The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-23 00:00:00

liament abolished Easter, Whitsuntide, and the Christmas
holidays, but in lieu of these they provided an extra holiday
once during the month for the recreation of the people. Then
again, under the French Revolution, they had holidays set
apart of a curious nature, when the Sabbath observances. arid
saints' days were abolished. It was not necessary to go into
any religious argument with respect to the observance of the
Sabbath. He would ask, was there one single argument in
the speech of his Hon. Friend which would not be turned into
argument for a holiday on a Sunday. He had not the re-
motest doubt, that if all the shopkeepers of London were put to
the vote, aye or no, whether they would open shop en a Sun-
day, they would decide by a majority of 10,000 in the affirma-
tive. They troubled themselves very much about the practical
effect of their legislation, but they knew that in most cases its
effect was obsolete. The law with respect to the observance
of the Sabbath was, however, beneficial in its effects, as it
operated in promoting the good morals and health of the com-
munity. The opponents of the measure said that it was im-
possible to take an hour from the time of labour without di-
minishing production, and that in consequence the con-
dition of the labourer would he lowered. He thought
that this argument was fully deserving the most attentivethe
consideration. They had already, however, legislated on
subject, and they had shortened the hours of labour. The
late
ldSreirn RoberteightPeel saetadrsinof agetb ought
ede
read those debates over be would find precisely the same senti-
ments uttered then as now. But no ruin had followed—pro-
ditction had not been less in consequence of reduced hours of
bat et thirtyt
o h
e years
eroh
ago
Pl°Ye t.
ian
late hours of labour. If any person would take the trouble t
e
labour. Suppose in 1546, the time of the reformation and a
period of great religious changes, some person had proposed the
abolition of Sunday observance, and the fifty years of industry
which would be gained was thrown into the scale, would the
people of England be richer now ? No ; his firm belief was
they would be poorer. Do not let them forget what a curious
machine man is, and how fearfully and wonderfully he is made.
The day of rest recurring every week elevated the whole man
both morally and physically, and this elevation told beneficially
on the commercial prosperity of the character. Hie Hon.
Friend had quoted Adam Smith, but in the very first chapter of
that work the labour of men was alluded to as a thing requiring
great care that it was not carried to too great an extent.
Could they doubt, then, that if time were given for amuse-
ment and education, similar instances of men of talent would
rise up from the operatives of the country? While, if this
time were not given—if no opportunity were allowed for im-
proving the intellectual ingenuity of the operative portion of
the community—would not men of the class and character he
had mentioned go down to the grave unknown and undis-
covered, in so far as their mechanical ingenuity and mechani-
cal talent had never been developed. --(Cheers.) It seemed,
then, to him, that by far the most important point of view
which they could take of the matter related to the commercial
part of the question. The greatness of a nation depended upon
its wealth, and whence sprung wealth ? What was it made one
country richer than another ? It was not the fertility of soil,
the possession of minerals, or the superiority of position. All
these things were valuable, indeed, when human intelligence
and human energy used them, but human intelligence and
human energy could do much without them, while the things
he had mentioned could do nothing without human intelli-
gence and human energy; for they had heard of a
miserable population, living in the most fertile and
favourably situated parts of the world, while, on the other
lea
amount
tenwttothusaentr
ttehmeeo existed
sdi
wealth,s
made
eo dt
H thol el greatest Holland,
d d,that
the
and
greatestmthaamountedeads veaaoomnft
tl
amount
ughn
nedd
ts,u
ofs
and
rnf
hyda,
thoseptph the-
greateste
hand, they saw the moststerile land, under the most inclement
rlnsun,eus
ts e.
hwm h
countries could not be traced to the fertility of the soil or the
superiority of climate.—(Cheers.) To what did the United
States owe their great prosperity ? Large as that country
was, a century ago it was a perfect wildernesss, tenanted by
buffalos and wild animals. See what it was now. No change
had taken place in its physical properties, for its rivers, arid
valleys, and fertile lands, were as numerous now as they were
a century ago; nor was its present prosperity attributable to
the transfer of capital from this country. It was simply be-
cause the country was tenanted by the Englishman instead oi
the red man—it was simply because the intelligence of the
Englishman had cut down the forests and hewn them into
fleets, and built cities upon their sites.—(Cheers. 1 The
greatest instrument, then, in the production of wealth, was
man, and they found the greatest amount of wealth where the
greatest amount of moral and intellectual culture prevailed;
while they found the greatest amount of wretchedness and misery
where there existed physical, moral, and intellectual degene-
racy. The wealth of a country could never be diminished by
ample opportunity being afforded to the people for education
and amusement. It was true the operations of the mechanical
machine were suspended on a Sunday in this country, but it
must be remembered that the great machine of all—the mind
of man, was still at work. The operative spent the day in
winding up his concerns of the past and-preparing himself for
the coming week, and on the following Monday he returned to
his labour with renewed energy, and renewed vigour.--
(Cheers.) He for one believed then that the wealth of this
country would not be diminished, or its commercial aspect
changed by improving the physical, moral, and intellectual
culture of the people, nor was he alarmed at any anticipated
Competition with nations whose labourers worked seventeen
hours a day ; for in those countries the vigour and health
of the mechanic was so diminished by his labour, that even
their own public authorities complained that they could not
find a man amongst them of sufficient stature to make a sol-
dier. No ; England could only be deprived of its superiority
by the energy, the industry, and the enterprise of a population
superior to the English. For these reasons he was satisfied
that the principle of this measure was good. He was con-
vinced, that this being a question relating for the most part to
the health and to public morals, the Legislature ought to in-
terfere ; and so far he approved of the Bill. But the ques-
tion of degree was another matter, and he agreed with his
Noble Friend who sat beside him, who said that they ought to
move in this matter with the most cautious steps ; they ought
to do so, in his opinion, for the sake of the principle itself,
because he conceivefl—indeed there could not be a doubt about
it—that if they made the change suddenly it might fail, and
a considerable time would have to elapse before a reaction
could take place in favour of the principle, or before the Legis-
lature could be induced again to take it up.—( Hear, hear.)
For these reasons he agreed with his Noble Friend near him,
and should not be prepared to vote for a reduction of more
than eleven hours.—(Hear, hear.) He considered that they
stood in the situation of a physician who had satisfied himself
of the fact that there was a disease—that there was a remedy
—but who had not satisfied himself of the degree in which
the patient's constitution would at present bear the application
of the remedy. The physician, in a case like this, proceeded
cautiously. He applied the dose in small quantities,
and watched its operation ; and, in his opinion, this was
the course which they themselves had to adopt.—(Cheers.)
The present appeared to him to be the most favourable time
for making the change, for in this session they would be cor-
recting two great deficiencies of the Legislature. They had
done that which they ought not to have done, and left undone
that which they ought to have done—they had afforded relief
to those who ought not to have been relieved, and they had
left unrelieved those who ought to have been relieved. They
had afforded protection to the landed interest while the public
health, and the public morality, they had left entirely without
that protection which it was their duty to give.—(Cheers.)
They prevented the labourer from getting his loaf where he
could get it the cheapest, but they did not prevent him from
prematurely destroying the health of his body and of his mind.
—(Cheers.) He felt rejoiced at finding that they were ap-
proaching the end of a pernicious system of interference, anil
the end of a pernicious system of non-interference. They
were repairing while they had the power the greatest of all
errors of commission, while also they were repairing the
greatest of all errors of omission.--( Cheers. )
Sir JOHN HANMER said, that as regarded this question,
they were obliged step
by step to feel their way, and they must
all feel that they were treading on very delicate ground. They
had already interfered with factory labour, as had been ad-
mitted by the Right lion. Gentleman himself. Formerly they
might work young persons fifteen hours a day; now, however.
they could not work them more than twelve hours a day.—
( Hear, hear.) That was a very considerable reduction, and
he was very far from saying that he should not like to see that
principle carried out still further; but great difficulties lay in
the way of the Legislature on this subject. When they first
proposed to interfere with this kind of labour, the sort of in •
terference proposed was such as to induce even its very advo-
cates to shrink from the measure ; even the Hon. Member for
Finsbury himself, although lie voted for its principle, frankly
declared that he could not vote for its details. He did not
believe that the question to be decided at this moment was
that of interference, but of time and degree. He had heard
many Hon. Gentlemen say that it might be very desirable that
arrangements should be made between masters arid men as to th e
hours of labour, and he certainly agreed with them as to the
desirableness of such an arrangement. But this Bill was not
for that purpose. The Bill, he believed, proposed in one of it,
clauses that they should restrict the hours of labour to ten hours
per day. He believed that the measures which had been sent
up by that House to the other House of Parliament a few dm s
ago, would receive the assent of the Legislature; but he thought
it might impose a very considerable difficulty as to the final and
beneficial settlement and arrangement of these great measures,
if they raised at the present moment questions which might
tend to disturb the present relations between the employer and
the employed, upon the question of the value of labour And
with regard to this question, he thought that considerable stress
ought to be laid upon the sort of mills in which the manufac-
turing classes were now employed. If they disturbed the pre-
sent state of things in the manufacturing districts, they might
compel manufacturers to construct such mills as were constructed
some years ago. He had seen himself a very great difference
as to the building of mills in the present, compared with former
years. Mills that were built now-a-days were well built, filled
with the best machines, and well ventilated. The old mills
were quite the reverse. Now, be thought that if this measure
were passed, the mills to be constructed hereafter would have
the same faults as those erected years ago. He did not retract
the opinions that ho had expressed on former occasions in sup-
port of a restriction of the hours of labour ; but he thought that,
looking at this Bill, he could not give it his support, because he
did not believe that it would effect its object of elevating the
condition of the wording classes, and he did sincerely believe
that he was better discharging his duty to those for whose bene-
fit the measure was introduced by voting against it than giving
it his support.
Mr. WAKLEY amidst loud cries of " " •
Divide, divide," said,
that he was delighted with the argumentative and conclusive
ibf Enuth eye
weres
of
speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Edin.
burgh.—( Hear, hear.) And he hoped that the House would
the not
Ltoegiinsltaetr;f_err-.
on its attention for a few moments
after the most able speech which had just been delivered.—
( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman's argument as to
non-interference was most conclusive, in fact, he had never in
his life heard anything more conclusive. For what other pu
pardon him for trespassing
for the purpose of protecting the weak against the strong. e
Would he be told that the infants of gland, whom
power of protecting, were to be left to the mere
(poffseearw,asheleagr.is)latuTrehactonwstaistutthede
of they load the
oppression ? Why every Act they passed was an interferenceavarice and
with the rights of some class or other of
the
en
Was it to be said that the legislature must, community.
protect
that weak infants employed in the manufactoriesof trade, and
must be left unprotected ? Why, during the last tfheirs country
under the system of protection the manufactures of try
years,
try had been continually increasing--( Loud laughter is coon -
cheering from the protectionists)—and he confessed it did a"
boldly and chillingly diecon his ear, when he heardthe strßiikes
Hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Hi
ment, the other night, in the debate en this subject,tme Depart-
that the English labourer was now to enter into announce
toil without armour, and in a naked state. Wag
the arena of
that, with free trade in commerce, no W lie to be told
protection was to be
allowed to the labouring classes of this
country.
to be so, he was very sorry that he votecltf
for that
If that were
that measure—
(Protectionist cheers)—fe him t
r it would giveh
he had felt a long time. But he thatbelieved e greatest pain
which he alluded was calculated to improve the condition the
measure to
working classes of this country. The Ho and
of the
Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Bankes),
course of this
the and Learned
debate, seemed to take a very great interest in
the welfare of
the manfacturing population of this country;
Hon. and Learned Member for his good feheieinthanked the
that class of the people, but lie hoped Ihers towards
and Learned Member would pardon him if he venturedionoable
to ex-
press a hope that I- e would extend his benevolent
intentions and
feelings towards the agricultural labourers of his own neigh-
bourhood.—(Hear, hear.) He could not, in his opinion, exe-
cute a more agreeable duty than that of imor •
oving the condition
of his fellow man.—(Hear, hear.) But the Hon. Member
for Sheffield had delivered to the [louse a pretty
lecture that
evening. That lecture was, in his (Mr. Wakley's) opinion,
what Hudibras would have called the greatest piece of rigmarole
he had ever heard.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) The Hon.

T Gentleman had (he believed unintentionally) misrepresented
his (Mr. Wakley's) opinions on this question, for he had stated
that because certain of his constituents of the labouring classes
required the Bill, he would be compelled to give it his support.
Now he (Mr. Wakley) could assure the Honourable Member
that he was not so much troubled by his constituents as
the gentleman himself.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.)
The Hon. Member for Sheffield stated that he had learned
more from the working classes of Sheffield than he had learned
during all the period which he had sat in the House. He
thought the Hon. Member took an extraordinary mode of
showing the knowledge which he had thus obtained.—( Hear,
hear.) He stated that he bad read the pamphlet written by
his Hon. Friend the Member fur Oldham over and over again,
but was not able to understand it in the least. The Hon.
ltlember for Oldham was not answerable for that. He did not
herth f undertake when he wrote his pamphlet to give the Hon. Mem-
The
He faculty of understanding.—(Cheers and laughter.)
Hon. Member for Sheffield also stated, that he had lie-
tene cl with pleasure to the speeches which had been made 'by
Hon. Members on his side of the House,4u:ieeould not for
it(haes
life of him understand them. He (Mr.
to know what sort of a mind that wasav hich'coYu)ldwalistn at
ato an
argument with pleasure, but which did not for the life ofe it un-
derstand it.—(Cheers and laughter.) And then his Hon.
Friend the Member fin Sheffield turned round to the Hon.
Member for Oldham and his supporters,,,nd and called.this move-
ment merely pouularity.buntizi stated that popularity
upon such a subject could be easilyconcluded obtained; and
observations to his Hou. Friend
d (Mr. Fielden) by
ing that there was nothing which he (Mr. Ward) denoun
ced
so much as amateur legislation. Now, it struck him,
that
he (Mr. Ward) was the amateur legislator. The Hon. Mem
her for Oldham was an amateur, who for a period of fifty
years had been engeged in spinning, and who gave employ-
ment to two or three millions of hands—( Laughter, occs-
sioned by the mistake whh reference to the nmuber of hands
employed by the Hon. Member for Oldham.) At that mo-
ment he ( Mr. Wakley) was thinking of the millions which he
had created by the exercise of his skill. He was, however, a
man of experience of nearly half a century's standing. This
was the person whom the Hon. Member for Sheffield had
called an amateur legislator. It seems a most extraordinary
course for the Hon. Member to pursue. He wondered how
he could have had the boldness so to have designated the la-
bours of his Hon. Friend. In his experience, however, he
(Mr. Wakley) confided his judgment. He believed the Hon.
Member for Oldham was one who knew more upon the sub-
ject than almost any man in that House—a gentleman who, in-
stead of having his mind governed and controlled by the perse •
cuting and insatiable spirit of avarice, was ornamented and
adorned by the highest feelings of humanity, and which ever
swayed, undirected, his consistent conduct. His Hon. Friend,
to whom he had just alluded, had stated in his pamphlet, that
there might be a rise in the price of a shirt or a gown to the
extent of a halfpenny or a penny. " said his Hon.
Friend the Member for Sheffield, like a second Cocker,
" a halfpenny or a penny—these are no light considerations."
No, put a child in ore scale and a halfpenny and a penny in the
other, and see which will weigh the lightest.—(Laughter.)
His Hon. Friend had further stated in his pamphlet that,
during the forty years which they had been interfering, an in-
crease had taken place in the consumption of cotton goods
five-fold, and challenged the accuracy of his statement; and that
wages were as high as the present time. Well, then, had
they arrived precisely at that point where they should stop ?
had they just discovered the point of perfection ? Would the
House refuse to interfere in the protection of infantine life?
Were Hon. Members who opposed the Bill prepared to repeal
the existing law ? No. Then let them go on with their
righteous interference till they had given an efficient protec-
tion to these wretched and helpless beings. They had the
labouring classes themselves, in Yorkshire, and, indeed, in
all parts of the kingdom, praying for the Bill. Great weeping
and wailing would tbeir be in the West Division of Yorkshire
when the speech was read there which the Noble Lord the
Member for the West Riding had delivered that night.
That speech, he must say, was one which he did
not expect to hear from a Noble Lord after the speeches
which he had read as having been delivered by the Noble Lord
at the last session. There was one portion of this subject which
had not been, in his opinion, sufficiently stated in the course of
Ibis debate. He alluded to the subject of mortality occasioned
by this overworking-of the p mulation. From the report of Mr.
Chadwick, it appeared that in the whole of England and Wales,
out of a population of one thousand, one hundred and forty-five
had died at the age of seventy, while in Manchester out of the
same population but sixty persons arrived at the age of seventy.
Out of 4,629 deaths which occurred in the labouring classes at
Manchester in the year 1840, it appeared that 2,649 had died
under the age of five }ears. From five to ten years of age the
proportion of deaths had been as one to twenty-two. From the
ages of 10 to 15 the proportion had been one to forty, and
above the age of fifteen years it was as one to thirty-five. The
average age of deaths in Manchester among the labouring
classes was seventeen years, while in Rutlandshire the average
was thirty-eight years.—( Cheers.) The Hon. Member for
Edinburgh particularly dwelt upon the circumstance that there
were many and higher considerations than those of commercial
prosperity. He (Mr. Wakley) thought if there were not they
might soon cease their duty. There was another point
which he would not at that late period of the night press
upon the attention of the House. It was the dreadful effect
which they were producing upon the manufacturing population
by withdrawing from the homes of the operatives the natural
protectors of their children—their wives ; and by not inter-
fering with this case they made a dreary and desolate place of
the poor man's home when they took from that home his wife,
the natural protector of his home. After his work was over,
the poor man, instead of going home and finding there a
smiling wife to receive him in a cheerful and comfortable
home, to spread before him a well-laid board, he takes with
him to his home his weary and exhausted partner, and in a
state of wretched debility they retire to rest, and, in the
morning, when they leave for their accustomed toil and drud-
gery, their children are left at home to the protec-
tion of some wretched and withered harridan.—( Hear. )
By pursuing a system of non-interference, they were striking at
the very root of all society in the country. Its effects were
frightful. Would the House believe it, that out of every 4,600
individuals, 2,400 died yearly ; and could any worse misfortune
happen to a family than the death of its mother?—(Hear,
hear.) He had no desire to create an unpleasant feeling in
the'minds of any persons but he could not help appealing to
their knowledge of the benefit conferred upon a family by the
mother. Whenever they saw a thrifty family governed by
good conduct, and industrious, they night be sure that a good
mother and father were there. The mother had every motive
for making her home comfortable. She could not; like the
raan, enjoy herself from home, the forms of society prevented
her. So, therefore, it was her interest to make her home as
happy as possible. Now, by their present system, they de-
stroyed the mother, by requiring that she should perform the
labours of a man. lie did trust that these reflections would
have their due weight. He was sorry to press them into so small
a compass, but he did so, as he was aware of a desire which
generally existed, that there should be a division on the sub-
ject. The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, who
made so able a speech upon the subject, stated that in going into
Committe on the Bill he would not approve of more than one
hour. Well, one hour was better than nothing; if they
could not get the ten hours, he should vote for the eleven, as
he considered that it was a step in the right direction. It
was a most important question, and involved the :feelings of
thousands and hundreds of thousands of their fellow creatures,
and he trusted that th-e decision of the House would be such as
to give them future encouragement.
Mr. BRIGHT said he cordially concurred in one thing that
had fallen from the last speaker, end that was, that the present
was a most important subject; and it was because he had that
opinion that he had ventured to offer some few observations to
the House, for the purpose of setting it right with regard to
some statements made to it. He must say that he had listened
to the speech of the Hon. Member for Edinburgh with consi-
derable astonishment—( Hear, hear)—And he never had heard
a Member get up to address the House upon any subject, and
keep so far wide of it.—(Cries of " Oh, oh.") They had
ancient and modern history quoted to them ; they had religious
considerations urged upon them—(Oh, oh)—they hail a lecture
on the institution of the Sabbath ; they had heard free trade
caricatured as they might expect it to be by a man who had
not dared to open his mouth during the three months it had
been tinder discussion, —( Cheere.) And with respect to the
Sabbath, it was a day on which people did not ordinarily work.
There was no mill in any part cf the world which worked on a
Sabbath; but because people did not work upon the Sabbath,
it did not satisfactorily follow that a Ten Hours Bill was
requisite. The question before the House was whether they
thought it advisable to limit the hours of labour? But they
should recollect that they could only limit it in one country,
and it was a meter of deep concern what would be the
amount of competition which they would meet with in other
countries. The Hon. Member for Edinburgh did allude to
what he censidered to be the effect of manufacturing operations
upon the inhabitants, and the Member for Finsbury had gone
into statistical researches to show the prevalence of mortality
in manafactories, but had the Hon. Member compared Man-
chester with Liverpool he would have found it was much
greater—( Hear, hear)—and if he compared Liver-
pool with Bristol he would have discovered it
to be greater. So therefore his argument was
not worth a straw for the case under considera-
tion; and if he looked into statistics, he would have found that
longevity had been increasing for the last fifteen years, and the
average rate of mortality was less now than it was in 1801.
The statement of Lord Ashley in reference to the kind of la-
bour done at manufactories were very much contrary to fact,
and he was surprised that lie had made them. The Hon.
Member for Oldham said, that if they limited their production
to what it was twenty years ago, the result would be more
beneficial both at home and abroad. With respect to this
diminution, he weuld say that several experiments were made,
and the whole of there went to show that no injury was sus-
tained by the workinan from the continuance of the hours of
labour at what they were at present. Mr. Horner also showed
the same thing. He would not dwell upon the subject at all,
but that many gentlemen opposite knew nothing whatever of
the nature of the work in cotton-mills. ( Hear,
hear.) He maintained that, by working ten hours,
the machine would only turn out ten-twelfths of
the quantity which they would do if they worked twelve
hours.—( Cheers.) The quantity turned out at present was
532,000,0001b5. of cotton, but by the proposed reduction in
the hours of labour, the quantity would be reduced
76,000,0001bs—the whole quantity manufactured in this
country at the close of the late war. Was there a Member of
that House, who would vote for the passing of a measure
which would do away with this annual consumption? It was
said by the Right Hon. Member for Edinburgh, and other
Hon. Members in that House, that experiments had been
made in the reduction of the hours of labour,
bnt that no injury had resulted.— (Hear, hear. )
The i<oncern which he was connected with had been in exis-
tence for more than f ,rty years, and never worked on an ave-
rage more than twelve hours a day, but the Hon. Member for
Oldham had been in the habit of working for many years for
fourteen hours a day, and it was certainly rather strange that he
had not found out the inhumanity of the system before. it
was, however, much better to have a late repentance than none
at all.—( Hear, hear.) It was really too bad for the Hen.
Member to state in that House as a fact, that which any one
acquainted with the cotton-spinning trade could at once contra-
dict with the greatest confidence. He could assure the House
that there were many establishments peeing more wages now
than they had for years before, and at the same time they were
receiving not a fatthing of profit.—(" Oh, oh," from
Colonel Sibthorp.) The Honourable and Gallant Mem-
ber for Lice-do was well acquainted with the
the spinning trade; the Hen. and Gallant Gentleman Lad
many things to be thankful for, and this acquisition amongst all
the rest.—(Laughter, during which the Hon. and Gallant
Colonel rose, and bowed most gracefully.) If was said that
many of those in the. cotton spinning trade had made large for.
tunes; he honed it was not a crime for a cotton spinner to make
a fortune.,-('Hear, hear.) Some years ago, they had limit-
the hours of labour to twelve hours a day, but the inie;
that-‘''
not so great as it would be under the present Bill.
4:0
'o.n.laswatts
period machinery had not been brought to suchzei.airimi
the present day. Now, however, machinery
as it could be, and the injury which must attend so great
a
re-
striction as that proposed must be all the more felt by the em-
ployer and the employed. The itnprovements hi machinery
had taken place since the change had enabled them e°
meet it, but there was no roam now for additional improvemen t
He had in his own employment about eight hundred persM
and he was satisfied that they would rather work ten hours a ' 413.
than twelve, but he was certain they would not rather 4z
so, if they were only to have the wages of
till
hours. If he were to offer them the price of twelve hr
labour for ten hours, they would all accept it, but he was ve
sure that if they were to be restricted to ten hours labour, L'
ten hours wages, not one of them would accept it. I.`ha
never was an instance of where the offer was made to re d
the men to ten ileum labour and ten boars remaneration:7 • _

_ --
was accepted—it was invariably refused' He should be glad
for his own part to have the hours of labour reduced, but when
it could net be done with advantage to either party, but on the
contrary when it would be attended with injury
to all, he c,:uld not support such a change.—( Hear. )
If it was true, as the Hon. Member for Oldham had said,
that this plan would not be less productive, why did not he try
it ? That Hon. Member he (Mr. Bright) well knew exported
his goods to all parts of the world ;,t but he need not tell the
Hon. Member that at present America was able to meet the
English manufacturers with the very same goods on the same
counter. Nodoubt the Nt ble Lord (the Member for Newark)
said a good many things which he could not help admiring; he
said that he would like to see the men play at crieket, and in-
dulge in other recreations. Why, so should he; but let him
ask any man is that House engaged in any honest employment,
whether he would take ten briefs instead of twelve, and ten
fees instead of twelve ?—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) He
begged to tell the House that workmen liked money as well as
their masters, and would do their best to earn it; and the
House might rest assured that the workmen would consider
this House their greatest enemies, if they tied one of their
han,is, and thus prevented them from earning it, which ibis
Bill would ceri airily effect. But there cL.uld be no doubt about

it, the men were not in favour of ten hours' time for which they

were to get only ten hours' wages) and the Legislaturedid not

propose to give. it to them (andif theydid,-it would result

,r) a fatal mistake,

The Honourable Member for Ashton

proposed a compromise of eleven hours, and he certainly
was the man for compromise. But the result of all this would
be to convince the workmen that the House had the power to
fix a limit to the hours of labour without being able to interfere ,
with the amount of wages, and if they sent on this way, it
might be that the men would eventually look for eight hours,
and perhaps for six. He maintained that if a voluntary arrange-
t,hveassatti
merit, as tar as such an arrangemenLwas possible, was
uerClaeyasa°fnteronf Afterng
neces-
sary,wh before they were five years older f? • would have it everT-
-o,,hne?
Maenrcel;esteWr7hoant osfomtheestsrhenopusoums
effor! son both sides, the half holiday S
well and as scrupulously observed asti on
who!e holidaye on the
Sabbath. The early closing of shops,
o'clock, was going on in many towns ns
irottosdkt?f ten or eleven
therefore, desirable that some arrangement shouirboem, it was,
com
e
Let their decision on this subject be once and for ever, and tine.
r t
them not indulge in any such uncertain speculation. ,
It was merely legislation for persons above thirteen years of age,
but them avoid any interference, and they would find an
entirely different channel for the endeavours of the working
classes. The manufacturer had become more civilised during
g
the last thirty or forty years, and there had been an improve-
ment in all classes of society. That was not the effect of any
legislation, it was a more kindly, a more- gentle feeling, that
had sprung up amongst all classes. He was sorry to appear to
set his opinion against those of the Hon. Gentlemen opposite,
but he would state, that no master of any mill would now dare
to perpetrate the cruelties, or inflict the hardships, which were
formerly attempted to be put forward in that House. There
was an esprit de corps amongst all the people that would effec-
tually resist such an attempt. He had said that, two years
since, he advocated the same side that he did at present, and
he believed that he took the side best for the interest of the
working classes. Further consideration confirmed him in the
opinion that a great portion of the miseries of that class had
arisen from the interference of that House. That was the
reason they did not take measures to assist themselves, because
they looked to the interference of that House- He was sorry
to hear Hon. Members get up on the opposite side, stating
facts which at best were mischievous delusions, and misled the
working classes. The Hon. Member had spoken as if they
were not the friends of the working classes. Could anything be
more absurd than to suppose that it was his interest
to be opposed fo so large a body of the population. His Hon.
Friend had pointed to the strike in 1842, and had opposed it.
He (Mr. Bright) thought that it was one of the greatest
triumphs in modern times. Had not the manufacturers ob-
tained vast wealth, and yet the people scorned the idea of raising
a hand to a capitalist ? It was a scandal to the Government of
the country that the manufacturers should have amassed such
immense fortunes; leaving their labourers unprovided for. He
would tell the Hon. Member that he opposed the Ten Hours'
Bill, and he would do it with the conviction that the present
measure was founded on a principle on which the House ought
not to legislate. Free trade would soon pass, and it was not
wrong to suppose that the people would increase in intelligence
and wealth—for their was wealth amongst the poorer classes.
The manufacturers would become more kindly and gentle to
their labourers, and they would both feel the conviction that
they could gain by a voluntary arrangement all they could gain
by legislation. Such a state of things would materially benefit
trade and the condition of the labourers of all classes.

Mr. B. DENISON hoped that the House would permit him
to say a few words on this subject, on which the House had
legislated on various occasions. He had thought it to be its
duty to interfere, and the question then before it was, whether
they should proceed in their legislation, or whether they should
not go one step further ? The proposition was to go into Com-
mittee to take into consideration whether the hours of labour

of children between the ages of thirteen and eighteen
years of age should or should not be shortened? The case
had been too much argued, and the Hon. Member hadproposed
that the hours of labour should be shortened to ten hours.

He must with all respect say that that course was premature.
The question was whether the time should be shortened or not,
and that question was to be considered on goinginto Committee.
If they went into Committee he was not prepared to vote for
ten hours, as he thought it would be much ,too large a step in
the reduction of the hours of labour which the manufacturing
and working people ought to give to their employers.
What mast pressed on his consideration, was the females

working in the mills from thirteen to eighteen hours a day. He
put it to the House whether females of this tender age should
be compelled to work twelve hours a day. He thought the
hours of labour in respect to females ought to be reduced.
He regretted his Noble colleague (Lord Morpeth) had inti-
mated that he would vote against the Bill, though he must say
that with the exception of the speech of the Hen. Member for
Edinburgh, it was the best speech delivered in favour of the
Bill. His Noble Colleague said he was willing to consent to
some alteration in the hours of labour, providing the Corn Bill
was carriee. Now, that Bill had been sent to another House,
having been passed by a Urge majority of the present House,
and they had a right to assume that it would be carried there.
—(Hear, hear.) He thought, therefore, they ought to legis-
late independent of such considerations, and he regretted the
1 course which the Noble Lord proposed to take. He (Mr. B.
Denison) would vote for the second reading of the Bill.
Sir R. REEL rose and said, I have listened with great
attentionto the speech of the Right Hon. Member for Edin-
burgh, and feel h;ghly satisfied with it as a rhetorical composi-
tion, but as it respects the part of it consisting of argument
against the Bill, I think it exceedingly limited. The greater
part of the argument he has put forward is that the principle
of free trade should not control the Legislature to prevent it
interfering to promote the social comforts and health of the
country. But who contradicts this proposition ? That argu-
ment was addressed to about ten gentlemen in the House (for
there was not more, if so many) who think that the pure prin-
ciple of free trade should be rigidly carried out, and that the
Legislature should not interfere to regulate such matters. I
adroit, with the Hon. Member, the truth of the principle that
the Legislature should interfere in matters involving
the health and moral improvement of the people.
But because I concede this position, it does not fellow that I
must admit the present Bill to be one that claims our special
consideration and interference. The Right Hon. ' Gentleman
has made a great impression on the House ; in beautiful lan-
guage he has enforced the argument to which I have referred.
He had gone among the hackney cabs, in order to satisfy every
Hon. Member who might not have been previously convinced
of the necessity of the Legislature to interfere. He has re-
ferred to draining and sanatory regulations sanctioned, as evi-
dence in support of interfering in the present case. The over
loading of omnibuses and hackney cabs, the regulations for
draining have all been brought forward by the Right Hon.
Get.tleman in order to strengthen his case; and, as if these
were not enough, in order that there may not be a loop-hole
for escape, he has told us that if a young boy of thirteen
years of age was to sign away his inheritance, that the Legis-
lature would step in and interfere. The whole of that part of
the Hon. Gentleman's argument I admit to be perfectly con-
clusive ; hut is it politic to impose a tax indirectly to prevent
him from employing his labourer more than ten hours a day?
Let me establish the weakness of the position which the Right
Hon. Gentleman has taken by reminding him of what
is the state of the law at present. It is too
late to contest the principle now, though I will admit that,
thirty years ago, I took an active part in co-operating with
one for whose character and whose memory I must ever en-
tertain the deepest respect, in violating the principle of free
trade.—', Hear, hear.) But what is the state of legislation upon
this subjec ? No child under eight years can be employed is
a factory at all. No child, under eighteen years of ages can
work by night. No female can work by night at al Nr:,
child, between the age of eight and thirteen can work for
more than six and a half hours, and the child between eight
and thirteen must bring a certificate that three he'ars' instruc-
tion had been given to it previously en the s'lme day. That
is the state of our legislation at present. 1 must, therefore,
admit the force of the whole of the Right Hon. Gentleman's
preliminary principle, but then came another and a far less
conclusive part of the Right Honourable Gentleman's speech,
namely, that which considered whether it be for the advantage
of the working classes, that there should be a further reduc-
tion in the hours of labour. I admit that merely commercial
considerations ought not to determine our policy in that res-
pect. I admit that there are higher considerations than those
of a commercial character. I admit that the principle that
ought to guide us in the consideration of the question is,
whether or no the further restrictions in the
hours of labour, will promote the health—will
promote the morality, or be conducive to the interests of the
adultfh e
labour,Right
working classes. I admit that these great considerations arc
far superior to the mere commercial
interfereclueswtiieteh .
'
hileown.agGennntwleimilianne staoid
phreevweonutldthneot
a adult wusinghoseshecapitalthought
wasfrom
the insult it t
insult of restrict-
proper—he would not commit
ing his discretion on a to.tnt connected with his own health.
Now what are we dint to do? Although the Right Hon.
Gentleman admits the injustice of the interference, he was
supporting a
with rot Ill; which indirectly established regula-
tionsrcct to adult labour. We are about to
impose wit,,,
goineg tn is equivalent to an income Y
..tax of
fifteen per .4,-
zent. upon the labour of the operative. ea are
'.ell him that he shall not have an opportunity of work-
ing in 'snore than a certain number of hours per day. Now do
Yell really believe that in establishing that restriction—do you
commr with him in his belief that for ten hours' labour, he can,
reeei-re twelve hours' pay?—(Cheers.) The Right Hon. Gess.
tler'i,an says, " See of what importance it is to the comme.e,lty
that the workman should have some command over his 4,1-I„._
tier! what the Dutchman has done—see what the P-.
hes done—see how the inhabitants of the United,
sp.a,
honglo-Saxon blood, have cleared the forest. 'arA ?
nr.,e:i..sisha
with
the sterile land. See what the Dateremaimed
}-irr n has done in
reclaiming from the dominion of the ocea%, •p
rat by waves." See how he 4
,P 5 done all tkis—but did
Li-g which was once
.ie.
yQu restrict him to ten hours' labor : ~:a. (Cheers.) Did you
tell the Dutchman, who has reclaims.
d his dominions from the
'
sees, that he should only work ter hours ? Did you tell the
Erglishman who has supplanted f'
tie red man, that by legisla
tiva restrictions he could pill* work ten hours a day.—
(Cheers.) See, said the Rip.
,ity of the working man for im-
'
rat Hon. Gentleman, how much
•
you are indebted to the ingee
laity
provements in machinery. It is not, he says, by the great
mithematicians or the 4.
says Mr. Ada-, s'ad.9 a,
Zitcs- ir.genuity of the working man. He,
dosopher that these discoveries were
made, but only be "
imndenebtitZi ti.
in the commencement of his work,
e, wood e. f ul improvements for which this country is
made 'of restrictive labour? In the time of
A 1.- ,nnier a state
, . to the l'Arrenuity of the working man. But were they
ten, hours a day ?
labouring more than
, - r .. .right was there a law passed to prevent the working
ma ,
of the working classses—
if wish to preserve the ingenuity
*sh
No , there were. no restrictions then, and 1 for one believe, that
you
da ou ate at liberty to do so. We
C ) work fourteen hours a
dy, yta es of the non-restrictive sys.
Of oploy your time and your labour as you please—if you wi _
to consult the wishes
tern ; it is said, however,
cats there be a doubt that it is their
of the working classes ;
nave all experienced thea
rsamnfoluanhtnnovf
thatven wg e ought
sameou
remuneration in the evennt.
Why, Mr. Greg proposed to his
as they receive at present. impression that you caneetsrenefuareredtonetthinenmntfhteheh
men
that they should work his machinery for eleven
d pay them at the rate of eleven
he would y hours, and
who insisted upon working twelve hours
a rejected by the men,
o and a half hours a day, . the proposition was unanimously
' finitely preferable to a legislative enactment if an amicable
y in
ts between the masters and men could be come to in
es and receiving twelve hours' pay. In my opinion it would be
I arrangement
Well, then, the experiment was made by men
1 this matter.
I in favour of the eleven hours, but they found they only turned
t a proportionate quantity of work, and they gave the men

notice beforehand. They said to them, we wa, firjyourpir
sakes, that the experiment should succee toy jteilie re.P.
insure the work, formerly accomplished en, ielverentits,,
eleven, and, then, let us consent to an , ;Poles' Bit ,;:. \O
Bat th result of the experiment was, t 'eoule.tkr" ~..,
more in the eleven hours than they had 9.. Slit•tri4V..-:••glitryt .4
t
ik ‘
against all interference, and particularly ,-st;:i4r4riels.;-;:q
at the present time; and I would be cony . OsuPll.
did not state to you that I think we hav ..e.iititta,isist:-,:.
can safely go in the matter of interfereqgpee %tee encii ....tie
to give a full and fair triul to `silo ellefrNAtit://w
but if you do interfere don't suppose that you will give general
satisfaction, don't believe that there are other parties w ho• will
seek to apply the same principle to you. They will tell you
not to talk to them of manufactories, that they will show
without undue interference, or depending en the aid of the
common informer, the principle is not carried cut. Here is a
letter that I have received with respect to the state of the
operative papers. (The Right Hon. Baronet then read a lett( r
of their _ unparalleled dis.ress, in consequence of the present
law state of wages and high price of provieons.) That hey
laboured eighteen hours out of the teeny-four, and that their
average weekly earnings was about 9.., a such totally inade-
quate to the support of a man, but less for a man and his family,
and they stated it was absolutely necessary to render some pro-
tection. It was a very strong case, and it would be impossible for
the Legislature to interfere,_ and to divi:le the labour between two
men, and prevent attacks upon the human frame. But, are
we quite sure that the restriction in factory labohr will not
adi to the labour in other occupations. Why, the Hon. Gen-
tleman who spoke last, made an impression up. .n the feeling of
the House, (which is not a very difficult matter) t y describing
the importance and the happiness which a wife produced in a
man's home. He says truly, that the wife should be kept at
home, and that she should be prepared with the well-Tread
board, to welcome her husband on his return home. —( Hear. )
Why, who can doubt it? But what is the remedy for the pre-
sentHheusrar.,)haeurW.h)y,
Bituist toitrevet gives
eleven-twelfths w,.
forakii .
shall have passed. Who can doubt the importance
.of the wife
thein g i nesvvifailisc?ot—of r present(itehlise: , system will exist even after this Bill
being enabled to devote her attention to domestic comforts
but admitting
citatminfgorthts fenverythelrintmanufacturingcipleth at you promote
districts
b
themo; ality
and the the
passing of the Bill, will you prevent women, mother, and
children from working in factories ?—( Hear, hear.) Can you
insure the attendance of the wife of the manufacturing opera-
tive at home? And does it not more conduce to the comfort
of a family, that they should have large wages than that the
wife should have more time to attend to domestic duties. We
had an instance of this lately ; there was the Hon. Gentleman
the Member for Finsbury, came forward the other day from
lessonpu r e l ben
y oftheavol
that
Bill
l motivesmeasure.tsnetloswtituhpoanhi m
._, I ( H
ea dor , hopehear . ) that
lxtihv the
the Hon. Gentleman the credit he deserves, as I believe that
y
he was actuated by nothing but by pure and' honourable mo-
tives in bringing forward his
measure- with respect to labour in
lace factories. We had a discussion upon
tthe subject of the
domiciliary visit, and the system of in
quite sure that something of the same description
, with
respect
to the hand-loom weaver, and with respect fo all thosoeurmfuneiute e-
factures that are connected with factory labour—are y
sure that while you establish these strict regulations withq re-
spect to adult factory labour—are you quite sure that you are
not giving a direct premium and encouragement to those sye-
terns of labour which are beyond your control, and that you are
not defeating your own benevolent ends by your own
unwise legislation?—(Hear, hear.) Now on this
ground I must resist the second reading of this Bill.
I sincerely believe that we have carried interference as far as it
is desirable. But there may be others who do not agree with
me—( Hear, hear)—but there must at the same time be many
who must feel that this is not the moment when it is wise to
make this great experiment.—( Hear, hear.) It is an experi-
ment with the four great branches of our manufactures, which,
enter into competition with the manufactures of other countries,
and if you pass this law, it will have the effect of cutting off one-
sixth of the labour, and as I believe, of the profits
and remuneration of the manufactures of this
country.—(Hear, hear.) Well, is this the exact time? You
permitted the export of machinery, not upon the principle
of free-trade, but because in point of fact, there was no use
whatsoever in continuing poor-laws which prevented that
exportation.—( Hear, hear.) The plans of the machines were
taken, and there was no use in continuing the law which
prevented the exportation of machinery. It was better to
encourage art in the manufacture of machinery than to have
laws which would lead to the smuggling of machines. But
you have to give foreign countries opportunities of benefitting
by your skill in respect to these machines.—( Hear, hear.) You
have also passed a law, the object of which is to enable the
guarantee against sudden and extracedinary rise:pit:l.l7
working classes to insure permanence, and to give them
nart that.a
ruary,
pasusenstilil present form in
—(Hear,
l.
laaawrieiss
onfo oat to fret;
(Hear, hear.) Suppose the law
)effeWctelfln,r htuhrteeobserve. - -ec-..-
e _as hence.—
the House of Lords, there will not,
a free trade in corn. During the jute. ' -
re at
agriculture,same and en
1849, 'be
that it would b apno_liti:
same restrictions will still exist, aievereg period, the
hiarvueuurdemolvedthpiurkotection
yon
nt
to give a longer trial to this experiment, which you have
already sanctioned; and I intreat the House to refuse to give
its assent to the Bill of the Hon. Gentleman, and to permit
them to have a fair opportunity to effect this desi • rable ar-
rangement as to labour by a voluntary
agreement between the
masters and the employed, and, above all, to
postpone taking
this irrevocable step—for irrevocable I think it will be—until
you have better ground than youhave at the present moment
for drawing safe conclusions as- to the effect cf this measure.
(Cheers, and cries of " Divide.")
Lord J. RUSSELL did not wish, at tEat late period of the
night to trespass upon the attention of the House, but he
should be sorry to go to a
division
without taking some notice
of the answer which the Right lion. Gentleman had given to
the argument of his Right Hon. Friend the Member for Edin-
burgh, because a more powerful argument he thought he had
never heard.—(Cheers.) There were already on the statute-.
book Acts authorising any interference with factory labour,
and unless they were prepared to repeal those Acts, they
were prevented from using the argument that the
Legislature had no right to interfere with labour.—( Hear.)
The present Bill would not interfere in any way in the hours
of labour, the principles of which had not already been esta-
blished before by other Acts ; they already interfered in the
labour of children from eight to thirteen, and from thirteen to
eighteen, and the last Ant that was passed interfered with the
labour of women in factories. The Right Hon Baronet al-
luded to the arguments of his Right Hon, Friend the Member
for Edinburgh, and stated that his rhetoric was very beautiful,
but altogether unnecessary, and proceeded himself immediately
to argue precisely in the same manner.—(hear, hear.) The-
great question then was, whether they would sanction any
further interference in the hours of labour. Before thee
House gave its sanction to the measure they should be
convirced of two propositions. Ist. That the measure was
desirable for the safety of the health, morals, and the good
conduct of the class to whom you propose to give a further-
limitation of the hours of labour, The second proposition was„
that the House must have good reason to suppose that this
might be done without any mischievous interference with the
labour of parties employed in factories, and whether by de-
priving their masters of the profits of their labours.
they would not be inflicting a great injury upon the labouring
classes. The first proposition required little or no argument
from him to recommend it to the notice of the House. The
Hon. Member for Durham had said that it had been the cus-
tom for the last thirty years, in most factories of the country,
to confine the labour to twelve hours a day. Then they were
told that, in other countries, the labour was extended to eighty
and ninety hours a week. He thought that the labouring:
classes of this country could not contend with the present high
price of provisions, against such serious odds. Notwithstande
ing these disadvantages, what had been the result in this:
country, as to the amount of exports in the year;
1824. The exports, in round numbers, we re 33,000,000;
in 1834, 70,000,000; and, in 1845, 135,000,C00.—(Hear.)
When the question was formerly before the House, the manu-
facturers stated that the tax on the raw cotton pressed very
heavily upon them. It was stat,,,a to hire, as well as to many
other Members in that House, that tile tax amounted to almost
eight per cent. on the rrew material. One house alone paid
4,5001. in the cotton tett alone. Another house with a fixed
capital of 100,0001. ; said, XO,OOOl. alone in the cotton tax. They
had been relieves, froen that tax, and they were relieved from
no less a sum t'nau 1,600/. a year with this, but the evages were
only effected to the amount of tenpence a week, whilst the
amount savedA v
el the cotton tax was no less than thirteen per
cent., but he believed that the repeal of the corn-laws we.vld
effect great advantage to the working classes. Mr.
Ashford. stated that the tax on e tin imposed no
Iless '..nan two hours a day, and whatever might be the effect of
`.one repeal, it would surely make them more able to compete
t
with foreign nations. .He never believed that the samtsdair,eoufenr
of wages would be given for eleven hours as there
the reduction of
twelve; but he considered that the question n d for labour, and
wages would mainly depend upon the deman
which had received.
such was his confidence in the measurebea
greater their sanction, that he believed there
wouldconsequent increase in
de-
mand of labour effectuated by
itantioarking man; and believ-
ingthe comforts of life enjoyed by the w
social happiness of the
Bill would induce the greater
the
people, he was resolved to give it his support.
M 13
r. CODEN said he would not wish
Hon. Gentlemen to be
under any misapprehension with respect to his vote, and that
they had placed him in the position of being ob.iged to give
an unpopular vote. He was satisfied that no greater delusion
had ever been practised on the working classes than had been
done in the " short-time agitation." He would not say it was
done tkesignedly, but gentlemen had some particular notions
of their own that the legislation of that House could limit
quantity yet maintain the price. The originator of this agi-
tation was Mr. Oastler, who followed in the wake of Mr. Sad-
dlr..n. ; and he would just show, by an extract from evidence
taken before him, what the delusions of this agitation were—
(The Hon. Gentleman read some extracts from the evidence
in proof of his assertion.) The parties who agitated for
short time were not free traders. They attended
free-trade meetings and denounced them. He did not mean
to speak disperagingly of them, for he believed they were honest
in their en.deetvours. But he showed that their exertions
bad a very different effect from what they contemplated, and
that the consequence of a diminution in the hours of labour
would ice a diminution in the wages of labour.—(Oh, I
He reusintained that by dimninishing the quantity of worko
was
in
woleld have the effect of diminishingt
hwe'ea-eses.of infants, and
ktronr of legislating for shortlioursi o
, he did so on the same principles
children
as the Lord Chancellor would
who were improperly treated
But
by their parents-
talse the guardianship
of
with regard to large bodies and adults
the case was very different. If it was proposed to treat the
question on a philosophical point of view he could understand
was
it. But it not rested upon those grouni. The supporters
of (the present system had been accused of want of
benevolence, and that they had •no bowels of compassion
for their fellow-men. lie begged to say that he had done his
best in his own sphere to reduce the hours of labour, and in
Manchester he was a vice-patron of an institution for that
purpose. He wished Hon. Members would bring their heads
along with their hearts to this question, for if they
, a
di d they
oit
would come to a very different conclusion.
,Ltnrsetsbeai hpire,otit
the
to present from the parish of Gilmington in
to
comp
el the farmers
object of which was to petition the House
to give the labourers their due.
HHe wished to know, therefore,
feelings would be lf
from Honourable Members
what
their
he brought in a Bill to give the labourers of Dorsetshire and
He •
weu'd ask the Noble Lord
Someisetshire 12s. a week.
the Member for Newark if he would refuse to comply with
be would
such a Bill ? He believed not, on the ground of
benevolence or on but
the ground of justice, he would propose
on the ground of political economy. He wished to
tanskdo so
the Hon. Members who said that they should not employ
men more than twelve hours a day, whether they could engage
to employ them at all ? When men who knew nothing of
medicine started up as doctors, they were called quacks, and it
was the same thing when they attempted to le-
gislate for that with which they were unat ie
to cope. He hoped they were approaching that period when,
they would only legislate for such things as they were cal-
culated to understand. hie objected to all interference-with
to the working classes
labour, and he hoped to see the time when Parliament
House ha would
not interfere at all, for it was well known that t
re-
presented the employers and not the employed. If they legis-
lated
at all they would do greater injury
than good. They would force ip
the
had hearde it whispered that thento combine for keeping
up the price'of labour, and he
to
be revived. The men were
paid by the piece, and if they
combination laws were about
restricted the amount of labour,
they would force the men
to strike to maintain a remunerative
price. The manfact had made all their arrangements on.
the present system—they
were paying thousands of pounds in '
rent dYt was now proposed to reduce their
from the protectionists.)
for their mills, and it
interests one-sixse ._Meer, hear,
on the part of the working
re u
) But ha opposed this measure up