates of charge for the conveyance of passengers, with a due
amount of luggage, and of goods on such railway, and such
rates of charge shall include the tolls, and the costs of loco-
motive power, and every other expense connected with the
conveyance of passengers, with a due amount of luggage, and
of goods upon such railway; but if the Committee shall not
deem it expedient to determine such maximum rates of
charge, a special report, explanatory of the grounds of their
omitting so to do, shall be made to the House, which special
report shall accompany the report of the Bill.—Agreed to.
Mr. GREENE moved that in order to give time for the
breviate to be laid on the table one clear day before the
second reading, the Newcastle and Berwick hallway Bill
(Cramlington and Percy Main and Killingworth and other
branches) Bill, be read a second time on Friday.
Motion agreed to.

The HoN-. GENTLEMAN also moved, that the Coventry,
Nuneaton, Birmingham, and Leicester Railway Bill ; the
London and North- Western Railway (Kenilworth to Berks-
well Branches and Extensions, &c:) Bill ; the London and
North-Western Railway (Coventry and Nuneaton Branches)
Bill ; and the London and North-Western Railway (Atherstone
and Whitacre Branch) Bill, be read a second time this day,
notwithstanding the breviates of the same have not been laid
on the table one clear day previously—Agreed to.
SECOND READINGS OF RAILWAY BILLS.
On the motion of Mr. SPOONER, the following railway
Bills were read a second time, and ordered to be com-
mitted :

Birmingham and Oxford Junction Railway (Deviation of
Line).
Birmingham and Oxford Junction Railway (Warwick and
Stratford Line).

Birmingham, Wolverhampton, and Dudley Railway (Stour-
bridge and West Bromwich).
Eastern Counties Railway (Somersham to Ramsey).
Eastern Counties Railway (Lynn and Ely Railway, and Ely
and Huntingdon Railway, and Lynn and Dereham Rail-
way Lease).
Eastern Counties Railway (Purchase of the North Woolwich
Railway).
Eastern Counties Railway (Maldon, Witham, and Braintree
Railway Purchase).
Midland Railway (Extension of the Nottingham and Lincoln
Branch at Lincoln).
Newmarket and Chesterford Railway (Repeal of Provision
authorising the Company to use the Line of the Eastern
Counties Railway).
Waterford, Wexford, Wicklow, and Dublin Railway.
HORSEFERRY BRIDGE.
Mr. B. HAWES presented a petition from certain
watermen against the proposed erection of the Iforseferry-
bridge.

DISTILLERIES.
Mr. BROTHERTON presented several petitions complain-
ing of the vast quantity of grain used in distilleries, and
praying the House to prevent it.
Mr. SHAW presented a number of similar petitions.
TEN HOURS' BILL.
Sir GEORGE GREY presented several petitions in favour
of a restriction of the hours of labour in factories for young
persons. The petitions were numerously signed by the
clergymen and surgeons of the different districts.
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK presented six petitions to
the same effect.

Mr. WAKLEY also presented a number of petitions in
favour of the Factories Bill.
THE FACTORIES REGULATION BILL.
Mr. FIELDEN moved the order of the day for going into
Committee on this 13i!1.
Lord J. RUSSELL presented a petition signed by several
hundred manufacturers in Lancashire and Yorkshire, em-
ploying upwards of forty thousand hands, against this Bill;
also several other petitions to the same effect.
Mr. MACAULAY presented several petitions from Scot-
land in favour of the Bill.

Mr. T. S. DUNCOMi3E presented a great number of
petitions from the factory operatives of Lancashire and York-
shire to the same effect.

On the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair,
Mr. B. ESCOTT rose to oppose the motion for going
into Committee on the Bill. He craved the indulgence
of the House, both en personal and public grounds, as he
could not claim an intimate acquaintance with the trade and
manufacture to which the Bill had reference, nor did he re •
present a constituency that had a direct interest in the
matter, still, as it was thought by many, that the question
might fairly be taken up by one unconnected with the manu-
facturing districts, as its subject was not confined in its opera-
tion to one class, but had reference to the labour of the
country generally, he had been induced to call the
attention of the House to the subject. The Bill was
one of such importance that he felt persuaded the House,
before going into Committee, should re• consider the vote
it had come to by the arguments which had led to the same.
It was now introduced under different circumstances than it
had ever been before, and demanded, therefore, more especial
attention. It was not introduced by some young Lord, who
was ambitious to earn a name for humanity, and for the sake
of popularity, but it was introduced under the auspices of the
Hon. Member for Oldham, a man who had been the architect
of his own fortune, and who had grown grey in the business
in which he was engaged. Therefore, his being in favour of
such a Bill, after all his experience, was a matter which
ought not to be lightly passed by. This Bill proposed to
reduce the hours of labour to ten hours a day. This was
the real question. All the petitions presented to the
House were in favour of a Ten Hours' Bill ; no one was in
favour of eleven hours. Yet this Bill, if carried at all, was
to be carried by those who, as soon ss the Speaker lett the
chair, would move that the Bill be cut down to eleven hours
a day.—(Hear, hear.) Would it, therefore, be a settlement
of the question? Ile opined not. Nor did he think even
a Ten Hours' Bill would, for if that were conceded, they would
be next asking the House to consent to an Eight Hours' Bill.
Some time ago, at a meeting of the factory operatives, Mr.
Oastler made a speech in favour of eight hours a-day, and
the whole meeting was in favour of the proposition. But even
eight hours would not satisfy, and the demand would next be
for a Six Hours' Bill. But confining himself to the ten hours'
proposition, were the House to affirm that principle it would
have the effect, he was persuaded, at once of sweeping away
all the profit at present realized by the manufacturers. Take
off the one-sixth, the one• eighth, or the one-tenth of the
day's labour, and the result would be the numbers employed
would be greatly reduced, there being no longer any profit
for the carrying on of the works. And at the
same time the Customs, the Excise, and trades-
men generally would suffer for the loss of customers.
With respect to the foreign trade of the country, this inter-
ference seemed to him the wildest project that ever entered
the mind of man. When they were competing with France
and America, and the continental nations, and only able to
keep their heads above water—it seemed the most novel ex-
periment to knock off at once one-sixth of their manufac-
tures. Why the whole of their home consumption would not
equal the amouet which would be lost by this interference
with the hours ref labour. The Bill for crippling the ener-
gies of the people was also introduced at a period of universal
scarcity. Surely this was not the time to say
to the workmen, " You shall not use these facul-
ties that God has given you for the purpose
of earning bread for your families." According
to their new-fangled notions the working man, instead of
working for the food which was now with diffiaulty to be
had, even with his best exertions, should amuse himself with
some interesting little book—(Laughter)—or a stroll in some
public garden. The Hon. Member then quoted from a past
speech of Lord John Russell's, in 1839, to show that the
Noble Lord's opinion was—that the principle of fixing a
period of labour, or the rates of wages by law, was opposed
to all sound policy and common sense. He (Mr. Escott) would
not ask the Noble Lord why his opinions in 1847 were not in
unison with these of 1839. For the last six months the Go-
vernment had been tying up their hands • while the conti-
nental nations were scrambling for food, they had been
shortening their arm, and now they sought to prevent the
working man from making the natural and proper exertion
to maintain himself and his faMily in some degree of comfort
and respectability. If Hon. Gentlemen would only look to
the nature of the interference which had already
taken place with regard to labour, they would
find the best argument against the course they were now
pursaing, for never had an Act yet been passed interfering
with labour that did not create a necessity for subsequent
interference. If, therefore, they found thiough a long course
of legislation that this was the fact, it furnished, as he said,
the very best argument against the measure introduced by
the Hon. Member for Oldham. The Hon. Member then
proceeded to read extracts from the report of the Factory
Commissioners, to show that the working people themselves
did not object to extra tirne, because, while the longer hours
did them no harm, they found that the money did them a
world of good.—(Laughter.) He would call the opinion of
the House to the evidence of the Rev. Mr. Pickard, who said
that there was no difference between the comforts of factory
children and any other children ; and the Rev. Mr. Fielding
said that factory children were as well off as any other chil-
dren, but they did not look so well as children engaged in hus-
bandry. It was not to be expected that they would. Did the
Members of that House look so well after having sat there
seven months, as if they had just come from enjoying their
leisure in shooting or hunting?—(Cheers and laughter.) He
held in his hand a document, a memorial signed by
men representing three-fourths of the manufacturing
interest in Lancashire protesting against any interference
with the hours of factory labour, which could only
end in mischief and disappointment, and stating that the
responsibility of the measure would rest upon the Ministry.
—(tiear, hear.) That memorial was only presented that
morning, and he did think that these men, who had deserved
well of their country by employing so much labour, should
be allowed to regulate their own hours of labour. He
was a little misunderstood on a former occasion by
the Right Honourable Member for Tamworth. He
had never said that the position of the Right
Honourable Gentleman rendered it necessary for him
to take a prominent part in every discussion. What he did
say was, that from the known debating powers of the Right
Hon. Member, no cause that he either advocated or op-
posed could receive the full benefit of his advocacy or oppo-
salon, unless he spoke upon it. It was necessary that when
men of talent advocated any measure t hey should speak upon it,
and support it ; or if they opposed it, they should stand forward
and show what they conceived to be its fallacies and evils.
He would once more urge upon the House the danger of any
interference with the factory operatives, for they never could
settle the question as long as the nature of the
working remained the same, and they remained subject to
those contingencies to which they were now subjected.
He thanked the House for its attention to him, and lie would
conclude by moving, as an amendment, that the House do go
into Committee that day six months.
Mr. BECKETT then rose, and was
•