The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-14 00:00:00

should at once proecuoce his opinion. He would grant their ar-
guments, and say that the restriction upon the importation of food
might be injurious to the country ; but was that at all a logical
argument why they should impose other restrictions? He felt
that the House of Commons could not attach too much import-
ance to this question of limiting the duration of labour by two
hours every day. There was, at the present day, machinery
employed in manufacturing labour which was equivalent to the
power of 100,000 horses. lie should not now 'touch upon their
foreign trade, because he had expressed his opinions upon that
subject on a former night, hut from the data which
had been laid before him in 1837, the steam power employed
in manufactures was equal to the power of 97,000 horses.
He did not think he was going too far in esimating the steam
power equal to 100,000 horse power. He would assume that
four-and-a-half persons were equivalent to every horse. This
would give 450,000 as the number of persons employed in
factories. The average weekly wages of each person was cer-
tainly not less than 10s. That was about 225,0001. which was
paid to those employed in factory labour. It was said that
this was not a great number out of the whole population. But
when they limited the labour of men employed in
factory labour, that was no test of the degree to
which they interfered, for one man directed a ma-
chine of wonderful power, and when they limited the
number of intelligent men, they controlled not what those men
would produce, but the enormous quantity of articles which
these vast machines which they presided over produced—
(Hear, hear)-s-and which were given in exchange for foreign
goods. It was not like interfering with a man who worked
with the spade or any other simple instrument ; but it was in-
terfering with that which was far more perfect than the spade ;
and this interference would affect all those connected in any
way with the operation of this great machinery.—(Hear,
bear.) There were 225,0001. paid weekly in wages. Sup-
pose the wages of the workmen would be curtailed
in proportion to the diminished hours of employment, what
amount of taxation would that be on the labouring man? It
was 166 per cent. of his income.—( Hear, hear.) No per-
son would now. contend that a man would get twelve hours'
wages for ten hours' work. Ten hours' wages was all that
could be expected for ten hours' work.—( Hear.) What, then,
would be the weekly reduction at 16 per cent. on 225,000/. ?
It was 36,000e—(Hear.) That was an enormous amount;
but on account of the peculiar nature of the fixed capital, 16
per cent. was not the fixed maximum of the reduction of
wages.--(Hear,,hear. ) It would have that effect on the pro-
duction of capital and the profits of the manufacturers, that
in order to compensate themselves for their interference, the
reduction in the wages of the labourers must be more than what
would exactle:eorreapcind with the reduction of the working
hours.--( Hear.) But he assumed that it would only be the
-same, and•the effect of that would be a reduction of 16 per
cent. orr the wages of the labourer.—(Hear.) This would
affect the consumption of articles, and operate on the retail
trade. Let them calculate the effect of their interference on a
single mill. He made inquiries with regard to a mill in the
neighbourhood of Manchester, and the effect of their
interference with respeet, to this mill would give
a pretty fair test ot its operation with regard to
,mills generally. The owner of this mill had taken a
lease of it five or six years since, and, when he took it he never
contemplated their interference with the hours ot labour.—
( Hear, hear.) . There was no reservation that the rent should
be diminished if Parliament restricted the hours of labour.
He would be bound by the lease. That was the first mode in
which they Would interfere with his property. 7he owner
of this mill worked twelve hours a day at present, and he.
employed 475 persons. Of this number 119 were adult
labourers ; consequently, the number of persons now working
twelve hours, and receiving payment fur twelve hours' work,
whose wages would be affected, and, as he thought, whose
comforts would be curtailed, would be not less than 365. At
present, seven persons nut of those 475 were absent on account
of, ill health; that was about one out of sixty-eight, or 16 per
cent. of the whole. About 259 out of the 475 resided in Man-
chester, and were natives of it. 216 had been brought from
the country, allured by the high wages, from which they
thought they would be able to lay up sufficient to guarantee
them against poverty and old age. Was he to interfere with
those persons, and say to them " you shall not work twelve
hours ; you shall not be masters of your own labour ?
(Cheers.) Then, with regard to the moral question; he ad-
mitted their first consideration should be to attend to this.
Ile- was told, the other night, that he ought not to have
referred to the operation of such interference upon those who
worked in metals and other unhealthy employments. Well,
then, what would be the effect of interference in other branches
_ tf trade connected with factory labour? What would be its
operation if it imposed a tax of 16 per cent. on machinery ?
What would be its effect on hand-loom weaving ?—( Hear,
hear.) It would give a stimulus and premium to the hand-
loom weavers—those very persons who so much occupied
their attention four or five years ago. It would give them a
short-lived prosperity. What did the Commissioners say of
them—those whom they could not control by their legislation,
unless they established a domestic inquisition? Mr. Mucke-
ridge stated that the ordinary time during which the hand-
loom weavers worked was fourteen hours a dry, but
• that they could not always get work at this number
of hour', and sere sometimes three months out of employment.
Mr. Hickson said that weaving as a domestic occupation
among the hand-loom weavers, was carried on in circum-
stances much more prejudicial to health, and a greater sacri-
fice of personal comfort, than weaving in any other branch,
.The great majority of the hard-loom weavers worked in eel-
: lare sufficiently light to enable them to throw the shuttle, but
cheerless because the sun seldom visited them. He had seen
them working in cellars dug out of an undrained swamp, and
unfit for the abode of dogs or rats. Mr. Fletcher, secretary of
the Hand-loom Weavers' Commission, gave similar testimony.
, He doubted, then, the policy of restricting factory labour, if
the consequence would be to give a premium to another de-
scription of labour, which was still more prejudicial to health
than the system which was condemned.. He would now shortly
review the arguments by which the restriction of the hours of
labour was supported. The first argument was that
.• by limiting labour to ten hours, they would have as much
work done as they had in twelve ; that there would be such
au increase of activity, of animal spirits, and of attention to the
business on hand, that ten hours' labour would give as much as
twelve. He belie:ved that assumption to be utterly without
foundation. The assurtion would be true of manual labour,
but in the case of machinery, it was utterly impossible that
ten hours' labour could produce as much as twelve. He hap-
pened to have had the opportunity of ascertaining the return of
lalsour for a single mill, which wokred under accidental cir-
cumstances, only ten hours. A mill was compelled to restrict
its operations for, a certain period, to ten hours a day.
From March to July, 1842, that was to say, for a period of
fifteen weeks, a mill which had always been in the habit of
working twelve hours for five days in the week, and the
- , usual time on Saturday, was compelled to work only five -sixtha
of the time—that was to say, ten hours instead of twelve, for
five days in the week. The average weekly produce of the
twelve hours' labour was 119,000 hanks of cotton; the average
weekly prosiucc of the ten hours' labotir was 99,000 banks of
cotton. The deduction, aceord.ng to time, would be 99,574.
. It was argued that there would be an increase in the increased
attention and activity of the workmen ; but in this case, the
proportional produce being 99,574, the actual produee was
- 99,132.. He had every confidence in that calculation, which
was made in the year 1842, without the slightest reference to
the present debate ;• and he thought it afforded conclusive proof
, that the assumption that ten hours' labour would give the aatr.e
produce as twelve„was entirely without foundation.—( Hear.)
Another argument which was much relied upon, and, indeed,
• was considered by those who used it to preclude all further
debate, havink hero. repeated in every night's discussion, and
• apparently with-great effect on the House, was shortly this :
• " That which is morally wrong cannot be politically right."
• Well, that was a sort of saying which was very much admired
- iu certain circles.--(Laughter.) But, really, such arguments.
as these must be submitted to the test of reason; and his Noble
, Friend silted not be offended if he 'claimed the privilege of sub-
'slitting to the test of reason an argument which was con-
sidered to carry so much weight.—(Cheers.) " that which
is morally wrong," continued the Right Hon. Baronet,
f' -cannot be politically right.. Well, now, what is the meaning
of_that? I can quite understand it if you apply it to some
enormous act of injustice committed by a great State.—( Hear,
hears)—J. can understand it if you apply it to the revocation, of
the edict of Nantes, or to' the partition of Poland; I can then
• understand tbat that which is morally wrong cannot. be politi •
salty right. Bat is it-politically right ;that I should interfere
by Jaw with that 'which is morally wrong ?--( Hear, hear.) Is
_ that the meaning,? —(Hear, hear.) Is it true that it ought to
• * be the rule of legislation that I should interfere by enactment
with that which is morally wrong? I say that that is 'not the
• principle of legislation.--( Hear.) I will show you many things
which are in themselves immoral, which 'I cannot interfere with
by law.—( Hear.) Intemperance of various kinds is immoral ;
envy is immoral; there are various immoral offences which we
• tolerate, because we do not feel that they are within the sphere,
of legislation. What rule is there for the Legislature to act
upon universally ? Suppose it to be true that what' is morally
• wrong I must interfere with by legislation, who shall decide
; what is morally wrong ?—( Hear, hear.) In the grave cor:
cerise with which legislation is conversant, where legislators
have to discriminate between the balance of social good and
• • social evil; where they have to consider whether the attempt
to interfere by legislation will not produce greater evils than
. connivance and tacitness, how can I, in that case, apply the
rule that it is a . political duty to interfere with that which is
• morally wrong ?"—( Cheers.) In a despotic country there was
- no act of oppression which could not be justified by that doe-
-es- trine, if he who held power might determine what
ss;: was, morally wrong.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The Inqui-
ars• sition justified all its acts, upon the principle that
ss., • that which was morally wrong ought to be suppressed by the.
C.: u exercise of power and legislation.—( Hear, hear.) In this he
rte) s admitted that they ought to consult that which was for the
tr., lasting benefit of-the people, which conduced to their morality,
and promoted their social comfort. He admitted that wealth
ti ought not to be the exclusive object of legislation. But were
osaues,they not to be left at perfect liberty to determine whether a
out:: particular mode of interference would have a particular effect ?
Weave i( Hear, hear.) That was, in fact, the whole question at issue.
os-astsilHe denied that, in that sense, it was morally wrong that per-
-wool:sou -should labour twelve hours in the factory.—( Hear, hear.)
est teatellow. would they deal with a man who said that eight hours
'l_l4t sought to be the limit ?—( Hear, hear.) When the Hon. Mem-
!.•.ir.ssol her fur Oldham said that tea hours' labour was too much for
,a."‘ . I,ll!!'aless. who were,, perhaps, in a pregnant state, would
thugs who contended for the rule that that
• which
ot fora: rnerally• wrong was not politically right
• v
waPsroPosel to restrict female labour to eight hours ? It
would be more egreeable to him to see female labour restricted
o ten hours but •
abalancing the evil with the, good, consider-
yaring the dinsinuti.msof.wages, the risk of the loss of commerce,
Le's ,•• and the probability that. there would not be employment for
the industrious classes of country, he preferred ten hours to
;:o', twelve. They hadsone ma
period of limitatiern: anonthueryl that eight hours was the
principle,of his Noble'r eat it should be ten. How
could the F nd apply to this case? Who
/s was to settle where the immorality began.?--( Hear
hear,) He
( Sir R. Peel) wouabstract that ld pot assert in the it -
was mo.
rally right. that women• should work fOrstaelve hours
His Noble Friend, however, had called on a-day.
in to vote for this
proposition on the commercial grounds. This surprised him
more than the assumption of the moral grounds. For he thought
that this was precisely the question upon which they should last
interfere. His friend should have said that this was an
• exception to the _application of commercial principles.—(Hear, )
He had understood the Noble Lord to say that it was not an
important question whether we could compete with America
R. Peel)
:ego f. 40 the CbittOot or other. markets. He (Sir thought
that it was in accordance with political economy, that it was a
country which could purchase the
. great acleaqtaigo,stos that cou
,s, • commodities of al-wilier country at a cheaper rate, or in ex-
i‘" '4'44 of labour than a third one could.
chan.ee fd . friOUo
bfr.Glioble Lord `slia ilia, it was of no consequence to us what
of goods'Ainerici Might sell in the China market, as
"M 4 was paid fort the meet part in tea, upon which the Ameri-
t
• 'Cans paid no dtity,' ' But it was said that there was a grea
▪ competition in thelThiria Market, and he thought that in such
'circumstances it *01146 a. great advantage to this country to
'be able to endOrteliAbittleai—( Hear, hear.) It would in-
Kii
crease the demand ferliabett 'in this country, the accumula-
tion Of capital, the iherease of-profits, and the employment of
Q• 1:
inoney.—(Hear, hear.) Was •it not more cleat that they could
better enter into thit competition if they were allowed to work
lwelfe hours instead often?-('Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord
,Paci_itaicltbat the advantage of a country was• to be measured
~11/270 .the imports, lie (Sir R. Peel) said that they should ex-
. Port as much they
._'; ‘,•! • . as t.‘ could. It was to him a 'novel
doctrine that the 'imports
and
• each otlter.,--(.Hear.) The exportsi did net depend upon
,Fsol." confessed that it was- a novel Noble Lord himself had
stood.—Meer, heir;
andalaudtrine, and NerL little under-
d t'-Mittedthit will afraid-of fovergo laugh,)
theiPe:el ) ad'
lations were introduced. There had been* a long peace,
the attention of foreign countries had been turnedn
to m a annud_
factures. There was pretty nearly an equalisation of profits at