The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-29 00:00:00

PARLIAMEN TAR Y DIVISIONS.

(From Me Votes and Proceedings of the House o Commons.)
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27.
BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Bill be
now read a second time :"—Amendment proposed, to leave
out the word " now," and at the end of the Question to add
the words " upon this day six months :"—Question put,' That
the word ' now' stand part of the Question :" The House
divided :

MINORITY—AYES, 67.
Ainsworth, Peter Forster, Matthew Ross, D. IL
Bannerman, A. Fox, Charles Richard Scott, Robert
Berkeley, Captain French, F. Stansfield, W. R.
Bernal, Captain Gibson, T. M. Stuart, Lord J.
ISowring, Dr. Gisborne, Thomas Stuart, W. Villiers
Bright, John Grey, Sir G. strutt, Edward
Brotherton, Joseph Hawes, B Tancred, Henry W.
Buller, C. Hobhouse, Sir J. C. fhornely, Thomas
Butler, Colonel Horsman, E. Tufnell, Henri
Byng, George Howard, P'. H. Wall, C. Baring
Cavendish, G. H. Hume, Joseph, Warburton, Henry
Cobden, Richard Humphery, J. Ward, It G.
Colebrooke, Sir T. Hutt, W. Wawn, John
Craig, W. Gibson James, William Williams, W.
Divett, Edward Johnstone, Alex. Wilshere, W.
Duncan, George Labouchere, H. Worsley, Lord
Duncannon, Lord Mangles, R. D. Wrightson, W.
Duncombe, T. S. Mitcalfe, Henry Wyse, 3 .
Dund,s, Admiral Mitchell, T. A. Yorke, R. H.
Easthope, Sir John Morison, General
Ebrington, Viscount Morrison, Jame; TELLErts.
Ellice, E. O'Ferral;, R. Moie Muntz, G. k .
.vans, \V. Plumridge, Captain Scholefield, Joshua
Fielden, J. Protheroe, Edward

rence, without indeed the Legislature is prepared, not
only to adopt a standard of labour, but a standard of
wages with it. The question is one over and beside
all considerations of philanthropy ; there are tens of
thousands of persons who must work or starve ; they
can only get work at such prices as the master can
afford to give, and if those who are in work at pre-
sent are dissatisfied at any reduction of wages, so
that it does not reach the bare starvation point, there
are plenty of others who will be willing to step in
and take their places ; the remedy is not by
ten hours' clauses in Factory Bills, but by widen-
ing the field of labour—by increasing the demand for
labour ; and then, when the whole working popu-
lation is employed, the hours of labour and the
wages of labour, may be safely left to adjust them-
selves. As a proof of the questionable results of this
interference with labour, our readers will remember
that, some time since, an Act was passed, forbidding
the employment of females in mines and collieries.
We own it is a disgrace to a Christian country that
women should be so employed; but we objected to
the measure at the time, and our reason was that
women would not work in collieries if they could get
any more pleasant and profitable employment, and
that, therefore, the best preventative would be to find
them that better employment. Well, the result of
that enactment has been, that the condition of the
women has been made worse, and they are now
petitioning Parliament that they may be allowed to
resume their underground labours to save themselves
from starvation. We instanced, last week, the case
of the London setnpstresses ; no one will deny that
their case is equally deplorable with the females of the
mines and factories, and yet no one talks of legis-
lating for them ; and why ? Why, simply because
the only alternative is between a life of intense appli-
cation, and the workhouse, or prostitution. If the
Legislature could indeed find a remedy for the dis-
tresses and privation of the labouring classes—if they
could at any sacrifice of individual injury, or class in-
jury, ensure the permanent improvement of the
moral and social condition of the hard-toiling mil-
lions, we should be disposed to consent to a partial
evil for a general good ; but when well-intentioned
but meddling philanthropy attempts by bit-by-bit
legislation to allot one set of hours to one class, leav-
ing others equally suffering, untouched, and doing
but a doubtful good, nay, a positive injury, to those
whom it professes to assist—we repeat, it is far better
to let the whole social machine go on as it does, until
from its very excess of disorganisation it commands
relief.—Cheltenham Examiner.
Ministers might, no doubt, by exercising their
official influence, beat down the small majority of
three by which they were outvoted; but this would
assuredly not be advisable on a question affecting
labour.—snor indeed upon any other, regarding which
Members have recorded their opinion so indepen-
dently. It is at all times bad policy to insist on the
House rescinding its resolutions. - Such a course
tends greatly to lower the Government as well
as the Legislature, in the estimation of the coun-
try. The subject involved in Lord Ashley's
amendment is altogether a difficult one for
a Ministry to grapple with. On the one
hand the arguments of the philanthropist
are overwhelming; nor was the picture of the utter
wreck of society, occasioned by the employment of
women and children in factories, at all overdrawn.
Something, unquestionably, should be done to stop
the current of debasement which, by destroying the
physical as well as moral stamina of the female sex,
is rapidly undermining the strength and worth of the
population. But what that something to be
done is -Thwhat will best counteract the
evil—that is the difficulty. Ministers were
of opinion that the restriction of labour from
twelve to ten hours would have the effect of
increasing it : wages would be lowered—machinery
multiplied—and consequently the sufferings of the
labouring poor augmented. It was upon this
practical view of the subject that they took their
stand: and, filling the responsible offices which they
hold, we are not surprised that they should have re-
sisted the amendment; though we do think that
now, after the House has so plainly expressed its
judgment, they should not farther oppose it, especially
in the modified form to which Lord Ashley signified
his willingness to agree. Interference with the
labour market, it may be true, is abstractly improper;
and the principle, once adopted, leads to a wide field of
operation. But the principle, it should be remem-
bered, was not propounded for the first time ; it formed
the very basis of the Bill. The difference between the
original clause and Lord Ashley's amendment amounted
simply to a question of time, not to the principle of
restriction itself. And considering that the state of
society in this country is altogether artificial, we
really do not see why the Legislature should boggle
at the use of artificial means in endeavouring to pre-
vent, if possible, the downward progess of the masses.
True, the Factories Bill embracea only a particular
range of industry, when, in justice, the same law
should extend to all branches. But it must, at the
same time, be admitted, that, in proposing to experi-
ment upon the factories the worst description of
labour was selected. If the experiment proved suc-
cessful, then might the provisions of the Bill be ren-
dered general.—Ayr Observer.
Upon what a miserably low footing does her Ma-
jesty's Home Secretary place our manufacturing
ascendancy ! Is it really a fact, that we cannot allow
our operatives the needful time for rest and recrea-
tion without causing " the downfal of our domestic
manufactures ?" Can it be that all our manu-
facturing greatness is the product of two addi-
tional hours in the day of infantile labour ?
Who is there, with any spark of generosity in
his breast, who would not say, perish the great-
ness that can only be so preserved ? But
it is a complete hallucination, and the argu-
ment refutes itself. For by the law as it now
stands, infantile labour is limited to twelve hours a
day. Why, then, do not foreigners, who work their
children fourteen hours a day, now undersell and ruin
us ? If there be anything in the argument, it ought
to be carried further, and we should go back to four-
teen hours, as in Austria, or to an unlimited number
of hours, as in America. Could it be clearly shown,
indeed, that our manufactures stand upon so preca-
rious a foundation that they are liable to be under-
mined by any nation that shall choose to work longer
time than ourselves, it would behove even those who
are most clamorous for the repeal of the corn-laws to
beware how, by curtailing the ability of the English
farmer to buy, they injure that which may so speedily
become the only market for their goods. Sir James
Graham's speech, though a lame defence for the ma-
nufacturers, is an able one for the corn-laws. And
could we be so far charitable as to suppose them sin-
cere, we should still believe them in error. How is
a shortening of the !tine of labour to bring about a
reduction of wages ? All our notions of political
economy would lead us to anticipate precisely
an opposite effect. For how is the rate of wages
mainly affected ? At the extreme point, doubtless,
by the cost of subsistence ; but at every part of the
point, by the proportion
our and the demand for it.
s betweenca le a b otsb. ee tshuep
pleyx torfe
labour
be
Curtail the hours of labour, and it must require more
hands to do the same work. Nor do we suspect that
profits would suffer more than wages. On the con-
trary we believe that profit and humanity are here
quite identified. Who should be the best judges upon
this point, but the manufacturers themselves ? And
what is the testimony of two of their body who went
up to London as gsdeputation on this very Bill? "That
they could get more work performed in 11 hours
than in 13.' This we have on the authority of
Mr. Beckett, one of the Members for Leeds, who,
tells us, moreover, that " he had consulted seventy-
eight manufacturing firms in Leeds, and that, out of
these, forty-seven were in favour of a Ten Hours'
Bill, and thirty-one were divided between a Ten and
Eleven Hours' Bill; but not one was in favour of
twelve hours." Surely this should go for something
against the merely interested dogmatisings or feverish
forebodings of those who have instructed Sir James
Graham to say, that unless they are allowed to treat
her Majesty's subjects as if they had neither souls
nor senses, personal responsibilities nor domestic
duties, the manufacturers of England must be (as
Thomas Moore, we believe, has it)
"Clean done up and spifllicated."
—Liverpool Courier.

The merits of the short-hour question are so appa-
rent that it requires a considerable stretch of charity
to suppose any one capable of the error of mistaking
them. It is proposed, that one-sixth of the present
working hours in factories shall be cut off—that work
shall be done during only ten hours, instead of twelve,
each day, as at present. This amounts to a proposal,
that during seven weeks, and upwards, of the year, all
the mills in the United Kingdom shall stand
still, and become unproductive—that, during that
time, industry shall be paralysed, and the mighty
capital embarked remain barren and useless. Now,
if any one be prepared, seriously and soberly, to stand
by this, for the sake of the toiling operatives of the na-
tion (and would that we could, consistently with their
benefit and the public good, send those operatives to
indulge in freedom from labour for double or treble
the time !) let him come forward and propose
that one-sixth of the land throughout the United
Kingdom shall be taken out of the hands of the great
landed proprietors, and applied to the benefit of the
poorer classes. To stop the factories for two hours
out of twelve, is practically to alienate or destroy
one-sixth of the capital of the manufacturers ; and,
upon the same principle, we would be justified in lay-
ing our hands upon one-sixth of the capital of the
landlords. Are the gentlemen who take credit for
peculiar humanity prepared to do this ? If they be
not, let them cease to offend by their attacks upon
manufactures. If the condition of the operative ma-
nufacturers will justify this attack upon the property
of the mill-owners, a case, not less strong, can be
made out to warrant interference with the broad
acres. The deep misery which prevails in the agri-
cultural county of Dorset, represented by Lord Ash-•
ley, and to which we may refer at another time,

rnE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY MORNING, MARCH 29, 1844.