The Sun.
London, England, 1847-05-18 00:00:00

chsses, by rAueing their wages, or the property of tine
manufacturer. That argument was not borne out by
the facts which had already existed ; for the former
Factory Bill had produced neither any serious di-
minution of the produce of woollen goods, or in
the wages paid to the operative.—(Bear. hear.)
His Noble and Learned Friend had told their Lord-
ships that the adoption of this Bill would considerably
reduce the manufacturing produce 01 the country. Now
it was a well known fact that from the best and purest
n:otives a large number of mill-ovvi,ers had long ago
preserib( d the short hour system its their own esta-
blishments with the greatest success. Now was that a
sufficient answer to the argument of his Noble and
Learned Friend. In his own humble judgment it was,
for he could not believe that the mill owner to whom he
had allud,d could be so blind to their own interests
as to continue the system they ha ! commenced
if it reduced their trade. Now, the truth was, it had
produced no such effect. It had improved the condition
of their labourers, both in mind and body, and the result
had been that the former productions of their mills had
not been reduced by the disinterested step they had
taken. There could be no doubt that, at the present
moment, the manufacturing interest was suffering from
the severest privations, and yet the labourers employed
by that interest, were patient and contented under their
sufferings, and he was therefore glad, that in
suingc thatonp
cp
lotuhrseti
03,n thehhi
sympathisedsa d mo nelayswutiroteha,
themsu Governmentre tihn etibr
nbneul irei
tvreyd, tahnids mi
nlepa;
nu
vr
ee
twh•oeual do
sons
sd do
ft ot
nti 117 e
andinfl uietn
wnp esa that
upon
thispt
ohl
nne
that ground he supported it. e ro sufferings.r d hadsh i showed
s

The Duke of RICHMOND would not have risen had
it not been for one or two remarks which had fallen from
his Noble and Learned Friend who had addressed their
Lordships at so much length. His Noble and Learned
Friend had told them that the majority of the mill
owners were opposed to this Bill. Now that was not the
case. The mill•owners were supporters of this Bill,
and although he entertained the utmost disrespect
for the mill-owners or the Anti-corn-law League's
support, he cordially agreed with them in supporting
this measure. His Noble and Learned Friend had told
them that an agricultural labourer was not so strong as
any one of their Lordships who had reached the age of
seventy. Now, if his Noble and Learned Friend wished
it, he could produce an agricultural labourer from
Sussex, of forty-five years of age, who would carry any
one of their Lordships upon his back without any diffi-
culty, and in his opinion few Noble Lords could accom •
plish such a feat as that.—(Great laughter.)
Lord CLARENDON felt constrained to oppose this
measure, because he felt that it would oppress and
injure those who were to be benefited by it rather
than improve their condition.—(Hear, hear.) But
he felt that it would not only be attended
with that result, but it would inflict a serious injury
upon the trade of the country. Besides, there was no
case of cruelty or injustice on the part of the employer
made out for this Bill, and considering that at this
moment the factory labourer did not on the average work
more than eleven hours per day at very easy work, he
thought there was no necessity for their Lordships fur-
ther interfering in the progress of the trade of the
country. There could be no doubt that the Bill, if it
were passed, would materially reduce the manufac-
turing productions of the country, and it must,
therefore, of necessity, reduce trade, and see-
ing that, as in former instances, there was no
crying evil to be put down by the Bill, he could
nat conscientiously give it his support. But be-
fore their Lordships gave their assent to this Bill, it
was their duty to consider what effect it would have
upon other branches of trade than manufacturers. In
the first place, a reduction of the hours of labour, from
twelve to ten hours, would largely reduce the consump-
tion of coal in this country. It would also reduce the
consumption of tallow, wool, ar.d many other similar
articles of manufacturing consumption, besides reducing
the amount of shipping employed by this country. It
was, therefore, almost impossible to calculate the in-
jury the passing of the Bill would inflict upon this
country. This country did not depend upon the
greater number of hours which her labcurers
worked, in competing with the foreigner, but
upon the superiority of her machinery.—(Hear.)
Well, then, if the working of that machinery were to be
reduced, what a serious effect it would have upon the
export trade of the country. He, therefore, imph red
their Lordships not to be led away by an impression that
in passing this Bill they improved the condition of the
labourer, because it was clear, that if it reduced the trade
of the country, it must, as a necessary consequence, di-
minish the wages of the manufacturing labourer.
He thought the present time was not favourable for this
experiment. He agreed with the Noble and Learned
Lord that the operatives were not favourable to the Bill,
and that they had never asked for it. There were mills
at present working six, eight, and ten hours a day.
and among the manufacturing population, this state of
things was by no means satisfactory. Let them apply
the rule proposed by this Bill to other classes in so-
ciety as well as manufacturing. Let him ask their Lord-
ships how they would like an Act of Parliament corn •
polling them to dispense with the sixth of the labour of
their domestic servants ? What did they think of the
Legislature enforcing them, then, to accept the sixth of
the labour of their own agricultural labourers ? Let him
ask the Noble Duke opposite how he would like such a
proposition ?
The Duke of RICHMOND could see no reasonable
objection to it if the half of the agricultural labourers
died from excessive labour—(Hear, hear.)

The Earl of CLARENDON said that that was an
assumption in which he could not agree with regard to
the manufacturing population. He deprecated inter-
ference with the income of the poor man. By
this measure they were interfering with him, and were
inflicting the most serious injury to the working classes
of this country. For these reasons, therefore, he would
record his vote against the measure.
The Bishop of OXFORD would state the reasons
which induced him to give his vote in favour of this
measure before the House. It was contended that the
supporters of this Bill were driving the manufacturers of
the country abroad, and that they were interfering with
the legitimate property of the manufacturers. Now,
how did the case stand ? Why, this very class—the
manufacturers themselves—had, to the extent of two-
thirds of their number, petitioned in favour of the
measure. He denied that the Bill was an interference
with the legitimate profits of business. It was only an
interference with unsound and injurious speculation.—
(Hear, hear.) It was nothing but an assumption
that one-sixth of the income of the working classes
would be taken away by the measure. He himself put
that proposition to some working mechanics, and was
told by them in reply that that was the argument of my
Lord Brougham.—(Laughter.) But what was their
answer to it. They said that they could not admit its
truth, but even if it was so they could not see their
children growing up with their bodies wasted and their
minds injured even to save that one•sixth of their
income.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Earl told them that
they exported thirty-seven millions of goods annually,
and that by the present Bill they would be cutting off
one-sixth of that amount. He thought that the asser-
tion of the two last hours of the day's labour being the
only profit of the manufacturer was incorrec?, and was
based upon too nice a calculation. He believed that
these last two hours were not hours of profit, taxing as
they did excessively the energies of the poor creatures
who were engaged at those factories, and that they were
rather a drawback than otherwise on the labour of
the rest of the day. Those who knew their own inte-
rests had taken this view of the matter. The Messrs.
Marshall of Leeds, for instance, had cut off one of these
hours, and had reduced the time in their factories to
eleven hours. In the case of another firm, which had
taken an account of the work done for five weeks before
a reduction of the hours of labour, and five weeks after-
wards, it was found that more work had been done dur-
ing the ten hours than during the twelve.—(llear, hear.)
A measure, the very counterpart of this, had been
brought forward by the late Sir Robert Peel, in 1815,
and from that time to the present it had been agitating
the public mind, and frequent attempts had been made
to obtain for it the sanction of the Legislature.
They had already made several preliminary steps which
might serve to give them some oxperience of the opera-
tion of the Bill. They hail passed a Bill against women
working in mines. That was against touch opposition;
but the result had been with increased good effect, both
to the women themselves, the subjects of that legislative
measure, and to the masters of those mines. They had
passed a Bill limiting the time to twelve hours in those
very factories, and the result had been so far
beneficial. The result must be good. The want
of the measure was evinced by dire effects

on the physical and moral condition of the
labourers.—(hear.) It became then not a question of
wealth or loss. Wealth so gained was unlawfully

gained, and therefore the Legislature could not sanction
it by refusing to interfere. But why were the capitalists
able to impose the amount of labour? That was the
question of the Noble Earl (Clarendon). He answered,
that the alternative offered them was no work at all?
Long hours or no work—such was the alternative, the
dire alternative, offered to the needy workman, and
could their Lordships doubt which he must choose ?
How, then, if their Lordships did not interfere, were
they to retrieve themselves ?—how, but by com-
bining against their masters. Were their Lord-
ships prepared for that result, and the attendant
evils? Were they prepared to encounter these, or to drive
the stay of the country—the labouring classes—from
their shores to a foreign land? On what did their sbipe-
riority as a manufacturing nation rest ? On these two
things—the security in this country of all vested pro •
perty ; and, 2d, the physical strength of the people, and
their pmience in attending upon machinery. Were they
prepared to drive the population to that extremity that
the manufacturer should be in dread of seeing his pro-
perty in flames; or to countenance a system which as
certainly reduced their physical strength as it exist&,
and thereby to cut off the right hand of their strength
and their greatness ? He trusted their Lordships would
better consider the results of their decision ere they came
to a vote upon the Bill.
Lord BROUGHAM explained.
Lord W HARNCLIFFE—The question before them
now was not a new one. It was important, and it had
occupied an important space on the attention of the
Legislature ; it had come before them in 1801 ; it had
been taken up again in 1815 ; it was again before Par-
liament in 1831, in 1844, and 1846. During all that
time public opinion had grown ; the votes of the other
House of Parliament and public sentiment had both
progressed, till, when the Bill was before the other
House of Parliament, petitions were presented with
178,000 signatures, while only something like 1,000
were sent in against it. The Noble Lord, who spoke
throughout in a very low tone of voice, concluded by
sating that he would support the Bill.
' The Bishop of ST. DAVIDS regretted to rise at that
late hour of the night, or to weaken the effect of the elo-
quent and tender address of the Right Rev. Prelate who
had preceded him. But some things had struck his mind
with great power, and he hoped he might be allowed
shortly to address their Lordships. He agreed with