The Sun.
London, England, 1833-04-04 00:00:00

enormity of the evils it was intended to prevent. In the
year 1816 a committee of inquiry was appointed, and the
result was a great body of evidence. A Bill, founded on
that evidence, was passed through that House, and sent to
the House of Lords, where a Committee was also ap-
pointed, which sat in the years 1818 and 1819, and the
result of this Committee was two folio volumes of evi-
dence. A Bill was in consequence brought in, but very
different from what was intended by the originator of the
proceeding. It was intended that in all factories children
should be allowed to work for only eleven hours, but the
Lords made it twelve; and it was intended that it should
be extended to all factories, but the Lords confined it to
cotton factories alone. The other provisions of the Bill
were likewise materially altered. In 1825, Sir John.
Hobhouse brought in a Bill on the subject, which, how-
ever, did not pass until the year 1830. In 1832, Mr.
Sadler brought in his Bill, which remained from March till
August ; and, in 1833, he (Lord Ashley) brought in a
Bill, and was met, after all this, by a motion for further
inquiry. In the year 1818 the master manufacturers
were put upon their case before the Committee of the
House of Lords. They prayed to be heard by Counsel, and
upon oath; and their prayer was acceded to. It was at
that time stated that the system pursued in the fac-
tories was injurious to the morals as well as I) the
health of the children; and to rebut this assertion the ma--
nufacturers brought forward no less than 12 medical men,
whose evidence he should read portions of to the House.
It was remarkable that whenever any of these gentlemen
were asked any questions of physiological science they al,
ways evaded them. The Noble Lord here read passages
illustrative of his remark from the evidence of Sir Everard
Home, and other medical gentlemen examined before the
Committee on the part of the manufacturers. He then
proceeded to say that his Hon. Friend had urged a great
deal against the evidence of the operatives, but as he was
not a Member of the Committee be was able to say no-
thing as to the propriety of the course adopted by it, but he
was perfectly willing to strike out the evidence of the
operatives, for he did not at all build his case upon their
disclosures. The whole matter stood upon the evidence
of 21 medical men. Ha Committee were to be now ap-
pointed, the whole of its proceedings would be work of
supererogation. There was already evidence enough to
justify any measure, however strict it might be; and
as that was the case, he might be asked why be did
not limit the hours of labour to nine, instead of ten. His
reply would be, that he did not do so, because he thought
he could not get it, if be were to try.—(Hear, hear.)
There was a great contrast between the evidence
of the gentlemen in favour of the Bill, and of those
against it. When he named such men as Drs. Bailey,
Blundell, Brodie, &c., he thought he should give sufficient
weight to the testimony in favour of his proposition of
limiting the hours of work in factories to ten. In reply
to what had been advanced by the seconder of the present
motion, he begged to say that nine-tenths of the evidence
related to the cotton mills. In 1815 there had been nine
medical men examined, and in 1819 there had been eleven
examined, whose evidence showed the necessity of restrict-.
ing the hours of labour. The petition in favour of
measure from Mancloster, in 1819, was signet; by six
physicians and seventeen surgeons. Adding these to the
number of medical men who hail signed petitions from
Bolton, and one or two other places, the number would
amount to 90 ; and if he could enumerate all the medical
men who had petitioned the House upon the subject he
,o)rfd then
medicalpro-
ceeded
men who had given evidence in favour of the Bill. The
Hon. Member then contrasted the evidence given in 1818
atnumfbroemr. thTehsetaNteombelneti;
migh t doubleto read
extractsth
and 1819 with the evidence given in 1832, and referred to
a tract published by Dr. Kaye, of Manchester, a gentle-
man of considerable ability. He took his evidence with
the greater readiness, because be was an enemy to the
Bill. There was then the pamphlet of Mr. William Greg.
master spinner, of the firm of Greg and Co., of 13511.,
Then, with respect to the evidence given in other depart-
ments of manufacture, Mr. Thackrah's statement was
conspicuous, with reference to the injurious effect of etu,
ployment in the flax mills, He also spoke upon the
subject of silks. He did not think that the House was
called upon to decide whether ten or eleven hours should
be the time awarded to these unfortunate persons, espe-
cially females. He must say that most of the medical
gentlemen who were examined against the Bill, seemed
determined to suppress any facts with which they were
acquainted. There was, however, the opinion of the
highest medical authorities in London, that a child ought
not to be put to any laborious occupation before it had
attained the age of nine years. When the doctors were
sent down to examine the children, the master-manufac-
turers took care to send away the lame or distorted,
and only kept those children who had something of a
healthy appearance. The duties of the medical men were,
nevertheless, faithfully discharged. In consequence of
this visitation reports were made. The masters made out
their case, and those who were for the Bill made out
theirs, and a rejoinder followed. Reports were made,
ascribing good health to those who, upon examination.
stated that they were in bad health, and that that mess
from working in the factory. It was singular that, front
the beginning to the end of the pamphlet of Mr. Kirk-
man Finlay, there was no allusion to the evidence it:
1832. He could not conceive how Mr. Finlay could he
induced to set that evidence aside, unless it was that lie
found it too much, He stated that the cotton system bad
proved to be healthy, and that twelve hours' labour bad
not been found too much. If there bad been any thing
weak in the evidence, Mr. Kirkman Finlay would have
been able to refute it, and be said that he never read it
till he read the statement in Mr. Sadler's book. The
whole case rested upon the medical statements. The Noble
Lord next adverted to the evidence of a person named
Browne (as we understood), who, on being examined,
h e had irn
employeda considerable n dtemr a.b 1 e
On
time
being
childrenatand bad never known any cruelty practised
statedfatowardster ee that
ds
however, he admitted that he bad a child employed in a
factory with himself. The examination then proceeded as
follows
" Did you ever behave cruelly to that child ?-1 never did.
" Did you never correct her?—Yes, I think I corrected her
QOM
" Now answer, Sir, did you never strike her down, and break
her arm ?—I did strike her once, and she fell; her arm came
under her, and it was broken.
wished her."
" Why did you strike her ?—Because she did not do as I

Here, then, was a reason why a child was to be struck
down and have her arm broken, merely because she did
not do something that her lather wished her to do. And
this, too, was the admission of a person who deposed that
he had never known cruelty practised towards children
in factories.—(Hear, hear.) He would not detain the
House by going further into detail, but wood %tit" upon