The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-26 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, 'DUESDAY EVENING, MARCH 26, 1844.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

deliberately and dispassionately consider this subject,
and I am now able to announce to the House
the decision which her Majesty's present con-
fidential advisers have come to on this subject.
There are three courses, as it appears to her Majesty's
Ministers, which they may pursue in the present
state of affairs. Any course that is to be taken by
the present Government must be simple, firm, and
intelligent ; and looking at it in that light, there are
only three courses which you may pursue. The first
would be—since the House has, at different times, by
votes, affirmed that the hours of labour shall not ex-
ceed twelve, and that they will not limit them to ten—
it appears that within those two points, some point,
as a matter of compromise, must be come to,
And I will, for the sake of the argument, suppose
that eleven hours will be satisfactory to all parties.
Now that is one course. Another course her Ma-
jesty's Ministers may adopt will be to remove from
the Order-book the Order of the Day for the further
consideration of this Bill, for the purpose of expres-
sing their avowed opinion of not making any altera-
tion in the existing law. And the third course which
they may adopt will be to rescind the Order of the
Day, and to ask leave of the House to
produce a new Bill, embracing such points and re-
gulations as have either received the assent of the
House, or are likely to receive it. I will now, with
the permission of the House, discuss these three pro-
positions. In the first case, I think it desirable to
clear up what has passed on the subject since her
Majesty's present Ministers became responsible in the
matter. I wish to call to the recollection of the House
that previous to the commencement of the present
session, my Noble and Learned Friend, the Member
for Dorsetshire, announced, in his place in the
House, that he understood that her Majesty's Govern-
ment were not prepared to depart from the regulations
in factories of twelve hours' work. On the 7th Feb.
Mr. Stuart Wortley asked me what was the inten-
tion of the Government with respect to the labour in
factories, and I will read what was the answer
I then made. "With respect to the question
put to him by his Hon. Friend, whether the Govern-
ment intended to bring in any measure on the sub-
ject of the regulation of the labour of children and
young persons in factories, he had to state, in reply,
that he had found in his office a Bill introduced by Mr.
F. Maule upon the subject, and that he proposed to bring
in that Bill with some alterations and modifications."
I also was asked if I proposed to make some alte-
rations in the hours of labour, and I replied it was
not my intention, on the part of the Government, to
propose any such regulation. I now, then, beg the
House to observe that, in the very first session of the
present Parliament, and almost on the first day
of that session, I gave this answer to the
question put to me. I have read this not for
the purpose of taunting any person, but I have
read it, Sir, for the purpose of showing that, as in
1833 and in 1839, so also in 1842, I, for myself in-
dividually, firmly adhered to the opinion that the
limitation of adult labour was inexpedient, and on
the part of my colleagues that they had come
to a similar determination.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
I will now proceed to discuss the three possible
courses that are open to us. The first involves the
question of a compromise for a limitation of labour
to eleven hours. I am quite prepared to
admit that I do not go the length of those
who may suppose that it is the duty of
a government to carry every thing with
a high hand (so we understood the Right Hon.
Baronet, whose meaning, from the lowness of his
tone, it was most difficult at times to catch) ; on
the contrary, I do say, that there are many occasions,
especially one involving such a question as this,
when a compromise is not only justifiable,
but expedient. But when it is either justifiable or
expedient there are two points which are indispensa-
ble. These are, that the point to be conceded
shall be a safe one—(Hear, hear)—and if there
is to be a compromise that there shall be
a fair prospect of its being adhered to.
Seeing that among a great body of those Hon. Gentle-
men who usually support her Majesty's Government
a division on this occasion unhappily exists, and look-
ing dispassionately at the question, I am bound to
state on the part of her Majesty's Cabinet that the
compromise to which I have adverted, appears
to us not to hold out any prospect of utility. I do not
wish to argue the question unnecessarily; but still, to
vindicate myself, I must touch on some prominent
points. I hold that, in the first place, a compromise
would be most injurious to the manufacturers.—
(Hear, hear.) A change from twelve to eleven
hours seems in itself to sound like a small
matter; but I beg the House to consider that
when applied to machinery, it is absolutely no less
than the destruction of its use for three or four weeks
in the year.—(Hear, hear.) It is a most important
matter, and I have received since I last addressed the
House circumstantial information, from the highest
quarter, informing me that in the cotton and woollen
districts—particularly in those districts where cot-
ton machinery is more actively employed—a re-
duction of the hours of labour from twelve to
eleven, at those times when trade is brisk,
and when the demand is steady, and when the manu-
facturer may be able to make up for the time when
he worked at a loss, is a matter touching not only the
profits of the manufacturers, but the permanent con-
tinuance of machinery.—(Loud cries of " Hear,
hear.") It is a most important consideration
because, as I mentioned before, the prosperity of
manufactures is, in my opinion, bound up with the
prosperity of the State. This being my belief, my
deliberate judgment led me to the conclusion that
this diminution of one hour of adult labour would end
in bitter disappointment to the working classes them-
selves.—(Hear, hear.) I am quite satisfied, though
it would b tedious to repeat the argument now—l
am quite satisfied that in proportion to the reduc-
tion of time there must be a corresponding and im-
mediate reductionoof wages--(Hear, hear)—and
more than this, that unless the master manu-
facturers submitted to a diminution of profit,
this diminution of profit must be added to
the dimunition of wages coincident with the dimu-
nition of time, and, as I before stated, notwithstand-
ing the amended declaration of the Hon. and Learned
Member for Liskeard (Mr. C. Buller), my firm belief
is that this reduction of wages cannot fairly be esti-
mated at less than from 15 to 22 per cent.—(Hear.)
Now, then, if I have proved it is dangerous to the
master, and would end in disappointment to the work-
man, I ask myself is it possible that a measure having
those two effects can fail to be dangerous to the State.
My own opinion is decided, and it is also the opinion
of my colleagues that any measure which affects such
as those I have adverted to is dangerous in the extreme.
I am quite satisfied the workmen are under a delusion
on this point, and that they do not anticipate such a
as I have no doubt must be the
limiting the time of work. What
latfignersfst' effect of their disappointment.
ir
woulded
vui ctta i
bohlnee irntehs weu,
It would be, I am persuaded, that they would
stand out resolutely against the reduction of wages as
andiunjust. Why, at this very moment,
unless misinformed, with twelve hours' work,
unnecessary
I am
sinf m
with a high rate of wages, and improvement in trade,
there are many branches of workmen dissatisfied with
the present rate of wages ; and I have no doubt
if we come to effect a legislative reduction of wages,
the effect of the consequent disappointment of the
workmen would be a very general strike throughout
the manufacturing districts, which, concurring with
other things, would lead to fatal and most inexpli-
cable confusion.—(Hear, hear.) I hope that
nothing which may fall from me may be considered
in the nature of disrespect to say parties, but I have
a duty to discharge, and will discharge it; but I must
say, with all respect, that the measure of the Noble
Lord is dangerous in its nature, and that, dangerous
as I conceive it to be, the arguments by which it
is supported are still more dangerous.—(Hear, hear.)
I do not know whether the gentleman who used the
argument is present, but I heard an Hon. Gentleman
on Friday night say that a larger diminution in
wages was not detrimental to the working
classes. It was said that there were moral wages,
which were more important to them than even money
wages, and that high wages led to immorality and
improper conduct on the part of the workmen ;
and even when they were reduced starvation was not
possible in this country. Now, those are dangerous
arguments. It is dangerous to say that there cannot
be too large a legislative reduction in the value of the
only commodity which the working man possesses.
But I cannot for one instant believe that the re-
duction will not he attended with deterioration in
the labourers' moral condition. So far from
benefiting his conduct, it is rather likely to drive
him to despair, and the commision of crime which
he would not otherwise have the leant desire to
commit; and it is no consolation to the Legislature
or to the unhappy individual whose suffering, under
a legislative loss in the value of the only commodity
which he has for sale,—and undoubtedly he has
a perfect right to the free exercise of that commodity
as he pleases—to tell that individual of the moral ad-
vantages of a reduction in his wages, and
that there is a poor-law in this country
which prevents the possibility of starvation.
I pass on to another, as I think, hardly less terrifying
argument. I allude to the argument that we have
now arrived at a new social state—(Loud cries of
" Hear, hear")--that there is to be a departure from
all fixed principles which have hitherto guided the
wisest men in legislating upon this subject, and that
we are to meet a new social state by a new scheme
of legislation in this matter. (Hear, hear.)
The opinion has hitherto prevailed that interference
with the free market of labour is most dangerous,
and can only
be justified in very strong exceptions.
That rule is now to be reversed ; legislative inter-
ference is to be general, and there is to _be no limit
to that interference, excepting not even the necessity
of the case but the possibility of the case.--(Hear,
hear.) Now, I say, that if that doctrine is to pre-
vail, it would be much better for this House
not to deal with the complicated question

of the maximum of labour, but at once to establish
the minimum of wages.—(Hear, hear.) I say that
a more dangerous case was never opened to the view
of a legislative assembly.—(Hear, hear.) I have
seen within the last eight and forty hours the use of
a very strong expression to which, on the whole, I
must give my assent. Ido not think it is too much
to say that this is on the whole the commencement of a
Jack Cade system of legislation.—(Cheers from all
parts of the House.) Now, I will just notice one
other argument which, I must say, fills me with alarm.
I allude to the doctrine that it is desirable to take this
step with a view of checking intense competition.—
(Hear.) Now, competition in this matter, inasmuch
as it is the great regulator of produce and price, if
coincident with profits, promotes the interest of the
community. But I contend that this legislation so far
from tending to diminish competition, must have
the directly opposite effect.—(Hear, hear.) If the
demand in the market be the same, and the work to
be done be the same, the inevitable effect of your
diminishing the power of executing it, will be that
fresh factories must be built and fresh capital sunk
in machinery. The sinking of capital is itself
no small evil, but if you prevent the running of
machinery for twelve hours, the effect of that will be
the shifting of the burden to the working-classes ;
that fresh machinery will be built; that needless out-
lays will be incurred ; that there will be a fresh de-
mand for the labour of young persons and children ;
that population will be stimulated, profits ulti-
mately fall, and the condition of the working-
classes permanently and hopelessly injured.—(Hear.)
According to my views, which I will shortly state, I
would say that I cannot conceive that it ever can be
conducive to human happiness to impose limits upon
human industry.—(Cheers.) I think that if it ever
appears to be the interest of the State to reduce the
profits upon capital—to restrict industry at home—to
give premiums upon foreign competition—(Cheers)—
and to impose penalties upon the employment of
machinery, and even on the employment of Bri-
tish capital in manufactures—these objects would be
effected by the proposition of my Noble Friend.—
(Hear, hear.) I have now dealt with the first part of
the subject—l hope not at too great length. To sum
up, in one word, I think that a compromise for eleven
hours would be dangerous to tille State, and inadmis-
sible in policy.—(Hear, hear.) I come now, Sir, to
the second branch of the compromise. What would
be the chance of its permanent endurance ? To turn
first to his Noble Friend the Member for Dorset-
shire, who, with the most honourable zeal, and
the most humane intentions, has firmly ad-
hered to the prosecution of this object, which he
thinks indispensable for the happiness of the working
classes.—(Hear.) My Noble Friend has excluded
himself from that power which is an object of honour-
able ambition to every man in this kingdom.—(Hear.)
He has made that sacrifice. He has placed himself—
I will not say in hostile collision, but in opposition
to the political friends whom he respects and esteems.
—(Hear, hear.) But, Sir, we must consider that
my Noble Friend is not only the able, but the
principal champion of this cause ; and in the most
solemn manner, in speech and in writing—years ago
—two months ago, and on Friday night last—using
the strongest language in the most solemn manner—
he declared that he would never rest until he obtained
a Ten Hours' Bill. lam satisfied, then, that the
matter would not stop there. The House has re-
ceived a solemn warning from the Honourable
Gentleman (the Member for Oldham) who is se-
cond to my Noble Friend in this object, that if
a Ten Hours' Bill were to pass to-morrow it would
not satisfy him, and that he never would be satisfied
with anything less than an Eight Hours' Bill.—(Hear,
hear, and laughter.) But, then, Sir, I hold in my
hand what, perhaps, is more important still, the de-
claration of the delegates of the operative cotton-
spinners of Manchester—this resolution, which was
passed this morning, is to this effect :—" That, notwith-
standing the defeat of Lord Ashley, brought about by
the official influence of the Government, we are resolved
never to relax in our exertions until a Bill is carried
through Parliament ; and that we will avail ourselves
of every advantage which constitutional means afford,
to prevent the employment of children and young per-
sons in factories, for a period beyond eight hours daily.
I say at once that, as between the proposals for eleven
hours and ten hours, if I were driven to make a com-
promise in this matter, considering the circumstances
1 have adverted to, I think it would be more wise
on the part of the Government, and of this
House, in the hope of arriving at a durable
settlement, or a probable permanent arrange-
ment of this question, to go at once the length of a
Ten Hours', than of an Eleven Hours' Bill.—(Hear,
hear.) I, therefore, discard the compromise on the
part of the Government ; and I now advert to the
second course which it is open to the Government to
pursue—namely, to ask the permission of the Rouse to
discharge this Order of the Day, with a view of allowing
the existing law to remain in full force unaltered.
That would be a possible course, one which, as com-
pared with the compromise I have been discussing,
would be a practical course ; but still, in the progress
the Bill has already made through the Com-
mittee, several important amendments have re-
ceived the sanction of the House. The limitation
of the hours of the labour of children—that portion of
the working classes which, as a general principle, was
the most entitled to the protection of the Legislature,
—with respect to children, almost by common con-
sent, an important change has been effected. The
duration of their labour has been limited to eight
hours. Then with respect to the education
of the children in the manufacturing districts—of
which I will not despair—a most important regula-
tion has been sanctioned by the Committee in the
provision that they shall not work both in the
forenoon and the afternoon of the same
day. I am, therefore, not disposed to throw
away the advantages of these new arrange-
ments that have already been sanctioned by the Com-
mittee, or of the other arrangements contained in the
present Bill, and which lam confident will receive
the assent of the House. lam now brought to the
third course, which I before stated I should be
brought to discuss—that her Majesty's Govern-
ment might withdraw the present Bill, and
ask leave to bring in another, not to repeal the
existing law or to re-enact it, but for the purpose
of amending the existing law and introducing such
amendments and modifications as had already re-
ceived the sanction of the House, or were likely to
receive its general assent. I am bound in frankness to
tell the House that, as we have resisted, so we shall con-
tinue to resist, any departure from the limit of twelve
hours.—(Hear, hear.) This declaration may not
appear consistent with that respect which I have said
ought to be shown for the decisions of this House.
But if we could believe that we had forfeited
the confidence of this House • that it was
possible for the Government to give effect to the prin-
ciple of the Ten Hours' Bill, upon which a small ma-
jority of the House has decided, our course would be
clear. But it is our duty steadily to pursue the
course I have intimated as the one we shall adopt.
I am not aware that I have omitted to state any
thing that my colleagues have deemed it right that I
should state. At all events, I hope that the House will
acknowledge that I have concealed nothing ; and I hope
that I have said nothing that is inconsistent with the
profound respect which I feel bound to pay to the
decision of a majority of this House on whichever
side it may be found.—(Opposition cheers.) If the
House will permit me to conclude with a motion, I
ought, perhaps, to move that the Order of the Day for
the resolving itself into Committee on the Factories Bill
be read for the purpose of being discharged.—(Op-
position cheers.), If, however, any Hon. Gentlemen
should think that I am taking the House by surprise
—(Hear, hear)—if any Hon. Gentleman should feel
that impression—(Hear, hear)—l shall feel it
my duty to ask that the Order of the
Day be postponed to Friday, for the purpose of giv-
ing the House time to consider what course it may
be advisable to pursue.—(Loud Opposition cheers.)
I move the Order of the Day for the House resolv-
ing itself into Committee on the Factories Bill be
now read.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 25.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
Mr. T. BATESON took the oaths and his seat for
the county of Londonderry, in the room of his brother,
deceased.
Mr. BROVIERTON and Sir H. DOUGLAS presented
petitions against the Liverpool Docks Bill.
The Blackburn and Preston Railway Bill was read
a second time.
HARROWGATE AND KNARESBOROUGH

Mr. Brotherton rose, but there were loud calls
for Lord Ashley. During the confusion mes-
sengers from the Lords brought up certain Bills.
When the messengers withdrew as the calls for Lord
Ashley still continued, Mr. Brotherton gave way, and
Lord ASHLEY rose, and said that he thought
there could be no doubt but that the most reasonable
and fair course to take, would be that which had been
suggested by the Right Hon. Gentleman, to allow
the House until Friday, to consider the determina-
tion to which they would come. He (Lord Ashley)
had been taken by surprise, and although
his resolution had been by no means shaken
as to the eventual course which he should
take, he had not decided what course it would at
present be prudent for him to adopt. It was wholly
unnecessary for him to follow the Right Hon.
Gentleman through the whole of his able
statement, for the subject had been already
fully discussed.—(Loud cheers.) Every one had
already made up his opinion on it—.(Cheers)—and
not only had the subject been fully discussed, but the
question had been solemnly decided.—(Loud cheers.)
That great assembly, in three successive divisions,
had affirmed the principle that twelve hours' labour
was not to be endured, and therefore, whatever might be
the result of the proceedings of Friday next, he would
make a solemn appeal to the House to stand by its de-
cision.—(Hear, hear.) Upon that decision he would
rest ; because of this, he was convinced that it was
not necessary for him, or any person whatever,
to deal with this subject by any further argument.
He regretted that his Right Hon. Friend the Secre-
tary of State for the Home Department had introduced
into this discussion observations which, but for him,
would never have been thought of again, and were
forgotten.—(Hear, hear.) He deplored that he should
have made such a statement, as that this was
the beginning of Jack Cade legislation.—(Loud
cheers) He (Lord Ashley)' would not repudiate,