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

THE SON, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING; MAY 14, 1844.

and purposely erroneous. There was one subject with
respect to the operatives, that he was glad to see, and
that was, that Honourable Gentlemen wished to know
what the opinions of the operatives were. Formerly
they petitioned the Houss by milli.sns, and were taken
no notice of ; but now they were all important.—(Hear
hear.) The Noble Lord had not given a fair impres-
sion to the House of the opinions of the operatives, nor
had an lion. Member who had addressed the House
that night, who visited the factory districts, in com-
pany with Mr. Horner (Mr. M'Geachy). That lion.
Hon. Member should have stated that in at least one of
the mills he had visited, where there was a large num-
ber of operatives employed, by far the greater number
of them repudiated the Ten Hours' Bill, if it would have
the effect of lowering their wages. A great deal bad
been said about the opinions and feelings of the opera-
tives on this subject. An extensive manufacturer, who
employed nearly 1,000 hands, asked his men if they
were in favour of the Ten Hours' Bill. One of them re-
plied he was. Then said the manufacturer to this man,
work for ten hours and I will not disturb you. The man
replied that he did not like to work alone. Then said
the manufacturer, let all those in the same room work
the same time with you, and you may continue this for
twelve months, and I will not disturb you ; or, if all
the hands in the mill wish to try it they shall have my
concurrence. This propositition was made on the 27th
of the last month, but none of the operatives—not one in
the mill of this manufacturer—had yet tried the ten
hours' labour. Another manufacturer, at Bury, not only
gave his men leave to work only ten hours, but actually
stopped his engines when ten hours were done. lie con-
tinued to do this for three days, at the expiration of
which all his men told him they would turn out unless
they were allowed to work twelve hours as usual.—
(Hear, hear.) Some Honourable Gentleman had
said that no delusion had been practised on the
operatives, but he (Mr. Bright) had no hesitation
in saying that a gross and cruel delusion had been prac-
tised upon them, and by men who, though not exactly
employed by the Noble Lord, were yet connected with the
movement against the manufacturers. A meeting was
held in Manchester, in Nov. 1833, and resolutions were
passed at that meeting, which he would read to the
House. But he must tell them who were the principal
persons who attended these meetings, which were, for the most
part, composed of operatives, who were the principal speakers,
and who were the members of the Committee. The
Honourable Member for Oldham was one. The first
resolution regarded the formation of a society for assist•
ing the working classes in obtaining for eight hours'
work a full day's pay ; and another resolution was,
calling upon the people to desist from petitioning Parliament
in favour of a Ten Hours' Bill, unless wages for twelve hours
would be given. The meeting was attended by Mr. Fielden,
as he had already stated, by Messrs. Doherty, and Mr. Higgin_
botham. More names were affixed to the paper he had read
to the House—James Turner, Philip Grant, and lest, though
not least, Robert Owen, Esq.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")
He did not quarrel with the Committee, or its resolutions;
but what he objected to was, that these men should go about
the country representing to the working classes that, by legis-
lative enactments, the period of their toil could be abridged.
All that that House could do was to secure rights and pre-
vent wrongs. The fact was, the Noble Lord proposed to
shorten the tether twelve yards to ten, and better their condi-
tion by narrowing their circumstances. The Morning Post
told the farmers that if they grew three-fourths of the gross,
they would get as much for it as for the whole crop ; and so it
was, doubtless, under the operation of the present corn-
laws. Thus it was with the lion. Member for Oldham, who
would only have ten pieces of cloth made instead of twelve, on
the pi inciple that the increased price of cloth would make up
for the increased reduction. The lion. Member did not con-
sider that increased price would be so disadvantageous to the
community. He did not charge the Noble Lord with employ-
ing those disreputable persons whom he had mentioned, but
he feared the Noble Lord had based many of his statements,
for which he had given no authority, on their evidence. Seve-
ral books, too, had been published, containing the grossest ca-
lumnies upon the manufacturers ; and these books, it was said,
had the sanction of the Noble Lord. Why, some of those per-
sons had been actually employed to foment disturbances in the
manufacturing districts. They got up petitions, and meetings,
and cabals, among the workmen, anti they raked up a variety
of things, perverted statements, and sent these forward to the
world as samples of the condition of the manufacturing dis-
tricts. Why this Doherty, to whom he had already alluded, had in
the first instance obtained employment in Manchester on a forged
certificate. He had been several times imprisoned—had been
cencerned in the violent riots in 1818—he had been imprison'ed
for offences against the Excise laws—he had been before the
Magistrate for giving a false name, and for being drunk and
disorderly, and yet he would ask the Noble Lord whether this
man had not actually received money from a certain Society in
London, for the purpose of promoting the Ten Hours' Bill ?
Then there was Mark Crabtree, another of those who attended
the Manchester meeting, and who was an active promoter of
the views of the Noble Lord. -This Mark Crabtree had been
brought before the Aylesbury Magistrate charged with stealing
silver spoons and a salt cellar, the property of a publican in
Aylesbury. This was on June the 26th, 1843; he described
himself as a dyer and scourer, residing at 16, King-street,
Long-acre, London. He admitted having taken the property,
but said he was intoxicated when he did so, and that when sober
he would have placed them again in the hands of the landlord.
But who was it he sent for to give 'him a character? Why,
Dr. Sleigh, and this gentleman stated that he had been intro-
duced to the prisoner by 'the Duke of Buckingham, and that
the greatest confidence had been placed in him by the highest
personages in the realm. The jury returned a verdict of guilty,
but added " not with a felonious intent."—( Great laughter. )
They were sent to reconsider their verdict, and returned one of
" acquittal." This man Crabtree, and a person named
Turner, who stated that they were operatives, but were no
operatives at all, met him (Mr. _Bright) in the lobby of the
House of Commons a few nights ago, told him they were
delegates from the operatives of Lancashire, and requested him
to support the Bill of the Noble Lord ; at the same asking
him " What will the Northern Star say if you refuse?" He
(Mr. Bright) did refuse, and, accordingly, a column of the
filthiest abuse had been heaped upon him by that most infamous
of monopolist papers the Northern Star. He had no hesitation
in saying that for ten who were in favour of a Ten Hours' Bill in
the manufacturing districts there were 10,000 in favour of
free tradeprinciples. After some farther observations the Hon.
Member concluded by saying that the manufacturers of Lanca-
shire sought no favour from the Legislature—they would
scorn to ask for any special reservation or exclusive regard to
their interests; all they asked, then, was to take off those
burdens which pressed so severely upon them—to at least
equalise the burdens upon every class of the community, and
not to make the poorest suffer to benefit the rich.—( Cheers.)
Lord ASHLEY explained. He had not said that in the
weaving department the labour had been doubled by the im-
provements in machinery, but what ho had said was, that
within the last few years it had increased ten per cent,. The
House would decide whether himself or the Hon. Gentleman
who had just sat down was the gross exaggerator.
Mr. SHAW said he had no claim whatever to the attention
of the House on this subject, and he would therefore not
qhueesti explainedon, h e would
his
reasons
a s delayons
for the
doing House
s o
. for
Upon
a
attempt to follow the Hon. Member for Durham ; but as he
was about to give a vote against the Government upon this
pfoen the
wmse several while
he
divi-
sions which had taken place upon thii subject, lie had uni-
evnNhil
e
uni-
formly voted in favour of the ten ho I urs c ause. The question,
as had before been stated, was one of degree, and not
one of principle. The principle of interference had
been acknowledged by the Government, and as the
question of the necessity of limitation had been conceded,
the only question for that House to consider was the extent of
the limitation which they should agree to. Under these cir-
cumstances, he felt constrained to persevere in the course
which lie had already taken. He did this reluctantly ; but he
would remind the House of one sentence which had fallen from
the Right Hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury on a
former occasion, which was, that he regretted the necessity of
differing from some of his most esteemed friends ; yet he was
persuaded that they would appreciate his motives, and believe
that he was acting from his conscientious convictions. He
trusted, therefore, that the Right Hon. Baronet would extend
the same feeling of indulgence' to those who, on the present
occasion, felt constrained to differ from him on this question.
Mr. CHARLES WOOD did not believe that the proposi-
tion of the Noble Lord, if carried -nut, would have the effect
anticipated by the Hon. Member for Knaresborough. On the
contrary, he believed that the effect would be just the reverse,
and that an ultimate and permanent reduction of wages would be
the result. He would ask, what would be the effect of this mea-
sure upon the poorer classes, if the prices of manufactures should
rise? What had been the state of the manufacturing districts
during the last two years ?—( Hear, hear.) The distress in
these districts had never been equalled in this country. The
labourers then worked less than ten hours a day from a sheer
want of work ; and yet, after such dreadful experience, would
they attenspt by legislation to bring about areturn of such a state
of things? He granted, for the sake of argument, that for a
short time the same amount of wages would be paid, but that
amount would be divided amongst agreater number of labourers.
That he contended was in point of fact a reduction of wages.
There would also be a loss on capital ; a considerable loss on
the fixed capital of all existing interests, and that must be
made up somehow or other. If it was not made up by a re-
duction of wages, capital would be transferred to other em-
ployments, or be sent abroad; and if wages were reduced, he
solemnly believed that those who would most regret the mea-
sure would be those who were then asking for it—the artisans
themselves. He was perfectly ready to do all in his power to
improve the condition of the working classes, but it was for'
those who s.upported this measure to show that it would improve
their condition. He did not believe that the reducing a,
people to poverty would do anything towards improving their.
state, either moral, social, or religious. The sanitory reports
of the .
large towns showed that they were in a bad state ;
but the reducing the labourers to the verge of starvation would
only tend to make them worse. He had no indisposition to
promote every one of the ends the Hon. Gentleman who sup-
ported this measure proposed ; there were other measures for
improving the health of the people, and bettering their
dwellings ; and in these things the Legislature might properly
interfere, if it was proved that they could not be effected by
individual exertions. He was sorry that a difference of
opinion had arisen; but having the choice he must do what
he thought would be the least evil of the two to the class he
was the most anxious to serve, and he should basely betray
his duty to them, if at any request he did that, which in his
conscience he believed would be most prejudicial to them, and
which would be' destructive to the trade, the commerce, and
the general commercial prosperity of the country.
Mr. B. COCHRANE said that during the discussion of
this subject—since it had been brought before the House—the
Government had used every effort to insure a majority in fa-
vour of their proposition, and in furtherance of that had got up
a strong agitation in the country. He thought that agitation
was but a poor means by which men were enabled to come to
right conclusions. The Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of
State for the Home Department had admitted the princille
of interference with labour, when he proposed his twelve
hours' restriction of labour. What had been the conduct
of her Majesty's Government in this case.' It was not
by any means a party question when it was first brought under
their consideration ; but the Right Hon. Baronet had subse-
quently made it one. He believed that her Majesty's Govern-
ment would see the necessity of not sacrificing principle upon
such a question as the present.
Sir R. PEEL was sorry that a sense of duty compelled him
again to' address the House on this question ; but, considering
its great importance, he felt that he would not be discharging
his duty conscientiously if he did not state his opinions. The
question was whether they should, by legislative enactment,
compel all the machinery employed in factory labour to suspend
its operations for two hours every day. What was the charg.e
of violating principle which had been made against her Majes-
ty's Government? If such a violation occurred, let them be
at once frustrated in the present measure, but until that proof
was distinctly established, he certainly could not appreciate the
arguments of some Hon. Members. He had come to the ques-
tion of degree, in so far as the interference with labour went.
They might have been wrong in introducing any enactment
which would have the effect of restraining or governing adult
labour, but still that error was no justification of others. He
would ask seriously, was it politic to limit labour to twelve
hours ? Some Hon. Gentlemen opposite had referred to the
corn-laws. But what advantage was that in the present discus-
sion? They said that the corn-laws in England gave to foreign
countries a vast advantage in the race of competition. Now,
if a discussion were to arise on the question of the corn-laws, he

should at once pronounce his opinion. He would grant their ar-
guments, and say that the restriction upon the importation of food
night 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. He should not now touch upon their
foreign trade, because he had expressed his opinions upon that
subject on a former night, but 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 toe 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
those vast machines which they presided over produced—
( Hear, hear)—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,
hear.) 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 16i 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 exactly correspond 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. on the wages of the labourer. —(lean ) 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
reighbourhood of Manchester, and the effect of their
interference with respect to this mill would give
a pretty fair test of its operation with regard to
mills generally. The owner of this mill bad taken a
lease of it five or six years since, and when he took it he never
contemplated their interference with the hours of 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. '1 he owner
of this mill worked twelve hours a day at 'present, and he
employed 475 persons. Of this number 119 were adult
labourers; conlequently, the number of persons now working
twelve hours; and receiving payment for 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 out of those 475 were absent on account
of ill health ; that was about one out of sixty-eight, or 1 per
cent. of of the whole. About 259 out of the 475 resided in Man-
chester, and were natives of it. 216 had been brought from o
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
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.
He 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
of 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 day, but
that they could not always get work at this number
of hours, and were 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 hand-loom weavers worked in cel-
lars 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
an 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 believed that assumption to be utterly without
foundation. The assertion 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 hid the opportunity of ascertaining the return of
labour 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-sixths
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 produce of the ten hours' labour was 99,000 hanks of
cotton. The deduction, according 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 be thought it afforded conclusive proof
that the assumption that ten hours' labour would give the same
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, having been 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
in certain circles.—( Laughter.) But, really, such arguments
as these must be submitted to the test of reason; and his Noble
Friend must not be offended if he claimed the privilege of sub-
mitting to the test of reason an argument which was con-
sidered to carry so much weight.--(Cheers.) " l hat which
is morally wrong," continued the Right Hon. Baronet,
" 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,
hear. )—I can understand it if you apply it to the revocation of
She edict of Nantes, or to the partition of Poland ; I can then
understand that that which is morally wrong cannot be politi-
cally right. But is it politically right that I should interfere
by law 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 con-
cerns 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 doc-
trine, if he who held power might determine what
was morally wrong.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The Ingei-
sition justified all its acts, upon the principle that
' that which was morally wrong ought to be suppressed by the
exercise of power and legislation.—(Hear, hear.) In this he
admitted that they ought to consult that which was for the
lastieg benefit of the people, which conduced to their morality,
and promoted their social conifert. He admitted that wealth
ought not to be the exclusive 'object of legislation. But were
they not to be left at perfect liberty to determine whether a
particular mode of interference would have a particular effect?—
(Hear, hear.) That was, in fact, the whole question at issue.
He denied that, in that sense, it was morally wrong that per-
sons should labour twelve hours in the factory.—( Hear, hear.)
How would they deal with a man who said that eight hours
ought to be the limit ?—( Hear, hear.) When the Hon. Mem-
ber for Oldham said that ten hours' labour was too much for
females, who were, perhaps, in a pregnant state, would
those who contended for the rule that that
which was morally wrong was not politically right
vote for a proposal to restrict female labour to eight hours ? It
would be more agreeable to him to see female labour restricted
to ten hours ; but, balancing the evil with the good, consider-
ing the diminution of wages, the risk of the loss of commerce,
and the probability that there would not be employment for
the industrious classes of this country, he preferred ten hours to
twelve. They had one man saying that eight hours was the
period of limitation, another, that it should be ten. How
could the principle of his Noble Friend apply to this case? Who
was to settle where the immorality began?—( Hear, hear.) He
( Sir R. Peel) would not assert in the abstract that it was mo-
rally right that women should work for twelve hours a-day.
His Noble Friend, however, had called on him to vote for this
proposition on the commercial grounds. This surprised him
more than the assumptionof 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
in the Chinese or other markets. He (Sir R. Peel) thought
that it was in accordance with political economy, that it was a
great advantage to that country which could purchase the
commodities of another country at a cheaper rate, or in ex-
change for a less amount of labour than a third ono could.
The Noble Lord said that it was of no consequence to us what
amount of goods America might sell in the China market, as
she was paid for the most part in tea, upon which the Ameri-
cans paid no duty. But it was said that there was a great
competition in the China market, and he thought that in such
circumstances it would be a great advantage to this country to
be able to undersell America.—(Hear, hear.) It would in-
crease the demand for labour in this country, the accumula-
tion of capital, the increase of profits, and the employment of
money.—( Hear, hear.) Was it not more clear that they could
better enter into that competition if they were allowed to work
twelve hours instead of ten?—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord
had said that the advantage of a country was to be measured
by the imports. He ( Sir R. Peel) said that they should ex-
port as much as they could. It was to him a novel
doctrine that the imports and exports did not depend upon
each other.—( Hear.] The Noble Lord himself had
confessed that it was a novel doctrine,
He
very little under-
stood.--( Hear. hear, and a laugh.) . He (Sir R. Peel) ad-
mitted that he was afraid of foreign competition if those regu-
lations were introduced. There had been a long peace, and
the attention of foreign countries had been turned to manu-
factures. There was pretty nearly an equalisation of profits at

home, and there was a tendency to equalisation of profits in
this country and in the whole world.—( Hear, hear. ) For-
merly we had in this country a command of the materials of
inanufactures—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 not
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.) lie 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 64 ; 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 wore 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. Ile had some
knowledge of factory labour. He would take it at 20 miles,
at the same time stating that he believed then! never was an
Instance of that known. He had 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.—( Ilear, hear.) 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.
Members fur Finsbury and Weymouth, who expressed their
surprise that the Government should oppose the motion of the
Noble Lord. The Hon. Member for Finsbury said they had
better give way then, or it would be extorted from
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
judged 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 rash 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 safe 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
not 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
intention 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 notes.—(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 life 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 trade—suppose 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 must 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 bad 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 possibility of the resignation of the Ministry
would be sufficient to throw out 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 vote he was about to give
to the House, as he had been charged with inconsistency. The
Right f-lon. 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 our 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, 13, 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 heard that Adam Smith had placed a distinction between
twelve and ten hours. He (Lord John Russell) believed that
the piinciple 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 persons—persons 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 hoists 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 form 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-
rity stated that these countries, situated in the centre of Europe,
could only procure their raw cotton by a long and expensive
land carriage from Marseilles, Genoa, or Ham. urgh,
the very cost of conveying the raw . material of
their manufactures was a guarantee against competi-
tion from Switzerland and Saxon Hear. ) But
supposing this competition to be more formidable than he (Lord
J. Russell) believed it to be, and he admitted that in some re-
spects it was formidable, yet were there not circumstances
which, if they dealt with, would enable them to meet this
difficulty?—( Hear, hear.) It was stated in the memorial of
the persons who prayed for a repeal of the duty on raw cotton,
that that duty amounted to S 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
the greater part of the value, and those were the goods
which were mostly sent abroad. Here, then, was
a mode by which they might meet this foreign
competition. There was another question which had been
alluded to in connexion with this subject, which Hon. Gentle-
men opposite said ought not to be brought into the discussion.
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.—

( Hear, hear.) That question came to this—if they found
themselves pressed in foreign competition, if they found them-
solves obliged either to admit food at a low duty, or without
any duty at all, or to make these young women work more
hours than their health enabled them to bear, the question
was to which alternative did they incline? Were these persons
to go on working these two hours a-day for ever
in order to maintain the corn-laws ?—( Hear, hear.) Or would
they say they would rather give up the corn •laws than enforce
these hours of labour? If that was the question, only let them
consider in how odious a light they would put these restrictions
on foreign corn, if they kept the people at work solely for these
restrictions. He felt called on to state these opinions, because
he had been taunted with having changed his views on this
question. He avowed that he had done so ; on reflection and
consideration he avowed that his opinions were changed.—
( Hear, hear.) But then the first consideration was, had lie, in
this change of opinion, been influenced by any unworthy motive?
—( Hear, hear.) There was but one lion. and Learned Member
who,i n the course of this debate had insinuated such motives
against him, and those who sat with him. With respect to
that Hon. and Learned Member, he had nothing to reply to
him, for he had taken himself completely out of the sphere of
our mortal and peccable nature Great laughter and cheers.)
That Hon. and Learned Gentleman, with great candour and
great modesty, said that
"Fools rush in where"—
declining to give the rest of the line—( Cheers)—thus it
was very clear—insinuating by way of what the lawyers
call inuendo—that the Noble Lord the Member for Sunder-
land, who did meddle with the subject, was " a fool,"
and that " angels," thereby meaning such as the lion.
and Learned Member fur Bath himself, were afraid to touch
the subject, thus claiming for himself the benefit of the line.
—( Great laughter and cheers.) Putting aside, therefore, any
dispute with the Hon. and Learned Member, because he (Lord
J. Russell) only pretended to be fallible and erring on the
subject, he came next to the Right Hon. Secretary for the
home Department, because he had stated to the House what
were his (Lord J. Russell's) views formerly on this subject.
He had stated those views in office, and he had stated them out
of it. Did the Right Hen. Gentleman mean to say that per-
fect consistency on every subject was absolutely neces-
sary to the character of a politician ?—(Great cheer-
ing and laughter.) He might refer to great examples
of former days, to men who were not afraid to state that they
were inconsistent, and had changed their opinions on certain
subjects. He regretted that he was compelled to detain the
House at such a late hour with these remarks, but he felt
convinced that the opinions and convictions which he had ex-
pressed upon this subject were the best that could be come at,
and he thought, whatever consequences might be pro-
phesied to follow from the adoption of the proposition,
of the Noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire, there were
some others of equal importance. In saying this he was not at
all actuated by an anxiety or courting for popular demonstra-
tion.—( Hear, hear.) He thought they were bound to
consider what were the results which would be likely
to accrue to the commercial and manufacturing interests
of the country ; but still that was not the only thing which
was to be considered. The Right lion. Gentleman had stated
that there were 450,000 persons dependent upon manuractures,
and it was on account of that large number being crammed
together in large towns, who had not sufficient time to
devote to educational purposes that he (Lord J. Russell) was
in favour of the proposition of the Noble Lord the Member for
Dorsetshire. What he (Lord J. Russell) sought was that the
people should have an opportunity of gaining such secular
knowledge as would make them good citizens; persons
who had reasons for respecting the institutions of the
country. He asserted that if they neglected this subject,
if they looked at nothing except the accumulation of manufac-
turing wealth—if they acted thus, some day or other they
would awake from their present pleasant dream, and find the
terrible reality of an immense population estranged from the
Government of the country, and open to the incentives of the
wildest demagogues, and to the most mischievous doctrines.
He was in favour of a proposition which would enable the
young of both sexes to receive that groundwork, by which
their domestic affections would be strengthened, and to gain
that education to which the people of every free State were
entitled. For those reasons, and in this spirit, he felt bound
to give his vote in favour of the proposition of the Noble Lord,
the Member for Dorsetshire.—( Cheers. )
Sir R. H. INGLIS rose amidst loud cries of " Divide,
divide," and was for several minutes quite inaudible in the
gallery. As soon as order was partially restored we understood
the Hon. Baronet to be pronouncing an eulogy upon Lord
Ashley's proposal, because he thought it was reconcileable with
the present principles of Christianity and philanthrophy.
( The cries of " Divide, divide," here became so loud that
the Hon. Baronet was compelled to resume his seat.)
Mr. COLLETT ( Athlone) rose amidst loud cries of "Di-
vide, divide." He said he should say but one word.—(Hear.)
He was opposed to all interference with the hours of labour, and
for this reason he voted for the proposition of the Hon. and
Learned Member for Bath. lie would vote against the third
reading of the Bill, and for „the same reason he would vote for
the motion of the Noble Lord.—( Great laughter and cries of
" Divide.") He thought a Ten Hours' Bill was better than a
Twelve Hours' Bill, and he hoped the amendment, if carried,
would get rid of this improper and pernicious Bill.—(Cries of
" Divide, divide.")
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when there appeared—
For Lord Ashley's clause ...
Against it
Majority against the clause -138
The announcement of the result was received with loud
cheering, and with shouts of laughter.
On our re-admission to the gallery, we found Mr. Brother-
ton and Lord Ashley on their legs, each attempting to address
the Speaker, but with their voices completely drowned in the
boisterous laughter. At length silence was obtained, Lord
Ashley gave way, and
Mr. BROTHERTON moved the introduction of a clause,
which

Sir JAMES GRAHAM said 'Was rendered unnecessary by
the amendments that had been made in Committee.

The clause was then negatived without a division.

Mr. GRANGER moved several additions and alterations
in clauses 4, 45, 69, and 70, relating to appeals against
convictions.

After a few observations from Mr. AGLIONBY, in which
he begged of the Hon. Member not to divide on the clause, as
they had seen what could be done that night,
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the House divided
on the clause, when there appeared—
_ .

For the motion
Against it .. 29
Majority
On the question that the Bill do pass,
The House again divided, when their appeared—
For the motion
Against it 7
Majority
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at Two o'Clock.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
HOUSE OF LORDS, May 13.
Their Lordships sat to-day at twelve o'clock, in a Com-
mittee for Privileges. Among the Peers present were the
Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Shaftesbury, Lord Brougham,
Lord Campbell, Viscount Strangford, Lord Sudeley, and Lord
Kenyon.

TILE WHARTON BARONY.

Several witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimant
in this case to the Barony of Wharton, and the further con-
sideration of the subject was adjourned sine die.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, May 13.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius before Lord Chief Justice TINDAL.)
ELIOT V. ALLEN AND ANOTHER.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
The jury ret ired to consider their verdict, and after an ab-
sence of several hours returned into Court with a verdict for
the plaintiff—Damages, 4001.