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

standing order, which was also doubted by other Hon. Mem •
bers, he thought that Mr. O'Brien ought to have the benefit
of the doubt, and was entitled to his liberal ion from confinement.
Sir R. PEEL said that the Right Hon. Baronet who had
preceded him in his remarks, had not said that there was con-
siderable doubt as to the true construction of the order, but he
observed that there was doubt on the merits of the case.
'He thought that if there was any difficulty at all it existed in
the interpretation of the words "be appointed in standing
order." The words meant that the Committeewas in existence.
The House of Commons, for the purpose of insuring regularity
s in its proceedings had placed the rules to be determined by its
standing orders out of its own power to alter, or to
interfere with, except by repeating the order. There
were instances in which the House of Commons
had, by a preceding regulation, bound themselves to
abide by the standing order. He would take a
case which appeared to him to possess some analogy
to the present. It was one of the standing orders that every
private Bill not being the Royal Bill should be referred to a
Committee of Selection. How was that to he decided ? He
apprehended it could not be settled by the question in the
House. As a matter of course the matter would be referred
to a Select Committee, which would not be refused unless the
standing order was specifically repealed. So, in the present
case, it was not a question whether Mr. Smith O'Brien ought
to be excused because he had refused to obey an order of the
House. If the Hon. Members of the House thought the
authority of the House had been sufficiently vindicated, why
then release him at once by a special order. But to say that
the present was a doubtful case, and that they should slink out
of a compliance with the standing order in order to shake hands
with Mr. Smith O'Brien would be derogatoryto the dignity of
that House.
Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL did not think the comparison of
the Right Hon. Gentleman was very good. He did think the
character of the present debate was calculated to have a very
bad effect in Ireland. It would be as well to endeavour to
conciliate the feelings of the people of Ireland, and not to exas-
perate them by endeavouring to explain away doubtful words.
The proper course to be adopted would have been to allow Mr.
Smith O'Brien the benefit of the doubt, in order that he might
be liberated from confinement.
Sir GEORGE GREY made a few observations, which
were inaudible in the gallery.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS said the Hon. Member for Devon-
port had expressed an opinion that there could be no doubt as
to the common sense construction of the standing order. Other
Hon. Members had corroborated that opinion. With reference
to the observations of the Hon. Member for Cork, there was no
doubt tke construction of the standing order might be improved,
but as there was no doubt as to the real meaning of the order,
he should certainly oppose the motion.
Mr. WATSON said, when the House was proceeding
to decide on a standing order on which the conse-
quences were of a nature that affected the liberty of the
subject, it behoved them to be very careful before they came
to any decision as to its real construction. He had serious
doubts as to the construction which had been put upon it.
He must give his vote in support of the motion, because he was
not satified that the meaning of the order was sufficiently
clear for him to give a proper vote on an occasion when the
consequences might be attended with punishment of a harsh
nature.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion 36

Against it
Majority against Mr. S. O'Brien's release
Mr. SHAW gave notice that he would persist in the motion
of which he had given notice for Monday next, namely, that
the group on which Mr. O'Brien was selected to serve having
terminated its labours, that Hon. Member should be discharged
from custody.
Mr. O'CONNELL was understood to say that, under those
circumstances, he should refrain from pressing on the attention
of the House the motion which he had intended to make that
night for Mr. O'Brien's discharge.
THE TEN HOURS' BILL—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
The order of the day for the adjourned debate on the second
reading of this Bill having been read,
Mr. WAKLEY presented a petition from the town of Not-
tingham, in which the petitioners stated that the present fac..
tory system was most pernicious to the health and morals of
children ; that it produced premature death, was most dange-
rous to the manufacturing portion of the community, and they
therefore prayed the House to enact the Ten Hours' Bill.
Mr. G. BANKES then rose and said, that in giving his sup-
port to the principle which was now under consideration, and
in opposing the amendment which had been proposed by the
Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home De-
partment. he was aware that he was bound in the first place to
show that the principle of this Bill was consistent with the wel-
fare, the interests, and safety of the community at large. He
was aware also that it was incumbent on him to show that this
Bill, while it proposed to confer a benefit on the operative classes,
would not produce at the same time on those classes any injury
to preponderate over that benefit. It was incumbent also upon
him to maintain and to prove, as he thought he should, that the
principle of this Bill would not necessary occasion any injury
tie the employers of those operatives for whose benefit it was
brought forward.—( Hear, hear.) He hoped he should be able
to show that whilst the operatives received a benefit, neither
they nor their employers would receive any harm. He thought
that it would be unwise and unsafe to reject this measure ; and
when he used those terms he was far from wishing them to be
taken in the same light as some Hon. Members had done during
the course of the session, when other topics were brought
under their consideration. The danger to which he referred
was one of a very different kind. It was the danger of
destroying the physical energy, and the moral character of
those with respect to whom they were about to legislate.
(Hear, hear.) The number of children employed latterly in
factories had greatly increased, whilst the number of adults
had proportionably decreased. Those young persons were
growing up to become adult labourers in their turn, and they
would find that there was nor sufficient to absorb that number,
and the consequence would be that they must seek
to earn their livelihood from some other sources
of employment. Let the House then endeavour to secure
to such a population some other employment, which would be
preserving them as honest and industrious members of the
State. They would find, however, under the present factory
system, the education of the younger persons had been so much
neglected, and their physical powers so diminished, that they
were totally unfit to enter into any other employment than that
in which they were brought up. In their youth, there had
been a total neglect of the instilment of religious truths and
moral discipline, as regarding the persons employed in fac-
es ; and when they grew up, the necessary consequence was
that they were unfit for any industrious or honest employment.
The Legislature had, he believed, provided for the education of
the younger classes of operatives, namely, of those under 13
years of age, who now only worked six hours a day ; but were
they to be told that education had ceased at 13 years of age ?
( Hear, hear.) He appealed to those who heard him, many of
whom were fathers, whether education ceased, or had ap-
proached to anything like perfection, at 13 years of age? Was
not that a period when something else was springing up
besides the good seed which had been sown ? Was not
that the time when there was springing up seeds of a
nature opposed to religion. And did they not know that the
cultivation of the mind consisted not merely in what was
sown, but in what was to be eradicated ? and that period he
took to be the most important with regard to the cultivation of
the human mind. He alluded to the period between thirteen
and eighteen years of age. It was, therefore, safe and whole-
some to pass this Rill, and it was dangerous to i eject it.
They bad been told, in the course of the debate which had
lately occurred in that House, that the people of Lancashire
and the manufacturing interests were to govern Great Britain.
He admitted that those districts were the very life and heart of
the income ; and, taking the words of Hon. Members, he
would say that they should take care that the blood which
cowed through the veins of the people of that portion of the
kingdon, and their morals were preserved in a moral condition.
The Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home
Department had entirely misrepresented the opinions of the late
Sir Robert Peel on the factory question—(Cries of
" Hear, hear")—because, although the Bill passed in
his time was only an Eleven Hours' Bill, he was
yet in favour of a Ten Hours' Bill. He did not think
that the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth
was then unfriendly to the Eleven Hours' Bill. He had
then called the elder Sir Robert Peel as a witness in support of
his views. He 'ould now call another gentleman, and he be-
lieved his testimony would carry with them considerable weight,
as he and all his connexions were largely connected with manu-
factures, he meant the Member for Oldham.--( Hear, hear. )
That Hon. Gentleman said, that if his support of the present
measure would bring ruin upon the manufacturers, he would
be bringing ruin upon himself.—(Hear, hear.) He told them,
however, that it would not ruin his interests, nor any of those
who were engaged in manufacture. So far from any diminu-
tion taking place, there bad been an increase in cotton manufac-
ture since 1819, when a different system prevailed. He had
other witnesses to call of the same description, whose testimony
valuable. He had the evidence of the Hon. Member
7oars mostSund erland, who spoke the other night, and that of other
gentlemen ; he did not think that their evidence would
be counterbalanced. He had other witnesses also. He had
the operatives themselves. In the county which he represented
he felt it to be his duty to collect all the information he could
upon the subject, and the result of that
investigation had been
a most decided conviction on his part of the justice of the pre-
sent measure. It was said that the operatives had made no
strikes on the present question, and had exhibited no violent
demonstration in its favour. That he considered was a reason
why their demands should be acceded to. . 'fhe Bill
nfor
ylicrulnesltty.
to animals was met with great ridicule ; it was a
it. H,
but it was taken up by a gentleman who finally carried e
mentioned these circumstances, in order to show. how litt
tle
arguments of this kind, urged by the Right Hon. Barone,
should be attended to. The Hon. Member for Montrose said
that if they passed the Bill, the operatives would be the first to
desire that it should be repealed. Well, if that was so, they
would be happy to do so.--(" Hear, hear," from Mr. Ward.)
lie could not see the danger of such an experiment.—( Hear,
If he attairkshed the point that a very considerable benefit to
the publid laotsl.d accrue from the passing of the measure, he
was entitled go to those views o. t e
'4 h subject on which they
were all agreed, that if it were for the f,:sblic good t o effect. the
object he proposed, that it was their duty ai`. once to give it
their assent.—( Hear, hear.) They heard the other in
the speech of an Hon. Member, of the great increase
Bible
in the demand for the among the operatives;
why, then, he would be an advocate for giving them time to
read it. It was true they had been silent, and if the measure
was rejected he trusted that they would continue so.
Mr. WARD said he represented, to the best of his abilities,
the people of. Sheffield, but he would certainly admit that he
did not represent their opinionr upon the subject, because he
was not a convert to the doctrines contained in the preamble
of the measure, nor was he nor ould he ever be a demagogue.
The Noble Lord quoted Mr. Carlyle in defence of his prin-
ciples ; but he would remind him that he was treading on
dangerous ground, for he would adopt none of Carlyle's
opinions respecting corn, for on no subject had he written with
so much force and consistency. Heh would be most anxious to
be convinced that the opinion; he held on this subject
to express his sewe'
were those of the Noble Lord ; hewbutelinot so convinced,
and he felt it his duty
!Its. The Hon.
Member laid down that if they could noettlem
atnedfohr all they
should legislate for as many as they could, a
there was no injury done to any' interest they sh.oul.:astaoidneeif
concede the measure he sought. He perfectly coincided with
the expression, "your if is a great peacemaker," for if all the
things which the Hon. Gentleman assumed were true, why,
he (Mr. Ward) would say, pass the measure by all means.
That was one of the results of this experimentalising on the
question. He did not deny the right of Parliament to legis-
late for the protection of those who were unable to help
tbemselvee • but he objected to the interference with adult
labour. If they
.could show that women could do without em-
ployment, then, indeed, he would be one of the first to support
such a proposition. That, however, was not the case, for he
believed that the was not ii more helpless creature than a
poor woman, wit h erout friends to assist her ; and instead of Par-
liament interfering to prevent females from employing their
industry, it would be better, if possible, to interfere so as to
ensure her a proper amount of labour. An interference, such
as the present, would have the effect of reducing the female
working classes to the miserable pittance of slop labour. He
tO midered that they were already sufficiently trammeled by the
combinations of the working men, who shut them out from
many trades. How was it on the continent—how was it at
Rouen, and other places ? At those places it was well known
that the most respectable portion of the female population—
tie daughters of the most respectable middle classes, were
employed in factories. Well. then, there was nothing of a
Ten Hours' Bill known there. Labour was not restricted,
End the results were not injurious, but, on the contrary, the
toed effects were most apparent in the condition of that class
of persons. The Hon. Member for Oldham said that the Bill
'MB to be a Ten Hours' Bill, and no compromise. Ho said

that that would not reduce the amount of labour nor the re-
muneration, but, on the contrary, it would cause an advance
in some branches of female labour. He felt that this was
most contradictory, fur he could not see how the advance in
wages was to result, as labour was not increased—the quantity
of work would not be more: In another part of the
Honourable Member's speech, he was found stating
that if the diminution of the hours of labour should be
calculated to reduce wages, the working classes were quite
willing to take their share of the injury. The Hon. Member
would have it that the Bill was not calculated to reduce wages ;
but this was a most vaguescalculation, and he would prove it
by a reference to Adam Smith, who was a great authority on
such subjects. The Hon. Member then read an extract from
Adam Smith to prove the fallacy of the arguments of the Hon.
Member for Oldham. He begged to tell the supporters of
this measure that he was not one of those who was at all in-
clined to regard the reduction of a penny or even a halfpenny
per yard upon shirting stuffs as a matter to be slighted, but it
appeared to him that those who supported this Bill did not seem
to know what it was they were supporting—they did not seem
to understand the principles of the measure. The Noble Lord,
the Member for Newark, had found fault with the Right Hon.
Gentleman opposite for dealing with facts and figures in illus-
trating his case, and appeared to think it was what no man
ought to do ; but let him remind the House that in dealing
with this question they should bear in recollection that it in-
volved the welfare of mere than half a million of people, of a
vast amount of property, and of the interests of the manufactu-
rers; and let him then ask were they not to have a due regard
for facts and figures? He could tell them that if they
had not they would only involve themselves in irre-
trievable mischief by a bungling piece of legislation.
Another principle which an Hon. Member near him had
broached, was that capital and labour were antagonistic powers
—that was the doctrine of his Hon. Friend, but he begged to
tell him that before ...e. had enunciated it, he should have read
Adam Smith, in which he would find it laid down, that as
labour derived its remuneration from capital, the one was
necessary to the existence of the other, and here was an in-
stance of it—here, in this country, millions of capital were in-
vested in manufactures, for the production of which large
masses of the people were necessarily employed. This was a
fact and a principle, and it would be neither wise nor judicious
to interfere with it. Let care be taken how they were deprived
of their foreign market, for it was quite clear, that without the
foreign market they could not employ their people at home,
and even now it was only by producing a superior article, and
by having cheap labour, that they were enabled to rival foreign
manufactures.—(Hear, hear.) In fact, the attempt at
legislation on this subject only showed that those
who attempted it did not understand the question at all.—
( Hear, hear.) Hon. Members had stated authorities in sup-
port of their arguments, bnt he begged to tell them that if they
had no better support than those, they had no support at all ;
but, on the contrary, they were practically undermining the
best interests of the country.—( Hear, hear.) He begged to
tell the House that this Ten Hours' Bill was identical with the
system of the combinations and strikes so common in the manu-
facturing towns, and of which Hon. Members who supported
this Bill knew nothing whatever. By that system, at present
what he would call the tyrannical interference of the overseers
with the masters was such that the management of the con-
cerns was, for the present at least, in the hands of the men.
Some of their resolutions were most absurd, and were to this
effect—that a workman having three sons could only put one of
those to his trade, and could not put the other
two to any trade, so that the likelihood was,
that those two wandered into the agricultural districts,
and became outcasts or dissolute characters, while the
system of intimidation amongst the men was so great, that
threatening letters were as rife there as in Tipperary. Another
result of their system was, that where a man could earn from 51.
to 61. per week, by working every day, they now earned only
from 50s. to 60s. If such, then, was to be the result of this
pernicious system in one town, what world it be when it had
spread to all the others? In fact it would be better for all the
masters to combine for a universal free trade, now that the
great monopoly in food had been removed, than submit to this.
He could tell the House that they were too much in the habit
of under-rating the pernicious effects upon the minds of the
workmen, of many of the debates that bad taken place in that
House ; they little knew the amount of poison instilled into the
minds of those men by those speeches, and for which the em-
ployers would have to pay. The results of this system of com-
bination was to leave the town of Norwich in a state of desola-
tion and ruin, or if it still retained any vestiges of its former
prosperity, it was owing to the enterprise of a few; but he
would just give an instance of the feeling entertained in that
town towards the masters, and he should say it was one of the
most horrible exhibitions he had ever heard of.
A manufacturer having died, his body was
brought to Norwich to be interred—it was met by
a large body of the workmen, who, believing that he had in-
jured them, followed the funeral to the churchyard, uttering
the most foul imprecations. Now, he begged • to tell the
House that there was no remedy for this but time. The Bill
now before the House was certainly no remedy ; on the con
trary, it was a step backwards—a step in the wrong direction
—and he should give the second reading of it his most
strenuous opposition. He had heard it said that this question
involved one of importance to the present Government—that
this was a critical time to oppose it—that it was regarded as a
great national measure, and that it was probable the Govern-
ment might be defeated on it ; but he could only say, that if
they shou d be defeated, he would have the honour of sharing
in that defeat.—( Cheers. )
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK said that his Hon. Friend
who had just sat down had charged his friends around, that
in supporting the measure which was then before the House
they were making themselves parties to a great party move-
ment, and that the only interest entertained on this question
was by the Hon. Gentlemen on the benches near him. As
for the charge made against him by the Hon. Gentlemen op-
posite, he could refer them to the corn-law question, for he
thought that, during the debate on the second reading of the
Corn Bill, the opposite side of the House was en-
tirely deserted, and not one single gentleman could
be seen sitting on the Opposition benches. He had
however, a right to say for his Hon. Friends around him that
which he could not say for himself, that, far from being a
party question with them, the great majority of his friends
were supporters of a similar measure two years ago. In the
year 1844 his Hon. Friends around him, he might say almost
in a body, supported Lord Ashley's Ten Hours' Bill, and he
should like to know what right the Hon. Member for Sheffield
had to charge his friends with supporting the measure from
party views? It there were any party in the House, who had
a better title to claim for themselves an honest and disinterested
course on that subject, it was that composed by the Gentlemen
sitting near him. The Hon. Gentleman had said that it was
very easy to purchase cheap popularity by joining in this
humanity-cry ; and they retorted the charge, by asking who
had supported the cry for cheap bread, in the question
on the repeal of the corn-laws ? In this measure,
they were not joining in the humanity-cry, nor were
they risking all the great interests of the country.
If there was any question on which they might be said to have
proceeded with great caution it was on this question. Two
years ago they reduced the hours of labour, and what had been
the result of the experience of the two years which had since
elapsed? Had this destroyed the cotton trade? Had they
reduced the wages of the labourer? or had they diminished
the export trade ? Far from it. The cotton trade, both in
the export trade and the home consumption, had greatly in-
creased in the year 1845, and they had reason to believe so
had the wages of the operatives. Where was the danger or the
risk of a further extension of the principle? They were not
treading on untried ground, they had gene cautiously to work.
They had tried the reductien of the hours of labour to twelve
hours in 1844, and they now asked to reduce the hours in 1846
by five hours a week. There was another consideration mixed
up with this Bill, a great measure had just passed this House,
and should that measure become the law of the coun-
try, there was great reason to believe that a num-
ber of unskilled artisans from trades, amongst the
agricultural labourers, would be thrown into the market.
They must feel that in those trades, now the subject of legisla-
tion, some protection and some division of labour would be
required. He admitted that the same quantity of work could
not be done in ten hours as could be done in twelve hours ;
of that there could be no doubt; but, at the same time, he
did not admit that there would be one-sixth more work done
in twelve hours than could be done by the same hands in ten
hours, especially as they were dealing with persons under 18
years of age. The Hon. Member for Sheffield said that no
such regulations were made as regarded the agricultural inte-
rest, and the labourer engaged in agriculture—for the best of
ihadn the o n
rmar
senhe
dsou winteruufnnocedor
et
et ri
dmron etmeeo daplti
eighteen
n tenenyye e rdh,hasoi
ydnsue,
There
onlyrdamsrhsa all reasons, no such regulations were required. The agricul-
tural labourerr had twelve hours of labour, out of whic they
wanoaleuffntrfedeaanaegnltt
iehuhmherot
eyiohnt.uereo
srdns
lalThyfaimoobhreueo
wishedrni bsrr :etoniafdt
nkhl
ofaenfafbovsori t
nu;
gr andtfoh
re
wase
thh
labour
leas
aalelbms
oat eero
mtrtiesi
which full-grown men, by practice and custom, were entitled
to. Had they not legislated for the negroes in the West In-
dies ? Had they not limited the time of labour to nine hours?
And was the air of the West Indies more foetid or unhealthy
than the atmosphere of our manufactories, in which our childreny
laboured. It had been said in the course of this debate, by the
Hon. Member for Paisley, that by a reduction of the hours of
labour from twelve to ten hours, they would be reducing the
cotton manufacture, to the extent of the whole of the home
consumption of this country. That statement was not founded
in fact. The Hon. Gentleman had said that the cotter, manu-
facture of this country amounted to one-seventh of the goods
imported. If that were the case, the consumption of cotton in
this country would just exceed in value four millions sterling;
and was there any man in that country who believed that its
home consumption did not exceed four millions sterling? Twenty
years since Mr. Huskisson had said that he had taken the
greatest pains to ascertain the real has upon this point, and
the result of his inquiries was, that the home consumption of
the cotton in England in the year 1823 had amounted
to 32,000,000/. sterling. The export of cotton goods in the
year 1844 amounted to no more than 25,000,0001., including
cotton yarn. If that were so, and if the Hon. Gentleman the
Member for Glasgow, who ought to be well informed on the
subject, was right, that there were but 3i millions of cotton
goods used in this country, with their population, this would be
but half-a-crown a-head. In the Canadas, the consumption
was 7s. per head, and in our West Indian possessions, dividing
the value of the cotton by the population in 1840, it would appear
that the consumption in the West Indies amounted to I/. 6s.
per head. Was it not ridiculous to suppose that the popula-
tion of this empire, consumed but at the rate of half-a. crown a
head, while the West Indies consumed 11.65. ? When they saw
this measure supported by great men, the Hon. Members for
Oldham, and Southwark, it was rather too much to charge
them with supporting this measure to purchase cheap popu-
larity
by an humanity, cry. This measure would be for the
interest of the manufacturing classes, and the change would
not be made too suddenly. The children in the factories re-
quired more protection as the cotton trade increased, for then
it was that the millowners committed the greatest number of
operatives. The Bill would benefit that
oTences against their
portion of
had
df
notthe
had opera-
tives andmfoorßthpiEs rreHasosnaihde, strautldhegivbeopheisd support to
otuostehewßouillid.
Lord
and manufacturing labourers,.
n on this Bill two years since, to
allow a Member who re
opportunity of giving presentedagraenattl
of envy those who,
feeling
make a short trespassh
re-
garded with a considerable
could feel a com-
fortablei;poopnintioheir time. He owned that he
on the other side of the question, .
He confessed that he looked on both sides of the question,doubt,
assurance as to the truth of their own opinions.
He
whichever one he would side with he viewed with much
and he confessed much misgiving. Whatever course the
House might adopt, he looked with much misgiving to the
consequences of any rash er premature measure. He should
feel an inexpressible relief only to be cure that he was right,
but to be sure that be thought that he was right ; for on the
one hand he was ready to admit to some degree the representa-
tions put forward by the promoters and supporters of the Bill,
but he thought they took rather an exaggerated view of the
case. He did not believe that factory labour in the average
number of instances, though it might be wearing, could
be regarded as severe or injurious. He did not believe that
in the average condition of the factory labourers, though it
was not so good as if they had greater enjoyment—( Hear,
hear)—greater exercise, and time, there was so much effect
produced upon their health. Their real condition, and health
depended much more on the proprietor of the mill, and the
arrangements he might adopt with respect to the cleanliness and
ventilation than upon the hours of work. In all respects
the master of these mills had more intelligence than
they usually received credit for. As an instance he
referred them to many mercantile houses who were distinguished
for their efforts in the cause of the working classes. He was
sometimes ready to admit that the condition of the men,
women, and children, engaged in the manufacturing labour,
would derive great benefit from shorter hours of labour. Ho

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, bodies, and souls. So far he went along with th
promoters of this Bill ; but then in such a state of society al
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 cirs
cumstance of Spain, in order to relieve the red Indian, intro-
dneing the black negro.—( Hear, hear.) Thus it was they
often tound their benevolence defeat the very parties they were
endeavouring to serve. But on reference to the
present Bill, he conld 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, bear.) 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 cisestion, 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 the present Bill.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble
Lord who last addressed the House, who, lie (Lord 3lorpeth)
believed, was actuated by the mast 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 plate
on another question in the minds of others.---(Loud cheers.)
His Noble Friend bad 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 Morpeth) 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 corm 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 procrastination were
necessary on the present occasion, and that the state of the
Bill for the repeal of the corn-laws offered a consideration why
they should not press the question to so early a decision. They
should not only wait to ascertain the fate of that measure, but
they should.wait until they 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 reduction 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 determination, 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 hew 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 80 ; 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-
feriority 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 had
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
eey mwmtohi. of
otheret
aha t
presentcointhnfshoajytaruthsltgie.
immorality,
eaga.shtuewtgreatv e r
consideration,
t wasbe athought
seeke
oa
fts oo
the
ws
disturb
sbtt
rl
theaiect
they
r eha
rili eset whichhf
reoymw werezaphsoesy
eet
dht
thought
ignorant
uei ov theoe
nn.t
Members who had introduced the Bill, and the House, should
htieoncoaulgd net
reae ormrietdduecetlioanrintgh,anthaot on no
neho accuraoudnat could
y,orfixh
suspend their decision. But, whatever they might determine,
fixing sanc-
tion n
thee -
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. MACAULAY, in rising to support the Bill, said that
if, as complained of by the Hon. Member for Sheffield, any
unjust aspersions 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 be was fully convinced the interests of the manu-
facturers of this country—the interests of the whole of soeiety
—hut 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' subject a legi-
timate 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 mistake 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 would be
sure to find 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, and meddled with things that
were not 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 had been abandoned by the Guv2rnment to private spe-
culation.—( Hear, hear.) Another instance of an error
was the manner in which 'one 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
subject, 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
he 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 had restricted the number of cabs;
it was a rainy day, and there were few upon a stand ; in fact,
there was none ; and why was it not competent for any man to
bring out his own cab and charge what price be 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 Buceleuch 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
less 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 vs ere other interests
which demanded their attention—interests far higher than
those which were merely commercial—they were those
which concerned 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 things as lotteries gave encouragement to certain
habits of mind and body whic were incompatible with every
good quality of either happiness or health.—.(Cheers.) They
ought therefore, to interfere with the public health and the
would ask whether the public
lc morals were not concerned in
health and the publ
7 Did an one who examined
the time of labour • Y
public morals; and
.he
desirable for health,
hours a day labouring in a factory was. .
morals, or education. Were they
.not justified thin in inter-
feringhis own feelin.Y,s upon this matter, doubt whether twelve
Did any one doubt that
of premature and excessive labour .
Well, then, after twelve
leisure was necessary for education ? _
to prevent the poor from injuring themselves
.themselves by means
hours a day had been consumed in factory' abour, and the few
hours devoted to refreshment and rest, wl 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
rproveh injurious to public health.—( Hear, hear, and cheers. )
5 temporal inconvenience of these laws were so great that
they were not observed, and were finally allowed to fall into
disc etude. Were Hon. Gentlemen aware that the Long Par-