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

lie had never supported the corn-laws, either in or out of
the House, except as a necessary protection ti native
agriculture ; and he could not for et that the first claim
upon their protection was from the weak and helpless.—
(Cheers.) lie could assure the Noble Lord, that how-
ever weak, he would find in him a sincere advocate of
the measure which he had proposed.
Mr. LA.BOUCHEIZE said that considering the im-
portance of the interest then at stake be could not re-
concile it to his conscience not to say a few words by
way of restating the reasons which would influence his
vote. He had listened with great attention to the de-
bates on that subject, and with special attention to the
speech of the Hon. Member for Lambeth, believing that
if he failed to convince Win that his views were right,
nothing else could produce that result. But he con-
fessed that he was a good decsl surprised at the ground
taken by his Hon. Friend. What did his speech amount
to? He said that this measure, taken singly, was
fraught with the most appalling danger ; if the
House were not prepared to follow up this measure by
other great extensive changes, that this House must re-
sort to °thier measures to provide against a reduction of
wages. He would yield to no man in a desire to
see the corn-laws of this country put upon, what
he conceived to be, a sounder footing than they
were at present, but he shuddered at the prospect of
a people thrown out of employment, and of all
the frightful results which so great a change in the
manufacturing system of this country would produce.—
(Hear, hear.) Even if remedial measures were adopted,
be doubted whether they were justified in interfering
by legislative enactment with the labour market.—(Hear,
hear.) Hon. Gentlemen said it would be all very well
to oppose the ten hours' clause if they
had never interfered with factory labour at
all, but having interfered in certain particulars,
the question was now only one of degree, and no evil
consi.quence would result from extending the principle
of interference. He believed that by their interference
up to that point, they had done more good than harm—
(Hear, hear)—but an interference so violent as that pro-
posed, had never yet been attempted; and he, for one,
would not take upon himself the responsibility of voting
for such an experiment.—(Hear, hear.) Indeed,
he was astonished to hear Honourable Gentleman talk
of this measure as an experiment, and argue that if the
experiment proved a failure, they might easily retrace
their steps. Did they really know what failure meant?
—(Hear, hear.) Failure meant the loss of trading ; and
foreign trade, once lost, was not easily recovered.—
(Hear, hear.) Failure meant the want of employment—
the demoralisation of the work- people. He entreated
the House, then, not to legislate on this subject in the
spirit of experiment.—(Hear, hear.) If they were sa-
tisfied that the change would be beneficial let them at
once yield to the Noble Lord's proposal ; but if they had
any doubts on the subject, he entreated them to pause
before they enacted measures from which he believed
there was no retreat.—(Hear, hear.) Much had been
said in the course of those debates as to the effeet which
a Ten Hours' Bill would have upon wages. He had, lie
confessed, a great distrust of all nice calculations
on subjects of that kind; yet he thought it was
not difficult to foresee how this measure would act. He
thought it had been demonstrated that the Noble Lord's
redaction must, if not at once, progressively and cer-
tainly reduce wages. They were told that this question
had been fairly put to the operatives, whether they
would accept it even with the prospect of reducing
wages. Now ho did not believe that this ques-
tion had ever been fairly stated to the opera-
tives.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. Oastler, at a meeting
held in Blackburn, told them he did not think the

change would reduce wages ; " but supposing it would,"
he asked, " were they, the men of Blackburn, willing to
support the Bill ?" The reply was, " Yes, we are."
Would any one say this was evidence as to what
the feelings of the operatives would be in
case a reduction took place ?—(Hear, hear.)
He was afraid that the tendency of wages in this country
was downwards. If they were dealing with a country
in which they were buoyant and increasing, the case
would, he admitted, be different. He believed that this
question, if carried, would not be confined to the facto-
ries. Ten hours' labour meant ten hours' sale of coal,
ten hours' traffic upon the canals and railways ; and let
him tell the country gentlemen it also meant ten hours'
consumption of provisions and of flour. It was said that
in this country we had arrived at an artificial state of
society, which called for a new course of legislation. He
was not disposed to agree with that assertion. Ile was
not disposed to displace from his library, the works of
Adam Smith, and to substitute for them those of Mr.
Sadler and Mr. Oastler.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that
in an artificial state of society it would he more dangerous
to depart from sound principles than in the rudest state.
—(Hear, hear.) It might be supposed from the state-
ments of the supporters of this measure, that women
were never before subjected to toil, and that men were
never taxed in their labour beyond their strength. But
had they not read the beautiful lines of the Latin poet,
written 1,800 years ago ?-
-- Sopitos suscitat ignes,
Noctem addens operi, eastum ut servare cubile
Conj ugis, et possit parvos educere natos.
—(Hear, hear.) He was convinced that if they inter-
posed in the way proposed they would make matters
worse than they were.—(llear, hear.) lie doubted that
the measure was so much desired among the working
classes as was represented. He was convinced it was
not so much desired as was some years ago a measure
regulating a minimum of wages.—(Hear.) Ile thought
it should be the maxim of a wise legislator to act for the
many rather than with the many ; and he believed that
if this was carried the working classes themselves would
be the first to turn round and accuse the Legislature of
yielding to demands which were founded in injustice and
would end in disappointment.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY said that the delusion ".to
which his Right Hon. Friend the Secretary for the
Home Department had alluded, was occasioned in some
part by the Right lion. Baronet himself, who stated on
his own authority, that the proposition of his Noble
Friend Lord Ashley would not have the good conse-
quences expected from it. He (Mr. W.) was unwilling
to allow this debate to pass over without taking an op-
portunity of statirr, the reasons why he adhered to the
course which he had already taken although he felt
pain in opposing a Government in which in other matters
had the fullest confidence. But as he had arrived at a
full conviction of the necessity for such a measure as
was proposed by his Noble Friend, he must support him,
at whatever sacrifice of his personal feelings. It was now
forty-two years:aince this subject was first brought under
the consideration of Parliament, by a man well-known to
the House and the country, the late Sir Robert Peel. At
that time children were employed only as piecers,
but since then they had been introduced to other and
more laborious departments, and women had been
employed to such an extent, as to displace the
men from their proper place in society, and to
lower their wages. In other kinds of employment—
such as carpenters, masons, &c.—the men were employed
only twelve hours a day, including an hour and a half
or two hoUrs for refreshment. Why, then, should chil-
dren and women be required to work a greater number
of hours ?—(Hear, hear.) But in many cases where the
children worked twelve hours, they did not reach home
for two hours after their parents. But the fact was,
that in Leeds and other places, seine of the millowners
had reduced the hours to eleven, and had found that by
doing so they actually got more work done than when
the time was twelve hours. He had himself presented
a petition signed by 300 masters, in which they stated
that twelve hours, with the deduction of two
hours fir rest and refreshment, was as much
labour as children and women should be subjected to.
When they saw that so many millowners could reduce
their hours of labour from twelve to eleven, he thought
it showed that to establish that as a standard of labour
in mills would be attended with success. In Sheffield
there had been a shortening of the hours of labour for
the purpose of equalising the work, and no bad results
had ensued. He considered the Bill of the Noble Lord

would have a great effect on the morals of the people in
the manufacturing districts, and he would give it his

support.
Mr. BRIGHT then rose to address the House. Al-
though it might be inconvenient that so much time
should be taken up on this subject during the present
session, yet ho thought that the House would come to
the decision that no time had been wasted upon it as far
as it affected the well-being of the country. The
House, he was sure, would not make any law
to interfere with labour in factories, unless it was
satisfied there was a necessity for it. When the Noble
Lord first brought the subject forward, it was clear to
him the House could not legislate upon it, because he
had placed the matter on the humanity view of the ques-
tion, throwing out of sight altogether the commercial
point of view of the question. He was sure it must be
clear to every person that it would be useless to legis-
late for humanity alone. In his (Mr. Bright's) opinion
the Noble Lord had made out no case for the inter-
ference of the House, because his statements had been
based upon documents with which he had been furnished
by others, which contained most gross exaggerations
not borne out by facts. The Noble Lord had read to
the House a document purporting to come from the
operative delegates in Lancashire, and which
was signed by a person named Higgenbottom ;
and a document had also been laid before them coming
from eight of the principal millowners in Lancashire.
The first document to which he had adverted com-
menced with an attack upon Mr. Ashworth, of Bolton,
stating that he was the foremost of the class of Lancashire
manufacturers who objected to the amelioration of the
condition of the working classes in that part of the
country. The House knew the character of that gen-
tleman too well to require of him a refutation of those
statements, for that if it was necessary he might appeal
to the Rev. B. Noel, to many Members of that House,
and to the Noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire
himself. But there was no necessity that he should• do
so. It was sufficient for him to say that when Mr.
Ashworth went to the part he now resided at it was a
complete wilderness, and it was now a complete
garden, with a great number of excellent cot-
tages. Now in the document that purported
to come from the operative delegates of Lancashire, there
was a diagram, for the purpose of showing the distance
the piece-makers had to walk, and that diagram con-
veyed a most erroneous notion of what the facts were.
If the Noble Lord had ever been in a mill, he must be
convinced of its untruth. It stated that they had to
walk thirty-eight miles a day, which was impossible.
The Noble Lord had been invited to accompany Mr.
Greg over his mill, but he declined to do so unless in
company with the delegates, and this Mr. Greg declined
because these very persons had applied to him the most
opprobrious epithets most undeservediy. No employment
was more advantageous to the workmen than those con-
nected with the power-loom in cotton factories in Lanca-
shire. He had no doubt the power-loom weavers had less
toil than the hand-loom weavers. With respect to the mill-
owners' document, they had stated that which he (Mr.
Bright) knew to be true. Seven of the millowners stated
that the piece-maker walked 16 miles a day, while
one stated it was 20 miles ; but as to 38 miles, it was
impossible for any one to do so for days together. There
• were many other parts of the diagram that were equally