The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-19 00:00:00

FACTORIES BILL-COMMITTEE-AD-
JOURNED DEBATE.

On the motion that the Order of the Day for going
into Committee upon this Bill be read,
- Lord HOWICK presented two petitions from
places in Yorkshire (as we understood) against the
ill.

The Order of the Day having been then read,
The House went into Committee; Mr. GREENE in
the Chair.

On Lord ASHLEY'S amendment being read,
Mr. WARBURTON said the question was one
which involved the interests of the whole of the
manufacturing prosperity. It had been stated to de-
putations which had waited upon the Government
that they intended to adhere to the printed Bill in
its main provisions, that Bill having been cir-
culated for a long time through the whole of
the manufacturing districts ; and the deputations
quitted the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham),
with a firm belief that the Government meant firmly
to resist the application for a Ten Hours' Bill. He
trusted that the Government would strictly adhere to
the assurance that this was not to be an open ques-
tion ; not that he considered the Government Bill
objectionable, for it violated to a certain degree
the principles which he advocated ; but of two evils
he was prepared to accept the least. In addres-
sing himself to this question he certainly felt consi-
derable difficulty. He hardly knew how to deal with
the arguments of the Noble Lord who had introduced
the amendment. If he were to address himself to the
conclusion to which his arguments tended, it involved
no less than suspending the whole of the labour per-
formed by women and children in this country. If
on the contrary, he were to address himself merely to
the verbal amendment, that was a question which
they might argue upon its own merits ; but he did
not see how he was to avoid addressing himself as
well to the Noble Lord's premises as to his conclusions.
—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord, in a considerable
part of his speech, inferred the greater security, of
the labour of the manufacturing classes from the
greater productiveness of that labour. Now, it
was unquestionable that the labour of the operative
classes had been of late years in a marvellous degree
productive, but they were not to infer, the severity
of labour to which the improvement of machinery
had been applied, from increased productiveness.
Upon that ground they might argue that the labour of
a man who was a slave, or one who followed the plough,
was more severe than the one who scratched the ground.
There could be no doubt that the closeness of rooms
and the exhalations that took place in factories was
most detrimental to health ; but it must be
remembered that inconveniences, dangers, and difficulties
were incidental to all sorts of arts and manufactures,
It was not, however, upon this they were to arrive at any
conclusion. There could be no doubt that serious physical
consequences had arisen to young females and children
in factories, but it must be recollected that they were
subject to similar inconveniences in other walks of
life.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord more particularly
alluded to the opinion on this subject of medical men
taken in 1839. That might be all very well ; but
if he would refer to the opinion given by the
medical actuary upon the evidence collected in 1835,
he alluded to Dr. Mitchell, he would find a very dif-
ferent statement made. That Learned Gentleman
stated that he saw no grounds for warranting the sup-
position that factory labour in any material degree dif-
fered from its effects on the human frame to any other kind
of labour, &c., facts that all the investigations that had
taken place showed that the laudatory and condem-
natory assertions that had been made were alike unfounded.
Among other allegations of the Noble Lord was
one, that the health of the females was most
seriously injured by this species of employment ; but
this had also been met by the testimony of Dr.
Mitchell, and other medical gentlemen, Mem-
bers .of the Commission of 1833-34. Evidence
wns given before that Committee that the allegation was
altogether without foundation. They really must not
take it for granted, that the condition of the
persons employed in factories was so desperate
as the Noble Lord would , have them to
believe. They had agents employed by the
Government, Commissioners of the Poor-law and Sub-
Commissioners, making inquiries most deeply and
anxiously into all these matters. Under such advice
and agency, at a period beginning with the year 1833,
great exertions were officially made to induce the sur-
plus agricultural population, for whom work could
not be found in their own districts, to migrate to where
the demand for labour was greater and the remuneration
for it far higher. These Commissioners, in their first
Report, stated the rate of wages in the manu-
facturing districts for a family including three
or four members, as at least double what a
family of the same description could earn in the
agricultural counties. Well, a migration took place, in
the first year he had referred to, to a very considerable
extent. Dr. Kay, had described in his report the
result of such emigration both to the parishes
from which it took place, and to the emigrants and their
families, as of the most happy and beneficial character.
The same went on for a series of three or four
years till the year 1837, which had been marked
as the commencement of that stagnation of
trade and bitter distress of which the House and
the country had had but too strong evidence.
The Hon. Gentleman then referred to a statement made
by Sir H. Verney, which showed that the condition of
the manufacturing labourers was far better than that
of the agricultural labourers. Some of the latter,
whe went to Wolverhampton and other places,
obtained three times more wages than they
did at home ; and their improved condition
induced others to follow their example. The Hon. Gen-
tleman referred to a statement made by the Hon. Mem-
ber for Durham, which showed that the average weekly
earnings of families who emigrated under the superin-
dence of the Poor-law Commissioners themselves, were
395. 4d. in 1836 ; 345. Id. in the following year, and 395.
40. in the year after. These fa'As proved that the
condition of the manufacturing labourer was far
better than that of the agricultural labourers.
The Noble Lord opposite had referred to the moral con-
dition of the manufacturing classes. Now he (Mr. War-
burton) thought that, considering how those people were
congregated together, the state of morality among them
was not inferior to other classes similarly situated ; and
he thought if the same inquiry and same tests were ap-
plied
to the higher classes, as were in the case of the
manufacturing classes, they would not find the for-
mer so vastly superior in a moral point of view.
Now the improvidence and extravagance attributed in
this case was not by any means peculiar to those who
congregated in factories ; they extended equally to the
handloom weavers. The Rev. Mr. Brian, speaking of
the Spitalfields' weavers,observed that from the domestic
habits of the people, and from their manufactures being
carried on entirely in their own homes, it might
be expected that they would present a perfect
example to other classes ; but, on the contrary, from
the variable nature of the demand, depending, as it
did, on fluctuations in the state of commerce, and in the
caprices of fashion, the greatest improvidence and extra-
vagance prevailed among the inhabitants of the
cottages in that part of London in which silk
manufacture was carried on. Let them not suppose,
therefore, that extravagance and profligacy belonged
exclusively to factories. The Report respecting the
hand-loom weavers spoke of the insalubrity of the
dwellings in the parish of St. John's. If they
were to deal with this evil at all, they
must deal with it universally ; it would be
necessary to lay the axe to the root of the tree.
Were they prepared, upon such premises as those ad-
vanced by the Noble Lord, to arrive at the same conclu-
sion as the Noble Lord ? Were they prepared,
upon such arguments, to agree to a modification
of the rules and regulations respecting labour,
which now prevailed in this country ? From
the arguments which had been advanced by the
Noble Lord, he (Mr. Warburton) was not prepared to
agree to this. Nobody could dispute what the result of
the amendment of the Noble Lord, if carried, would be.
Everybody must admit that if they limited to ten hours
the labour of women and children, they must also limit
to ten hours the labour of the men. He did not think
there was any difference of opinion upon this point.
He was sure the Noble Lord had the most humane feel-
ing in endeavouring to restrict the hours of labour in
factories- to ten hours. Would it not, however, be well
to look to the arguments of the labourers themselves ?
They stated that limiting the hours of labour would tend
to increase wages, that they would get more wages for
less toil. He admitted that no person would suffer
much if they were in the state they were in at the close
of the war in 1841, when they had no foreign competi-
tors, but it was different when they had to compete

with the whole civilised world. When they con-
sidered the short period in which a manufacturing
interest might be raised, and when it might be
raised in any country to which they chase to give such a
premium as the diminution of the manufacturing ca-
pital of the country, he was inclined to agree in opinion
with those who said that they ran a very great risk.
The amount of cotton manufactured at the close of the
war by this country was 260,000,000 lbs. ; the amount
manufactured by France, in 1840, was 130,000,000 lbs.
The manufacturers who were examined in 1833 and
1834 held different opinions with regard to the limita-
tion of labour. They stated that the immediate
effect would be a rise in price. Mr. Ash-
worth was examined, and stated that the rise
in price would add to the profit of the foreign manu-
facturer, but not to that of the home one. It was in
vain to suppose that if they limited the hours
of labour, foreign countries would follow their ex-
ample. They had abolished slavery and the
slave trade, and yet the country that had the
freest institutions in the world had retained both. So
it would be in the present instance, if they lessened the
number of hours of labour for the manufacturers. Foreign
countries would be the only parties that would benefit by it.
The large number of 343,000 persons supported
by manufactures in Lancashire alone, showed what
a source of employment was opened there for the
agricultural population. It appeared from the reports
of the Poor-law Commissioners, that in one year
the number of those who migrated into the district
under the superintendence of only one of the Commission-
ers amounted to 10,000. That was in the year 1825.
It was said that if they put down the
present system there would be much less vice.
He thought that in a much ldrger proportion
there would be less virtue. It must be so if they di-
minished the number of those who were raised
above the necessity of supporting themselves by daily
labour, if by intrcducing distress among the various
manufacturing counties, they diminished the number of
those who lived in affluence, and supported a number of
domestics. How would they maintain their superiority,
if they altered their system ? They had New Zealand,
Western and Southern Australia, making fresh demands
upon them. How were their commercial greatness
and the vast expenditure which these distant possessions
occasioned, to be sustained, except by maintaining a ma-
nufacturing prosperity ? The declared value of their
exports of woven fabrics amounted in 1840 to upwards
0f21,000,000/. sterling. Was it not by the employment which
this afforded that they were enabled to support their large
popnlation, and to bear the burden of the public taxes?
If they discouraged manufactures, other countries
would adopt means to attain their super-eminence in
the civilised world. If they lost their comparative
greatness how would their neighbours treat them ?
If France, in the course of thirty years, could mul-
tiply six or seven fold the amount of the
exported fabrics, would they not be bearded in their
own ports by the superior navy of that country ?
Contracts had been entered into and leases had been
taken, and the Government ought to take care that the
steps they took would not place the persons who had en-
tered into these contracts and leases in adisadvantageous
position. He (Mr. W.) had his eyes fully open to the
alternative to which the Noble Lord (Howick) had said
they would ultimately be reduced, of not merely having
a Ten Hours' Bill, but in every manufacturing town and
district local boards of trade to make arrangements be-
tween masters and men. It had been said in discussing
this question that they should refrain from alluding to
topics that were calculated to excite feelings in the
country. He did not think it their duty to do so. What
were the circumstances which affected the comforts of
the working classes, and what remedies could be devised
for their distress was an important element in the con-
sideration of this subject. The Hand-loom Weavers
Commission stated the effect of the corn-laws would be
to raise the price of corn 20 per cent., and assuming that
half of the wages of the operatives went for the consump-
tion of corn, they operated as a tax on his wages to the
amount of 10 per cent. The consequence was that more
exertion was required from the operative and his family.
Were it not for those laws the wife could give more
attention to her domestic duties—one of the
things complained of by the Noble Lord—and
the operative could devote more of his wages to
purchase of clothing, and his children need not be sent
at so early an age to work. One of the recommendations
made by this Commission was carried out by her Ma
jesty's present Government, namely the reduction of the
duty on timber. He was an advocate of' this measure,
because it would improve the habitations of the poorer
classes. Other questions which the Commission recom-
mended, namely, the improvement of our commercial re-
lations with America, the Brazils, Germany, and other
countries, so as to admit of the most advantageous terms
for our manufacture in our various markets—those ques-
tions, amounting to about six were unattended to by the
Government,- with the exception of one measure only.
A measure so impolitic as that which the Noble Lord
had recommended, would absolve them from the further
necessity which was threatened by the Noble Lord the
Member for Sunderland of putting the whole regulation
of the details between the operatives and the masters
under the management of local boards of trade.—(Hear.)
Lord HOWICK said his Hon. Friend misunderstood
what he had said.

Mr. BECKETT was surprised at the discussion which
had taken place upon the amendment of his Noble
Friend, for that discussion appeared to him to be a mere
discussion respecting profit and loss. _ The question
they had to consider was, whether the present system
was one of cruelty and hardship or not? If it should
turn out not to be so, then the amendment of his Noble
Friend would of course fall to the ground. The an-
swers to the statements of his Noble Friend had been,
that the agricultural labourers and others were as badly
off as the manufacturing operatives. Now, could that
be urged as a reason why that House ought not to in-
terfere in a case where it possessed the power to do so?
—(Hear, hear.) He knew that a large body of the ma-
nufacturers, owners of machinery, were in favour of the
amendment of his Noble Friend. The Right Hon. Ba-
ronet (Sir James Graham) said that the machinery em-
ployed in manufactures generally lasted about sixteen
years, and therefore it required a certain return as a
remuneration for the capital invested in that machinery,
and consequently to reduce the period of labour to ten
hours a day, would greatly diminish the returns to the
owners of the machinery, and a great injustice would
Why
manufacturer in this country, whether
any yi
he (Mr. Beckett) would appeal to any,
most sanguine
sanguineng
employed in manufactures had ever been
for twelve hours a day for sixteen years ?
no manufacturer ever expected such a thing.
workedtb%
vheeh done.ymnoacs
Machinery was continually being superseded by
new inventions. This argument of the Right Honour-
able Baronet, therefore, completely fell to the ground.
He (Mr. Beckett) had taken the opinions of many
practical men on the subject, and the whole of those
with whom he had consulted deprecated a twelve hours
operatives whom be had conversed with were all in
Bill.—(Hear,
favour ofeash hear-) Manufacturers, shop-keepers, and
shortening the hours of labour, and in the
town of Barnsley he had ascertained that no operative
worked more than ten hours a day. He believed that
the labouring population in the manufacturing districts
would ever remain open to the schemes of demagogues
and agitation while the present duration of the hours of
labour continued. While he was opposed to a twelve
hours'Bill, he would freely admit that he would not sup-
port a proposition for a Bill of ten hours. He thought
such a change would be too sudden. He wished to see
a gradual alteration, and for the present he would be
content with an eleven hours' Bill. He would be glad to
see such a Bill passed for a period of three or four years,
and by that time they would be enabled to judge of the
practicability of further curtailing the hours of labour.
Sir GEORGE GREY felt anxious to state the
reasons why he concurred with the Noble Lord who
had moved the amendment which had been proposed.
In doing so, he could not but acknowledge that the
observations of the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary
for the Home Department, in introducing this Bill, were
entitled to the greatest weight. He was bound to say
that the arguments which had been addressed to the
House by the Hon. Member for Kendal seemed to him
(Sir G. Grey) to have been directed rather against le-
gislative interference on the subject than against the
limited, and, as he thought, reasonable proposal which
had been submitted to the House by his Noble Friend.
They had been warned, and he admitted, properly
warned, not to do anything which -might have the effect
of curtailing our manufacturing energies and impairing
the commercial prosperity of the country. He had lis-
tened in vain for any shadow of argument, or for the
slightest proof, that the change which a as now proposed
was likely to involve our commercial prosperity. He
would ask whether any argument had been used
against the amendment of his Noble Friend, which was
not equally applicable to the principle of the Bill
then before the House. The principle of legislative in-
terference had been long ago decided by the Legislature.
When that question was decided opportunities were
presented to the Hon. Member fir Kendal (Mr.
Warburton) of pressing his objections either on the
second reading of the Bill, or upon the motion that the
Speaker do leave the Chair. No such course, however,
was taken. He (Sir G. Grey) thought, therefore, that
in the present state of the proceedings it was unfair to
raise that general question. The only question was
how far ought their interference to be carried—how far
could it be safely carried, and how far the interest of
the operatives required and permitted it should be
carried out, and at what
point they were to start from.
With regard to the subject of interference, it seemed to
him that between the Noble Earl and the Government
there was not the slightest difference. The Noble Lord
did not ask the House to go beyond the Government in
comprehending other classes in this Bill. The simple
question upon which they were called to make
up their minds and tg pronounce an opinion upon, was
the question whether young persons between the age of
13 and 18, and women of every age, should labour
during twelve hours a day, exclusive of the period con-
sumed in going to and from the factories, exclusive of
the period to be consumed during their meals in the
factory. The question the House had to decide was,
whether the period should be ten or twelve' hours. On
one side it was proposed that the time should be ten
hours ; and the proposition on the other side was, that
it should be twelve hours, which, in the case of females,
no one could doubt was very excessive labour. He
thought that the Report of the Factory Inspectors was
deserving of every attention and consideration upon this
subject, and they gave it as their direct opinion that
twelve hours' work was more than enough for any young
person, and in the case of females, the necessity
of being absent for more than fifteen hours,
was destructive of domestic happiness and comfort, and
must necessarily tend to the total neglect of their fa-
milies. He would ask the House were they to declare
that this excessive labour was necessary for the com-
mercial prosperity of the country ? Taken in connec-
tion with other measures which would tend to ameliorate
the physical and moral condition of the people, he con-
_ sidered that such a provision as this would have a bene-
ficial result. He thought, from. all he could learn, -that
the great mass of the operatives were most anxious to
see the propositions of his Noble Friend carried out.

This question, he was aware, was one of great difficulty;
and he was happy to see so many Hon Members,
who were practically acquainted with the sub-
ject, come fbrward and express their opinions
upon it. He did not wish to raise any discussion con-
cerning extraneous matter, but he should say that he
thought the difficulties which surrounded the question
was considerably increased by impolitic restrictions
upon trade, which upon the one hand limited the com-
merce of the country, and, on the other hand, pro-
duced the greatest fluctuations. He felt that the amend-
ment of his Noble Friend would be attended with the
most beneficial results, and he should vote in favour of it.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he did not wish to exclude
from this discussion any matters which might tend to
throw light upon it. This Bill had been brought in fur
the pm pose of limiting the duration of labour in fac-
tories to twelve hours; for many of the operations in
the manufacture of cotton and the higher branches
of woollen trade, full-grown men and women were not
adapted, and the labour of young persons was indis-
pensable. He should take a cursory review of all the
legislative enactments which had been framed upon the
subject of infant labour. Up to the year 1802 there
was no law to limit the labour of young persons in fac-
tories. In that year a law was passed which prohibited
their employment for a period exceeding twelve hours
out of the twenty-four. This was the first instance of
any interfererence for the protection of this most unpro-
tected class of individuals. So the law stood until 1819,
when an Act was passed, declaring that in cotton manu-
factories no children should be compelled or allowed to
work more than twelve hours. In six years afterwards
further provisions were introduced for the regulation of the
labour of persons under sixteen years of age in factories.
In 1831, a Bill was introduced by Mr. Hobhouse, enact-
ing that no person under the age of twenty-one should
work at night between the hours of half-past eight and
half-past five in the morning. He had now traced the
course of legislation on this subject from 1802 till 1831.
In the year 1833, the Noble Lord, the Member for Dor-
setshire, introduced for the first time his proposition for
shortening the hours of labour, in the shape of a Bill,
reducing the time of labour from twelve hours to ten.
The limit of labour before that was always twelve hours,
'and it was never sought to be altered till the Noble
Lord introduced his measure. In 1833, he (Sir James
Graham) had the honour of being in the councils of
her Majesty, together with Lord Spencer, a most humane
man, and one on whom the statements of the Noble
Loed were likely to produce a groat impression, yet
they thought it their duty to resist that motion, and in
doing so Mr. Poulett Thomson urged the very argu-
ment which he (Sir J. Graham) addressed to the House
the last time the subject was discussed ; he pointed' out
that though the Noble Lord's intention was humane—
though the facts he stated were most distressing—yet,
taking a dispassionate view of the policy the Noble
Lord wished to introduce, considering its bear-.
ing between the employer and the employed,
as a united Government they said this propo-
sition must be resisted. It would not be expedient
to trace the course of all the legislation on this subject
since 1833. He might add, however, that the Act of
1833 placed silk manufactories on the same footing as
those of cotton, wool, and flax. In the following year
a Bill was brought in by Mr. Hindley and Mr. Brother-
ton, which Mr. Hobhouse again, on the part of the Go-
vernment, opposed. The measure made noprogress in that
session, and was not renewed in the following one. In 1836
Mr. P. Thomson with the support of Lord John Rus
sell, introduced a Bill to amend and explain the Factory
Act of 1833. This measure repealed that part of the
statute which permitted children between the ages of
twelve and thirteen to work for twelve hours a day;
there was a division, and he (Sir James Graham),
though opposed to the Government, voted with
the majority, but that majority was so small
that it was thought advisable not to press
the Bill. In 1838, the Honourable Member
for Taunton brought in a Bill which provided
that children not more than nine years of age should not
work more than twelve hours a day, still keeping the
12 hours as a limit. In 1839 the Factory Bill was again
introduced, still keeping twelve hours as the number of
hours to work ; there a as a Committee on the Bill, and
Lord Ashley moved that the blank in the clause should
be filled up with the words fifty-eight instead of sixty-
eight, this being practically a reduction of the hours
of labour from twelve hours to ten. He could not state
more forcibly the objections to this proposal, than by
quoting the words of the Noble Lord the Member for
London, who said, "It seems to me that the Noble
Lord has not answered the question Of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Wolverhampton, whether, having reduced the
hours of labour, he could provide at the same time that
the same remuneration should be given for those shor-
tened hoursof labour." That was exactly the objection to
the proposition at present; if the operatives believed that
they would get twelve hours' wages for ten hours' work,
it was a delusion so gross that the Government was
bound to exercise its care not to adopt any measure
founded on such false expectations. The Noble Lord
then went on to say, " Does he carry his principle so far
as to fix the rate of wages by law ? If he means to do
so, the Committee must know the impossibility of such
a course ; instead of the proposition being one
of humanity, it would be one of great in-
humanity. He must, therefore, resist it." The
majority in that Committee against the proposal
was 94 to 62, and he (Sir James Graham) voted in that
majority with the following gentlemen—Sir G. Grey,
Mr. B. Hanes, Sir J. Hobhouse. Lord Howick, Mr.
Labouehere, Lord Morpeth, Mr. Fox Maule, who was
one of the tellers, and, lastly, he had great pleasure in
voting on that occasion pith Lord John Russell.—
(Hear, hear.) In 1841 another Factory Bill was intro-
duced, but the law, as it at present stood, had existed for
42 years, had been confirmed by six or seven Parliaments,
and in all the measures introduced on the subject there
had been an uniform adherence to twelve hours as the
limit to the time of labour. The Noble Lord the Me tu-
ber for Dorsetshire had quoted evidence from the Be-
-1 ports of Mr. Saunders, showing that twelve hours of
labour was too long, but he believed he would not
find evidence to that effect in the Report of Mr.
Horner. He (Sir James Graham) had distinctly put
the question to these gentlemen, whether they believed
that a ten-hours' Bill would be beneficial to manufactur-
ing operatives, and they were of opinion that such a Bill
would have the worst effect upon them.—(Hear, hear.)
Ie was aware that the Noble Lord had influential au-
thority in support of his proposition, but the matter
must be decided on reasoning, and he could not persuade
himself that anything had fallen from those authorities
against the arguments with which he had met the
Noble Lord. The Honourable Member for the
West Riding of Yorkshire stated that the
proposition was very generally assented to by the mill-
owners of the West Riding ; but those mill-
owners were mostly engaged in the simpler manufacture
of wool in its earlier stages; their workmen were paid
by the piece; and, provided they supplied the demand of
their customers, the period of labour was to them a
matter of comparative indifference. But if they went to
those who were engaged in the more expensive stages of
manufacture, with more expensive and complex ma-
chinery, in which greater capital was invested, there
they would find no great desire on the part of the
master manufacturer to limit the hours of labour to ten.
Ninety-nine out of every hundred would have no
desire to make the change.—(Cries of "No, no.")
He was perfectly dispassionate, and he wished to make
himself master of all the facts, for this was a most im-
portant question. He would most gladly avail himself
of a ten hours' Bill if he considered that it would be for
the interests of the working people of the country to do
so. The Hon. Gentleman opposite, who was well known
for his humanity, and for the interest which he took in
the welfare of his workmen, was obliged to avail himself
of the privilege of the law. This arose entirely from
. competition. There was an overwhelming necessity for
it, which he could not escape. The Noble Lord oppo-
site would allow him to proceed step by step. When he
(Sir J. Graham) last spoke on the subject, he did not
say that machinery should be replaced in sixteen years,
but in twelve or thirteen years. (The Right Honourable
Gentleman then quoted from Mr. Homer's report, in
1832, which stated, that the work of machinery was so
rapid, and improvements in it so constant, that it should
be replaced within 12 or 13 years, in order to re-
turn the capital with ordinary interest of Sock.)
The proposition of his Noble Friend would abridge. by
one-sixth, the operations by which that machinery, with
interest of stock, was restored. He said he would advert
to the only means of escape open to master manufac
turers if the present amendment were passed. He was
satisfied that in the present state of the labour market
master manufacturers would be able, under ex-
isting circumstances, and at the present moment, to
transfer their losses from themselves, the stronger party,
to the labourers, who were the weaker.--(Hear, hear.)
The House, he knew, disliked calculations, but it would be
necessary for him to enter into the facts, and he hoped the
House would give him its attention while he did so.
He had quoted in a former debate the :opinion of Mr.
Homer—and he still believed that opinion to be true—
that in the present state of the cotton and worsted ma-
nufactures, the effect of this measure would be to re-
duce, by
i 25 per cent., the wages of the operatives em-
ployed n those manufactures.—(Hear, hear.) Let
them observe, if that were the state of the case,
what would be the effects of this amendment upon the
labourer, whose comfortable position he heard with
such delight detailed by the Hon. Member for Durham
(Mr. Bright). The Hon. Gentleman stated that work-
men employed on his own property received, on an
average 93/. a year. Now, considering that he was right
in this statement, the effect of the present proposition
would be, that those families who were now in receipt
of 93/. a year would have only 701. a year.—(Hear,
hear.) Therefore a more important proposition could
not be discussed. All that lie would ask on the part of
Government was, that they would adhere to the law
which limited the hours of labour to twelve. They
should understand those matters in all their bearings.
It was the duty of every Member to consider them, and
of every Government, more especially, on whom the re-
sponsibility of their effects would rest, to reflect deeply
on them.—(Hear, hear.) This was not a case for catch-
ing a passing popularity. That was nothing compared
with the frightful responsibility which attached to it.—
(Hear, hear.) It might be ruin to the country.—(Hear,
hear.) He could not contemplate it, feeling as lie
did, without horror ; and nothing should induce
him to share in that responsibility.--(Hear, hear.) He
begged the attention of the House to the arguments by
which he hoped to prove that the inevitable effect of this
measure would be a reduction of 25 per cent. on the
wages of the operatives employed. He would take one
case mentioned in Mr. Homer's report of 1842. One
case was enough to exhibit the argument. The case
was to be found in page 79 of the report. He would
test the measure by the case of a cotton mill in Man-
chester, which employed 520 hands, spinning fifty hanks
the pound. He would not wary the House with going
through the items of the fixed capital ; suffice it to say
there was a fixed capital to the amount of 8,914/. The total
number of hours during which the operatives worked
under the present law in a, week was 69.' By the-pro-
position of his Noble Friend the hours would be reduced
to sixty—that was nine hours less than they were at

esent:—there would be a loss to the manufacturer by
the hour, which was calculated at 2/.165. 10d. Now, if
this 2/. 16s. 10d. were multiplied by 9, it would give
25/. 11s. 6d., and this would be the loss of capital to
the manufacturer in a week. In his establishment 170
operatives were employed at 15s. a week, and 250 at 10s.
The weekly wages paid in the mill amounted to 127/.
10s. for the 170 workers at 155., and 125/. for the 250 at
10s., making a total of weekly wages to the amount of
252/. 10s. He had already stated that 25/. 1 ls. 6d.
was the weekly loss, therefore the interest of the capital I
bore to the weekly wages the proportion that 251. 1 ls.
6d. bore to 252/. 10s., which was about one-twelfth of
the weekly wages. There could, therefore, be no ques-
tion that if twelve hours' wages could be made by ten
hours' work, they must admit than a reduction of wages
would be commensurate with the reduction of time, and
master manufacturers would reduce the wages 1-6th.
He said one-sixth, but he would not take so high a cal-
culation. He would take the positive reduction of the
wages at one-seventh. He had shown that the loss of
capital from the reduction of the time by nine hours
was one-twelfth; and if one-seventh were added to one-
twelfth, the loss would be nineteen eighty-fourths on
the whole, or less than one-fourth, but considerably
more than one-fifth. He did not know that he had
made himself clearly understood to the Committee.—
(Hear, hear.) He believed the calculation was perfectly
accurate, and he was not able to discover any fallacy in
it.—(Hear.) It was, he believed, a fair calculation, and
if that were so, it proved that the inevitable conse-
quence of passing the Noble Lord's proposition in the
present state of the commercial world, at least in the
cotton and worsted manufactures, would be a reduction
of wages less than one-fourth but greater than one-fifth.
He was bound to call the attention of the House to mat-
ters of this kind. He begged to call the attention of the
House to the opinion of Mr. Poulett Thomson, a gen-
tleman who ought to be of some authority with gentle-
men opposite.—(Hear hear.) He said, "It would be
better to have a duty of 2d. per pound imposed on the raw
cotton, than that an abridgement of the hours of labour
from twelve to ten hours should be carried into law."
The loss which it would occasion to the master
mauufacturer would amount to 1001. a week.
The Honourable Member for Salford, when
they proposed to reduce the working hours
of young persons from 13 to 12, took occasion to taunt
the Government with breaking the engagements made
under the measure of 1833. It was an arrangement;
and he only asked the Committee to maintain the com-
promise entered into between the manufacturing inte-
rest and the advocates of a Ten Hours' Bill. That was
a settlement which ought not to be disturbed.—(Hear,
hear.) The Hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Warburton)
put irresistibly the statement which he (Sir J. Graham)
made the other night, that the conclusion of his Noble
Friend was at variance with his facts. (Hear,
hear.) His Noble Friend made a statement with
regard to collieries and mines, similar to that
which he made in proposing the present amendment,
but his conclusion was different; for in the former case
he proposed that females and children under twelve
years of age should be prevented from working in mines
altogether, but he shrank from coming to that con-
clusion in the present case.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble
Lord the Member for South Lancashire felt the force of
this. If this were a matter of feeling he would go along
with his Noble Friend's proposition, but when be con-
sidered the state of the manufacturing population—
assuming that he was right in his calculation that if this
Bill passed the wages of both males and females would
be reduced 25 per cent.—he was bound to ask
himself the question, " Shall we limit labour to an
extent which will reduce it from twelve to ten hours.
under the certain evil that it will reduce the wages of
women, and children, and husbands 25 per cent.?"—
(Ilear;hear.) That was the balance of disadvantage.
He was persuaded that this would be the case with all
the certainty that he would be persuaded of a mathe-
matical truth. In his opinion a measure more fatal V)
morality, and to all the decencies of civilised life, could
not be adopted. The Noble Lord, the Member for
Liverpool, declared his object was to equalise the distri-
bution of labour. He said he desired to place factory
labour on the same footing with other kinds of labour
throughout the country. That was an ominous warn-
ing.—(Hear, hear.) This was but a small step ; and,
by and bye, steps would be taken to deal with
the whole labour of the country.—(Hear, hear.)
A more disastrous course of legislation could not be
entered on.—(Hear, hear. But, setting aside that view
of the question, he begged to ask whether the tendency
of their legislation was to equalise the distribution of
labour ?—(Hear, hear.) He would ask any gentleman
conversant with the manufacturing districts whether,
though to a certain extent by their legislation of 1830
they had secured young persons against excessive la-
bour, that legislation had the effect so much desired by
the Noble Lord the Member for Liverpool?—(Hear,
hear.) It had a directly opposite effect, and unless the
House was prepared to go the whole length of dealing
with every species of labour, it could not be otherwise.
With regard to children, it had the effect of driving
them from employments which their legislation controlled
to employments to which it did not extend.—(Hear.)
He understood that 35,000 children under the age of
thirteen were employed in the printing of cotton. The
effect of interfering by legislation to shorten the time
of labour, and to prevent women and children from
working, would be to produce a congestion of labour
where they had not legislated.—(Hear, hear.) He had
gone into the subject more fully than he intended,
but lie wished to show that her Majesty's Govern-
ment (lid not desire to resist the wishes of
a large portion of the labouring classes with-
out full deliberation—without duly considering the
reasons on which they acted, and on which several suc-
cessive Governments had acted.—(Hear, hear.) He
would conclude with a few general observations. In
politics, as well as in morals, there was a retributive
justice inherent in the order of affairs, clearly percep-
tible in matters of Government, and he had never yet
seen a wide departure from the principles of sound le-
gislation without, sooner or later, producing confusion.
—(Opposition cheers.) Yes, inextricable confusion.—
(Renewed cheers.) They might taunt him. He cared
not for those taunts. He was decidedly of opinion
that such a departure from sound legislation would
create and must end in a labyrinth of error, out of
which there would be no escape.—(Opposition cheers.)
It would in the long run produce evils, formidable evils,
which it would be difficult, if not impossible to regulate
at all, but particularly difficult to regulate for
those whom it was intended to benefit.—(Hear, hear.)
He begged particularly to impress upon the Committee,
that if they increased the stringency of certain restric-
tions, the inevitable consequence would be,that they must
relax others of a countervailing nature.—(Opposition
cheers.) This was a highly artificial system.—(Hear,
hear.) It was like a house of cards, from which if
one was taken the whole tumbled down. It was a
system which, if they touched, he was afraid evils would
be created, which he did not wish to contemplate.
Sir GEORGE GREY rose to explain. The Right
Hon. Baronet had charged him with inconsistency with
regard to this question, because he had voted differently
in 1839. He thought the Right Hon. Baronet ought
himself to show charity in bringing against him a
charge of inconsistency.—(Cheers and laughter.) But
it should be recollected that this was a subject on which
they had obtained a great deal of new information—
(Hear, hear)— and no regard for consistency would in-
duce him to reject the light of that information.—
(Hear, hear.) He recollected that the Noble Lord the
Secretary for Ireland, and the Right Hon. Gentleman
the Paymaster of the Forces, had voted with him on
that occasion, and he was very anxious to see how
they should regard their consistency.—(Laughter.)
Mr. M'Geachy and Mr. Labouchere rose together,
but the latter gave way, and
Mr. M`GEACHY addressed the House. He com-
menced by saying that the Noble Lord who introduced
the present amendment gave an example that a public
man could pursue a great public benefit through life.—
(Hear, hear.) It had excluded the Noble Lord from
office, because he would not accept office, lest it might
stand in the way of that entire self-devotion with which
he gave himself up to the pursuit of his high and noble
objects.—(Hear, hear.) He thought a Ten Hours' Bill
had great claims upon the Right Hon. Baronet at the
head of the Government, for a Ten Hours' Bill was in-
troduced by the late Sir Robert Peel, and the principle
was always warmly advocated by him. The present
Government had come into power upon the shoulders of
the people, and he (Mr. M'Geachy) appealed to the
House whether they had shown any attention to the
wants of the people. Had they done so, they might
have remained one of the strongest Governments
that ever existed. Although he did not com-
plain of their conduct with respect to the
Factories Bill of the last session, considering the bigotry
hich was shown respecting it by the Dissenters, yet he
could not help thinking that a bolder course might have
been adopted. From the time of the passing of the
Catholic Emancipation Act and the Reform Bill, when a
Minister did not think it inconsistent with his duty to
receive a deputation of 150,000 persons belonging to
political unions, to theti me of the Chartist insurrections,
—from that time to the present, redress of grievances
had only been consequent upon agitation. Agitation
had always preceded redress.—(Cheers from the Oppo-
sition.) He thought- the time was now come when the
truth should be spoken. This country had gone upon
the principle of amassing wealth, but the condition of
the labouring population had not been considered. He
hailed the proposition of the Noble Lord with satisfac
tion. It was a step in the right direction. So long as
the the present system existed—so long would there
be discontent among the people.—(Hear.) What,
after all, was it that was asked ? Why it was
merely to reduce the hours of labour in the manufac-
turing districts to the usual period in other districts. He
did not believe this would have the effect of reducing
the wages of the operatives, and in this opinion he was
borne out by many practical men.—(Hear, hear.) It
was said that those who wished to abridge the period of
labour wished to diminish the comforts of the poor. He
did not think such would be the effect of the Noble
Lord's (Lord Ashley's) proposition. Previous restric-
tions upon labour had not proved injurious to the inte-
rests of the labourers. The Hon. Member then -quoted
from the report of Baron Dupin, a Member of the
French Chamber of Peers, who approved of restric-
tions upon labour. He disapproved of the employment
of children in factory labour, as he thought it injurious
to their constitutions. He would feel it his painful duty
to vote against the measure brought forward by the
Government.

Mr. LABOUCHERE said he never rose to address
the House with feelings of greater fear and anxiety. It
was painful to him to separate himself from those with
whom he was accustomed constantly to act ; but when
he saw the Government pursuing a course which he
sincerely approved he could not shrink from giving
them all the assistance in his power.--(Cheers.)
The Right Honourable Gentleman the Secretary
of State for the Home Department had divided
his speech on that question into two distinct portions.
Theifirst portion consisted of a lengthened appeal to the
consistency of those who sat on that side of the House,
and especially of those who composed the late Govern-

Ativrrsista

meat. He confessed that if the argument of consistency
was the only one which he had to urge, he would throw
that argument to the winds.—(Hear, hear.) If subse-
quent information bad convinced him that he had
formerly acted wrong, he should feel it his
bounden duty not to shrink from avowinc, that he had
changed his opinion. This question had been discussed
over and over again in the House of Commons ' - it had
been repeatedly examined in Committees and by Com-
missioners appointed for the purpose, and they
had all uniformly recoiled from the measure which
his Noble Friend the Member for Dorsetshire
recommended to the House.—(Hear, hear.) The point
before them was a very simple one ; it was as important
as it was simple. It was the point which was commonly
designated the Ten Hours' Bill. The question was
nominally whether they would take the step of restrict-
ing the hours of labour for young women to ten hours,
but practically and really the proposal was to limit-the
working of the factories to those hours.—(Hear, hear.)
To that proposal the Legislature had hither refused to
accede. Some Hon. Gentlemen, in arguing this ques-
tion, had said in effect, " We are in a new and untrod-
den path ; we have sanctioned interference with factory
labour, and having done that we cannot go on too ra-
pidly." He confessed that he drew a very different
conclusion.—(Hear, hear.) Believing that they
were treading in a very peril pus path he was
anxious that they should walk in such a path with
great caution.(Hear, hear.) It was not enough to ask
him whether it was right that a woman or a young
person should be employed for twelve hours a day in a
factory. He was prepared at once to say, he wished to
God they could prevent it.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) If
he could view the case as an isolated one, unconnected
with consequences, no one could be more anxious than
himself for the proposed alteration. But that was not
the sole question before them —(Hear, hear.) In all
human things good and evil were mixed together ; and,
as legislators, they would act a most unwise, and a most
narrow part, nay, they would act in opposition to
the interests of those whom they wished to
benefit, if they did not pause before they came
to a decision. Honourable Gentlemen asked, what
was the great difference between ten hours and twelve;
and they reminded them that in the Factory Bill, which
had passed through that House, they had, already li.
mited the period of labour to twelve hours. Now ho
would state why, in his judgment, they had acted on
safe grounds in the course they had hitherto pursued,
and why he thought that the course now pursued was
one of peril. He believed that when.inquiry was first
instituted in 1833, it was found that all well conducted
factories in this country were not worked practically more
that twelve hours a day. If that were the case, so long
as they did not interfere with that arrangement, any other
regulations which they might adopt were likely, impera-
tively- speaking, to be safe. What did they do under
those circumstances ? They applied their care princi-
pally to children, and they regulated the hours of labour
in such a manner as to oblige the manufacturers to adapt
their work to the twelve hours' system. By doing that
they had doubtless, to a certain degree, raised the
charges upon the manufacturer, but still they never in-
terfered with the possibility of his working his mill for
twelve hours.—(Hear, hear.) He maintained that this
was a very important distinction.—(Hear, hear.) They
could not confine their views to this country alone in
discussing that subject ; they must look abroad.—
(Hear, hear.) The measure which they were now
discussing was to apply chiefly to those
vast and important branches of their manufac-
tures which depended for their existence upon the
export trade, which were subject in every instance,
and at every step, to a very close competition with fo-
reign rivals. And what was the case with regard to the
foreign manufacturers ? He apprehended that at that
moment there was not a country in this world where
cotton manufactures were established, in which the
common period of working was not twelve hours a-day,
and generally more.—(" No, no," from Lord Ashley.)
His Noble Friend the Member for Dorsetshire expressed
his incredulity on that subject. He would be glad to
hear from him if in any country in the world there was
a law which prohibited mills from being worked
more than twelve hours a-day 2—(Hear, hear.) He
would be glad to hear him mention any country in
which the mills were not actually worked twelve hours.
He would refer to one country—a very important manu-
facturing country—a country which, with respect to the
cotton trade, was one of our most dangerous rivals—he
meant the United States of America; and he selected
that country the more readily, because it was one in
which the competition was not so intense as to drive
the population to subject themselves to intolerable la-
bour. What was the state of the cotton manufactories.
of that country? He begged to quote the evidence of
a very respectable gentleman in America connected with
the cotton manufacture. He was asked what was the
number of daily working hours, and his answer was,
" The actual number of working hours averages twelve
hours work at some seasons, at some seasons it is nearly
fourteen, and at other seasons it is little more than ten."
—(Hear, hear.) Now he thought that the House would
at once perceive that they were taking a much more
dangerous step in reducing the hours from twelve to,
ten than they had taken formerly in reducing them to
twelve. They were going on quite a new ground—a
ground quite different from that which they had oc-
cupied in preventing infant labour from being unneces-
sarily severe and burdensome.—(llear, hear.) He would
not trouble the House by entering into the details of this
question, which had already been so ably dealt with by his
Right Hon. Friend (Sir .T. Graham). It was quite evi-
dent that the effect of the Noble Lord's proposal wouldi
be a material diminution of wages.—(Hear, hear.) Nes
one who had any acquaintance with the manufacturing
districts would undervalue this effect.—(Hear, team)
The seasons when distress and famine stalked abroad in.
our manufacturing districts, were not seasons of over--
a ork, but seasons when there was a difficulty in obtain-
ing employment. It was then that disease was rife, andt
crime was found to abound.—(Laughter.) And if, by/
the mistaken legislation of that House, they should pr-o-
duce a real and permanent stagnation of the trade of this
country, they would inflict far more misery in a week
than they were now seeking to remedy.—(Hear. They
were told, to be sure, that manufacturers had always shown
a great disposition to amendment, and that this was re
reason for adopting the Noble Lord's proposal. Why,
manufacturers were, he imagined, much like other
people; nobody liked to be interfered with if they pos-
sibly could avoid it.—(Laughter.) He admitted that,
the apprehensions which the manufacturers had formerle-
expressed with regard to the Factory Bill had proved to
be unfounded; but he did not think that they ought on
that account entirely to disregard their representations,
especially if, on examination, they proved to be founded
on reason. He could not join his Hon. Friend, the-
Member for Kendal, in regretting that Parliament hall
ever undertaken to regulate factory labour; on the con-
trary, he thought that experience had shown that they
had conferred most important benefits on the
youthful population in the manufacturing districts
by Parliamentary interference; and he believed that
even the manfacturers themselves who had been most
opposed to the change, were now convinced that such
was the case. But with regard to the effect which their
interference might produce on foreign countries, it was
highly important in his opinion that they should not.
take any rash or precipitate step.—(Hear, hear.) If
they saw them crippling their manufactures by unwise.
and hasty legislation, it was very unlikely that they:
would follow them in the same course.—(Hear, hear.)
Though the circumstance of great masses of people being
there congregated together gave facilities for the regula-
tion of labour in factories, yet there were circumstances.
connected with factory labour which ought to make theun
particularly cautious, and which ought to prevent thee*
from pushing the principle of interference to an unwise 4
and dangerous extreme.—(Hear, hear.) He did not
wish to introduce into that discussion any question
which might interfere with the dispassionate considera-
tion of this subject ; but there was one point involved
in that question, to which. from its importance, he could
not omit alluding. They had in this country established
a protective system ; in various ways, he would not.;
then say whether wisely or unwisely, successfully or
unsuccessfully, they had protected various interests.
But there was one thing which they could not protect,
and that was their export trade. He warned tbe House
that if they adopted this proposal—if they entered upon
this new course of legislation, they would have to.
adopt many. other measures, or else see a degree of ruin,
and misery inflicted on various great interests in this;
country, which it was lamentable to contemplate. He•
would not follow the Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir James
Graham) in his description of the effect which the adop-
tion of the motion of his Noble Friend must inevitably-
have, first upon the wages of the labourer, then upon
the profits of the manufacturer, and, lastly, upon the.
general trade and industry of the country. But he fount
the effect so clearly and ably stated in the Report of the
Commissioners in 1833, that he would take the liberty
of reading a very striking passage to the House, (The
Right Hon. Gentleman then read an extract from the
Report. It stated, that if the ten hours' system were
enforced, there might, indeed, be a temporary
scarcity of manufactured goods, so as, in the
first instance, to occasion a rise of prices,
which might, as long as it lasted, anew of the main-
tenance of wages ; but this result could not in the nature
of things be of long duration ; the small factories would
soon be swept away and the more oprslent would even-
tually share the same fate ; the ultimate result would be
a general recuction of wages.) Li this the whole case
was so clearly, though so shortly, stated, that, he would
be unwilling to weaken its offeet by adding to it any
arguments of his own. He knew that those who tool:
the course which he was taking might possibly be
charged with inconsistency. He had cheerfully consented
to interfere with labour under certain circumstances.
He thought cases might be brought before
the House, so revolting, so shocking, so out
traging to the common feelings of human nature, the:
he would listen to no arguments against alteration, but,.
rather acting from impulse than reason., he would feel.
sure that he was right in putting an eir:t to such abomi-
nations.— (Hear, hear.) With that view lie had sup-
ported the measure of his Noble
Friend the Member
for Dorsetshire last year, prohibiting the employment of
women and girls in mines. He. had never regretted
having done so, and he believed that he never would
regret the course which he :Ltd pursued in reference to,
that question. But he could not but feel that there was
the greatest danger, if they did not look well and cir-
cumspectly to consequences, that, with the best inten-
tions in:the world, they might strike a'olow at the ma-
nufacturing interests of this court ,rye and thereby
inflict injury on the working classes generally.—
(Hear, hear.) On these gro•Ands he was pre-
pared to offer all the opposition in his power to the
motion of his Noble Friend,- arA he was prepared to
share with the Government the
which might attach to such omosition. He had seen no
on that debate, to alter
reason, from what he had her.,
the opinions which lie had
a hitherto
ha'odium and unpopularity
rd
felt bound, therefore, to give
proposal of the Noble Loiva.—
ided entertainedvote against; the
he
(C beers.)
Mr:COLQUHOUN stid it utmt tio easy matter to meet
authorities, so grew wad arguments so strong as those
which had been urged, against' the proposal of the Noble