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

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MAY 23, 1846.

believed that they would derive solid advantage from having
more time for recreation—( Hear, hear)—both with regard to
their moral and social condition; and it would be better for
their minds, belies, and souls. So far he went along with thn
promoters of this Bid ; but then in such a state of society as
theirs, in which all departments of labour had such a relation
to each other, and all kinds of business ran into each other,
they could not calculate the effect of any disturbing clause which
they might introduce. He need not remind Hon. Members
who were familiar with the history of the colonies, of the cire
cumstance of Spain, in order to relieve the red Indian, intro-
ducing the black neer° —( Hear, hear.) Thus it was they
often round their benevolence defeat the very parties they were
endeavouring to serve. But on reference to the
present Bill, he cenld not consent to any reduction
in the hours of labour beyond one hour ; or, in
other words, he was in favour of its being restricted to
eleven hours labour per day. But he might be asked, was not
the proper way, in that case, for him to go into Committee,
and to propose that reduction ?—(Hear, hear.) Under ordi-
nary circumstances, that course might be advisable, but, at
present, he felt that he could not consent to that course.
Judging from what had already fallen from Hon. Members on
the crestion, there was no certainty of that proposition being
carried in Committee. He thought other quarrels, and feelings
arising out of other questions, had been introduced into the
discussion of tee present Bill.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble
Lord who last addressed the House, who, he (Lord Morpeth)
believed, was actuated by the most honourable motives, had
said that he had changed his opinion on the present question.
If so, that should teach him to regard with a little
more allowance the change which had taken plat e
on another question in the minds of others.—(Loud cheers.)
His Noble Friend had admitted that an experience of two
years had led to that alteration; why not, then, concede a si-
milar change to the three years' experience of others.—
(Cheers.) But beyond this he (Lord Nlorpeth) was firmly
persuaded they should confine the reduction to eleven hours a
day. He could not consent that the Bill should go so far as
ten hours, and even with respect to the former reduction he
did not feel prepared on the present occasion to go into Com-
mittee. With regard to going into Committee the session and
the time was adverse. They ought, in his opinion, to suspend
their decision, :for he thought the present Bill was so much
connected with the Bill for the repeal of the corn laws, or, in
other words, the Bill for regulating the payment of labour,
that he could not consent to the one till he had ascertained
the fate of the other. —(Loud cheers from the pro-
tectionists.) Why was he interrupted by that cheer ?
He was persuaded the Bill before the House would greatly injure
the working classes—those who subsisted by labour—unless
they were sure of the other measure to augment their wages.
Would the Hon. Gentlemen on the other side who had cheered
consent that the other Bill to which he referred should pass
into a law in order to give effect to this ?—( Cries of "No
no.") He believed that prudence and proceastination were
necessary on the present occasion, and that the state of the
Bi 1 for the repeal of the corn-laws offered a consideration why
they should not press the question to so early a decision. They
should rot only wait to ascertain the fate of that measure, hut
they should watt until the had further learnt the experience
of the effects that had arisen from voluntary experiments
between masters and men for the abridgements of the hours of
labour. Already, experiments of this kind had been made, and
he did not abandon the hope that they would be carried out
much further, if the Legislature did not interfere. His Right
Hon. Friend had been much disappointed in what he had stated
respecting strikes to abridge the hours of labour. He did not
advise strikes to obtain that end, but what he said was that
the operatives, while they had struck repeatedly for
an increase of wages, had never entered into strikes
for the reduction of the hours of labour. They had never
struck for a rednction of the hours of labour. Nay, he was
persuaded that if the operatives asked the masters for a reduc-
tion of the hours of labour, and if they would submit to a com-
mensurate reduction in their wages, he had no doubt it would
be conceded.—.(Hear, hear.) They had but to go to the
masters and state this determine' ion, and it would be done.
But the fact was, in some parts of Lancashire there were some
of the operatives working long hours, and others short hours, at
a proportionate reduction of wages ; and it was a remarkable
fact that they preferred the longer hours with the increased
wages, than the shorter hours with the reduced wages.
Much has been said of the superiority of the
English labourer—of their sinewal muscle. He admitted
that superiority. He acknowledged their strength and skill,
but he could not see how it could maintain itself if this Bill
were passed against the labourers of foreign countries. • Ac-
cording to a report which had been made to that House, which
was an authoritative statement, the factory labourers had to work
75, 84, and 92 hours a week. In Prussia and Austria the
hours were from 92 to 89 ; in the Tyrol from 72 to 80 ; in
Belgium from 80 to 90 ' • and in other nations they were of a
similar character. In England, however, it was proposed to
reduce them to 59 hours a week. If so, he was sure no in-
teriority of strength or skill could avail to balance 91 hours
against 59. Now in regard to the great immorality which
was alleged to exist in the manufacturing districts, according
to the returns which had been made to that House, giving the
commitments which had taken place all over England, it was
shown that in Yorkshire and Lancashire a great decrease bad
taken place in the years 1843, 1844, and 1845. In Yorkshire
it had been in the last year as much as nineteen per cent. In
Leicester also, which was extensively engaged in the silk, lace,
and hosiery trades, a great
_decrease in those years
had also taken place, last year; it had been as much
as 22 per cent. In Staffordshire and Warwickshire, the great
seat of the hardware trades, there had been a great reduction
in the last three years. So had there also been in Glouces-
tershire, to the extent of 9 per cent. This must satisfy them as
to the charge of immorality, and was a just reason why they
should not, without great consideration, seek to disturb the
present system. Whatever might be thought of the abstract
merits of the measure, while they were as yet ignorant of the
fate of that other measure which was proposed as an equivalent
for any injury that might arise from this, he thought the Hon.
Members who had introduced the Bill, and the House, should
suspend their decision. But, whatever they might determine,
he could not omit declaring, that on no account could he sanc-
tion a greater reduction than one hour a day, or fixing the
number of hours at eleven; and further, that, under present
circumstances, he was not prepared to accede to any reduction
at all till the fate of the Bill with which it ought to be accom-
panied was known.—( Cheers. )
Mr. AI ACAUL AY, in rising to support the Bill, Reid that
if, as complained of by the Hon. Member for Sheffield, any
unjust aspetsions had been cast upon the manufacturers of the
country for opposing the present Bill, such aspersions met
with no sympathy from him. He had no sympathy with such
aspersions, as he was fully convinced the interests of the manu-
facturers of this country—the interests of the whole of so, iety
—but especially the interests of the labouring classes, was de-
pendent on the present question, and the vote they should give
that night. Under no circumstances should feelings of political
hostility be allowed to interfere, or any ruse of political party
and political warfare, be allowed to interfere with a question so
deeply interesting to the great body of the people. He could
assure the Hon. Member for Sheffield, and his Hon. Friends on
his side of the House, that he had no desire to obtain any
credit for humanity at their expense. He believed that their
feelings in all respects were as kind and cordial as his own.
They agreed with him as to the end to be obtained, but their
present difference of opinion was in regard to the means. Dis-
missing from their minds all extraneous considerations, the real
point they had to consider was—was the present suhject a legi-
tin,ate one for them to interfere with and settle, or was it one
that was likely to settle itself? It was important that there
should be no mi•take on this head. There were two kinds of
Government to which he had great objection, and he did not
know which was the greatest pest; the one was the patriarchal
form of Government, or a meddling Government, who thought
they could do every other persons' business better than they
could themselves, and the other form of Government was a
careless. indolent one, who would suffer the greatest social
abuses to exist without interfering—a Government who said
that things should go on without interference, as they woulu be
sure to fled their level.—( Hear, hear.) If he had any objec-
tion to the past proceedings of Government in this country, it
was that they had assumed too much function of
the patriarchal form, anti meddled with things that
were net within the legitimate sphere of their influence.
Great philosophers, during the last generation, had drawn the
attention of the speculative to this object. He did think he
saw some danger in the carrying these principles to the other
extreme, for it was a very remarkable circumstance that they
should have lived to see that all the great communications of the
empire hail been abandoned by the Government to private spe-
culation.—( Hear, hear.) Another instance of an error
was the manner in which ,orne Gentlemen looked at the
question before the House. The Hon. Members for Sheffield
and Montrose (Mr. Ward and Mr. Hume) resolved it into one
merely of free-trade, and told them not to legislate upon the
subjeet, the contract between the master and the labourer
being merely one like any other commercial transaction. They
said we did not interfere with the hosier at what price he was
to sell his stockings, or with the grocer as to what kind of stock
lie should lay in, and whether he was to give long credit and
charge high prices. They argued that the labourers and the
grocers would judge much better for themselves than the legis-
lature could do for them. He believed he was as much attached
to the principle of free-trade as any other man in that House,
but that was when the principle was rightly stated. It was
casting ridicule on the principle of free-trade when they were
pushed to an extreme. They ha.l restricted the number of cabs;
it was a rainy day, and there were few upon a stand ; in fact,
here was none ; and why was it not competent for any man to
bring out his own cab and charge what price he liked? That was
the principle of free-trade; but they had yielded that principle
to the consideration of the police, and so also had they sacrificed
it when a question of revenue came to be considered. Well
then, the health of the community was a matter to which it
should be yielded also. He had read with much satisfaction a
report signed by two of the officers of the Government,
the Duke of Buccleuch and the Noble Lord, who was lately
at the head of the Woods and Forests, and who was now
Secretary for Ireland, and there was not any document more
repugnant than it to the principle of free trade, for he found
in it, that a man could not on his own ground, build a house
le,s than thirty feet wide, nor could he build a new one in a
new street, without giving notice to certain Commissioners.
He was obliged to make a drain to his house, and if he refused,
the Commissioners could make a drain, and send him in the
bill to pay, and he was obliged to pay it. Those who took
their stand upon the extreme principle of free trade, would
tell us, that they were to buy cheap and to sell dear. Now,
why should not that apply to the man who ran up a cheap
house without a drain, and endeavour to get the highest price
for it ? Because the health of the community was concerned.
He defied them to defend free trade upon these extreme prin-
ciples, and that was the reason that free trade, which was so
excellent in itself had so much to struggle with to obtain the
general assent of society. But there e ere other interests
which demanded their attention—interests far higher than
those which were merely commercial—they were those
which co. corned the public weal—and they were to decide
whether the great masses of the people should live in a method
the effect of which was to abridge life, to send them to untimely
graves, leaving behind them a miserable progeny.—( Hear.)
Whenever the public health or the public morality was con-
cerned. the Legislature ought to interfere. Take, for instance,
the case of lotteries. What had they to do with the contract
between the parties in the case of a lottery ? A man put his
hand voluntarily into his pocket, and paid the money—there was
no delusion—no injustice practiced by any one—and one would
think it a fair commercial transaction, in which they could not
interfere to prevent a party from risking his money. They
had, however, nothing to do with the matter in a commercial
point of view. They interfered with the system because they
felt such 'hinge as lotteries gave encouragement to certain
habits of mine and body which were incompatible with every
good quality of either happiness or health.—(Cheers.) They
ought therefore, to interfere with thaeskpuwbhliecthheeraltthh'e andth
public morals; and he would public
doubt whether twelve
upon matter,
ntheealth antimed
ottbe public
labour Did
drals weranyoeneno conce
rned in
d examined
his own feelingsthis
morals, or education. Were
themselves by metes
from injuring
inter-
fering to prevent the prior was desirable for health,
hours a day labouring in
a ftaheetoyrlysot justified then in
hours a day had been consumed in factory labour,
of premature and excessive labour ? Didanyoneartildoutbhtetfheawt
leisure was necessary for educations ? Well, then, after twelve
hours devoted to refreshment and rest, we at time remained
for the operative portion of this country to devote to that educa-
tion which they ought to possess? Was there enough? No.
He was sure they must all answer that question in the negative.
—( Cheers.) He repeated, then, that the same principle
which justified their interfering to prohibit contracts which
they believed would be prejudicial to public morality, justi-
fied their interfering to prevent contracts which might
prove injurious to public; health.—( Hear, hear, and cheers. ) -
Th e temporal inconvenience of these laws were so great that
dthyiseuetuwedree. n ov,t
roebr see ray eond
Ga nedn wt
eemr ee
nfi yar
eallowedh t
ofnagl fall
vianrto.

liament abolished Easter, Whitsuntide, and thestmas
holidays, but in lieu of these they provided Chri
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 ihe Sabbath observances and
saints' days were abolished. It was not necessary to go into
any religious argument with respect to the observance of the
Sabbath. He would as•s, was there one single argument in
the speech of his lion. Friend which would not be turned into
argument for a holiday en a Sunday. lie 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 eases 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 attentive
consideration. They had already, however, legislated on the
subject, and they had shortened the hours of labour. The
late Sir Robert Peel said in the debates thirty years ago thathe
;e
children under eight years of age ought not to be employed
late hours of labour. If any person would take the trouble to
read those debates over he would find precisely the same senti-
ments uttered then as now. But no ruin had followed—pro.
unction had not been less in consequence of reduced hours of
labour. Suppose in 1546, the time of the reformation and a
period ofof Sunday
great
had proposedind industry
stthrye
abolition
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. His Hen.
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 op ratives of the country ? While, if this
time were not given—if no opportunity were allowed for im-
htphareodvi
community—wouldmn
tti
thieon eintellectualcig
o d.
down
not
tgo ntehunietoy
gf ortfahvteeheeluasonspkenaronaldtvinyeehaapnreadrettuiFd
ihsoe-f
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 anti
nshuea.snsd.
where favourably
theyhletre
w st
sawahi
st
eu r
the
ehht sated.
existed
ms poc osa
ttr
est
tsht
ehmrei of
greatest
tl hat
hne that
tw,
undero
mr 1
amountad
d, e while,thes
e oo mostf
Scotland,
nnn dd
utinclement
greatest amount of wealth, and the greatest amount of happi-
Dutchman that made Holland, and the advantages of those
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 wildernessie tenanted by
buffalos and wild animals. See what it was now. No change
had taken place in its physical properties, for its rivers, and
valleys, and ferthe 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 of
the red man—it was simply because the intelligence of the
Englishman had snit down the forests and hewn them into
fleets, and built cities upon their sites.—( Cheers. ; The
greatest instrument, then, in the production of wealth, was,
man, and they found the greatest amount of wealth where ti e
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 ii,
winding up his concerns of the past and preparing himself for
the coming week, and on the followingr itsl commercial a
returnedAonodoamymhee ,pe
tot
his labour with renewed energy,eo o and renewed
reneaowdediovtieglineuort.o—al
u
(Cheers.) He for one believed then, that the wealth of this
ceeholautnnugtrreeyd of the wbyouildmppenroPtlei ,be
g nor diminished,
was inpihsysi
hd,
ahe alarmed at any anticipated
competition with nations whose labourers worked seventeen
hours a day; for in those cwuntries 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. lie 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
triat 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, and
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 HANNIER said, that as regarded this question,
they were obliged step by step to feel their sway, 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 Hon. Gentleman himself. Formerly they
might work young
Thoattkthem m
personswasafi
very
yrne hours a day;new,ours
a however,d ay
and
._
( H,,ar, har.
he was very far from saying that h
theyeoueldn)ot weeLhsah4inoduetlrwil; notll'ee reduction, h
like to see that
principle carried nut still further; but g.vat 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 front 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 rbe very desirable that
arrangements should be made between masters and men as to the
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 its
(-lames that they should restrict the hours of labour to ten hours
per day. He believed that the measures which hail been sent
up by that House to the other House of Parliament a few days
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 qtrestions 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. Dlills 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, he 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 he 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
a mdischargingdsto
loud
dh
cries
his du toyfi to those
fDtahcioisi edhefeo, rdhwiavdhi
donese,e,v,beseraniiedn-,
fit the measure was introducedA
d. bt
he
syh votinghhoapdej
just
sht
aagainsttbethe been
t House
eolthanuivsee
delivered.-_
givingdo.u_id
it his support.
f, ih(apbofieaHurst ereretdi-griiaoifhnreent,. th—ehhpehrei
ufe(maemral irrprdeof.oenos)saatcrerneoaywbftbhl ee;
speech trespassing
e)m cehr e hod elusive. For whataorgf l motel nke
businessnlitnd, whom
thallirhe'VV:vAasKleEligYhted withoothie aargttuomoteinootatfiov:
aanfedwconelusive
speech of the Right Hon. Gentlemane.e the Member for Edine
of the they • 01n2..
nn'sst the strong,_
momentse
The Right Hon. Genktlemaai
conclusive,t
ho v
ea
the s
argument
bad stu the
or
was legislature constttute if they were not to interfere
ature.
power of protecting, were to be left to the mercy
oppression ? Why every Act they passed
fatty • avarice and
with the rights of some class or other e
(W Hear,
d h he
ebaer • t d Thata:
protection
he most
i fat
interference
Was it to be said that the legislature must protest commnity.
thatweak infants employed in the manufactories of trade, and
must be left unprotected ? Why, during the
last tfhis country
under the system of protection the manufactures of this years,
try had been continually increasing—( Loud laughtierenun-
cheering from the protectionists)—and he confessed it did e rand
boldly and chillingly upon his ear, tvh?.n he heard the Right
Hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Ho
merit, the other night, in the debate on th• .. me Depart-
le subject, sn er,
that the English labourer was now to enter into the " no—
toil without armour, and in a naked state. was arena of
that, with free trade in commerce, ne • he to be to
protection was to be
allowed to the labo firing classes of this county to
to be so, he was very sorry that he voted for-- • h If that were
(Protectionist, cheersj—fer it would give hithe
at measure--
he had felt a lore, time. But he believed tmha greatest pain
which he alluded was calculated to improve th t the meesure to
working classes of this country. The Hoen"allition of the
Member for Dorsetshire ( Mr. Bankes), in the' and Learned
edebate, seemed to take a very great interest in the welfare of this e fare of
the manfacturing population of this country; he
Hon. and Learned Member for his goodfeelings
the
that class of the people, but he hoped the l'Hs towards
and Learned Member would pardon him if he venturedonout Honourable
ex-
press a hope that he would extend his benevolent intentionso
lt labourers of his an
own L.
bourhood.—( Hear, hear. ) He could ,in his • • neigh-
cute
than that of i opinion, exe-
cute a more agreeable dutyimproving the condition
of his fellow man.—( Hear, hear.) But the . er
for Sheffield had delivered to the House a , Hon
pretty le Memb
lecture that
evening. That lecture was, in his (Mr. Waliley's) opinion,
what Hudibras would have called the greatest piece of rigmarole
he had ever heard.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) The Hon.

Gentleman had (he believed unintentionally) misrepresented
his (Mr. Wokley's) opinions on this question, for he had stated
that because certain of his constituents of the labouring classes
required the Bid, 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 latighter. )
The Hon. Member for Sheffield stated that he had
'learned
more from the working classes of Sheffield than he had learned'
during all the in.riod 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.—(tHear,
hear.) He stated that he had read the pamphlet written by
his Hon. Friend the Member for Okihare over and over again,
but was snit alile to understand it in the least. The Hon.
Member for Oldham was not answerable for that. He 'did not
undertake when he wrote his pamphlet to give the Hon. Mem-
bere the faculty of understanding.—(Cheers and laughter.)
tTehne.dliou. Member for Sheffield also stated, that he had lis-
H with pleasure to the speeches which had been made by
on. Members on his side of the House, but could not for the
life of him understand them. He (Mr. Wakley) was at a less
to know what sort of a mind that was which could listen to an
argument with pleasure, but which did not for the life of it ur.-
derstand it.—( Cheers and laughter.) And then his Hon.
Friend the M. tuber for Sheffield turned round to the Hon.
Member for Oldham and his supporters, and called this move-
ment merely popularity-hunting, and upon such a subject could be easily obtained;(iksir'taied that popularity
upon
concluded his
observations to his Hoe. Friend
ing that there WAS nothing which heh7no:lnetheeadt
(Mr. Ward)en )cl by
say-
s() much as amateur legislation. Now, it strip k
he ( Mr. Ward) was the amateur legislator. The florin)
ber for Oldham was an amateur, who for a period of Jay.
years had been eng tged in spinning, and who gave employ-
ment to two or three mill ions of hands --( Laughter, occs-
sioned by the mistake with 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. "Ah 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 one 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. "tell, then, had
they arrived precisely at that point where they should stop ?
had they just discovered tl.e 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
'abouring classes themselves, in Yorkshire, and, indeed, in
all parts of the kingdom, praying for the Bill. Great ss eeping
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
this debate. He alluded to the subject of mortality occasioned
by this overworking of the p liulation. From the report of Mr.
Chadwick, it appeared that in the whole of England and Wales,
our 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 p pulation 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 184', it appeared that 2,649 had died
under the age of five years. '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 }ears it was as one to thirty-fivs. 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
orotectors 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 Beath of its mother?—( Hear,
hear.) He had no desire to create an unpleasant feeling in
the minds of any person, 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 might 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
man, 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. He 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 the 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, and 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 observa'ions 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
is Member get up to address the House upon any subject, and
keep so tar 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
to 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 (luring the th7ee months it had
been under discussion.—( Cloipr:.) And with respect to the
Sabbath, it was a day en which people doi not ordinarily work.
There was no mill in any part cf the world which worked on a
Sabbath; but because petiole 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 mater 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 c nsidered 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 manufactories, 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 he 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 these went to show that no injury was sus-
tained by the workman 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,
hnt that no injury had resulted.—( Hear, hear.)
The concern which he was connected with had been in exis-
tence for more than forty 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 beore. It
was, however, much better to have a late repentance than none
at all.—( Hear, hear.) It was really too bad for the Hon.
Member to state in that House as a fact, that which any one
acquainted with the cotton-spinning trade could at once contra-
dint with the greatest confidence. He could assure the House
that there were many establishments paving more wages now
than they had for years before, and at the same time they were'
receiving not a farthing of profit.—(" Oh, oh," from
Colonel Sibthorp.) The Honourable and Gallant Mem-
ber for Lincoln was well acquainted with the
the spinning trade; the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman had
many things to be thankful for, and this acquisition smongst all
the rest.—( Laughter, during which the Hn. and Gallant
Colonel ruse, and bowed most gracefully.) If was said that
many of those in the cotton spinning trade had made large for.
tunes; he hoped it was not a crime fora cotton spinner to make
a fortune.—( Hear, hear.) Some years ago, they had limited
the hours of labour to twelve hours a day, but the injury was
not so great as it would be under the present Bill, for at that
period machinery had not been brought to such perfection as at
the present day. Now, however, machinery was as improved
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 improvements in machinery
had taken place since the change had enabled them to
meet it, but there was no room now for additional improvement.
He had in his own employment about eight hundred persons,
and he was satisfied that they would rather work ten hours a day
than twelve, but he was certain they would not rather do
so, if they were only to have the wages of ten
hours. If be were to offer them the price of twelve hours
labour for ten hours, they would all accept it, but he was very
sure that if they were to be restricted to ten hours labour, and
ten hours wages, not one of them would accept it. There
never was an instance of where the offer was made to reduce
the men to ten hour 3 wow and ten hours remuneration, it

-
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 nest be done with advantage to either party, but on the
contrary when it would be attended with injury
to all, he could 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 esorldt hut 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. No doubt the Nrhle 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 cricket, and in-
dulge in other recreations. Why, so should he; but let him
ask any man in 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 ibe 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
hands, and thus prevented them from earning it, which this
Bill would certainly effect. But there could 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 Legislature did not
propose to give it to them ; and if they did, it would result
in 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
he 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 went 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-
smare;,t,baesfoiraerthaes ysuch
ea
fin v
ea r
years
ae
an
rgee
oml
de ne
rt
twh ae sy pwoosus
db l
he ,a
vwea si t ne
veecreys
--
where. What was the reason of the closing of the shops in
Manchester on the Saturdayhaafltfe;-,nrn ? After some strenuous
efforts on both sides, the
Sabbkth. The early closing oftshooldpsa,y
well and as scrupulously observed
ionnsteSaadtuordfateynboercaemieeveais,
o'clock, was going on in manyg as the whole holiday on the
arraowns in this kingdom, it was,
arrangement should be come to.
therefore, desirable that some
Let their decision on this subject be once and or ever, and_ let
them not indulge in any such uncertaince speculation. It was
merely legislation for persons above thirteen
years
but let them avoid any interference, and they
would°fifndage, an
entirely different channel for the endeavours of the workin
g
classes. The manufacturer had become more civilised durng
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 to 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 unproviderl 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 %%mild 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 valious 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
ears of age sbould or should not be shortened? The case
had been ton much argued, and the Hon. Member had proposed
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 going into 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 most 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 Hon. 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 carried. Now, that Bill had been sent to another House,
having been passed by a large 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
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 highly 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
admit, 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 follow that I
must admit the present Bill to be one that claims our special
consideration and interference. The Right Hoti. 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. '1 he over
loading of omnibuses and hackney cabs, the regulations for
draining have all been brought forward by the Right Hon.
Geetleman 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-
elusive ; 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.-1, Hear, hear.) But what is the state of legislation upon
this subjec ? No child under eight years can be employed in
a factory at all. No child, under eighteen years of age, can
work by night. No female can work by night at ail. No
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 hours' instruc-
tion had been given to it previously on the same day. That
is the state of our legislation at present. I 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 m that res-
pect. I admit that there are higher cons
• terations than those
u
of a commercial character. I admit that the principle that
ought to guide us in the consideration
of:th
whether or no the further restrictionse question is
intion
the
hours of labour, will promote the health—will
promote the morality, or be conducive to the interests of the
working classes. I admit that these great considerations are
far superior to the mere commercial question. 'fhe Right
Hon. Gentleman said he would not interf ire with adult labour,
he was unwilling to prevent the adult whose capital was his
labour, and who was of sane mind, from using, it as he thought
proper—he would not commit towards him the insult of restrict-
Now what are we about to do ? Although
thehls °Rwi g nhhealth.t Hon.
ing his discretion on a point connected with
Gentleman admits the injustice of the interference,
he was
supporting a Bill which indirectly established regula-
tions with respect to adult labour. - We are about to
impose what is equivalent to an income tax of
fifte€n per cent. upon the labour of the operative. You are
going to tell him that he shall not have an opportunity of work-
ing for more than a certain number of hours per day. Now do
you really believe that in establishing that restriction—do you
concur with him in his belief that for ten hours' labour, he can
receive twelve hours' pay ?—(Cheers.) The Right Hon. Gen-
tleman says, " See of what importance it is to the community
that the workman should have some command over his time—
see what the Dutchman has done—see what the Englishman
has done—see how the inhabitants of the United States, with
Anglo-Saxon blood, have cleared the forest, and reclaimed
the sterile land. See what the Dutchman has done in
reclaiming from the dominion of the ocean that which was once
overwhelmed, by waves." See how he has done all this—but did
you restrict him to ten hours' labour ?—( Cheers.) Did you
tell the Dutchman, who has reclaimed his dominions from the
sea, that he should only work ten hours ? Did you tell the
Englishman oho has supplanted the red man, that by legisla •
tive restrictions he could only work ten hours a day.—
( Cheers.) See, said the Right Hon. Gentleman, how much
you are indebted to the ingenuity of the working man for im-
provements in machinery. It is not, he says, by the great
mathematicians or the philosopher that these discoveries were
made, but only by the ingenuity of the working man. He,
says Mr. Adam Smith, in the commencement of his work,
mentions the wonderful improvements for which this country is
indebted to the ingenuity of the working man. But were they
made under a state of restrictive labour? In the time of
Arkwright was there a law passed to prevent the working
man labouring more than ten hours a day ?
No, there were no restrictions then, and I for: one believe, that
if you wish to preserve the ingenuity of the working clessses—
employ your time and your labour as you please—if you wish
to work fourteen hours a day, you are at liberty to do so. We
hive all experienced the advantages of the nonerestrictive sys-
tem • it is said, however, that we ought to consult the wishes
of the working classes; nor can there be a doubt that it is their
impression that you can secure to them the same amount of
re
saiuneration in the event of a reduction of the hours of labour
a they receive at present. Why, Mr. Greg proposed to his
men that they should work his machinery for eleven
hours, and he would pay them at the rate of eleven
and a half hours a day, the proposition was unanimously
rejected by the men, who insi-ted upon working twelve hours
and receiving twelve hours' pay. In my opinion it would be
infinitely preferable to a legislative enactment if an arnicanle
arrangement between the masters and men could be come to in
this matter. Well, then, the experiment was made by men
in favour of the eleven hours, but they found they only turned
a pi oportionate paztity of work, and they pave the men

notice beforehand. They said to there, we wish, 'Tor your,
sakes, that the experiment should succeed to enable us to
insure the work, formerly accomplished in twelve hijurs, in
e:even, and, then, let us consent to an Eleven Hours' Bill.
But the?esult of the experiment was, that they could do no
more in the eleven hours than they had done fotmerly. lam
against all interference, and particularly against interference
at the present time; and I would be concealing the troth if I
did not state to you that I think we have gone•as far as we
can safely go in the matter of interference. lam inclined
to give a full and fair triul to the experiment,
but if you do interfere don't suppose that you will give general
satisfaction,- don't believe that there are other parties who will
seek to apply the same principle to you. They will -till you
not to talk to them of manufactories, that they will show
without undue interference, or depending on the aid of the
common informer, the principle is not carried out. 'Here is a
letter that I have received with respect to the state of the
operative papers. (The Right Hon. Baronet then read a letter
of their unparalleled diteress, in consequence of the present
low state of wages and high'price of provisions.) That they
laboured eighteen hours out of the twenty-four, and that their
average weekly earnings was about 9e., a sum totally inade-
tacietuedat
they,e,nt.o Itstht
aewt
aseusd pat Itivoewrrtay,o
sfatabr
osmonlgaante,ealbleu
and
encsedss
isftaorrwyaotuami
dar
be
era,
dinmedrphsooi
ssta.
if
bea mily,
leptrwfooor
the Legislature to interfere, and to divide the labour between -
men, and prevent attacks upon the human frame. But, are
we quite sure that the restriction in factory labour will not
add to the labour in other Occupations. Why, the Hon. Gen-
tleman who spoke last, made an impression upon the feeling of
the House, (which is not a very difficult matter) by 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-spread
board, to welcome her husband on his return home.—(Hear.
Why, who can doubt it ? But what is the remedy for the pre-
sent evil ?—( Hear, hear.) Why, it is to prevent wives work-
ing in factories.—( Hear, hear.) But eleven-twelfths of all
the evils of the present system will exist even after this Bill
shall have passed. Who can doubt the importance of the wile
being enabled to devote her attention to domestic comforts
but admitting the very principle that you promote the morality
and the comforts of the great manufacturing districts by 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
yshobofeuntliedlhtoaißevoeihmmisoornte time to attend to domestic duties. We
Ipheuazdoenian instance of this lately ; there was the Hon. Gentleman
the
ee
fMemberien.
Ge
Gentleman
o Finsbury,
teihvteelsocst:tet came forward the other day from
actuated by nothing
forward hoafi
mo-
tiveshe wasi
bringing dtabhi
put
oat
hn mebhyedi ampes
suu—errreei
eans
:Idas drhs, oo
hlrhi
eoobaupr hope thathear.)
vlele
tth givethe
lace factories. We had
domiciliary visit, and the system
and with respect to all those eintripon the subject of the
omation, and are you
t
respect to labour in
qtouittieleshuraendth-laotosmomweetahvienrg,
description with respect
manu-
factures that are connected with factory labour—are you quite
sure that while you establish these strict regulations with re-
spect to adult factory labour—are you quite sure that you are
st measure
discussionthe same
sa
om with
not giving a direct premium and encouragement to those sys-
tems of labour which are beyond your control, and that you are
nor. 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 mast 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..
meet 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 okiettingoff one-
sixth of the labour, and as. I believe, of.s..the prekee
and remuneration of the manufactures;.' .
country.—(Hear, hear.) Well, is this the exact time? -Irteuh
permitted the export of machinery, not upon the principhe
of free-trade, but because in point of fact, there was no use
whatsoever in continuing poor-laws which prevented that
exportation.—(Hear, bear.) 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 ue
encourage art in the manufacture of machinery than to have
whichylaowashaveto would lead to the smuggling of machines. But
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
working classes to insure permanence, and to give them a
guarantee against sudden and extraordinary rises in the neces-
saries of life.--(Hear, hear.) Well, hut observe, that that.
law is not to come into full effect for three years hence.—.
(Hear, hear.) Suppose the law passes in its present form ire
the House of Lords, there will not, until February, 1849, be-
a free trade in corn. During the intervening period, the
same restrictions will still extst, at the same time
you have removed protection from agriculture, and en
that ground I think that it would be politic_
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 desirable 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—anti[
you have better ground than you have at the present moment
tor drawing safe conclusions as to the effect of this measure.—
(Cheers and cries of " Divide.")
Lord J. RUSSELL did not wish, at that late period of thee
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 Rio.ht Hon. Gentleman had given to.
he argument of his Right Hon. Friend the Member for &lin-
burgh, because a more powerful argument he thought he had heard.—(Cheers.) There were already on the statute-e
book Acts authorising any interference with factory labour,-
and unless they were prepared to repeal those Acts, they
were preveuted from using the argument the-, the
Legislature had no right to interfere with labour.-4Hear.)
The present Bill would not interfere in any way in the hour's.
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 Ad 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 the
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 labour
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. Ti.kr
Hon. Member for Durham had said that it had been the cus.
torn for the last thirty years, in most factories of the country's
to confine the labour to twelve hours a day. Then they went
told that, in other countries, the labour was extended to eighter
and ninety hours a week. He thought that the libouring
classes of this country could not contend with the present Itgla
price of provisions, against such serious odds. Notwithstand-.
hag these disadvantages, what had been the result in thii
country, as to the amount of exports in the year
1824. The exports, in round numbers, were 33,000,00 e
in 1834, 70,000,000 ; and, in 1845, 135,000,000.—(Hear.
When the question was formerly before the House, the menu..
facturers stated• that the tax on the raw cotton preened vet y
heavily upon them. It was stated to him, as well as to matter
other Members in that House, that the tax amounted to almost
eight per cent. on the raw material. One house alone pat I.
4,5001. in .the cotton tax alone. Another house with a fixel
capital of 100,000/. paid 20,()001. alone in the cotton tax. They
had been relieved from that tax, and they were relieved fret:
no less a sum than I,boo/. a year with this, but the wages wehe
only effected to the amount of tenpence a week, whilst.ti-e
amount saved by the cotton tax was no less than thirteen pe•
cent., but he believed that the repeal of the corn-laws won J.
effect great advantage to the working classes.
Ashford stated that the tax on ean imposed eft,
less than two hours a day, and whatever might be the
effect
the repeal, it would surely make them more able to compote
with foreign nations. He never believed that the saracimel r
twel te ; but he considered that the question o
of wages would be given for eleven hours as there would b
wages would mainly depend upon the demandf the
fr
ttedb, u aon •
.
such was his confidence in the measure witch bad -receiy. 41ricrti, ar l
their sanction, that ne believed there would be a greater
mend of labour effectuated by it, and a consequentincrease z.;
the comforts of life enjoyed by the working man; and believe.
ins the Bill would induce
happiness of the*
people,
d
eople he was resolved to g
P Mr.P COBDEN said he would not wish Hon. Gentlemen to be
give
ee
itgrbeiast
sear
r socialpart.
under any misapprehension with respect to his vote, and that
they bad placed him in the position of being ohiged to give
an unpopular vote. He was satisfied that no greater delusion
had ever been practised on the working classes than had hem
done in the " short-time agitation." He would not sip it was
done designedly, but gentlemen had some particular notion*
of their own that the legislation of that House could limit
quantity yet maintain the price. The originator Of this agi-s-
-tation was Mr. Oastler, who followed in the wake of Mr. Sad.
dler ; and he would just show, by an extract from evidence
taken before him, what the delusions of this agitation were
(The Hon. Gentlemak read some extracts from the evident
in proof of his assertion.) The parties who agitated 131 r
short time were not free traders. They attended
free-trade meetings and denounced them. He did not meant'
to speak disparagingly of them, for he believed they were honest
in their endeavours. But he showed that their exertions
had a very different effect from what they contemplated, and
that the consequence of a diminution in the hours of labour
would be a diminution in the wages of labour.—(Oh, ob.fr
He maintained that by dimninishing the quantity of work
would have the effect of diminishing wages. He was nut
favour of legislating for short hours in the case of infanta, ant(
he did so on the same principles as the Lord Chancellor woull
take the guardianship of children who were improperly treatel
by their parents. But with regard to large bodies and adn is
the case was very different. If it was proposed to treat tha-
question on a philosophical point of view he could understan
I.
it. But it was not rested upon those ground. The supporters
of the present system bad been accused of want of
benevolence, and that they had no bowels of compassio=n
for their fe;low-men. He begged to say that he had done hie
best in his own sphere to reduce the hours of labour, and ht
Alanchester he was a vice-patron of an institution for the:
purpose. He wished Hon. Members would haree their heads
along with their hearts to this question, for if they did thew
would come to a very different conclusion. He had a petition
to present from the parish of Gilmington in Somersetsbire,t hs
object of which was to petition the House to compel the farmer
to give the labourers their due. He wished to know, therefore.
from Honourable Members what their feelings would be
he brought in a Bill to give the labourers of Dorsetshire ant?.
Soinersetshire les. a week. He would ask the Noble Lord.
the Member for Newark if be would refuse to comply witie
such a Bill ? He believed he would not, on the ground of
benevolencetadaso
ontohreongrtahae
ground
ground ti f
political
nhountiyh.e oeulwth
d ipreepd tos:el,
ask the Hon. Me En Iltaveser
doctors,haa
ros saa
,ittdha
ty.ty,h a‘,:het
ehr
etehycearsi
lhtehodeunylegdw riotnot
he
inn
gp
oec
Wilvt thin?ielnenmethneyw_hoettken:4e°llaccdkin'site:::-da':oae:t:-
thaletgislawtiethfor wsuhcihch
was
to
s employ
the them
sam
ea t
mmeednicminoeresttahratendtuwiet
to cope. He hoped they were approaching that period whsl
tghiselyatsevoulfdor only they were unable
things as they were cat.'
eulated to understand.
Re objected to all interference with labour, and be hoped to see the time when Parliament
seou'lel
not interfere at all, for it was well known that that House ree
presented the employers and not the employed. If they logic
lated at all they would do greater injury to the working classen
than good. They would force the men to combine for keepiner
up the price of labour, and he had heard it whispered that thse
combination laws were about to be revived. The men were
paid by the piece, and if they restricted the amount of labour,
they would force the men to strike to maintain a remunerative,
price. The manfacturers had made all their arrangements out '
the present system—they were paying thousands of pounds iy
rent for their mills, and it was now proposed to reduce their
interests one-sixth.—(Hear, hear, from the protectionists.)
but he opposed this meant. 'upon the part of the worlds: