The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-14 00:00:00

trusted they would accept this as an earnest of the kindly
manner in which the working men of this country were to be
treated, and that by the adoption of it they would :educe that
class to look up to the House of Commons as the great pre-
server of their rights and privileges, and that they, by passing
this Bill, ',roved that they were prepared to listen to their prayers
and their wishes. Ho trusted, in conclusion, that the House
would unite in passing this measure, as it was calculated to
promote the comforts, elevate the condition, and promote the
social mad spiritual well-being of the industrious, the gallant,
end the long-suffering working people of this country.
Mr. TRELAWNEY said, they bad been told that the
manufacturing poor were in favour of this Bill, and that was
one great reason why it should receive the sanction of the
Legislature. He should like to know when Hon. Gentlemen
on the opposite benches first began to legislate in accordance
with the wishes of the working classes ? It was not very long
ago since the working classes presented a petition to the House
signed by upwards of 3,000,000 individuals, praying the House
to adopt universal suffrage, which the petitioners believed was
he great panacea for all the political evils under which they
aboured. Had that petition any weight upon those Hon.
Gentlemen who now adopted the argument, that because the
working people asked the House to pass this measure, it should
therefore be sanctioned, without any further delay ? He was
opposed to this Bill, because its immediate and direct object
was a most unjust interference with the rights of private pro-
perty. It would, in the first place, interfere with the
rights of the manufacturers who had invested large sums
in the erection of mills ; and irt the next place, it
would interfere with the rights of the working man, by cur-
tailing his only capital, his wages.—( Hear, hear.) Hon.
Gentlemen who had spoken in favour of this measure had
talked largely of humanity, and yet they did not think it very
inhumane to give their labourers 7s. per week. After some
further remarks, which were not distinctly heard in the re-
porters' gallery, the Hon. Member concluded by stating that
he felt hound to give the measure his most decided opposition.
Sir R. H. INGLIS wished to allude to a statement which
had been made by the Hon. Member who had just sat down
in the opening part of his address. The Hon. Member had
spoken about a petition signed by 3,000,00 of the working-
classes, but the House must bear in mind that
there was a great difference between the measure for which
they sought and the object contemplated by this Bill.
Who was the person who first advanced a Ten Hours' Bill?
It was the late Sir Robert Peel, but the Right Hon. Baronet,
the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in happy
forgetfulness, stated that the late Sir Robert Peel did not sue-
port such a Bill. But the Right lion. Baronet (the late Sir
Robert Peel), on the sth of June, 1815, stated " that the
duration of their labour should be limited to twelve hours and I
a-half per diem, including the time for education and meals,
which would be ten hours of laborious; emplot ment."—( Hear,
hear.) Arid there was no man who attained a higher cha-
racter for consistency, and an earnest desire for the welfare of
manufacturers themselves than the late Sir Robert Peel. And
who was the individual who brought forward the Bill now.
It was brought in by an individual, of 'whom it had been said
in that House, that he worked up one-hundredth part of all the
cotton imported into this country (Mr. Fielden). Thus they
had not the enthusiasm of the last generation in favour of the
Bill, but eminent manufacturers and others who were solely
the example. It might be said, why did they not trust to
the benevolence of individuals ; but they should not leave it to
the conscience of masters, but frame a general law. His Right
Hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department had
said that they were wrong in stating that the late Sir Robert
Peel ever contemplated, or introduced any measure to reduce
the hours of labour within the limit of twelve hours. On a
former division on this subject, the House had virtually affirmed
the principle of a reduction within the limits of twelve hours,
by declaring that the clause, containing the wordy twelve
hours, should not remain part of the Bill. The Bill was,
therefore, brought forward at present in order to obtain a re-
daction to ten hours—which the House, by its former decision,
had virtually sanctioned.
Sir J. GRAHAM said, that when he made the suggestion
with respect to Sir R. Peel, the Hon. Member for Oldham,
came to him with the Bill proposed by the late Sir R. Peel on the
subject, and also a speech of his. He did not intend to deny
that Sir R. Peel did contemplate a reduction within the limits
of twelve hours, but such a measure was not proposed. With
respect to the statement of the Right Hon. Baronet, that the
House had virtually sanctioned the principle, he would remem-
ber that on the 18th of March, 1844, a Bill for the limita-
tion of labour was then under discussion, and to that Bill
Lord Ashley proposed an amendment, that the time in which
the mills should not work, should not be from six in the morn-
ing to eight at night as propcsea in the Bill, but from six in
the morning to six at night. That amendment was carried by
a very small majority, but on a subsequent division of the
House on the same subject, the question was put whether the
period of twelve hours should be allowed, and it was negatived.
The question was then put, whether the period of labour
should be ten hours, and that was also negatived, so that the
House could not have virtually affirmed any period within the
twelve hours.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD intended very briefly to address the
House, and he believed that if ever there was unanimity on any
public question, that unanimity existed in the borough of
Rochdale. He (Mr. S. Crawford) had presented a petition,
signed by upwards of 9,000 inhabitants ; he had also presented
a petition from a public meeting, signed by the high constable.
He had also presented a petition, signed by upwards of 7,000
of the inhabitants of Belfast. He was the last man in the
world to interfere with the liberty of any subject, but he was
compelled to do so on this occasion. He would assert that the
operatives had no opportunity of choosing their hours of work.
If the manufacturers required the females and children of the
operatives to work that number of hours, what protection had
they? The average of life in Lancashire, compared with the
general towns of England, was nineteen years shorter than the
general average. They had the evidence to show that, after
nearly twelve years experience of the Factory Act, that in
respect to children there could be no substantial improvement
in a class of people who were engaged for fourteen hours
and a half a day in active exertion. These statements made a
strong ground for the result at which he wished the House to
arrive. He would not insist on the argument, that an equal
quantity of work could be done in a small quantity of hours as
in a large, but he would contend that the price of labour de-
pended on supply and demand, and not on the hours in which
artisans were employed. He was one of those that had con-
tended that the people should be protected against the tyranny
of the proprietors of the land, and he was ready to say now,
that the people should be likewise protected against the pro-
prietors of money.—( Hear, hear.) He maintained that the
great evil of the present day was, that there was too great an
accumulation of money in the hands of a few, to the injury of
the many.—( Hear, hear.) He contended that it was neces-
sary to protect the labouring classes from the evil results of that
state of things; the working people were absolutely the slaves of
their employers.
Mr. DUNCAN said he had always opposed, and was still
determined to oppose this measure. In his opinion, it would
tend to the utter ruin of the trade of this country. He had
been at some pains to arrive at the truth of the matter, and he
had come to the conclusion that this Bill, which would inter•
fere most seriously with the rights of private property, was a
most unjust one. But for occupying the time of the House,
he would quote the opinions of many persons, well qualified to
judge, that any legislative interference with the hours of labour
was wholly uncalled for.—( Hear.)
Sir G. GREY said, before he gave his vote in favour of the
Bill, he wished to state that he should do so with less confidence
than when he voted fcr the measure of Lord Ashley in 18.14.
Benevolent persons, in their anxiety for the welfare of the in-
dustrious classes, were apt to overlook the commercial interests
of the country, and that if they injured those classes they would
injure the operatives themselves.—( Hear.) These considera-
tions were frequently lost sight of in the discussion of questions
relating to the moral and social condition of the industrious
classes ; but the arguments used against the Bill were the same
as those urged against the present law before it was proposed.
—( Hear, hear.) But from the reports of the inspectors of
factories, it appeared that the anticipations formed with respect
to the inefficiency of the present law had been realised. The
arguments against this Bill were to the effect that there ought
to be no interference with the rights of labour; but that
was not the question then before them, as the question of
interference had been settled, but it was this, whether they
could say they had advanced to the precise limit at which they
should either stop or proceed ; and whether, by proceeding
further, they would, or would not, injure the commercial in-
terests of the country. His opinion was, that they ought not
to proceed further than the part they had now attained, until
they had further experience that a step beyond that limit
might be safely taken. But he thought with other Hon. Mem-
bers, that it would be better that the regulation of the hours of
labour should be effected by mutual arrangement between the
employer and the employed—(Cheers)—and he thought, if
they consulted the manufacturers, an arrangement might be
some to which would be satisfactory to both.—(Hear, hear.)
tie thought the natural tendency of the measure would be to
reduce wages; but this would be made up by the increased
vigour which the labouring classes would be enabled to throw
into their work in consequence of working short time. They
mould work with more spirit, and, consequently, accomplish
more than if they were working long hours. With those feel-
ings, he should support the Bill.
Mr. B' OTHER TON rose amidst loud cries for a division.
He considered that a reduction in the hours of labour ought
not to be arranged between the masters and their workpeople.
The Hon. Member was here interrupted by loud expressions
of impatience on the part of the House. He declared, some-
what emphatically, that if these interruptions were continued,
he should move the adjournment of the House. It had been
said that if they interfered with the labour of the factory
trade they would have to interfere with every other kind of
labour. He denied this. As well might they say that if they
took off one tax they would have to remove all taxes. He
contended that the interference which had taken place had been
attended with the most beneficial results. On the score of
humanity it was politic to interfere for the purpose of limiting
the hours of labour. It was said that if they reduced the hours
of labour they must reduce the amount of manufactures pro_
Awed in this country. All experience was against this
p- po-
sit ion , for whilst they had been reducing the hours, -the
amount of manufactures produced had increased. For these
reasons, and believing that the Bill would tend to ameliorate
the condition of the working-classes, he should give the mea-
sure his warmest support.
Mr. CA RDWELL did not contend for an abstract principle
of non-interference with labour. In the interference which had
already taken place they had been guided by general practice
with respect to the length of the hours of labour. That was the
principle of the interference which had hitherto taken place,
and it was that principle upon which the Government in-
tended to continue to act with respect to this subject. While
on the continent the hours of labour had ranged from seventy-
nine bouts a-week to ninety-two hours, they had limited the
hours of labour in this country to sixty-nine hours a week. To
place a less limit now would be to incur a great and
imminent rick. Were they aware of the interests they were
about to jeopardise ? Did they consider that 800,000 of the
population were affected by this measure, and were they aware
that one-half of our total exports were produced by one
branch of those operatives ? the Hon. Gentleman proceeded
to notice the occasions on which legislative interference with
respect to the hours of labour had taken place, and to enume-
rate the various Acts which had been sanctioned by the Legis-
lature for the purpose of limiting the hours of labour ; and he
contended that the interference had proceeded to the utmost
limit consistent with safety, and beyond which it would be dan-
gerous to go.
This Bill would have the practical effect of pre-
venting the working man benefiting by his own industry. It
must have the effect of reducing wages. It would cut off one-
sixth of the manufacturing productive power of the country,
and the effect of that would be most disastrous to the operative
population, and the country generally.
Mr. WARD, amidst much confusion, moved that the de-
bate be adjourned.
3lr. BANKES also moved that the debate be adjourned,
intimating his intention to follow that up by moving that the
debate be resumed on Monday next. He attributed their not
coming to a division at once to the manoeuvres of the Minis-
terial Members.

After a scene of much confusion,
Sir R. PEEL said it was of the utmost importance that the
tariff should be proceeded with on Monday.
Mr. BANKE. S persisted in his motion, and a noisy dis-
cussion ensued, the midst of which the clock struck six, and
the House was adjourned, without, as we could understand, any
day being fixed for resuming the debate.

ST. JAMES'SCLERKENWELL.—The election of five
guardians for St. James's district, and two for St. John's, has excited
considerable interest, each of the three parties in the parish having
issued lists of candidates. After three days' hard polling, the election
closed yesterday aftfirnoon, when _Messrs. Schollield, Terry, t9hayler,
Newell, and Lovell, were declared duly elected for St. James's, and
Messrs. Wakeling and Garrett for St. John's. A vote of thanks to
the chairman (Mr. Meats) fer his impartial conduct in the chair was
proposed by Mr, ilwale, seconded by Mr, Fetch, and carried unani-
maguey.