The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-04 00:00:00

LONDON AND WESTMINSTER

BANK.

The annual general meeting of the proprietors of tins
company was yesterday held, at the Bank is Lothbtr.,,, fortiie
the purpose of transacting the ordinary business _oor
company, and and also for the purpose of submitting f
urination the election of Joshua Walker, Esq., who had been
nominated by the board of directors as a director in the room of
Patrick M. Stewart, M. P., deceased ; and also for the pur-
pose of appointing three directors, in the room of Thos. Fern-
combe, Esq., David Salomons, Esq., and H. Bosanquet, Esq.,
who retired by:rotation, and who, being eligihle. by re-ap-
pointment, offered;themselves for re-election, and ap4alsooto con-
alder the propriety of appointing two additional dire to rs, and
electing the same should such be considerednecessary. s
The chair was taken at one o'clock,!by D. aLomoNs, Esq.,
who, having stated the object of the meeting, called upon
the Secretary to read the report.
The SECILETABY accordingly proceeded to read the report
as fellows:—
" The directors had to commence their thirteenth annual
report with expressing their deep regreet at the death of
their esteemed colleague, Patrick Maxwell Stewart, Esq.,
M.P., a regret which they were sure the proprietors would
feel equally with themselves.
" The vacancy occasioned by this lamented event had
been supplied by the election of Joshua Walker, Esq., subject
to the confirmation of the present meeting.
" The profits of the past year, after defraying the total ex-
pense of the establishment, making allowance for all bad and
doubtful debts, and paying the income-tax, amounted to 1
74,175/. 15s. 9d. Out of these profits the directors had paid I
last September a dividend at the rate of 6 per cent. per
annum for the half-year ending the 30th June, and they now
declared a dividend at the same rate for the half-year ending
the 81st December. They also declared a bonus of eight
shillings per share, which was equal to 200 per cent. upon
the capital. After the payment of these dividends and this
bonus, making together 64,0001., there would remain out of
the profits of this year a surplus of 10,175/. 15s. 9d. to be
added to the reserved fund, which then amounted to
98,424/. 12s. ld.
"The directors considered that the time had now arrived
for distributing the ten thousand unappropriated shares.
They had accordingly determined to issue them to the present
proprietors at par, in the proportion of ose to every four
shares already held. The details of this arrangement would
be stated to the meeting, and subsequently communicated by
a circular letter, addressed to each shareholder. The paid up
capital of the bank would then amount to the sum of
1,000,0001., and the subscribed capital 5,000,000/."
The report went on to state that—" With the extended
business and capital of the bank, it was desirable that there
should be an increase in the number of the directors. It was
therefore proposed to the present meeting to appoint two
additional members of the board. Should this suggestion be
adapted, the meeting would then proceed to the election.
Two gentlemen, duly qualified, had declared themselves
candidates, and had given the necessary notices. Those
gentlemen were Henry Buckle, Esq., of the firm of Messrs.
Buckle and Co., merchants, and John Garrett Cattley, Esq.,
of the firm of Messrs. Cattley and Carr, Russia merchants.
" The three directors who retired by rotation were Thomas
Farncom be, Esq., Alderman, David Salomons, Esq., and Henry
Bosanquet, Esq., but being eligible, they offered themselves
for re- election."
The following profit and loss account of the bank was laid
before the meeting :
Payment of the dividend on Sept. 10, 1846,
at the rate of 61. per cent. per annum, fir
the half-year ending June SO, 1846 24,000 0 0
Payment oi the dividend, now declared at the
rate of 61. per cent. per annum, for the half-
year ending Dec. 31, 1846
Payment of the bonus of two per cent., now
declared
Balance of unappropriated profits... 98,424 12 1

s. d

£162,424 12 1

Balance of unappropriated profits on 31st
December, 1845 -. *** • •
Net profit of the year 1846, after defraying the
total expense of management, paying the
income-tax, and making provision for ail
bad and doubtful debts . .

88,248 16 4

74,175 15 9

£162,424 12

Ba'ance of unappropriated profits... ......... £98,124 12 1
The balance-sheet of the company up to 31st December,
1846, was also read to the meeting by the Secretary:—
Dr. X. s. d.

To Proprietors for paid. up capital
To the Public for deposits ......... ......... 3,280.864 0 0
To the Public for circular notes
To profit on the past year
To hest, or Surplus Fund 88,248 16 4

X 4,250,013 3 4

Cr. -
By Government securities . 938,717 10 0
By other securities ' 2,676,720 1 10
By cash in hand ... --- ..... 634.575 11 6

£1,250,013 3 4
The CHAIRMAN then said that it was his duty to call upon
the meeting to receive and adopt the report which had just
been read. He would take the opportunity of making a few
remarks upon some of the items in the report. The first part
to which he would call the attention of the meeting was
the sum made and earned by the bank during the last year,
arising from the legitimate business of the bank.—(Cries
of Hear, hear.") Had the directors felt inclined to
go into a business of a more hazardous character,
they might have been enabled to divide upon the present oc-
casion a larger dividend than that proposed in the report.
The totaTearnings of the company during the past year had
been 74,1751., which upon a paidj up capital of 800,0001.
would be equal to about nine per cent.—(Hear, hear.) The
amount of earning was during the past year
greater than it had been in any preceding year.—
( Hear, hear.) The directors had continued to make additions
to the reserve-fund, in order to insure a continuance of the
safe and sound mode of conducting the business of the com-
pany. which had hitherto characterised the management of
its affairs. That reserve-fund now reached, in round num-
bers, to a sum of .nearly 100,0001.—( Hear, hear.) This
fund had arisen solely from the annual savings of the bank
over the 6 per cent. interest which it had paid to the proprie-
tore, and arose from the legitimate transactions of the bank.
With respect to the payment of 6 per cent. dividend, he
thought the directors might hem, if they wished to obtain
a little temporary eclat, divided something more than that
rate of interest; they thought it, however, more necessary-
to have a large reserve fund to fall back upon, than to in-
crease the rate of dividend even to 7 per cant.—( Hear.)
The next part was the increase of the capital of the company.
With respect to the capital of the bank, he would say that
the bank was intended to represent a capital of 5,000,000/.
They began business with 1,000,0001. In the years 1836 and
in 1841 new shares had.been issued, and the directors now
proposed to put the apex on the pyramid, the base of which
they considered sufficiently broad, by proposing that
the' capital of the company should be made up to the
full amount of s,ooo,oool.—(Hear, hear.) These new
shares would be issued at par, and the value of
them would, if they were sold in the market
at the present time, realise a:profit of 50 per cent.--( Hear,
bear.) He did not anticipate any difficulty in the trans-
actions of the bank during the ensuing year, but still he had
no doubt but that ample opportunity would be afforded for
the employment of the increased capital then asked
for. With respect to the increase of the number
of directors, he would say, that great responsibili-
ties were thrown upon the directors. A large capital
was to be taken care of, which was in itself
a heavy task, and also the duty of employing that capital,
which was of still greater importance. He thought, there-
fore, that the proposed accession to the strength of the board
of directors would be cordially concurred in by the proprie-
tors.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to the mode in which
the proposed shares were to be issued, and the amount
to be paid, he would intbrm the meeting that
the directors having come to the resolution to issue the
remaining 10,000 shares, in order to complete the capital
stock of the bank, and thereby augmenting the paid-up
capital from 800,000/. to 1,000,0001., they had resolved that
those shares should be offered to those proprietors who stood
registered in the books of the bank on the 15th inst., in the
proportion of one new share for every four shares which they
held ; that the shares should be issued at par, viz. 20/. each,
and that the payments should be 71. per share on 15th April,
6/. per share on 15th July, and 71. per share on 15th October.
They bad also decided that every proprietor being the holder
of a fractional part of four shares, should, on the payment of
his last instalment in October, stand a creditor for the amount
of premium realised in the market upon the sale of such frac-
tional part, which amount would be allowed in part-payment
of the last instalment upon the shares, and in the case of a
proprietor being the holder of less than four shares, and en-
titled to the fractional part only of a new share, such pro-
prietor would receive the amount of premium which such
fractional part might have produced, together with the
dividend payable in September next. No interest
was to be allowed for prompt payment, and
interest at the rate of 5/. per cent. would be charged if the
instalments were not paid on the appointed days. The
directors had also resolved that the receipts for the instal-
ments should be transferable on delivery, and that the new
shares should be entitled to any dividend that might be de-
clared in the transactions of the bank, commencing on the Ist
of July next. These arrangements he hoped would be satis-
factory to the proprietors.—(Hear, hear.) He would, there-
fore, move that the report now read be adopted, printed, and
circulated among the proprietors.
Mr. TITE wished to know whether the directors had made
up their mind as to the amount to which the reserve fund
should be allowed to reach ? He qnite concurred in the pro-
position to add two directors to the nnmber of the board.
He wished to know what was the maximum number of
directors allowed to be appointed to the board ?
The CHAIRMAN said that the directors looked upon the
capital of the bank, as so much 6 per cent. stock, and
they thought it necessary to keep up a sufficient reserve
fund to meet any contingency that might arise ; he hoped
that the proprietors would leave the amount of the reserve
fund in the hands of the directors; he did not think that
they would starve the present generation for the
purpose of feeding posterity out of the "posterity
fend," as it had been called at the last meeting.
He hoped that they would never be so unfortunate as to
have to fall back upon the reserve fund for the purpose of
equalising the dividends.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to
the number of directors, he believed the maximum was 24.
Mr. Wasnew wished to know whether the directors
thought, that after the issue of the 10,000 additional shares,
they would be able to pay the same amount of dividend as at
present?

The CHAIRMAN said, that as so much depended
on the contingencies of the future, it would not be ad-
visabletwould
to promise any rate of dividend for the:future;
ohld be a most disagreeable thing if, in order to keep the
fr°ru.,_ which might be made at any time by the directors
oPropnetary, they should be obliged to fall back upon
he
rye fund.
Mr. I-EvY objected to the name of " posterity fund" being
applied to theams:urve fund. He wished that fund to be kept
up to such an
bank perfectly secure; but
might render the transactions of the
why, if a dividend of Lbut still he did not see any reason
ton
acer cent, could be paid, and the re-
serve fund be kept up
proper amount, that that dividend
should not be paid.—(Laau
oyster!, tre:.)dirHecetothrsoumgihgtbitf
btheeaybcloeutldo adopt the clearing
realise a dividend of at least 11cent, upon the capital.—
( No 2 no.) That was his opinion per
all events.
Mr. 111Auesr.cir thought it , at all
, that the reserve
fund should not be intrenetted ov,,
increase should be made in the salary of the clerks tartdboattlicaet:. !
of the establishment, now that the concern was iu so flourish-
ing 3 state.
ViIOCHAIRMAN said that the directors hail increased thQ
salaries of the clerks by ten per cent. in the last year, and
also in the present year.
Joshua Walter, Esq., Thomas Farncomb, Esq.. Henry 80..
ganglia, Esq., Henry Buckell, Esq., and John Garret
Cattley, Esq., were unanimously chosen directors of the
company.
Mr. KINSDEAD moved that the sum of 4,5001., being at the
rate of 3001. per annum, be set &lart as a remuneration for
;be services of the directors.
Sir C. BURRELL seconded the motion.
fir. MAUDSLEY thought the proposed sum too much; he

would move, as an amendment, that the sum should be 3,0001.
per annum, instead of 4,5001.
An HON. PROPRIETOR, whose name we could not catch,
seconded the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN said that he thought the sum of 2,5001. at
present allowed to the directors, was a most inefficient sum.
—(Hear, hear.) He would speak frankly, it would not be
supposed that a sum of one or two hundred per year could
tempt him to do anything that was unworthy of him. He
considered himself as a senior partner in a concern where
4,000,0001. of property was to be taken care of, and more
than that, it was not only to be taken care of, but employed
advantageously for the interests of the bank, and it was their
constant care and anxiety that a sum of 80,0001.
was drawn as profit from the paid up capital
of the company, instead of a sum of 30,0001.,
which it would only be worth if invested in the Funds.—
(Hear, hear.) He did not think that the proposed sum of
4,5001. was too much remuneration for the directors, espe-
cially as the number of the directors was to be increased.
Mr. MAUDSLKY said, that after the speech of the Chairman
he should withdraw his amendment, and would cordially
support the original motion, provided the sum were placed
in the hands of the directors to divide among themselves as
they thought fit.
Mr. Wrafew proposed as an amendment that a sum of
3,500/. be paid to the directors instead of 4,5001.
The Cueremert said he must say that he felt considerably
hurt by the manner in which the proposition had been re-
ceived:—(Hear, hear.) He would, however, proceed to put
the amendment.
A PROPRIETOR said it was a most miserable exhibition to
be squabling about a paltry few hundreds per annum to the
directors, by whose services it was that the company bad
a reserve fund of 100,0001., and to whose exertions they owed
their present prosperous state.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. LEVY thought that the sum proposed was quite little
enough for the services of such men as the directors of the
company. He would, therefore, support the original mo-
tion.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. WIRHAW then withdrew his amendment, and the ori-
ginal resolution was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN returned thanks.
The thanks of the meeting were then unanimously voted
to James W. Gilbert, Esq., the general manager, and the
other officers of the bank, for their zealous and active ser-
vices in promoting the interests of the bank.
J. W. GILBART returned thanks on behalf of himself
and the other officers of the bank.
The CHAIRMAN stated that the dividend and bonus would
be payable on the 10th of March inst.
Mr. TrrE moved that the thanks of the meeting be pre-
sented to D. Saloman, Esq., for his able and courteous con-
duct in the chair.
Mr. LIMY seconded the motion, which was carried by ac-
clamation. _ .

-------
The CHAIRMAN returned thanks, and the meeting then
broke up.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 3.
THE FACTORIES REGULATION BILL.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. BECKETT then rose, but spoke in so low a tone that
oe was for some time quite inaudible. He thought it would
also be of some service if the Hon. Gentleman would accept a
conditional Bill for short hours, for he was quite satisfied
that the working men were perfectly sincere in their desire
to reduce the hours of labour. They had discussed the mea-
sure over their pots of beer and pots of ale,
and he was convinced that they desired that their
families, at any risk, should be freed from the unreasonable
exertion which they were now called upon to make. He had
consulted with gentlemen, not only natives of this country,
• but of America also, and all concurred in the belief that the
reduction of the hours of labour would be beneficial But
he bad also the testimony of the manufacturers themselves,
and he believed that the majority of them agreed that the
change would be profitable rather than otherwise. If they
took off this one hour they would take off that which was
the least advantageous to the master, while it was most
wasteful of the energy and the strength of the workpeople ;
and if they granted this boon he felt assured that the
mechanics' institutions and the schools of design, which
were all open at that hour of the day, would be visited—
and he must do the people the justice to say that
they were always ready to avail themselves of the
opportunities which these institutions offered. To take off'
two hours from the daily labour of the workpeople would,
however, in his estimation, prevent the manufacturers from
competing with the manufacturers on the continent, and he
believed that the House would not act so unwisely as to
alter the decision to which they had so re-
peatedly, and of late so decidedly conic, for
were they to do so they would be stultifying
their legislation, and reducing the character of the House;
while, on the contrary, were they to take an eleven hours'
Bill, they would meet the requirements of the workpeople
without injury to their masters, and come to a satisfactory
settlement of the question.
Mr. WARD said that this question had been so frequently
and so fully discussed that lie should not have said
a single word but that he felt his silence might be miscon-
strued. The Hon. Gentleman who had jest sat down had
stated that if the House were to come to any decision contrary
to that at which they arrived before they would be lowering
the character of the House and gainsay ing their own opinions.
Butwhat had been the historyof this question under th it House ?
Why, when the Noble Lord, the late Member for Dorsetshire
(Lord Ashley) had brought forward this question last year.
it had been negatived by a majority of ten, and vet when
was brought before the House this session—without the
slightest change of circumstances, without a single new idea
being thrown out, and without a single new reason
being adduced—it had been carried by a majority of eighteen.
Already there had been four decisions on this subject,
and each was almost contrary to the other. He did not,
therefore, think that the character of the House of Commons
would in any way be reduced by coming to a decision different
from that at which they had arrived last year, or that because
they legislate in one way in the first instance and in another
way afterwards. They had for years past been legis-
lating for the direction of the workpeople in the
manufacturing districts, and, whether for good or for evil, they
had produced great results upon their destinies. The ques-
tion was now whether they should reconsider the determi-
nation at which they had already arrived, and it was the
opinion of the lion. Member who had just sat down, that if
they decided upon an eleven hours' Bill they would for ever
set the question at rest. But he (Mr. Ward) believed that
such a decision as that would not meet the views of the Hon.
Member for Oldham (Mr. Fielden), or of Lord Ashley either.
Mr. FlELDEN—Certainly not.
Mr. WARD—The Hon. Member for Oldham, with charac-
teri•tic candour, sail no. Nor was it at all likely that it
would, especially as it was always described as a boon
to be given to the working people, and without which of
course they would not now be satisfied. But they bail now eotne
to a point when it was absolutely necessary for than to con-
sider whether they could safely legislate on the subject. God
knew that he was as anxious for the promotion of the welfare
and happiness of the working people as any man, but he
greatly questioned whether this was the right way to pro-
mote that happiness. If it were safe, let them by all means
give to the working people an eleven hours' Bill or a ten hours'
or even an eight hours' Bill. Give them, by all means, if it
could be safely granted, four hours for domestic enjoyment,
and four hours for recreation. Give them by all means the
possession of such opportunities as would relieve them from
the toil of slavery, and at the same time enable them to
partake of such pleasures as would exalt them in their own
estimation, and induce a constant feeling of self-respect ;
for if all this could be done it was plainly the duty
of the House to take measures for its accomplishment; but
they ought to consider well what was the safe path before they
entered upon any new plans like this now before them. lie
himself stood in a painful position on this question, for he was
not only opposed to a large portion of his constituency, but
to several of the members of the Government under whom he
served. It appeared to him by allowing this principle they
would, so far as he could perceive, be only adopting the pracs
tice, and indeed the principle also, of the trades unions. They
combined to keep up the rate of their wages, and that alone
was the object of the present movement. Did they think

that any Of these people would take a ten hours' Bill with
only ten hours' wages ? Certainly not—not a man of them.
Their object was plsinlyto reduce the amount of work, without
at the same lime reducing their remuneration. Not that he
blamed them for it, for they had a-natural right to protect
this, their only property. He was anxious to take this
opportunity of correcting an error into which he had fallen
some months ago. He had stated that, in the manufacturing
districts, a parent was prevented from apprenticing more than
one or two of his sons to his own trade, but on inquiry lie
had discovered that it was only in two or three of the
smaller and more insignificant branchesof the Sheffield trade
that this unnatural restriction existed. But he contended
that this measure never would benefit the working classes
unless they at the same time supported the amount of their
wages; and if they did that, they must inevitably in-
terfere with the competition of our manufacturers in
foreign markets. It was of little censequence whether
the article to be affected was cutlery or cotton, for just in
proportion to the extent of the interference with this compe-
tition would be the loss occasioned to the workmen. He had
now had considerable experience of the wants, the necessi-
ties, and the interests of the working classes in the manufac-
turing districts, and this was the conclusion at which he
could not help arriving, especially in those trades which hail
to contend with the French and German manufacturers.
About 73 per cent. of the articles made at and exported from
Sheffield went to the markets where they would meet with
these goods, and under what a manifest disadvantage,
then, would they be placed. If they adopted free trade
init oneinto inesvtearynce, oughtdepartment
yrtmentof
to
business.
—strHte,
aarnd
hceaarrr. )
y
Instead of doubting the judgment of the workin,g classes
upon these great truths, he knew that they were fully alive
to them. All the sympathies of human nature must be in
favour of this measure, but common sense and sound reason
was opposed to the principle of less labour with the sates
pay.—(Hear, hear.) It had been trumpeted forth that
this measure ought to be passed because the manufacturers
had got free trade; but the House forgot that the benefits of
free trade could not be obtained in a single year. It re-
quired time to carry out the principle of free
trade, and make its effects felt in every part of the
globe, and therefore it was unwise to pursue this
mode of reasoning. His objections to this measure were as
strong as ever they had been, and he should certainly give
his vote in favour of the motion of the Honourable Member
for Winchester. Besides, the time when this measure was
brought forward was most unfortunate, and inopportune. Food
was dear,manufactures were depressed, trade was falling off, and
yet the House was called upon to entrammel the manufac-
turers with the provisions of this Bill.—(Hear, bear.) Why
aot allow them first to recover from this depressi9n before
they ventured to try this experiment? He was ex-
tremely anxious to see the condition of the ope-
rative bettered, but he did not think this measure
was calculated to effect that object, and as it was
highly objectionable in many of its provisions, he must vote
for the amendment of the Hon. Member for Winchester.

Mr. BROTHERTON felt deeply impressed that the time
had arrived when they ought to legislate upon this sub-
ject. The labourers were forced, say what they would, to
work so many hours per day in an unhealthy atmosphere,
and the time had arrived when it was necessary something
should be done to remedy this state of things. If they were
always to adhere to the strict principles of political economy,
the functions of the House would be greatly restricted. They
had already interfered with the law of landlord and tenant,
with masters and apprentices; they had placed restrictions
upon railways and hackney coaches, and why had they done
so? Why, because those were exceptions to the general
rule, and this question of factory labour, too, was an excep-
ti-m. If all men were humane and just, there would be no
necessity for legislation of this sort. It man was born simply
to labour and live for a given time, there would be no necessity
un. legislation of this sort ; but man was created for higher
analnobler objects than this, and in order to ensure the
realisation of these objects—in order to render man inure
humane than he was—in order to improve the socira at
moral conditions of the masses, it was necessary that 'the
Members
be settled between IchlY
asked,
once legislate upon this subject.
'louse should at •
not already been refer.
eena r ) Some Lon.
not let tha matter be left to
masters and the men ? Well, had it
masters done ?_(gear,
in that way, and what had the
and the workmen went
notoilidng and suffering as before.
Hon. Members could form Why, they proposed nothing,
of the sufferings of the labourers, since some were stroneager than others, but still
the weak bad to work the same number of hours as

the strong. At present combinations of capital rendered •
those hours much longer than was consistent either with
health or strength, and it was with the view of seeing such
combinations counterbalanced by the strong arm of the
law that he wished to see this measure passed. When a
boy he had suffered severely from the existing system, and
he resolved then, that if ever he had the power he would use
his strongest energies to bring about a better state of things.
This was a question of degree and not of principle. Some
Honourable Members held out to the working classes that if
this Bill were passed it would tend to reduce their earnings.
Why, the same argument was used in 1829, when Sir R. Peel
brought forward his Bill for reducing the hours of labour be-
low 14 a day. It was then predicted that production would
fall off, and wages go down. But those expectations had
not been realised, for while production had increased there
had been a corresponding augmentation of wages. He had
deeply considered this question, and he was convinced that
it was expedient, in a commercial as well as every other
point of view, to concede it to the working classes. He had
always been of opinion that legislation was necessary, and
he was glad to see a measure brought forward, though it was
in the last hour, that was calculated to meet the expectations
of all parties. He had seen women who were pregnant com-
pelled to labour during those protracted hours.
Mr. BRIGHT—They are not compelled to work.
Mr. BROTHERTON—The Hon. Gentleman said they
were not compelled to work, but they had no choice, they
were compelled to work.—(Hear.) He believed sincerely
that the Bill would not reduce wages or injure the masters.
The working classes would not be satisfied until they ob-
tained a ten hours' Bill.—(Hear.)
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said he had listened to the speech
of the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down with the most
unfeigned pleasure, and he was sure the House had also done
so with equal gratification, on account of one circumstance.
Ile confessed, until he heard the statement to which he re-
ferred, he was not aware that the Hon. Gentleman had
ministered, with his own hands, to his personal wants as a
labourer in a factory.—(Hear, hear.) Ha considered that
this reflected great honour on him—(Loud cheers)—and it
gave him great pleasure to sit in that House with
the Honourable Gentleman on a footing of perfect
equality. The speech of the Honourable Gentleman was a
convincing proof that even the humblest person might rise
to stations of wealth, and honour, and industry, aided by an '
unblemished character.—(Cheers.) He must be permitted
to say, that the Honourable Gentleman had given full effect
to the sentiments of his youth, but it was natural that he
should have done so; still he could not help observing, that
the Hon. Gentleman's success, and the fact of his being a
Member of that House, afforded a proof that the most
honourable acquirements were even compatible with the
labour which persons employed in factories were in the
habit of undergoing.—(Hear.) He could not, however, with
great respect for the llon. Gentleman's experience, yield
to the doctrine which he had propounded, that they should
consent to give way to what lie (Sir J. Graham) considered
the prejudices of those engaged in factory labour.—(Hear,
hear.) The Honourable Gentleman bad not_ correctly
stated the great question at issue, as he said the ques-
tion was, should they compel women and children to work
twelve hours a day or not? Now he (Sir J. Graham) said
that that was not the question—(Hear, hear.) The ques-
tion was—should they, by indirect legislation, restrain large
masses of industrious men willing to work twelve hours a
day from working that period for the purpose of earning their
livelihood, though they were willing to do so? Would the
House put that restraint upon them ? Was it wise to do so?
Ile was perfectly willing to admit that where such large
m loses of the people were employed, the principles of
political economy ought to be applied. The science of poli-
tical economy appeared in some quarters of the House to be
treated almost with contempt ; but he had always
considered that the science was not only the great rule
to be observed with a view to the acquisition
of national wealth, but for the equitable distribution of it—
( I rear)—and lie doubted very much whether their legislation
would, in the long run, be found safe, if the principles of the
science were much departed from. But if he could satisfy
his judgment that a departure from its principles
weuicl really conduce to the interests of the working
classes engaged in the particular branches of trade referred
to, he should not hesitate to act in opposition to their dic•
totes. The Hon. Gentleman made one observation, which lie
(Sir James Graha:n) was bound to say lie thought
conclusive evidence against the measure ; but he
' grieved to say that it did not carry the con-
viction with it which the lion. Gentleman wished. He asked
if it was to be laid down as a principle, that to eat, to drink,
to work, and to die, should be the lot of a large proportion
of his countrymen? Alas! lie (Sir J. Graham) was grieved
to Say that such was the lot of vast masses, but truth
compelled him to say, that the lot of labourers, not
oily in this country, but throughout the civilised world,
was but eating, drinking, working, and dying. That was
but the sum of human life decreed by the Almighty. It was
a grievous truth. The lot of man was to work for his sub-
si-aence, and were they by legal interference to make him
follow a life of ease and comfort, or by legislation so to in-
terfere with and to aid ditliculiles to his existence, as to em-
bitter his lot ?—( Hear.) Ile was prepared to say, that having
Oven his best attention to this subject, having viewed it
also as a political question, he was still of opinion
that such a Bill was not required. lie had listened
aWI attention to the statements of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer with respect to the influence of the
f ,reign trade on the revenue on former occasions,
when labour was restricted, and its influence on the work-
ing classes themselves, and he was thereby warned that
0:e adoption of such a measure was not required, and that it
woul:l, by restricting the qu intity of production, seriously in
jure the revenue. He had little to add to the arguments of
the lion. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Ward)
with reference to the effect of such a measure on the working
cla--sea themselves. The Hon. Gentleman had made some
reference to the amount of foreign exports, and stated that
the exports of co ton had not materially diminished. Now,
he held in his hand a paper which had been circulated that
morning—( 11ear)—giving an account of the trade and navi-
g ,tion cf the country, and containing a statement with refer
ence to the exports for the-year 1816, as compared with those
of 1815. It dealt with the cotton, woollen, linen, flax and
silk trades. The whole declared v.iilue of exports of this
country in 1846 was 51279,0001.; of this, cotton, linen,
woollen, flax arid silk, constituted 37,385,0001.—(Cheera)-
I,,,ing somewhere about four-fifths of the whole exports.
The value of the cotton exported in 18-16 was 17,728;0001.,
as compared with 19,156,00 e/ in 1845, showing a falling off
of near 2,000,0001. sterling in the cotton manufacture alone,
:4-; compared with the preceding year. The value of linen
a:sported in 1816 WaS 2,839 000/. ; whereas in 1815 it
was 3,036,006!. The value of linen yarn exported in
1.15 was 1,066,0001. ; but in 1846 it was only 907,000/. The
v ilue of the wool exported the same years presented a similar
result. On silk there wss a small increase, as, in 1845, it
was 766,00 a, but in 1846 it was 837,000/. These
e ,n.stituted till staple manufactures of the country,
and he finind the difference in their declared
value to be somewhere about 15/. per cent., as compared
with 1845. lle had already said that the argument of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer was wrong; he would now
proceed to deal with several important admissions made by
the Honourable Gentleman the Secretary for .the Home
Department, which appeared to him conclusive evidence
against interfering with labour in factories. He said that
lie would not be a party to a delusion that this altera-
tion, if adopted, would not necessarily lead to a reduc•
tion in the amount of wages. In the present condition
of the country, when prices were rising, and when wages
had fallen, from the cessation of employment, it ap-
peared conclusive evidence why no interference should take
place. The admission, a most important one, was next
that heretofore in dealing with this object they had the
c nicurrence of the masters in what they had done ; but
that was not the case now, for a memorial had recently
been presented to the First Lord of the Treasury in opposi-
tion to the measure, and signed by a large majority of the
manufacturers, saying that any interference with the hours of
labour in factories could not but be fraught with great
danger. The Hon. Gentleman, having exclusive sources of
knowledge on the subject, from the confidential reports of the
Factory Inspectors and others, stated that the health of the
workers was not impaired by the labour which they were
compelled to undergo. But there was another admission,
which had even a more practical bearing on the subject
than those he had enumerated. He considered that
the concession of a ten hours' Bill would be fraught
with danger; that it would be most inexpedient, and
that he was prepared to take his stand on an eleven hours'
11111.—(Hear, hear.) Now, no doubt the Hon. Gentleman
the Member for Oldham (Mr. Fielden), when lie
addressed the House in reply, would state that
an eleven hours' Bill would by no means satisfy, the work-
ing classes, that they would never rest contented until their
htloieurpsroo b
pf
olasitoicaur
of wetre the Hon.
to
Hbronge Gentleman ten hours
th e Secretary
edcar
ey
t. a r
yof Thereforesta tState
f,l
~c)
oirtuitilhd ednaolnltgo
be satisfied
wouldapti esfip ae
dr
bt I nwe
ietonhft,intwo,whichi
lw,he thought was fraught
thcoenwtinorukeintogaeglasitastees
oasuld
for a ten hours' Bill. This was a conclusive argument why
they should not depart from the understanding which
had subsisted for half a century without having
injurious
been to the interests of those concerned.
by such a measure they would render it impossible for ma-
chinery
to run for twelve hours. Sit present, by the use of '
relays of children, working shorter hours, and by other ar-
rangements, the factories have been able to remedy the inju- '
nous effects which would have arisen from former legisla- 1
tion. But what was the course which they were now 1
iavited to take ?—that no consideration should influence them I

in permitting children to work in factories. He believed that,
practically speaking, since the commencement of the present
century, the hours of labour in linen and woollen factories

had been limited to twelve hours. Four-fifths of the exports
of the country consisted in their woollen manufactures, and
one-half of the declared value of their exports consisted of
their cotton trade ; and what, he would ask, would be the
inevitable effect of an abridgment to eleven hours upon the
master manufacturers ? Why they must either submit to
at
their
goods,inuti u
on orf
they
yir
mustprofits,lower or
they
their raisegemwusats,u
r the price
strimceuof
pperitciteioonf thevirrereendtss orthinecmrrseanthdeirrpernodfietsrs?
itForei
cease to manufacture.—( Hear, hear.) Could they raise the
Unless they cease to manufacture they must lower thegi
impossible.wages. eorn
The Hon. Member for Salford, who understood the question
very well, admitted that by limiting the hours of labour they
must diminish the quantity produced. But did he
forget, that if the quantity was diminished the
d
amount of wages would be materially reduced?
The foreign trade and the home market would
still requite an equal supply as at the present moment,
and fresh manufactories should be built to afford it • that, in
his opinion, would be a fruitless, extravagant, an prodigal
waste of capital. The machinery at present in operation was
of two kinds, old and new. There was some old
machinery running for twelve hours, which did not produce
a quantity equal to new machinery, which only ran for ten
hours. The effects, then, of this measure would be the de-
:traction, by Act of Parliament, of a great mass of valuable
property.—(Hear, hear.) He would draw their attention to
this most important part of the subject : they were about to
create a reduction in the amount of wages at the
very moment when, by a severe dispensation of
Providence, the price of food was very high, and still con.
firming to rise—at the very same moment when, from a
natural cause, the price of the raw material was enhanced
from a short supply. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
,tated that even at present a great many mills in
llanehester were working short time, and that no fewer
than 2,200 hands were out of employment. Moreover, it
%vas not the case as formerly, that the high price of food
raised the price of labour. From the artificial state of society
in which they lived,. oscillations in trade would inevitably
take place, and, as a necessary consequence, bring
with them a diminution in t',e demand for the article,
t diminution hi the hours of labour. WaS there
s,ns,,„ then, was there justice in prohibiting the labourer
t't., 1,1 Wet kid g twelve hours when the state cf trade allowed it,
thus preventing lon', from saving and preparing for the time
ILI! a (lccrea,e in his wages wealth take place from the
I!l,_:ttlat ions in trade ? Ho had on so many former occasions
s'ated all the objections which be entertained to
ltis incaFilre that he should be unpardonable if
ite detained the House by again repeating them, but
,te was hound to say that a deep sense of public (Jury had
c,totpdled him stedfastly to resist a measure which he knew
t,,t be grateful to a great ntunlxr of his fellow-countrymen.
It: looking at the question, it was impossible for him to
overlook the great principle of commercial policy which
!tad been introduced into the country. He would ask

I Ilan under what circumstance; they were invited to pass
the measure. All prohibitory duties had been removed—the

corn-laws had been repealed—the Navigation Act had been
suspended.
Lord GEORGE BENTINCIL—How long will they con-
tinue so ?
Sir JAMES GRAHAM.—He was stating nothing which
was not a matter of fact. Prohibitory duties had been
abolished, and protective duties had been so much lowered on
foreign produce, that foreign manufactures were admitted
and entered into direct competition in the home market with
their own goods. They had established the most perfect
freedom of commerce, and his Right Hon. Friend the Member
for Tamworth might well exclami, when surveying the em-
pire of commercial freedom which he had contributed so
much to enlarge—
nee Tempora pono
aipieric eagom neeeinemfientase dredi.er'tim"

—(Cheers.) The Hon. Member for Newark said that they
should put a curb upon these manufactories, that they
should make them feel their riders ; and that such
a course would not make them the less beneficial.
Was that the spirit of the Commons of England?
To put a " rein and a curb, and to make them feel their
riders." He hoped and trusted that the Noble Lord at the
head of the Government had no such feeling or no such de-
sire respecting the great interest upon which the pros-
perity of the country depends.--(",Hear, hear," from Lord
John Russell.) He feared that the measure, if adopted,
was exactly in the spirit of the Member for
Newark. It would be a curb and a bridle, under which he
believed the manufacturing interest would fret, and to which
it would not submit. The measure would be a tax upon
machinery—it would be a limit to the earnings of industry
—(Hear)--it would be a tax uponwages—(Heir;hear)—
which, if it were extended to all trades, would be a burden
intolerable.—(Hear, hear.) It was most painful to him to
resist a measure which was gratetul to a large portion of his
fellow-countrymen, but with a firm conviction in the purity
of his motives, he was compelled to record his vote against
the measure.
Sir GEORGE GREY said, that having expressed his
sentiments on the measure on the second reading of the Bill,
he only rose for a few moments on account of what had fallen
from the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham).
The Right Hon. Gentleman had stated that he
(Sir George Grey) had in his former speech made
four admissions which were strong arguments against
the present Bill. The first admission that the Right Ho-
nourable Baronet had attributed to him was, that the effect
of the Bill would be to reduce the wages of the working
classes in proportion to the reduction of time. He (Sir
George Grey) had never made an admission so large. All
he had stated was, that the tendency of the measure
would be to reduce the wages of the factory labourers, but
not that the reduction would be equal in extent to the re-
duction of the hours of labour. lie stated that, notwith-
standing the improvements of machinery, no increased exer-
tion could enable the operatives to do the same
amount of labour in eleven hours that they
could do in twelve—the earnings of eleven hours
would not be the same as the earnings of ten, or the
earnings of eleven the amount of twelve hours; but he never
denied but that other causes would operate to keep up the
rate of wages : the difference of years, and the varying con-
dition of the commercial and manufacturing markets. Though
wages might be less, he had never admitted that the reduc-
tion would be equal to the alteration in the hours of labour
made. He said there would be a reduction, but other causes
would operate to lessen the effect of the alteration. The
second admission attributed to him was, that the success of
the Government legislation on factory labour depended mainly
on the employers,—that they had willingly concurred in the
change which was made. Now, he had never said that the
employers had given their willing concurrence to the mea-
sure, but he said the successful result of it had arisen from
the fact of the great majority of the employers of factory la-
bourers co-orerating with the operatives in carrying out its
provisions.—(Hear, hear.) So far from stating that they
had concurred in the measure, he said they held the same
language then as now, that the abridgment of the hours of
labour would bring loss and ruin upon them. They had, he
was glad to hear, been disappointed in that expectation, and
as the warnings they had given the House about interfering
had not realised their forebodings,' te• was of opinion that
if the Bill had passed there was every reason for supposing
they would again be disappointed, while he had no doubt
that, as before, they would cease all opposition to its enact-
ments, and concur with the operatives in carrying the law
into effect.— (Hear, hear.) He bad next been represented
by the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham)
as stating that factory labour had not a prejudicial
effect on health. In answer, he must say that he had never
made so large an admission. When young persons laboured
for twelve hours a day in a factory it could not be pre-
sumed that their health would not suffer. But what
lie did say was, that the returns of the Regis-
trar-General did not bear out the inference that large
manufacturing towns were more unhealthy than other
large towns; as, for instance, Liverpool as compared with
Manchester. The Right Hon. Gentleman had also repre.
sented him as frightened at the danger that might arise from
the passing of this Bill. He certainly said that in any
change which they made they should proceed with caution
and circumspection, considering the views of a great
portion of the employers of factory labour and the excited
feelings of the operatives regarding this measure; and that
therefore ha would prefer an eleven to a twelve hours' Bill.
But lie did not say that even if they passed a ten hours' Bill
there would be danger. He would vote in Committee for an
eleven hours' clause, though were that rejected and the ten
hours' clause affirmed, he would still consider it his duty to
give the Bill in its remaining stages his cordial support.
Lord JOHN MANNERS offered a few words of explana-
tion in answer to the Right Hon. Baronet; they were to the
effect that be did not say he wished to curb the manufac-
turers by the Bill, but that he supported it because it would
regulate the proceedings of manufacturers, and do justice to
all concerned.
Lord MORPETH said he was desirous of stating briefly
the vote he intended to give, because already the sub-
ject had been fully discussed; and he must say he had not
come to the decision he had, without many misgivings. He
assented entirely to the principle of reducing the hours of
labour, but at the same time he thought in doing so they
should proceed as cautiously as possible. He was, therefore,
in favour t f voting to go into Committee, and then should
support eleven hours; but he must say, at the same time, be
did not share in the confidence of his Right Hon. Friend (the
Home Secretary). that if the eleveu hours' clause was de-
feated he would support the Bill for the ten hours. The
main reason for his agreeing to vote for going into
Committee, was because he believed there was a point of
honour involved in it, as something had been held out to be
done when the restrictions on the importation of food were
removed. He was further fortified in the vote he was about
to give by the proceedings of Mr. Marshall, of Leeds,
a gentleman entitled to every credence and respect.
That gentleman bad tried working eleven hours,
(The Noble Lord here read an extract from a letter written
by Mr. Marshall, to the effect that he had reduced the hours
to eleven hours a day, and yet, though the reduction of time
was 3 per cent. the reduction of produce was only %
per cent.—(Hear, hear.) Whether from greater punctu-
ality and attention on the part of the workpeople,
such was the result, and it gave them great confidence in
the legislation they were about to carry into effect. He
feared there was but too much truth in the statement of the
Right lion. Baronet (Sir James Graham) that the lot
Hear, hear.)
of the working classes was only to eat, to sleep, and
to die.—(Hear, hear.) Yet still he thought something
havetehnisclesnucT onr- --the part of the
mechanics' institutions and read-
ought to be done to mitigate, if possible, this state
gave greater time for inch a pur-
of things, and if the reduction of the day's labour to eleven
their legislation would not be in vain. Representing,
;b be
but
et v
thinkingw eul d t
hhea have
change
ge tendencyto eleve
eleven
to
hoursinjurewtohuelidr
pose,iTl
read-
ing ohgu workingrrseo owwmoacsus
classes
nsgdedr
great
so,afttot
this
i aid
shouldattend
Billtegrowingn d
as ho did a great constituency deeply interested in the ques
tion of factory labour, he would not support any measure
nPworh°tischPhaevrihet3e;hat effect, after due consideration he had decided to
isinsufpapetootiti.e—(_Cheers.)
)was also an argument which fell
Lord GEORGE BENTIN •1, said that the Right Hon.
Gentleman who had lately addressed the House with such
ability, said that this was not a Bill to limit the hours of
a Billto
labour to ten hours, but prevent them giving labour
agriculture—(Hear, Hear, hear)—they
from the Right Honourable Gentleman the Member for
with, they heard Dorchester which rather surprised him, after the course
he had taken last year. When it was proposed and carried
togi vaed iutl adults
heard nothing of the vested rights of the tenants in their
long leases, but the Right Hon. Gentleman spoke of the
vested rights of the manufacturers in their machinery.--
t no-
thingh at
o f
th e protection
vested
rightsl should be
fd done
(Cheers.) Hon. Members spoke of the falling offof their ex-
ports, and argued from thence that this was not the time
to introduce a measure of this kind; but the fact
was that foreign nations, with a degree of
policy which this country might well copy were protecting
their home manufacturers ; and their policy was strikingly
apparent in this. that while the cotton exports of Britain
had decreased, the, exports in their machinery had increased
25 per cent. The Hon. Gentleman wl:o opened that debate,
asked if they were to stop at ten hours, and he argued that
they would not, because Mr. Oastler had at some period ad •
vocated eight hours. Why, he would tell the Hon. Member
that ten hours was the period most consistent with
hmuan strength, and therefore it was that they fixed this
period. But the Hon. Gentleman said that they should
not interfere with labour, because in all past experience suety
a course led to further interference. The Hon. Member
argued a degree of ruin to those manufacturers from these
interferences; but, although this ruin had been often threat-
ened, it had not yet arrived; and they had already reduced
the hours of infant labour from 89 and 90 hours to 66 and
70 hours per week, The Hon. Gentleman had referred to
the evidence of six operatives and some clergymen in favour
of unlimited labour. He (Lord G. Bentinck) could bring
forward a host of evidence in opposition to such a principle.
He would give his support to the motion for going into
Committee.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON was desirous of making a few ob-
servations before recording his vote on this question, and he
would confine himself as closely as possible to the real sub-
ject before them. The Noble Lord had not confined himself
to the question directly before them ; he had referred to
commerce, and the mercantile position of Europe, and seemed,
if be might use the expression, to wish to interfere with the
vested interests of manufacturers, because at some former
pariod, the interests of the agriculturists had been affected
by some measures which had passed that House.
Ile wished to discuss the proposition on its own merits. The
Right Hon. Member for Dorchester had so well pointed out
the interests connected with the questions that he would not
travel over the same ground. The cotton manufacture was
the greatest interest connected with it, it formed nearly
the half of the manufactured exports of the country,
and therefore any interference with it must be carried out
only after the most serious consideration. It appeared that
the various opinions of the master manufacturers were re-
gulated entirely by the amount of time they worked their
own machinery ; but he must say, from his knowledge of the
feelings of the master manufacturers, that they were
in general opposed to the measure. The Noble Lord who
had last spoken said that the late corn-law legislation was
an interference with vested rights. The corn-law was a
restraint upon the commerce of the country, and therefore it
was removed, because it could not be shown to be beneficial
to the country, and it rested with those who proposed the
present restraint upon labour to show that it
would be beneficial. The onus probandi rested with
them, and they had not shown that the restraint would be
productive of benefit. He thought that any restraint upon
labour was per se an evil, and in the present instance it would
be peculiarlyso. When they legislated for children theyshowed
that the compulsory leisure given to tbeni would he of
benefit to them, but now, when they proposed to inflict a
restraint upon adults, they had alleged no such reason. They
proposed to fetter free agents upon no ground or authority
whatever. As a member of the Government, lie
did not coincide in the opinion that this mea-
sure was or could be a desiri hie one ; on the
contrary, he thought it one which ought to be
avoided. They hail not as yet been correctly informed how
far it would be see to go. Some proposed eight hours, some
ten, some eleven and eleven and a half, and each stated that
any variation from the time he stated would be in-
jurious. When the advocates of the measure differed so
essentially in the amount of time to be allowed, he (Mr.
M. Gibson) did not think that he had even the argument
of authority to support this Bill. He would again observe
how much the supporters of this measure varied in the
arguments adduced by them is favour of it. Some our

ported it on the ground that it would cause an equal i
distribution of labour amongst a greater number I
of hands, and others again declared that they
would not support the measure if they thought
it would diminish the wages of the operatives.
Therefore he said that his Hon. Friend, the Member for
Finsbury, ought not not to be so easily satisfied that this
Bill would not reduce wages by 25 per cent, It was, indeed,
evident that the Hon. Gentleman was not satisfied with the
precise results that might follow this measure, for he had
moved for a Committee of Inquiry, but had been re-
fused, and he was just now as much in the dark as ever.
Then another Honourable Gentleman was quite ready to
allow of the reduction of wages, for he believed that a far
greater benefit would be obtained than that which would be
lost by the reduction, for such leisure would be granted, that
there would be the opportunity for improving the moral and
intellectual condition of the working people. For his own
part he was quite ready to vote for this Bill, if it
could be shown that it really would be for the benefit of the
cpoenopdlietitohneomfsethlse•
the prosperity of the master-manufacturers of this country.
ews,o
rfokri
nhge
peoplebeli e v edw
at
sh aatn t hi
ne
tme
gorraall andelempehnsti cianl
But it appeared to him that such had not been shown ; nor
could he perceive in the conflicting statements of the advo-
cates of this Bill any sufficient authority to justify the
opinion. And they had done nothing whatever to provide
for this intellectual and social improvement of the people ;
for all that they desired to do was to turn them
out of the mills.—(Hear.) The Honourable Member for
Knareaborough had stated this matter could net be settled
between the master and the men without legislation, and yet
in his speech the other evening he bad alleged that so
general was the feeling that the whole of the workmen
would enter into a general combination not to work more
than ten hours of the day, that it would appear,
according to his own showing, that legislation
was unnecessary to effect the object. Then it was
alleged by the Noble Lord the Member fer Newark
(Lord John Manners), that one of the consequences of the
over.working of the people, was the destruction of between
fifty and sixty per cent. of the infant population of the manu-
facturing districts before the children had arrived at their
fifth year, and this he ascribed to the long absence of the
mothers from their homes. But did this Bill provide any
sufficient remedy? Certainly not; for would not the same
evils be likely to arise from the absence of the mothers
eleven hours instead of thirteen, and would there be any
less occasion than there was now for the employment of per-
sons to look after those children ? Then, again, it was is
evidence that the loss of infantine life in other parts of the
country where there were no manufactures was fully
sixty per cent., and how did they get over that ?
The same causes were not in operation, and yet the
same results had followed, and why should they then
ascribe them to factory labour ? Then, again, the Ho-
nourable Member opposite said that he would exclude
women altogether front the Bill, and bow then was the dif-
ficulty to be got over, and what advantage would it be to
pass the Bill at all? Another Hon. Member had stated that
by shortening the hours of labour they would prevent the
practice of eating opium; but for this he could see no suffi-
cient reason, for as it appeared to him, the people would be
just as likely to continue the practice of eating opium as
when they were obliged to work thirteen hours, instead
of eleven. And as to the assertion that this excess of exer-
tion was conducive to the demoralisation of the people, and
that it caused them to sit boosing and drinking gin in the
public-houses on the Saturday afternoen and on the Sunday
mornings, they had the testimony of their own advo-
cate, Mr. Harrison, who had stated that his chief
reason for desiring the measure was that it
would reduce wages and prevent the people from
spending so much in gin, and thus aid the cause of general
improvement. Then as to the assertion that this Bill would
be of service in giving opportunities to the children in the
factory districts, they had the testimony of their own fac-
tory inspector ihat the effect of the last Bill was to prevent
the employment of children altogether in mills in Scotland,
and that so far from its having been instrumental in the pro-
motion of education, it was the fact, as stated by the inspector,
that not a single school had been erected in the whole of his
district for the education of the children of factory labourers.
He contended that the past legislation had nothing to do
with the measure bsfore the House. The question of chil-
dren was not now before the House. The Bill referred to
adolescence and to adults. Drunkenness and other vices
were more prevalent in the higher classes than they were at
that time, and the example set them had no
doubt its influence upon other classes. Let them
not, therefore, claim for their factory legislation the
credit of the improvements which were now happily pro-
gressing in the country. But the factory inspectors were
not all unanimous as to the efficacy of that very legislation.
He saw an instance of the advantages of legislation in the
fact that had been exhibited in one of the London police-
courts a few days ago, where a number of women were
brought before the magistrate because they had been
found winding cotton into balls after half-past eight in
the evening. The offence was not that they bad
worked for so many hours a day, but because they had been
baking cotton after half-past eight o'clock, and this was in
an age when prostitution was rife upon their streets. There
was no legislation in that case, but because some
poor women, rather than beg, or go upon the streets, chose
to wind cotton after half-past eight o'clock they were
brought before the magistrates for their unexampled
audacity. What miserable mockery of justice! What
wanton tyranny was this 1—( Hear.) If this Bill was
intended as a benefit to the cotton districts, why did they
stop there? why not extend the boon to other operatives ;
why confine their favour to cotton •spinners ? Why in the
very head-quarters of the friends of humanity—in Dorset-
shire there was no sign made of raising the wages
of the labourer, or of elevating his social condition.—(Cheers.)
Why, if the labourer in Dorsetshire got only 7s. or Bs. a
week—why, in that case, not make the farmer give 10s. a
week to that labourer. The principle was the same. If it were
right to confer this favour on the manufacturing artisan,
why not extend the same favour to the agricultural labourer?
—why not extend their legislation to nurses in
hospitals? They worked for some 16 hours a day, and
therefore were fit subjects for the friends of humanity.
It was right, if the labour in factories was proved to be
severe, that they should extend their legislation to those em-
ployed as nurses in hospitals.—(Hear, hear.) Why not also
extend it to washerwomen?—(Hear, and "Question.") That
was the question, for he held if they extended protection to a
certain class that it was but right to extend it to all classes
of her Majesty's subjects.—(Hear, hear.) Washerwomen
stood more hours than the labourers in factories; and
he had been informed by a medical gentleman that
the greater number of out- patients in the hospitals
were women of this class, as from standing long they were
afflicted with varicose veins and ulcerated legs. If the
system of labour was to be carried out, let it be extended to
all classes of labour, and not to one. He was opposed to any
interference with labour. It was strange that at a time the
evil of the want of employment was so much lamented in
Ireland, that they should propose a restriction of the hours
of labour. Why, if they were to reduce the hours of work
in Ireland one-sixth, 88,000/. a year would be withdrawn
from being expended in labour. In Scotland, if they re-
duced the hours of labour, 430,000/. a year would be
withdrawn from being expended in labour. He could not
understand why more than a million of money should be
withdrawn from the operatives of Lancashire.—(Hear.) The
argument was still more strange when uttered :by the
Noble Lord the Member for Lynn, as he wished to
send the money of the State to Ireland for the
purpose of employing the poor of that country ; yet
he wished to restrict whatever labour could be procured.—
( Hear, hear.) The people of Ireland were not troubled
with too much work.—( Hear, hear.) They were not bur-
dened with the many " demon steam-engines," as the
Honourable Member for Weymouth (Mr. Bernal) had
styled them, but lived as it were in pastoral simplicity,
without energy, because they had no regular employment.
The cotton trade had not long taken root in this country—it
had flourished, and was flourishing; but if they restricted it,
it was possible that it might decline, and that the country
would suffer from the serious injury which would thereby
be done to one of the greatest staple manufactures of the
country; for it should be borne in mind that when
large quantities of our manufactures were exported,
the capital of the working man, embodied in
the produce of his labour, was being carried to
other markets, and that he was thereby turning it to
the best advantage. In return for a reduction of the hours
of labour by a legislative enactment, those who sought it had
not offered anything tangible—nothing which practical men
could accept, and therefore he felt it his duty to oppose the
Bill.—( Hear. )
Lord EBRINGTON was perfectly convinced that the
atmosphere inhaled in the mills would render eight hours'
work more pernicious than twelve hours in a better ventilated
mill. He would therefore propose amendments which would
empower the inspectors to remedy such defects. He would
desire that all the inspectors should be medical men.—(Hear.)
Sir R. PEEL said that he had waited in vain for some Hon.
Gentleman, a decided advocate of the measure, to reply to the
speech of his Right Hon. Friend. He expected to be in a
small minority on the present occasion, and he was desirmis
to record, under adverse circumstances, his continued objec-
tion to all interference with the hours of factory labour.
There was a mathematical problem of great difficulty, which
was, what would be the point at which a body would rest, if
exposed, to the attraction of three great bodies? This
was called the problem of the three bodies, and was
one of difficult solution. He hoped the Noble Lord
(John Russell) would be able to give a public solu-
tion of this problem, as he was at present surrounded by
three great bodies; and it would then be seen whether the
question would remain at rest or preponderate one way or
the other.—(Laughter.) Before he concluded he had
falling
Member
reference
ovttrnnrwewsii
egaombnoi
unenrocdsrgdofeoyfnffotetthraoherteroe
seotslwh,
connected with the subject
speech that the result of the relaxation of the prohibitive
find that the fluctuation between
against the policy of last year, inasmuch as the ex-
se,
le
d
e
ty
of the last. Now if the Noble Lord would refer to
etdgdfr aaoNrtlratethl
eaoei
show
before
aroese,
vefudfwredobtoLrujh(
ficeracrtri
prohibits
not
subveur immediately
enlydoheLsuwdtaacoedntrmidntobhnwetoh ehaosihis
esfe
e
inctrheeasedt.ruthThis.of
wothuilsd.
former years was much greater than it had been between last
y
in operation,
duties could not be the cause of what he alleged. The
Experience had shown since they commenced the al-
teration of the protective system, that instead of the exports
be shown by taking the years from 1843 in
till now
1843 the declared value of the exports of this coun-
try' was 52,271,000/. ; in the year 1843, 58,514,000!. ; in
1844, 58,554,000/. ; and in 1845, the declared value was
60,180,000/.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") The exports
of 1846 were, no doubt, less than the exports of 1845,
but former periods, when the prohibition and protective sys-
tem was in operation would show similar results. In 1836,
when protection existed, the declared value of their
exports were 53,000,000/. ; in 1837 it was 42,000,000/.,
showing a great reduction over the previous year. Again in
1838 the exports were 53,000,000/. ; in 1839, 51,000,000/. ;
in 1840 they were 51,000,000/. ; in 1842, 47,000,0001.—(Hear,
hear)—therefore the objection that the reduction of tlie duties
of last year had occasioned the falling off this year in
uphywp:mhlreyntrehsaseensatewsre. Yncenhoenhtwtaul:hadloaodhdeannuyanpdl
the exports was not sustained, for it appeared the years of
the protective system exhibited as great vicissitudes as the
last two years. But were there not other means of
explaining the falling off ? In 1846, they reduced the
duties on many articles of importance, in continuation
of the policy which they had begun three years before.
Since then they had high prices in provisions not only in
this country, but throughout the other nations of Europe.
And was it not reasonable to believe that the high
price of provisions, and the consequent reduction
of expenditure in articles of luxury, or of articles
that approached that character, combined with the
increase in the price of the raw material in an important
branch of manufactures, were sufficient, independent of ordi-
nary circumstances, to account for the reduction of the ex-
perts of 1846, as compared with 1845 ?--( dear, hear.)
But, at the same time, could the Noble Lord show
him, in the history of the protective system, how, under
similar circumstances, as it regarded the price of food, and
the distress which prevailed in certain portions of the empire.
The revenue was buoyant, contentment pervading the great
mass of the people submissive to the laws existing, and patient
resignation everywhere manifested. But he would ask the
Noble Lord what he would have done under the same cir-
cumstances ? Would he have repealed the corn-
law of 1842, or the law of last year?—(Loud cheers.)
Would he have dm ao, Rhea they had the Act before them

that during the present year they had imported no
less than five million quarters of grain, and
yet the aver..ge p:icc -)
And now, to come to the question, he admitted that it would
be a narrow and restricted view to argue this question on the
rules of what was called political economy. The Italians
claimed for themselves a more extended principle of political
economy, while the English political economists were only
acquainted with the means of acquiring wealth and distri-
buting it. He looked at this question as it affected the
general interests of the country, and he viewed it with alarm.
Why, at this time of comparative prosperity, they were
obliged to tax property to the extent of six millions for the
purpose of giving food to those who could not get it
of themselves, and what security had they for the continu-
ance of this relief but the property, the machinery,
and the labour of the manufacturer? Other na-
tions were sharpened by the love of gain, and they
were becoming powerful competitors in the markets of the
world. It had been said that machinery had been exported
in great quantities. They had had a Committee on this sub-
ject, and the result theyhad come to was, that if they did not
encourage the trade in machinery, other countries would
take advantage of their ingenuity and make it for themselves.
The working man could arrive at Rouen, or other parts of
France, in fourteen or fifteen hours. They might go there
partly from curiosity, partly from the hope of gain, and
partly from the conviction that they would be well treated.
They could no longer have that control over English
labour that they had at the time when locomotion was not
so much facilitated, and when there was a prejudice
against any removal from the workman's native land.
Now they had no command either over capital or over
labour, which at that moment was greatly expended
by competition, and yet they proposed now to place a legisla-
tive restriction on women and children—a restriction which
would practically be a general restiction upon adult labour.
(Hear, hear.) To a man who was in possession of
health and desired to labour, and who feared the day of
age, sickness, or distress, they might say that the measure
would not affect him, but he (Sir R. Peel) said that,
in a practical sense, it was saying to him, that he should not
work more than five days in the week.—(Cheers.) If they
were to cut off two hours a day, that would constitute twelve
hours in the week. With the facilities which existed for the
egress of labour, capital. and machinery, they were
about to place this restriction. If they could con-
vince him that there were perspective dangers—if
they could convince-him that it was posible that the great
manufacturers of linen, woollen, and silk, had taken such
root in the soil, that they could not be removed —if
they could convince him that it was for the moral
and intellectual improvement of the people and their general
welfare, he should be almost tempted to yield to their
arguments, for he felt fully as much as they them-
selves felt that the welfare of the country depended
upon an improvement of the condition and an elevation
of the feelings of that class of society. He did not
think that they were safe without it. They were educating
them and giving them an intellectual improvement, and
unless they also increased their comforts it would be a source
of danger to themselves. The Hon. Member for Salford
had made a speech most honourable to him, and he was in•
fluenced by a feeling with which he (Sir R. Peel) in some de-
gree coincided. If he were asked, as he had been, whether
it was proper for young women and children under the age of
fourteen years to work so long? he should say no. He was
quite of opinion that eight hours was quite sufficient labour
for that class. Was it, however, not a question of compari-
son between the amount of labour and the reduction of wages,
and consequently their comforts and enjoyments? He did
not deny that there would be advantages in a moral point of
view if they looked upon the question only upon that point.
But it would be followed by a decrease in the comforts
of the operatives. It would be an anomaly to legislate if
they could say that a man was to work only five days in
the week and be paid for six ; and even if they did
succeed in doing so, the masters would endeavour
in consequence of the competition to obtain the old amount
of produce in the shortened time. Would not that
be more injurious to the physical strength of
the women and children than the proper time
being given to perform a certain amount of labour? Would
it not be more healthy for these women and children to
perform eleven hours' work in eleven .hours than to
be compelled to perform eleven hours' work in ten ?
Let them consider it as they would, he should still say that
this reduction of wages was nothing more nor less than in-
come-tax.— (Hear.) It was so, for what else could they make
of it? and if they were to impose this restriction on the
labour of an adult man, they would just be laying upon him
an income-tax to,that extent.—(Cheers, and counter cheers.)
Supposing a manufacturer had 1.500 people employed in his
premises, not engaged in the process of the manufacture,
but necessary for the conduct of the business, by
this restrietion of the hours of labour they would,
supposing each of those persons earned sixty pounds a
year, just deprive them of one-sixth of their income,
and they would lay upon them a tax, not of 21. 18s. 7d.,
but to the whole amount of the ten pounds which they
lost through this restriction, and take from them not 3 per
cent. but 10 or 12 per cent. of all that they obtained. He
would read to them the opinion of a very high
authority on this subject, and the opinion which
that authority expressed was pregnant with truth. In the
passage before him, it was stated that the working classes, in
a time of prosperity participated in the benefits en-
joyed by their employers, but not to the same
extent as they suffered from deprivations in the times of
adversity, so that it was absolutely necessary for them to
realise some surplus, for in the time of adversity it was sure
to be all absorbed. And this effect would be wrought
by the endeavour to repress wages through ill-advised legis-
lation. By this means, also, they would deprive them of the
opportunity of laying by the 51. or 101. which had so often
proved the foundation of the future fortune and independence
of the family, as had been most ably and most admirably
put by the Hon. Member for Salford. And what an
advantage was it for the father of a family to call his
children around him and say that now his strength was
exhausted, and they must labour for him. This he
knew was the case with hundreds in Lancashire, for
he himself could name at least ten individuals
whom he could remember when a boy as earning 255. a week,
all of whom were at least worth 100,000/. each. But where
would be the opportunity of obtaining these advantages, if
this paralyzing measure were to be passed? In the present
opportunities for the extradition of labour, would not any in-
telligent workman take a third-class train to Dover, and take
his skill, his industry, aye, and his English character too, to
some place where there would be no restriction on his earn-
ings? He would take the evidence of two families, one of which
consisted of nine individuals with, 185. a week, and the
other of seven:individuals with 9s. a week. In the first family
after paying 10s. 6d. for bread, and 3s. 6d.; for their other
necessaries, there was 4s. 6d. left for sugar, tea, clothing,
and other necessaries. In the second there was only ss. 6d.
for bread ; there was left not five shillings, but ninepence
for clothing, medical attendance, and all the other casual ex-
penses of a family. The Right Honourable Baronet then
cited the evidence of the Rev. Mr. Huxstable and other gen-
tlemen who had made inquiry as to the possibility of a
labourer, with five or six children, living on ten shillings
a week, and who had received no satisfactory answer.
He concluded by declaring, that he attached the highest im-
portance to the elevation of the working classes, and
he voted against going into Committee on this question,
not because he wanted a permanent fund for the
purpose of taxation, but because he believed that
the Bill would interfere with the comforts of the
people ; because he believed that it would endanger
the great resources of the country; because he believed that
it would cripple their energies and dissipate the national
wealth; and feeling, as he did, special obligations to the
working classes of this country—believing, as he did,
that this restriction would not be for their interest, he
reconciled himself to promote by his vote their welfare,
although he might offend them in doing so.—(Cheers.)
The gallery was then cleared for a division, when there
appeared—
For the amendment lOO
For the original motion
Majority — 90
The House then adjourned (without going into Commit-
tee) at a few minutes after Six o'clock.

PETITIONS ON PRIVATE BILLS.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
(Room 22, before Mr. Examiner SMITE.)
OPPOSED CASES.
Edinburgh and Northern Railway (Improvement of the
Ferry between Ferry Port-on-Craig and the North Shore
of the River Tay).
In this opposed case it was decided that the standing
orders had been complied with.
South Metropolitan Waterworks.
This opposed case occupied the remainder of the day.
Adjourned till to-morrow.

REGISTRY of BIRTHS and DEATHS
DURING THE WEEK ENDING FEB. 27.
Deaths registered in the week. Births registered in the week.
Males ... 520 Males ... 759
Females 524 Females ... ... 719

Total ... 1,044

Total ... 1,478

EXTENSIVE ROBBERY of SILVER
PLATE, GOLD WATCHES, &c., AT NORWICII.
A very extensive robbery was effected on Sunday evening,
between six and seven o'clock, at the shop of Mr. Cooper, a
silversmith, in London-street, at the corner opposite Mr.
Barnard's, and on the alarm being made at the station-house,
the superintendent of the police (Mr. Yarington) and seve-
ral of the men attended. It was soon discovered that about
fifty gold watches, which were safe in the shop on Saturday
night at six o'clock, had disappeared, and that a great deal
more very valuable property had been placed behind the
counter ready to be carried off. The amount of the pods
lost was variously reported, but after a strict investigation,
assisted by the magistrates, it seemed to have been from
1,5001, to 2,0001., and with this the thieves had got clear off,
leaving no trace of which way they had gone. Nobody ap-
pears to have seen any one either going to, or coming from
the premises, and the private door leading from Cockey-
lane, by which they must have entered, did not present any
marks Of being forced, or the lock having been picked. Eve, y
possible exertion appears to have been made to detect the
robbery, but without any known effect. Telegraphic mes-
sages were sent in all possible directions of the robbery, with
descriptions of the stolen property. The robbery must have
been committed between six and seven o'clock, for one of the
young Mr. Cooper's, with a friend, appears to have been into
the shop about six o'clock that evening, and his brother
gave the alarm of the robbery soon after seven. A long
private investigation took place on Monday before the Mayor
and a full bench of magistrates, when one of the Cooper's and
one of the men were examined at very great length, but of
the nature of the investigation we know nothing. No' body is
in custody.—Bury Herald.

61. per cent.
51. per cent.
Si. per cent.
Si. per cent.
61. per cent.
61. per cent.

d.
40 0 0
50 0 0
100 0 0
100 0 0
100 0 0
50 0 0
25 0 0
100 0 0
10 0 0
40 0 0
100 0 0
20 0 0
25 0 0
50 0 0

I. d.
40 0 0
50 0 0
20 0 0
25 0 0
20 0 0
10 0
7 10 0
25 0
10 0
20 0 0
25 0 0
10 0 0
25 0 0
10 0 0

Si. per cent.
Si. per cent.
51. per cent.
51. per cent.
51. per cent.
Cl. per cent.
5/. per cent.