The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-25 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
NEW MEMBER.
_ _ _

Mr. J. BATESON took the oaths and his seat for
they county of Londonderry, in the room of his brother,
deceased.
Mr. BEOTHERTON 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
RAIL WAY.

Mr. LAWSON moved the second reading of this
Bill.

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 numbers were—
For the second reading
For the amendment
Majority in favour of the second reading
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.

-7

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
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,
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 uudarstood) 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 Gi,valior.
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 tHerrebers of the. Repeal Association, praying in-
quiry into the late State prosecutions in Ireland, was
ordered to be print6d 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. FERRAND, 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.
Sir R. PEEL, seeing the Noble Lord, the Member
for Tiverton, iii 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 eariy day after Easter, he would
bring it on on the day for which it was fixed.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
Sir R. PEEL rgave notice that on Wednesday
week he should move that the House, at its rising
do adjourn for the usual period, Monday week fol-
lowing, for the Easter holidays.
Lord J. MANNERS asked at what period after
Easter the Government would proceed with the Poor-
law Bill.

Sir 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 13111,

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 litnit than this to the deference due to
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 persona 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 three. 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 interruption—(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 per Sons. 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, most attentive consideration,
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 to on this sub;ect.
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 was 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 houri 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 our course. Another eourse 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 to him 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.
He also was asked if he proposed to make some alte-
rations in the hours of labour, and he replied it was
not his 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-
hie. These re, 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. Ido 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

L 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 eonsideration
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 adnit labour would end
in bitter disappointment to the working classes them-
selves.—(Hear, hear.) lam quite satisfied, though
it would be tedious to repeat the argument now. I
am quite satisfied that in proportion to. the reduc-
mtioendiaotfe reductiontimetheremuosft bweagaestr
(rersipeaorn,dmhgeaaon_d iamnd-
more than this, that unless the master manu-
facturers submitted to a diminution of. profit,