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

ROUSE OF COMMONS, March 25.

! parish, against the contemplated amendments in the
Poor-laW Act.
Mr STRUTT presented a petition from the Dis-
senters of Derby, praying that the chaplains of union
workhouses might not be paid out of the rates, and
that nonconformists might be at liberty to appoint
their own chaplains in workhouses.
: Sir J. Y. BULLER presented a petition from
workmen employed in the silk throwing business,
1 praying that manufactures in silk might not be sub-
jected to the operation of the Factories Bill.
Mr. O'CONNELL presented several petitions from
places in Ireland, praying for (as we understood) the
repeal of the legislative union.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from the Scottish
Central Board, for securing. the rights of professors,
praying that all the restrictions on the professors of
the Scottish Universities might be removed.
Colonel RUSHBROOKE presented a petition from
, Bury St. Edmunds, and twenty-six parishes in Suf-
. folk, in favour of the protection of agriculture.
NOTICES OF MOTION—GWALIOR.
Mr. MACAULAY gave notice that he should,
soon after Easter, submit to the House resolutions
touchingthe late transactions in the State of Gwalior.
The Right Hon. Gentleman said he gave the notice
thus early in order that her Majesty's Ministers
might, if they thought it desirable, lay on the table
before that time any documents which might appear
to them likely to elucidate the subject. It was not
his own intention to move for any such documents, as
he conceived that he had already, from authentic
sources, the means of judging of the transactions
which had occurred.
On the motion of Mr. WYSE, the petition from
the members of the Repeal Association, praying in-
quiry into the late State prosecutions in Ireland, was
ordered to be printed with the Votes.
Dr. BOWRING gave notice of his intention to
put a question to the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir J.
Graham), whether it was his intention to propose,
during the present session, any measure for the re-
dress of Welsh grievances ?
Mr. HUME gave notice that, before the House
went into Committee on the Commons Inclosure Bill,
he should move that the Bill be read that day six
months ; also, that on going into Committee on the
Coroners' Bill, he would move to continue the charge
at 9d. per mile as before.
POOR-LAW AMENDMENT ACT.
Mr. FERR AND, seeing the Right Hon. Baronet,
the Secretary for the Home Department, in his place,
begged leave to ask whether it was the intention of
the Right Hon. Gentleman to proceed that evening
with the Committee on the Poor-law Amendment
Act, or not ?
Sir J. GRAHAM said that the Committee stood
upon the Orders Of the. Day for that evening, but it
was his intention to move that the order should be
postponed till after Easter.
SLAVE TRADE.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
Mr. T. BATESON took the oaths and his seat fc;r
the county of Londonderry, in the room of his brother,
deceased.
Mr. BROTHERTON 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

RAILWAY.
Mr. LAWSO4N moved the second reading of this
Bill.

young persons in factories 112 had to sate, in reply,
that lie had found in his dice a Bill introduced by .Alr.
E. Maul' upOn the subject, and that h e proposed to bring
in thatßill 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 GOvernmeot, 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, ibut I have
read it, Sir, for the purpose of showing that, as in
1833 and in 1839, so also in 1842, 1, for myself in-
dividually, firmly adhered to the opinion that the
limitation of adult labour was inexpedient, and on
the part of my colleaguesthat 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—(bear, 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 lion. 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 bold 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 Aed 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.) a 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 reduction of 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 areunder a delusion
on this point, and that they do not anticipate such a
reduction in wages, as I have no doubt must be the
inevitable result of limiting the time of work. What
would be the first effect of their disappointment.
It would be, I am persuaded; that they would
stand out resolutely against the reduction of wages as
unnecessary and unjust. Why, at this very moment,
unless I am misinformed, with twelve hours' work,
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 as y parties, but I have
aduty 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 least 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. (Heal', 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. I do 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 fur 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 ineurred 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-
PlaSses permanently and hopelessly injured.—(Hear.)
According Le my views, which I win shortly state, I
would say that I cannot conceive that it ever can be
conducive to human happiness to impose limits upon
human industry,---(Chcers.) 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 fly tl pr9P94.1!1°11. qf my NW() Friend.—
(Hear, hear.) I have now dealt with the first part of
the subject—l hope not at too great length. Wo sum

Sir R. PEEL, seeing the Noble Lord, the Member
for Tiverton, in his place, begged to ask him whe-
ther he intended to bring on his motion on that sub-
ject on Thursday next?
Lord PALMERSTON said, if he could not get
precedence on an early day after Easter, he would
bring it on on the day for which it was fixed.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
Sir R. PEEL gave notice' that, on Wednesday
week, he should move that the House, at its rising
do adjourn for the usual period, till Monday week
following, for the Easter holidays.
Lord J. MANNERS asked at what period after
Easter the Government would proceed with the Poor;.
law Bill.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he would, after Easter, give
notice of the day.
FACTORIES BILL.
Sir J. GRAHAM in moving the Order of the
Day for going into Committee on the Factories Bill,
said—lt now becomes my duty to refer to the Order
of the Day respecting the Factories Bill. In moving
that Order of the Day, I shall, under the present
circumstances, trespass on the indulgence of the
House for a short time. In the observations
which I feel it is my duty to address
to the House, I beg leave most emphatically, on the
part of myself and my colleagues, to express that de-
ference which, as a constitutional principle, we owe
to the decision of this representative assembly. That
deference I beg to express for the decision of the House
of Commons, on the part of the servants of the Crown.
I only know one duty which is on their part paramount
to it; it is this --that no Minister of the Crown, even
in obedience to the declared wish of the House of
Commons, should make himself responsible for any
act, or adopt any policy which in his conscience and
sober judgment, and after mature deliberation, he be-
lieves to be inconsistent with the
,well-being and
prosperity of the country.—(Cheers.) I know no
other limit than this to the deference due to the
decision of this House, but that limit must
be religiously adhered to.—(Hear, hear.) Now, in
the interval that has passed since we last met and
discussed this question, I and my colleagues have
maturely deliberated on the position in which this
question is placed. It is right that I should shortly
recal the recollection of the House to what has occurred.
On Monday last, in concert with me, the Noble Lord,
the Member for Dorsetshire, took a discussion in an
early stage of the Bill, the interpretation clause,
on which he distinctly raised the question,
whether the hours of labour of young persons and
women should be restricted to ten hours or twelve?
This was virtually the question submitted to the de-
cision of the House. I, on the part of the Govern-
ment, stated the importance of maintaining the exist-
ing law, which imposed no restriction beyond twelve
hours. The Noble Lord, with perfect consistency,
and in accordance with the course which he has pur-
sued for the last twelve years, raised the question that
ten hours should be substituted for twelve. The
division on that occasion, in the first instance,
was on the question which had been virtually
raised if twelve hours should be retained.
The Noble Lord proceeded to a division
and carried his point, which was, that instead of
twelve hours, the time of labour should be restricted
to ten hours, by a majority of eight. Unwilling that
any surprise should take place, I immediately gave
notice, on the part of the Government, of our inten-
tion again to appeal to the Committee on this impor-
tant matter, on the Bth clause being proposed, when
the matter would come in a more substantive
form before them. That question was deli-
berated on on Friday last. I proposed that
twelve hours should be the limit on that occasion, and
her Majesty's Government were defeated by a ma-
jority of tliree. My Noble Friend then proposed
that the blank should be filled up with the words
" ten hours." Her Majesty's Government resisted
that proposition, and succeeded by a majority of eight.
The effect of these various divisions, as the Bill now
stands, has been to involve the measure in inextricable
confusion. It has been recorded in the interpretation
clause as the opinion of this House that ten hours
should be the limit of the labour of young persons—
Mr. HINDLEY—Ten hours and a half.—(Loud
cries of " Order" from all parts of the House.)
Sir J. GRAHAM—I trust the Hon. Gentleman
will let me proceed without interruptioi—(Cheers)—
if I mistake anything he will have an opportunity
when I sit down of rising to correct me, but I hope he
will permit me to proceed with my statement without
interruption—(Cheers)—l stated that the effect of.the
amendment on the interpretation clause is virtually
to record the opinion of a Committee of this House
that ten hours should be the limit of the period of
labour for young persons. On Friday the whole
proposition was more fully debated, and the Com-
mittee negatived the resolution which they had for-
merly affirmed. These are circumstances which demand,
and which have received, the most attentive considera-
tion, of myself and of my colleagues. In a matter of this
kind it is of the utmost importance that we should
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 t.) 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 Howe
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-
mentiAt factoriesrn. softut ha ret
Glovfoovtrwsli7lipyveo
asked
sh
cuwer hours'
t'
hmw
respect
sk;e..hcattOtown
tathshe
were not prepared to depart from the regulations
bt hoi
nuFtreenibn:
factories, and I will react what was the answer
I then made. " W the 7th
'With respect t t. illy itiqps
~put him_ by his Hon. Friend, whether the Govern-
ment intended to bring in any measure on 'the Alb--
ject of the regitlation of the labour of children and

Mr. BECKETT DENNISON having moved, as
an amendment, that it be read again that day six
months,

The Hon. Mr. CAVENDISH seconded the motion.
Mr. FERRAND supported the original motion,
because he thought such a line would be of much
benefit and convenience to the inhabitants of the lo-
cality.
Dr. BOWRING thought it would be well if the
Bill were now to be read a second time, in order that
the House might have an opportunity of considering
it in Committee.
Mr. JAMES denounced the whole matter as a
job, and trusted the House would reject the Bill.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, when
the nnmbers were—
For the second reading
For the amendment
Majority in favour of the second reading —7
The Bill was then read a second time.
SEVERN NAVIGATION BILL.
On the motion of General LYGON, the Severn
Navigation Bill was read a third time and passed.
On the motion of Mr. AINSWORTH, the Bolton
and Preston Railway Bill was read a second time.
UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE.
Lord DUNCAN presented a petition from Bath,
signed by 1,400 persons, in favour of universal suf-
frage.
Captain ROUS presented a petition from the
churchwardens and other inhabitants of St. James's

TEE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY MORNING, MARCH 26, 1814.

up, in one word, I thin!: tint a compromise for eleven
hours would be da.trerous to tke State, and inadmis-
sible in policy.—(llear, hear.) I come now, Sir, to
the second branch of the compromise. What would
be the chance of itspumanent 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

hered to the prosecution of this _object, which he
thinks indispensable fn• 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 kingdorn.—(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,
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 di iven 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 I louse 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 I am 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
should state. At all events, I hope that the House will
acknowledge that I haveroncealed nothing ; and I hope
that I have said notbini, 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 ttself into Committee on the Factories Bill
be read for the purpose of being discharged.—(op-
positiori 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.

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,
nor would he be ashamed of the title.—(Cheers.)
But he would ask that House what it was that gave
birth to Jack Cade ? Was it not that the people
were writhing under oppressions which they were
not able . to bear, and, when smarting under
these oppressions, they determihed•to take the law in
their own hands?—(Cheers.) And that would be the
case on the present subject, unless they took care
how they legislated upon it.—(Hear.) And if for this
they were to be told that they were rebels like
Jack Cade, they would be only adding insult to in-
justice.—(Hear, hear.) As the Right Hon. Gentle-
man had said that he would postpone the question
till Friday he would not detain the House further,
and he would only repeat that he trusted, as
this question had been solemnly decided upon three
different occasions, that upon that decision Hon.
Members would stand and would vote with him.
Of this he could assure the House that he would
never depart from the course which he had adopted
upon this subject. . In that course he would be sup-
ported, as he had hitherto been, by that House.
Lord HOWICK thought that the House could not
with fairness and propriety decide upon the question
at that time. But what was the course the Govern-
ment was now proposing to adopt? They were told
by the Government that they would not listen to
any compromise. They would neither adopt a Ten
nor Eleven Hours' . Bill, notwithstanding their
own inspectors had told them that twelve
hours' labour was more than ought to be borne.
The evidence of the highest medical authorities went
me effect, and yet the Government told them
ld allow no reduction. What did the ttho
etyh ewsoau
Go-
vernment intend to do ? They had been de-
feated on this clause, . and how did they pro-
pose to take the decision ? Why, they took
the extraordinary course of saying to the House
if you choose to regulate labour to a greater extent
than we approve of, then you shall not regulate
at all.—(Cheers.) That was what the Government
presumed to say to the House.—(Loud cheers.)
At the present moment,. let it be recollected, there
.was no chieck at all on the labour of women. The
inspectors appointed by the Government had
reported that a check • was ,Osolutely necessary—

that worsen r, ho were not, in fact, their own masters,
required and should have the same protection as
children. Well, the Government said they would
regulate this labour by confining it within the
limit of twelve hours—the House said they
would confine it to ten hours ; and then the
Government said to these females, and to the
House, you shall have no limitation nor re-
gulation at all.— (Cheers.) lie now suggested to his
Noble Friend (Lord Ashley) that the course he
should take on Friday night should be to resist the
discharge of the order. If he allowed the Bill which
had now made such progress to be withdrawn. what
would be the effect ? The Government would intro-
duce a new Bill still more objectionable in shape than
the one now before the House—the Noble
Lord (Ashley) would have to re-propose his
clause, and if it were carried again, the
Government would drop the Bill.—(Hear, hear.)
If the Noble Lord (Ashley) meant to persevere, let
him persevere on Friday next ; if he had diffi-
culties to encounter, rather let him meet them
in the first instance than in the last. Let
them rather go on with the Bill as it was than
allow a new Bill to be introduced with all the disad-
vantages which the original proposers were anxious
to avoid.—(Hear, hear.) He put this for his Noble
Friend's consideration, and, at all events, when the
motion was made to discharge the order for further
considering the Bill, he, if he stood alone, would say
" No" to it.—(Hear, hear.) Before he sat down he
wished to correct a misstatement of the argument put
by himself and his Hon. and Learned Friend, made by
the Right Hon. Gentleman. The Right Hon. Gentle-
man, obviously alluding to what he (Lord H.) said,
made him say that intense competition was at the
bottom of the evil. That was not the argument
he had used. What he had said was, that if intense
Competition was the source of the evil, they could
only get at it by widening the field of industry.
He had said that intense competition gave a
power to one or two individuals to adopt a system of
carrying on great bran Ches of industry to which the
great majority of persons engaged in them were,
in their wishes, strongly opposed.—(Hear, hear.)
He asked those who had listened to the able speech
of the lion. Member for Liskeard (Mr. C. Buller),
whether his arguments had not been perverted by the
Right Hon. Gentlemen. His Hon. and Learned
Friend had stated, and he (Lord Howick) believed
had stated truly, that they had acted too long
upon the principle of leaving these mat-
ters to themselves.—(Hear, hear.) lie entirely
concurred with his Hon. and Learned Friend,
and he thought the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite
was of the same opinion, for the question between
them and the Government was a matt& of detail—the
number of the hours. The Right Hon. Baronet
had said lust now that he could not conceive how it
was conducive to human interest to limit human in-
dustry.—(Hear, hear.) Why, did not the Right Hon.
Gentleman opposite propose to limit industry? In
many of the factories they were at the present moment
working fifteen hours per day. -
Mr. FE R R AND—Eighteen hours.
Lord HOWICK would not state more than fifteen
hours; but did not the Right Hon. Gentleman pro-
pose to limit that time ? He thought that the
House ought to resist the motion to discharge the
order of the day.
Mr. BROTHERTON had heard with very great
regret the announcement of the Right lion. Baronet.
Had he announced that it was the intention
of the Government to consent to eleven hours,
he believed it would have met with general
concurrence.—(Hear, hear.) He did not yield to
her Majesty's Government in anxiety to promote the
commercial prosperity of the country.—(Hear,
hear.) It was formerly customary for mills
turned by water to work day and night ; but
that custom had ruined the trade. Before factory
legislation was commenced, the average time of
working was seventy-seven hours; it was now sixty-
nine, yet no injury had been suffered. He did think
that if her Majesty's Government had come forward
with a good grace, and bowed to the decision of the
House ; or if they had said " the House has de-
clared that it will neither have ten hours
nor twelve hours, we therefore propose eleven
hours as a medium," such conduct would have
met with general satisfaction. He hoped they would
even yet re-consider their decision.—(Hear.)
Captain ROUS congratulated the House on the
prospect of getting rid of this Bill. He had risen
three times in vain during the first night's debate,
for the purpose of condemning the policy which in-
terfered with self-government. In the first division
he did not vote, but on the last night it appeared to
him that a sort of party, spirit governed the votes,
and therefore he came to the conclusion that he should
vote for the Twelve Hours' Bill, as it appeared to him
to be the lesser evil.—(Hear, hear.) In the first
place he would observe, that whoever drew up this
Bill, must be totally ignorant of the feelings
both of the manufacturers and the workmen.—
(Great laughter and cheers.) He had heard
I-lon, and Right Hon. Gentlemen speak of the ex-
cesses of Jack Cade and of Wat Tyler, who killed
a man for taking improper liberties with his daugh-
ter.—(A laugh.) But he (Captain Rous) believed
that this Bill would be as great a grievance as those
which caused the insurrections of Cade and Tyler.
He looked upon the master manufacturers as
being the most valuable men in the coun-
try. No men in the country deserved better;
they did not spend their capital abroad in unprofita-
ble luxuries, but they employed it in endeavouring to
promote industry at home, and giving employment to
hundreds of thousands of the people. Nothing could
be more mischievous than the interference of Govern-
ment with private individuals.—(Hear, hear.) Now,
if the House of Commons was to tell him to give
eight half holidays in the week to his servants, he
would tell the House that he would see the House of
Commons —(Hear, hear, and great laughter)—
he would see them somewhere else first.—(Cheers,
and great laughter.) The master manufacturers had
also their feelings, and this meddling and interference
with private affairs was attended with the greatest
evils in all parts of the world. Look to
those places where the Governments inter-
fered with trade and private affairs, and
what were the consequences? In Sweden and
Prusia the Government interfered with families even
to the sending of the children to schools ; and, ac-
cording to Mr. Laing, there was three times the
amount of crime in Sweden that there was in this
country. Government had quite enough to do to
look after their own proper business ; there was not
one Government whose affairs were managed with
proper economy. Were any private establishment to
show such a contempt for economy, they would be
bankrupt in three months.—(Hear, hear.) The same
causes must produce the same effects; if they pursued
the, same course as Sweden and Prussia, the same re-
sults would be produced. The diffusion of education
among the people of the lowest condition only ren-
dered them unfit for their station. The Right lion.
Baronet the Home Secretary had stated that the
Noble Lord (Ashley) had refused a high seat on the
Treasury bench. He could only say that if men of
such tender and sensitive feelings were to carry on
the Government, this smiling country would, before
three years were over, become a desert.—(oh, oh,
and laughter.) Such constant interference must be
mischievous. If they went to ten hours, they' would
go to eight, and where should they stop? The Noble
Lord would make a most excellent Archbishop of
Canterbury, but he would make a very bad statesman.
He believed that the poor men, generally speaking, in
this country were well looked after ; he believed that
in that respect there was no country like England ;
and nothing was more likely to make them miserable
than Hon. Members and Noble Lords getting up on
each side of the House, and making the statements
they bad done.—(Hear, hear.) He believed there
was more good among the labourers of this countr=y
than any other upon the face of the earth, because if
they had not, Noble Lords on that, and Honourable
Members on the other side of the House, would drive

them mad.—(Great laughter.)
Mr. V. SMITH would not take three days to an-
swer the observations of the Right Honourable
Baronet, although he had done so to answer his.
He would explain to the House what he really had
said. The Right Hon. Gentleman had stated that
he (Mr. V. Smith) had asserted that the Poor-law
would be the resource of those driven out of the factory,
and that high wages were productive of immorality.
Now, the Right Hon. Gentleman had most grievously
misrepresented him. What he said was, that the
poor-law was a provision for those poor people who
could not possibly themselves obtain a subsistence.
He had not said that crime was the consequence of
high wages in the sense stated by the Right Hon.
Baronet, but that high wages being disproportionate
and unusual were generally the cause of dissipation to
the recipients. The reason of this was, that high
wages were generally conferred upon hard-workers,
over exertion produced excitement, and excitement
stimulated men to the use of strong liquor, and strong
liquor led to immorality.—(Hear, hear.) That this
was the sense in which he used the phrase " high
wages," and he appealed to any Hon. Member who
had heard him.—(Hear, hear, from the Tory Mem-
bers.) That such was the effect of high wages on
thOse who received them., he appealed to any person
conversant with the condition of the manufacturing
districts, and to the Report of the Children's Employ-
ment Commission. In that report the Reverend
Alexander Gilmour, mini3ter of the Presbyterian
Congregation in Greenock, said that high wages
would promote intemperance rather than comfort. Mr.
Hall, of Wolverhampton, before the same Committee,
stated that the best workmen were the oftenest drunk
from the same reason ; he said such men were often
a whole week together drunk. The Right Hon.
Gentleman was unable to support his version of his
(Mr, V. Smith's) speech by any report of it in any
newspaper in the kingdom. Ile very much regretted
the determination to which the Government had
come—(Hear, hear)—and the thought the Right Hon.