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

liament abolished Easter, Whitsuntide, and the Christmas
holidays, but in lieu of these they provided an extra holiday
once during the month for the recreation of the people. Then
again, under the French Revolution, they had holidays set
apart of a curious nature, when the Sabbath observances arid
saints' days were abolished. It was not necessary to go into
vote,
a y for
e ll
ore a would
n
,
any religious argument with respect to the observance of the
Sabbath.
the speech of his Hon. Friend which would not be turned into
argument
o , w holidayhe whether r a
they Sunday.
nwdoauyl.d openfie
shopha
re-
motest doubt, thatall the shopkeepers of Londdon owere
ntthiteutto
the
Sun-
day, they would decide by a majority of 10,000 in theen a Suna a fflrm:
tire. They troubled themselves very much about the practical
effect of their legislation, but they knew that in most cases its
effect was obsolete. The law with respect to the observance
of the Sabbath was, however, beneficial in its effects, as it
operated in promoting the good morals and health of the com-
munity. The opponents of the measure said that it was im-
possible to taise an hour from the time of labour without di-
minishing p:oduetion, and that in consequence the con-
dition of the labourer would he lowered. He thought
that this argument was fully deserving the most attentivete
consideration. They had already, however, legislated on h
childrenls
sutbe jescttr,
Rua
0:
hdd
ee
rrtthepei
eight
he
tl ys hadsaid
, tadr9i shortenedonf
at
gh ee the
ou debatesg hourshtnotti,tt
root
yf
h labour.eyeeami sp
,a.gyoe Thedth
in
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-
duction had not been less in consequence of reduced hours of
labour. Suppose in 1546, the time of the reformation and a ,
period of great religious changes, some person had proposed the
abolition of Sunday observance, and the fifty years of industry
which would be gained was thrown into the scale, would the
people of England be richer now ? No ; his firm belief was
they would be poorer. Do not let them forget what a curious
machine man is, and how fearfully and wonderfully he is made.
The day of rest recurring every week elevated the whole man
both morally and physically, and this elevation told beneficially
on the commercial prosperity of the character. His Hon.
Friend had quoted Adam Smith, but in the very first chapter of
that work the labour of men was alluded to as a thing requiring
great care that it was not carried to too great an extent.
Could they doubt, then, that if time were given for amuse-
ment and education, similar instances of men of talent would
rise up from the op: ratives of the country ? While, if this
time were not given—if no opportunity were allowed for im-
proving the intellectual ingenuity of the operative portion of
the community—would not men of the class and character he
had mentioned go down to the grave unknown and u, dis-
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 va'uable, 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 arm
favourably situated parts of the world, while, on the other
hand, they saw the most sterile land, under the most inclement
sun, where there existed the greatest amount of industry, the
greatest amount of wealth, and the greatest amount of happi-
ness. It was the Scotchman that made Scotland, and the
Dutchman that made Holland, and the advantages of those
countries could not be traced to the fertility of th 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 wildernesse, 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 cut 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 the
greatest amount of moral and intellectual culture prevailed;
while they found the greatest amount of wretchedness and misery
where there existed physical, moral, and intellectual degene-
racy. The wealth of a country could never be diminished by
ample opportunity being afforded to the peobpleeentfhodrles.dtruocnagti.o_n
and amusement. It was true the operations of the mechanical
machine were suspended on a Sunday in this country, but it
must be remembered that the great machine of all—the mind
of man, was still at work. The operative spent the day in
winding up his concerns of the past and preparing himself for
the coming week, and on the following Monday he returned to
his labour with renewed energy, and renewed vigour.—
( Cheers.) He for one believed then that the wealth of this
country would not be diminished, or its commercial aspect
changed by improving the physical, moral, and intellectual
culture of the people, nor was he alarmed at any anticipated
competition with nations whose labourers worked seventeen
hours a day ; for in these crantries 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-
htoahnesdaißill.said
he
that
agreed
gtßl
t,. theeuhetedy with
ou gqhut
hisets 0-
;11
et
ihpel
ey oughtitself, aeuotifoutihsetepprst
tr
ntti,
Noble
,000 r ndfvbeoel reoesfiFo:di:eetaighnnnriddes
hewmis
shwo
aoaotfstpaseri
arntopinion,
anotherob,enietbeside
dpfotephrr
eotvmhhim,eeod matter,ssotawfke
because he conceivefl—indeed there could not be a doubt about
it—that if they nude 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, proepeded
cautiously. He applied the dose in small quantities,
and watched its operation ; and, in his opinion, this was
the course which they themselves had to adopt.—( Cheers.)
The present appeared to him to be the most favourable time
for making the change, for in this session they would be cor-
recting two great deficiencies of the Legislature. They had
done that which they ought nut to have done, and left undone
that which they ought to have done—they had afforded relief
so those who ought not to have been relieved, and they had
left unrelieved those o ho 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
tbat protection which it was their duty to Five.—(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 HANMER said, that as regarded this question,
they were obliged step by step to feel their way, and they must
all feel that they were treading on very delicate ground. They
had already interfered with factory labour, as had been ad-
mitted by the Right Hon. Gentleman himself. Formerly they
might work young persons fifteen hours a day; now, however,
they could not work them more than twelve hours a day.—
( Hear, hear.) That was a very considerable reduction, and
he was very far from saying that he should not like to see that
principle carried out still further; but great difficulties lay in
the way of the Legislature on this subject. When they first
proposed to interfere with this kind of labour, the sort of in-
terference proposed was such as to induce even its very advo-
cates to shrink from the measure ; even the Hon. Member for
Finsbury himself, although he voted for its principle, frankly
declared that he could not vote for its details. He did not
believe that the question to be decided at this moment was
that of interference, but of time and degree. He had heard
many Hon. Gentlemen say that it might be very desirable that
arrangements should be made between masters 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
clauses that they should restrict the hours of labour to ten hours
per day. He believed that the measures which had been sent
up by that House to the other House of Parliament a few 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 questions which might
tend to disturb the present relations between the employer and
the employed, upon the question of the value of labour. And
with regard to this question, he thought that considerable stress
ought to be laid upon the sort of mills in which the manufac-
turing classes were now employed. If they disturbed the pre-
sent state of things in the manufacturing districts, they might
compel manufacturers to construct such mills as were constructed
some years ago. He had seen himself a very great difference
as to the building of mills in the present, compared with former
years. Mills that were built now-a-days were well built, filled
with the best machines, and well ventilated. The old mills
were ouite 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 yeaanrds ahgeo.didH:inelciedronefulooystrebrEweetlodrieuainvelde,t
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
that
did
a nott he
e conditionwas
believeao s fhtbetter
t tet thater
wordingi
discharging tw ocui
AaGldnse
ineh.fft
hIl eesecmdthuaoi
duty
hoped
ettdoohbettjhhe
that
tstf
those
ohlnfaofehrfeelewllrwehy
omast
eoi nmgetnht the
bene-
fit the measure was introduced by voting against it than giving
aoifnstthe
it his support.
in fact, haerghnamd argument as
in
Mr. W A K L E Y amidst loownu
which
itsi cries t
attention
ti'
jot
unD,FtifovorirdNev,hda divide,"
otheri d e ,' ' said,pur.
weakusin e sasg
that he was delighted with the argumentative and conclusive
the strop
pardon him for trespassing
Gentleman's e lvered.—
pnh(aspeech
Edin-
burgh.—(
. delivered.—
(Hear,
sjherfe (fel
ae mostteal irhrgrdeei 3 ai
ran: t Rightable
ymbwhTt rhl eaeeh i as
nel
Ig.
constitutednmost
i s.
speechr t
Hon.ci conclusive,
i
.for
tl the
a r, purposeh of T protectingat
w a s the
Would he be told that the infants of England
, whom they had the
power of protecting, were to be left to the mercyf
n
oppression ? Why every Act they passed was an iavarice and
with the
to be said that t rights of some class er other of
the community.
W
unity.
he legislature must protect trade, and
thatweak infants employed in the manufactories of this
must be left unprotected ? Why, durin_
g the last forty country
under the system of protection the manufactures of this years,
try had been continually increasing—( Loud laughter coun -
cheering from the protectionists)—and he confessed it . and
boldly and chillingly upon his ear, when he heard it did strike
the Right
Hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the II
b. u
ment, the other night, in the debate on this s Home Depart-
that the English labourer was now to enter
into
subject, announce
arena of
ect, announce
toil without armour, and iiia. naked state. Vas
that, with free trade in commerce, no
rot a he to be told
protection was to be
allowed to the labouring classes of this country. to be so, he was very sorry that he voted for
thatlf that were
(Protectionist cheers)—for it would give him the greatest
naeasure—
he had felt a long time. But he believed that themeasure eatest pain
which he alluded was calculated to improve the condition
to
working classes of this country. The
Hon. and Learned
Ho of the
Member for Doi setshire (Mr. Bankes), in the
course
debate, seemed to take a very great interest in the of this
welfare of
the manfacturing population of this country; he thanked the
Hon. and Learned Member for his good feelings
that class of the people, but he hoped the Hontowards
and Learned Member would pardon him if he ventured out
oraebxle
press a hope that l• e would extend his benevolent intentions and feelings towards the agricultural labourers of his own
' bourhoocl.—( Hear, hear.) He could not, in his opinion, exe-
cute a more agreeable duty than that of improving the condition
of his fellow man.—(Hear, hear.) 11
..tit, the Hon. Member
for Sheffield had delivered to the House a pretty lecture that
evening. That lecture was, in his (Mr. Wakley's) opinion,
i 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. Wakley's) opinicns on this question, for he had stated
that because certain of his constituents of the labouring classes
required the Bill, he would be compelled to give it his support.
Now he (Mr. Wakley) could assure the Honourable Member
that he was not so much troubled by his constituents as
the gentleman himself.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.)
The Hon. Member for Sheffield stated that he had learned
more from the working classes of Sheffield than he had learned
during all the period which he had sat in the House. He
thought the Hon. Member took an extraordinary mode of
showing the knowledge which he had thus obtained.—( Hear,
hear.) He stated that he hadforead the pamphlet written by
his Hon. Friend the Member r Oldham over and over again,
but was not able to understand it in the least. The Hon.
Member for Oldham wasanswerable for that. He did not
undertake when he wrote notbts pamphletd to give the Hon. Mem-
ber the faculty of understanding.—(Cheers
The Hon. Member forSheffieldg.—(Cheers and laughter.)
with pleasure to the also stated, that he had lis-
tenedspeeches which had been made by
Hon. Members on his side of the House, but could not for the
life of him enderstand them. He (Mr. Wakley) was at a lass
to know what sort of a mind that which could listen to an
argument with pleasure, but which was
heisd not for the life of it un-
derstand it.—( Cheers and laughter.) And then his Hon.
Friend the Member for Sheffield tru ned round to the Hon.
Member for Oldham and his supporters,
ment merely popularity-hunting' andstated
upon such a subject could be easily obtained; and concluded popularity
is
observations to his Hou. Friend (Mr. Fielden) by say
ing that there was nothing which he (Mr. Ward) denounced
so much as amateur legislation. Now, it struck him, that
he (Mr. Ward) was the amateur legislator. The Hon. Mem-
ber for Oldham was an amateur, who for a period of fifty
years had been engaged in spinning, and who gave employ-
ment to two or three millions of hands—( Laughter, occa-
sioned by the mistake with reference to the nmuber of hands
employed by the Hon, Member for Oldham.) At that mo-
ment ho ( 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 lion. Member for Sheffield had
called an amateur legislator. It seems a most extraordinary
course for the lion. 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. " Ala l" said his lion.
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 Fee which will weigh the lightest.—(Laughter.)
His Hon. Friend had further stated in his pamphlet that,
during the forty years which they had been interfering, an in-
crease had taken place in the consumption of cotton goods
five-fold, and challenged the accuracy of his statement; and that
wages were as high as the present time. Well, then, had
they arrived precisely at that point where they should stop ?
had they just discovered the point of perfection ? Would the
House refuse to interfere in the protection of infantine life?
Were Hon. Members who opposed the Bill prepared to repeal
the existing law? No. Then let them go on with their
righteous interference till they had given an efficient protec-
tion to these wretched and helpless beings. They had the
labouring classes themselves, in Yorkshire, and, indeed, in
all parts of the kingdom, praying for the Bill. Great weeping
and wailing would tbeir be in the West Division of Yorkshire
when the speech was read there which the Noble Lord the
Member for the West Riding bad 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 population. From the report of Mr.
Chadwick, it appeared that in the whole of England and Wales,
out of a population of one thousand, one hundred and forty-five
had died at the age of seventy, while in Manchester out of the
same population but sixty persons arrived at the age of seventy.
Out of 4,629 deaths which occurred in the labouring classes at
Manchester in the year 1840, it appeared that 2,649 had died
under the age of five years. From five to ten Yeats of age the
proportion of deaths had been as one to twenty-two. From the
ages of 10 to 15 the proportion had been one to forty, and
above the age of fifteen years it was as one to thirty-five. The
average age of deaths in Manchester among the labouring
classes was seventeen years, while in Rutlandshire the average
was thirty-eight years.—( Cheers.) The Hon. Member for
Edinburgh particularly dwelt upon the circumstance that there
were many and higher considerations than those of commercial
prosperity. He (Mr. Wakley) thought if there were not they
might soon cease their duty. There was another point
which he would not at that late period of the night press
upon the attention of the House. It was the dreadful effect
which they were producing upon the manufacturing population
by withdrawing from the homes of the operatives the natural
protectors of their :children—their wives ; and by not inter-
fering with this case they made a dreary and desolate place of
the poor man's home when they took from that home his wife,
the natural protector of his home. After his work was over,
the poor man, instead of going horns and finding there a
smiling wife to receive him in a cheerful and comfortable
home, to spread before him a well-laid board, he takes with
him to his home his weary and exhausted partner, and in a
state of wretched debility they retire to rest, and, in the
morning, when they leave for their accustomed toil and drud-
gery, their children are left at home to the protec-
tion of some wretched and withered harridan.—( Hear. )
By pursuing a system of non-interference, they were striking at
the very root of all society in the country. Its effects were
frightful. Would the House believe it, that out of every 4,600
individuals, 2,400 died yearly ; and could any worse misfortune
happen to a family than the death of its mother ?—( Hear,
hear.) He had no desire to create an unpleasant feeling in
the minds of any 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 socity 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 he 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
Csmmitte 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 feeelings 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, Uiat the present
was a most important subject; and it was because be had that
opinion that he had ventured to offer some few observations to
the House, for the purpose of setting it right with regard to
some statements made to it. He must say that he had listened
to the speech of the Hon. Member for Edinburgh with consi-
derable astonishment—( Hear, hear)—And he never had heard
a Member get up to address the House upon any subject, and
keep so far wide of it.—(Cries of " Oh, oh.") They had
ancient and mciern history quoted to them ; they had religious
considerations urged upon them—(Oh, oh)—they had alecture
on the institution of the Sabbath ; they bad heard free trade
caricatured as they might expect it to be by a man who had
not dared to open his mouth during the three months it had
been under discussion.—(Cheers.) And with respect to the
Sabbath, it was a day en which people did not ordinarily work.
There was no mill in any part cf the world which worked on a
Sabbath; but because people did not work upon the Sabbath,
it did not satisfactorily follow that a Ten Hours' Bill was
requisite. The question before the House was whether they
thought it advisable to limit the hours of labour? But they
should recollect that they could only limit it in one country,
and it was a matter of deep concern what would be the
amount of competition which they would meet with in other
countries. The Hors. Member for Edinburgh did allude to
what he considered 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 mortalities
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 would 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 prevent was
532,000,0001b5. of cotton, but by the proposed reduction in
the hours of labour, the quantity would be reduced
76,000,0001bs—the whole quantity manufactured in this
country at the close of the late war. Was there a Member of
that House, who would vote for the passing of a measure
which would do away with this annual consumption? It was
said by the Right Hon. Member for Edinburgh, and other
Hon. Members in that House, that experiments had been
made in the reduction of the hours of labour,
bnt that no injury had resulted.—( Hear, hear.)
The 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 before. 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-
dict with the greatest confidence. He could assure the House
that there were many establishments paying more wages now
than they had for years before, and at the same time they were
receiving not a fatthing of profit.—(" Oh, oh," from
Colonel Sibthorp.) The Honourable and Gallant Mem-
ber for Lincoln was well acquainted with the
the spinning trade ; the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman had
many things to be thankful for, and this acquisition amongst all
the rest.—(Laughter, during which the Hon. and Gallant
Colonel rose, and bowed most gracefully.) If was said tilt
many of those in the cotton spinning trade had made large for-
tunes; he hoped it was not a crime for a 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 S re-
striction as that proposed must be all the more felt by the We
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 he 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 hours labour 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 net 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.)
Hear. )
If it was true, as the Hon. Member for Oldham had said,
that this plan would not be less productive, why did not he try
it? That Hon. Member he (Mr. Bright) well knew exported
his goods to all parts of the world; but he need not tell the
Hon. Member that at present America was able to inset the
English manufacturers with the very same goods on the same
counter. No doubt the Nible Lord (the Member for Newark)
said a good many things which he could not help admiring; he
said that he would like to see the men play at crieket, and in-
dulge in other recreations. Why, so should he; but let him
ask any man 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 the House that workmen liked money as well as
their masters, and would do their best to earn it; and the
House might rest assured that the workmen would consider
this House their greatest enemies, if they tied one of their
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
fixbe
a to
limit con
was the man for compromise. But the result of all this would
thatvtionctbeetihieouwraorokfmlaebnoorwithout
the House hadthtco
r
being able
with the amount of wages, and if they went on this way, it
might be that the men would eerfetroe
eventually look for eight hours,
and perhaps for six. He maint • ained that if a voluntary arrange-
ment, as far as such an arrangement
neces-
sary, before they were five yeasolde was
possible,
was
where. What was the reason of
thethey would have it every-
Manchester on the Saturday afternoonclosing of the shops in
efforts on both sides, the half holiday After some strenuous
well and as scrupulously observed as heonwhafurday became as
holiday on the
Sabbath. The early closing of shops, insteaodeotden or eleven
o'clock, was going on in many towns in this kingdom, it was,
therefore, desirable that some arrangement should be come co
Let their decision on this subject be once and for ever,
and tloe.t
them not indulge in any such uncertain speculation. It was
merely legislation for persons above thirteen years of age,
but let them avoid any interference, and they would find an
entirely different channel for the endeavours of the working
classes The manufacturer had become store civilised during
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 cops it de corps amongst all the people that would effec-
tually resist such an attempt. He had said that, two years
since, be advocated the same side that he did at present, anal
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 scary
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 asurd 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 unprovided for. He
would tell the Hon. Member that he opposed the Ten Hours'
Bill, and he would do it with the conviction that the present
measure was founded on a principle on which the House ought
not to legislate. Free trade would soon pass, and it was not
wrong to suppose that the people would increase in intelligence
and wealth—for their was wealth amongst the poorer classes.
The manufacturers would become more kindly and gentle to
their labourers, and they would both feel the conviction that
they could gain by a voluntary arrangement all they could gain
by legislation. Such a state of things would materially benefit
trade and the condition of the labourers of all classes.

Mr. B. DENISON hoped that the House would permit him
to say a few words on this subject, on which the House had
legislated on various occasions. He had thought it to be its
duty to interfere, and the question then before it was, whether
they should proceed in their legislation, or whether they should
not go one step further ? The proposition was to go into Com-
mittee to take into consideration whether the hours of labour
of children between the ages of thirteen and eighteen
years of age should or should not be shortened? The case
had been too much argued, and the Hon. Member 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 beshortened 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 be thought it would be much .too large a step in
the reduction of the hours of labour which the mannfacturing
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 eaid, 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. i
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 Hon. Gentleman
has made a great impression on the House; in beautiful lan-
guage he has enforced the argument to which I have referred.
He had gone among the hackney cabs, in order to satisfy every
Hon. Member who might not have been previously convinced
of the necessity of the Legislature to interfere. He has re-
ferred to draining and sanatory regulations sanctioned, as evi-
dence in support of interfering in the present case. The over
loading of omnibuses and hackney cabs, the regulations for
draining have all been brought forward by the Right Hon.
Gentleman in order to strengthen his case; and, as if these
were not enough, in order that there may not be a loop-hole
for escape, he has told us that if a young boy of thirteen
years of age was to sign away his inheritance, that the Legis-
lature would step in and interfere. The whole of that part of
the Hon. Gentleman's argument I admit to be perfectly con-
clusive ; but is it politic to impose a tax indirectly to prevent
him from employing his labourer more than ten hours a day?
Let me establish the weakness of the position which the Right
Hon. Gentleman has taken by reminding him of what
is the state of the law at present. It is too
late to contest the principle now, though I will admit that ,
thirty years ago, I took an active part in co-operating with
one for whose character and whose memory I must ever en-
tertain the deepest respect, in violating the principle of free
trade.—', Hear, hear.) But what is the state of legislation upon
this subjec ?. No child under eight years can be employed in
a factory at all. No child, under eighteen years of age, can
work by night. No female can work by night at all. 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 en 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
a that
considerations ought not to determine ou.r_poalifynsi
res-
pect. I admit that there are higher. com
of a commercial character. I admit that considerations
principle°t han
theset
at
ought to guide us in the consideration of the question is,
whether or no the further restrictions in the
hours of labour, will promote the health—will
promote the morality, or be conducive to the interests of the
working classes. I admit that these great considerations are
far superior to the mere commercial question. The Right
Hon. Gentleman said he would not interfere with adult labour,
he was unwilling to prevent the adult whose capital was his
tnocf
commit
ma
point
mind,
towards
c connected
nn fromect
ehimd
theusing
it
hi
Ipi onrbgo op uhe rri
s,—adhni
esdcwrweohtuiolodnwna
oos
inths insultohowefnthr ehosetuargil ctihti -t.
Now what are we about to do ? Although the Right Hon.
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
fiftetn per cent. upon the labour of the operative. You are
going to tell him Chat 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 who 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
adaythat
?
No, there were no restrictions then, and I for one. believe,canse
if you wish to preserve the ingenuity of the worlring I
you wish
s—
employ your time and your labour as please—ifyotu
liberty to do so. We
to work fourteen hours a day, you areofa
the non-restrictive sys-
temhave all experienced the advantages
ought to consult the wishes
it is said, however, that
; wthere be a doubt that it is their
of the working classesc;annosre
can there
to them the same amount of
impression thati you
in thue event of a reduction of the hours of labour
vemenerat.orli
at resent. Why, Mr. Greg proposed to his
:„ they receive p
should
work his machinery for eleven
• that they
men and he would pay them at the rate of eleven
hours, . hours a day, the proposition was unanimously
and a hat. men, who insisted upon working twelve hours
rejected by ti. -dive hours' pay. In my opinion it would be
and receiving • to a legislative enactment if an amicable
infinitely preferabh. the masters and men could be come to in
arrangement bet went. o the experiment was made by men
this matter. Well, the. iurs, but they found they
only turned
in favour of the eleven I. work, and they gave the men
e prOpOrollgt° (Plant"