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

and manufacturing capital of the country. The experi- ;
mart had been tried, and had succeeded, and he was of
opinion that the ten hours' system must be combined
with other measures which would leave trade unfettered.
Mr. AGLIONBY said that the Noble Lord the Mem-
ber for North Lancashire had, in his opinion, justly
proved that the present question was one of detail and
not of principle, and he had also set aside the question
of Jack Cade legislation.—(Hear, hear.) He for one
was not afraid of the term, and he thought too much
had been made of it.—(Hear, hear.) When he heard
the term it did not strike him as anything peculiar. He
believed the Right Hon. Gentleman who had used it
would rather that he had not done so, but hard words
broke no bones. He acquitted the Right Hon. Gentle-
man of any feeling of disrespect when he used it, and he
must say that he heard with admiration the straight-
forward, candid, and manly speech which he had made.
—(Hear, hear.) For himself he would not be bound by
old systems, but would act as altered circum-
stances required. There was a curious difference in
the reasons of those who supported the Govern-
ment from those on which the Government themselves
brought the measure forward. He could understand the
reasons upon which the Hon. and Gallant Member for
Westminster and the Hon. Member for Montrose acted,
for they protested against all interference; but the Go-
vernment had interfered, and their whole proceedings
were founded on interference. He considered it was the
duty of the House to interfere to protect those who were
under the undue control of others. He did 'not think
that they ran any risk of endangering the manufactures
of the country by reducing the hours of labour from
twelve to ten, but it was no doubt a matter of very
grave importance. He could not go the length of the
Right Hon. Baronet, in saying that twelve hours was
the point up to which they wore justified in interfering.

Mr. E WART said he was one of those who were in
favour of an Eleven Hours' Bill, and he thought if the
Government had adopted the compromise of eleven
hours they would have satisfied all parties. He would
interfere with the rights of labour, so far as to give
protection to women and children, who were unable to
protect themselves. The Noble Lord opposite said
that the manufacturers of Lancashire would be satisfied
with an Eleven Hours' Bill. The Noble Lord the Mem-
ber for Liverpool, and others, signified their intention of
supporting such a proposition. He was therefore sorry
the Government did not adopt it. There was a time for
compromise, and he was afraid the Government had
acted most unwisely in allowing it to pass by He
would support the Government in that measure, but
after their stern declaration to-night, he could not sup-
pert them.
Dr. BOWRING said he did not agree with the Hon.
Member who had just sat down, that an Eleven Hours
Bill would give the satisfaction he seemed to think it
would. There was a great diversity of opinion on the
subject. From all the information he could glean, a great
majority out of doors was unfavourable to interference.
Among the working-classes there was such a desire to
have the experiment of a Ten Hours' Bill tried, that lie
believed the Government must interfere. his own opi-
nion was certainly opposed to interference, and he be-
lieved the time would come when those who opposed
legislation on the subject, would be looked on by the
working-classes as their best friends. He believed the
experiment must now be tried, but he was afraid the
working-classes would rue the consequence of their own
wishes. He believed it would prepare the way for a
fearful and frightful crisis, and he thought the sooner it
came the better it would be for the country.
Mr. MITCHELL said that the adoption of the ten
hours would prove ruinous to that branch of manufac-
tures which consisted in spinning yarn. The result of
it would be that many persons would be thrown out of
employment, or that the manufacturers would lose one-
sixth of their profit. He believed that ultimately the
loss caused by the reduction of the twelve hours to ten
would fall on the working- classes themselves.
Mr. ESCOTT must say that if the question before
the House had been whether the measure of the Noble
Lord (Ashley) was for the relief or injury of the
people, if he wanted an able witness to prove that the
measure was injurious to the people, he would cite the
Hon. Member for Bolton (Dr. Bowring), who stated
that the measure was in itself ruinous in principle, and
if carried into operation would be deeply injurious to the
people, and yet the Hon. and Learned G entleman stated
that he would be a strenuous advocate of that measure.
Dr.BOWRING—The Hon,. Gentleman misapprehends
me.—(Order, order.)
Mr. ESCOTT would state, in a few words, why he
voted against the measure of the Noble Lord. He had
certainly thought that the Bill of the Government was a
salutary measure, though not perhaps proceeding upon
a principle which could be altogether considered
sound—(Hear, hear)—but still it was a measure
for the improvement of the existing state
of the law. He (Mr. Escott) had come down to the
House fully prepared to give every attention to the
arguments of the Noble Lord ; and, he must say, that
his principal reason for opposing the Noble Lord's mea-
sure was that, in his speech in support of it, the Noble
Lord produced no argument, from first to last, to show
that the measure when carried into operation would be
for the benefit of the people. So far from it, that the
Noble Lord expressly stated, that he would not argue
upon the commercial view of the question—that whether
the pecuniary interests of the people would be promoted
by his proposition was a question which he would not
discuss. Ile (Mr. Escott) must further say, not that
the measure of the Noble Lord, if carried, was in itself
revolutionary, but the statements and arguments
with which it was brought before the House.
were, in themselves, decidedly revolutionary. The
chief argument, indeed, seemed only to embody a threat
of violence if the alleged grievances were not removed.
With respect to himself, he felt it his duty to say that
the course taken by the Government in opposing the
Noble Lord's measure, was the only one that could be
taken consistently with their own honour, because the
only course consistent with the true interests of the
people.
Dr. BOWRING explained that he had stated his own
views on the subject, but that from communications
which he had with the town which lie represented, he
was convinced that nothing but an experiment would
persuade the working classes of the erroneousness of
their views upon the matter.
Mr. BROCKLEHURST was at a loss to know why
this Bill should be introduced at all. No person had pe-
titioned for it ; but now when it was brought perma-
nently before the country, it assumed a very serious
aspect. For his own part, he viewed with great alarm
legislative interference with labour ; and, with respect to
manufactures, he thought they had been doing many
unwise things for several years past. In consequence
of our unwise legislation, the growth of manufactures
was fostered in countries which otherwise never would
have dreamed of such a thing. He had voted for the
ten hours' measure, because he thought it the better of
the two courses proposed, though he did not approve of
many of the doctrines of the Noble Lord (Ashley.)
However, he trusted that, on Friday next, the measure
which would be introduced would be such a one as he
could support..
The SPEAKER then put the question that the order of
the day for going into Committee on the Factories Bill
be read, for the purpose of postponing it to Friday next,
which was agreed to.
POOR-LAWS (IRELAND;.
On the Order of the Day for going into Committee on
the Mutiny Bill,
Mr. FRENCH rose, pursuant to notice, to call the
attention of the House to the neglect of the Poor-law
Commissioners to furnish returns ordered by the House
in a reasonable time.
The SPEAKER said that if the Hon. Gentleman
meant to bring forward his motion as a case of privilege,
it would be a most unusual course before an order of the
House had been made that the returns should be fur-
nished forthwith. When such an order was made, and
the returns were not in accordance with it furnished
forthwith, then it was competent for the Hon. Gentleman
to bring 'forward his motion on a question of privilege.
Mr. FRENCH said he should take care not to do any
thing irregular, and he would very shortly state the
reasons which induced him to complain, and which led
him to the belief that the delay in furnishing
the returns had been both systematic and intentional
on the part of the Commissioners. Returns had been
ordered by that House on his motion, and he had a right
to get those returns, and lie insisted upon getting them.
The returns ordered by the House on the 12th February,
1843, were for the names and local situations of each of
the union workhouses in Ireland, which had not a suf-
ficient supply of fresh water. On the 4th of March
following, no return having been made, he took occasion
to complain of the delay, and to point to it as a contempt
of the authority of the House, and to move that Mr.
Nicholls and Mr. Lewis, the Commissioners, should be
called before the House to answer for their contempt.
Afterwards there was a return made, professing to be
that which he moved for, but it really was not so. On
the 11 th of August, 1843, he moved for the names of
the Assistant Poor-law Commissioners in Ireland, th
names of the respective unions to which they were
attached, and the number of their attendances at each
union workhouse during the preceding six months.
That return could have been made in six hours. On
the 6th February in the present session, he moved for a
return of the names of the places where police soldiers
were employed in collecting the rate, and specifying the
number of men employed, and the amount collected.
No return, however, of this kind had been made. Ho
thought that those delays might be attributed either
to pressure of business or to accident, but when he
reflected that the continuance of the useless expense
of that despotic Commission rested entirely upon
the state of ignorance in which the Government had
been kept as to the real operation of the poor-law, and
the opinions of the Irish people upon it, the conviction
forced itself on his mind that the delay in presenting
those returns had been, on the part of the Commis-
sioners both wilful and intentional. The returns
he had called for this year, if honestly and cor-
rectly given, were calculated very much to undeceive the
Right Hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the
Home Department, as to the real state of affairs in Ire-
land. Should the Right Hon. Gentleman, by any acci-
dent whatever, he cared not what, arrive at the truth,
he (Mr. F.) was convinced, from the Right Hon.
Baronet's clearness of mind and firmness of purpose,
there would be a speedy end put to both Commission
and Commissioners in Ireland. The Hon. Gentleman
then, in reference to his motion for a return of the
number of soldiers and police employed in the collection
of the rate, read an account in which it was stated, that
in February last, at a place called Bellow, 700 soldiers
and police were marched to meet the peasantry, who,
to the number of 300, armed with pitchforks, &c., had
assembled to offer the most determined opposition
to the collection of the rate, and even resolved
on waging war to the knife, but that fortunately,
owing to the humane exertions of a magistrate in the
neighbourhood, Captain Kelly, of Fairfield, the colli-
sion was prevented, and the people peaceably dispersed.
The Hon. Gentleman also read, from Dr. Kirwan of the
county Galway, a most respectable Roman Catholic
priest, a letter describing the difficulty of collecting the