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

I:,!4'l'qiie.stion, he was aware, was one of great difficulty;
)1, he Was happy. to see so many lion Members,
it, were practically acquainted with the sub-
-131),I. come forward and express their ?pinions
! it. lie did not wish to raise any discussion con-
tt,:,'_g extraneous matter, but he should say that he
sil'illit the difficulties which surrounded fir-, question.
h., of
increased by impolitic restrictions
trade, which upon the one hand limited the com-
eme
.1.01 the country, and, on the other hand, pro-
kel,-", Li,ae greatest fluctuations. He felt that the amend-
his his Noble Friend would be attended with the
f oeneficial results, and he should vote in favour of it.
fron,4.4b GRAHAM said he did not wish to exclude
th; is discussion any matters which might tend to
thew light upon it. This Bill had been brought in for
qui of
titie„Puse limiting the duration of labour in fa -
the - 03 twelve hours; for many of the operations in
of, illanufacture of cotton and the higher brailches
ii4,,,,??11en trade, full-grown men and women were not
N'',`e,d and the labour of young persons was indis--
.4Qe• e should take a cursory review of all the
tltsl lie
ative enactments which had been framed upon the
h;ket of infant labour. Up to the year 1802 there
tali:" law to limit the labour of young persons in fee-
the ii• In that year a law was passed which prohibited
tut ofPuPloyment for a period exceeding twelve hours
t4l,:tne twenty-four. This was the first instance of
tt,t;t laterfererence for the protection of this most unpro-
-141144 class of individuals. So the law stood until 1819,
liikOn Act was passed, declaring that in cotton menu-
*arrs no children should be compelled or allowed to
fort}, More than twelve hours. In six years afterwards
Itthoner provisions were introduced for the regulation of the
1418"; °t•Persons under sixteen years of age in factories.
iiig-ti`:l, a Bill was introduced by Mr. Hobhouse, enact-
'sti, at no person under the age of twenty-one should
l'tilf.,,at night between the hours of half-past eight and
Nirt five in the morning. He had now traced the
lathe of legislation on this subject from 1802 till 1831.
440 Year 1833, the Noble Lord, the Member for Dor-
tiii.tt're; introduced for the first time his proposition for
Ltd,,,irung the hours of labour, in the shape of a Bill,
44 eg the time of labour from twelve hours to ten. ,
114
.11iit of labour before that was always twelve hours,
torP was never sought to be altered till the Noble
qpahilatroduced his measure. In 1833, he (Sir James
llEilittn ) had the honour of being in the councils of i
14, n ti4estY, together with Lord Spencer, a most humane
lob and one on whom the statements of the Noble
they tZere likely to produce a great impression, yet
(101uuht it their duty to resist that motion, and in
14,11? '7,..51r. Poulett Thomson urged the very argu.
Ile la.ll,llleh he (Sir J. Graham) addressed to the House
that 41" time the subject was diScussed ; he pointed out
thr.,,l°lgh the Noble Lord's intention was humane-
lain"„.-1""e facts he stated were most distressing-yet,
reo a dispassionate view of the policy. the Noble
It between
to introduce, considering its bear-
it ,7tween the employer and the employed,
ktic,4 united Government they said this propo-
t? must
,traeA be resisted. It would not be expedient
Ltlcl; the course of all the legislation on this subject
'la „733. He might add, however, that the Act of
t4,lser'aeed silk manufactories on the same footing as
ttilie, cotton, wool, and flax. In the following year
k,ii, wtliras brought in by Mr. Hindley and Mr. Brother-
Si:n:4h Mr. Hobhouse again, on the part of the Go-
"lktiset, *nosed. The measure made no progress in that
~N., I,:
Thomson
was not renewed in the following one. In 1836
:11,1,„ 4homson with the support of Lord John Rus-
t of educed a Bill to amend and explainithe Factory
'Ste' ~.B,_a3. This measure repealed that part of the
,tlr, which permitted children between the ages of
er, and thirteen to work for twelve hours a day;
k'ottgii*as a division, and he (Sir James Graham),
11,4 -s,n- °PPosed to the Government, voted with
It Jority but that majority was so small
;114' )311, was thought advisable not to press
t' 1n• In 1838, the Honourable Member
At linnton
I, thihibrought
Mt ren not more than nine years of age should not
!,11:411,e're than twelve hours a day, still keeping the
IN
3 a 8 a limit. In 1839 the Factory Bill was again
1''.111,4 teN, still keeping twelve hours as the number of
i,ki A°. ,Ivork ; there was a Committee on the •Bill, and
Illads'ley moved that the blank in the clause should
,14t, pup with the words fifty-eight instead of sixty-
inlkl),,,, ts being practically a reduction of the hours
,74 ! fo-t„,,orn twelve hours to, ten.. He could not state
t,°t ',la `',lOlY the objections to this proposal, than by
44415; the words of the Noble Lord the Member for
4,1 t: ‘,ll. said, "It seems to me that the Noble
I, kr Luot answered the question of the Hon. Mem-
Itlrka of olverhampton, whether, having reduced the
4.4174,„'ah0ur, he could provide at the same time that
lea,` rentuneration should be given for those shor-
li-41ss of labour." That was exactly the objection to
't>4 Wool at present; if the operatives believed that
~ti °:114 get twelve hours' wages for ten hours' work,
NI to delusion so gross that the Government was
litt:1(14" exercise its care not to adopt any measure
i,,115„°,11 such false expectations. The Noble Lord
ir",; Vs ‘,Oll to say, " Does he carry his principle so far
4e Q,,'"e rate of wages by law ? If he means to do
4111.4„"tultlittee must know the impossibility of such
1ik,,_111,,; , instead of the proposition being one
oa7t4it,,silitY, it would be one of great in-
Rll4it,"' , He must, therefore, resist it." The
pi 754, 'n that Committee against the proposal
I,lerit,," 62, and he (Sir James Graham) voted in that
1' 11with the following gentlemen-Sir G. Grey,
ad,,,,•-kstiwes, Sir J. Hobhouse. Lord Howick, Mr.
6,ef' t7re, Lord Morpeth, Mr. Fox Maule, who w?..
rip,t 04 tellers, and, lastly, he had great pleasure in
f1k54,1,4 that occasion with Lord John Russell.-
i 0.4, bi,e,41%) In 1841 another Factory Bill was intro-
i4ear the law, as it at present stood, had existed for
ill 4'111441 been confirmed by six or seven Parliaments,
fad ill
the measures introduced on the subject there
,;Itti)thiln uniform adherence to twelve hours as the
for ~e time of labour. The Noble Lord the Me m-
!toa (iiPorsetshire had quoted evidence from the Re-
S 411? WHIT. Saunders, showing that twelve hours of
q'kevi4lB too long, but he believed he would not
'A '4z.. etlee to that effect in the Report of Mr.
Vktltiew'e (Sir James Graham) had distinctly put
cotk,?n to these gentlemen, whether they believed
Qtkr;noUrs' Bill would be beneficial to manufactur-
'l lia`ives, and they were of opinion that such a Bill
%°'l4 -ve the worst effect upon them.-(Hear, hear.)
''itq i4Ware that the Noble Lord had influential au-
'llQ d support of his proposition, but the matter
,If th'eided on reasoning, and he could not persuade
tlill. 0,4 nnything had fallen from those authorities
~. I e arguments with which he had met the
Kit '-ord.
1,1 , jtd. The Honourable Member for the
ta,,4ltibt, Ing of Yorkshire stated that the
lel , \-01V as very generally assented to by the mill-
14:ta x,"' the West Riding ; but those mill-
tlickil ieril. niostly engaged in the simpler manufacture
, pin earlier stages; their workmen were paid
f
1 Neti%toe; and, provided they supplied the demand o
ili,tq Iners, the period of labour was to them a
‘4,',lvir:°lnparative indifference. But if they went to
%;41:e1 tiiwere engaged in the more expensive stages of
It) i,ste, with more expensive and complex
hma-
Nttl).4);i which greater capital was invested, t eye
\t1144 flpnd no great desire on the part of the
tllliii Iliacturer to limit the hours of labour to ten.
to e out of every hundred would have no
\II pti,itilake the change.-(Cries of "No, no.")
tttllltsltt.s eetly dispassionate, and he wished to mlace
ktt,t till„te.r of all the facts, for this was a most im-
• k'i 4ho 'on. He would most gladly avail himself
t.'htept.,,,al Bill if he considered that it would be for
'l,'etti.7 of the working people of the country to do
0,4,,i11ar,;11 Gentleman opposite, who was well known
' 111`,'1.kreltr,11,,tY, and for the interest which he took in
Pr' .`". his workmen, was obliged to avail himself
ktitlTtle • litill.sten. ge of the This arose entirely from
00i h There was an overwhelming necessity for
kiN4'4l44ereould not escape. The Noble Lord oppo-
o,litOrth'uw him to proceed step by step. When he
Ilk tt ais,r9 last spoke on the subject, he did not
I i;tltltZiels„ ilnery should be replaced in sixteen years,
MZ,411 -,1,131' thirteen years. (The Right Honourable
I'o,. Oich :en quoted from Mr. Homer's report, in
ttilla.(Qt 14;;;Ilted, that the work of machinery was so
geed vrnvernents in it so constant, that it should
\ th, „.• .
!,. N._ ~,, itliin 12 or 13 years, in order to, re-
-005041)4Q with ordinary interest of stock.)
INtth, t1:11 of kis Noble Friend would abridge, by
Illi,pl-i,s,st,oll3erations by which that machinery, with
1:41;;V -s., ", was restored. He said he would advert
' th;eans of escape Open to master manufac-
- l'lt,ttl. tlitti .Present amendment were passed. He was
\ vkatll4 the present state of the labour market
ll kIN nfacturers would be able, under ex-
\lll`, lakttl4ltanees, and at the present moment, to
1104, saes from themselves, the stronger party,
~,, tkst, hers,' who were the weaker.-(Hear, hear.)
\\ty
1!INi• s. int lev'tliew, disliked calculations, but it would be
l',,,Nr'illd lul to enter into the facts, and he hoped the
N'.l.ltletttig.tve him its attention while he did so.
~',O the a former debate the ;opinion 'of Mr.
'',,Nit't pr.,lle still believed that opinion to be true-
L,,y, 1,4, ti,'4ent state of the cotton and worsted ma-
,:(l Y. 25 ,' afect or this measure would be to re-
lk", i,llla those cent., the wages of the operatives em-
V 4l'y e'se manufactures.-(Hear, .t res -(llear, hear.) Let
,4 o„,, s. ~,. _ ac u .
,yel,"(114 ", that were the state of the case,
It tali ,Ivliotne effects of this amendment upon the
tt,,,tit Ctaieionffortable position ho heard with
Durham
trt!tapt t). Ti ed by the Hon. Member for
tll4t qed the Hon. Gentleman stated that work-
-114 11' a On his own property received, on an
44‘4, tleet4,r.tl Now, considering that he was right
I ,that
th__le effeet. of the present proposition
o, These ~, "se families who were now in receipt
00.Lsesq ould have only 701. a year.-(Hear,
WO 4117,444 re a more important proposition could
IV li,s'.lt w,' All that he would ask on the part of
r41,41111T1N ;81:e that they would adhere to the law
i, th erst hours of labour to twelve. They
IN " those 0111 LY qo dot ,f 03e matters in all their bearings.
tLilit), 441m_ every Member to consider them, and
t‘,t'l th Yhit, more especially, on whom the re-
'l4t; tkoOlilisare,lll; effects would rest, to reflect deeplyh
yt e frig popotear.) This was not a case for catc -
Whek.R,htriii ar'tY. That was nothing compared.
, heft) It Zes,Ponsibility, which attached to it.-
`t tjitho, eo4fcrgnt be ruin to the country..-(Hear,
kligqll,4 at ho not contemplate it, feeling as he
Vk the in thrre'r ; and nothing should induce
11 h att,,,ti_at reSpOnSibility.-(Hear, hear.) He
N'e s,or'l,ed tokill of the House to the arguments by
\ tlIttlit,111(1 be rit'reve that the inevitable effect of this
per cent. on the
),,\.j:,§t-lit_it)n- 4e.nrati‘r-eetis reduction of 25
.„ employed. He would take one
ttil4e iTolunß)ll t,:tr• Rorner's report of 1842. One
, to, rind in exhibit the argument. The case
Li,,..lN„l'elitlll.l'e by tagi, e 79 of the report. He would
ti'd, 7 eniilZ".e ease of a cotton mill in Man-
N tli, .le wo .?':1 520 hands, spinning fifty banks
14.kia, dter,is Intt not weary the House with going
4V iled °f the fixed capital ; suffice it to say
Olt' allot h eaPitat t
)4*N°lirs d.. . o the amount of 8,914/. The total
%it cif h,seist, i."ring which the operatives worked
YN.tO NohCew in a week was 69. By the pro-
gat wEta Friendthe hours would be reduced
sue hours less than they were at