The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-30 00:00:00

ultimate reduction of wages from it would be from 15
to 25 per cent. upon the average—that it would deprive
the labouring people of the enjoyments they at present
possessed, and would tend to excite generally a spirit of
discontent. The petitioners, therefore, earnestly prayed
the House not to sanction such a proposition.
Lord HOWICK presented a petition from the Short
Time Committee, praying the House not to allow the
Bill to be withdrawn.
Mr. BULLER presented a petition to the same effect.
Mr. TATTON EGERTON presented a petition from
Hyde, in Cheshire, against the limitation of the time of
labour to ten hours.
Mr. ESTCOURT presented three petitions from
Trowbridge, in the county of Wilts. The first was
signed by 54 operatives in the employment of Mr.
Samuel Brown. The petitioners stated that they
had heard with alarm of the intention of the
House to restrict the hours of labour in factories
to ten. That reduction-would inflict serious injury upon
them, inasmuch as it would necessarily lead to a reduc-
tion of wages ; and they prayed the House not to restrict
further the hours of labour. He had also another peti-
tion to the same effect, from the operatives in the em-
ploy of Mr. Allen ; and another, with a similar prayer,
from the operatives in the employment of Mr. Appleby.
An Hort. MEMBER presented four petitions from the
operatives of Trowbridge, with a similar prayer.
Lord ASHLEY presented petitions from Preston,
Wigan, and Warrington, in favour of a Ten Hours' Bill.
Mr. HINDLEY presented a petition which had been
agreed to at a public meeting at Ashton, in favour of a
Ten Hours' Bill.
Mr. FIE LDEN presented a petition in favour of a Ten
Hours' BilL
THE NAVAL FORCE IN IRELAND—POOR-
RATES.

Sir G. CPCKBURN, seeing the Iron. and Gallant
Member for Brighton in his place, would take that op-
portunity, before the Orders of the Day should be read,
of alluding to a question which the Hon. and Gallant
Member had put to him the other evening. The Hon.
and Gallant Gentleman had asked him if he was aware
that the naval force had been employed in assisting. in
the collection of poor-rates in Ireland. To that he had
replied, that there was a naval force stationed on the west
coast of Ireland, and that perhaps they might have lent the
assistance of their moral influence to the aid of the civil
power. The fact was that two steamers had been stationed
on the west coast of Ireland, in aid of the civil force, the
consequence of which was, that the presence of the mili-
tary was rendered unneccessary, and the effusion of blood,
probably, prevented.
Captain PECHELL said that on the Navy estimates
he had pointed out that one, if not two, war steamers,
was employed in the collection of poor-rates in Ireland.
The Right Honourable Gentleman opposite (Sir
George Cockburn) denied the statement, and said
he was not aware of any such circumstance. He
(Captain Pechell) subsequently produced his authority
for his statement, and the Right Hon. Baronet, the
Secretary of State for the Home Department made au,
apology for the Right Honourable and Gallant Officer,
and he (Captain Pechell) was satisfied with that
apology, but since that the Right Honourable
and Gallant Officer came down to the House
and revived the subject, and acknoWledged, in fact, that
the poor-rates had been collected under the guns of a
war-steamer. The difference between him (Captain
Pechell) and the Right Hon. Gentleman was, that the
latter said he had no cognizance of the fact of the
steamers being so employed, and he added that the
officers of those vessels had received no instructions from
the Admiralty to collect the poor-rates, but merely to
aid the civil power, whereas he (Captain Pechell)
inferred that those"ships of war were kept on that coast,
in order that the police and officers of Government
might the better insure the collection of the poor-rates.
One of the steamers was, in fact, converted into a sort
of Somerset House.—(Cheers and laughter.) The col-
lectors went on board and claimed assistance of the offi-
cers, and one person went on board to pay his rates.
Mr. FRENCH stated, on the authority of Dr. Kir-
wan, the Vicar-teneral of the diocese of Galway, that,
notwithstanding the employment of naval men in the
collection of the rdte, there was still a large amount un-
collected ; and if ten steamers were employed instead of
one a great portion of the rate would remain uncollected.
FACTORIES BILL.

On the motion of Sir JAMES GRAHAM, that the
Order of the Day for going into Committee on the
Factories Bill, for the purpose of its being discharged,
be read,
Mr. .B. COCHRANE said that he would venture to
tell the Noble Lord (Ashley) that he should never have
agitated the country upon this question, if he had not
calculated beforehand, not merely every probable, but also
every possible combination of circumstances which must
arise respecting it—(Laughter from the Opposition)—
unless the Noble Lord was prepared to overstep all the
obstacles which the Government might throw in his
way. It was under this impression that he voted with
the Noble Lord. He therefore expected, after the ener-
getic manner in which the Noble Lord expressed him-
self the other evening—he thought he would be pre-
pared to carry out those views to the full extent. He
would say that he considered the conduct of her Ma-
jesty's Government had displayed infinitely more ap-
parent earnestness than that of the Noble Lord. The
Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State was de-
feated on the twelve hours' clause on Monday ; on
Friday he brought the question before the House again.
It was an unusual course; but no doubt the Right Hon.
Gentleman thought himself justified in adopting it. He
was again defeated on the twelve hours' clause,
and succeeded only by a very small majority in de-
feating the ten hours' clause. He then asked for further
delay in order to decide what should be done. The
Right Hon. Baronet said he would enter into no com-
promise whatever, and then proposed to withdraw the
Bill. Now what he wanted to know from the Noble
Lord was this, why he did not carry out his principal
object by opposing the withdrawal? What was the Bill
the Right Hon. Baronet proposed to introduce—was it
not the very same as the present Bill with the twelve hour
clause left out ? Why that clause was already struck
out by the Committee. Everybody in that House and
many out of it knew that the object of the Right Hon%
Baronet was to gain time, for after Easter there would
be no probability of carrying the ten hour clause.—(Hear,
hear.) The Noble Lord might tell him that it was an
unusual course to object to the withdrawal of the Bill.
Had he not himself told the Right Hon. Baronet that he
had adopted a most unusual course? He thought this
question was one in which if any man put his hand to the
plough he ought not ever to look back again.—(Hear,
hear.) Her Majesty's Government had declared this
question was a party question. Would they not equally
declare it a party question after Easter as they did now?
To those who knew what the House of Commons was,
the consenting to the withdrawal was " keeping the
word of promise to the ear, and breaking it to the hope."
The fourteen or fifteen days that would elapse would
give Government an opportunity for agitating the ques-
tion. He had understood, that it was the intention of

_
the Noble Viscount to go into certain districts, and there
agitate the subject. Now this he would say, with re-
spect to agitation. He had supported the Noble Lord
on this question; he had taken the deepest interest in it;
but he objected to all agitation out of doors, whether
with respect to the corn-laws, or repeal, or factories.
He thought questions of such vital importance to the
country should be discussed calmly, dispassionately,
and solemnly in that House.—(Hear.) Even though
the measure were a good one, if it could only be carried
by exciting all those who had an interest in it out of
doors, that was, prima facie, an objection to it.—(Hear,
hear.) There was one point in the Noble Lord's speech
the other night, to which he could not help alluding.
He was never more astonished than when the Noble
Lord said that, in his opinion, the ten hours' clause
would reduce wages. If he (Mr. Cochrane) believed
that the Bill would reduce wages, he would have no-
thing to do with it.—(Hear, hear, and cheers from both
sides of the House.) Hon. Gentlemen must allow him
to have his own opinion in reference to the effect of this
enactment. He had supported the ten hours' clause,
and he would continue to support it ; but he had his
own reasons for the course which he pursued.—(Hear,
hear.) He conceived that in most cases the clause could
not reduce wages much. Most of the manufacturing
towns had arrived at the minimum of wages.—(Expres-
sions of dissent.) He thought the manufacturers
would be amply compensated for the reduction of time.
He was not one who would stand up and abuse manu-
facturers or any other class of persons, as though they
had not the same feelings and sympathies as other men ;
and he believed they would find themselves compensated
for the two hours labour at night, by the additional
nerve and energy'Which Ihe work-people would bring to
their morning's work. He believed that the effect would
be that the employed would have a fair day's wages for
a fair day's work. But even if the Bill should ulti-
mately be found to reduce wages, his opinion was that
the Noble Lord should in that case follow the example
of Mr. Whitbread, in 1795, and bring in a Bill to regu-
late wages.—(lronical cries of " Hear, hear.") He was
not afaid that this discussion would not have the result
which he bad desired. He was afraid that the time of

the House had been lost.—(Laughter.and ironical cheer.
ing.) He would ask any unprejudiced person to look at
the state of the case. The Noble Lord had appealed to
the House the other night in terms most unusual.
He appealed to the House—to his supporters—not to
give way an inch—not to give the ground they had
taken ; and yet, on Friday night, when he had kept
Members in town for the purpose of voting with him,
then he told them that, after Easter, he would decide
upon the course he would pursue.—(A laugh.) He un-
derstood that to be so, and if he was wrong he was
sorry for making the statement.—(Hear.) He was
afraid the country had been agitated, and the time of
the House had been frittered away, for no purpose. He
believed this had occurred not from want of sincerity
on the part of the Noble Lord, but from a want of the
exercise of that firmness which was necessary in all the
relations of life.—(Rear.)
Mr. T. Buncombe and Lord Ashley rose together,
when the latter gave way.
Mr. BUNCOMBE then proceeded to address the
House. He thought it was better to do so before the
Noble Lord, as he would probably have to make some
answer to the amendment he was about to propose, and
also to the statements that had been made by the Right
Hon. Baronet opposite. If Ministers had made a House
yesterday, it was his intention *to have given notice of
the amendment he was now about to propose. He par-
ticipated in.the surprise of the Hon. Gentleman who had
just sat down, and also in his expressions of regret at
the course the Noble Lord had thought it right to pursue.
He (Mr. Buncombe) had fought with the Noble Lord
in the ranks which he had commanded, up to the present
moment, and it certainly was extremely to be regretted
moment of victory, he should have
adopted he had pursued.—(Hear, hear.) The
amendment
that,the verywhichcourse
he was about to propose would
take from. those who had voted with him the

charge of being inconsistent. He thought it would
be better that he should now read the amendment

he intended to propose. It was as follows :
That after the words, " for the purpose of being
discharged," to add the words ;—‘, With a view,

not only of carrying into effect in any future
Bill, the recorded decisions of this House, that
the labour to be performed by young persons and
females in factories should be less than twelve hours per
day; but also with the view of maintaining good faith
with those whose confidence in the integrity of the
votes of this House is indispensable to its character and
its existence as a deliberative and representative
assembly." Three times had the House told the work-
ing classes and the public, by these separate divisions
that twelve hours labour in the factories was too much
for females and young persons—(Hear, hear)—and the
Government told the House and the country that they
would withdraw the Bill, and introduce another which
should still continue twelve hours as the time for labour,
and they told them that the better course would be to take
that Bill, because if they did not they would get nothing
at all. On Friday the Noble Lord had made a solemn
appeal to the House, and had asked them to uphold
their former decision, and now they were about
to permit the Government to withdraw the
Bill without giving any pledge as to the na-
ture of their future measures.—(Hear, hear.)
They owed it to the dignity of the House—they owed it
to themselves—they owed it to the people—to put on
record some such sentiment as that contained in the re-
solution which he proposed.—{Cheers.) The Right
Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State had stated that there
were three courses which it was open to the Government
to pursue ; but it had not suggested itself to the Rigbt
Hon. Baronet and his colleagues that there was a fourth
course which they might pursue, and that was, instead
of withdrawing the Bill, to withdraw themselves.—
(Cheers and laughter.) He believed that under existing
circumstances, nothing would give greater satisfaction to
the country than the adoption of such a course. The
Right Hon. Baronet said, .that the Cabinet had delibe-
rated on the course which they should adopt, and that
course was, to reverse the solemn decision of the
House which had been three times recorded.
The Government told them frankly and openly that in
any fresh Bill which they might introduce they would
not have anything short of twelve hours, and this
House calling itself a Reform Parliament and an elective
assembly, was about to permit them to withdraw the
Bill without placing on record their solemn opinion, and
without pledging themselves as to the course which they
would for the future pursue. The Right Hon. Baronet
put him in mind of the captain of a merchantman who
freighted a ship to the West Indies, loaded with grind-
stones and cheeses. There was a great demand for the
cheeses, and none whatever for the grind-stones ; find-
ing this to be the case the captain said, " If you take a
cheese you shall also take a grind-stone—l will
not part with one without the other."—(Cheers and
laughter.) And there sat the Right Hon. Gentleman
with his factories amendments in the one hand, and his
twelve hours grind-stone in the other—(Laughter)—
saying you shall 'IA have the one without the other;
and he believed the result would be what it had been in
the case of the captain, that the Right Hon. Gentleman
would have his whole freight left on hand.—(Cheers and
laughter.) He hoped the House would not allow any
Bill to pass which would continue the twelve hours
clause. Motives had been attributed to those who sup-
ported a ten hours' clause, which ought not to have been
attributed to them. The Right Hon. Gentleman said,
the other evening, that their social system was so altered
that it required an alteration in their legislation.
Nothing could be more true. They had arrived at a
new social system, particularly in the manufacturg
districts. Let them look to the distress bothlith fie
agricultural and manufacturing districts. Let them
look to the state of crime in tfiose districts. The popu-
lation had increased, in ten years, twelve or thirteen per
cent., and the returns made with regard to the state of
crime showed that the criminal commitments had increased
from fifteen to eighteen per cent. Mr. Justice Cresswell,
in the charge which he made last summer assizes,
in Yorkshire, and Lancashire, stated that crime had in-
creased twofold in the last seven years; and Sir
A. Henneker declared that the state of crime in
Suffolk was such, that they ought to use their endea-
vours to remove the discontents and grievances under
which the agriculturists laboured. Well, then, he would
ask, had not a state of things taken place which re-
quired the vigilance of the House ? Political economists
who argued the question of the repeal of the corn-laws,
said that, if they were removed, all difficulties in the
way of the present subject would vanish. He (Mr. D.)
believed, that if the corn-laws were repealed to-mor-
row, it would be more than ever necessary to restrict
the hours of labour in the manufacturing districts. He
regretted the course which gentlemen connected with
the Anti-Corn-law League had taken upon the subject.'
If they had come forward in a different manner, he
thought they would be in a better position to ask the
landed gentlemen to agree to a repeal of the corn laws.
Sacrifices should be made by those who were better able
to bear them than the working classes. If they allowed
the present Bill to be withdrawn, they would stultify
themselves, and be the laughing-stock and ridicule of the
country. He would not be dragged in the mire with
the Noble Lord, or any other person. He would entreat
of the House, in the words of the Noble Lord, to uphold
the decision to which they had come. It had been said
that it was for the convenience of Goverment they
should not oppose the rescinding of the Standing Order.
He (Mr. Duncombe) offered no opposition to the re-
scinding of that order. He only put on record his rea-
sons, at all events, and those of the gentlemen who might
do him the honour of voting with him, for not allowing the
present Bill to be withdrawn; and also the views which
he thought ought to be entertained in that House of the
introduction of any new Bill for the better regulation of
labour in factories.
Sir C. NAPIER seconded the amendment.
Lord ASHLEY said, that not having had the advan-
tage of hearing the first part of the speech of the Hon.
Member for Bridport (Mr. B. Cochrane), it was impos-
sible for him to reply to any imputations which the Hon.
Gentleman might have thrown out against him. He
should, therefore, be content to let those imputations rest
as they were, merely observing, that in many instances
the Hon. Gentleman had applied to the Noble Member
for Sunderland (Lord Howick) much that ought to have
been said against him (Lord Ashley), and that he
ought to have directed against the Noble Member for Sun•
derland much that he had applied to himself (Lord A.)
With respect to one point, he wished to say a word.
The Hon. Gentleman had, at some length, argued on
the monstrous absurdity of his (Lord Ashley) pressing
for a Ten Hours' Bill, when he admitted it would lead
to a reduction of wages. What he (Lord Ashley) had
said was, that, for the sake of argument, he would sup-
pose that the measure would lead to a reduction of

wages ; and that if it did so, the party whose interests he
represented were perfectly ready to meet the reduction;
and that they would state the means by which they
would be able to render the reduction not hilarious to
them. He would explain this course he had taken in
a few words. He had begun by doing that which the Hon.
Member for Bridport had not done. He early took
advice from those who were capable of giving it When
the Right Hon. Gentleman had proposed the course of
withdrawing the present Bill ; be (Lord Ashley) was
taken by surprise as was te House also, and the
House certainly required some time to be granted before
coming to a decision as to the course to be pursued.
During that interval he had consulted ftiany
gentlemen who had voted with him—not gen-
tlemen on one side of the House who might be
supposed to have a sympathy with Ministers, but a great
many on the other side, who gave him the advice they
thought best on the question, totally irrespective of any
consequences but those which must arise to the general
benefit of the question. By the vote of the House ox
the second clause, the principle of ten hours had been
affirmed, but by the vote on the Sth clause, it was de-
clared that there should be no such thing ; the Bill had
thus become a mass of inextricable confusion, and it was
quite impossible that it could go forward ; and the Go-
vernment suggested, as the only means of relieving the
question from these difficulties, to withdraw the Bill
before the House, with a promise (for this was a very
important matter) that another Bill be substituted in
its place.—(Hear, hear.) His own impression was, that
this motion ought to be acceded to ; but that impression
was confirmed by the advice of gentlemen of the greatest
experience. If he had persisted in saying to the Go-
vernment, "You shall not withdraw this Bill, I will try
a debate on that subject," what would be the effect of
such a course ? It had always been his policy, during
eleven years, to avoid as much as possible taking
debates and divisions upon mere technicalities,
upon mere points of order. He never had consented to
take a debate or division except upon a great issue,
and he was happy to say that that cause had been
crowned with prosperity. Questions of that sort, so
conducted, led to no satisfactory result. And even if he
had succeeded, he would not have been in a better posi-
tion then than now. But to succeed was impossible.
Instead of succeeding, he would have been left in so
small a minority, that he would venture to say, that the
majority of the Government, instead of being 7 or 10,
would have been 70 or 80, or perhaps nearly 100.—
(Hear, hear.) And in what position would the ques-
tion be then in ? Would it not be taken by the country and
by the great body whose opinions he (Lord Ashley) repre-
sented ; would not the operative classes, who felt so
strongly on this measure, consider such a majority as a
decisive expression of the opinion of that House against the
great principle which they had so long cherished ?
(Hear, hear.) That was the reason why he (Lord
Ashley) formed that opinion ; but when he found his
views confirmed by those of gentlemen of the greatest
experience—not only on that (the Ministerial) side of the
House, who might be supposed to have a sympathy
with the Government—but also from Hon. Members op-
posite, who had none, he could no longer hesitate to
adopt the course he had adopted, and which the interests
of this very question required. And let it not be said,
because insinuations had been thrown out that he had
some personal feeling in these matters, and that he had
considered other interests than those of which he spoke.
—(No, no.) Such had been stated, per vulgus spargere
voces ambiguas. He would fearlessly maintain the
position he had maintained irrespective of any Govern-
ment which existed or might exist. The Hon. Gentleman
said he (Lord Ashley) had compelled the House to meet
on Friday, and then announced his intention of aban-
doning the Bill. Why, if the Hon. Gentleman had been
in the House on Wednesday, he would not have said
that the House was taken by surprise.—(Hear.)
Again, the Hon. Gentleman said he had asked for
time to make up his mind ; he had done no such thing ;
he had stated what course he intended to pursue as to
this Bill, but of course he could not say what course he
would take oa a Bill that was not yet introduced.
(Hear, hear.) If he could see the Right Hon. Baronet's
Bill on Monday morning, he should have no objection to
come down to the House and state the course he in-
tended to pursue with regard to it immediately after the
sitting of the House.—(Hear, hear.) He did not know
that he had any other point to refer to, as he did not
wish to detain the House on matters that were personal
to himself. But he must say that he did not think the
advice of the Hon. Gentleman to discuss this question
with calmness was very applicable to himself.—
(Hear, hear.) This he might say, that in all the
discussions on this question, he had mainlained his
tranquillity up to this time, and he could‘saure the

House that that tranquillity was not only external but
internal. He had never felt angry or exasperated with
any one gentleman opposed to him, and indeed if he had
he must have been one of the most unreasonable and
ungrateful Members who ever sat in that House, for he
was sure that no Hon. Member had ever received from
all sides of the House, and from every Member in it,
such constant and unmerited kindness and courtesy.
But they would allow him to say that he did implore
the House to stand by its recorded decision on this
question. He declared that no earthly consideration
whatever should turn him from the course he had endea-
voured to pursue, and in pursuing it he cared not what
personal consequences might fall on his own head.
Mr. B. COCHRANE said the circumstance of the
Noble Lord not having been in the House while he ad-
dressed it, might excuse him for having misrepresented
what he (Mr. Cochrane) had said. He totally denied
that he had insinuated that there was any understanding
between the Noble Lord and the Government. He de-
, clared his belief that the Noble Lord was perfectly sin-
cere, and he begged the Noble Lord now to withdraw
that expression "insinuated." He would not have in-
sinuated such a thing, even had he believed it. But he
certainly did believe that the Noble Lord had cpminitted
a great error in judgment.
Lord ASHLEY could assure the Hon. Gentleman
that he would withdraw any expression of which he
complained. He explained that he did not impute to
the Hon. Gentleman the having charged him with com-
ing to an understanding with the Government, but, as he
was reported to him, to have said that he (Lord Ashley)
did not press on the measure from a sort of sympathy for
the Government.
Lord HOWICK said he had, on a former evening,
expressed a very strong objection to the withdrawal of
this Bill. He wished now to state why he concurred
in the course which the Noble Lord was now about to
take. His Noble Friend had, two or three evenings
ago, informed him, that he had ascertained that if he
resisted the discharge of the order he would be in a
small minority. He thought that, under these circum-
stances, it was necessary that the Noble Lord should
defer to the wishes of his supporters.—(Hear, hear.)
Still, be must say, that, in his judgment, the course
taken by her Majesty's Government was anything but
respectful to the House. What was it which they asked
the House to do ? They asked them to disckarge the
order for proceeding with the present Bill, stat-
ing that they would afterwards bring in a new Bill.
This Bill, though it would have a new title, would be the
same in substance as the old one. Like that Bill, it
wolild introduce the system of relays with regard to
children, and the regulations with regard to education.
Like that Bill, it would impose restrictions upon the
labour of grown-up women and children; and, unlike
what the House determined, it would provide that the
period of labour for young ehildren and grown-up
women should be twelve hours. The effect of the course
which her Majesty's Government had taken would be
that without any division, with the tacit consent of the
House, they would reverse the former division, and
this by an indirect and altogether unusual proceeding.
The Government virtually defeated the decision of the
House, and would place them once more in the situation
in which they were before they began this discussion,
or began to divide. Now that was a most strange course
to pursue. If the Government thought they could in-
duce the House to reconsider their decision, their proper
course would have been to have moved the recommittal
of the Bill.—(Hear, hear.) But, in order to gain some
advantage, and in order to do exactly what they had
succeeded in doing, they threw confusion into the ranks
of those who were in favour of a Ten Hours' Bill. Her
Majesty's Government, by these means, had brought
' them into the same situation they were in before the de-
bate began. He thought that this was a most extraor-
dinary course ; and he could not but express his regret
that the Noble Lord seemed to have deserted those who
went along with him in resisting the withdrawal of the
Bill. Supposing that in Committee his friend
should carry his proposal—why, her Majesty's
Government might repeat the manoeuvre they
had just performed. Now, as to the inconsistency of
the two divisions that had taken place, he thought that
of no importance whatever, because if the House had
only made up its mind what amendment it was prepared
to support, an end Would be put at once to that incon-
sistency. He thought from the course that had been
pursued in the House that a compromise was intended—
that the House, having stated that it would not adopt a
Twelve Hours' Bill, or a Ten Hours' Bill—that the
medium between the two would have been taken, and an
Eleven Hours' Bill passed. Now, he should have thought
that the Government would have adopted a wise course
if they had brought in such a Bill. He firmly believed
that if a Bill reducing the hours of labour to eleven had
been passed it would have met with cordial support.
In his opinion, a reduction of wages would be the con-
sequence of a diminution of the time of labour ; but lie
thought it would be less than the Right Hon. Gentleman
supposed, and he (Lord Howick) thought it would be
quite consistent to support the clause under that belief.
This was in itself an evil, no doubt ; but the question
here was a choice of two evils—one was a reduction of
wages, the other that the continuance of labour for twelve
hours broke down the strength of those who were sub-
jected to it.—(Cries of " Oh, oh.") That was his (Lord
Howick's opinion ; he was no judge on the subject, and
he only derived his opinion from the inspectors of
factories, on whose reports the Government acted, and
who quoted the authority of medical officers, that a
perseverance at labour for twelve hours was too
much for women or children. These were the
two evils, and he confessed that he would
rather see a reduction of wageo than a con-
tinuance of labour for twelve hours.—(Hear, hear.)
He thought it his duty to waive his own individual opi-
nion in deference to the opinion of his Noble Friend and
of those who acted with him—of course, therefore, it
was impossible for him to vote for the motion of the
Hon. Member for Finsbury. He would wait till the
new Bill was brought in, to discuss the principle upon
which he thought the clause of his Noble Friend was
necessary.
Sir R. INGLIS said that the fault committed by his
Noble Friend, if any, was a fault of omission. He had
not stated, he thought, with sufficient distinctness what
line he intended to pursue with regard to the motion
of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, but he had every
belief that his Noble Friend intended to give his motion
a decided negative. He wished they were all able to
follow the example of his Noble Friend, for he had
never introduced into discussion anything like excite-
ment.—(Hear, hear.) He regretted he could not say so
of others.—(Hear, hear.) This was not a party ques-
tion, but it was of a character which excited leelings
higher than one of party would.—(Hear, hear.) He
trusted that the example set them by his Noble Friend
would be followed by them all. He regretted
that such an apple of discord was thrown amongst them
as the proposition of the Hon. Member for Finsbury,
which, though it was not inconsistent with the course
he pursued, yet it was inconsistent with the understand-
ing upon which his Noble Friend addressed the House
a few evenings ago. With regard to what had fallen
from the Hon. Member for Bridport, he did not under-
stand
that Hon. Member to insinuate anything against
his Noble Friend, but merely that he had not carried his
principles forward with such sternness as the Govern-
ment had carried them.

Mr. ACLAND said he was one of those who, feeling
the great responsibility which attached not only to those
in office but to every indivi,slual Member of Parliament,
upon this subject, had made up his mind to vote with the
Noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire, and he did so
from the general feeling that this question was not to be
dealt with exclusively upon humane or commercial
grounds, but upon the ground that it should be
considered in both points of view.—(Hear, hear.) He
was inclined to adopt this course, in consequence of
speeches from his side of the House, in which he thought
there was too rigid an application of the principles of
political economy. He did not understand the senti-
ments of contempt which had been cast upon those who
adopted a middle course, and were in favour of eleven
hours.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that after what had
fallen from the Hon. Member for Leeds, who said that
it was the universal practice of a large body of manu-
facturers to work for eleven hours, such a modification
might be adopted. With regard to the position of the
Government, he confessed that he was not prepared to
place some person in the Home-office, who would execute
as well as carry a Ten Hours' Bill.—(Hear, hoar.) He
knew that taking this course would subject him to per,
sonal insinuations, but he was prepared to submit to
them, because he knew they would be undeserved. The
Noble Lord the Member for Lancashire had very clearly
shown that this was not a question of principle, but one
of detail. He thought that if the hours of labour were to
be curtailed, it ought to be done with the good will
of the Government, and that if carried it ought to be by
those who had to work the measure. He had expressed
his honest opinion with regard to the course he had in-
tended to pursue. He did not suppose that the Govern-
ment would turn round and say they were prepared to carry
a Ten Hours' Bill.—(Cries of " Oh, oh.") The Noble
Lord did not intend that his clause should come into
operation till two years and a half. By that time he
hoped that the question of protection to labour would be
cleared of some of its difficulties.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that before alluding to the
speech of the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down,
he would make a few remarks upon the position in
which the House was placed by the course which the
Government pursued on this question. He thought
that in consequence of it, coupled with the motion of the
Hon. Member for Finsbury, the authority of the House
of Commons would receive a blow.—(Hear, hear.) No
doubt the course pursued by the Government was the
most convenient for ithem, but the authority of the
House must suffer by it.—(Hear.) He certainly under-
stood from the Noble Lord, the Member for Dorset-
shire, that he came to some understanding with the
Government that the discussion as to twelve hours or
ten hours should be taken on the Bth clause,
instead of the second.—(Hear, hear.) The House de-
cided by two separate decisions on the subject after
two nights' debate, separated by Saturday and Sunday,
so that there was an opportunity for a full attendance
of Members who chose to be present in favour of the
Noble Lord's proposition.(Hear, hear.) There were
two decisions on the eighth clause ; by the first the
House negatived the proposition of twelve hours, and by
the second they negatived the proposition of ten hours.
There were three decisions—two against twelve hours and
one against ten hours. It became necessary therefore
either that the former decision of the House should be
reversed, or that it should be avowed, or that the middle
course of eleven hours should be adopted. But the Right
Hon. Gentleman proposed to withdraw the Bill, which
would frustrate the three decisions to which the House
had come, and substitute for it another Bill, which
should continue the twelve hours for those persons who,
by two decisions of the House, were to be subjected to
no more than ten. It was impossible that this could be
done without shaking the opinion of the country gene-
rally as to the authority of the Houso.—(Hear, hear.)
Why, then, did not the Noble Lord oppose
that course ? Upon grounds which appeared to
him (Lord J. Russell) to be quite sufficient ; which,
while they met the mischief and injury which would