The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-23 00:00:00

DROPPED ORDERS.

The dropped Orders of yesterday were then disposed of.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
On the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself
into Committee on the Factories Bill being read,
Lord JOIIN RUSSELL suggested the propriety of
entering on the paper the Orders of the Day which were
to have precedence.
Sir 11. PEEL agreed with the suggestion of the
Noble Lord, and would take care that it should be at-
tended to.
FACTORIES BILL

On the Order of Day being read for the House
EiC
firms of Preston, stating presented a petition signed
resolving itself into Committee on the Factories Bill,
bylNlr.W twenty-two ILSO N T
of the
principal
that the petitioners had heard with the utmost alarm
that the House had come to a resolution limiting the
hours of labour to ten, and praying the House not to
consent to such an enactment.
Lord ASHLEY presented ninety-one petitions from
various districts in the West Riding of Yorkshire, in
favour of a ten hours' clause.
Mr. FIELDEN presented a petition in favour of
limiting the hours of labour.
The SPEAKE3 then left the Chair, and the House re-
solved itself into Committee on the Bill.
On clause 2 being proposed,
Lord ASHLEY said that he would postpone the
amendment of which lie bad given notice on this clause,
and would raise the discussion on the Bth clause, as it
would be more convenient.
Mr. T. EGERTON then rose to move the omission
of the word " silk " from line 31. He said that those
who were engaged in the silk manufacture did not de-
sire to be exempt from legislation on the subject, but
they did not wish to have their interests huddled
up in the legislation which affected others. He
read various tabular statements of the condition of the
silk trade, and endeavoured to show that it would be
necessary to establish the relay system in this branch of
manufacture, as there was not a sufficient number of
children in some places to supply the demand of the silk
trade. ith respect to cducation, he vvas happy to say that
there existed throughout the various districts a great-
disposition, on the part of the wasters, to afford facili-

ties for education, and an equally great desire on the
part of the children and their parents, to avail them-
selves of those facilities.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he co&d assure his Hon.
Friend that the caution which he had enjoined with
respect to dealing with these great manufacturing in-
terests, was a caution which, as far as be was
concerned, was altogether unnecessary ; for •he
-was anxious to give the best consideration to
the subject under discuSsion. He • admitted that
in past legislation silk had been treated differently from
any other branch of the staple manufactures. The mo-
tion of his Honourable Friend, as it now stood, would,
if carried, take silk altogether out of the operation
of the present Bill. It was necessary to call the atten-
tion of his Hon. Friend to the portion of the children
employed in the silk • manufacture. Ile thought that
that if any portion cf this legislation was more de-
fensible than another, it was that which referred to the
children engaged in this manufacture. The po-
verty of the parents, notwithstanding their natural
affections, led them to overwork their children, in order
to obtain the largest possible amount from their labour.
The legislation on this 'subject at the commencement of
the present session was first confined to apprentices, but
was afterwards extended to young children. At
the present moment, hi the silk trade generally, there
was no limitation whatever with respect to the age at
which children might be employed. They might be
employed as early as five, six, or seven years of age.
Thqre was a limitation with respect to time ; they could
not be employed above ten hours, between the time
when they first entered the factories and thirteen years
of age. I here was another distinction, that the children
employed in silk did not require the certificate of
education which was necessary in other cases.
He thought it of great importance, with respect to both
these points, that the children employed in
the silk trade should be brought under the ge-
neral operation of the Act, and this was the
opinion formed by the Committee which sat in 1841.
He (Sir J. Graham) would now briefly state the course
he proposed to adopt with the portions of the Bill affect-
ing this portion of our industry. He must resist the
motion of his Hon. Friend, which would take the silk
trade entirely out of the operation of the Bill. In the
75th clause were provisions which dealt particularly with
the silk trade. In legislating upon this subject, they must
bear in mind the large proportion which the children
employed bore to the adults employed—it was no less
than as four to one. He should propose to omit certain
parts in the clause referred to, and then to enact-that no
children from eight to eleven years old should be employed
in the silk manufacture more than six hours and a half ;
but that from eleven to thirteen they might be employed.,
for ten hours in winding and throwing ; and then at the
age of thirteen, they should return under
the general provisions of the Bill as it now
stood. By the arrangement which he proposed
to the House, they would, for the first time, impose a
limit in regard to children, and which he (Sir J. Gra-
ham) certainly thought to be necessary. At the
present moment there was no such limit. In
this manner he was willing to hope the
just demands of the people engaged in the
silk trade would be met. When they came to the 75th
clause of the Bill he should propose to remit the limi-
tation as to children under 11 years of age, and intro-
duce words to carry out the arrangement he now sub-
mitted, which he sincerely trusted would, upon the
whole, be considered satisfactory to the various inte-
rests involved in this great and important branch of
our trade.

Mr. LABOUCHERE said that he observed, with
some apprehension, the Bill which had been in-
troduced by her Majesty's Government on • the
subject of factories, because he believed that it
was the first time that the silk manufacturers had
been put on the same footing as cotton manufacturers.
These considerations operated so strongly upon the late
Government, that they, brought in two Bills—one with
respect to silk, and the other with respect to
cotton manufactures—and he confessed upon the whole
that he thought it would facilitate the progress of the
Bill if the Government adopted a similar course. He
thought, however, after what the Right Honourable
Baronet had stated that the objection urged by the silk
manufacturers had been fairly met : and he believed
that his proposition would be satisfactory to the trade.'
He hoped, therefore, that no obstacle would be thrown
in the way of the Government. It was not his wish to
see the silk trade excluded from the operation of a Fac-,
tory BilL The silk manufacturers had the largest
amount of children employed in their factories.
Mr. GRIMSDITCH thought that upon the whole the
plan of the Government would be satisfactory.
Sir G. STRICKLAND said that, in answer to those
who contended that it was impossible to carry on the
silk-manufacture if the hours of labour were limited, he
would observe that the same argument bad been used
when it had been proposed to limit the hours of labour
in the cotton manufactories. Experience, however, had
taught them a different lesson. The hours of infant
labour had been limited, and none of the inconveniences
which had been foretold had occurred. The general
impression among the Members of the Committee of
1841 was, that the silk-manufacturers had made out no
case for exemption from the operation of the Bill. There
were more children employed in the manufacture of silk
than in any other branch of manufactures, and, there-
fore, they stood in need of greater protection. The
rooms in which they worked were hot, and the nature of
the labour was the same as the labour in the cotton
manufacture. Those children were standing on their
legs for fourteen hours a day, and many of them walked
twenty miles in the course of the day. He could not but
recollect the evidence of a surgeon, who was against any
restrictions on labour ; he stated that he considered the
exercise they took was healthy. He was asked if he
had children of his own? He answered, yes. He was
then asked if he forced his own children to take such
exercise? His answer was that they were not labourers.
Why no human being could say that a child of fourteen
years of age ought to be forced to perform such herculean
labour, and he was sorry that the Right Hon. Baronet
had consented to do as he had done. He was sorry
that he confined the relays to children between the ages
of six and eleven. This was departing from the prin-
ciple of the Bill. He strongly urged the Committee not
hastily to make a distinction between silk, and cotton,
and other manufactures.

Mr. BANKES said if the Hon. Member for Cheshire
persisted in his amendment he would support it. The
persons engaged in the manufacture of silk claimed no
exemption from the protection given to those engaged
in other branches. But they said that the work in the
silk factories was so different from that in the cotton
and woollen mills, that the regulations that applied to
others would not apply to them.
Mr. STRUTT said he did not think the Hon Ba-
ronet could have much refreshed his memory by read-
ing the report before he spoke on the subject, so com-
pletely had he misrepresented the evidence.—(Hear,
hear.) With regard to the temperature in the silk
factories, so far from its being the case that it was very
high in them, the fact was, that the work could not be
carried on if the temperature was not kept cool.—
(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Baronet then alluded to what
had been said of a surgeon, who happened to be a con-
stituent of his (Mr. Strutt's) own. It was true that he
had stated that the children ran from fifteen to twenty
miles. But this occurred in the case of working at
sowing silk—a process in which there was no machinery
whatever, and which was something like that of rope-
making.—(Hear, hear.) This was not a case which
could be reached by legislation.—(Hear, hear.) The
Hon. Baronet then said that the children worked for
thirteen or fourteen hours; but in the town of Derby
there was not a single mill which worked more than ten
hours.—(Hear, hear.) He believed that, on the whole,
some of the silk manufacturers would prefer being left
out of the Bill altogether. But he thought they would
be satisfied with the suggestion of the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet, and he therefore hoped his Hon. Friend would
not press his amendment.
Mr. T. EGERTON said that, after the suggestion of
the Right Honourable Baronet, he would not press his
amendment.

The amendment was then withdrawn, and the clause
agreed to.
Clauses 3,4, 5, and 6, were agreed to without discus-
sion. On clause 7 being proposed,
Mr. ALDAM said that the woollen manufacturers
objected to the seventh clause.

Mr. SHEPHERD said he wished to correct a mis-
representation
whick had occurred in reference to what
he had said the other night. He- wished now to state
that in the town of Frome, children were altogether ex-
cluded from the factories. The men and women and
young persons usually worked twelve hours, and it
would be very injurious to their interests if they were
prevented from so doing.
Mr. VERNON SMITH said the whole argument
really turned upon the words "no female of any age,"
and to these words, and to the principle embodied in
them, he entirely objected. He thought it was a very
dangerous principle to introduce that of restricting the
labour of adult males or females in manufactories. The
House had, on one or two occasions, decided on inter-
fering with the labour of the helpless. They had inter-
fered between the parent and the child, but that was
because the parents made use of the labour of their
children in a manner to seriously injure their health,
and sometimes even to destroy life. But he had heard
no argument brought forward why men and women
above the age of twenty.-one years should not be allowed
to work as at present in factories. He had given his
vote with great pleasure to the proposition of his Noble
Friend opposite (Lord Ashley), but they were now lay-
ing down a very important principle—interfering with,
and restraining the labour of adults in factories, and
which, if carried into operation, might very seriously
prejudice the best interests of this country. If it were
persevered in, he should certainly divide the House on
the subject.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir JAMES GRAHAM must frankly express his
concurrence in what had fallen from the Right Hon.
Gentleman who had just sat down, regarding the im-
portance of the words of the clause alluded to by him;
and he further agreed with him in believing that the
present was the first time that restraint was sought to be
imposed on adult labour in factories. But he was under
the impression that female labour, under peculiar cir-
cumstances, required restraint. For instance, married
women, Under the control of their husbands ; children
under the control of their parents ; and women in a de-
licate condition. At present there were frequent in-
' stances, he believed, where the class of persons he had
enumerated worked in a manner inconsistent with their
health, and it was necessary the Legislature should in-
terfere. He hoped the House would accede to the
proposition.
After a few words from Sir W. CLAY, which were
not audible, the clause was agreed to.
On clause 8 being proposed,
Lord ASHLEY rose to move as an amendment,
that the word " ten" be substituted for the
word " twelve," and in the event of this amendment
being carried, to add a proviso, to the effect that the
restriction of the hours of labour to ten in the day shall
only take effect on the Ist of October, 1846 ; and that,
from the Ist of October next until the Ist of October,

, 1846, the hours of labour for feniales and young per-
sons shall be eleven. The Noble Lord said he would
not fatigue the House, which had been already so in-
dulgent to him, by going into details. lie would quote
the opinion of Mr. Horner, as stated in his report. He
said that in factories a restraint ought to be put upon the
labour of females, and of children. because where there
was such a redundancy of labour, there could be no such
thing as practical freedom. Women in the manufac-
turing districts were not free agents, they were obliged
to toil, and they were not able to bear fatigue to the
same extent as men. The experience and knowledge of
all medical men was against their being employed in the
manner they were at present. And, in his report of
December, 1841, Mr. Horner further stated that there
could be little doubt but that working ten hours a day
would be less prejudicial to health than working for
twelve ; but without entering into the question of health
at all, such an entire absorption of the labour and time
of the working classes, was in a moral point of view,
most objectionable. He (Lord Ashley) thought the
House had, to a great extent, to consider whether it was
better to have a moral population, with smaller wages
or a depraved people, with greater?—(Hear.) But he
was not by any means prepared to admit, at least to the
extent supposed by Honourable Gentleman opposite,
that a diminution of the hours of labour would cause
such a reduction of wages. In 1833 the hours of
labour of children in factories had been reduced
considerably ; yet when he (Lord Ashley) visited
the manufacturing districts in 1836 Ile found that chil-
dren had just as much wages then for eight hours' work
as they had previously for ten or twelve. In 1818 a pe-
tition to that House was presented by Sir Robert Peel,
father of the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of her
Majesty's Government, from the cotton-spinners of
Manchester, praying for a reduction in the hours of la-
bour, and the Hon. Baronet on that occasion, in urging
the prayer of the petitioners, said they (the petitioners)
were most anxious that the Legislature would interfere,
and that they would prefer a diminution in the comforts
of life they were then enjoying to their present intoler-
able toil. In combatting his (Lord Ashley's) arguments
the Hon. Member for Durham and the Hon. Member for
Manchester spoke in very high terms of the comfort of
the operatives, and of the wages those employed in the
factories could earn. Why, he thought that that argu-
ment was rather in favour of his (Lord Ashley's)
proposition, for if they earned such large wages
they could the better bear a diminution of them.
He held in his hand certain returns, which would show
that the operative population would not be injured by
any reduction in their wages, arising out of the limita•
tion to ten hours a-day of their labour. He took, in the
first place, the case of a single woman; he would sup-
pose that her earnings from work in the factory
amounted to 9s. per week. Now it must be recollected
by the House that there were many things to be done
at her home which might be done by herself, but caving
to the length of time she was, under the present
system, engaged in the factory, she was compelled to
hire another person to do that work for her. The ex-
penses of her washing, which, under a system of ten
hours' labour, she would be enabled to do herself ;
the loss arising from her meals being carried
to the factory, and other little matters, would amount to
about Is. sid. per week. If she had to work but ten
hours in the day she would save these expenses; and
supposing her wages to be reduced one-sixth in conse-•
quence of the reduction in the number of hours of
labour, it would be seen that she would not be a loser
by the change. He would take the case of a family of
five persons, three of whom worked in a factory twelve
hours a day. The mother obtained los. a-week, the
eldest child 4s. per week, and the second child 35.,
making in all 17s. per week. The expenses of washing,
mangling, &c., would amount to 2s. per week. A woman
would be required occasionally to assist the husband at
home in the domestic work, and that would take another
shilling. He would then put down another shilling for
the loss which would arise from the meals being carried to
the factory, by which great waste was caused, inasmuch
as when several persons dined together, anything that was
left might be put by towards another meal. A loss would
arise from the husband cooking the meals, for scarcely
any man, whether Frenchman or Englishman, could
cook so economically as a woman.—(Laughter.) This
loss he estimated at another shilling, and these expenses
together would amount to 55., which left 12s. for the
purchase of provisions, clothing, and other expenses.
Now that was the estimate under the system of twelve
hours' labour. He would now state the amount of the
expenses for the same family, under a system of ten
hours' labour. Supposing that the wages, in conse-
quence of the reduction of the number of hours of la-
bour, were to be reduced one-sixth, the wages of this
family would amount to 14s. 2d. Undera system of ten
hours' labour the woman would have time to do the
washing of her own family at an expense of about one
shilling. A woman would be required occasionally to
assist in cleaning the house, and that would take another
sixpence, making one shilling and sixpence to be de
ducted from the 14s. 2d., reducing the wages to 12s.
Bd. per week. It would be seen, therefore, that rather
than the family-losing by any reduction in the amount
of their wages, they would be gainers by the change.
These were the statements made by the operatives
themselves. He held in his hand a note, from a person
who was on the spot, respecting the expenses of a
family—he took the case of a family of four
persons working in a factory, all of whom were
engaged in different kinds of labour. Each of those
four persons had separate teas, and consequently four
journeys were made in conveying the meals to the
factory. Under the present system of twelve hours'
labour, the full amount of victuals sent out was either
consumed, or destroyed, and great waste often took
place. Now, under a system of ten hours' labour, only
three meals a day would be required. Under the present
system, such was the great exhaustion to which the
labourer was subjected, that it was absolutely necessary
he should have at least four meals a day. Under a
system of ten hours' labour, therefore, one meal a day
would be saved, besides the advantage of having the
meals at home. The writer of the note he held in his
hand said that, when he worked ten hours a day,
in 1842, he never had more than three meals
a day ; but that, when he was working twelve
hours a day, in the same mill, he was abso-
lutely obliged to have what were called " extras."
These consisted of little delicacies, such as ham and
other things, to enable him to go through the hours of
his daily labour. There was another point to be con-
sidered, and that was, that it required one child to carry
meals from the home to the factory. Now, under a
system of ten hours the labour of this child might be
employed more advantageously and profitably to its
parents. But the most important consideration of all
vas, that it was generally believed amongst the opera-
tives themselves, that if the hours of labour were to be
reduced from tea to twelve, it would have the effect of
prolonging for at least three years the term of their
working life ; many went as far as to say that it would
prolong their working life as mucti as five years. He
had only one other fact, which was a very remarkable
one, with reference to this subject which he would trouble
the House with, and that was a table showing the num-
ber of criminal offences committed in England and
Wales in the year 1841. From that the House might
judge of the condition, or rather the moral character, of
the females in the manufacturing districts. The pro-
portion of females committed for offences was much
greater in the manufacturing and commercial counties
than in the agricultural counties. He took 13 manu-
facturing, and 13 agricultural counties ; and in 1841 the
number of females committed in the agricultural districts
was one to six males, and in the manufacturing and
commercial counties one to three males. Now he would
appeal to the House to consider the position in which
this question was placed. He would tell her Majesty's
Government that it was not a new matter—it was not
now propounded for the first time—for the last twelve
years it had been gradually growing up. Let the Go-
vernment bear in mind what was the position of the
question now, after a majority of that House had affirmed
it—a majority involving the representatives of the
greatest of the commercial constituencies in the kingdom
—(Cheers)—and supported by the fervid and undy-
ing sympathy of this country.—(Cheers.) Did they
think it wise—did they think it just, to reverse such a
mighty decision by the simple exercise of official autho-
rity?—(Cheers.) He appealed to the House whether,
after having excited such bright hopes and expectations,
they would now destroy that hope which had been called
into life amongst the great body of our manufacturing
population—he called upon them not to do so—from the
bottom of his heart he called upon them to do justice to
the sympathy which had been evinced by the whole
country on this subject—to do justice to their own cha-
racter, and not turn round upon their decision and de-
stroy its effect. He called upon them to have regard
for the character they occupied in the country, and to
the character they occupied in the minds of all the
nations of the world. Did they think that the
feeling which had been excited amongst the people
would ever rest until they arrived at that con-
summation which was so much desired ? He could
assure the Government that if they succeeeded
that night—he did not believe they would—but he could
assure them, that if they succeeded that night, it would
only be to give additional vigour and additional determi-
nation to those who had so long maintained the principle
he was then advocating. If they succeeded that night,
their success would have the effect of prolonging the
sufferings and the evils which he had described. But
they might depend upon it that the sympathy of man-
kind and the feeling of the country would compel them
ultimately to surrender, and they would surrender at
last, when the boon would have lost all its grace, and he
feared would be of little remedial power. The Noble
Lord concluded by moving that the labour in factories
be ten hours instead of twelve, intimating that if this
motion should be carried, he should then move a proviso
that it should not come into operation until 1846.
Sir WILLIAM CLAY said it that was his intention to
oppose the motion of the Noble Lord ; but while he did
so he would give the Noble Lord full credit for the
humane and exalted sentiments he had expressed. He
could not, however, think that the Noble Lord had made
out a case sufficiently strong to justify the Government
in adopting his proposal. He did not think that the
remedy proposed by the Noble Lord would have the
effect of removing the evils of which the Noble Lord
complained. He thought, on the contrary, that the
proposal of the Noble Lord would aggravate rather
than diminish the evil. He did not think that the labour
performed in factories was so severe as to call for le-
gislative interference. In the opinion expressed by
medical men, as to the effect of factory labour, there
were great discrepancies. It was a remarkable fact, that
those medical men who were of opinion that factory
labour was injurious to health, were persons not per-
sonally conversant with the subject Medical men
resident on the spot, in the midst of the factory popu-
lation, were decidedly of a contrary opinion. If the House
were to refer to the sanatory reports, they would find
that the average duration of life amongst the labouring
population of the manufacturing districts was greater
than amongst persons of a similar class in the large
towns. For instance, the mean duration of life of persons
employed in factories in Manchester as not less than
the mean duration of life amongst persons in 'a similar

station of life in Liverpool. He believed that the operatives
—members of his own constituency—in Bethnal-green
were much worse off than the operatives in Lancashire.
He dreaded that this measure of the Noble Lord, in-
stead of realising all the benefits which he anticipated,
would tend to aggravate a great many of those evils.
He (Sir. W. Clay) could only say that he had bestowed
considerable attention upon the matter, and he would
bear his share of the responsibility, by expressing his
coincidence of opinion with the Right Hon. Baronet op-
posite, that the reduction of the amount of the opera-
tives' wages would be nearly 25 per cent., instead of what
the Noble Lord had stated. It had been said that if
there were no manufacturers in other countries, prices
would rise, but that was not the case; they were running a
race with various foreign nation s,and had to combat against
a very strong and powerful competition. They could
not have two separate prices for the home and the fo-
reign markets, for that of the home market must always
be regulated by the foreign one. The principle sought
to be laid down might do very well for the large manu-
facturers, who exported to the amount of thirty or forty
millions, but it would certainly tend to produce a cor-
responding diminution of labour ; and he would entreat
the House to reflect well upon the woful effects which
follow, and had followed, the dearth of employment
which the manufacturing districts suffered under some
time ago, and to consider if the objects proposed would
compensate for the enormous defalcation of employinent.
The Hon. Member for Ashton, when alluding to the
report of 1834, proposed a remedy for this state of
things. The Hon. Member proposed that the country
should endeavour to persuade foreign nations to adopt a
similar course of legislation with this country. But he
(Sir W. Clay) was afraid the House could not see the
likelihood of succeeding in effecting this object. He
confessed that the Noble Lord seemed to him (Sir W.
Clay) to have imbibed some peculiar opinion that the
profits of the manufacturer were so enormously large
that they could afford so far to sacrifice their incomes as
to pay the operatives for working only ten hours the
same sum which they did for twelve hours' work.—
(Hear, hear.) In the present superabundant
state of the money market he did not see
how the Noble Lord could form such an opinion.
The large capitalists would not suffer so much, it was
true ; but it would press most severely on all the lower
class of persons engaged in manufacture ; for if a bur-
den was imposed upon the master, it must, most as-
suredly, fall upon the operative ; and in the speech of the
Noble Lord, he laid particular stress upon the medical
evidence, which st,ted a female in a state of pregnancy
ought not to be compelled or permitted to work for
twelve hours a day. Now lie (Sir W. Clay) would ask
the Noble Lord one question, which he thought would
show that this was not so good a point as the Noble
Lord seemed to imagine. The question he would ask
the Noble Lord was, if it was fit that a female should,
when in such a condition, be allowed to work for ten
hours—the time contemplated by the Noble Lord's Bill ?
He conceded that the Bill afforded facilities for the de-
tection of fraud ; it also prevented women and children
from working in factories from night till morning. In
these respects he agreed with it. But he would ask the
Noble Lord whether he might not direct his benevolent
efforts to other departments Of labour ? There was
scarcely any department of labour in which the efforts of
the Noble Lord were not more wanted. The Noble
Lord had shown that highest df human qualities, enthu-
siasm in well-doing, without which nothing great could
be accomplished. He entreated him, therefore, to direct
his attention to other branches of industry more requiring
his care ; and then, instead of having a narrow majority
in that House—(Hear, hear)—he would be supported by
its unanimous voice and the universal approbation of the
community.
Mr. MONCKTON MILNES said, as a Member con-
nected with the great manufacturing district of the
West Riding of Yorkshire, in which this question
excited so much interest, he hoped he should be excused
from shortly addressing the House on this question.
He rose under a conviction that it would be his duty to
oppose the Government, with which he usually acted •
he felt a conviction that the course the Government had
taken on this question was attended neither with benefit
to the country nor dignity to themselves.—(Cheers from
the Opposition.) In the course of last session, the
Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home
Department brought forward another Factory Bill.
They all knew how it was met, and how it was foiled.
He did think that, in yielding to the agitation mani-
fested, the Right Hon. Baronet took a course as
little dignified then, as his persisting in his present
course was now.—(Cheers.) Had the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet then persevered, he for one would have been ready
to have risked his seat to have supported him. Under
what a different aspect the question came before them
at present, to what it did last year. The agitation
which the Right Hon. Baronet now met, aroLl so stre-
nuously opposed, was one that had lasted ten years,
which excited the most vivid attention and the deepest
interest among a large portion of the people, and which
was now confirmed by a solemn decision of that House.
—(Hear, hear.) They were now asked to come down
on so rare an occasion to rescind the solemn resolution
of that House, come to after an adjourned debate of three
days, without any pretence of casualty or haste, be-
cause the Government wished to take advantage of
any chance or contingency that might enable
it to reverse the former decision.—(Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets who bad pre-
ceded him had undertaken the difficult task of showing
that the whole matter was a dream of philanthropic
enthusiasm on the part of the Noble Lord ; he held out
the state of the factory children and women as so satis-
factory that it was almost impertinent in that House to
interfere with them. He had hoped that that question
had been settled for ever. He had hoped that they all
knew that thousands and thousands of children ii the
manufacturing districts were being brought up in a con-
dition more degraded than that o a slave population—
(Oh, oh)—that thousands perished annually on the
threshold of manhood, physically and morally unable to
meet the difficulties of life.—(Hear, hear.) In the present
year, as in the last, the Government had come down to
the House with a Bill interfering with labour. He
considered the speech of the Right Honourable Baro-
at the head of the Government against this propo-
sition, applied with much greater force against the prin-
ciple of any interference at all, than against the modifi-
cation of it, which was proposed by the Noble Lord the
Member for Dorsetshire. All that the Noble Lord had
proposed was, that the children, after passing the age of
13, should not be put at once to the dreadful toil of twelve
hours a day. The Hon. Baronet, the Member for the
Tower Hamlets, had tried to make out that twelve
hours' labour a day was extremely light; and such as he
himself would not mind undertaking. He said this on
the authority of Mr. Senior; but he believed if the
Hon. Baronet and Mr. Senior had but a week's expe-
rience of it themselves they would come to a very dif-
ferent opinion on that subject.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr.
Milnes) attached more weight to the opinions
of Dr. Hawkins and the medical men of Man-
chester; than the statement of Mr. Senior,
who from his villa at Knightsbridge paid the manufac-
turing districts only a flying visit. But there was an-
other part of this question to which he wished to refer
—that was the effect of this proposition on the wages of
the operatives. Wherever the principle of wages had
been scientifically laid down, he had always understood
that there were four elements by which the amount of
wages was regulated ; these were population, capital,
the fluctuations in the price of produce, and the standard
of living. Neither of these, taken separately and insu-
lated from the rest, could have any effect on wages—
they all depended on each other. He could not believe,
therefore, that a small reduction in the manufacturer's
profit could have such an effect in reducing wages as
seemed to be apprehended. He would solemnly
ask the Committee to look well at what
they n ere doing before they rescinded the
former decision of the House. He asked them to consider
under what a different aspect the question came before
them now. Let them remember that it had gone forth to
every village and hamlet in the manufacturing districts
that there was now a majority of the representatives of
the people who had declared it to be their opinion that
children ought not to be worked more than ten hours
a-day. At that moment the people were speaking of it
to one another, telling each other that the noble
exertions of the Noble Lord had at last accom.
plished the object for which he had contended,
by ten years of unwearied exertion on his part,
and of unceasing hope on theirs. Could the Go.
vernment suppose that a decision of the House, re.
versing the former vote, obtained by any means they
might command, would have the effect of turning back
the river from its course, or make the people of England
forget the decision of the former night ? They would
not forget it ; and if they were likely, to do so, his Noble
Friend would take care that they did not. But
he thought it comparatively of small importance
what might be the result of the vote of that
evening ; the fate of the measure was settled.
The Ten Hours' Bill was as much at that moment the
law of the land, as any other part of the interfering Bill
of the Government. He sincerely and heartily grieved
that the Government had set itself against the opinions,
the sympathy, the good feeling, and religious sense of a
large portion of the people of England; and he would
sit down by humbly imploring the Committee to resist
the dangerous course the Government was pursuing, and
not, by so persisting, drive his Noble Friend to some
desperate extremity (Cheers and laughter) from
in which, he believed, he would be sup-
ported byamajority of that House—that of laying at
taking a step
the feet of her Majesty herself the prayer of the people,
imploring the interference of her benevolence and noble
feelings against the short-sightedness, or rather the
blindness, of the Government.—(Cheers.)
Mr. VERNON SMITH said he felt called on to
vote for a Ten Hours' Bill. The whole argument of the
oponents of the ten hours' system rested, the other even-
ing, on the ground that they ought not to interfere with
labour at all. But he found that the Government
had interfered in the Bill • with the freedom of labour.
—(Hear, hear.) But it might be said that children and
unmarried females were not free agents. That, he was
sorry to say, was the case with regard to a great portion
of the male population of the country ; and it was not
exclusively applicable to females that they were not free
to dispose of their labour. It was more in the power of
the master to say to the labourer " you shall work,"
than in the power of the labourer to say " I
will not work. They interfered with labour on the
ground of the helplessness of the children, and because
the system was tending to unhinge society altogether.
Perhaps there might be some doubt as to the propriety
of interfering with labour at all, for in 1833 the pres-
sure was found to be so great that persons of all parties
were determined upon interfering on behalf of children.
The question now proposed to him was, whether he
thought a child was capable of working twelve or ten
hours?—(Hear, hear.) He had no hesitation in answer-
ing such a question, and saying that he was decidedly in
favour of ten hours as the proper limit--(Hear, hear.)
He believed no person would say that the children could
work twelve hours a day without injuring their moral
and physical constitution.—(Hear, hear.) The real
argument against the ten hours came from the Right
Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home De-