The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-21 00:00:00

And the

the part of the Surrey Canal Company, occupied them for a
considerable time. This line crosses the canal, and it is on account
of the injury that will thereby be done to the Company that they
petition. The Bermondsey, Rotherhithe, and Deptford Road Trustees
also petitioned against the Bill, and the witness was cross-examined
by Mr POWEB, on their behalf.
Mr. Gibson, the lessee of the Dadmans Docks, which will be one
of the termini of the proposed line, was then called. He proved that
he had agreed to transfer his lease (for 99 years) to the London and
Croydon Railway. The rent they were to pay was 1,5001. per annum,
but if they bought it, they were to pay 9,9001. for it.
Cross-examined by Mr. PowEß—He himself was to pay 1,0001. per
annum as rent, to Mr. Evlyn, the proprietor, so that he would have
5001. per annum profit.
The case for the promoters being now concluded,
Mr. Powna addressed the Committee at great length as to the
mischief that would be done by the crossing of the line over Grove-
lane, which he represented to be a very important and much fre-
quented thoroughfare. This street is to be crossed on a level, and
about twenty trains per diem will pass over It. There will be twelve
carriages in each train, and the thoroughfare will be stopped each
time for about fear minutes.
Several witnesses were called to prove the importance of the
thoroughfare, and the mischief that would result from the stoppage
of the thoroughfare. It was stated that the office of the victualling
department was with within a few yards of the crossing.
The examination of these witnesses occupied the Committee up to
four o'clock, at which time the Committee adjourned till to-morrow
at twelve. The case on the part of the Surrey Canal Company will
then be commenced.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF COMMOIVS, May 20.
LACE FACTORIES BILL.
' tinned from our Afternoon .Edition of yesterday.)
just ma.,I,II.MUM,u. said that the .Hon. Member who had
appeal to him noti"mr„trasling of this Bill had made a forcible
. He did
House that the eremm.... luatassead reading. He told the
master employers in the tradwas
e,' 1"Tt41,1)1 four-fifths of the 1
exception, the operatives had declared-filti, fa ocaroely an
not know the sources whence the Hon. Blembechira4
that information, probably from a different quarter rtriartvtde
.-ieze entirely opposed to the Hon. Member for .hmiamssteelry
himself had, for as far as he could judge the opinions of the
Fins-
bury. With respect to the measure itself he acknowledged
othfalatbfiareatr
,imbuptrerheionnsitweNV
were in favour of restricting the hours
for the Legislature to consider
of labouur,t
whether this restriction would he followed by the effect so
for Finsbury, and by
hconsider well whether
wh:iiiitcele
miseries
e
Mode sired by the Hon
ctaowever, was
other Members. They Water
this character
the benefits arising from shortened
not be more than counter-balanc:r the
arising from reduced wages. This question,
by no means a new one. It had been'
once, and the dangers of any legislation of
had been often strongly dwelt upon. In the
which bad been given to this subject it was impossible
that so important a branch of manufactures
manufacturers should not have received a due attention.
Parliament had granted commissi into ons to inauire•
- the
question times without nu' mber
first time brought under
that dav calledand therefore it was that
this subject was not for the _
on to
discussion ; but they were, ~
come to a decision precisely the reverse
of that
which had been recommended by these commissions.—
(Hear, hear.) By far the greater of all the lace manu-
factures which was produced was not the results of ma-
chinery, worked by power, but the effect of hand-loom
weaving; and there existed a very marked difference be-
tween the lace and the cotton manufacture, the raw mate-
rial of the latter being in a great degree the produce of ma-
chinery wrought by power, whereas the other was almost all
produced by the hand. The hand-loom weaver was waging a
hopeless struggle against the untiring efforts of machinery,
bitl the Honourable Member, by this measure, sought still
more to fetter his exertions by denying him the liberty of
working at night. Then there was another striking china-
ence between these manufactures, for while the one was con-
ducted in dwellings, where large numbers of persons were
congregated, the other was performed in small shops close to
the dwelling-houses, or more frequently in these very dwel-
lings themselves, and if the Hon. Member's measure were
carried out an the matter of inspectors, it would be
necessary to give them a power of entering their
houses at aIL hours of the night.—(hear, hear.) Let
them look at the very great disproportion which existed
between the cost of the machinery employed in the one case
and in the other. The average cost of a power-loom was esti-
mated at 201., while the machineryrequired in the lace trade
ranged from 200/. to 1,0001. There was also this remarkable
fact to be • - I •
considered with respect to the lace manufacture,
that the trade Nr.as dependent upon the caprice of fashion and

THE SUN, LONDON

the fancies of the public, and this machinery, which in many
cases cost above 2,0001. might, in six or eight months
after its first purchase, require extensive alterations
which would involve a further and increased cost.—(Hear,
hear.) Then, again, with reference to the number of persons
employed in a power-loom factory : a girl of thirteen to
eighteen years of age could superintend three or four looms,
while in the silk trade one worker was required to be at-
tached to every loom. The lace trade, it was well known,
was dependent upon its foreign customers, but the Bill of
the Honourable Member would press severely upon the
manufacturer, who was already competing at a disadvan-
tage with the French manufacturer. He hoped that
arrangements would soon be completed which would give
him a fairer chance of coping with his continental rivals.—
(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member had told them that the
physical condition of the labourers in the silk manufactories
was of a very low character ; but he .ould not see that any
improvement would be effected by a measure which would,
from its very character, involve a reduction of wages.
If this Bill wire passed into a law, the capital employed in
the lace manufacture of this country would fly away into
ether hands, it would go into other countries where no such
restriction was enforced.—(Hear, hear.) The destruction of
that branch of our manufactures must be the inevitable re-
sult of such a law. He had already stated that his first
objection to this Bill was, that it proposed to interfere with
adult labour, though he felt that there was another grave
objection to it—an objection which the Hon. Member .for
Finsbury felt also—which was this, that it was not expedient
that children should work from six in the morning till ten at
night. If this measure were passed it would be incumbent
on the Legislature to restrict the labour in the other four prin-
cipal branches of manufacture. It was impossible for them to
carry such a measure into effect in the way proposed.
It could only be enforced by a system of inspection or in-
formation on the part of fellow-workmen, which would not
be tolerated in this country. The Excise law would be per-
fect lenity compared with such a law as that proposed. It
would empower a body of men to enter constantly into the
bed-room of a family being the room in which the
hand-loom work was carried on. An industrious
man, who wished to earn a subsistence for his family
would be prevented from pursuing his trade after ten o'clock
at night. His rival would, no doubt, be tempted by the offer
of 10/., and give information against a man of an industrious
character employed in the manufacture of lace. But the fact
was, that the objections to this Bill were so insuperable, that
he felt satisfied that it would never be tolerated in
this country.—(Cries of "Hear, hear.") He would, for
a moment, beg leave to call the attention of the
House to the effect of their recent interference with the rope-
makers of this country. Petitions from both masters and
men in that branch of trade were continually being pre-
sented to the House, praying them to repeal the late law which
they passed with reference to the hours of work in that trade,
and it was now a subject for discussion whether they should
not comply with the prayer of those petitions. Both masters
and men had found that the recent law, which restricts the
hours of labour in their trade, was injurious to their interests,
and they asked the House to repeal 11,•+ A " ',hose con-
r.tai LO rope MaKing 1u in,'
country—that that trade must in fact be abandoned if they
were not allowed to work free from all such supervision as that
law had introduced. Well the Legislature had now time
to consider. They were, by this, called upon to interfere
directly with labour. They were called upon to extend the
system of inspection into the private workshops and dwellings
of this country. It was certainly one of the painful duties
attached to the office which he filled to be opposed very often
to the popular wishes, and he had almost said the popular
feeling, but, entertaining the strong opinion which he did that
this would be a fatal and a wrong step, he did not hesitate
for one moment to move an amendment. that the Bill be read
a second time that day six months.—( Hear, hear.)
Colonel ROLLESTON said his name was endorsed on the
Bill, and be was of course bound to give his support to it.
After the fullest consideration which he had been enabled to
give to the Bill, and the circumstances attending its intro-
duction into the House, he felt it his bounden duly
to entreat the House to take into their serious con-
sideration the various provisions of this Bill.—(Criss
of " Hear, hear.") The parties whom it would effect
looked to the Legislature for relief, for they were unable to
rescue themselves from the bondage and slavery in which
they were under the present state of things. The hardship
which they had to endure was, if paralleled, certainly not
exceeded by any persons employed in the manufactures of
this country.—(Hear, hear.) Before he touched upon the
details of this measure he would briefly allude to an objec-
tion raised by the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State
for the Home Department, who had said that no
petitions had been presented by the operatives employed is
the manufacture of lace. Now the truth was, that it was
not ninny days ago, since he (Colonel Rolleeton) presented
a numerously signed petition in favour of this measure from
those individuals. A petition had also been presented a few
nights ago, and at the head of the names attached to the
petition, was that of Mr. Herbert, the Mayor of Nottingham,
the centre of this branch of manufactures. The petitioners
prayed the House to adopt speedily some measure whereby
the children employed in that manufacture should be released
from the bondage to which they were subjected at present.
The Right Hon. Baronet had said that the Legislature
should not interfere in the mode proposed by this Bill, because
there were not many children employed in the manufacture
of lace, but after travelling through four or five volumes of
the Commissioners' report upon the question, he found that
the number of children so employed was very con-
siderable indeed, and that the effects were of the most
ruinous character as regarded their health, morals,
and education. (The Honourable Member then proceeded
to read several extractitk from the report in question.)
He hoped the House then would allow this Bill to go into
Committee, for in his opinion it was the only measure calcu-
lated to remedy all the evils complained of.— (Hear, hear. )
Another portion of the Bill had reference to adult
labourers; but he did not attach so much importance to
this part as to those clauses and provisions which re-
lated to the employment of children in factories. Those
provisions, if agreed to by the House, would improve
the physical and moral condition of a multitude of children of
industry, and he entreated the House to let the Bill be read
a second time.—(Hear, hear.
Mr. STRUTT said the on. Member had quoted from
Hansard, which only gave a condensed summary of what
he (Mr. Strutt) said some few years ago upon a similar sub-
ject to the present, but he would, with the per-
mission of the House, read a more extended re-
port from the " Mirror of Parliament," and it
would be seen that he was then, and he might add that he
was now, of opinion that such a Bill as the one before the
House would be ineffective unless it applied to mills worked
by power as well as by hand.—(Hear, hear.) Were they,
however, prepared to go the length of saying that they would
not allow a poor lace worker to get up at four o'clock in the
morning and labour at his trade in his own room ?
And yet this Bill went to this extreme, and he for one said
the Bill would be committing a practical evil instead of
doing any good. Why, they might with as much justice
apply the same principle to the sailor, the shoemaker, or the
bricklayer; but be that as it might, he was sure, if they
passed this Bill in its present form, it would be made the
medium for committing acts of oppression and injustice on
poor and industrious persons who were anxious to improve
their condition by employing their leisure time or what they
treated as leisure hours in labour and industry.—( Hear, hear.)
He was sure, then, if the House passed this Bill, they would
be committing a great wrong on the manufacturing interest
of the country, while the Bill itself would only aggravate the
evil which it was intended to remedy.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE said he was an advocate for a Bill
defining the hours of labour for persons employed in large
public mills, but ho certainly could not go the length of sup-
porting a Bill which applied generally to all mills
and all workshops, whether public er private, large
or small.—(Hear, hear.) He believed, too, the public
were not prepared to go this length ; for, in the petition he
had presented to the House upon this subject, he found they
applied to large public factories, and not to private work-
shops. The principle of this Bill was not to regulate the
hours at which children should be employed in fac-
tories, but to stop the night labour of adults, and
he for one must say he was not prepared to
support a Bill of this nature.—( Hear, hear.) It was
true that in 1821 he introduced a Bill restricting
the hours of labour in cotton factories, when an attempt was
made to include silk, flax, and lace manufactories in it. But
it was thought then by the House, and by the operatives
themselves, that as regarded those branches of manufacture,
the Bill would prove inoperative, if it did not result in aug-
menting instead of diminishing the evil.—(Hear.) Again,
in 1827, he introduced a similar Bill, and, again the same
attempt was made, and the same arguments and opinions
urged with success against it.—(Cries of "Hear, hear.")
If the Hon. Gentleman would subject the children in the fac-
tories to the same regulations which were in existence with
regard to other factories in the country he should have his
(Sir J. Hothouse's ) support.
Lord JOHN MANNERS said that 475 of the master ma-
nufacturers of the town of Nottingham had signed a petition
in favour of this Bill. If, therefore, the opinion of the master
manufacturers were to be taken as conclusive upon this mat-
ter, he thought the fact he had just stated was a sufficient
togroundhe reefortitupdaessionfgthtehisprißncililp.le
ofH He
inhteaffderneneced. ouptt
haads
o vaeurp apt ar
tine d i nhyt htahti Hioiluis eh,
eai
nngd
hbeeentraaactkendowthleadtgeitd owve
efld be riand
passed into a law. He should give his hearty support to the
second reading of this Bill, reserving to himself the right of
introducing amendments in Committee.
Mr. MUNTZ believed that those who overworked their
people did an injury to themselves. He worked his mills
at night as well as day, but he employed two sets of people.
The reason why people overworked themselves was that they
were badly paid for what they did. He believed that some
interference was necessary. Thesechildren were most severely
worked ; that arose from the extreme competition amongst
themselves. Now, he thought they ought to inquire into
the cause of that competition, for he believed that inquiry
was a most important one.
Mr. GISBORNE said that if the Noble Lord had searched
the county of Nottingham be would not find 475 master
manufacturers, those, he meant, who would be so considered
under the common acceptation of the word. The master
manufacturers did not object to the prohibition that children
under eight years of age were not to be admitted to work
in factories. His Hon. Friend proposed to lay a restriction
on machinery. The Hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr.
Kuntz) bad stated that he worked his machinery night and
day, and that the men were employed for twelve hours daily.
Mr. MUNTZ here interrupted the Hon. Gentleman, and
explained that his men worked only nine or ten hours a day,
which, in his opinion, was quite long enough for any man to
work..
Mr. GISBORNE resumed—Well, then, he was mistaken.
This Bill would only tend to create dissatisfaction
among the workpeople. No interference on the part of the
House would better their circumstances, unless the House
was prepared to do an impossibilit He was distinctly of
opinion that the operation of the Bill would work mischief
among the labouring classes, and he should, therefore, give
strorlest • •
xLiposition to the second reading.
the observationT prefaced his speech with a few allusions to
the Bill. lie thought ade btethe Hon. Member, the proposer of
to understand these questions
ought really to be allowed
concerned. Some respect ought to
which they were so much
to be paid to their feelings, if
not to their judgment. In
House to do certain things, wlear, petition they prayed the
which, if attended v'th
con-
sequences, they were quite willing to boar the penalty,evil
relieve the House of all responsibility. He
did and
Bill which he held in h been pre
is hand had be not think the
prepared with any
degree of prudence or judgment, and if it were now before
the House for a third reading he should have felt it his duty
to oppose it. He had, however, no objection to vote for its
going into Committee, when there would be an opportunity
afforded of altering its present imperfect shape. The
question,
was, whether or not the House could interfere to
from a sies of toil which was
protect infants calculated
1 sisal •
to injure
energies and destroy
their moral constitution.—( Hear, hear.) It had been
the labour was not of a severe nature. He had
heard that
at times of the weari-
ness complain
heard many Hon. 3
the House on long debates—what
ness they felt at attending
then must be the feelings of infants, of eight years of age,
when subjected to similar
watchings and late hours? The
p l
House had interfered in regulating the hours of other species
of labour, which
had been attended with advantage both to
the manufacturers and their workmen. _ Why, then, was
this species of
labour to be exempted from the interference
of the Legislature ? He would not wish to interfere
with the late hours of adult labour, as any
of . I
change might be more productive of evil than good
If they began where were they to stop ?—(Hear, hear.) To

interfere with the labouref adults would be a tyranny
which should not be endred. As they had it in their
power to alter all objectionsle clauses in Committee, for the
sake of the infant childre who were compelled to work
day and night, night and de, without holiday or intermis-
sion, from one year's end temother, he would vote for the
second reading.
Sir ROBERT PEEL set very much surprised, after the
speech of the Honourable lentleman, that he should still
affirm the principle of the 111 by voting for its second read-
g vhich the Hon. Member re-
pudiatedin
more—nothing 'hick he allowed to be more
radically unjust than to rerict the hours of adult labour.
wenethin
If they once interfered wit the labour of adults the next
demand would be to fix th minimum of wages and how
could they resist that deman ?—(Hear, hear.) The Bill did
not profess on the face of : to apply merely to children, it
professed to interfere witiktheabour of adults. The title of the
Bill was to regulate the hum of labour in all night fac-
tories. And see what woul be the effect of an interference ;
why it would be a direct Temium to increase the labour
in those places where the• enactments could not reach.
Then, as the Hon. Gentlemn had just said, how were they
to carry into effect that iterference with labour? Why
they might take their choie between the common informer
and what were called domiiliary visits; that meant, that
if, as was very nattral, they shrunk from the
contamination of the common informer, then they must
establish these domiciliary isits throughout the whole of
the country, those visits to 'e carried into effect by a Go-
vernment officer. Thus, if s light were seen in any house
after ten o'clock, then they vere liable to the infliction of a
visit from one of those oelcee—a domiciliary visit because a
man was suspected of laburing for his daily bread.—
(Cheers.) Why this Bill nade no provision for any cases
like those which the ?actory Bill excepted. It
made no provision for a case of accident, such
as might happen from i derangement of machinery,
when the works would receire to be suspended. If the
factory were turned by watt-power, the stream might be
suspended, and the Bill very 'airly and very wisely in such a
case allowed some extra abour. But this Bill con-
tained no such provision, and, therefore, no case was
provided in the event of a man being subject to
sickness for any period. Let them suppose him
to have had an accident—let them suppose him to
have been invalided for three lays--(Hear, hear)—let them
suppose him visited by sickness, prevented from making any
exertion on Monday, Tuesda2e and Wednesday, or at best
only working some five hours a day, and his wages reduced
in a corresponding degree. Suppose him not quite
recovered, but, for the subsistence of his family, he
determines to work some additional hours on the
• Thursday, Friday, and Saturday—let it be remembered
L that he worked within his own house. Why, was it pos-
, Bible, then, that because he said to kimself, " I must repair
l the misfortune of the earlier portion of the week, by extra-
; ordinary labour at its close," they should punish him, be-
cause he toiled till eleven or twelve o'clock at night, for the
laudable, the truly honourable purpose of providing sub-
sistence for his familz?=Nhemd
_What% did they mean
like this ?—(Cheers.) Would they sanction a laN; which
would subject this man to the annoyance of a domiciliary
visit ?—(Continued cheering.) But, then, the measure im-
posed a penalty. He (Sir R. Peel) should like to see au in-
dictment framed against such a man.—(Hear, hear.) He
should like to see him after some five or six persons
had been brought up for petty larceny, or crimes of
a similar character—he should then like to see
• this man brought up before the magistrate to answer
the offence of working till eleven o'clock at night to provide
his family with food !—(Cheers)—and 501. was the penalty
to be exacted for this offence—(Hear, hear)—an offence
charged by his _ next-door neighbour, perhaps, the
; informer, being an idle, dissolute fellow, who ne•
glected his work, who envied, perhaps, this ho-
, nest man because he was honest, who hated
him because he was industrious and succeeding in the world.
• The informer said to himself, " He is my enemy, and I will
• punish him. I want 101. (the reward granted by this Bill).
I want to advance myself and to depress him. I am idle, I
am a vagabond; he is industrious and honest. I saw a light
in his house. I found him out. He was work-
ing for the maintenance of his family. I will
lay an information against him: I shall receive
101., my reward for maintaining the law, while he should be
punished with a penalty of 501., or sent to prison for main-
taining his family."—(Cheers.) Was it likely that they
would be rewarded for inculcating morality like this?—
(Cheers.) Was it likely that they would be thaisked for this
charitable interference?—(Cheers.) What answer could be
made by the framers of this Bill? None. No answer could be
given. The Bill was to regulate the hours of labour in all
factories. This was not a question of restricting the hours
of labour for children. It was not a mere measure for regu-
lating the hours of labour in factories only. It was a ques-
tion whether a man had a right to labour in his own house
after ten o'clock. But the Honourable Member said that
-the benefits to children would compensate for the other
defects of the Bill. He would not go into that question, he
felt and acknowledged the evil of taxing the infant labourer
too severely. But what was this Bill ? Was it possible for
the House to consent to a measure which not only permitted
but sanctioned the employment of children above 8 years
of age to the extent of 16 hours a day. And yet the Hon.
' Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley) would, in his zeal for
factory children, sanction a Bill which permitted girls above
eight years of age to work sixteen hours a day.—(Laughter
and cheers.) Ile thought that the artists who had framed
this Bill should have bestowed a- little more pains upon it
before they introduced it to the House. Let them by every
means have a new Bill--(Cheers)—and let Hon. Gentlemen
not require them, by a second reading, to affirm the principle,
that girls above eight years of age should be worked
sixteen hours a-day.—(Cheers.) He should have thought
that the Hon. Member for Finsbury would, instead of ad-
, mitting the second reading, have been the first to have re-
ceived the Bill with an indignant remonstrance.—(Hear.)
Mr. WAKLEY—I don't like it at all.—(Laughter.)
Sir R. PEEL—Then if this were the reason for the sup-
r port that the Hon. Member forFinsbury gave to the measure,
he (Sir R. Peel) could not say another word to such a
curious argument in its favour.—(Laughter.)
Mr. FERRAND could not but express deep regret that the
Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government should
turn into ridicule the arguments in favour of this Bill.—(No,
no ) It was a melancholy fact, that whenever an Hon.
Member in that House proposed to legislate for the welfare
of the working population of this country, he was always
met with the strongest opposition.—(Hear, hear.) The
working population for several years had appealed to that
House to take the peculiar circumstances under which they
laboured into consideration. They -had almost appealed in
vain, and they had now commenced to legislate for them-
selves, and he would ask her Majesty's Government, as well
as Honourable Members on both sides of the House, to
look for one instant to the manufacturing population of
the north of England. They were entering, at this present
moment, into an alarming combination to protect themselves
against what they called the tyranny and oppression of their
masters. Let the House look at the fearful strikes for wages
which had taken place in Manchester, Liverpool, and other
large towns in the north of England, and he thought there
was there sufficient to induce that House to consider that it
was high time for Parliament to take into its most mature
and deliberate consideration, the _serious quarrels which had
from some causes been taking place between masters and their
servants. In the case now before the House, they found that
the master manufacturers and Their own workpeople had
united in a body to come before that House, to ask redress
for their grievances ; and what had they witnessed that
afternoon? Ridicule cast upon this attempt to legislate on
their behalf, by the Hon. Member for Finsbury, and from both
sides of the House. They had asked for the second reading of
this Bill, and he had no hesitation in saying, that if that
House refused the second reading of the Bill, it would be offering
to those working classes a direct insult, and would drive
them ultimately to their own resources, as he had before
said, to legislate on this matter, which they would do by
entering into one universal combination throughout this
country, and compel their masters to consent to protect them
and their interests, as Parliament had refused to interfere in
their behalf. He would Rot say one word about the question,
whether the manufacturers of this country were in favour of
• the second reading of this Bill or not. The working classes
of this country were watching the tone and temper of that
House on the present occasion—(blear, hear)—and it was
his firm conviction that if Parliament would, by a more con-
, ciliatory spirit, endeavour to mitigate the bad feeling whichi
existe
on
d between
thepresent th e
occasion,e m o
er s
theyan w d t hoeu employeddd
_, o
and
moreth teofo mis-
understandings
ths
countryut
n
a stop to the strikes in the north of Engla d
between thlevheitenh
-
ployers and the employe
which waertehantakiand
could be formed either amongst masters or men . —(Hear
Mr. S. CRAWFORD did not deny that he entertained
thepla place
combinations
but, at the same
-time he didnot think they were precluded from interfering
Jo.
ebotcotui otnos
limitt othis
eB
hi 1
01 ,u hr
se
odid
dnuoltt
Idaehnoyu
r ;that he felt an ob-
jection
infant labour, to prevent the younger portion of the
manufacturing classes of England from being overworked.
—(Hear, hear.) That was what he should desire to do—
(Hear, hear)—and he hoped to effect that object by voting
in favour of this Bill. The great question before the House
was whether the infantine labour of this country should be
protected from the oppression of the holders of capital.—
(Hear, hear.) The long hours which they were com-
pelled to work injured their health and morals,
and he, therefore, contended that, no matter whether this
Bill would injure the interests of the manufacturers or not,
the Legislature was bound to extend its protecting influence
to the hard-working children of England.—(Hear, hear.)
The hours of labour, which this Bill sought to restrict, were
more than human nature could endure. Taking that position,
he eonceived it to be the duty of the House to pass some
such measure as this, whatever might be the effect on wages.
He should, therefore, give his hearty support to the second
reading of the Bill.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT wished to make one observation in answer
to the Hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Ferrand), who
had asked the House to interfere with labour on the ground
that certain strikes had taken place in the north of England.
He (Mr. Bright) begged to tell that llon. Member
that those strikes existed only amongst those
trades which were not in any degree connected with
mills or factories—(Hear, hear)—and amongst a class of
wolkmen who never worked more than ten hours a-day—
(Hear, hear)—and respecting whom there was no proposi-
tion before the House. With respect to the feeling between
the employers and employed he should think that the
Honourable Member would have recollected that with the
exception of-Yorkshire there had not for a long period been any
disagreement or ill-feeling between the cotton manufacturers
and those in their employ, and that there never was a better
feeling between them than at this moment. He was sure
I that with respect to the cotton trade there was less reason for
any vindictive feeling between the manufacturers and their
employed at this moment than at any period since he was
acquainted or connected with it. The feeling that had ex-
istpheterehdcaopbtetween masters and men during the last two years in
that trade was equally creditable to both parties con-
cerned.—(Hear.) He was sure then,that all argument which
LMorr.
dB Al
RUSSELL
might
sbtoernembmaeasmendub upon the statement of the Hon. Member
HN
was totally fallacious, and had no bearing whatever upon
this question, and it was rather in favour of the present
state of things than dui Bill at present before the House.
Mr. FERRAND said the Hon. Member fer Durham would
labour of children,
just principle, thator
manufactories
esetirnikLe
atulemaat
htioreo.k place in 1841 in all
•
other persons similarlyft
sgritouuanteddofw
infantine labour. And'.
not opposed solely on
32t..
iiey thought
protected
thempirieinserant
aßnidl was
itsho interference e
could
not
withmanage the
tbweoalolohreeeitliotonabetocotnhsei e
ait appeared to him to raise a perfectly
their own affairs, the Legislature should interfere with.
• ared
present
of the present Bill, he should think that if, therefore, that alone was the object
the Bill ought to
to violate every principle of legislation in
upon this subject.
BiiCommittee.which
seemed
there were
wheirne,
In the first clause of th. :Bill night labour was prohibited, and
the labourer was requis ed to work from a certain hour in the
morning to a certain boar at night. Now, if a man could
earn his living by no. other means than engaging to work
eight or nine hours at night, ought they to legislate to pre-
vent him from earnin his
gall
ages in that way--(Hear, hear)
—ought his means of tlo;istence to be endangered by a legis-
lativeenacttnent ?—(He ar) Were therenot, infact, cases where
they could not prevent night labour ?—were there not instances
where men had no otlier means of subsistence except by
working at night, suc h as the driver of a stage coach,
the guard of a coach, o,r police-officer, and various other
offices of business, which were carried on at night, and which