The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-17 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 17, 1847

would, in the first place, stop altogether a number of mills,
the owners of which would not think it worth
their while to go on under such circumstances,
and would thus inflict a great injury upon the
manufacturing interest of this country. He had a letter from
a mill-owner in that part of the country, which contained a
statement that this measure would be very injurious to their
interests.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to the working
of these mills, it appeared rational to suppose that
if the hours of labour were reduced from twelve to ten hours,
it was absolutely impossible to suppose but that a reduction
of wages must follow, and it would injure the agricultural
interest by throwing a number of men out of employ-
ment, and making them dependent upon parochial relief.
There was another point to which he would refer. It was
impossible that a general Act of this kind could operate be-
neficially on all the manufacturers of England, Ireland, and
Scotland. There would, therefore, be considerable hardship
imposed on many of those parties. Till he had seen other
reasons to alter his opinion, he must rote against the Bill.
This was, of all other times, the most dangerous for trying
such an experiment. It was not a time of prosperity, when
it could be tried with impunity. He thanked the House for
listening so attentively to him, and, on the part of the manu-
facturers of his county, as well as on behalf of the interests
of the agriculturists of the empire, and the people generally,
he must oppose the second reading of this Bill.
Mr. BERNAL thought that, whatever side Hon. Members
might take on the present question, they ought to express
their opinions without exaggeration or prejudice. He for one
had always been consistent on this subject ; he had never
altered his opinion of its merits. Still he desired to state
that he had no sympathy with any of the illiberal or vulgar
attacks which had been made on the master manufacturers
of the country, who, he believed, had generally acted with
the best intentions towards the operatives under their care.
All he asked of those manufacturers was, not to let prejudice
affect their minds in the condemnation of the present mea-
sure, for he believed an end to the question must come
ere long by the concession of what was now sought.—(Hear,
hear.) He felt certain that three years would not go over
their heads till a ten hours' Bill would; be carried.—(Hear,
hear.) The Bill now before the House proposed to limit
the labour of young persons between the age of thirteen and
eighteen, and all females, to ten hours a clay for five days in
the week, and eight hours on Saturday. That was to make
the week's labour 58 hours, instead of 68 hours, as at pre-
sent. Now, in discussing the advantages that would result
from the proposed change, he would deal only with plain
arguments and matters of fact, and discard all poetry. He
admitted at once that the arrangement would also limit the la-
bour of adults in factories. This being the case, he would address
himself to one or two of the leading arguments employed by
previous speakers against the Bill. It had been stated that
if the hours of labour were reduced to two hours a day,
there would in consequence be a reduction of wages in the
same proportion ; and it had further been stated that the
factory operatives were not prepared for that. He conceded
the first proposition, that there would be a reduction of wages,
but he must tell the House that the operatives had over and
over again expressed themselves willing to take the measure
and abide the issue. He recollected two years ago having a
two hours' conversation with delegates from the manufac-
turing districts, and when this subject was named to them their
answer was, "We are content to encounter the risk, and abide the
chance of reduction."—(Hear, hear.) But he did not con-
cede the point that there would be a necessary reduction of
wages to the extent named by the opponents of the Bill. He
would call the attention of those who differed with him in
opinion on this subject to the figures, the data, the facts, that
illustrated this point. Had the Acts passed during the past
year, for the regulation of the textile manufactures of the
country, reduced the rate of wages? Between 1813 and
1833 seven distinct statutes had been passed on the subject of
factories, and for the reduction of the hours of labour. He
appealed to the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member
for Dorchester (Sir James Graham) if such had not been
the case. To talk, therefore, of the principle of the
present Bill being new was therefore absurd. The details he
had collected on the rate of wages at the different periods, he
had collected from the evidence contained in the large blue
books up stairs. As he had already observed, from 1813 to
1833, seven distinct Acts had been passed bearing on the
question of factory labour. What, then, was the rate of
wages in the different years? In 1833 Mr.f Holland Hoole
gave evidence on the subject of wages, and his authority was
the more important as he was well known to be opposed to
measures of the kind. He states what were the wages in eight
years, and the result is that the average wages of young per-
sons in Manchester was Bs. 4d. a week, while in 1833
they were Bs. 10d. a week, so that though the
hours of labour were reduced, the wages of those persons
had not been reduced, but rather had increased. And the
advantage would appear still greater.wh in they considered the
prices of provisions in relation to wages at the different periods.
He begged the House to grant him its attention while lie
proceeded to read the scale of prices which prevailed in the
articles of food, and other necessaries, in each of these re-
spective years, and the House would remember, that in the
intermediate period enactments had been passed limiting the
hours of labour in factories. He found, then, that
the price of oatmeal was in 1813, 555., in 1833, 255. ;
butcher's meat, in 1813, 6d.; in 1833, 3id. ; soap, in
1813, 81, in 1833, 6d. ; candles, in 1813, 11d.,
in 1e33, 5-Id.; coals, in 1813, BP., in 1833, 3id.
Salt, they were aware, was considerably reduced, and there
had been a-reduction generally:in calicoes, articles of dress,
cheese, and potatoes, amounting nearly to 50 per cent., so
that while the young women in 1833 got nearly the same
average wages that they did in 1813, they could supply
themselves with articles of food and clothing at 50 per cent.
less. Now if the House took the average weekly earnings
in 1844 and 1845, they would find that the same facts were
exhibited. In a speech of the Hon. Member for Durham,
in which he entered at some length into the question of
wages as existing in his own and other factories in Lanca-
shire and Yorkshire. The Hon. Member stated the number
of his workers at 518, and their average earnings per week
as 9s. ld. ; Mr. Ackroyd employed 745 workers,
at an average weekly wage of 9s. 3d., while the
workers in Messrs. Eccles' and other manufac-
tories, averaged 10s. 7d. Hlluded sto these facts
merely to show that wages in 1844 and 1845 had not been
reduced, although from the year 1833 they had passed two
other enactments limiting the hours of labour in factories.
He had, therefore, the right to assume that a doubt might be
cast on the assertion, that the reduction of the duration of
labour would be followed by a reduction of wages. He
believed it would not, and he conceived that he had as good
a right to prophecy as his opponents. When they were told
that the health of towns was a subject of vital importance to
all classes of the commuinity. When this subject was being
forced upon their notice, in terms which could not be disre-
garded, could they, when considering this question, forget
that the artisan was worked for 12 or 14 hours in a heated
and unwholesome atmosphere; that women (workers also in
factories) were torn from their domestic relations, and inter-
rupted in the midst of those maternal duties which nature
had pointed out as imperative. Let the House look to the
facts elicited by Mr. Fletcher, a most intelligent surgeon of
Manchester. He, writing to the Honourable Member for
Oldham, stated that he was startled at the statistical
details set forth in various authorities; but after he had him-
self tested their accuracy, he was obliged to acknowledge
that in no single instance were they overcharged. He had
not taken one town or district, but had compared one with the
other throughout the textile manufacturing counties. He had,
for instance, taken one district in the town of Bury, and com-
pared it with another district in which a different species of
manufacture prevailed. First, in the town district of Bury,
which he had examined, he found that great mortality pre- '
veiled in consequence of defective ventilation, and that
they number of years which each worker was employed
in the factories did not exceed on an average eight years,
while in some other kinds of factories the period exceeded
fourteen years. He found that the deaths of infants in the
towns averaged silty -one per cent., and in other
districts thirty-two per cent. The Hon. Member
(Mr. -Milner Gibson) seemed to doubt this, but the
facts were accredited, and could be substantiated to the satis-
faction of the Hon. Member. Now in the district of Bury
North he found the mortality as 91,4 years compared to 19
years in other districts, and the deaths among infants as
54 per cent. compared to 33 per cent. in other dis-
tricts. Now they had heard a great deal ot the
necessity for the construction of pants, and schools,
and athenaeums for the working classes, but he should like to
know what period the workman had to give, or what phy-
sical energy he had left, to enjoy these walks in
the parks. or th.,,r laecue,cuai recreation in athenaeums.
would any Hon. Gentleman who knew anything of the
physical energies of the human frame tell him that any
man or woman had sufficient bodily energy at the end of
six days' work in a factory to enjoy themselves in a park or
an athenaeum ? It was truly said that manufactures at the
present moment were depressed. Now, what was the cause
of it? Why, it could be traced to the working of that mag-
nificent demon (if he might be allowed the term), the steam-
engine. By the aid of its powers the manufacturers of this
country had overstocked every market in the world, and
that was the cause of the depression in manufactures. The
consequence of all this was that all the mills throughout the
kingdom were working short time, and as there must neces-
sarily be diminished production in future, what harm was
there in passing this Bill?
Mr. DENNISTOUN was understood to remark that over-
production was an increase of good; it was net an evil.
Mr. BERNAL denied that it was an increase of good, and
maintained that over-production was a decided evil. In
America they managed things better than in this country,
and while the wages there were 15s. a week, ss. more than
in this country, the hours of labour were much shorter.
Still America was enabled to compete with British manufac-
tures. In France and Belgium the wages yrere lower than
in this country. But it was urged that if this Bill were
passed the price of manufactures would be increased in the
home market. Well, perhaps it might, but only to the extent
of a halfpenny a shirt. Then, again, it was urged, that if
factory labourers objected to their present; hours of labour
they could combine or turn out. This, he thought, was un-
generous, for in his opinion the operatives of Lancashire and
Yorkshire were deserving of the highest eulogium, and were
entitled to credit rather than odium for not having
long ago resorted to a turn out or a combination.
Now, why should the operatives be compelled to work more
hours a day than the mechanic? There was not a mechanic
in any mill who worked more than ten hours a day—not a
smith, joiner, or carpenter upon the average worked in a
mill more than ten hours per day, and why should the fac-
tory operatives be compelled to work longer ?—(Hear.)
He did not tbink that five hundred men, employed together
beneath a large shed, with this "demon power" urging them
on, could be said to be men with free will. It was a very
common thing to talk of educating the people, but he wanted
these men, who were standing upon the soles of their feet,
in an atmosphere of from 70 to 80 degrees, to have a little
repose as well as education. A person occupied all the day
in such occupations could not be supposed to turn to his
scholastic duties, or afterwards take a pleasant walk in the
park, or pluck flowers in the green fields. It had been said
that the agricultural labourer was worked as severely as the
manufacturers ; they were, however, always healthy,
owing to the continued blessings of air and light.
If the Government did not grant the request of those who

were peacefully agitating fo-r the measure, sooner or later
they would be compelled to do so. But it had been said
that if this measure were passed other concessions would be
required. He begged, however, for himself to state that
the present was a Ten Hours' Bill, and as such he sup-
ported it, but if the operatives should come forward and
request a limitation of the hours of labour to eight,
he should most certainly oppose it. He found that there was
a clause in the present till proposing that from the Ist of
May, 1547, to the Ist of May, 1848, the hours of labour
should be reduced to eleven ; but, that, after that period the
time should be reduced to ten hours. He did not approve of
the eleven hours' measure; he thought that it either went
too far, or not far enough. He hoped that the manu-
facturers would not leave themselves open even
to the charge of suspicion of avaracious grasping of that
which they should not maintain, and which the duties of
morality and Christianity forLa 1 them to hold.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD said that he attended a
meeting held in the Town-hall Of Rochdale, numerously
attendedt by the working classes of that town, convened for
Purpose of expressing their opinions upon the subject of
thee en Hours' Bill, and he asked them what was
their wishes
with respect to that Bill, and whether they
whe-
ther they were willing
the measure in that House,
desired him to
which might arise fromng toth receive any reduction of wages
and
part of the hall was ap e passing of that measure. One
von appropriated to fttnalee, and he asked
them their opinion u subjects, and received the most
enthusiastic ausvrer in the afftruruative. And, although the

operatives of Rochdale did not constitute the whole body of
the electors of Itochdale, still he felt it his duty to pay
a due consideration to the wishes of that large body, and he
considered that he was acting in conformity with their opi-
nions by giving his vote in favour of this Bill.
Mr. DENNISTOUN said that the Hon. Member (Mr.
Bernal) had challenged him to disprove his statement of
facts, but before he (Mr. Dennistoun) did so, he must
say that he was somewhat surprised that the Noble
Lord at the head of the Government found fault
with his Honourable Friend, the Member for Durham, be-
cause at ten minutes to six o'clock on last Wednesday he
made what the Noble Lord called an attack upon him.
Short, however, as the time for addressing the House
was, it did not prevent the Noble Lord from making a
counter attack upon his Hon. Friend, and at the same time
upon a question of this vital importance, the first Minister of
the Crown did not hesitate to say, that during the three mi-
nutes he had then to occupy the House he was quite pre-
pared to state his reasons for opposing the measure.
Now, he confessed that his Hon. Friend stated one argument
which, at the first blush, would seem to carry, if not convice
tion, at the least great weight, and which, if it were not met,
would place the opponents to the Bill in a different position.
He alluded to the point made, that this would not be the first
time that the State has interfered in the hours of labour.
There had certainly been a reduction made from fourteen to
twelve hours, but that was only a nominal reduction, and
was not general throughout the country, for twelve hours
had been always the average, and this being the fact the
whole arguments of his Hon. Friend fell to the ground. He
considered that to put a limit on the power of steam was
the most absurd idea that could enter into the
head of mar. The Americans had a natural advantage
over the manufacturers of this country by about 20 per cent.
In the year 1843 there were 400,000 bales of cotton spun in
England, out of which 342,000 were expended, leaving only
58,000,000 pounds to be consumed in the country.
The result of the measure would be to limit
the production of the country to one-seventh.
If they passed this measure, before many months elapsed,
they would find it necessary to retrace their steps and to
abrogate all they had done.—(Hear.)
Mr. FERRAND said, when his Hon. Friend the Member
for Oldham (Mr. Fielden) presented, this afternoon, petitions
signed by many thousands of the factory operatives of the
north of England in favour of this Bill, he could not help
being struck with the contrast which the Honourable
Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Duncan) pre-
sented, in rising immediately after him to inform the
House that he had a petition to present on the
subject from a different class of persons—from the members
of the Chamber of Commerce of Dundee, praying that the
Bill might not pass into a law. He was, indeed, prepared to
admit that they were a very different class of persons. On
the one hand, there were thousands of operatives re-
questing the protection of the House, steeped in
misery and distros3 ; whilst, on the other hand, the members
of the Chamber of Commerce of Dundee had presented a
petition requesting that House not to listen to the prayers of
millions of the people of this country. We were on that
occasion to support the prayers of the millions—the toiling
millions of England and Scotland, and in doing so he
should offer no apology to the House, but ask them to give
him his attention whilst he read to the House some extracts
from the writings of a gentleman who was perfectly compe-
tent to inform the House what were the feelings of the ope-
ratives of England on this vital question. For himself he
might say, that it was now seventeen years since
he first became the firm advocate of a Ten
Hours' Factory Bill ; but, at the large number
of meetings he had attended on the subject, he had
never yet witnessed one manufacturer who durst raise his
voice at any of those meetings against those who had pub-
licly assembled to advocate this Factory Bill. He had never
heard one manufacturer who durst meet his work-people and
fairly argue the question which was at issue. If there was
an instance, he should be glad to hear it. He saw the Hon.
Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Ward) taking
notes; he believed it was not many weeks since he visited
his constituents, and was obliged to admit that the people of
this country were unanimous in favour of this Bill.
Mr. WARD assured the Hon. Gentleman that he did not
make such an assertion.
Mr. FERRAND explained that what he meant to say was
that he was obliged to admit that the factory operatives were
unanimously in favour of a Ten Hours' Bill. The working
populace of Sheffield entirely differed with the Hon. Member in
his view of the question. The Right Hon. Baronet the Member
for Tamworth had informed the House that he felt it his duty
to vote against the Bill, in consequence of his anxiety for the
interests of the factory labourers. By the permission of the
House he should like to read the details of the present state
and sufferings of those operatives. The extract to which he
had referred was from the writings of a Lancashire cot-
ton-spinner. Out of the mouths of those manufacturers
who opposed this Bill he would judge them in the British
House of Commons. If the statement was true, and there
was no doubt of it, he would ask if there was any Hon.
Member who had the audacity to stand up and say, that he
was prepared to perpetuate in a Christian and civilised land a
state of suffering and degradation such as that which he
was about to read to the House, in opposition to the state-
ments made by the united operatives of the north of Eng-
land. Thisgreat Lancashire cotton-spinner stated that, asindi-
vidual manufacturers externally engaged in trade, they should
not be suspected of wilful exaggeration of the evils of this
system when they made the following statement. They should
exaggerate nothing, extenuate nothing, but simply state the
amount of evil that exists, and make suggestions for its
cure. (The Hon. Member then read several extracts, which
stated that children of 10 and 12 years of age, after being
employed for a short time in factory labour, lost the elastic
step of youth, the blooming cheek, and the vivacity
of intellect, under the severe employment and the prolonged
confinement, often resulting in permanent debility or pre-
mature death.) The gentleman who thus spoke of the
factory system was no other than Mr. Greig, one of the
largest cotton-spinners in Lancashire, who at the time he
made these statements as in favour of the relaxation of the
hours of labour; but now his mind had been poisoned by the
principles of political economy, and he was associated
with a small, and God be thanked, a decreasing band,
of cotton-spinners in Lancashire, who denied the
factory operatives that protection to which they were
fully entitled. Mr. Greig went on state that from long
hours of work, and from its severe nature—rendered more
severe and exhausting by its often being performed
in a close atmosphere--the workers found it neces-
sary to resort to the use of artificial stimulants;
that many of them receiving the highest wages spend the
greater portion of their leisure, more particularly on
Saturday evenings and during the Sundays, in be-
sotting themselves with ale, and beer, and gin. The quan-
tity of gin drunk in this way was enormous; and it was
painful to see children, even girls, being initiated into
this practice. Ardent spirits were not the only stimulants
they resorted to, as many of them indulged to a
large extent in opium, which they took in the
form of pills, and in other forms, which they called
anodyne, which was cheaper than gin. It was much in
use when wages were low, but now it would be an habitual
stimulant. The general hours of work were from half-past
fiive in the morning until half-past seven or eight at night,
with half an hour for breakfast, an hour for dinner, and half
an hour generally for tea, leaving twelve hours a day ror
clear labour. The labour of spinning was most laborious,
and perhaps was only exceeded in that respect by mowing
alone ; and few mowers worked twelve hours without inter-
mission. It was impossible anybody could work for twelve
hours in this way without injuring his constitution
Farm and other labourers seldom worked more than
ten hours a day. Walking for twenty hours was
considered a most intolerable punishment for witches,
but they never could undergo their punishment longer
than twelve. Many of the Members of that House
were arguing about the great disadvantage of losing
a farthing a pound on the cotton manufacture by
reducing the hours of labour, in oppositon to the far more
important question, namely, the sacrificing of the lives of
millions of the people of this country. They said that it
was the duty of the British House of Commons to refuse
this Bill in order that the superabundant wealth of the
manufacturers might be madelgreater than it was. There was
not a cotton-spinner in Lancashire who durst attend
a puonc 7 ••- 3 of the large ma-
nufacturing towns, and there openly state, in the
presence of numbers of the factor), workmen,
similar to that which had been stated in that House ; and if
there was one Member of that House connected with the
cotton trade who was prepared to dispute the policy of grant-
ing this measure before the factory workers of the north of
England, he challenged him to go down to the town
with which he was connected, where he (Mr. Ferrand) would
meet him, and discuss the question with him at a public
meeting; and he pledged his word, that although attempts
had been secretly made to induce the factory workers in many
parts to make statements in opposition to the Bill—and he
should prove it to the House before long—he should show that
the operatives themselves were anxious to work no more
than ten hours a day, and that if the House would
not legislate for them they would legislate for themselves.
It was further said by Mr. Greig, that the fourth cause of the
ill-health prevailing in the manufacturing districts might be
traced to the weakened and vitiated constitutions of the
women. They were employed after their marriage and dur-
ing their pregnancy, and that was known to every one, who
had considered the subject, to bring on a weakened and
debilitated condition to the children, so that when
the children began working themselves, they were pre-
pared at once to succumb to the evil influences by
which they were surrounded. Those were the facts
delivered by Mr. Greig, guaranteed by him, and which he
had published to the world upon his high authority. Was
there a Member in that House who could gaiasay any one of
them, or any longer maintain in the House the factory
system, which had been carried on by the sacrifice of thou-
sands of the people of England? The manufacturers had also
said, in a statement which had been circulated among the
Members of that House, that if they carried the Ten Hours'
Bill, let the Ministers be responsible for the consequences,
their mills for the .
and
swt
iniOeoS
tol loatt
otfhtehwe abyonfoesr menand
weWaltash
we ths,havdheoyifeahtmhhezaedessuteadrgrvroed l
enormous
people of England to conduct them-
eoarmsolosus4f2a.r as to threaten to close
purpose of creating events similar to
etewLicdhiegthreeeyefushlloyultde stehter.
example?was
Afterth theyatth
e way in
vin
selves—and had carried the corn-laws, they
still opposed the
Factory Bill, after they had promised to give their support
to it.--(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT—No.

said M Mr. FNEO.I,t, AHN
eD —(Tiuhre Honourable
.Fernand) Member for
that Durhamthey
did, and if they did he called on them, as men of
honour, to redeem their pledge, and if they did
not do so they ought to be branded with infamy
and disgrace. It was not the Ministers that would be re-
sponsible. It was themselves who would be responsible
The manufacturers had declared through their representative.
in that House, that if they were left alone, and legislative
interference were not brought to bear upon them, they would
immediately arrange the thing between the masters and
.the
workmen—that they would introduce the Ten Hours' Bill
themselves. Had they done so? They had broken their pledge
and promises, being determined that this disgraceful state of
things should continue, and it was therefore the;duty of Parlia-
ment to interfere and to protect the weak against the strong.
Who were the parties who interfered and told them that they
should not come to that House to protect men? Did they
come to protect men? No; they came for the protection of
women and children, who were compelled either to work for
this period or starve to death. It was their machinery which
destroyed the system of manual labour and the hand-loom
weavers. Many of them had been starved in the country;
and he had been told, upon a very competent authority, that
in a few years machinery would destroy the labour of 70,000
persons more. What were the manufacturers doing at
the present moment ? Their mills were not running six
hours a day. To effect good to these mills, their employment
ought to be steady and regular; and they ought not to starve
the people for one half of the year, and work them to death
during the other half; and he had received accounts from
Manchester, which said that there was a probability that the
great majority of the mills would soon be entirely closed, and
yet, during this state of things, it was proposed to retain the
power of working the people for twelve hours a day. The
first medical men in England had declared that no man
was capable of working twelve hours during the whole year.
They were longer than any horse or man could bear it; and
women and children were compelled to bear it, and w.,re dying
by thousands. Even the men could not bear the factory
labour beyond the age of 45. The Hon. Member for Mon-
trose had said, leave the women and children to themselves,

they would settle the matter with their masters. Did any
man suppose that when a mother went to the mills, receiving
only Bs. or 10s. per week, and returning she found her
three or four children crying for food, that she would not
work her fingers' ends raw, and herself to death, rather
than sit down and see her children starving? He had
even conversed with these women themselves, and
they had stated to him that it was little known
what their sufferings were. When they returned
weary and fatigued, and saw their children in want, they
would work, as long as God gave them health and strength,
to support them. The Hon. Member for Durham, on Wed-
nesday last, when he saw the gangway, made some ex-
traordinary statements in his speech, and that in so deter-
mined and firm a manner, that he (Mr. Ferrand) had no
doubt that the House believed them to be all true. The Hon.
Member said, in one part of his speech, that such speeches
as used to be made by Lord Ashley had not been heard that
day, except from the Noble Lord the Member for Newark, and
that Lord Ashley used to make speeches in that House which he
had now given up, and which had been proved to be wrong.
He (Mr. ]errand) was prepared to challenge the Hpn. Mem-
ber to prove that any statement Lord Ashley ever made in
that House connected with the Ten Hours' Bill was not
strictly true. It was not manly of the Hon. Member to come
there and attack Lord Ashley behind his back.
Mr. ROEBUCK here made some observation.
Mr. FERRAND—" He could come here," said the Hon.
Member for Bath.
Mr. ROEBUCK—I did not say so.
Mr. FERRAND said that he understood the Hon. Member
to say so, and the next time the Hon. Member interrupted
him, let him speak so as to be understood. The Nobie Lord
was not there to defend himself, and he ( Mr. Ferrand) should
be accused of ingratitude towards the Noble Lord, if he sat
in that House and allowed his character to be so unjustly at-
tacked, when he had sacrificed his seat for the principle of
this measure. The Noble Lord had published to his consti-
tuency a letter, stating his determination to support the re-
peal of the corn-laws, and he (Mr. Ferrand) was justified in
saying that he (Lord Ashley) had received a communication
made to him from the leading cotton-spinners of Lancashire, to
the effect that if he did support them in obtaining the repeal of
the corn-laws they would support him in his Ten Hours'
Factory Bill, which the Noble Lord had supported during
the best period of his life. The other day in Lancashire the
Noble Lord attended a vast meeting, when no man dared to
oppose him. The Hon. Member was in Rochdale, but did not
meet Lord Ashley.
Mr. BRIGHT—No I was not, I beg your pardon.
Mr. FERRAND begged pardon. Why did not the Hon.
Member meet him there, when his own brother appeared?—he
had not the pluck to do it. The Hon. Bilember did not go to him
face to face and make his charges. The brother of the Hon.
Member had the pluck to go, and manfully spoke before his
own workmen, but he was not able to get a single man to se-
cond him. e again asked the Hon. Member what stste-
meat of Lord Ashley's which was ever made in that House
lie was prepared to refute? Two years ago the llon. Mem •
ber made some such statements as these against the Noble
Lord, who was accused of having made some unfounded state-
ment in that House with regard to the childen in the factories.
The Hon. Member for Durham had referred to a petition
which had been presented to that House from Manchester,
with 70,000 signatures, in support of a repeal of the corn-
laws, as a contrast to the petition of the operatives in favour
of the present Bill, signed by 22,000. Why, the popu-
lation of Manchester was but 262,000, and the male
adults there not more than 40,000, so that it would be
impossible to get up a petition with 70,000 names,
even if all the male adults signed it. He trusted, when the
Bill went into Committee, the Hon. Member would get up
and explain how this petition was got up, as he (Mr. E'er-
rand) believed that 22,000 was a fair representation of the
opinion of Manchester. It had also been denied by that
Hon. Member that the operatives were prepared to take
the chance of the reduction of wages. He (Mr. Ferrand)
had been lately at meetings all over the manufacturing
districts, at which the question was always put, if they
were prepared for the consequences of a reduction of wages?
the universal answer was, they were. Meetings had been
held at Manchester, Bury, Barnley, Rochdale, Preston,
Chorlev, Huddersfield, Halifax, Bradford, Holmforth, Keigh-
ley, Leeds, Glasgow, Paisley, and Dundee, at which
this answer to the question had been given. It
was not put at the meeting held at Edinburgh,
because it was composed of factory operatives. Nay, a
report of the meeting at Rochdale had appeared in
the Hon. Member for Durham's own paper, the Manchester
Examiner.
Mr. BRIGHT—It is not mine.
Mr. FERRAND—Then he was a shareholder, or had
something to do with it.— (Cries of order). The Manchester
Examiner confirmed the fact that the question had been
put at the Rochdale meeting and answered in the manner
he had described. At the very time the Hon. Member was
making his speech last Wednesday a message was sent
down to Bradford, and the next morning a meeting of the
operatives was advertised by placard. It was held in the
evening, in Christ Church School, and presided over by the
Rev. Wm. Oldham. It was densely attended, and
when the question was put about the wages, every
hand was held up for the Bill.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon.
Member had also told the House that the mechanics of the
north were always glad to work long hours when they could
get an increase of wages. lie (Mr. Ferrand) had since then
received a letter from the mechanics of Manchester, denying
the statement, and enclosing a copy of a prize essay,
issued under the auspices of the delegates of the
united mechanics of Great Britain and Ireland, as to the
benefits resulting from a reduction of the hours of labour.
The Honourable Member had also denied that any com-
pact had been entered into between the Anti-Corn-
law League and the factory operatives, on the con-
dition that if the latter supported the repeal of
the corn-laws the, former would withdraw their oppo-
sition to the Ten Hours' Bill. Now, in answer to that
he could prove that in 1843 and 1844, when the League was
not very popular with the operatives, his old friend Mr.
Brookes, of God bless you, we're all for ourselves" noto-
riety made effbrts to convince the leaders of the factory
operatives, if they would support the repeal of the corn-laws,:he
and many other manufacturers would support the Ten Hours'
Bill. Mr. Ashworth had also corresponded with the short-
time delegates in London, to the effect that the corn-laws
were the cause of long hours of labour, and that they should
be repealed before any reduction in the hours of working took
place. (The Hon. Member then read several extracts from
letters and documents in support of what he had advanced.)
The League had obtained the repeal of the corn-laws; were
they prepared to fulfil their contract?—(Hear, hear.) He
would not argue the question of foreign competition with
them, but he claimed it of them, as an act of duty, justice,
and honour, to carry out their pledge, and not endeavour to
intimidate the House in order to rob the poor man of his
rights. The Manchester manufacturers had also pledged
themselves to Lord Ashley, through Mr. Greig, that if the
Corn-laws were repealed they would not oppose a Ten Hours'
Bill. The Hon. Member then proceeded to read a letter, ad-
dressed by Lord Ashley to the Secretary of the Operative
Short-Time Committee, sitting in London. His Lordship
said that Mr. Greig of Manchester had done him the honour
to call upon him at the Albion Hotel, and he there ex-
pressed his strong desire for the settlement of the short-
time question. The manufacturers had been benefited by
the repeal of the duty on raw cotton, and they would be
further benefited by the repeal of the corn-laws ;
and he thought it but fair justice that the
workman should receive his share of those advantages
in abridged hours of labour. This he conceived could only
be done by legislative enactment, as every proposition for
regulations between the employers and the workmen had
failed already. So much for the opinion of Mr. Grieg.
Now, he thought that he had proved to the House that a
deliberate compact had been entered into between the manu-
facturers and the work-people. But what had been the con-
duct of some of the largest manufacturers in Manchester,
after the poor people had been at the expense of sending up to
London delegates to watch over their interests ? It was, perhaps,
lucky for them that they did so, as he (Mr. Ferrand) had been
informed that there was in the Blouse a document purporting
to be from some of the workmen of Manchester (tor the
purpose of showing that they were opposed to the Ten Hours'
Bill), and he believed that that paper would be used in the
course of that debate, probably by the Hon. Member for
Manchester. It was lucky for the operatives that he (Mr.
Ferrand) had caught the Speaker's eye before the Hon.
Member had, as he thus had an opportunity of forestalling the
statement made by the Hon. Member. ow what had the
manufacturers been doing inManchester? On Monday last the
averlookers and managers of Messrs. Murray's works—and he
managers e rs of
hours'
wished to call the attention of the House to this fact, in
order to show the degree of intimidation which was used
against the operative- The overlookers
sve
"Eleven m
hours' work and
g '--rs'"worker they put the in-
quiry, mills went round among the workmen, with books in
wTaivgeel
their hands, all ruled in columns, under these heads—
" Ten
' twelve
wT err
yell 1,, ea hnDhodoou
hours
yris
es'
you
uwewno
prefer
krgheeefaseunr ;r de„ ten
dg
twelveehte ootu each
hours work and a twelve
hours' wages, or an
wagese el n or ten
Hear,h
hours'ear,
from
n withm r
.a
Bright)
de lgehvte.n
'option left here for the workmen. They were to
n to these agreements. The manufacturers were
bTo or ten
betroeenu
n was no
hours'
determined to protect themselves—("Hear,"from Mr. Bright)
—but there was no protection extended to the workmen—
(Hear, hear)—for they were given to understand, in almost
w
as many words, that as they chose the alternatives offered,
so would they please or displease their masters. The Messrs.
Holdsworth had adopted the same course, and the men there
e n
twelve—thus hours work andthe
to wages,
and stihgenewdeftnor eleent:r
wall. Messrs. M'Connell had adopted a similar course, but
they gave some hours' notice, and the men chose ten hours'
labour, and informed their employers that they would take
their chance of the wages. Now, if the House would listen
to what took place in the borough of Manchester, the House
would understand the workpeople would no longer be trifled
with. The Hon. Member proceeded to read—" Last night a
meeting was held in the Mead House (one of the largest halls in
Manchester), which was crammed to excess. The meeting
was entirely conducted by operatives. The first resolution
adopted was—" That this meeting cannot but view with

a feeling of regret and indignation the conduct of those mas:
ters who had adopted the disreputable course of sending their
managers and overlookers through the mills with books in
their hands, demanding in a hasty and peremptory manner
whether they were in favour of a Ten, an Eleven, or Twelve
Hours' Bill—the object being to receive such answers as
would enable Hon. Members to offer some further opposition
to the Bill now before the House. The second resolution
was, " That the factory workers are prepared to accept a Ten
Hours' Bill, regardless of its effect on wages, leaving the
prices of their labour to be regulated by the same principle
which fixed the prices of other commodities in the market."
He (Mr. Ferrand) had intended to have alluded to several
other mis-statements made by the Honourable Member
for Durham, but he did not know that he would be justified
in taking up the time of the House. Before he sat down he
should wish to tell the House that the factory operatives
throughout the land would no longer be trifled with. The
Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taunted
them in this House that they had not struck through-
out England.—(Hear.) He (Mr. Ferrand) was glad that
they had not done so. The horny-handed men of England
had come to this House praying for protection for their
wives and children, and their prayers had been denied.
They had not denied protection to the wives and children
of the miners, but sympathy was excited in their
favour by the decorations which illustrated the
' blue book.— ( Hear, hear.) The factory operatives
would get up similar decorations. They would also work
upon the feelings of Hon. Members, it they could not rely
upon their justice, and .500 factory cripples, assembled in
Palace-yard, would raise a shout of supplication to the House
of Commons, and the universal burden of their prayer would
be, " We will have the Ten Hours Bill."
Mr. ROEBUCK said he would pass over the noisy decla-
mation of the Hon. Gentleman who had just resumed his
seat, and direct his attention to the little argument con-
tained in his speech. He was in no way connected with the
commercial interest of this country, and therefore
could have no other motive for opposing this
Bill, except that he considered it would be for
the public good that it should not pass, and yet,
be-
cause he opposed it upon conviction, he was to be called a
cold-blooded political economist.—(Hear, hear.) It was
time he had investigated the science of political economy a$
applied to the laws of trade, and as that investigation
had induced him to come to a very different
oonclusion to that of Honourable Gentlemen opposite, it was
hardly fair that vituperation of the vilest character should
be-heaped upon his head.—(Hear, hear.) He should, how-
ever, hardly hays addressed himself to this question had it

not been for the address of the Noble Lord the Member
for Newark, who wound up his speech with half a dozen
perorations, and concluded the last of them with this
observations, " and yet the working people of this country
understand that gentlemen on this side of the House (mean-
ing of coupe his own) also are attached to that party of
historic recollection, are in favour of a Ten Hours' Bill, and
were not opposing themselves to the rights of the people."—
( Hear, hear.) Historic recollection of party indeed! He
thought if he were to look back into the page of history, he
should find that this party had been engaged
in one continued effort to repress the energies of the people;
but he was not called upon on that occasion to enter into
the lists with the Noble Lord upon that subject, but were
he called upon he could do so.—(Hear, hear.) That, how-
ever, was not the question he wished to embark in ; but, with-
out any feeling of party, he wanted to address himself to the
great question which was now occupying the attention of the
House.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman who last ad-
dressed them had held out a threat to the House by which
he proposed to influence their judgment through their feel-
ings, and he wished to know whether that mode of deal-
ing with the question was worthy of the representative of
the people—was it rational?—(Hear, bear.) The Hon.
Member for Knaresborough said it was not fair to ask the
labourer this question, " Are you willing to take ten hours'
wages for ten hours' work ?" But, in his opinion, it was
more honourable putting it that way, than holding out to
the operative- that he would receive twelve hours' wages for
the ten hours' work if this Bill were passed. Now, could they
by any legislative enactment secure for the labouring man 12
hours' wages for ten hours' work ? If they could do that,
why could they not receive twelve hours' wages fbr six hours'
work? Nay, he would go further, and say, why could they
not receive twelve hours' wages for no work at all ?—(Hear,
and laughter.) The Honourable Member for Weymouth
had indulged in some remarks against over-pro•
duction, and argued that it would raise the price
of a shirt a farthing, or a coat a penny. He appre-
hended that was not the way in which they ought to meet
the question, nor was trade calculated upon that principle.
How was it calculated? Why, a man having a certain
capital to exhaust, employed a certain number of labourers
in the production of certain articles, which he afterwards
threw into the home and foreign markets to compete with
others, and if he was undersold of course his speculation
failed. That was the principle which regulated trade, but
if by legislative enactments they attempted to cripple trade
they might depend upon it America would not follow
their example, and much of their trade would be lost to them
for ever. But what was the state of the country when
this measure was brought forward? Why they were about to
maintain three millions of people just at the very moment
it was proposel to them to tie up theright hand of the British
people. He had heard it said that their success in their con-
flicts with Napoleon was owing to British valour. There was,
however, another implement they used in the conflict, and
that was the British influence supplied by the manufacturing
sinews of the country. They had now an enemy far
greater than Napoleon, who was a far snore potent
instrument than Napoleon. They had a famine stalk-
ing over the land. Ireland was starving, and England
was approaching starvation state, and yet at this
moment, for party purposes, the question was raised.
The Irish people were promised mutton every day, the En-
glish were promised twelve hours' wages for ten hours' work.
This was called "statesmanship, dealing with the interests of
a great country upon a comprehensive plan" by the large
party opposite—" my party." It was the conduct of the man
who hoisted a flag upon the sea coast in the hope of getting
something from the scramble which might arise from the
shipwreck of some unfortunate vessel that might pass along
the coast. Whether the ship should hoist the green flag of
Ireland, or whether it be the ten hours' flag, it is all the
same to " the great party." He had been asked why he
did not come forward to meet a Noble Lord
(Lord Ashley) upon a former occasion. He was
not afraid to meet any person upon the principles which he
held. He was not however a peripatetic, wishing to wander
up and down among the people, propounding his principles
to them. His place was in that House, and in that Ilouse
he would always state fairly and openly his opinions. He
believed that the great body of the operatives of this
country really and seriously believed that wages could be
regulated by Act of Parliament. He differed from that
opinion; he was perfectly confident of the truth of his
opinions, and he wished that those persons were present by
their representatives in that House to give effect to their
principles and wishes. He hoped that he would soon see
the day when his Hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury would
submit a really large and comprehensive measure to the
leader of " the great party," which should give to the
labouring population of the country the constitutional
means of expressing their opinion upon subjects before the
House. The way in which the Noble Lord and " the great
party" dealt with the operatives of the country
was always by a sort of patronising air ; they
patted the people on their heads, and said to them
" We will do you all good, only be quiet—just listen to us
—we will be your pastors and masters—we will will guide
you always, and give you whatever you may desire in the
position in which it has pleased God to call you—but do not,
for Heaven's sake, attempt to be legislators." He (Mr. Roe-
buck) wished them to be legislators, and to have the means
of constitutionally expressing their opinions. He believed
that it would be a great calamity to the country, if at the
present momentous crisis this measure were to be carried.
He deeply sympathised with the Noble Lord at the head of
the Government, and most heartily wished him the utmost
success in his measures; but so sure as he was now the
chief adviser of the Crown, be might be assured
that he would be crippling the energies of the
country, and sullying the lustre and authority of his
great name, if he lent his authority to the passing of this
measure. He hoped he would not deal with the measure in
so trifling and mischievous a manner as he had proposed, by
limiting the period of labour to eleven hours a day. If the
legislation were worth a farthing, it was worth going all the
way. —(Cheers.) If by legislation the Government could
make the people happy, they ought to make them completely
happy, and, for his part, he would rather vote at once with
the Hon. Member for Oldham than for the eleven hours' pro-
position.—(Cheers.) He hoped there would be no
trifling of this sort, no half measures, nor any
halting between these distinct and opposite opinions.
If the measure of interference was good it ought to be ap-
plied to the agricultural labourers as well as the manufac-
turers; and he would propose in this Bill, if it ever came
into action, that no farmer should employ any child under
13 years of age, and that he should also be compelled to edu-
cate them in the same manner as the manufacturers were.
If any young rhetorician who wishes to employ rather a
strong weapon with a weak hand, and draw up
affecting details with his own diluted phraseology, he
need only say that he comes to advocate the rights of
woman.—(Hear, hear.) Yes, that was the phrase. Now,
he never heard any allusion to the agricultural women,
who were constantly employed in the cold and wet
at fourpence a day. It was a very favourite
theme to describe the effects of factories upon the
human frame. He (Mr. Roebuck) had no professional
knowledge upon that subject, but he could read, and he had
read, and he had gone through a great number of factories,
and he found that the health of the females was in ten thou-
sand times a better condition than that of the women.
employed in agriculture, whom he had seen driven to the
field, in the cold and wet, ill fed and ill clothed, and they
were so because their masters were not able to pay
them higher wages ; but if they interfered with
the amount of work done by the factory operative,
they would necessitate a decrease in his wages, and these
same misfortunes would then befal them. Now, if he wanted
to show a foreigner the glory of his country, its wealth, and
its riches, and if he desired to give him a high opinion of the
power of the country, he would take him to those places of
industry in the north of England. It would not be to the
hovel of the agrigultural labourer in the south, nor to show
him how the poor women had only fourpence per day.
No, he would bring him to those immense 'towns which had
sprung up from this mighty intelligence—the enterprise of
England—(Hear, hear)—where thousands of men were fed
and clothed. Let them, if they chose, demand a certi-
ficate of education from every man who employed
children in his factory. But, whatever was good
for the factories of the north of England, must be surely of
equal benefit to the agriculturists of the south. lie, for his
part, could not draw any line of distinction, and he would
take care to introduce a clause which would extend the benefit.
When this disappointment did come, the first parties who
would come to that House to complain of their legislation
would be the labouring classes themselves.—(Hear.) The
consumer would feel it also, and the nation would
feel it to its heart's core; and when they had to supply
millions with food, they would find the Chancellor of the
Exchequer complaining that the energies of the nation had
been crippled, his finances cut short, and the right arm of
England weakened.—(Hear.)
Mr. P. BORTHWICK considered that the labour of
women and children ought to be restricted, whether employed
in Printing-house-square or in the fields ; but as
the experiment, with respect to both sexes ought to be
fairly tried, and as he had voted during the whole time he
had sat in Parliament for the measures of Lord Ashley, he
should support the second reading of the Bill.
Sir R. H. INGLIS said, although the Hon. Member for
Bath sand he occupied seats in the same locality in that
House, he seldom agreed with the principles which he (Mr.
Roebuck) enunciated ; but in the speech which he had
delivered there were some observations which he heard with
unfailing pleasure, particularly his concluding observation—
that eoeui, or later
.the passing of such a measure
as the one before the Lieu.—
The result of the experiments which had been made gave
them every encouragement to go forward. The prophecies
against the operation of the present measure were stated four
years ago, when the late Government was in power, and
when its supporters on one occasion were dragged through the
mire in order to rescind the vote which they had given in
favour of the Bill. He said then that, postpone it as
they might, sooner or later the measure must be carried,
and become the law of the land. The other point on which
he agreed with the lion. Member for Bath was, if the mea-
sure was to be agreed to by the House, they should take the
Bill as it stood. With the views which lie (Sir R. H.
Inglis) entertained of the ultimate success of the
ten hours' measure, he could not see how the
Government should prolong a Vexatious agitation
out of doors for the next few years. He trusted instead
of doing so, 'her Majesty's Government would reconsider the
question, and consent to the Bill as it stood on the table.—
(Hear, hear.) Should they do so, and the Bill not work so
favourably as expected, then they could come down to the
House in 1849, and recal the step which had been taken.
The Hon. and Learned Member for Bath had ascribed party
motives to the Hon. Members whose names were on the back
of the Bill, especially to the Noble Lord the Member for
Newark (Lord John Manners), but he could not see how he
could make this appear, as on all other questions those Hon.
Members entirely differed. It was reasonable to suppose
that, in introducing the present Bill, they were actuated by
pure and honourable feelings. The experiment of the last
twenty years gave them every encouragement to
go forward, as all the prophecies which had
been made against intervention had proved fallacious.
His great object was not to raise the price of labour, nor
the actual expense attendant upon the manufacture of
cotton, but to distribute Ithe work more equally. At the pre-
sent moment, as he was informed, the work was distributed
not over the six days of the week, but in many mills, over
four days only, and in others for only three days; the
work being the same in quantity. He had letters from Man-
chester, which stated that some mills only worked four days
in the week, some only three days, and some were entirely
stopped. He wished to call the attention of the House to the
fact, that this moment there were men working 48 hours
per week, and who would, if their hours of labour were re-
duced, work 59 hours. But that work would be distributed

. _ __ .......... _ _
Over the whole week, so that they would get six days' wages
for six days' work, and the manufacturers would derive a
greater amount of work from the system. The number of
hands employed during only four days in Manchester was
2,240; those employed for three days were 3,059; and there
were about 500 employed for one day in the week ; whilst
those not employed amounted to 6,415 ; making a total of those
partially stopped from work and those altogether stopped,
amounting to 12,264. If the work now given were distributed
more equally it would be of greater benefit to the workmen,
and afford an increased produce to the manufacturers. lie
• still hoped that her Majesty's Government would allow this
Bill to pass, in spite of the unadvised statement of the Noble
Lord, and would also pass it in its original form.
Mr. THELAWNY rose, but was tor a long time inaudible,
in consequen9e of the confusion which prev4iled in the House. I
He objected to the measure on this ground, because it was a

distinct invasion of the rights of property; it invaded not
only the capital invested in manufactures, but the labourer
who, with a large family, desired to work 14 or 15 hours a
day, was affected by it also, for it limited his ability of pro-
viding for those dependent on him. He would give his op-
position to the second reading.
Sir G. STRICKLAND would not have addressed the House
were it not for a statement made by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, and repeated by the Hon. Member for Bath, to
the effect that the factory labourers were as well off as agri-
cultural labourers. The first thing which would strike the
House in drawing a contrast between the two employments
Was this, that the agricultural labourer was away
from home twelve hours a day, and worked in the
invigorating air of heaven for ten hours, the factory labourer
was away from home for fourteen hours each day, and
worked in an overheated and unhealthy atmosphere far
twelve hours each day. The agricultural labourer returns
home to his domestic comfort in the winter seasons at four
o'clock in the afternoon, the factory labourer, on the other
hand, did not leave the factory till eight in the evening.
But it had been said that there were maxims of political
economy so stern and so unbending, that whatever amount
of injury might be made out, it was impolitic to interfere.
He denied, however,: that such stern and unbending
maxims!, were to be found in political economy.
In all cases where he had had the opportunity of testing the
opinions of the operatives he had found that they were per-
fectly willing to receive less wages for their reduced labour,
as it would give them an opportunity of increasing their do-
mestic comforts. Ile was decidedly in favour of the Bill,
and should certainly vote for the second reading.
Lord EBRINGTON considered that the principle of the
measure was disposed of when the Legislature determined
to limit the hours of labour to twelve hours, and he
therefore should not detain the House upon that point.
The Bill, in his opinion, was justified upon economical grounds,
because when operatives became ill from over-exertion the
expense fell upon the State, while the profit of that over-
exertion went into the pocket of the employer.
With regard to the general principle of interference with
children, he considered that it was perfectly justifiable. It
appeared to him that the right time to cease interference with
boys was when they attained the years of discretion. He
considered, however, that the introduction of the principle of
interference with adult female labour was one most danger-
ous. He thought it right to state those points in which he
differed from other Hon. Gentleman.

Mr. NEWDEGATE said he regretted that he was too late
to present a petition from Huddersfield, signed by the soli-
citors, the merchant-traders, the physicians, and the manu-
facturers in favour of the Ten Hours' Bill.
Mr. MAIISLAND said that the Honourable Mem-
ber for Oldham had not acted upon his own precepts.
As the manufacturers of this country had to com-
pete with foreign manufacturers, the House ought to
pause before it consented to place restrictions upon
them which could not fail to have the effect
of preventing them from competing so well as they could if
they were left untrammelled by legislative enactments.
The time chosen for seeking to pass this measure was
most unsuited, as the manufactures of the country were in
a very perilous condition, He was in favour of giving the
labouring classes of this city more relaxation for innocent
pursuits, but he was adverse to its being given through the
hands of the State.

r Mr. DUNCOMBE said, as it was the wish of the House to
come to a division without delay, he would not detain them
for more than three minutes. fie agreed in one observation
; of the Hon. Member, that the master manufacturers were
tired of the agitation ; but he might have added, with equal
truth, that the workers also were tired of it. An
Eleven Hours' Bill was an absurd proposition, and it showed
that the Government, in favouring one, had doubts of a
measure of that kind.—(Hear.) uch a measure
could not be beneficial to the employed—they al-
most universally called for a Ten Hours Bills
Those who were for the restriction of labour in factories were
of opinion that ten hours, and ten hours alone, was the mea-
sure which ought to be granted. The Secretary of State for
the Ilome Department had said, that he would not be a
party to keeping up the delusion, that the people would re-
ceive twelve hours' wages tor ten hours' work.
He knew that the people did Lelieve that they should
receive for ten hours' work twelve hours' wages,
and they had many instances in which a reduction of the
hours of work had been followed by an increase of wages. He
had one instance to give, in a letter from a competent autho-
rity, written to him, and which stated that experience had
proved that where the hours of work were reduced wages
did not fall in proportion, and the moral condition of the
workman would be much improved. Feeling, as
he did, that the Bill would give to the people
of this country greater recreation and improved
moral habits, he should give it his cordial support.
Mr. B. ESCOTT (who rose amidst a storm of confusion,
noise, and cries of "Divide") said that he rose to move the
adjournment of this debate.—(Oh, oh.) He moved it for
a good reason. On a former occasion the Noble Lord at the
head of the Government had said that he would express his
views on the second reading of the Bill, and the Noble Lord
had not spoken upon the second reading of that measure.—
(Cries of " Yes, yes.") He had not. The Noble Lord had
said a few words, but he had not entered upon the principle
of the Bill. Neither had he heard the opinion of the
Honourable Member for Tamworth, nor the opinion of the
Noble Member for Lynn, the straightforward leader
of a very large party in that House.—(Cries of " Oh, oh.")
The Right Hon. Gentleman the Recorder for Dublin was
crying out and interrupting; would it not be better to answer
him when he had done? For the reasons he had stated, he
moved the adjournment of the debate.
Mr. SHAW said he would only say one word in answer
to the Hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. He believed
that the only object of the Hon. Gentleman who bad last
spoken was to throw every obstacle in the way of the pro-
gress of the measure.
Mr. LABOUCHERE thought that the reasons the Hon.
Member had brought before the House why the division
should not be entered into were very unsatisfactory. He
had often known the House to consent to an adjourn-
ment because some Members were desirous of addressing
the House on some important question, and they had not
had art opportunity of doing so, but he had never
before heard in that House that when a Member was
not :desirous of addressing the House that the House
should adjourn for the purpose of hearing him.
He was prepared to give the measure every fair op-
position in his power; but he could not consent to
the course taken by the Honourable Member for
Winchester. After two days' discussion, and consi-
dering that the question had been so often before the House,
he did not think they would be justified in adjourning the
debate.—( Hear, hear.)
Sir R. PEEL said the Hon. and Learned Member for Win-
chester had charged him with having given a pledge on a
former occasion,twith promising to speak on the present
occasion. He rose to say he had made no engage-
ment of the kind.—(Hear, hear.) When the Bill
was introduced he stated he would not oppose it
in that stage, but that he still entertained his
previous opinions against the measure, and would in its
future progress offer it all the opposition in his power.
He had always opposed the principle of the Bill,
and retained the same objections to it now, but he had
made no promise that he would speak on the present
debate.—(Hear, hear.) When the subject had been
so long discussed already, and no new arguments intro-
duced, he thought it would be better for him to remain
silent and record his vote against the Bill.--(Hear, hear.)
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK said he was still in favour
of the Bill, and would now vote in its favour.
Mr. BRIGHT said it would be in the recollection
of the House oa that day week, that at the
conclusion of his observations he made some remarks on the
conduct of the Government in regard to this measure. He
wanted some explanation of this conduct, and the Hon.
and Learned Member for Winchester appeared to be
wanting the same. This was an important discussion,
and should not be taken on Wednesday at all, when
for the first four hours so few Members were present, but
should be taken on some other day, when it could be more
fully considered. He would second the motion for adjourn-
ment.

The gallery was then cleared for a division, when there ap,
peared—
For the adjournment ...
Against it

- 282

Majority against the adjournment-275
The House then divided upon the second reading, when
there appeared—
For the second reading
Against it B7
Majority for the second reading —loB
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed.
The House then adjourned at ten minutes past Six o'clock

MONEY MARKET.
After the hours of business this afternoon, Consols
were done at

91i i for this Account,

And
914 a for the April Account.

REGISTRY of BIRTHS and DEATHS
DURING THE WEEK ENDING FEB. 13.
1,--,-- --e,:-...--- 1 ~... • 1.... .r ....1.0 1.1“1.10 1 ClaialGl ell In the Week.
Males ... ... ... 592 Males ... ... ... 702
Females ... ... 555 Females ... ... 662

Total ... 1,147

Total ... 1,364

- - -
PETITIONS ON PRIVATE BILLS.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(THIS DAY.)
(Room 22, before Mr. Examiner SMITH.)
UNOPPOSED LIST.
Lithe following unopposed: cases the customary formal
Rt
oa Railway Company
(Branch
u n
from
proofs were completed, and the standing orders complied
with
London and South• Western Railway Acts Amendment
(Powerstn ras
e further to London
capital,and Saonudt h
dar_
takings.)
IPlspwsi:-hichant
DutoblSintepDhuennd,arygrure,ena)n.d Bathfarnham Railway (Extensions
St.c aninarrnyn'sAinctßsaAthniweinckdm(einnt.the city and borough of Bath)
Leominster Canal Navigation Sale.
Blandford and Bruton Railway, from Blandford to join the
Wilts, Somerset, and Weymouth Railway at Bruton, in
the county of Somerset, with powers for the London and
South-Western Railway Company to make or purchase, or
hire the same.
This opposed case was then resumed. At the close of the
inquiry, the standing orders were found not to have been
do
m r Buryo od b St.r g Ecod.mundslV Railwaye subscribest ern
complied with in several instances.
(Room 23, before Mr. Examiner MAY.)
UNOPPOSED LIST.
In the following unopposed cases the customary formal
proofs were completed :
York and Newcastle Railway (Pelaw Tyne Dock Branches,
&c.)
York and Newcastle and Newcastle and Berwick Railways
Amalgamation.
Yolk and North ididland Railway- (Nottingley Branch).
York and North Midland Railway (Harrogate Branch, Bo •
roaghbridge, and Knaresborough Extension).
York and North Midland Railway (East Riding Canals Pur-
chase).
Herne Bay and Canterbury Junction Railway.
OPPOSED CASE.
Edinburgh and Northern Railway (Branch from Burntisland
to Dunfermline Branch ; Deviation and Extension of Dun.
fermline Branch ; Branch from the Strathearn Deviation
to the Scottish Central Railway; Great North Road Cross-
ing (Strathearn Deviation), and Road Crossing, and Dal-
keith Railway Crossing, Dunfermline Branch).
This opposed case was gone into, but the inquiry had
not closed when the Examiner rose.
A

r. Secretary Itedington's of at his family
seat, Kileornao, county of Galway, was entered on 'Murky
night by burglarx, who titled the desks of some silver.
TORBAY, FEB. 16. —Wind W.N.W.—Arrd. Peredes Braves,
Allier, Port-au-Price, for Havre, with part of cargo thrown
overboard.