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

home, and there was a tendency to equalisation of profits in t
this country and in the whole world.—( Hear, hear.) For-
merly we had in this country a command of the materials of
manufactures—of coals, iron, skill, and industry. But we had
found it impossible to maintain our supremacy. We passed
laws to prevent the export of machinery, but we could nut
keep at home the heads and hands that made it.—( Hear. )
There was a custom-house regulation that machinery should
not be exported. Still it did go out, or the models went out—
( Hear, hear)—and the Legislature
_wisely came to the con-
clusion that it would be better to allow it to go out.—(Hear,
hear.) He held a book in his hand, which was the report of
a gentleman employed by the Belgian Government, to exa-
mine into the subject of the employment of children. The
statements of this gentleman were well authenticated, and they
showed that in France the weekly employment of children was
from 72 hours to 84 ' • in Austria, from 75 to 80 ; in America,
from 72 to 86 ; and in Prussia 84 ; whereas in England the
weekly amount of hours for the labour of children was 69.
( Hear, hear.) Thus it was seen, that whilst the ma-
nufacturers of this country were so pressed by
the competition of countries where the hours of
labour were so much greater, it was proposed to reduce those
hours still more—( Hear, hear)—to reduce them from sixty-
nine to fifty-eight, whilst in America they reached eighty-four.
—( Hear, hear.) He thought that, for so serious a reduction,
it required facts of unquestionable character, and arguments of
the most cogent description. They had had the effect of forced
reductions of labour. There was now a revival in trade, with
the most. desperate competition in new markets, and he would
put it to the House whether, under such circumstances, it was
desirable to restrict the means of employment, and to give still
greater advantages to the competing countries.—( Hear, hear.)
Soma assertions made on the subject of female employment
made a great impression ; but surely that impresson should be
removed if the statements were untrue. It had been said that a
woman walked as much as 37 miles a day in a cotton factory ;
37 miles walking in the day was impossible. He had some
knowledge of factory labour. He would take it at 20 miles,
at the same time stating that he believed there never was an
fnstance of that known. He bad the strongest impression that
in no factory did any person walk 20 miles a day. He had seen
calculations made with great confidence, but his firm impres-
sion was that it never exceeded 12 miles in 12 hours, but that
it was oftener Bor 9 miles.—( Hear, hear.) Now, whether or
no, a certain degree of exercise did not induce health, he
should certainly think it would be better than the sedentary
employment of the hand-loom. He did not think 8 miles would
be prejudicial to health. Now to show the straits to
which Honourable Members had been driven in vin-
dicating their votes. He heard a statement from the
Honourable Member for Birmingham, of all places in the
world—a town whose existence almost depended on the trade
with foreign countries—last night that surprised him very
much.—( Hear, bear.) He had stated that if the foreign trade
of this country was ruined the country would not suffer much.
—( Hear, hear.) Did not that show the unsoundness of the
argument ?—( Hear, hear.) But then there were the Hon.
Alembers fur Finsbury and Weymouth, who expressed their
surprise that the Government should oppose the motion of the
Noble Lard. The Hon. Member for Finsbury said they had
better give way then, or it would be extorted trout
them shortly ; and the Honourable Member for
Weymouth, a gentleman who had wisdom moderated
by experience, said, and he (Sir R. Peel) deeply regretted
to hear him do so, that in legislation they ought to follow the
wishes of the people, because they knew best what was for
their interests ; that they thought this measure was fur their
interests, and were entitled to have it. Now, supposing the
Government were to accede to this demand upon that ground,
how long, he would ask, would it be before some other de-
mands were made by other parties, and which he could not re-
sist? He held in his hand a circular issued by the Miner's As-
sociation, in which the turned-out copper miners wanted
to work eight hours a day, and no more ; to have
4s. a-day as wages, to have them paid every week,
and something done for their protection. Now, if he was
to accede to the present measure, on the ground that it was
the wish of the people employed, and that they were the best
judges of their own interests, he must equally accede to the
wishes of the copper miners, and give them eight hours' work
and 4s. a day, together with the other requests they made.
They might depend upon it the people of a nation did not
always know what was best for their own interests, and upon
that subject the beautiful paraphase, by the great moralist, of
Juvenal aptly applied in the present instance—
.' How nations sink, by darling schemes oppressed,
When vengeance listens to the harsh request."
—(Hear, hear.) The Legislature ought not to say to persons
who entertained the opinions expressed by the Hon. Member
for Weymouth—

Volenti non fit injuria,

Volenti non fiat injuria.
He protested against the doctrine that they must concede be
cause the people thought it was for their interests. If they were
satisfied it was not so, it was their duty to resist; but if the
House was of a different opinion, if they were satisfied that in
reason they could make the great experiment, if they thought the
concession could be made, be it so, they might take that course.
But if you pursue it (said the Right Hon. Baronet emphatically)
you must do so under other auspices and other guides, who can
see more clearly their way to a sale result amid the senseless
clamour which prevails.--( Hear. hear.) The Noble Lord said
the Government should not attach so much importance to this
question—that there is no occasion for the Government to
fasten themselves to it—that the majority is composed of con-
flicting elements, and that we ought not to insist upon acting
on our own opinions; but I say we attach very grave import-
ance to this question, and that it is our duty to act upon our
firm and conscientious belief.--( Hear.) We believe great evils
would result from the adoption of the plan of the Noble
Lord. We are bound, therefore, to resist it. There are
occasions when it is the bounden duty of the Government
to refuse to be made instruments for carrying decisions of op-
posite parties. I believe this case to be one of them. I know
net what the result of this night's debate may be; but this I
know, that if it should be contrary to the opinions of the Go-
vernment and to my views, I will, with perfect satisfaction, re-
tire into a private station, wishing well for the result of your le-
gislation ; but, for myself, I am prepared to pursue that more
rugged, but not inglorious, path of duty. I am prepared to
resist this concession to the popular demand. I believe it
would be injurious to the best interests of the public, and I
must withhold my concurrence even at the expense of popula-
rity.—( Loud cheers. )
Lord JOHN RUSSELL then rose, and said, it was not his
intmtion to have taken a part in this debate considering that
after the declaration made by the Noble Lord' after the with-
drawal of the first Bill, the question, as far as the House of
Commons was concerned, was agreed to.—( Hear, hear.) When
the Noble Lord brought forward his proposition in the first in-
stance, he was supported not only by many on the Ministerial
side of the House, but also by a great number of his (Lord J.
Russell's) Noble and Right Hon. Friends on that side of the
House. Some of his Right Hon. Friends, with whom he had
always acted with the greatest unanimity, had taken a different
opinion from his, and he had never attempted for a moment to
influence their, votes.—( Hear, hear.) He thought the question
was a great one, and which should be altogether separated from
mere party strife.—( Hear, hear.) But after the declaration
made some months ago, that this was a question upon which
the Ministry would stand or fall, he thought it would be use-
less to argue the question further upon its merits, because the
supporting the present law might prove destructive to the
health, morals, happiness, and even fife of the people employed
in factories. Though the mortality was greater than any one
had yet stated—though the law might be changed with per-
fect security to the employment in factories, and without
danger to foreign tradesuppose all this was to be proved to
demonstration, yet Honourable Gentlemen were prepared
to say, that because the Ministers of the Crown
would not consent, they therefore nest oppose any
alterations.—(Hear, hear.) That was the question, and
it was needless to argue it. He was one of those persons who
did not think it should be mixed up with any question of Minis-
terial confidence or want of confidence. The Ministers of the
Crown had not acted well, for they had, in effect, said that so
long as legislation is carried on according to our notions, we
will continue in office, but as soon as you attempt to pass, or
even alter, any measure to which we are opposed we will re-
sign. The bare possibi!ity of the resignation of the Ministry
would be sufficient to throw gut any measure. In fact the
consideration of Legislative measures was no longer for the
House of Commons, but might be said altogether to rest with the
Ministry. He wished to justify the vete he was about to give
to the House, as he had been charged with inconsistency. The
Right Hon. Baronet had told them that night, that in
foreign countries, seventy-two, eighty, and ninety hours per
week were worked by factory operatives ; why then should not
the hours of labour in oar factories be increased, so that all
dread of foreign competition might at once be set at rest? But
they did not agree to that, and they said that they would not
adopt the 14, 15, or 16 hours of other countries. Immediately
that they said that, immediately did they impose a restriction ;
and he, therefore, said that they had no right to charge those
who were in favour of the Noble Lord's proposition, with any
opposition in principle, because the very same principle which
they urged in their defence was the principle of their present
legislation. Yet, they were told that if they adopted the Noble
Lord's proposition, they would be throwing away Adam Smith.
He (Lord J. Russell) saw no necessity for that whatever. He
never beard that Adam Smith had placed a distinction between
twelve and ten hours. He (Lord John Russell) believed that
the principle they were advocating was a principle founded
upon a regard for national health and morality.—(Hear. )
The Noble Lord (Ashley) declared that children, as they
were called in the law, or young personssrpersons from thirteen
to eighteen years of age—could not consistent with their
health, or consistent with their instruction either in religious
or in social knowledge, be employed for twelve hours in
the day, and he therefore proposed that ten hours should
be the limit of their labour, and that proposal he (Lord J. Rus-
sell) believed was founded upon national health and morality.
He did not believe that wages would remain as high under a
restriction of ten hours as they were at the present time, but
he entirely agreed with the Noble Lord who had brought for-
ward the amendment, that with that diminution of wages there
would be increase of comfort-an increase of the power of ob-
taining instruction in domestic usages, and an improvement in
the general condition of the labouring classes. A great diffi-
culty had arisen with respect to this proposition of the Noble
Lord, which was with regard to foreign competition. Now he
( Lord John Russell) was not at all inclined to speak lightly
of foreign competition, but at the same time he must take into
his consideration the calculations which had been made by
competent persons upon this subject. He would not go into
the particulars of the calculations which had been made, but he
would merely state the results. It had been calculated that if
this proposition of the Noble Lord were carried, the increase in
the price of a yard of woollen cloth would be about one penny.
Was' this such a change as would totally ruin their trade in
the foreign markets of the world ? On looking at this question,
he remarked, that by the Hand-loom Weavers' Commission, at
the head of which were Mr. Senior and Mr. Jones Loyd, both
men as well able to ferns an opinion on the subject as any in
the country, it was stated that it was a very great mistake to
suppose, because labour was nominally cheap, it was ac-
tually so; they said that 6d. a day was often more in one
country than Is. a day to a labourer in another country, of
greater skill and power: And they went on to say,
that in many foreign countries the ' labourers em-
ployed were so inferior, that we had a great advantage
over them in that respect. It was also stated by Mr. M'Cul-
loch, that competition with us by America was impossible; it
was impossible that a country, having such a vast extent of
unoccupied land should be able to send any large portion of
'her people to engage in manufactures. Then with respect
to competition from Switzerland and Saxony; the same autho-
rcioutyldstaotnedly ptlaraututuhreseethcoeir unrtraiwes,usitttuoauted
by
a inthloeng cenintredoefzEpeunrosive
Europe,
land carriage from Marseilles,
the very cost of
their manufactures was , conveyingthe raw material of
a
ant ee against competi-
, tion from Switzerland and Salons,—(Hear.)
supposing this competition to be more formidable
than
h But
e (Lord
J. Russell) believed it to be, and he admitted that in some re-
spects it was formidable, yet were there circumstances
which, t o
which, if they dealt with, would enable them to
m
difficulty ?—( Hear, hear.) It was stated in the memeoertiatlbs
ofi
the persons who prayed for a repeal of the duty on raw cotton,
that that duty amounted to 8 per cent. on the article. By the
motion before the House, it was proposed to take about 7 per
cent. from off the hours of labour. The duty On the raw cot-
ton applied chiefly to those goods of which the material formed
of the value, and those were thegoods
the greater part _
which n
were ostly
they sent abmight meet road. Here,
this then was
a mode b m
y which foreig
had -
1 competition. There was another question which been
" alluded to in connexion with this subject, which Hon. Gentle-
men opposite said ought not to be brought into thndiscussion.
But he maintained that it was very fairly brought into the
discussion ; that question was one of the restrictions and
the high duties on food brought from foreign countries.—