The Sun.
London, England, 1850-06-15 00:00:00

LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE 15,

provided they would not avail themselves of that indul-
e.,rc-, .:!,, Th.t:
by three of the convicts, but it was positively refined by
the relative of the I ion. Gentleman. The Governor, act
ing inconformity with instructions which he had received,
placed the Hon. Gentleman's relative on a part of th->
island appropriated to the reception of convicts, but
assigned him separate apartments. He was of course
there as a convict, not thinking that a ticket of leave was
worth acceptance, he (Sir G. Grey) regretted to say;
but he had had communication both with the bishop.
with the chaplain, and other persons, and every
indulgence had been shown him, consistent with
the painful duty which the Governor had to
discharge.—(Hear, hear.) And he (Sir George Grey)
thought if any complaint was to be brought against the
Governor, it was for showing more indulgence in this
case than he was entitled to show.—(Hear, hear.) With
regard to a relaxation as to his treatment, he (Sir G.
Grey) only knew it from a communication which he had
received from the Hon. Member; but he (Sir G. Grey)
had no doubt that if the health of the Hon. Member 'a
relative was likely to be endangered, that such relaxa-
tion would take place as was accorded in similar cases.
Mr. GRATTAN said this unfortunate gentleman was
a countryman of his ; and he (Mr. Grattan) knew of no
law for imposing torture on a maa in this country. This
was a question of humanity, and he hoped the Govern-
ment would treat it as such. This unfortunate gentle-
man bad not been allowed to buy tea, or coffee, or cloth-
ing, and his present treatment was worthy the country
whose Privy Council refused to allow Bonaparte the
lutury of a pianoforte when incarcerated at St. Helena.
THE UNIVERSITIES COMMISSION.
Mr. HEADLAM wished to ask the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford
whether it was his intention to bring before the House
the subject of the proposed Commission for the Univer-
sities on the adjourned debate?

iir:dLADgTONE said that the debate was adjourned
on the motion of the Member for Plymouth, and he was
the person most proper to apply to on the subject.
FACTORIES BILL.
The House then proceeded to consider the amendments
to this Bill.
presented petitions from several
placesLor
dinj. MLanAcaNshNirEeßaSnd Cheshire praying the House to
pass this Bill in its integrity.
Sir G. GREY then proposed, as an additional clause,
after section 5, to the effect, that every young person,
and every fomale above the age of 18 years, who shall
be employed in any factory, or shall be allowed to
remain in any room where any manufacturing process is
then carried on in any factory during any part of the
times which by the notice then fixed up in such factory
in that behalf are mentioned as the times allowed for
meals, shall be deemed to be employed contrary to the pro-
visions of the said recited Acts as amended by this Act.
Agreed to.
Lord ASHLEY proposed the following amendments:
—P. 2, 1. 12, after the word " Act," to insert " no child."
Same page, 1. 16, after the words " provided and," to
insert "no child."

Sir G. GREY opposed the amendments. He contended
that the present Bill had nothing to do with children.
It was merely a Bill to carry out the very Bill
which had been introduced by the Noble Lord himself.
The effect of the amendment of the Noble Lord would
be to place a material restriction on the working of the
machinery in factories, because it was impossible to carry
on the usual operations in those establishments without
having recourse to the labour of women and young chil-
dren, and the amendment would limit the hours during
which they were employed, further than was the case at
present. On these grounds, he should oppose the pro-
position of the Noble Lord.
Mr. AGLIONBY supported the amendment. He
was not only anxious to limit the period during which
women and young persons were engaged in factories,
but also to prevent them beginning labour at too early
an hour in the morning, or leaving off at too late an hour
in the evening.

Mr. S. CRAWFORD considered that any Bill which
called a child up from its bed at half-past four, was a Bill
which ought not to receive the sanction of the House.
Mr. BRIGHT wished to place before the House what
would be the practical effect of this proposition. If the
Noble Lord understood the effects, be thought that he
would be the last person to propose these amendments.
When an alteration was formerly made in the law re-
garding the hours of working for children the effect had
been that many hundreds of children had been driven
from factory employment. If they pursued that course,
as was now proposed, that none should work before six
in the morning and after six at night, the consequences
would be that still more would be driven from it. It
was not a question which very materially affected
the interest of employers so much as the children, and he
thought it desirable that the House should be made aware
of the effect of these amendments.

Mr. ED WARDS said that in his part of the country,
Halifax, it was unusual there to find a child unemployed,
and many of them were getting as much as ss. a week.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said he would be glad to
know what the effect of this amendment would be on the
adult labour of the manufacturing districts.
Mr. TATTON EGER rON said that the effect of this
amendment would be entirely to restrict the moving
power of adult labour, and he asked the House if they
were prepared to do this ?
Mr. ELLIOT was of the same opinion, and he be-
lieved that this amendment was nothing more than a
blow by a side-wind at adult labour, which hitherto had
not been sought to be interfered with.
Mr. HUME asked if the House were in a condition to
limit, as was proposed by this amendment, the working
of the machinery of the country to eight or nine hours?
He deprecated any attempt to interfere with the labour
of the working man; under the pretence of removing
a pressure from the people they would divert the capital
of the country, on the employment of which the
working classes were wholly dependent, since it gave
them the means of employment and subsistence.—(Loud
cries of " Divide.")
Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR denied that this
amendment interfered with the labour of the people; it
was only meant to protect children from being over-
worked.

Mr. W. J. FOX said the great body of the operative-
of this country would hail this measure as a
great boon, notwithstanding that it was so vehe-
mently opposed by the manufacturing capitalists.
He denied that this Bill meant to prevent
the factory operatives of this country labouring for a
longer period than they desired to do. If it was true
that the operatives had been misled or overawed, the
Government had the power to ascertain the fact, and
to find out their real opinions. This had, indeed, been
done, and the result was, that 50 per cent were in favour
of ten hours, 25 per cent. in favour of 12 hours, and 12 or
13 per cent. in favour of 11 hours. He believed
that the choice had therefore fallen on a Ten Hours Bill.
It was of the greatest possible importance that children
should be protected against excessive labour, and that they
should not be prevented having the advantage of educa-
tion by being kept employed to a late hour in the
evening.
After a few words from Mr. BROWN and Mr. STANS-
FIELD, who wore not heard in the gallery, owing to the
impatience of the [louse to have a division,
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For Lord Ashley's amendment 159
Against it •-• ..• ... 160
Majority against the amendment 1
The result was received with loud cheers by the
members in favour of the Noble Lord's amendment.
On re-entering the gallery we found
Lord J. MANNERS addressing the. House in support
of the amendment of which he had given notice, for the
purpose of limiting still more the hours of labour in the
case of women and young persons. Disguise the ques-
tion before them as they mighr, its real import wae,
would the Parliament of England refuse to the working
people of this country a boon which they had on a former
occasion freely accorded to them? That was the real
question upon which they had to decide, and Heaven send
that the decision of English gentlemen upon it might he
in accordance with English honesty and English honour!
From what had recently passed in that House one would
have thought that such a thing had never happened be-
fore, as that it was necessary to amend in one session of
Parliament an Act passed in the preceding one; but every
gentleman knew that such things were not of rare oc-
currence. The House would remember that in 1846,
when Parliament had determined to abrogate all the
laws imposing duties on the importation of grain, it was
discovered towards the close of the session that, owing to
an inaccuracy in the Bill, a fixed duty for a limited
period was left on beans and peas. The time for which
the duty could be raised was so limited, that it was not
thought worth while to pass a distinct Act reme lying
the defect; but let it be supposed that, instead of a ver-
bal inaccuracy, affecting only the import of beans and
peas for a limited period, it had been discovered a year
or two after that there were conflicting decaions in the
inferior courts on the subject, and that it was decided by
one of the supreme courts that not only beans and peas,
but every kind of cereal product, would have to pay a
fixed duty, not for a limited time, but for ever, what
then would have been the lan.uage of the Right Hon.
the Member for Tamworth, and the Hon. Member for
the West Riding ? They would at once have insisted
upon a remedy being introduced. But what would have
been thought if they (the Protectionists) had turned
round and thrown every obstacle in the way of repairing
propositionpoi n t o f principle,
of the
Ministry
the blunder ?—(llear, hear.) Yet such a course would
not have been more 'blameable than that pursued by
( I between Bill.--
(Hear.)the dththeatdtiffoewrehnieche
Geatlemen opposite with respect to the Factory
he had alluded? But in the one case the parties were
powerful, in the other they were poor and friendless,
and could appeal to nothing but the honour and justice
of the House of Commons. The Noble Lord then referred
to the opinion of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member
for Ripon, and to the last factory report and other au-
whatwaan
thorities to show that it was the intention of the framers
of the Act of 1844 that the working by shifts practised
under the Act of 1833 should be prevented, and
that it should be virtually a Ten Hours Bill. The Noble
Lord the Member fur Bath, when be introduced his mea-
sure, had brought forward a conclusive chain of evidence
as to the beneficial working of the Ten Hours Bill; yet, as
he (Lord J. Manners) understood is was the intention of
the Honourable limber for Manchester to give reasons
to show that the statement of his Noble Friend were er-
roneoue, he thought it right to confirm those statements
by evidence which he thought could admit of no dis-
pute. He should not quote from the statements of men-
a gentleman perfectly capable of forming an opinion, and
inclined from his position to take a view hostile to the
enthusiasts, hut from the calm opinions recorded by
till: of 1844.
He would ref
special commissioner of the Morning Chronicle sent down
to the manuficturing districts to report on the condition
of the people. to the statement of the
Speakine of the Ten Hours Bill, that
gentleman acid
ho found onepoint almost uniformly
p
conceded, and which was strongly verified by his own
observation, that the best conducted workmen in ( acts
mill were those who were most earnest for the Ten
Hours Bill, and as to the females, the testimony was
universal that it Was one of the greatest boons that had

been granted. That opinion was corroborated by
ey reeeie from ',114. ,evy
let out' pee: eeted to the liowe, and particularly by
the remarkable petition he had himself presented
from the maaagers and overlookers of mills in Rochdale
and Halifax. The same thing was also stated in a peti-
tion presented from 387 overllookers in Manchester.
Mr. Sanders also quoted, as a satisfactory proof of the
beneficial operation of that Act, the increased power it
had given to the working people in Yorkshire to obtain
small plots of ground, and to cultivate ',tile gardens for
their own use. Then, if such were the beneficial results
of the Act of 1847 on the condition of the manufac-
turing population—if their toil had been lightened,
their means of obtaining education greatly increased—
the comforts of thousands of heroes promoted by the cul-
tivation of the soil, perhaps the purest and moat simple
of enjoyments permitted to the dwellers upon earth, he
would ask whether it had been accomplished by any
great sacrifice on the part of the master manufacturers.
tie asserted that such was not the case, and he would
refer, as a proof of it, to almost every speech delivered from
the Manchester benches opposite on every debate during
the present session on the condition of the csuntry.
They had told the House that never in their memory
was trade so brisk, or the interest of the manufacturing
districts placed on so safe and secure a basis ; and yet
he supposed they would now say that if this great
boon was not taken away from the factory worker
the employers would be sacrified on the shrine of a mock
humanity. But the factory workers would not, he
thought, be disposed to attach much weight to prophe-
cies of that kind. They had been, in the last twenty
years, too well accustomed to such prophecies to put
much faith in them. If Hon. Gentlemen opposite said,
" We admit that the manufacturing interest is flourishing
—‘ sed medio in fonte leporum surgit amari aliquid quod
ipsis in floribus angst' "—if these Cassandras of Staley-
bridge should say that the weal or woe of the manufac-
turing interests of Yorkshire and Lancashire depended
upon this half-hour he would take leave to doubt the
value of that assertion. Hon. Gentlemen opposite might
speak of American competition, but let the House con-
sider what that American competition was. It was
either a bugbear or a sad and stern reality; if it were the
former let the House disregard it; if the latter, could
any gentleman think that this solitary half-hour would
enable the master manufacturers successfully to re-
sist it? He dismissed, then, the assumption that the
Act of 1847 had worked ill, and would assert that
its effect had been beneficial to the working
people, and not detrimental to the masters. If in-
deed any doubt were entertained on the subject, he
would refer to a petition in favour of the Ten Hours Bill
which had been presented to that House, and which was
signed by a number of the master manufacturers in
Lancashire employing a great number of workmen. In
the opinion of a great body of the master manufacturers,
their interests were not sacrificed in continuing the boon
which every one admitted had been conferred on the
working people. As to any advantage that this Bill
would confer on the working people, let him ask what
was the advantage in taking from them two hours a
week? What was the compensation which dignified
this measure by the name of a compromise? It was
said ,that the object of it was to prohibit women and
young persons from working after six o'clock in the
evening, but he would appeal to any man practically
conversant with the manufacturing districts whether,
after the decision in the Court of Exchequer, in 99
cases out of 100, women and young persons did not
leave off their work at half-past five and not six?
In those cases, therefore, the boon now proposed was not
a boon, but was an addition of half-an-hour's work.
It was true that when the Government proposal was
first made, sedulous attempts were made to induce the
working people to believe that the effect of this Bill
would he to make them leave the mills at six o'clock,
and prevent adults working after that hour. But now
his Noble Friend had learnt, he doubted not with regret
and indignation, that neither was such the effect of the
Bill nor the intention of Ministers, and he thought his
Noble Friend bad some reason ti complain of a want of
ingenuousness on the part of Ministers, who permitted
his Noble Friend and their advocates in the papers and
their daily organ the Tunes newspaper, to promise the
working people that such would be the result of the mea-
sure, that the moment the clock struck six every mill
would necessarily be closed ; and now, after two
divi-
sions, it turned out that the Government never did in-
tend that such should be the result of their measure.—
(Hear, hear.) They had it, therefore, established now
that under this Bill mills might bo worked by adult
males and young children until half-past eight o'clock,
and so the sole boon conferred on the working people was
that in 99 cases out of 100 women and young persons
would be compelled to work half-an-hour longer than at
the present moment. But, it might be said, why make
such a strife for so small an object as half-an-hour? He
should have thought that half- an-hour taken from the
working people against their wishes, against their ad-
mitted rights, against their intention, would not have
been regarded as a light or trivial matter. He knew
with what feelings the working people and the clergy
and gentry in these districts regarded this proposition
of the Government. Let him refer to the statement
of the committee of managers, overlookers, carders,
spinners, and other branches of factory work in Bolton,
on this point.: The committee said that during this half-
hour, if taken from the working people, they would
learn this lesson—they would regard the matter as a
violation of their Magna Charta, and would look upon
the Legislature as the invaders of their ceded rights and
the defrauders of the working classes. It was not the
way to form loyal and loving subjects. Ile would not
quote the language of the working men, justly indig-
nant at this invasion of the rights of their wives and
children, but he entreated the House to listen to the
calm opinion of calm men, delivered solemnly to the
Right Hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, telling him
tbat in Preston, and generally throughout Lancashire, it
was essential, in order to carry out the principle that
led to the Ten Hours Bill, that the hour of half-past five
should remain unchanged for the cessation of work; that
evening schools were generally established, and that
the young factory hands attended them with much be-
nefit; that they were open from seven to nine, but that
unless the children left the factory by half-past five they
could not refresh and clean themselves so as to be at
school by seven, and that if the schools were interfered
with it would be productive of much injury. That
statement was signed by the clergy of Preston, and he
found that their opinion was shared by the vicar of Brad-
ford, the vicar of Leeds, than whom no person knew
better the practical working of this measure, and by the
vicar of Bingley. This half-hour was, in fact, nearly a
fourth part of the time appropriated to the improvement
of the rising generation of the factory workers; and he
would ask those who were so interested in the spread
of education, and who were so anxious to bring
before that House Bills for the establishment of public
libraries and museums, how they could reconcile it with
their own professions, and he doubted not their own
earnest convictions, to take away, against the intentions
of the Legislature and the wishes of the people, a fourth
part of the time devoted to the religious, moral, and in-
tellectual improvement of the great body of the working
people of this country. But he would be told he did not
take into consideration the great boon of half-as-hour
offered by the Government on the Saturday. He had
considered it, and, so far from regarding it as a boon, he
thought it was productive of no insignificant evil, and
when the House bore in mind that the factory people on
Saturday worked four hours and a half continuously and
then went to dinner, and afterwards returned to the mills
to perform that part of their tasks which was admitted
on all hands to be the most severe, the hardest, and most
exacting of all their toil,
,aannddr,etflheenctuendr:hfraetsuhnedde,artitdhi:Githoi-
vernment measure they would have to work five hours
coountthinavuionugsltyhol dinner, would go to the most severe of
at hgerierewwoi
trht gm h, ot
hura hours
soof
fn r labour,from he thought
half.htohuerlatunsge
awould
light
i
or trivial matter, t was a most serious and crying
ma
rystiongecvhil:
No Englishman liked to work upon an empty
and yet it was now proposed that these people should
work longer on Saturday, when :their labour was most
severe, without their meal. It was indeed a compromise
of nothing, unless it were the rights of the people and
the honour, of Parliament. Were he a political sup-
porter of the Government, he should regret the course
they had taken; even on partisan and political grounds,
but as an opponent of their political policy, he did regret
it on national considerations.—(Hear, hear.) He thought
it was not well that any portion of the working people
of this country should be taught by the sworn maintainers
of the law and order that wealth was more powerful
than justice, and that agitation, more formidable
than the secret pressure of associated millowners, was
required to procure from the executive Government
the sanction of Parliament to the admitted rights
of the people. The Act which it was now proposed
virtually.to repeal was granted to the people with the
deliberate consent of all branches of the Legislature, and
was ratified in a peculiarly solemn manner by the special
approbation of that gracious lady who reigns over us.
Was it well that the Government should invite the House
to come to a vote that should compel her Majesty to re-
turn into the hands of the working people that testimo-
nial which she had been so graciously pleased to accept
from them?—(Hear, hear.) Upon the reverse of that
medal, purchased by the pence of her toiling subjects,
and cherished, as he knew, by her Majesty as one of the
not least glorious of the many, trophies attached
to the imperial crown she wore, were inscribed the
words, " The Ten Hours Bill."—(Hear.) Was it well
that the Ministers, the confidential advisers of that So-
vereign, should ask the House now to come to a vote
which should render that precious medal a most mean-
ingless coin, or, if it meant anything, that it shoud be a
memorial of the inconstancy of Parliament, of the
levity or fickleness of the Government, or of the
folly of the people that would confide in either?
Let not the House come to a decision] onf this
question with their eyes closed. Let not Members
flatter themselves that, by rejecting the amendment,
they would settle the question, and put an end to agita-
tion.—(Hear, hear.) Did those who had a dread of
professional agitators and demagogues, and wished to re-
move all the materials of seditious agitation, imagine
that they would attain their object by adding two hours
to the toil of a great body of the working classes?—
(Hear, hear.) Was there a Socialist or Chartist, dissa-
tisfied with the institutions and forms of government es-
tablished in this country, who would not point exult-
ingly to Parliamentary fickleness, levity, subserviency to
wealth, and indifference to the claims and rights of the
poor? They would point to the vote of the House, and
say—

" Hoc Ithacus velit, et magno mercentur Atridre."
Depend on it, that by adopting the course recommended
by the Government, the House would place arms in the
hands of those men, and arguments in their mouths;
and this would be the result of what was ,Tesui,ically
recommended as a settlement of the queltiot,!—(Hear,
hear•) Most earnestly did he deprecati that result,
anti invited the House to avert the threatening' mischief,
If farther evidence were ❑ecessary to justify the course
which he recommended, it might be found in a
d. duration which the Honourable Member for Man-
chester made, after the t Ti, Hours Act passed, to a
deputation of millowners, who waited on them for the

1850,

purpose of ascertaining whether there wns any chance of
a 12, li, l; p.)Ti
that occasion he Members tor Manchester declared
that so strong was the feeling of the House of Com-
mons that it was pledged to the Ten Hours Bill that it
was impossible for them to hold out the smallest expec-
tation that any one of these propositions would be
adopted. Lie hoped that the Hon. Members for Man-
chester would prove correct exponents of the feeling of
the House.—(Hear, hear.) At any rate he invited the
House to recloetn the pledge which they had given, and
to prove to the working people of this country that they
attached more value to the declared intentions of an Act
of Parliament, to the claims and rights of the working
people, and to the beneficial working of the Act which
her Majesty had saectionwl, than they did to the back-
stairs influence and coffee-house combinations of any set
of associated mill wilers.—(l-lear, hear.) He appealed
to the ancient spirit of English honour in vindication of
the rights—the admitted rights—of Eeglish labour; he
appealed to the House to show that they were not only
in name, but in very deed and reality, the representa-
tives of the Commons of England,—(Loud cheers.)
The Noble Lord concluded by moving the following
amendments:—lu clause 1, line 14, that the word "six"
be omitted for the purpose of inserting the words " half-
past five;" and in line 18, that the word " two" be
omitted, for the purpose of inserting the words "half past
three."

Mr. HORNBY expressed his regret that the support-
ers
of the Ten Hours Act were no longer led by the
Noble Lord the Member for Bath, though that regret
was somewhat diminished at finding their former leader
had found a most able successor in the Noble Lord who
had just addressed the House.—(Hear.) At the same
time he feared that the desertion of the cause by the
Noble Member for Bath would cause it to loss the sup-
port of a large number of votes in that House. The
operatives were much indebted to the Noble Member for
Bath for his former exertions in their behalf, and it was
only to be regretted that he had not given notice in suf-
ficient time of his intention to abandon the tea hours
clause. The Legislature had now the advantage of ex-
perience in favour of the ten hours clause, for all the
predictions of evils to result from it had been falsified,
whilst all the promises of good to follow from its adop-
tion had been verified.— (Hear.) The Hon. Member for
Manchester once declared that if provisions were re-
duced in price the working classes would be as well off
by working ten hours as they then were after working
twelve, and at another time ho said that if the corn-laws
were repealed the masters and their workpeople would
come to an agreement about the hours of labour.
How did the Honourable Member reconcile those
statements with his recent declaration, that the
masters were so annoyed by the legal restric-
tions imposed on them that they were resolved not to
consult the comfort of the persons they employed ?
(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member accused the supporters
of the 10 hours clause with being actuated by ignorant
sentimentalism; but certainly no one would charge the
Hon. Member with acting under the influence of senti-
ment of any kind.—(Hear, hear.) In 1844, during a
critical state of parties, and when the members of the
present Government sat on the Opposition benches, Sir
R. Peel being Premier, the present First Lord of the
Treasury said:—
" He was much struck with the statement of the Hon.
Member for Leeds, that, out of 70 owners of mills, 40
were ready to adopt 10 hours, and had signed a petition
to that effect. Now, when they were told of the alarm
which existed (and he believed alarm did exist) at their
legislation on that subject, was it not something to be
urged in support of the principle, that practised men,
who, it might be thought, ought naturally to have op-
posed it, were ready to adopt the proposition? It was
a difficult thing to interfere with toil, but the time was
come when he thought they ought to do so. And if he
were called upon to point out another measure of relief,
it would be that which would allow of a greater supply
of food ; thus insuring the double boo❑ of diminished
labour and increased enjoyment of the necessaries of lite."
On the same occasion the present Secretary for the
Home Department said:—
" they should look to the reasonable wishes of the
great body of operatives, and approach ten hours
gradually; that they were fully competent to take a just
view of the question; that they had admitted to hint
that they expected a reduction of wages, but that the
evidence then preponderated in favour of ten hours."

The Noble Lord itnd the Right Hon. Baronet, supported
by eight other Members of the present Government,
voted against the then Government upon the question,
and put it in a minority of eight. If the Noble Lord
and the Bight Hon. Secretary for the Home Depart-
ment wished to escape the imputation of being actuated
in 1844 by factious and party motives, they must state
the grounds on which they were now prepared to aban-
don the policy they then advocated.—(Hear, hear.)
Whether the Noble Lord and the Right Hon. Baronet
were governed by the private influence and advice to
which they were subjected from those who sat behind
them he knew not, but the House and the country had a
right to be informed of the grounds on which the opera-
tives were to be deprived of the boon which the Legis-
lature had conferred on them. In conclusion, the Hon.
Member called upon the House to support the amend-
ments proposed by the Noble Member for Colchester, if
it wished to maintain its honour and good faith.—(Hear.)
Sir G. GREY hoped the House would not adopt the
amendment of the Noble Lord, and he hoped further
that it would nut decide in ignorance of its effects and
bearings. If anybody had come suddenly into the
House, and had heard only the speeches of the Noble
Lord the Member for Colchester and of the Hon.
Member who had followed him, they would be quite igno-
rant of the real merits of the question. Having stated
what the members of the present Government said in
1844, the Hon. Gentleman said he could not understand
their gross inconsistency. But when the Hon. Gentle-
man spoke to him (Sir George Grey) of having given a
vote in deference to the secret advice of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Manchester, he must take leave to remind the
Hon. Gentleman that when professing to contrast the
vote he (Sir G. Grey) had then given with the vote he
was now about to give, he had omitted to state one im-
portant fact—namely, that when in office in 1847 he had
given effect to that vote by supporting the Bill then
brought forward.—(Hear, hear.) In taking the course
they were now adopting he contended that the Govern-
ment was doing nothing in contravention of the Act of
1847, but on the contrary that they were doing that
which they believed would secure the attainment of those
objects to a far greater degree than they could be se-
cured by any other mode; and above all with the cordial
concurrence and consent of the millowning interest in
that country. And he had certainly always contended
that it was most desirable for the interests of all parties
that any settlement that was come to should be made
with the combination and concurrence of the millowners
and great body of the operatives. Notwithstanding the
strong terms and violent language of the Noble Lord,
who had thought proper to come down to that House
prepared to denounce it, he had the best possible rea-on
to believe and the best possible evidence that the Bill
before the House would secure to the operatives the be-
nefits intended by the Legislature in a greater degree
than they had ever enjoyed them before. One word with
regard to the charge insinuated by the Noble Lord that
the Government were mere shields to carry on the secret
councils of the millowners and of the Hon Member for
Manchester—he could assure the House and the Noble
Lord that he had never refused to see any parties In
connexion with the subject, and that both himself and
his Noble Friend (Lord John Russell) had had more
interviews with the delegates and factory operatives,
and had devoted more time to discussing the question
with them, than with the millowners. They had had an
opportunity of clearly stating their views, which he be-
lieved to be honest but mistaken, and it was riot in the
=absence of due communication with them that they had
adopted the course now before the House. The Noble
Lord had spent a great deal of time in arguing that the
error in the Bill was a mere clerical mistake, and when
such occurred that an Act was passed as a matter of
course, to give effect to the original intention. But the
question was was it a mere clerical error? why, it turned
upon the construction that could be legally given to the
Act of 1844. If it had been only a clerical mistake, it
would have been long ago corrected. All parties were
anxious to have the decision of a court of law upon the
disputed point; that decision was at length obtained,
and, being adverse to the operatives, the Noble Lord
the Member for Bath asked leave to bring in a Bill to
carry the intentions of Parliament into effect. He (Sir
G. Grey) pointed out the difficulties the Noble Lord
was likely to encounter in the progress of his mea-
sure; but neither himself nor any of the mem-
bers of the Government offered any opposition
to it. The Noble Lord thee, finding that his Bill
did not carry the intention of Parliament into effect,
asked leave to have it committed pro forma, then with-
drew it, and introduced another, which it was found
would be equally inoperative. He (Sir G. Grey) had
been in communication with the factory inspectors and
others, and they assured him that the Bill was equally
open to evasion as the other. He had then interposed
himself, and the plan he proposed was admitted by the
Noble Lord to be decidedly preferable to any other for
carrying out the intentions of the Act of 1847, and his
Noble Friend who had been traduced that night—(Hear,
hear)—by an Hon. Gentleman who called him a deserter
from the cause, and by the Noble Lord who said that he
experienced a feeling of shame standing in the place of
the Noble Lord the Member for Bath—had, he (Sir G.
Grey) maintained, been throughout the faithful and,
some might say—although he would not sayso—the too-
zealous advocate of the rights of the factory operatives.
—(Hear, hear.) That Noble Lord saw at once the ad-
vantages his Act was likely to confer upon the working
classes, and said at once he would surrender his Bill,
and place the matter in the hands of the Government.—
(Hear.) Certainly, taking the Noble Lord's amendment
as it was now proposed, they would be able to secure,
arithmetically, 5i hours instead of six; but they
would do away with the intention of the Acts of 1844
and 1847, which gave the millowners a range of fifteen
hours during which their ten hours might be taken. If
the millowner wanted to evade the law, instead of giving
the hands one hour and a half for meals, he might say
that he would give them three hours, and thus keep the
bands at the mill one hour and a half later than half-
past five, at which hour under the present measure they
would be relieved. Now, the Noble Lord the Member
for Bath, seeing the advantages of his (Sir G. Grey's)
proposition, had acted as he believed for the benefit of
the operatives, and left the matter in his hands, and he
must say that he (Sir G. Grey) was not ashamed, under
such circumstances, to be suhjscted to the charge of in-
consistency. It was asserted by the Noble Lord the
Member for Colchester that if the present measure
passed it would take away from the operatives the
benefit of the Act of 1844 and the Act of 1847. lie de-
nied that utterly. The great advantage of his proposi-
tion was, that the operatives had their evenings secured
to them from six o'clock for recreation and improvement.
This much was cortain, that if they adopted any other
alteration, whatever strictness they might introduce, the
millowners would be able to make arrangements
that would deprive the operatives of the advantages
Legislature interd.d they should enjoy. Noble
Lord had complained of the hardship of allowing the

workman a half-holidev on Saturday. All he could ssY
ee a .1.-e. e.e. t etee Li ; ei
(ejection teade, and be believea that the operatives at-
tached the greatest value to the enjoyment of a half-
holiday on Saturdays.
Sir J. HOBEOUSE—The greatest importance vets
always attached to it by the operatives.
Sir G. GREY—Hie Right Hon. Friend, whose expe-
rience was touch greater than his own, fully corroborated
him. Under these circumstances, he hoped the House
would pause b-tore it adopted the amendment of the
Noble Lord. The Hon. Gentleman opposite had talked
of gocd faith and honour, as if there was any violation of
either in carrying out the spirit of the Act of 1847. He
hoped the House would not be induced to reject the pro-
position he had submitted to it, and which offered, he
believed, the only satisfactory solution that could be ob-
teined of the question. He repeated what the Hon.
Gentleman had reminded him he had said on a former
occasion—that it was most desirable that the reasonable
wishes of the operatives should be attended to. It W 36
in that belief that he had submitted that proposition to
the House ; and he must say that if the amendment of
the Noble Lord was adopted he should be compelled to
abandon any wailer charge of the I.3lll.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BANKES observed that the Right Hon. Bare-
net had omitted to notice a statement of' the Noble
Lord the Member for Colchester, which showed that to
a large portion of operatives the Bill would, so far from
being a boon, be a decided loss. That statement was,
that at the present moment 99 out of 190 operatives
had the full benefit of the Ten Hours Act; and the Hon.
Member who seconded the amendment observed tilt"
the relay system met with so little sanction from mane
:
facturers themselves, that public opinion would be sun.
cient to put it down if 'the law were left as it was.
was for the House to consider whether, if this amend-
ment were not adopted, it would not be better for the
operatives that no Bill should pass than that one should
pass which would confer no benefit on 99 out of 100
operatives. He thought there was nothing unfair in the
comparison which had been instituted between the con-
duct of the Right Honourable Baronet in 1844 and the
principle of the Bill; there was an essential variance be-
tween the views of Honourable Members now on the
Treasury bench at that period, and their acts at the pre-
sent moment. None would be less disposed than he was to
believe that any imputation could rest on the charac-
ter of the Noble Lord the Member for Bath. In this,
as in every action of his life, the Noble Lord, he be.
lieved, was interested by a sincere desire to act in con-
formity with what he said and honestly intended to do;
and, since the Noble Lord stated so, it was manifest
that he regarded this as a good compromise for the -
working people. But why should there be a comnr°-
raise at all ? Under this Bill the range of hours Was
not limited. As regarded children, it was still from
half-past five A.M. to eight P.M.; yet that was the class
whom it was the intention of their past legislation chienr
to benefit.
Mr. STANFORD thought that considering the cir-
cumstances under which the statute bad been set aside'
the class of persons who were affected by the decision
of the Court of Exchequer were entitled to be placed 41
the position in which it was originally intended
Parliament that they should be placed. He should sur
port the amendment of the Noble Lord the Member for
Colchester.
Mr. NEWDEGATE inquired whether, in the opinion
of the Attornay-General, the insertion of the words pro-
posed by the Noble Lord the Member for Colchester
would invalidate the Bill? [The ATTonems-GENES'
intimated that it would not.] Why did the Right 11°'
nourable Baronet the Secretary for the Home Depart-
ment, in 1847, approve of limiting the hours of !abater
to 58, and now propose to add two hours more The
effect of the amendment was to give the operatives the
advantage intended to be conferred by the Act of 1847.
It was lamentable that the Government should shrink
from their own acts. To such proceedings—proceedings
which were neither creditable to Ministers nor fair to the
operatives—he would be no party. He trusted in private
lite he kept his word; and he said here, in his piece'
that those who gave up the limitation of 1847 did not
keep their word with the factory workers.
Mr. MUN FZ observed that if he thought the fee,'
tory question was now to be discussed, he might eiw
Honourable Members connected with trade whether in
any one manufactory they worked ten hours a day?
And if they did, whether they would not produce mote
than what they had orders for ? He would endow'
roar to undress the case—(Hear, hear, and a laugh)---
about which there had been great mystification. The
question with Members of that House was, what did
they vote fur in 1847 ? Did they mean to give
bona fide Ten Hours Bill or not :--(Hear, hear.) e,
far as his memory served, every man who voted fur
the measure of 1847 fully intended that the parties
should have a bona fide Ten Hours Bill. The question
then was, would the proposed measure give them a
bona fide Ten Hours Bill, or would it rob them of two
hours a week? If Parliament robbed them of two hours
a week, contrary to its intentions and declarations at
the time, what would Hon. Members think if the parties
interested said the Legislature had made a bungling job
of it, and asked an alteration in their own favour by
reduction to fifty-six hours a week? Supposing a Win
drew a bill on him for 3001., which he accepted; sur
posing it was afterwards discovered that the stamp was
wrong one, and he was to say to the man, " I won't psi
the bill, bat I'll give you 280Z"—(Loud cries of " Hear. )
That was a case in point. Parliament had not only
offered, but had given, a bond fide Ten Hours Bill; but
it was now said to the people to whom the Bill had herr
given, " You shall work two hours a week extra?' L.'s
should vote for the amendment, and, as an honest man,
he could not do otherwise. If the House reversed the
vote of 1847, under the pretence that thereby the work'
ing classes would be benefited, they would do more
than by anything else to discredit themselves—(Hear)—
and to make the people believe they were not honestli
represented.
Mr. HEALD, as representative of a constituend
that was one-third the largest consumers of cotton upon
the face of the globe, begged leave to express his opinion
upon the subject before the House. Upon the prin-
ciples of honour and conscience, he felt himself emir
pelled to a certain conclusion upon this question. If bji
vote was not in conformity with the interests of the
l
i
people, it should be placed to the fault of his judgment
in not corresponding with the judgment of those he had
the honour to represent. He partly agreed with 113.1:
Hon. Member for Montrose in his observation that 2,
was not only delicate, but dangerous to interfere bf
legislation with labour. He thought that they were
more in danger by legislating too much than by stop'
ping short in the amount of legislation. He never coil,
understand why the hours of factory labour should ex'
ceed the hours of labour of an ordinary workman. The
Act of 1844 provided for those very young persons
favour of of whom he gave his vote that night. He sIX;
persuaded that the factory operatives believed it was
honest intention of Parliament to limit their hours of
labour to 58 hours in the week. It was then most den. ;
gerous to weaken in their minds that perfect conviction
which they entertained in the integrity and the honour
of the British Parliament. He believed that they. Infi;
ferred the Bill that limited their time of labour 10'
hours in the week, and if they did not receive a wimps„
„
measure there would be no settlement of the questiel
A system of agitation would then be created, the wean
of which no person could tell. After a full examination
of all the bearings of this case, he felt that they would
gain considerably by maintaining the high standard or
honour which it was the pride of Parliament to posses"!
even though for the time being they should suffer some
inconvenience. There was the question of the supply c
idcotton to those mills. He thought that ten hours a .
would be too much labour to expect unless they alltb
get a more certain supply of cotton. He looked "Ifor
immense interest to the motion of the Hon. Member
Manchester.—(Hear, bear.) As a roan of honour, he
telt he should support the amendment of the Noble Lot'
the Member for Colchester. tot
Mr. HEYWOOD supported the Bill. The InVflie
manufacturers demanded an eleven hours Bill, and -13$
operatives demanded a ten hours Bill. The Governtol3
offered a ten and a half; and he thought that it was nt
perfectly fair compromise, and one calculated to bend
all parties. ide
Mr. W. J. FOX said that they had not now to d(s°
11 on the policy of a ten hours or an eleven hours 131 the.
whether they should confirm the former intention as de,,
Legislature as expressed in the Act which it had'es.seet
liberately passed. In the present case he saw 1:12,,r. e%i•
for departing from the decision come to in 1847. 1"'"i• tett
gencies of the trade did not require it, for instead 0.,
hours being an inconvenient maximum of time, it ws,i'onla
no means the average which the factory operatiyes4tor
reach for some years to come. This Bill would n- nor
satisfy the Millewners' Association of Manches_,tefss fir
the factory operatives ; the former would be as us eeer•
fled as ever, and the latter more discontented 11c-Igoele
The Bill, therefore. appeared to him to be, es the it, Ise
Lord the Member for Colchester had described ,
compromise of nothing but the faith and hneccr 011
Parliament. The Government had assigned to the' ben
Coolies in Jamaica nine hours a day labour; whlstives
should they wish to make our own factory (Toro alit
work 10 i? He simply asked that the House sdo
keep faith with those people. There could be Insby
of the construction put upon the Bill of 1847
who aP"
operatives themselves, and upon that feeling' be
cheerfully support the amendment.—(Hear, heart
,;
Mr. Alderman SIDNEY said the eltlesne-wees
whether the Bill granted in 1847 was to be techne
now, or whether advantage was to be taken of a _
cal error and 58 hours a week substituted tor_eiee -
(Hear, hear.) The Government would deceiveer, be
selves greatly if they considered that this Bill vv:r_t_ctud
a settlement of the question; and remembering Du
efacturi og
the excitement that prevailed in the
at were hel
districts in 1830, the monster meetings s"lise warned t
and the agitation that was organised, e
to
House against again giving occasion of the nort
ings on the part of the factory operates
rsince 1847 hi td
The operation of the Ten Hours nil and t
the morals, a .
been most satisfactory—the manners,
changed—tit ee
habits of the people had been essentially
and
reereaticen
suoh prooee
had been afforded them for reflection th,oo,
and they had been taught habits of providence;,rnurawulina
when this was the case, and when the maximum am a '
was 10 hours _
of labour imposed upon criminals for „cease
from which one hour was to be deducted
condeleta
and another hour for instruction, should theys
of
age,
women and young persons under 18
factories, 0 labour 10i hours a day?
curred that this was a question in which the
hoe
8.
oabi
integrity of the House were concerned, and n
support the amendment.
hithet
Mr. PATTEN said, this question hael been
98
ro r
HYrernhti entirely i
improperly argued, simply and solely npon the u e„
tion of a contract having been entered into hbetW°4:
Parliament and the operatives. Toe ficc was this'
1847 the Ten Hours Act was passed, after many yeaht
dismission, and even then with a strong feeling ori.r:.!:
part of many of the impolicy of the measure.
o,St__
to
then, as the representative of the county of LI
he had been requested over and over again to en . ,our
to get the Act moeified; but he had always advised
friends not to interfere with the decision at which
liament had arrived. Now, however, when an oppertwd,