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

notice beforehand. They said' to them, we wish, for your,
sakes, that the experiment should succeed to enable us to
insure the work, formerly accomplished in twelve hours, in
e:even, and, then, let us consent to an Eleven Hours' Bill.
Bat the result of the experiment was, that they could do no
more in the eleven hours than they had done formerly. lam
against all interference, and particularly against interference
at the present time; and I st ouid be concealing the truth if I
did not state to you that I think we have gone as far as we
can safely go in the matter of interference. lam inclined
to give a full and fair trial to the experiment,
but if you do interfere don't suppose that you will give general
satisfaction, don't believe that there are other parties who will
seek to apply the same principle to you. They will tell you
not to talk to them of manufactories, that they will show
without undue interference, or depending en the aid of the
common informer, the principle is not carried out. Here is a
letter that I have received with respect to the state of the
operative papers. ( The Right Hon. Baronet then read a letter
of their unparalleled distress, in consequence of the present
low state of wages and high'price of provisions.) That they
laboured eighteen hours out of the twenty-four, and that their
average weekly earnings was about 95., a sum totally inade-
quate to the support of a man, but less for a man and his family,
and they stated it was absolutely necessary to render some pro-
tection. It was a very strong case, and it would be impossible for
the Legislature to interfere, and to divide the labour between two
men, and prevent attacks upon the human frame. But, are
we quite sure that the restriction in factory labour will not
add to the labour in other occupations. Why, the Hon. Gen-
tleman who spoke last, made an impression upon the feeling of
the House, (whirls is not a very difficult matter) by describing
the importance and the happiness which a wife produced in a
man's home. He says truly, that the wife should be kept at
home, and that she should be prepared with the well-spread
board, to welcome her husband on his return home. —( Hear. )
)BuNtywithat
yritisisthten remedy
wfoirvethsewporrke--
sWenhty'euvihlo?—ca(ulideoaurb,thitea?r.
ing in factories.—(Hear, hear.) But eleven-twelfths of all
the evils of the present system will exist even after this Bill
shall have passed. Who can doubt the importance of the wife
being enabled to devote her attention to domestic comforts
but admitting the very principle that you promote the morality
and the comforts of the great manufacturing districts by the
passing of the Bill, will you prevent women, mother, and
children from working in factories ?—( Hear, hear.) Can you
insure the attendance of the wife of the manufacturing opera-
tive at home? And does it not more conduce to the comfort
outifa.„
Sfahmouillyd,htahvaut
mthueryesthiernueldtuhaavtetenladrgtoe
_wage! than th.at the
had an instance of this lately • there was domestic
elloicn.deGtieenstlemiAarne the Member fur Finsbury,.eame forward the other day from purely benevolent motiyes
upon
a measure. Ido hope that the
isntohteloeswrteldiptoliiehdime.—( Hear, hear.) I give
ltehses el
nonf that
Gentlemanß i Bill
psuerreveasu,dat I believe that
he was actuated by nothing but by
notuuria honourable
itl
mo-
tives in bringing forward his measure with respectu
lace factories. We had a discussion upon the subjecta oufrthe
domiciliary visit, and the system of information, and are you
quite sure that something of the same description with respect
to the hand-loom weaver, and with respect to all those manu-
factures that are connected with factory labour—are yon quite
sure that while you establish these strict regulations with re-
spect to adult factory labour—are you quite sure that you are
not giving a direct premium and encouragement to those sys-
tems of labour which are beyond your control, and that you are
not defeating your own benevolent ends by your own
unwise legislation ?—( Hear, hear.) Now on this
ground I must resist the second reading of this Bill.
I sincerely believe that we have carried interference as far as it
is desirable. But there may be others who do not agree with
me—( Hear, hear)—but there must at the same time be many
who must feel that this is not the moment when it is wise to
make this great experiment.—( Hear, hear.) It is an experi-
ment with the four great branches of our manufactures, which
enter into competition with the manufactures of other countries,
and if you pass this law, it will have the effect of cutting off one-
sixth of the labour, and as I believe, of the profits
and remuneration of the manufactures of this
country.—( Hear, hear.) Well, is this the exact time ? You

permitted the export of machinery, not upon the principle
of free-trade, but because in point of fact, there was no use
whatsoever in continuing poor-laws which prevented that
exportation.—( Hear, hear.) The plans of the machines were
taken, and there was no use in continuing the law which
prevented the exportation of machinery. It was better to
encourage art in the manufacture of machinery than to have
laws which would lead to the smuggling of machines. But
you have to give foreign countries opportunities of benefitting
by your skill in respect to these machines.—( Hear, hear.) You
have also passed a law, the object of which is to enable the
working classes to insure permanence, and to give them a
guarantee against sudden and extraordinary rises in the neces-
saries of life.—( Hear, hear.) Well but observe, that that
law is not to come into full effect for three years hence.—
( Hear, hear.) Suppose the law passes in its present form in
the House of Lords, there will not, until February, 1849, be
a free-trade in corn. During the intervening period, the
same restrictions will still extst, at the same time
yen have removed protection from agriculture, and on
that ground I think that it would be politia
to give a longer trial to this experiment, which you have
already sanctioned; and I intreat the House to refuse to give
its assent to the Bill of the Hon. Gentleman and to permit
them to have a fair opportunity to effect this desirable ar-
rangement as to labour by a voluntary agreement between the
masters and the employed, and, above all, to postpone taking
this irrevocable step—for irrevocable I think it will be—until
you have better ground than you have at the present moment
for drawing safe conclusions as to the effect of this measure.—
(Cheers, and cries of " Divide.")
Lord J. RUSSELL did not wish, at tl:at late period of the
night to trespass upon the attention of the House, but he
should be sorry to go to a division without taking some notice
of the answer which the Right Hon. Gentleman had given to
he argument of his Right Hon. Friend the Member for Edin-
burgh, because a more powerful argument he thought he had
never heard.---(Cheers.) There were already on the statute-
book Acts authorising any interference with factory labour,
and unless they were prepared to repeal those Acts, they
were prevented from using the argument that the
Legislature had no right to interfere with labour.—(Hear.)
The present Bill would not interfere in any way in the hours
of labour, the principles of which had not already been esta-
blished before by other Acts ; they already interfered in the
labour of children from eight to thirteen, and from thirteen to
eighteen, and the last 21,:t that was passed interfered with the
labour of women in factories. The Right Hon Baronet al-
luded to the arguments of his Right Hon. Friend the Member
for Edinburgh, and stated that his rhetoric was very

. .
but altogether unnecessary, and proceeded himself immediately
to argue precisely in the same manner.—(Hear, hear.) 7he
great question then was, whether they would sanction any
further interfere in the hours of tabour. Before the
House gave its sanction to the measure they should be
convir ced of two Fvopositions. Ist. That the measure was
desirable for the safety of the health, morals, and the good
conduct of the class to whom you propose to give a further
limitation of the hours of labour. The 2nd proposition was,
th.tt the House mu -A have good reason to sun -lose that this
might, be done without any mischievous interference with the
' labour of parties employed in factories, and whi.ther by de-
priving their masters of the profits of tilcir labours
they would not be inflicting a great injury upon the labouring
classes. The first proposition required little or no argument
from him, to recommend it to the notice of the House. The
Hon. Member for Durham had said that it had been the cus-
tom for the last thirty years, in most factories of the country,
to confine the labour to twelve hours a day. Then they were
told that, in other countries, the labour was extendod to eighty
and ninety hours a week. He thought that the labouring
classes of this country could not contend with the present high
price of provisions, against such serious odd;. Notwithstand-
ing these disadvantages, what has been the result in this
country, as to the amount of exports in the year
1824. The exports, in round numbers, was 33,000,000 ;
in 1834, 70,000,000; and, in 1845, 135,000,000.—(Hear.)
When the question was formerly before the House, the manu-
facturers stated that the tax on the raw cotton pressed very
heavily upon them. It was stated to him, as well as to many
other Members in that House, that the tax amounted to almost
eight per cent. on the raw material. One house alone paid
4,500/. in the cotton tax alone. Another house with a fixed
capital of 100,000/. paid 20,0001. alone in the cotton tax ; they
had been relieved from that tax, and they were relieved from
no less a sum than 1,600/. a year with this, but the wages were
only effected to the amount of tenpence a week, whilst the
amount saved by the cotton tax was no less than thirteen per
cent. but he believed that the repeal of the corn-laws would
effect great advantage to the working classes. Mr.
Ashford stated that the tax on corn imposed no
less than two hours a day, and whatever might be the effect of
the repeal, it would surely make them more able to compete
would
with foreign nations. He never believed that the same amount
be for
of wages ould be given for eleven bour,,. aos tohfer the reduction of
e
would
twel se; but he considered that the quest
wages would mainly depend anon the demand for labour, and
such was his confidence iLI the mess ire w.Lich had received
their sanction,f that he bell eyed there would be a greater de-
mand o labour effectuated by it, and a consequent increase in
the comforts of life enjoyed by the working man; and believ-
ing the Bill would induce the greatep social happiness of the
people, he was resolved to give it his surport.
Mr.COBDEN said he would not wish Hon. Gentlemen to be
under any misapprehension with respect to his vote, and that
they had placed him in the position of being ob:iged to give
an unpopular vote. He was satisfied that no greater delusion
had ever been practised on the working classes than had been,
done in the " short-time agitation." He would not say it was
done designedly, but gentlemen had some particular notions
of their own that the legislation of that House eould limit
quantity yet maintain the price. The originator of this agi-
tation was Mr. Oastley, whe followed in the wake of Mr. Sad-
dler ; and he would just show, by an extract from evidence
taken before him, what the delusions of this agitation were—
( The Hon. Gentleman road some extracts from the evidence
in proof of his assertion.) The parties who agitated for
short time were not free traders. They attended
free-trade meetings and deccunced them. He did not mean
to speak disparingly of them, for he believed they were honest
in their endeavours. But he showed that their exertions
had a very different effect from what they contemplated, and
that the consequence of a diminution in the hours of labour
would be a diminution in the wages of labour.—(Oh, oh.)
Ile maintained that by dimninishing the quantity of work it
would have the effect of diminishing wages. He was in
favour of legislating for short hours in the case of infants, and
he did so on the same principles as the Lord Chancellor would
take the guardianship of children who were improperly treated
by their pprents. Bat with regard to large bodies and adults
the case was very different. If it was proposed to treat the
question on a philosophical point of view he could understand
t. But it viasnot vested upon those ground. The supporters
of the present system had been accused of want •
benevolence, and that they had no bowels of eompasseion.
fsr their fellow men. He begged to say that he had done his
best in his own sphere to reduce the hours of labour, and in
Manchester he wee a vice-patron of an instaution for that
purpose. He wished Hon. Members would bring their heads
along with their hearts to this question, for if they did they
would come to a very different conclusion. He had a petitionr
to present from the parish of Gilmington in Som:..=etshie, the
object of which was to petition the House to compel the
farmers
to give the labourers their due. He wished to know, therefore,
from Honourable Members what their feelings would be if
he brought in a Bill to give the labourers of Dorsetshire and
Somersecshire 12s. a week. He wenld ask the Noble Lord
the Member for Newark if he would refuse to comply with
such a Bill ? He believed he would not, on the ground of
benevolence or on the ground of justice, but he would propose
to do so on the ground of political ecenomy. He wished to
ask the Hon. Members cc ho said that they should not employ
men more than twelve hours a day, whether they could engage
tip employ them at all ? When men who knew nothing of
medicine started up as doctors, they were called quacks, and it
was the same thing when they attempted to le-
gislate for that with which they were unabe
to cope. He hoped they were approaching that period when
they would only legislate for such things as they were cal-
culated to understand. He objected to all interferenc with
labour, and he hoped to see the time when Parliament would
not interfere at all, for it was well known that that House re-
presented the employers and not the employed. If they legis-
lated at all they would do greater injury to
etohmebrooer
foinrgkecleasigsoes
than good. They would force the mento
up the price of labour, and he had heard it whispered that
combination laws were about to be revived. The men were
paid by the piece, and if they restricted the amount of labour,
they would force the men to strike to maintain a remunerative
- price. The manfacturers bad made all their arrangements on
Ithe present system—they were paying thousands of pounds in
rent for their mills, and it was now proposed to reduce their
interests one-sixth.—(Hear, hear, from the protectionists.)
Dut he opposed this measure upon the put of the working