The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-16 00:00:00

FACTORIES BILL.

The Order of the Day was then read, and
Mr. HINDLEY, before going into Committee, wished
to present a petition in favour of an eleven hours' fac-
tory Bill from the inhabitants of Bolton.
Lord ASIILEY presented petitions from Birmingham,
Leeds, and Stockport, in favour of a ten hours' Factory
Bill.

Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD presented a petition
from manufacturers and mill-owners in Tewkesbury, in
Yorkshire, against the seventh clause of the proposed
Factories Bill, on the ground that itwould cause a reduc-
tion of wages.
Mr. M. GIBSON presented several petitions of a simi-
lar nature.
Mr. STRUTT presented two petitions from Derby
against the Bill.
Mr. WALLACE said it had been his intention to
move an instruction to the Committee on the Factories
Bill, that they should extend its operation to other
branches of industry ; but as there was so strong a de
sire expressed to get the Bill passed into a law, he should
postpone to a future occasion the motion of which he
had given notice.
The House then went into Committee, Mr. GREENS
in the Chair.
The preamble of the Bill was posponed, and Clause I
was agreed to without discussion.
On Clause 2 being proposed,
Lord ASHLEY moved the amencbnent of which he
had given notice. He said it required some preliminary
explanation. He meant that the word " night" in this
clause should be taken to mean from six o'clock in the
evening till six o'clock in the morning. During the
summer months the range of a Factory Bill would then
be fourteen hours—twelve for work, and two for meals ;
in the winter months it would be twelve hours.
With a view to conciliate opposition, he would
propose to take eleven hours till the Ist of Octo-
ber this year, and ten hours in the year 1845.
Now, he would proceed to the subject under discussion.
Eleven years had elapsed since he made a proposition
of a similar nature to the House, which he would now
renew. But not at that time did he approach the sub-
ject with half the anxiety which he now did, not from
any fear of any personal pique, because,
" Disappointment is the badge of all our tribe,"
but from fear lest, through any inability on his part, he
would not be able to discharge his duty towards those
who had confided their interests to his keeping. He
wished, however, to anticipate an accusation made
against him of being hostile to the owners of mills. This
charge was altogether unfounded. It was a prominent
question before the public eye in 1815, when he first
undertook the subject. It was a subject painful for
many reasons, but it was one upon which he thought au
inquiry ought to take place. Ten years' experience
proved to him, even if he doubted it before, which he
did not, that avarice and cruelty were not peculiarly in-
herent in any class of men, or in any one occupation.
They would ever be found where means of profit were
combined with a virtually irresponsible power, whether
landlords or manufacturers. And where men possessed
such a power, there ought to be a close supervision—
(Hear, hear)—some supervision—some public control—
some restraints on the indulgence of those passions,
which otherwise might be indulged with safety and im-
punity. How many evil things were connived at when
they administered to our profit or even our convenience!
They might take as example the awful sufferings of the
dressmakers and•milliners of London. For whom were
they working out their lives night and day ? Was it
not to meet the sudden caprices of fashion ? Here were
no manufacturers, no landlords.—(Hear, hear.) They
crust ascribe it in many instances to the in-
difference of the tender sex, and he was ashamed
to say that amongst them were many of his own
intimacies and his own connexions. There were many
instances of kindness among the manufacturers. If there
were many bad men amongst them there were likewise
many good men, who went even to considerable expense
for the comfort of their workers; he would even admit
that many of them were the victims of a bad system.
He knew that in what he would now state, and lay be-
fore the House, he would excite a spirit of hostility; but
he would say now, as he said before," strike me, but hear
me." He would not go into the commercial part of the
subject—not because he was unwilling, or, perhaps,
unable to do so—but would confine himself to the dura-
tion of the hours of labour. In other European coun-
tries the hours of labour were less than they were in this
country. In Russia, in Austria, and in Switzerland, the
hours of labour were less than they were in England.
In France he knew that a law, founded on the provisions
of our Factory Bill, was in operation ; but there were
a great number of inspectors in that country, whose duty
it was to enforce the provisions of the law, and who
were inspectors by virtue of the offices which they held.
In Prussia, no child under sixteen years of age could be
employed more than ten hours a day, and proper pro-
visions were made for their education. In all countries
of Europe, provision was made that persons employed in
factories should not be overworked, and that proper pro-
visions should be made for their education ; and surely
it was the duty of this country to make proper provi-
sions for their welfare, when they considered how their
numbers were annually increasing. In 1818 the
number of 'persons, of both sexes, who were
employed in the cotton factories was 57,327.
Since that period they had no return, until
1835, when it appeared that the number of persons em-
ployed in the cotton and woollen manufactures amounted
to 354,682. In 1839 they amounted to 419,591, and of
these the number of persons under eighteen years of
age employed in manufactures amounted to 192,880.
Simultaneously with this great increase in their num-
bers, a vast increase bad taken place in their labour.
The labour which these persons were now compelled to
undergo was three times greater than it had been in the
year 1818. A few thousand persons now performed the
work of several millions, owing to the introduction of
machinery. He had several returns which would show
that labour at the present day was three times greater
than it was in the year 1815. It had been progressively
increasing from that time up to the present year. In
1815 the distance travelled by a person following a pair
of mules in the spinning of cotton yarn was about eight
miles per day, calculating twelve hours to the day. In
1832 the distance travelled by a person following a pair
of mules, calculating twelve hours to the day, was
twenty miles, and often more. In 1839 it ranged from
fifteen miles up to thirty-seven. But that was not all'
the labour the men had to go through. In 181,5 a
spinner put up about 820 stretches on each of a pair of
mules, being 1,640 stretches in the course of a-day. In
1832 a spinner put up 2,200 stretches on one of a pair
of mules, making, on a pair of mules, in the course of a
day, 4,400 stretches. In 1844, from returns which had
been given him on that morning from a most expe
rienced and practical mill-owner in Lancashire, a spinner
put up in the same period (2,400 stretches, or on a pair
of mules 4,600 stretches. This calculation had been
made, as he had said before, by one of the most expe-
rienced arithmeticians in England. At his (Lord
Ashley's) request, he went down to Manchester and
made the measurements and calculations himself. He
took a number of yarns in five different mills, viz. the num-
bers 14,15, 30,38, and 40,and on these he made the calcula-
tions. On N 0.14, the least distance possibly travelled was
17 miles a day, and the greatest distance was 27 miles.
On No. 15, the least distance travelled was 19 miles,
and the greatest 29. On Nb. 30, the least distance was
24 miles, and the greatest was 37. On No. 38, the least
distance WU 15 miles, the greatest 23 ; and, 911 No. 40;