The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-04 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MAY 4, 1844.

Would be, the manufacturing capitalists of the country. It
was the manufacturing knowledge, to tenuity, and power,
.I!hich had made England what she was
row, and however en:l-
ung it might be to the agriculturist., however painful it iniuht
be to hear about the ignorance of country genthenen—( Liu, h-
ter)—however disagreeable it might be to him to be bearded
his fertune and in his country by the once peer 111 far-
turer, who had applied his mind to his usines-, a::d h
had
millions by his energy, whilst the laneowner
Rad been dreaming away Isis life—however painful
st might be to hear all these things, it was not the less erne,
that to the enanufacturiree capitahst, and to him alone, was ow-
ing the greatness and the grandeur of this country.—( [fear,
hear.) It Ives the knowledge and power of that greet cemmu-
laity that had esi,ed England above a 1 other communities.—
(Hear, hear ) We shou.d have been mere Nimrods— a petty
island in the Ocean, instead of governing the woad—had not
it been fur the manufacturing capitalists. Our fleets were on
every sea __our (fig was floating upon every breeze—but this
Ras nut owing to the lezy lendlords, but to the &erre, energe-
Vtic, enterprising, menufacturine capita ists.—( Hear, hear )
Eet wondereet and pointed at us, and asked how it was that
cwhieh was but a speck on the globe of this earth, was
nighty power that held the balance amongst all other
Petters, and influenced every quarter of the civilised world.
4 had no hesitation in saying that the majority made up on
the late occasion was no honour to that House. —( Hear,
hear.) How many votes had been given on that side of the
et
tu•e.iii c•nsequence of the course pursued by the lion. lember for Stockport? They said the manufacturers had
gene against them, and they would put a torch among them.—
( Hear, hear.) It behoved the other side to show that the
course they hail taken was the right one, and why, after being
twelve years in office, why after being kept in darkness for so
Mane years the light at last broke in upon them Now he
wanted to know what was the Noble Lord's panacea., and
eheth.er it would be worth anything? It was to prevent the
sheourer from labouring more than ten hours ; whet would be
the consequence? The consequence would be an immediate
m"weriew wages—(Cries of " ")—when lion. Members
cry Are, no," they should prove how this " no " will happen,
an't he would then bow down to their opinion. The number
of labourers would remain the same, the demand for work
I'ool3 be the same, but each individual labourer would be de.
terivesi o,rafwr.tain.p'oriion of his hours, and would thus in reality
less e cient labourer. When he, therefore, came into the
nitnaursket he would come as a person who, being less efficient,
fact t ask, as he could only ask, less wages. 'rake the menu-
eLihm er he had a large portion of his capital invested in ma-
4et.erY,,,and mills; that was the larger portion of his pro..
the rewers ; but a smaller portion of it was contained in
f_c.nr:rtions of a labourer, acting as a labourer. The menu-
nriworking twelve hours a day produced a certain quen-
the can • Working ten hours he would produce less. But
),,__pital of the manufacturer remained the same. His fixed
Lcat !en, as be would call it, remained the same ; but his floating
ast:nal on the form df • g would differ, and would produce
bapp•
teen,
retier
tthese circumstances ore of three things would
dieseen, Either prices must rise, or profits upon stock must,
' wages must fall. Which would take place .
t•,. es could not rise, for they had foreign compe-
l'i"o on every side of them.—(flear. ) At the present
Inee'aMnt, it was as much as the manufacturer could do
maintain his
, " footing in the foreign market, and, by a mere
(-11'"f the scale, he would be driven out of one-half of it.—
no," from Mr. Ainsworth.) The Hon. Alernber said
e. He . wished he would get vp by-arid-bye, and state
how it Weill,' be " No, no." The lion. Gentleman should
eretnallY tek • more care how he expressed his opinions, for he had
-Pniged thern all round.—( Hear, hear.) There was a class
e," leessoris who claimed infallibility for themselves, though
ts:eY were the most changeable of men. In every change they
the elwaes infallible, and always intolerant ; and, e:ange as
hag it never suggested itself to them th tt they might
e-t'e neen wrong throughout. But he was about to show that
elheehf three things must happen—either prices must rise,
;07ts, must diminish, or wages must fall. It was im-
e,* `Le that prices could rise while they were
ta"ed to sursh foreign competition. There was
Sod Crated States, Germany, Switzerand, and France,
of thishe wanted to know how were the manufacturers
ens.. kingdom, who, within the last few years, had lost some
7_nrreleritt of their markets in every quarter of the globe, either in
e__, ea, Germany, France, or Switzerland to stand up
l_hh!•st an increase of that competition ? In ev‘ry case a turn
scale would drive them from the market. In that branch
shtattle for which the constituents of the Hon. Member for
wered were celebrated, and in which the people of England
a t_ eeesidered to be supreme above all the people of the world,
market"
in the scale at this mornest would drive them from the
core eetess-( Rear, hear. ) 'fake America. America would
rui,p te with them in every mat ket. She had a sagacious po-
paw,4"th who were possesed of a peculiar knowledge of the
sake: of tnaehinery, and by whom all the changes that had
teaee flare in machinery for the last thirty years have been
eeienr and who had therefore substituted the power of ma-
te'JVor handicraft. If they tampered with the trade of
let the a, and with the capital employed in labour, ever so little,
tijri.m take care lest America and France would not outsell
e in the markets of the world, when they would be obliged
has -me home and tell the manufacturing labourers that they
it 0 ter7e°rl.emhocre (
e._markets, for which they might thank their own
0 tn Hear, hear.) He saw those who only looked
sawott hist Operation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He
et
Par.._ couritry
_gentlemen, who exulted that Consols were
totes eh-5.,( Hear, hear. ) That was one of the most fatal symp-
NeLst7.naet evor seen of the state of the country.—( Cheers.)
tern
Gced It show? It showed this, that so small was the re-
Per c,n, capital, that it was an advantage to buy in the Three
Percent!ts'( Hear, hear.) Go to America, and ask for 3
were ,• (![ear,
Capital there.—(Load laughter) So sensitive
facts ,`"eY of the loss of their cap, that even with all the
wsw:trhe cgerf•e,arte2l(lem, which showed that in America the returns
Continued laughter)—they were overwhelmed
tal4 the recollection that they bad cheated them out of cer-
euesran of money.—( Hear, hear.) But that was not the
tern e"- The question was; whether in this country the re-
eyteecapital was not exceedingly small. He said that was
Amer
et from the state of the Consols--from the fact that they
Aelrerteilling to lend their money to such bad payers as the
tray leaLs, which showed that there was no adventure so ex-
re,ui gant—no danger of loss so great—that they were not
(Hear to undergo, in the hope of enlarging their profits.—
stased hear.) The consequence was that which he had just
the , that the profits of stock employed in manufactures at
te,alireseet moment were greatly diminished, and the
wr'' for carrying on commercial enterprise was lessened.
gap:: at that point that if they reduced it lower, the conse-
the would be that he would have no more means to engage
eeniaunurer with. Each succeeding year would bring a sue-
tee',,;',,e of losses, and instead of being a manufacturer who
bite go on employing labouring persons every year, he would
the; ea less number of labourers in his establishment, because
prq'l:44 forded him into a condition in which he could not re-
lbeZee• If prices were low, would they cut down the
thette-4 who was least able to protect himself, and who%
raa;o.Fmnd not protect by a Ten Hours' Bill, namely, the
ster,i aeinhitig labourer, who came its side by side with his
lboun e"n
Petitor, who would take less for his ten hours
fin*en honn" wh,"wn they were now deceiving with the idea tliat
(Hear, tie-eres.,`abeeitir he would get twelve hours' wages ?
would fall hear
Let them not deceive themselves On him
ofl him ,o.e,avilY the weight of the Noble Lord's humanity.
Its he
%Iliad fall the consequences of it. For he would be
want pr„ •3 now, numerous in his. kind—every day's
say to
hirnsing him to demand labour, aad the capitalist would
tneee. then. as he said to him now, your labour worth
to 1.10-'li and more, that you must take, or you will
"nlareseseng• It was a most important and most awful eon
‘4entic Ind he addressed himself now to the Right Hon.
lte heniaa,kle the he
of` State for the Herne Department,
"cry r Mai why he meddled with the question ? With
hhy Le e_''Pect for the Bight Hon. Gentlemen, he asked him
NyeaLl
age` un.fortunately meddled with this affair Every man
the Riltse, with him, when he said that it must be clear to
Non. Gentleman's sagacious mind that the conse-
evils tePne6 wnich he ( Mr. depicting were the necessary
nat.g",aetawgitil follow from' that inierference. He asked him
thi he could obtain in this race of mock humanity—
Pte lehtitnl struggle for eminence in ignorance. ?—( Cheers
ePeeteee er.) What good then could be derived from se
careelit us a position?—( Hear, hear.) He (Mr. IL) had
hate, tabstained from any remark upon the labour of chit.
the eel. Th, de pene ed upon a totally distinct set of 'rcum-
-7 were not capable of judging for themselves:
tem,/ w
and
de subject to the power of others. But the full-grown
t'kw w°lllan, who had arrived at that age at which
ele th Aided they could judge for themselves—why
tio Right Hon. Gentlemen intet fe e in their concern• ?
gaj re the best judges of their own private interests.
;lite iiitiTde these remarks without any feeling of hostility t'
hejeadeeetelle nth e.ntlemat.l ; but lie did entreat of him, before
teeself aga.in into this abyss of legislation, to settie with
"At Principles upon as hich ha undertook a measure
nal
;In hiC,7lPtion--not to halt between two opinions, and, witn-
ersee4R3 thrown overboard altogether the doctrine of inter.-
*lt.9lr'ri.Anlake a mighty fuss about the extent to which it
Z'he """e( Hear, hear.)
ee.oedsquestion having been put by the SPRAKER, several
Vends
elailaed without any Hon. Member rising, and there
41..t11.1.4,d orries of'
gottld d.`".nAHAM said he was unwilling that the House Pride on that querion until he had previously offered
ol°• 3s.ervations in reference to the speech which had just
eeZressed to them by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman.
the STentat he had rather anticipated that some advocate
-Peecl3. Hours' Bill would rise to reply to that
vtlti
q,,ea the(ti ar, hear.) Many of the principles . for
'anate) "oe. and Learned Gentleman contended, he (Sir J.
,l)ositi had on a former occasion urged upon the House, in
!in to l the Noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire. ie re,
t eta et Peet to his argument as to the reduction of the
ziluillegil.,)nrotaottreaguring labour, it was for the advocates of that
) He was extremely un-
thick ito refer te "
the somewhat exaggerated expressions
oe4rnedlithe heat of debate, had fallen from the Hml. and
ra▪ of lag ntleman. He was sorry to say that, without the
g P "guage of that description, too much exasperation
tYliePri vailed on that subject--( Hear, hear)—and there-
le bid 03 few observations which he was about to make, he
Qerthe rttatri from using language of an irritating nature.
int
ee.:ts n that
st
Place, he agreed with the Hon. and Learned
a just, wise, and enlightened view of the best
(.1 the working classes ought to form the basis of their
th"'oe.o initthrratesnnot for him to look at the motives of Hon. Gen-
-INh th House. But, speaking generally, he believed that
Clietoe ere was
ntto dee, g. eat difference of opinion, they were all
el,, toed__ Lae this matter in that manner which would. be
thvllys. /..'elve to the comfort and welfare of the working
in Brame sir he it from him •( Sir J. Graham) to depreciate
e:e value of the machinery that was now employed
set'. 110,hu_ntrY• lie fully agreed with the Hon. Gentleman
r,l,ek) in what he had said of its value and import-
l!llY agreed in the eulogy he had passed upon the
foe rlhg capitalistsof this country. He believed they
tit „ cd
heir e employment for a large mass of people, that. with-
k dt. uterprise and talent would have been left in the
erahl
Ile 4rt the se condition. And he bad not one word to say
ofAan, th Prlnc'ple laid down by the Hon. and Learned Gen-
g4o,l at the minimum of interference was the greatest
t 4111 this question. But he must be permitted to
I);4;.(la..t4th!he House that the argument now brought for-
14Z; -"tlitZi'dlovanced stage of the Bill was an argument
. much
dincivkneinn a motion for a repeal of the existing law than
ttle-ntisi thaejzted t' the Particular object which they had proposed to
b night Hear, hear.) The principle now
14_ test y the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was identical
tecie settipshltich was before the House in 1833, and which was
whaby the wisdom of the Legislature. All the argu-
eb7sloe,t on been urged to-night, were urged upon that
41' had thoughou certainly not with greater ability. The prin.
cityemeet, been most carefully weighed, both by the Go-
tio
sauided by Mr. Poulett Thomson (no ordinary autho-
111,*rati9uttert1), and by the Legislature, and after much
fed bed
e_ it had been placed as it now stOod. But what
ta_e_ the douse,n siponsider was, the nature of the Bill then be-
aop sent tht the principle at issue. He (Sir J.. Gra-
tt.ti,of eiaeuiatit was the regula,ion of the labour of children,
and en
_Pa.ted young peso:is, in collection with fac-
abstinence from interfererce with the labour of
4. a tiear, hear.) 'That
t•ge,, (Neste" rat was the principle. He thought
this description it was not the best way of
on brought. forward by the Hon. and
Boost been Zilietnan*--( Hear, hear.) He did think it would
tin :zit reeZrevenient to have taken the discussion of the
," the by the. Honourable and Learned Gen-
,e
‘erd
th discussion of the proposition of the
.P,i ould, th e Member for Dorsetshire —( Cheers. )
therefore Confine himself to the consideration' of two
rr,t ,isle lhe first of which'
the °I nen-interfer "hY' haying
admitted te
s was
elles m enee with,aclul-. labour, they interfered,
ki the I"Yrrient df labour whieh was not adult? He would.
e hitt
perrefole.ction of the House what had occurred in 1833.
cu;rec • ollection that it had, at that period, bee

' admitted, on all hands, that the practical effect of limiting the
hours of labour of children and young persons to twelve hours
would be to limit the werking of machinery to that period.
He hrl:eved that, generally, such had been, practically, the
effect of the me' sure altogether ; ro doubt there had been ex-
ception,. A Bill on this subject bed been mtroduCed by the
late Government. in k'a-11. That Bill hal been brought in by
the Right ilotamraQe Gentleman the Member fcr Perth,
whom he sow in his place, and by Mr. Shell, the Vice-
Pre-ideat of the Board of Trade ; by that Bill it
was pronosed to extend the limitation of young persons
from 18 years of age to 21 years ()cage, so that if that Bill had
pas.ed, no person between the ages of 13 and 21, of either sex,
would have been allowed to work in factories for a longer
period than twelve hours. and there could be no doubt but that,
in the imijority of instances, the practical working of the ex7st-
ing law had been to limit the wo. king of machinery in the ma-
nufacturing districts to twelve hours a day. There were, how-
ever, exceptions, and he believed it had been found possible, in
some few instances of competing manu act ores by the employ-
meattof female adult labour, to work the machinery for a longer
time. This was certainly contrary to the intention of the Le-
gi4ature, and was giving these manufacturers an unfair
advantage over their competitors—an advantage which
was obtained beyond the ordinary power, and in a man-
ner fatal to the health of the female adults so employed.
He had received several delegations from the marinfacturers
himself, and he could state to the Howe positively that several
of the manufacturers paying the largest amount of wages were
favourable to the clause limiting the hours of female labour in
factories to twelve hours. The lion. Gentleman asked, why
continue legislation to interfere with machinery? In the first.
place, he had frequently stated to the House that the inter-
ference was contrary to principle. He admitted that the de-
parture from the principle led them into greater difficulty ; but
then it most be remembered, that in labour conoected wish
machinery, the Legislature had a power to interfere which it
had not in other eases. Upon the more important point, whe-
ther they were justified in that interference, he
could not state his opinion more succinctly than in the words
of the report of Monsieur C. Dupin, in the French Chamber.
(The Right lion. Baronet then quoted the words from the
pamphlet of M. Dupin, but in so low a tone of voice that it
was impossible to catch more than its import, which we under-
stood to be in advocacy of the restriction of machinery labour
to twelve hours.) Since the last discussion he had received a
report from Mr. Horner who had inspected several of the
most extensive of the factories. In nine factories 697 persons
were on an average employed in each. Of these more than fifty
per cent. were females, and of the females seventy per cent.
were above eighteen years of age. 27i per cent. were
married women. It av ,s important that restriction should be
placed upon the labour of children and young persons and
females, tut this principle should not be carried to too great an
extent or else it would create a greater evil than it pro-
posed to remedy. The concluding words of the Right Hon.
Baronet were spoken in so law a tone that they were altogether I
inaudible itt the gallery.

Mr. LABOUCHERE rose amid loud cries of " divide."
He said the question before the House was a very plain one—
whether it. was fitting for the House to assent to a restriction
on asiult labour which existed in no other country.—( Hear. )
He felt bound to record his opinion that it was most unwise,
inexpedient, and highly injurious to embark in this course.
The speech he had just heard only confirmed his former views,
and he only regretted that her Majesty's Government had in
the first instance introduced a principle so dangerous and inex-
pedient.—(Hear. ) He frankly admitted that he would not him-
self have brought torward the motion the Hon. and Learned
Member for Bath had submitted to the House ; but that Hon.
and Learned Member having done so, he felt bound to give it
his nio.t cordial sepAirt. The Government had firmly and
creditably resisted thMproposition of a ten hours' clause, which
he thougiit was fraught with the most imminent danger to the
most important interests of this country. He had been
unwilling to take any course which might increase their
difficulty, but he must now say that he entirely
agreed with the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath, that the
Government had introduced into legislation a most dangerous,
vague, novel, and unprecedented principle.—( Hear, hear.)
The Right Hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to make out a
special case, but in that he had failed. If we interfered and
restricted the hours with regard to adult females, there was no
sufficient reason why we should not restrict the hours regarding
males. Why, if this principle were carried out, they must ex-
clude male labour in factories altogether, and stop machinery.
Was factory labour worse than the average of emoloyinents ?
He thought not. So far from the factory labour being a worse
species of employment, he thought it was vastly preferable to
others, and there were many favonrable circumstances exclu-
sively connected with it. There was one fact which struck
him very forcibly—the immense number of females employed
in factory labour in the manufacturing districts, and the pre-
ference these female hail for such labour, so much so in act that
females could hot be obtained for domestic employment. In
fact, a woman servant could not be got there.--( Hear, hear.)
He thought that was a practical answer to those who talked of
the unwholesomeness, and the disagreeableness. and the
danger of factory labour.—( Hear, hear.) A very clever
pamphlet had lately come into his hands, written by Mr. Gudby,
on factory labour in America, and that intelligent writer
stated that in the factory of the Messrs. Lawrence in New
York, there were 7uo persons employed, many of whom were
females, and the hours of labour in this factory were from five
A. Si. until seven r. at., allowing only the intermission of half
an hour for meals. Now, there was the freest country in the
world with females working from five in the morning until
seven at night.—( Hear.) He very much feared that
if they interfered much further with women's labour in fac-
tories they would drive them into other modes of employment,
less wholesome, and less profitable. If interference could be
at all sanctioned, it was in protecting little children—there
protection might be necessary. He was very much struck
by the evidence of one of the factory inspectors at Warrington.
He said there were three kinds of employment there—fustian
cutters, factory labourers, and pin-head makers. The last was
an employment of a most revolting description, and he would
not harrow the feelings of Hon. Members, by going into detail
upon it. By the restrictions the Legislature had imposed
upon the labours of women and children, they were driven into
this pin-making and fustian cutting, and at these
unwholesome and dangerous employments children con-
tinued until when ? —until they were of an age at which
the law permitted them to go into factories.—( Hear, hear.)
He mentioned that as showing how restriction, even when
best intended, had done harm. H 3 was not one of those who
said that they should not modify the principle of free labour ;
but chat he did say was that, when widely departed from, it
did more' harm than good.—( Hear, hear.) He had never
given a vote with greater confidence in the justice of the prin-
ciple he was supporting, or with a firmer belief that he was
supporting the best interests of the working classes, and the
general good of the country at large, than the vote he would
that night give in support of the motion of the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman.—(Cheers.)
Captain RODS was against all manner of interference with
labour, and thought the Government should nut have intro-
duced the Bill. hey had no right to dictate to the master
manufacturers as to who they should employ, or how ling
they would employ them Why, if they once sanctioned the
principle, it would be extended so that merchants would have
inspectors getting into their counting-houses, and bankers would
have their accounts overhauled by these prying functionaries.
There was another reason why he felt warmly excited upon
this subject. It was this :—Having broken through a pi-Ip-
they would have to carry out their neesv,y
-fainhgey had new
ledtheorres
by a whole host of new functionaries. Already
police in almost every town, county police, factory inspectors,
and sub-inspectors, and new they would be compelled to have
an enormous addition to the list of their salaried servants.
Thus would their expenses increase as they limited the hours
'of labour and diminished the means of meeting those expenses.
The consequence wauld be pressure beyond endurance, bank-
ruptcy, and the best of their capitalists flying with their money,
their industry, and their skill, to other lands.—( Hear, hear.)
In conclusion, he begged leave to say it was easy to be free
with other people's money—( Hear, hear)—easy to make them-
-elves popular at other people's expense. —( Hear, hear.) He
should, therefore, support the amendment of the Hon. and
Learned Member for Bath, and he only wished he had gone to
the extent of moving that the Bill be proceeded with that day
six months.

Mr. S. CRAWFORD said it appeared to him that many
Hon. Members were too apt to forget that the operatives of
this country were not free agents, and that they were not in a
eonlition to protect themselves.—( Hear, hear.) Such was
the helpless condition both of the working man and the working
woman, and, therefore, it was the duty of the Legislature to
step in, the same as it had before stepped in, to shield those
who were not able to protect themselves. The cause of the
present state of things was to be found in this. that the labour
market was overcharged. The present 8.11 before the House
would materi lly diminish this ev,l; and it it were for this
alone, he should hold it to be a good and useful measure. The
House, also, in considering this question, ought to bear in mind
that the poor man had lost his claim, his vested right, to suc-
(lour in the hour of trouble by the poor-law, and this without
regaining his hold upon the land, so that he never would
be in a condition to maintain his own rights or
position,
or to make a good fight with his em-
ployers. It was said that waives would fall if
a Bill restricting the hours of labour passed that
House. He ( Mr. Crawford) had always understood that
wages were regulated by supply and demand. That had hi-
therto always been the argument there. He would ask then
Of the manufacturers, it they would enter into an engagement
that wages should hereafter continue as now if there was no in-
terference with the hours of labour, and if they would not con-
sent to do that, how could they assert that wages would fall ?
Under such circumstances he did feel that both humanity and
justice demanded that protection should be extended to the
working classes. The Hon. and Learned Member (Mr. Roe-
buck) had said, if they really wished to serve the working
classes—if they were sincere in their desire to alleviate their
sufferings—let them be invested with power to come into that
House and legislate for themselves. He (Mr. Crawford)
heartily echoed that sentiment ; and he would add, that if it
were carried out into practice, he had not a doubt on his own
mind that the Bill of the Noble Lord (Ashley) would instan-
taneously pass. For these reasons he should support the Bill
of that Noble Lot d, and oppose the motion of the Hon. and
Learned Member for Bath, and in doing this he was satisfied
he should be acting in perfect accordance with the feelings and
wishes of those whom he had the honour to represent in that
House.

Mr. ROSS (fielfast) said the delusion which had prevailed
tt on this aubject amongst the work-people of the town he had
the honour to represent, had now passed away. The masters
had not lett the matter to their overseers, but had gone amongst
their work-people in person, and talked the matter over fairly
with them. He had explained'the whole mat ter to them, anti
the consequence was, that whilst the men had declared that they
should be glad to have more time to themselves, they had ex-
pressed their conviction that a limitation of hours must lead to
a reduction of wages, and to this they were not prepared to submit.
They wished things to remain as they were, and ho therefore felt
it his duty to oppose the Bill of the Noble Lord the Member for
Dorset shire.

Lord HOWICK said he did not rise to discuss the ten or
twelve-hour question ; in common fairness to the Noble Lord
( Ashley ) that should be deferred until the time arrived for
taking his amendment into consideration. The Hon. and
Learned Member for Bath had urged arguments which, though
specious, he could easily show to he shallow. But
he would refrain from doing so at that moment, and
confine him.elf strictly to the question befOre the House.
He was anxious to know how the Right Hon. Baronet opposite
would reconcile his opposition with the argument which he
used in the House on the late debate, because in that debate
the Right Hon. Baronet objected to the amendment of his
Noble Friend as being against all principle. Now it had never
occurred to him ( Lord Howick) that he would have taken the
course he had done, namely, that of stating that his measure
was a violation of principle as well as that of the Noble Lord.
He must confess that he was unprepared for such a statement
from a Minister of the Crown. Were they, he would ask, to be
told this, and yet be advised to pass the measure,? Nos what was
understood by a general principle? It was some. conclusion
drawn from a multitude of facts, upon which was founded what
was considered the wise mode of legislation. Now he (Lord
Howick) was prepared to go further in defame of the Govern-
ment measure than the Right Hon. Baronet himself. He con-
sidered that it involved the violation of no sound principle of
legislation. Now what was the principle which it was said had
been violated? He would state it in language far better than
his own, namely, in the word, of the author of
the " Wealth of Nations :"—" The property of every man
is in his own labour ; it is sacred and inviolate. The property
of a poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his hands;
and if any one: interfere with it it is a violation of every just
and right princiiole." He agreed that the principle was I.t just
one, and 6ne that could not be perverted. Men could judge
for themselves better than any Government, as to the employ.
merit of their labour and capital, and the wisest thing to lead

to the wealth of a nation was to give every individual full
scope for his own exertions. The power of the production of
a nation was developed by giving the most unlimited freedom
to individual exertions.—( Hear, hear.) All restrictions im-
posed upon industry impaired its efficiency, and from this it was
most properly argued that these restrictions, when the wealth
of the nation was considered,vvere most. unjust.. If they deprived
a man of turning his industry to the best account, they in-
flicted the greatest injury they could upon him. For instance,
if they prevented a man from taking Dentate corn, of which
he could get twenty quarters for the price he could get fifteen
in this country, that inflicted a great injury upon him.—
(Hear, hear.) To increase the wealth was not the only object
' of a Government.—( Hear, hear.) The morel and physical
welfare of the great body of the people was the true object for
which Governments were formed. Industry was most pro-
ductive when least trammelled by the law. And he wished
the House would agree with that, or discuss the monopoly of
corn, coffee, and other things.—( Hear, hear.) It was only
two or three years ago that the House passed a Bill prohibiting
the labour of women in mines, without any opposition.—(Cries
of "No.") An Hon. Member cried " No;' he believed he stood
alone in that opinion ; for his own part, he ( Lord Howick)
never saw a Bill go through the House with more unanimous
, assent. If that measure was right and well-founded there was an
I end of the principle that had been said so much about. Now,
if they were prepared to maintain that principle, if they were
really prepared to carry it out, they must go this length—that
if a man was inclined to sell himself for a slave, he should be
allowed to do so.—( Hear, hear.) He was persuaded, if the
law allowed it, such bargains would be made ; as he was per-
fectly convinced that in times of great distress many persons
would be persuaded by capitalists to go to the colonies in no
o'her character, and that would doubtless have been advan-
tageous to both patties; but to sow into society the elements
of slavery, would far outweigh any good that could
be obtained. If any principle had been violated
on this subject it was first violated in 1833.—(Hear.) His
Hon. Friend agreed to this, and that reduced the question to a
small compass; because the question then was, whether the
the measure of 1833 was useful or not ; it was well known it
was so, and now the Right lion. Baronet had stated that the
Government were prepared to go still farther, and put an end
to the general principle. le this country the Government:
had been conducted for a long series of years, much upon this
Isystem. He had acted almost entirely upon the principle that
it was safe to trust to the unaided and undirected efforts of in- '
dividuals. But looking at the actual state of society, he thought!"
they should see the result of this mistaken policy on the part
of the Government. There were around them alarming proofs
that something more was required. He did not blame the ma-
nufacturieg classes particularly. There were equal evils
among other classes. There was much also in the condition of
the ;neat masses of the agricultural classes which required the
active attention of the House. But among them the danger was
, not so pressing ; for various reasons to which he need net then
advert, the danger was not so pressing in these districts as
among the manufacturing population. But when he looked at
these immense masses of population, gathered—he might say
heaped— together, without any adequate preparations for their
physical or moral welfare, and the utter absence of any regu-
lations for securing them—when he learned the extent of the
abuses which prevailed there, and of the wretchedness that
existed, he thought it would have been well, had Parliament
earlier interfered, even at the expense of something of the pro-
ductive power of the country—eeen at the expense of some
sacrifice of its wealth—and have taken some measures to check
the vast increase of population in particular districts, which were
without a corresponding extension of machinery, or regulations
for insuring decency, morality, or the blessings of education.—
( Hear, hear.) He had heard it stated by the most strenuous
advocates of restriction, that it would have been well if Parlia-
ment had, at the commencement of the manufacturing system,
prohibited women and children from working in manufactories
at all. He did not share that opinion. On the contrary, he
thought that the labour of women and children was an
advantage, if its abuses were prevented. The Right Hon.
Baronet had concurred in that opinion. It was absolutely ne-
cessaey that they should do something to restrain the competi-
tion of labour, which was driving females and young persons to
an amount of work totally inconsistent with the due discharge
of their domestic duties. He believedit was absolutely neces-
sary that they should so act. If they did not so prevent it, he
feared that at no distant day some frightful catastrophe would
occur, and he trusted they should no longer go on in a course
of passive helplessness. The Government must take the lead
in this matter. It was a duty incumbent on them ; it being
the duty of Parliament to point out the necessity. The other
evening, when the Right Hon. Baronet the First Lord of the
Treasury argued against the motion of his Noble Friend, that
it would be impossible to apply this principle in consequence of
the immense number of trades in which labour would require
interference, he confessed that so far from this being an objec-
tion it only confirmed him in the opinion that such interference
was necessary. He therefore rejoiced that this discussion had
taken place, as it brought forwar,t more prominently the abso-
lute necessity of looking into the condition of the people.—
( Cheers.) He trusted that this Bill was but the begitning of
a wiser, a bolder, and more manly course of policy than they
had hitherto pursued. It was a feeble and hesitating
beginning, but still it was a commencement, be-
cause in whatever shape the House adopted the Bill,
it recognised the principle that the House ought to
impose a limitation of the number of hours during which
females ought to labour. He therefore hailed the measure
with satisfaction, not that he regarded it as a perfect measure,
but because he approved of the principle of defining by law a
limitation of labour. They could not expect that this measure
would extirpate the evils arising from competition. They
were too deeply rooted to be remedied by it. All that the
House could do was to deal with the intensity of the struggle
for employment. He believed that the true remedy for the
evil would be to throw open the field of labour by breaking
down the artificial restrictions and barriers which the present
system imposed upon it. He should, therefore, entertaining
these views, support the measure, whether in the shape it now
stood, or in the shape which he still hoped it would ultimately
assume. He believed that it would ultimately, if not imme-
diately, mitigate the evils which grew out of this intense com-
petition of labour, and hold out a hope that by degrees it would
lead to what he thought would be the only complete and effec-
tual improvement, and that they would shortly be driven by
it to the abolition of those monopolies which, he believed, were
at the bottom of the whole question.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said that it was necessary, in the
first place, clearly to urelerstand what was meant by the
word principles.—( Hear.) There certainly were prin-
ciples which ought not to be violated by any
Legislature. They were founded on moral and social feelings.
They were the principles enjoined by religion. They were
principles which the heart and conscience of every man told
him were concurrent with the dictates of justice and humanity,
and by these principles, as he understood them, legislation
ought to be conducted. Th, re were certain other rules which
were occasionally called principles, which were not founded
either upon morality or religion, but which had a binding force
upon legislation, because long experience and observance o
facts told them they were rules concurrent with the dictates of
prudence, and therefore ought to be the guides of a Legisla-
ture. He admitted that these principles, as the Noble Lord
called them, but which he rather thought were general rules of
legislation, were determined not by any innate and intuitive
sense of what was right, but were determined by the observ-
acee of facts, and the conclusions of wisdom, drawn from long
experience. When they said, therefore, that any enactment
was conformable with certain principles, all they meant was
this, that their general experience told them that such was
the general rule to which their general legislation ought to
conform ; and the question in these cases was always this—
Will the practical good derived from any particular
enactment, in a particular case, countervail the evils
of that enactment? Now, he contended, that it was a good
general rule fur them to observe, to leave persons to judge for
themselves what was the most profitable mode of employing
their labour. He thought there was another general rule re-
commended, not merely by religion, but by the strong dictates
of prudence and experience, namely, that they should leave
parents to judge what was the hest mode bath of educating
and employi g their children. That was a rule which he ap-
tphreehaednvralenitlagtheeoyf mthuestrircebspmecatn.
seTnhdetuygmhitgshstoribetocsounhvoiorlic_edthuotf
it was very wrong he should he allowed to waste his time
without receiving at least the rudiments of science and learn-
ing. wh • not pass a law compelling the rich man to
ydid
his
should
not educatebeli thatsee ? legislationThey did
mightn o not legislate, gnni slpartoe;,,
on
the
condition because t theyeoyfthe
butrchild,
espect
tn e becausegrea
great
p rtheynt
principles
ples thoughtotlt
liberty,
t bye, t
andter tthrauts
tfh're tshtaeteedeeitrust to the parents
parents
•atthioonwaonrkdincgonterlaoslioovserwaths agreelldetha
ad-
mitted that the Legislature had not. sufficiently attended to
their moral condition. He admitted that the accumulation
eehil
unsatisfactory.d. li e
of wealth was not the only subject for the consideration of the
Legi'lature. He admitted that the moral strength and power
of the country did not depend entirely upon its wealth.Wn
Butho
he thought he must always ask himself this question.
ty.uoluesbe; ebiuntlheogi,svloautilodnasnko,t
ference with the rights and liberties of the people be likely to
hwieogulids ethaseiierr
conduce, not merely to their wealth, but to their social comfort
itthitarnrintoodl lay
ndgowann
and inter-
and happiness? He admitted that the social happiness and
comforts of the people ought to be regarded. Looking at the
manufacturing population, and seeing that they had no means
of amusement, no means of relaxation—seeing that what once
were villages were become immense towns, and were yet sub-
ject merely to the same discipline as they possessed when they
were mere villages ; when ne saw spaces overcrowded, yet
with no portion of that space appropriated to amusement and
recreation ; that they had nothing to divert them from con-
stant labour except indulgence in sensual habits, he thought
the Legislature might, with great advantage, apply the public
wealth to the means of promoting the recreations and amuse-
ments of the people. That would be a perfectly legitimate in-
terference on the part of the Government. But that
was a perfectly different question, from the present.
—(llear.) For he must ask himself, should he improve
their moral condition, should be to elevate them in the social
scale, if, by any enactment, he controlled their own applica-
tion to their labour? He conceded to the Noble Lord, if he asked
him whether he should prefer that a child should work ten
hours instead of twelve, he would tell the Noble Lord at once
that he should infinitely prefer his working ten. If the Noble
Lord asked him whether he should wish to see mothers work-
ing eight hours a day instead of ten, and able to devote some
portion of their time to attendance to domestic cares and the
superintendence of their families, he would tell the Noble
Lord that he perfectly admitted he should prefer the shorter
period of labour, and the increased attendance on their domes-
tic
duties, to their present state; but, after having made that
admission, did it necessarily follow that it would be for the
advantage of that woman to say to her that she should not
work more than ten hours a day, and prescribe to her by en-
actment, the exact mode in which she should dispose of her
labour ? It was true, they might apply the principle in the case
of factories ; but the Noble Lord opposite rejoiced in this
limited apply ation of the principle, because he saw that it
must be much further extended. He (Sir Robert
Peel) said the other night that there were count-
less trades and occupations imposing heavier burdens
upon the labourer than the work in mills and factories
imposed upon the factory labourers. If the Noble Lord's prin-
ciple were good, and if it could be effected, the Noble Lord
ought to extend his interference to them also. He (Sir R.
Peel), therefore, said; beware how they applied it too precipi-
tately to factory labour, because, if they did so, they must, at
the same tim, take care not to give a permission to restrictions
on other kinds of labour more onerous, and -more beyond their
control. And how was he (Sir R. Peel) met? The Noble
Lord wished them to go on to extend their principle beyond the
twenty kinds of labour to which it might be applied, to the two
hundred others to which it ought to be applied. The Noble
I ord said the present measure only showed him the greater
necessity for Parliament to act riot only in controlling factory
labour, but all other kinds of labour. only
(Sir R. Peel) said
that was impossib'e. He said, that thotieh they might apply it
to great buildings and large works which were comparatively
under control, yet, to go into any house, to go to the workshop
of any tailor, who worked his hundreds of men for 15 hours
a day, to go to the room of the sempstress, who worked her
three or four females for 16 hours a day—if they
sought to establish such interference in individual cases, they
were about to establish a system of individual inquisition and
individual tyranny. Some good might be produced by effect-
me and
nwouldti
t h e
y would then
a reduction of labour from sixteen hours to twelve; but in
Eng-
lish
Government,
Theyntn,
the end they would entirely change the character of the Eng-
iliegth
teme
n havetodepe
indeednd to
entirely
support
upea
the
an army of domestic inspectors and sub-inspectors, and the only
protection against such interference and tyranny, would be
that it would become so odious to the whole mass of society,
that it would be impossible. Then, when were they to make
the exception, for on that, which was a general rule, they were
bound not merely to consider the policy of limiting the labour
to twelve hours, but whether they would by
doing so really

promote the social charcter and happiness of the people? He
would admit that it might be a good thing to limit the hours of
factory labour. But there were other trades, such as fustian-
cutting and pin-heading. If he was not to restrict them,
then it e as perfectly open to him to consider whether the ad-
vantage gained by interference in particular instances, would
' countervail the disadvantage of giving a premium and en-
couragement to employments that were still more unhealthy.
Let him in that case suppose they interfered with those em-
ployed to render their condition better, would they be adding
to their comforts?—(Hear, hear.) His object and desire to
promote ;heir happiness would be countervailed by his inter-
, terence, and therefore he was bound to consider whether a de-
parture from the general rule was one which wisdom and expe-
rience sanctioned ; and if it was proved to him that an excep-
tion to the rule would increase the moral comforts of the peo-
ple, he thought such exception would be justified ; but they
must show him it would have this effect.--( Hear, hear.) Then
with regard to the Ten Hours' Bill, he admitted that if he took
a narrow and limited view of it, it would in certain times and
in certain localities, have a good effect; but would they cora-
-1 pel other nations to follow their example, and if they did not,
what would be the consequence?__( Hear, hear.) Why, was
it possible to suppose that persons whose labour was restricted
I would receive the wages of more lengthened employment ?
I ( Hear, hear.) Was it not common sense, that if they re-
duced the time from ten to twelve hours, the wages would be
reduced in proportion Suppose that by this measure they
stimulated the manufactures of ether nations—of France and
the United States; suppose they raised up great manufacturing
establishments in those countries and by that means diminished
the power of employing labour at home suppose such a mea-
sure could take away that which constituted the independence,
the moral character of the labourers (Hear, hear. )
namely, the desire to earn a subsistence by honest and inde-
pendent labour ; suppose it drove them to the workhouse—
( Hear, hear)—suppose the means of employment failed, by
being admitted into a third market, in consequence of others
working longer, with a greater command of the raw material
—( Hear, hear)—suppose they diminished the means of
emplo3rnent and lessened the power of the individual to earn
his subsistence by honest industry—did he then promote the
moral character or social comforts of the people ?—( Loud
cheers.) He had no doubt about their intentions.—( Hear,
hear.) He admitted the general principle, that their object
ought not to be to increase wealth, but to improve the moral
character of the people ; but if he was able to show that, by
their unwise legislation—by supplying the place of parental
authority—(Cheers)—by forcing morality on the people by.
law--( Loud cheers)—he only showed they were running the
hazard of defeating their own objects, and of diminishing the
physical comforts and lowering the moral character of the people.
The Noble Lord opposite said the tithe was come for inter-
ference.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lcrd seemed to him to be
more desirous of making a justification of his vote in favour
of the ten hours' clause than of establishing the principle of
interference as one which ought to govern the legislation of
the country.—( Hear, hear.) He agreed with the Noble Lord
in the opinion that it would be desirable to increase the volun-
tary amusements of the people, but when the Noble Lord said
that the Government ought to interfere in all trades, it would
be better if, instead of dealing in-generalities—(Hear, hear)
—and coming down full of them, after reading Adam Smith—
(Cheers and laughter)—he told them in what particular mode
this was to be effected.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord HOWICK—I would increase the sphere of employ-
ment.—( Cheers. )
Sir R. PEEL—But the Noble Lord said more. He said
he rejoiced in the limitation of the hours of labour in factories,
because he said it must then be; extended further. He said
that the masters ought not to be allowed to make money out
of the industry of the people, and he would therefate compel
them to work their labourers less. The Noble Lord would
introduce this into every employment—( Hear, hears—to pro-
mote, as he said, the morals of the people. The principles which
the Noble Lord held would lead to a compulsory attendance at
Church.—( Loud cheers.) The, doctrine of the Noble Lord
woul i lead to an inquisition in every employment throughout
the country.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) The principle that
shey were not to content themselves with the accumulation 01
wealth, but were to watch over the morals of the people would
justify any former proposition of former times—there was no
law which would not be justified by such a principle.—(" Hear,
hear," from Lord Howick.) Hear ! hear !—(Cheers.) He
wanted to know how they were to carry out such a principle as
that proposed into every trade.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.)
That which constitutes the morality of the people was their
feeling of independence—( Hear, hear)—their sense of honour
—( Hear, hear)—their hatred of oppression.—(Hear, hear.)
' This had grown up with perfect independence and freedom of
action, anti if they attempted to substitute legislative enactments
or that freedom of action, it would change the whole character
of the people.—(Hear, hear.) There was one point with regard
rt t
y. whichtha
th thoughtewas
thea
case
ey
of might interfere with parental authoe
education.—( Hear, hear.) He
thought they would be justified in interfering at least with '
the instruction of children employed in factories.
He thought they were entitled to give the elements
of instruction to children employed in factories, and that be-
cause the labour there was excess!ve, and they had the means
of enforcing it in the case of those children. He doubted
whether it would be wise to interfere in other cases, but where
'OO or 300 were brought together, and where they had an op-
portunity of giving them instruction, he thought they were
justified in interfering.—( Hear, hear.) With regard to women
he was quite aware that the law made a distinction in their
case. 1 here were circumstances with regard to the female
sex which rendered it desirable that their labour should'be re-
stricted. But still, so high was the principle of non:inter-
ference with labour that it was said they ought not to inter-
fere in this case, where the parties determined for themselves
what should be the nature of their occupation. He con-
fessed that a departure from the great principle of non-inter-
ference he acquiesced in with great doubt and hesitation.
They curtailed the hours of labour in cases of females to twelve
hours ; but this arose from the effect of the law, which they
passed, limiting the hours of labour of children. Men could
not work alone in cotton factories. They were anxious to
work, but it was impossible for them to do so long, as the em-
ployment of children was restricted ; they would work 15
hours a day, but could not do so, because the children were
prevented from working. The consequence was, that women
were employed as a sustitute for children ; brit that was in
consequence of the law which they had made en the subject.—
( Hear, hear.) They imposed upon the master the necessity of
employing females, and they gave inducements to the females
to labour which they would not have if not for their enact
ments. New that was an argument against their interference
even with the labour of children.—( Hear, bear.) But he was
inclined to think the reports of the Factory Inspectors showed
that the evils of legislation had been less than usual in
these cases: but he• thought the mischief of interfe-
rence should be limited to there cases. Few mills
worked more than twelve hours, and all that Iris Right Hon.
Friend proposed was to prevent women from working more
than twelve hours. The master-manufacturers were not ad-
verse to that.—( Hear, hear.) The great body of them were in
favour of it. The factory inspectors were in favour of it. It
was an exception from what ought to be the general rule, and
the advantages of it in certain cases would be great; but he
thought it was an exception, and almost the only one, and it
grew out of their former legislation. These were the reasons
which induced him to give the proposition his full and cordial
support. He regretted that the Noble Lord had anticipated the
discussion, which would more properly arise when the
Proposition of the Noble Lord came before the House ;
taut believing that the principle of the Noble Lord,
if carried out, would diminish the comforts of
the people and impair their moral character, and thinking
a nopinions tic,
b wu a
ts
atd esainro yursat oef
a notsi n
edelayinge r
e repi
that it was due to the respect and integrity of the Noble
Lord, and to the just weight which generally attached to his
yintogti
vienga,rgpuenarheanptss
which he brought forward.--( Cheers.) b,
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the Right Hon. Gentleman
who had just sat down reminded him of a speech made by Mr.
Wyndham, who talked for some time on one side of a question
and then on the other, and at last turned round to a friend who
sat behind him and asked h wh'
le way he should vote.—(Much
laughter and cheers.) lie thought that some of the arguments
used by the Hight Hon. Gentleman against his Noble Friend
(Lord Howick) would be spared if he kept before his mind the
vote which he was prepared
to give.—( ear, ea .
could not see how the tight Hon. Gentleman could speak as he
did in favour of non-interference with labour, and still vote for
a new principle which interfered with labour, and even
adult labour. If the Right Hon. Gentleman meant to vote
not only with the Hon. and Learned Member for Beth, but, if,
having succeeded by a majority, he gave notice of a motion to
repeal the Act of 1833, then he could understand all the former
part of the speech. The arguments of the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman were very eloquent for the purpose of shaking the Act
of le3l, but he (Lord J. Russell) did not agree in the conclu-
sion of the Right Hon. Gentleman. But he did not see how
the Right Hon. Gentleman could reproach his Noble Friend,
because he thought it was time to interfere with labour, and
even parental care, when he himself interfered with the labour
and industry of the country. The Right Hon. Gentleman
asked his Noble Friend whether he was in favour of a law
which would compel attendance at church. He (Lord Jobn
Russell) thought he knew of an interference proposed, not by
his Noble Friend, brit by the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite,
in the course of last year—an inteference which could not be
carried into effect without violating liberty of conscience, and
which would place the education of the whole of the factory
children under the Bishops, and clergy of the Established
Church.—( Hear, hear.) The: Right Hon. Gentleman said
if they interfered in this case, how could they carry their in-
terference into those tradela, with regard to which the
labour was more irksome and the confinement more unwhole-
some than it was with regard to factory labour. In the first
place, he thought there was nothing to show that the Act of
1833 had been mischievous, he 'thought it was beneficial, and
till lately it was thought to be of advantage to the working_
classes and their children. He had seen two arguments against
the proposition of his Noble Friend (Lord Ashley). The first
was that they ought not to interfere with labour at all. The
second was, that their interference had been so very useful that
everything they wished had been effected. With regard to
those employments to which the Right Hon. Gentleman alluded,
the " fustian-cutters," and " pin-makers," and with which
they had not interfered by Acts of Parliament, the hours of
labour were more protracted ; while in those cases which they
had regulated by Act of Parliament, they found, con-
currently with sufficient wages, wholesome employment.
Why that was not an instance to quote as conclusive against
interference by Act of Parliament. That was not an instance to
show how injurious all interference was. But in the next place,
'ne said he limited interference in this case—as all legislation
was limited—by the principle that you might interfere where
more good than harm was effected by such interference.--
( Hear hear.) He thought that the Secretary of State had
taken that principle that night. The Right Hon. Gentleman
had said that they naturally interfered in factories—that they
were large establishments, where the inspectors could enter
and make their investigations without any exercise of tyranny
—without any interference with the professional business ;
whereas there were some employments in which it was im-
possible to interfere without inconvenience and without great
tyranny, and, in short, without much greater evil than good
being produced. What was their principle of criminal law?
They transported a person, or sent him to prison, because
he had stolen a loaf. Why, there were persons who committed
acts of ingratitude, and who brought their benefactors to an
untimely grave by their persecutions and ill conduct, and who
were far more guilty--far more criminal—than the poor man
who stele the loaf. Yet they did not proceed by law to punish
him as they did the other; and why so? Because if they
attempted such interference, and went through all the transac-
tions of private life—though they would find more guilt,
more real criminality—their interference would do more harm
than good ; and, because, in the other case they could easily
point their finger to the man who stole the loaf. There was
an overt act. Whereas, if they went into the various relations
of private life, though they would find more criminality of con-
duct, yet their interference would destroy the peace and har-
mony of social life, and be productive of greater evil.—( Hear,
hear.) The same principle they should apply in this case.
Whenever he thought he could see that he would do
good then he would interfere; but when he
did not see that good would result from interference
then he would stop.—(Hear, hear.) The same rules
which were adopted with regard to criminal legislation, he
would apply to the present case. In the year 1833, the first
question was, whether they would interfere at all. Looking
back to that period, he thought he had then said that Govern-
ment were quite agreed as to the appointment of a Commission
to investigate the subject. That Commission reported certain
propositions, which, in the Bill which was then passed on the
subject, were carried much farther. Among other things,
they advised the Government not to beeleterred by the saying
that the thing was impracticable and impossible, because it was
the custom to apply' those words to whatever was considered in-
convenient to certain parties, and contrary to usual custom.

Now, chat was the statement col that Commission with regard
to the employment of young children ?—what faults did they
observe ? First, the common, grneral deterioration of the
physical cerestitution, and the product ion of general
disease ; secondly, the exclusion from the means
of obtaining education, moral and religious, or the
means of enablieg them to profit by elementary instruction, by
reason of the exces,ire fatieue they underwent in the factories
during the day. These were t wo reasons which appeared to
him (Lord J. Russell) sufficient for iiiterference. They were
not reasons founded upon an economical question of the pro-
duction of wealth—but one was founded on the physical evils
produced to the persons employed; the other upon the priva-
tion of the means of education and moral and religious in-
struction. He (Lord J. Russel) said both those questions—
the physical deterioration of the people of this country, and
their moral and religious education—were questions in which
the State had an interest, and the State having seen that it
could interfere in that instance with advantage, a law had been
proposed en the subject by the then Government, and that law
had been carried—he forgot by what divisions--but at all events
i by the general assent of Parliament. He believed that that
law had produced good and useful effects in its operation ;
and when 1. e saw such principles accompanied by such results
in experience and in practice he did refuse his consent to the
general principle of non-interference, to the principle that they
were never to intermedcile, and that they were only doing harm
by attempting to control the natural authority of parents over
their children, and the freedom of adults in the disposal of
their labour. Ile said that when a sound principle showed in
practice good results, he would rather proceed than be de-
terred from proceeding. With regard to the question of the in-
troduction of adult labour, he owned he did not think the
Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State far the Home
Department had that night made a greater advance in showing
seasons for the introduction of that part of the Bill than he had 1
on a former occasion. lie (Lord John Russell) had already
said that he had certainly heard as much as made him believe
more strongly on that point, that the best course would have l
been to have introduced a Bill which did not apply to the j
labour of persons who were more than eighteen or twenty-one '
years of age. He thought. that twenty-one, as in the Bill of
heel, would have been the better limit, and with that
proposal there should be the proposal of the Noble
Lord the Member for Dorsetshire, to limit the
time of labour, first to eleven hours, end next to
ten. That. would have been a better principle than that. of
immediate interference with adult labour. Let them recollect
1 there were two principles in the present Bill—one was inter.
I ferencewith the control of a parent over his child ; the other
l was interference with the rule which gave to every' adult per-
son the free power to choose his own occupation, to employ his
labour in the manner he chose. Now, he thought it would '
have been better to have only interfered with one of those •
principles, arid to have left the other as beyond the scope of
legislation. As the evil they proposed to remedy was hardly
worth interference by legislation, seeing that the Right Hon.
Gentleman stated that that evil •hal been produced by the le-
gislation regardinie'
children, that in the mills where they em-
ploy young peoplebut twelve hours, they would not be worked
beyond that time, and that that evil might be remedied by this
Bill, he (Lord John Russell) owned that he thought the
House, having already assented to the principle, there
would be a far greater evil in now refusing its
assent to the proposition of the Noble Lord, than
in rejecting the proposal of the Hon. and Learned Member "
for Bath ; therefore, he (Lord John Russell) agreed with
the Government to-night. At the same time, with regard to
the proposal of the Hun. and Learned Member for Bath, he
must say the Hun. and Learned Gentleman had not gone very
deeply into the argument. He had ranked all those who had
voted for the proposition of the Noble Lord the Member for
Dersetshire in one class—those belonging to the other side of
the House, who, he said, were much annoyed by the Hon.
Member for Stockport going into the agricultural districts,
and these on that side of the House who were much dis-
appointed at finding themselves in the cold regions of Opposi- I
tion, and would gladly seize an opportunity to embarrass
elinisters.—( Hear, hear.) Why, the Hon. and Learned
Member had better not have interfered in that matter. If he
could give a good season for showing that that vote was wrong,
or that adult labour should be free, let him use his arguments
to convince them of that ; but that he should set himself up as
containing the whole of the wisdom of the House, and as
supposing that there ceuld he no purity of motive except in
his possession—( Hear, hear)—he ( Lord John Russell) really
thought, without taking any pains to vindicate himself or
those who voted with him, that it was taking a station which
he believed the Hon. and Learned. Gentleman was hardly
entitled to.—( Hear, and cheers.) -They might have been
exceedingly-mistaken in voting for theltirohle Lord's proposition.
At the same time what he had heard since had not induced
him to think they were so, far wrong; and particularly as it
was only a ITnoights ago that he had beard the Hon. Mem-
ber for Sto ': et e(e.clargpat the time aapresent w hich was given
to labour i it4l.: tkil,noreaeorsebleo:-.( Hear, hear.) Why,
t
surely if th%.4o4.Satte;its-Senaploybil Was unreasonable, there
was nothinkleefar-wrong or irrational in his Noble Friend at-
tempting to 'alter that unreasonable time? Then, it was
skid, and he (Lord J. Russell) had heard manufacturers de-
clare the same thing, that it was their opinion that if the
corn-laws were totally repealed, the consequence would be
that labouring persons would declare they would not remain in
factories longer than for ten hours a day. Why, if that was
the case, those ten hours' labour would only produce the
same quantity of manufactured articles Which would be pro-
duced if the Noble Lord's proposal took place. And they
stated that increased demand for the articles, and consequent
enhancement of the price, would take place under that state
of things. Without going the whole length of that proposi-
tion, lie (Lord J. Russell) took it, that a great altera-
tion of the corn-laws, by which a larger quantity
of food would be introduced into the country, would
promote the welfare of the manufacturing classes,
as well as the general prosperity of the country. That was his
opinion, but he owned he thought that if they were entirely to
take away the corn-laws, it was doubtful that those conse-
quences would follow, and that there would be an immediate
reduction to ten hours' labour. He much doubted whether
the anxiety of parents to send their children to obtain more
wages would not in many cases lead to a greater employment
than now took place. At all events, having those opinions,
he did not think that his Noble Friend was making a proposi-
tion extremely injurious to the country in proposing a 'fen
Hours' Bill. He (Lord John Russell) had not meant to have
entered upon this subject at all. The question, as stated by
his Noble Friend, was rather an abstract question, and the
reply of the Right Hon. Gentleman was rather to the abstract •
parts of that question. But at the same time it was extremely
difficult to enter upon that abstract discussion, without alluding
to those practical propositions which had been made to the
House. He should content himself, then, with declaring that
he could not vote with the lion. Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck),
and that he thought the best law that could he made upon
this subject would lee one confining interference to persons
under twenty-one years of age working ten hours a day.
Mr. WARD thought he was perfectly right in giving notice
of his intention to divide on the 32d clause, which contemplaeed
the interference he so much dreaded. He agreed with the
Noble Lord the Member for London, that when he interfered
he should like to see his way. lie (Mr. Ward) would like
very much to see his way, but that was a thing he could not do
if he followed the Noble Lord, nor did he believe that the Noble
Lord himself clearly saw his way.—( Hear, hear, and a laugh. )
He (Mr. Ward) could not see any good result that woeld fol-
low from those new principles laid down by his Hon. Friend
Dear him. Although they might make out a case to a certain
extent fur protecting children—and in granting that he
granted a great deal—yet he was not sure that
in the Act of 1533 it was all plain sailing. They
had ascertained, from the reports of the inspectors, that
the first operation of that Act was to drive 10,000 children
from good to worse employment—from the factories to the
coal mines—and many of the statements on which that mea-
sure was rounded had been since ascertained to be exaggerated.
He could not but feel surprised that the Noble Lord, alai those
who supported him, so loquacious out of the House, were so i
silent in it, after the speech of the Hun. and Learned Member
for Bath.—( Hear, hear.) Some of the charges of the Noble
Lord had recently been proved to be utterly unfounded. He
held in his hand a paper containing the results of inquiries as
to no less than 412. of the principal factories in this country. I
The Noble Lord had stated that, out of 61,000 females who
were employed in factories, there were only 10,000 married
women whose husbands worked in some factories. Now
out of 10,C•00 married females included in this statement,
there were 5,000 husbands who were employed in the same
factories as their wives; 3,400 more were employed
in other branches of manufacture all connected with factories,
and all were contributing their share towards the support of their
families. Well, then, the Noble Lord talked of ill health arising
from constant standing, privation of pure air, and other causes ;
but it might be shown that this argument would apply equally
to other branches of industry. He spoke of accidents. Why
this paper proved that the accidents arising out of factory
labour were beyond all comparison fewer than those which oc-
curred in any other employment. He ' said that the married
women were preferred, not because the labour was more suited
to them, or because they would work for the least wages, but
because they were more attentive and docile than unmarried
females, and thus, he said, the virtues of the female were made the
means of her injury. The mistake was, that the Noble Lord
said they hail a choice. It was his peculiar error that the
matter depended on that House.--( Hear, hear.) In no branch
of industry was female labour excluded. In agricultural pur-
suits, and in every other branch of industry, women were com-
pelled to do something for the support of their families; and
he declared it to be his conscientious belief, that the women and
young people employed in factories were infinitely better off, as
regarded wages, and morals, and comfort, than almost any
other class.—( Hear, hear.) A gentleman who had recently
visited the factory of Mr. Ashton, expressed his astonishment
on leaving it, that the Noble Lord should wish to interfere with
such a system He had never listened to a speech with more
curiosity than he had felt on hearing that of the Noble Lord,
the Member for Sunderland. He had thought that if the
matter could be made intelligible, it would be made so by that
Noble Lord. • But he seemed to him only to have made darker
that which was dark enough before.—(Hear, hear.) He could
• not possibly comprehend the grounds on which they were to
interfere with the present system. The working men had been
asked if they would chance it. The heads of families were
too prudent he hoped to do that. No man
could answer for the result of adopting the Noble
Lord's proposal. That education and religion had not
been properly attended to, and that efforts should be made to
secure a better system of drainage and police, they all admitted;
but the only question was, whether it was certain that they
would improve the condition of the working swan by restricting
the hours of labour. It seemed to him that this was the most
singular, cruel, and unwise experiment, which had ever sug-
gested itself to the minds of practical legislators.—(Hear,
hear.) Even documents on which the Noble Lord had relied
did not bear out his views. The Noble Lord had quoted, on
several occasions, the evidence of Mr. Horner. The Hen.
Member then quoted a reprint of Mr. Horner, who said that he
had visited a great number of factories within the last
four years, and he considered it his duty to say that the
statements of oppression and ill health were greatly exagge-
rator!. The mass of persons employed in factories were well
clothed, well fed, and healthy. He had voted with the
Noble Lord last year against the employment of women in
mines, because that was a question of morality ; but because h
i e
thought the interference in this case would be attended with in-
jurious results, he should give it his decided opposition.
Lord ASHLEY said that an Hon. Member had made so
direct a challenge to him that it was indispensably necessary
for him to take up the time of the House with some observa-
tions. lie would not now travel into the part of the question
which he lied already discussed upon the 15th of last month.
He hoped that in the few observations which he had to make, he
should trot be provoked to imitate the language which had
been used towards him. He thought the question was too im-
portant,
tent too mighty, to be interrupted by poor and miserable
personalities. In referring to the authorities produced before the
Committee of the House of Commons in 1837, he found it
stated. without contradiction, that the employment of women
1 in the factories was detrimental to health, and often destructive
' of morals. ( The Noble Lord then read extracts from the evi-
dence taken before the Committee, but in a tone so rapid and
indistinct that it was impossible to follow him. ) He had had
communications with Mr. Henry Ashworth, and the reply of
that gentleman was not of a nature to satisfy hum that his state-
ments were erroneous. In a further correspondence with Mr.
I Ashworth, he stated that, upon all inquiries, he had found
that his former statements were borne out. Upon the most
careful examination that he could give to all the statements,
written and verbal, which had been made to him, Ire had
ar:
rived at the conclusion that his representations in the House
j had been understated rather than overstated. The statement
which he had . made respecting the employment of women
Was fully borne out by all the evidence, and it
1 was clearly proved that the proportion of women
i and young persons employed had been greatly ir.-

creased since the year 1839. With respect to the
difference of age of those employed in the manufacturing and
, those employed in the agricultural districts, it should be recol-
lected that' only 8 per cent. of the working people in the ma-
nufacturirg distrie:s were above 40 years of age, whilst of
those employed in the agricultural districts there were 50
' per cent. above it. To be sure, if the statements made by the
Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bright) were correct, this calculation
was not correct, yet he had taken the greatest pains to inform
himself on the subject. His (Lord Ashley's) statements re-
ferred to the spinning and manufacturing of cotton, and in sup-
port
of what he advaneed he would refer to Inspector Horner 's
reports. lie craved the indulgence of the House whilst he re-
butted certain charges that had gone forth, throwing aspersions
of a very grave nature on his character. He held in his hand
a letter, signed by Mr. Ashworth, on behalf of himself and 200
other manufacturers, that put forward statements which re-
flected upon his (Lord Ashley's) veracity, and which he felt
bound to answer. The letter of Mr. Ashworth stated that the ;
only witness that Lord Ashley had quoted by name in
his speech on the recent debate, was thoroughly discrc-
dited and was finally abandoned even by the Noble Lord
himself. Mr. Ashworth said he could not say how many of
" the facts," which the Noble Lord had stated were furnished
by Dodd. Why, he (Lord Ashley) had during his speech, in
the most distinct manner disavowed and disclaimed having re-
ceived any of the information he stated to the House from
Dodd, and so far from having mentioned his name, he never did
; so during the whole debate. Again to far from not quoting
any witness by name, but William Dodd, he had quoted 29 se-
parate and distinct witnesses, and mentioned their names ; as
also the evidence of several factory inspect ers.—(Hear, hear.)
It was really unpardonable that a document should be pub-
lished
in all the newspapers, containing such gross aspersions on
his veracity, and such unfounded mis-statements. —( Hear.)
I This letter, signed by Mr. Ashworth, on behalf of those 200
mill-owners, further set forth, that be (Lord Ashley) had, in his
speech, quoted only those portion of M. Villerme's pamphlet
which were for his own argument, and exempted those por-
tions of it which were against. his position. He (Lord Ashler )
t had quoted that passage in the pamphlet which stated " that '
the sacrifice of human life, consequent upon factory labour, was
hardly mitre deplorable than the developement of scrofula,
which took place in the masses of our working people engaged
in manufactures." Mr. Ashworth writes, that " the Noble
Lord had not quoted that part of Al.Villerree's pamphlet which
referred to the e•tablishing of a maximum of labour as unwise
and inexpedient." After much search, lie (Lord Ashley) had
certainly found such a passage. But he would read for the
House the sentences with which M. Villernee concluded his
pamphlet : • if there had been one argument necessary for
putting, manufactures under the restriction of law, and deter-
; mining the maximum of daily toil, surely it shauld be applied
in the case of children—those creatures who were sacrificed in
the laborious employments of factory labour. Twelve years ago
a measure on this subject had been propounded and rejected,
but the principle of restriction had made great progress since
that time. In many foreign countries the restrictive principle had
been adopted and pursued. The negro had been emancipated,
and the public mind had taken up the question, and, sooner or
later, the result would be favourable to the cause of humanity,
but that result they should hasten by all possible means." Such
were the words of M. Villerme ; and yet he (Lord Ashley) had
been so grossly aspersed for quoting the opinions of this writer;
and the country were told by this Ale. Ashworth, and the 200
master-manufacturers, that no confidence could be placed in
Lord Ashley's statements, who hail so perverted N. Villermes
meaning. Ile had been charged with gross exaggeration, and
with painting the evils of the factory system in too strong
colours. Now he would read to the licuse a letter trom Mr.
William Kenworthy, the member of an eminent commercial firm,
and he would remind the House that Mr. Kenworthy's
testimony, as regarded cotton-spinning, was the very
best that could be had, for Mr. Kenworthy had been an
operative himself, and passed through all the various degrees
of factory labour until he became the principal of a
great firm. He said that "the occupations of the factory
labourers cried loudly for relief and relaxation, and for a re-
stricted term of labour. Let the British nation be degraded
no longer by tolerating such a eystem—a system exercising a
most baneful influence over the unhappy people employed in
it. Let them relieve those weakly arid emaciated creatures,
and curtail the time of their remaining in an atmosphere in
which they breathed nothing but noxious gases, and detri-
mental, in a high degree, to human life. Thousands had their
miseries protracted under the delusive belief that danger
would come to their home manufactures from foreign com-
' petition. He entreated all parties to go into the considera-
tion of this subject, and to snatch from the vortex of
disease, and immorality, and crime the manufacturing popula-
tion who were involved in it." Why, in the speech whish he
( Lord Ashley) had made, he had said nothing so strong,
nothing so conclusive and striking, as those expressions of Mr.
Kenworthy, As he was dew put upon his defence he would,
in addition to the authorities he had already quoted, refer the
Hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Ward) to the language of
the Rev. Mr. Hearn, the Roman Catholic priest of Manchester.
It would hardly be supposed that that reverend gentleman had
any sympathy with hire (Lord Ashley.) That reverend gen-
tleman, in a publication then in his (Lord Ashley's) hand, said,
"'This was not the first time he had addressed the public on the
subject of factory labour. W hen he reflected on the respon-
sible situation he held in that town, and that a
whole mass of his people were engaged in that
labour, he felt he should be warring against justice and against
his own conscience if he did not stand forward to claim protec-
tion for the factory children and women." Now had lie (Lord
Ashley) stated anything beyond that ?—(" Hear, hear,' loud
cries of "Divide, divide," and confusion.) 'He was stating
facts—quoting facts—and he only did so on compulsion—he
only did so because the statements he had made had that night
been questioned.—( Hear, hear.) He would now go to Halifax,
where Air. Robert Sutton, as he understood a most highly
respectable man, had publicly stated, " that the factory people
could not stand such excessive and protracted labour, which
incapacitated all of them for the proper duties of life, and more
especially the women for those domestic duties which nature
had specially awarded to them." Had he (Lord Ashley) stated
anything bat this ?—( Hear, hear, and confusion.) He was
ae are he was trespassing on the patience of the House, but
when he commenced his address he stated that he had not in-
tended to have said one word upon the subject that night, but
as he had been called to account so sharply for his conduct and
his statements, he had felt called upon, in duty to the cause and
to himself, to reply to the charges whlch had been made.
—(Loud cries et " hear, hear." Amidst great con-
fusion the Noble Lord then le ad several extracts
from speeches made by Mr. Samuel Smith, an eminent
surgeon of the north, at a meeting (as we thought) at Chorley,
and by Mr. John Moore, at a meeting at Bolton.) The latter
gentleman, who had been a medical practitioner in Bolton for
upwards of forty years, had declared publicly that the race was
rapidly degenerating, and that unless something were done the
most serious evils to society would take place.—(Great con-
fusion, and loud cries of " Divide.") lie (Lord Ashley) had
never said more than this. As, however, the House was so
impatient, many as were the authorities be had it in his power
still to produce, he would not detain them. What lie had
stated had been forced from him.—( Hear, hear.) Ile never
intended to have said a word that night, but for the attack
made upon him, and in addressing the House at all he had
been forced into it in self-defence, to show that all he had
stated in his speech upon a former occasion had been borne out
by facts and statements that nothing could impugn.—( Hear,
hear, and loud cries of " Divide.")
Mr. C. WOOD rose with Mr. Bright, Mr. Ainsworth, and
others, amidst a complete shout of "Divide, divide," " Oh,
oh," and other discordant cries. The other Hon. Gentlemen
succumbed to the storm, but Mr. Wood persevered, and after
a struggle with the House, was permitted to address them,
though amidst continued interruptions. The Hon. Gentleman
was understood to say that no one in that House was more sa-
tisfied than he was that the Noble Lord who had just sat down
was incapable of wilfully making any mis-statement in that
House, or anywhere else. The statements, too, which he had
matte, and which, no doubt, he thought himself compelled to
Make, had nothing to do with the question before the House.
—( Hear, hear.) The question of the Hon. and Learned diem •
bee for Bath was simply this, whether they should or should not
interfere with the labour of young people. For his (Mr.
Wood's) part, he never in his life came to a conclusion more un-
hesitatingly than he did this night, that it was his duty to
vote with the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath; for he
knew nothing more unsafe or unwise than to interfere with that
discretion which all persons had a right to exercise as regarded
their own labour.—( Hear and confusion.) In his opinion the
House ought not to interfere upon the subject at all ; but if it
would do so, then the next best thing he and others could do
was to persuade the House to interfere as little as possible.
He could not acquit the Government of departing from a
general rule and principle for the first time. 'They were now,
for the first time, about setting the example of violating an-
other principle. The Government admitted that they had
abandoned principles, ar.d now there was nothing to guide
them but the caprice of Hon. Members, and where this was to
stop it was impossible to tell. The First Lord of the Trea-
sury, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department,
had stated that it was a necessary consequence of the Bill of
1833, which regulated the labour of children in factories. Ac-
cording to his (Mr. Wood's) opinion, that measure was
founded upon a different principle, namely, protecting those
who could not protect themselves.—(Cries of " Divide,
divide.") That measure was not to restrict the labour of
children alone, but factory labour altogether. If it was the object
of the Government to restrict the hours of labour of all persons
in factories to ten, eleven, or twelve hours, let that be stated '
--let there be no shuffling, but let the Government bring in a
Bill on the subject.—(Cries of " Divide, divide.") lie be-
lieved it was most injurious to the workman himself toin-
terfere with his labour, and he for one was unwilling to do by
legislations for any man what he could do for himself. He
knew that a public meeting of his constituents had been held
on this question, and that the opinion of that meeting was in
favour of a Ten Hours' Bill. But that did not at all affect
what he had stated in that House, that up to the time of hold-
ing that meeting no representation on the subject had reached
him. The inference he drew from this was, that they did riot
take much interest in the matter. He did not believe that
the measure would improve either the morals, the religion, or
the education of the working, classes, but any other measure
that would better their condition he should be ready to support.
Mr. P. AINSWORTH rose to complain of a matter some-
what personal to himself. At an early part of the evening, the
Hon. and Learned Member for Bath had accused him o_cint.-1
in-
tolerance, and this charge he denied was well foundeeeeNcleidl.
respect to the Bill, he thought a limitation mightn be effected.
The
tleartihbeeenaleadayndi
htraoddeuffeeeedteidn
masters,ll respect to the
great good for the working classes;
tally neglected. the
itci cleanliness
i alsones daonnde NlTl.ellnCtihlaftoior nthoef
e
districts, which heretofore had been
etdhnecamniel mills this evenethf itshe hadeh
children
then in case
it had also done much for the education of the children in thes
legeielation ; and when the propo-
sition be prepared to support
Government would proceed whiselsyhaondlodjudiciously, he thought
m u ch geonopadembiegfhe
rtebteh
e donell e
House,
the plan which the Houser ten hours hadoalrr:
and w
already sanctioned,
hours,
ctvi o n e d b
the rejectingp
both the proposal f
oflan
Afiixri.ngnetl)eEverintihcouKrs thesaasid
h e limitha d of
nleavberroir.
made
any
charge of
articular nature against the lion. Member, of intolerance.
Wile speaking, he heard a running commentary behind him,
and he made a general observation that those who had changed
very often themselves were often the most intolerant to change
in others.
EN and Mr. C. BULLER rose together, but the
oitFtArh. e
Eun
vitileggibvyenre"f•eary;ing, to a statement of
Nt latter Hon.
FE L D GentlemanE N co having
commenced
the Hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. C. Wooe'l) that the workers
of that place were not in favour of a Ten Hours' Bill. Ile went
I
amongst the constituency of the Hon
that fact. Ile attended a meeting the. Gre, and,en t
tat ne tr
roeaads
icnegr t aithen
the words of the lion. Gentleman he put this question to
them—" Has Air. Wood fairly re resented you when he made
this statement? "—cries of " No,p no."—(Laughter.) Then
he put
trtt
tobe
question to them—" Do you wish a Ten Hours'
passed without delay? "—cries of " Yes,
yes."—( Loud laughter.) He then put a third question to
them—(Laughter)—" Are you willing to run the risk of
wages being reduced if a Ten Hours' Factory Bill
be passed?"—loud cries of " We are, we are." Ile then
put a fourth question to them.—( A laugh.) " Do you autho-
rise me to state this in the House of Commons ?"—cries of
" Yes, yes." lie knew the lion. Member had as kind a feeling
towards the people of Halifax as anybody, but he did not repre-
sent their feelings fairly on this subject; and if he went to Ha-
lifax—( Laughter)—to the Odd Fellows Hall—(Loud laughter)
—he was convinced he would come from the meeting as well
Persuaded as he (Mr. Fielden) was, that they had not properly
represented their feelings on this subject. He had no such fears
as those entertained by the Hon. and Learned Member for
andrßath,
with regard to legislation on this, subject. The ln
Learned Gentleman said that the 'factory labourers had the
power to protect themselves, and had thrown out hints that if
they held out for a short time they would accomplish their ob-

ject. Did they wish, then, to have a. turn-out in Yorkshire
g
y
we
H
ae;,l_l,wa:rrrte,e.l:ariadt
protect
fre
om
eralageoierrrnattia'n'yesi):sei,
principle
ilaaloe'eoarasutrgrthse:la.lpletoi tinttfg3osw.
against
believed.
4,csrtiaet ttie;lobeigneuipt'ssoiethrti
ioaieeorarie csivrin'tcsg,:tc:noecloti
hfitl:rhdritna:ehytgayhenteei:deoiLi,laudosefrtg:g:chiri
tdshhtaotanaatoat succeed.uorr.
ii.rttdnethb(i interfere.
aTfrseeh?ehra hadeeeato.):
ne
o
he
practice.—
inspectorsehara d,
aht
onerser recommended
timemm
l a
,e nded it,
o(Tfinieeyars'htt ledarr
maintenanceo) t
uponf o rge tt Theirthat,he
~twnhnde.They
claim
deprived of that right. 'I he Hon. and Learned Gentleman
assisted in depriving them of it. That was protection from
lawyers.—(Laughter.) No humane man in the country would
agree with the lion. and Learned Gentleman. He believed
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman knew nothing of the effect
of shortening the duration of the hours of labour. —(Laughter. )
(The Hon. Gentleman went on making allusions to the Hon.
and Learned Member for Bath, who sat exactly under him,
which excited considerable merriment in the House, but from
the low tone of voice in which the Hon. Member spoke, and the
laughter of the House, their import did not reach us.) He
denied that a curtailment of the hours of labour would have
the effect ascribed to it. He appealed to the Hon. Member for
Sheffield on the point. The period of the labour of some of
j the constituents of the Hon. Member was reduced to i hours
a day, and they got more wages for those hours labour than
when they worked twelve hours. He thought it would be
1 hard to convince the people of Sheffield that they were not
bayndseaularualghlio)n. He say
that efiltled whichb) t hhbes.—(en aa advanced,
this House was contrary to the interests of the working classes.
Ile thought that if the hours of labour were restricted to ten
hours instead of twelve, it would tend much to improve the
moral and physical condition of the people.
Mr. PHILIPS could say that he seldom had heard a speech
more strongly marked by an anti-national spirit than that of
the Hon. Member for Oldham. With respect to the town of
Sheffield, he (%ir. M. Philips) could assure the House that
the system of combination lately adopted in that town, by
which the duration of the hour of labour was diminished, had
driven many of the principal manufacturers out of the country.
He himself tad been engaged in the foreign trade of this
country, and he understood that there was no town throughout
England had suffered more than Sheffield from those cif cuna;-
stances. If in extending the operation of these prin-
ciples to other towns, they thought they would secure higher
wages, he could assure them they were much mistaken ;
for the result would be, that they would be planing the interests
of those trades in jeopardy. He had the interests of the ope-
ratives of the country too much at heart to adopt this mea-
sure, and he should, consequently, vote for the motion of his
Hon. and Learned Friend tee Member for Bath, for he cer-
tainly could not reconcile with his conscience the justice of in-
terfering, in the slightest degree, with the application of adult
labour. The Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for
the Home Department had stated that many of his (Mr. P.'s)
constituents were in favour of a limitation of labour, or at least
regarded the matter with indifference. Now, the fact was,
that property had been so considerably diminished in many
parts of Lancashire, that many of the manufacturers looked
with apparent indifference upon the whole matter. In the
tosen of Manchester there was not more than twelve mills
which worked more than twelve hours. He, for one. was
most anxious that the artisan should not lee obliged to
work more than ten hours ; but he thought, in the
the present state of the country, this could not be done.
It they worked more than twelve hours a day, those doing so of
course received the higher wages for it. The Hon. Member
sat down amidst much confusion and cries of "divide, divides"
Mr. PARKER thought, after what had been stated con-
cerning Sheffield, they must feel convinced of the propriety of:
allowing the labourers to be perfectly free agents in this-
matter. He was also very much opposed to any inter-
ference with employment of adult labour, because he
th :ueht any such interference would be fraught with
the utmost danger, and have a decided tendency to destroy the
prosperity of the country. He felt convinced, therefore, that
the only plan for this House to adopt was a plain and
gible proposition ; and instead of talking of ten or twelve hours,
declare that they would not interfere with adult labour, but
that all labourers who had arrived at the years of discretion,
should exercise their labour as they liked; and that the House had
no right to interfere with their free-will in the slightest degree.
With respect to infant labour, he considered it to be a different
question, but this was a question upon which he should not
then speak, but leave it to others better acquainted with the
matter.—The House then divided—

For going into Committee
For Mr. Roebuck's amendment ... 76
Majority against the amendment ...-206
The nouse then went into Committee pro.forma on the Bill,
and immediately resumed, Monday next being the day fixed
for proceeding with the Committee.