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

those from thirteen to eighteen worked the full period of
adults, the transition from a state of partial?. midi-
vity to a state of labour was injurious, and a practice
that ought to be remedied if it were possible.—(Hear.)
With reference to adult labour, he could not coucur in the
view taken by the Hon. Gentleman as to the mortality oc-
casioned in the manufacturing districts by the presenthotuhree
of labour. He adverted to documents already before
public to prove his statements, but there were also statistics
to prove incontestably that in large towns,
where there
were no manufactories, there existed an equal
of mortality. He considered, however, that an amount
advantage
would be derived from a decrease of the hours cf labour, by
allowing some time at least to the labourers—not to say a
word about recreation—but for receiving mental and reli-
giou 3 instruction, which was:virtually denied to them by the
present system. With regard to women, he considered there
was a great disadvantage in their being brought away from
their homes ; as, in his opinion, it was destructive of domestic
and social economy. With regard to health, he did not consider
that the Hon. Member was justified in stating that the hours
of employment were so very pernicious as he stated before.
The mortality in large crowded towns, as compared
with extensive rural districts, did not present any
such difference. (The Right Honourable Gentleman
then read a number of documents to prove his statements,
and showing that in Maidstone, York, Northampton,
Wolverhampton, Coventry, and Nottingham, there was no
difference in the bills of mortality, as compared with Mac-
cleafield, Preston, and Chester and Liverpool. The increase
of mortality was solely owing to crowded lodgings and per-
sonal uncleanliness. Facts certainly existed which demanded
the serious attention of the Government, and called
upon,;them for remedial measures. He had stated
that the opinions which he had expressed were
his own individual opinions. The Noble Lord, in his
answer to certain questions, stated what he thought to be
essential for the general agreement of a Goyem-
meat, but he at the same time claimed for the
members of his Government freedom of opinion as
to matters of detail. Now, the present question
was one which was essentially a matter of detail. He had
given his vote on former occasions for shortening the hours
of factory labour, and he would have no objection
to an eleven hours' Bill. He did not doubt ' that
a difference of opinion between the members of the
Government might exist upon the present question.
He maintained his opinion, which he bad never
shrunk from avowing. He was not insensible to the
difficulties and the magnitude of the interests involved.
They should proceed with caution, and with great
deliberation, if they attempted to touch them. He should
vote for a second reading of the Bill, but he should
vote against the prospective clause, to limit at the end of a
year the period of labour to ten hours. He was not prepared
to ge further than what he stated, or to agree to any Bill
which would not be modified according to the manner he
proposed.
Mr. BANKES said he did not advocate the present Bill
for the purpose of giving any opposition to the Government.
He was rejoiced that some members of the Government were
in favour cf a modification of the present system. Although
they were net prepared to go the whole extent which the
Hon. Member for Oldham required, he was authorised to
state that those who sought for a ten hours' Bill,
would not be contented with an eleven hours' Bill, but if it
was the pleasure of the Government to pass such a measure
it would be a matter of satisfaction to them, as it was a step
in a right direction ; and with reference to the success of an
experiment it might not be unsatisfactory to have a trial
for a year or two of such a measure before the public. He
concurred in the regret expressed by the Right Hon. Baronet,
that this matter bad not been made a subject of private
regulation, but he could not say that he, for
one, was disappointed. But he had high authority
for saying that such a result had been expected by one of the
principal opponents of the measure. He did not theu see the
Hon. Gentleman in his place, but he believed him to be in
an adjoining chamber; he alluded to the Member for Dur-
ham. (At this moment Mr. Bright entered the
House, and took his seat amid considerable laughter.)
On the 23d of May the lion. Member for Durham stated in
his place that the proper mode of proceeding would be for the
operatives to seek a private arrangement with the em
ployers ; and he admitted that they ought to have by
some • means or another an alteration in the present sys-
tem, which he said they would have had
had other means been taken to procure them. Now, would
the lion. Member for Durham say that those means had
failed? Had there been even a proposal from the manufac-
turers to the operatives? The lion. Member had been the
subject of many questions by reason of the high and prominent
position in ivi:ieli he had placed himself as candidate fur one
of the great manufacturing cities of the empire Amongst
other qtestions which were put to him, as lately as the
month of December last there was this—" Do you consider
that time should be allowed for education, with regard to
young persons employed in manufactories? " In answer to
this question, the lion. Member said—" Well, I am quite
certain that men who work ten hours are more likely
to he educated than those who work twelve bouts. I only
differ as to tie means of effecting such an arrangement.
If it were the fact that no effort had been made for this pur-
pose what chance was there that that arrangement would be
made now. There had been time for making the experiment,
and since the Hon. Member saint that it ought to have been
done, what chance he again asked remained that it would be
done at all? The lion. Member fur Durham wa
now a candidate—undoubtedly he had every right
to be so—for the representation of one of the
largest and most commercial cities iu the country, the
city of Manchester. lie might not have been in the House
when a petition was presented, signed by 200,000 persons
residing there, and with the leave of the House he would
read the prayer of that petition. The petitioners said that
they deeply sympathised with the factory workers in that
large and important manufacturing city, many of whom were
of tender years, shut up in a close room for a period in each
day that was quite incompatible with their nature, and they
added that, owing to the long hours of labour, these young
persons were debarred from all means of enjoying the bene-
fits of religious or secular education ; that, in consequence of
the long hours of which the petitioners complained, the fac-
tory operatives were in a worse position than any other
artizans, by which their physical frame was deteriorated,
and if no relaxation were afforded, they would be mere
representatives of the human body, without any of
the vigour which should accompany it. They prayed
therefore that the Legislature would pass a ten hours'
Bill without further delay. These sentiments emanated from
200,000 persons, whom the lion. Member for Durham sought
to represent hi Parliament. True, they had no votes, but
they were still the persons whose opinions and feelings he
would represent. If the Hon. Member would, therefore,
wish to please his future constituents, let him vote for this
Bill, and thus render himself a more worthy candidate for
their suffrages than be was at present.—(Hear, hear,
and laughter.) The lion. Member said last year that
this was a fit and proper measure, which ought to be by sonic
means adopted. There might be persons in Manchester,
perhaps, more powerful than the individuals whose names
were appended to this petition, but lie would not for a
moment suppose that this consideration would influence his
ccaidnet now. He bad, however, to recollect that it was the
expressed opinion of the Hon. Member that this measure
ought to pale; and, as it could not pass in the way of adjust-
ment and regulation between the employers and the operatives,
he (Mr. Bankes) called upon the Hon. Member now to fulfil
the pledge which he gave, and to carry out the measure by the
only means left open, namely, a legislative enactment.—
(Hear, hear.) There bad been circulated a pamphlet, which,
although published two years before, had only been sent to
him that day. That pamphlet contained grave charges against
a most honourable person, and containing such charges, he
thought that it ought to have been circulated earlier, if at
all. It was entitled " A Report of the Central Committee
of the Association of Millownersengaged in the cotton trade."
Now, he (Mr. Bankes) would not allude to the personal
charges which that circular contained against this honour-
able person, but he would to one passage which he
happened to glance at, for he had had no time to examine
carefully the contents of the document. That passage stated,
" It is useless to discuss whether the present arrangement of
twelve hours for five days, and nine hours on Satur-
day, is precisely the best limitation fur labour; it is
the limit which Parliament has long since established," &c.
Now, the House would permit him to ask why it was" use-
less to discuss?" Could there be a better occupation of their
time than to discuss whether that which was found a benefit
to the people to a certain extent should not be further ex-
tended, if any further additional benefit could be conferred?
Could they be better employed than extending a measure
which had been already found good still further ?
The quotation went on, " Usage and habit has accommodated
itself to this period." Why that was said of the slave-
trade; " usage and habit" had existed there for a long
time, but that was no reason why that habit and usage
should be permitted to continue.—(Bear, hear.) "On the
continued certainty of this limitation, the master manufac-
turer had based his calculation of profitable returns." Why
what right had the master manufacturer to base his calcu-
lationson this limitation ? Had not this been a constant
subject of inquiry, of proper inquiry year after year ? Had
it not been constantly agitated in that House, and most
justly agitated? Was there any reason why the
master manufacturers, when the former law was
passed, should speculate upon no further alteration
of the law in all time coming? The Honourable Mem-
ber for Montrose had been pleased to say that he had got
one besetting sin, and that was his universal advocacy of
all reductions in taxation and retrenchments in expenditure.
But the Hon. Member had another besetting sin, and that
was his determination to look with such intensity on one
side of a question, that he omitted altogether to look at the
other.—( Hear, hear.) Now, when the Hon. Member for
Mont rose supported the former Bill of 1824, he
doubtless thought it the concentration of all human
wisdom—(Hear, hear, and laughter)—but he forgot that
there Acts limiting factory labour had been passed—passed
with complete triumph—Acts reducing the labour cf these
under thirteen years of age from 74 hours a week to 36, and
persons above that age from 74 to 69. All these concessions
had been universally admitted, by every one but the Hon.
Member for Montrose, to be attended with the happiest suc-
cess, without any counterbalancing inconvenience to any of
the parties interested. But, said the Hon. Member for Mon-
trose, these persons are blind to their own interests; but if
they were ignorant it was the duty of the Hon.
member to educate and prepare them properly. At that
time, when an extended measure of education was being in-
troduced into the other house of Parliament, surely some
arrangement should be made by which the artisan in com-
mon with all classes in the country might be benefited. The
measure (as far as the factory workman was con-
cerned) was an insult to him, for they provided a large
fund for educational purposes, from the benefits of
which he would be altogether debarred. The Honour-
able Member for Durham had admitted that the
man who worked ten hours had more time for the purposes
or
education than the man who worked twelve hours. Had
tallae?alaHneywhaosa,•orked twelve hours any time for education at
he required twoorinpelled to devote twelve hours to work, and
for education be
ieursfor meals—where then could the time
pass
an
equalcalm the Hon. Member for Montrose
had a found?
•
he," You cannot," said
for the limitation of labour,
because the labourers aawre of different conditions in life.
One has a father and ilieuther, and another is not
burdened with either." (Mr. Bankes) said, give
them all the advantage of the
lysaree lawfxt,lvie'eencotahlde
onesee
no distinction that could be ear
edoeul remember that
labourer• and the other. The liousT
before them they
when this measure: was first brought
physical in
were shocked at the recital of the cruepltii,eysn
deformities
the factories; they had heard of the
which resulted from the nature of the employment.
(Mr. Bankes) had always heard and read thoilisintatatetUi lie
with much pain, and with a belief that, while the inanuVB
were not guilty of the cruelties imputede
turers
orthem, the offences themselves were greatly exaggerated;
but neither could he shut his eyes to the consequences which
would follow the want of education. lle could not be blind
to the physical, as well as the moral deterioration which
would result froni this course; anii if Government did not
appiy the remedy, to whom were they to look for it? He was
of opinion that this was the fitting opportunity for
the enactment of such a measure. If they passed that
Bill at this period it would entail no inconvenience
on the manufacturer. The Hon. Member for Durham
ffect a measure
had been unable to carry into
which he himself declared was fit and proeper, and therefore
it behoved the Government to interpose and rectify the
grievance. He would give his cordial assent to the second
reading of the Bill.