The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-18 00:00:00

Government would take off the restrictions upon trade,
he would freely give his labourers the same wages
which they were then receiving, with ten hours' labour.—
(Loud cheers.) The Hon. Member for Oldham had not
always supported the opinion he had just given out, for upon
a former occasion he had agreed with the Hon. Member for
Stockport in his views upon this measure. He would no
longer trespass upon the time of the House, nor hinder them
from going into Committee upon this question.—(Cheers)
Mr. FIELDEN was astonished at the assertions which
had been made by the Hon. Mer.--ber for Durham, for he had
placed the petition against which this protest was entered in
the bands of the Noble Lord a fortnight since. That Hon.
Member had complained, in the protest which he had pre-
sented, that the mill owners who had signed the petition
were not men cf property, and that it consequently
was not entitled to the attention of the House, and had con-
tended that his own protest was a more valid document.
But if it were so, why were not the names of the several
partners in the different firms given, together with a state-
ment of the number of men employed in each factory, for
that would have given validity to the assertions which
it contained. There were 323 firms, whose names were
signed to this protest, arid it was pretended that
they represented a constituency of 323,000 people, but he
would like to know whether the Hon. Member for Durham
would make himself responsible for the respectability of
these firms, as he would make himself responsible for those
who had signed the petition presented by the
_l'oble Lord,
and why throw the responsibility upon hiaf passing
this Bill through the 'louse? He should like to know how
this protest was got up, and what part the Hon. Gentleman
had taken in it. For his own part, he did not know but that
it was written by the lion. Gentleman himself, for be found
that it was signed by Bright and Charlcsworth, of Ashton-
under-Lvne.—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. Bright.) It was
signed also by Samuel Scotland Jones, of Rochdale, and by
several other persons whose respectability he would not
impugn, but there were other names for which
there were no owners in existence. There was Joel
Gee, of Dunkinfield, together with several other
the owners of which were nowhere to be found. While the
names of those who had signed the petition presented by the
Noble Lord were some of the most distinguished men in
Manchester, well known throughout the whole of the manu-
facturing districts.—(Hear.) And what did these people
say ? Why they wanted to convince him that he did not
understand his own business.—("Hear, hear," and laugh-
ter.) More than thirteen years ago he had stated the whole
of the case to the mill-owners, and had then recommended
them to adopt the ten hours' system. And look at the be-
nefit that would have arisen from it. There was the Hon.
Member for Durham himself, whose mills were at the pre-
sent moment entirely at a stand-still, and all his hands stand-
ing idle.--(" Hear," from Mr. Bright, and cheers from several
parts of the House.) He did not hesitate to say, that if this
Ten Hours' Bill had passed last session, and was at pre-
present in operation, that every mill in Manchester would
be now at work. They had machinery now erected at such
an extent that they were enabled to supply all the markets of
the world. And then with regard to wages, it was his own
firm conviction that wages would be as high under a ten
hours' Bill as they were under a twelve hours' system. In
1834 he had recommended that a ten hours' plan should be
adopted, and since then the House had passed a Bill
for preventing the use of relays of children, and
had hindered alt under a certain age from working
more than eight hours a day. But let him finish
with the protest. (The Hon. Gentleman then read several
names which he stated to be fictitious.) The Hon. Gentle-
man bad asserted that these parties were in possession of
fully five-sixths of the capital employed in the cotton trade.
Why a greater story never was told. Ha had to complain
that no notice whatever had been given to him of the inten-
tion to bring this motion forward, for if he had
received a note, or any intimation whatever, he should
certainly have been in his glace to resist it. Nor had there
been more courtesy with respect to the protest presented by
the Hon. Member for Durham, of which he had heard
nothing until he saw it OR the table. The fact was, this
motion was merely brought forward for the purposes of
delay, for it could serve no other purpose whatever. If there
was any object really to be attained, why did not the Hon.
Gentleman meet him at Manchester, at Oldham, at Halifax,
and at the several other places which he had visited for the
promotion of this object?—(Cheers.) It was true that the
Hon. Member possessed the gift of the gab—(Laughter)—
but it was a pity that he did not uSe it in conferring a
boon on the people, instead of imposing an injury,
He would not content to any delay of the measure, even for
a single hour.
Mr. BRIGHT said that he had no doubt that the whole of
the mistake referred to by the Hon. Member for Oldham
(Mr. Fielden) arose from a mistake in the printing of the
list of the names from the petition.

Mr. DENNISTOUN rose for the purpose of making some
explanations respecting a conversation which had passed
between himself and the Hon. Member for Oldham (Mr.
Fielden), to which that Hon. Member had referred.
Mr. STANSFIELD was understood to say that he would
support the motion.

-Sir R. PEEL said that he was not quite certain what was
the actual motion before the House.
Mr. DEN NISTOUN said, the motion was to postpone the
Bill gcing into Committee for a fortnight.
Sir R. PEEL could not then support that motion. It appeared
to him that it was only a motion for delaying the Bill. The
Bill had been already fully discussed upon every preceding
occasion; it was now proposed to delay the Bill going into
Committee for a fortnight, which would bring the House to
the Wednesday immediately preceding the adjournment; a day
which he did not think would be a very convenient one for
the purpose of discussion in Committee, and he thought that
the consequence would be the postponement of the Bill till
after Easter. He did not think that sufficient grounds had
been made out for delaying the measure, and he should,
therefore, feel it his duty to oppose the motion.
Mr. DUNCAN supported the motion for postponement.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the Hon. Member for
Durham complained that he had taken no part in the discus.
'ion. He should now, therefore, state as shortly as he could
the reason which induced him to support the Bill.
Ile hoped the Hon. Member and other Hon. Gentlemen
would not forget that on one occasion he did briefly state his
reasons for supporting the Bill, and it he did not then go
fully into the question, it was because he was limited to ten
initiates to do so, the Hon. Member who spoke before having
only finished ten minutes before six o'clock.—(Hear, hear.)
The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth
in a speech he made on the Bill, had also stated that he
would like to hear him (Lord John Russell) express the
views which he entertained on the subject, but the 'Right
Honourable Barohet was so led away that evening
by his argument, as to preclude the possibility of
his being able to state what his views were. Be-
tore be could now proceed to make any observations
on the general question, ho wished to say that he did not
think the Hon. Member for Durham had any right to lec-
ture him upon his conduct in 1844.—(Cheets.) It was with
his eyes open that he (Lord J. Russell) then supported the
measure brought forward, and he was quite willing to bear
the responsibility of the consequences that resulted from that
step. If he recollected well, it was urged as an argument for
the abolition of the corn-laws by the Hon. Gentleman and
thorn who acted with him representing the Anti-Corn-
law League, that if these laws were abolished there
would be uo ,;necessity for prolonging the hours of factory
labour to the same extent as then prevailed. Now, if he
were disposed to retaliate on the Hon. Member, he would
say that those assertions were held out for the purpose of
securing the support of the working classes, irrespective of the
truth of the statement. He would not, however, say that they
were insincere in their representations but he thought that
a consideration of this should induce him to be sparing in his
taunts of his (Lord John Russell's) conduct in 1844. With
regard to the question, it had been debated before, and it
was scarcely necessary for them to enter into it. There
could be no doubt- but to limit the- hours of labour
for the young people in factories was a perfectly
legitimate object. It ,was stated, however, that the con-
sequence of this would be to limit the labour of adults, but
be could not assent to this objection, as it would bo just as
reasonable to allege with regard to a proposal to
make a railway from a sea-port to Loncon that it
would injure the coasting trade generally. The principle
of the measure was good, and should therefore be carried
out, notwithstanding any inconvenience which might result.
—(Hear, hear.) He thought the object of the Bill was a
perfectly legitimate one, and it should therefore have his
support, as he believed that great benefit would result
from it. The powerful argument for the limitation of
the hours of labour was the opportunity which would- be
thus afforded to the manufacturing population of baring re-
ligious and moral instruction, cultivating the domestic affec-
tions, and acquiring domestic habits. Now, the advocates
of these improvements in the social condition of the
working classes seemed to forget that they were incompatible
with the protraction of the hours of labour to 14 hours a
day. It was said, however, that the hours afforded for those
purposes would be abused, and devoted to vice; but he was
not deterred by such an objection from supporting the measure,
He should be quite content if those who would be benefited
were left to spend the leisure which this Bill would give
them at their own homes, in kindly intercourse, instead o
imposing any restriction upon them as to how they should
spend it.—(Hear.) They next came to the great question
inserted in the Bill. Could they give these advantages to
the sons and daughters of the working classes employed ill
factories, without at the same time injuring the manufac-
turer and the industry of the country, and thereby injuring
those classes whom the Bill was designed to benefit? This w,45
a large and formidable question, and though the limitation
of the hours of work might be indirect, still if the practical
effect of such a limitation was likely to injure our foreign
commerce, the question became, as he said, one of a
been
ry
serious nature. Now, he did not think thatactao show thatse had
made out lay the opponents of the measure
serious injury to our finin trade might be apprehended.—
( Hear, hear.) And, considering the question, they must
not simply look at the value of the manufactures exported
from this country—namely, 37,000,0001., as for instance, one
of the largest manufacture's in this country—Mr. Marshall,
of Leeds, only worked his flax-mill eleven hours a day, and
they had a right to assume that he did so with profit.
They had also been told that many other manufacturers in
Leeds did not employ their workers more than eleven bourn
a day ; therefore the hours of work did not bear so materially
on the amount exported as many Hon. Gentlemeu seemed to
suppose. The next consideration was, how many various
elements there were in the price of the article,. in order to
show they would be affected by foreign competition. With
respect to cotton, there was the original price of the saw
material, the cost of its transit across the ocean, the
commission of the merchant at Liverpool, the expense
of working it into thread and into various fabrics.
It had then to be embarked again, and he would assume that
it was carried to China, where it would have to compete
with American and Swiss manufactures. The original cost
would not be affected by the Bill, and the manufacturers
would not pay their workers for twelve hours' work
if they worked only ten.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")
The manufacturers would pay only for the quantity of work
done. The expenses of a manufacturer who had invemited
100,0001. in his works had been thus estimated :-51. per cent.
interest on capital in the first instance ; wear and tear
61. •, oil, tallow, and coal, about 121. ; and 11. for gas ;
making altogether twenty-four pounds per cent.--(Hear.)
With regard to wear and tear, as far as the reduction of the
price of labour was concerned, there would be an equal re-
duction in this part of the expenditure. Less coal and tallow,
&c., would be used, and this, with the other, item, would m aka
a reduction of about 121. per cent.; so that there was only SL. per
cent. on which any loss could take place—nan:ely, the in-
terest on the capital.—(Hear.) But look at the great ad-
vantages which the cotton manufacturers bad obtained.
There was formerly a tax of 700,0001. a year on cotton
in the raw material—( Hear, hear)—and the repeal of
the corn-laws must also be looked upeon" asaleda
great advantage, as, now the corn-laws had
there could be no longer that difference between:b thereprice of
price in- this
corn in other countries in Europe and its
in the same
country.—(Hear, bear.) The.s wowualds
high or low.
position whether the
price was
country was formerly
If the average price for the future the prices
555. per quarter, and 4osfsco• inrnFirance,
in these countries would be the same. If there was a time
of
was 70s. extraordinaryscarcity"
a deficient harvest—and the price
of corn sJs• a quarter, the French manufacturer
would not have the 4advn a ter) of obtaining his corn at 605.,
whilst the English people had to pay 705., as there would be
an equalisation of prices.— (Hear, hear.) These advantages,
he thought' were equal to 700,0001. a year to those engaged
in znanufacturez.(Hear.) But of this he was mu, that all
those who hail col to iu that Roan fot the mug