The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-11 00:00:00

FACTORIES BILL.

The Order of the Day for the third reading of this
Bill was then read.

Mr. M. PHILIPS presented a petition from Staley-
bridge (as we understood) against a Ten Hours' Bill,
and on the motion of the Hon. Member the petition was
read at length by the clerk at the table.
Lord HOWICK presented a petition from the in-
habitants of Dewzbury, praying that ten hours be the
time of labour on five days of the week, and eight hours
the other. lie did not move that the petition be read
at the table.—(Laughter.)
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition, signed by
6,020 inhabitants of the borough of Stockport, in favour of
a Ten Hours' Bill.

On the question that the Bill be read a third time,
Lord ASHLEY rose. He said, after the three dis-
tinct declarations that had been made by the House, he
need not make any further attempt, by argument or per-
suasion, to influence the feeling and understanding of
the House. It had, by three distinct declarations, de-
cided actually in three cases, that the period of labour
should not amount to twelve hours, and in two cases
virtually that the period of labour should not exceed ten
hours. On those decisions the world at large expected
that a middle term would have been taken, but her Ma-
jesty's Ministers had refused to consent to that term.
They had invited a revival of the debate, by calling on
the House to reverse those decisions, and therefore they
who stood by the whole of those decisions, and who
protested against this novel and somewhat questionable
course, were not to be charged with wearying the atten-
tion of the House, or wasting its valuable time, if they
did endeavour to urge every argument and move every
consideration that could countervail this prodigious exer-
cise of Ministerial influence and official authority. With
respect to the moral and physical condition
of the people, one way or other, the minds of all were
made up; it was even admittedby many of their antagonists
that if a reduction of the hours of labour could be effected
without injury to the workman or the master manufac-
turer, it would be desirable to effect it. But they said a
danger would arise to the workmen's interests, and he,
who proposed the plan was actually charged with
being more inhuman than those who resisted it.
But he wished to reject altogether the use of such epi-
thets, and he would not in any way retort the imputa-
tion cast upon him of malignity and of cant.—(Hear.)
In the whole of those debates there was but one
thing that he regretted ; he did most deeply regret
that he should have been charged with calumniating
the whole body of master-manufacturers.—(Hear, hear.)
He totally disclaimed that charge.—(Hear, hear.) He
should be ashamed of himself if he presumed, either
there or elsewhere, to use such language of a class
of men who could boast of as many munificent
and worthy individuals as could be pre-
sented by any class which had ever supported
or adorned the institutions of this country.—(Cheers.)
Neither because he addressed himself to a particular
evil was he to be considered as an enemy to the fac-
tory system. He firmly believed--for he had labori-
ously examined many of the mills—that if they re-
moved some of the imperfections of factories they
would become a iplessing—if not absolutely, certainly
and relatively—to the labouring classes.—(Hear, hear.)
Now, when he first introduced this question, he did not
touch upon the commercial article, because he did not
consider it necessary in the view which he took of
the question, nor did he consider it necessary now.
But he owed it to those whose interests
he represented, to show that he had not left any part of
the question unconsidered; that be bad not rushed, like
an enthusiast, into this career, not caring what conse-
quences might ensue from the attainment of this
end. He said at that time, what he now said,
that which was morally wrong could not be politically
right ; he had then, and he had still, the deepest
conviction that that which was morally right could not
be politically wrong. All that he had read, all the con-
sideration which he had been able to give to the subject,
all the intercourse which he had had with persons who,
from their practical experience, were the best able
to instruct him, confirmed him in this conclu-
sion. 'And now he must entreat of the House
with very much respect, and with very much earnestness,
that they would be good enough to give him their atten-
tion while be went through a statement which was at all
times dry, and which would he feared be much drier when
coming from him, and which was moreover somewhat trite.
Now, after much inquiry, he could discover no more
than four leading arguments against this measure, and
those arguments were comprised in the petition from
Manchester, which had been laid on the table of the House.
Those four arguments were that the passing of the Ten
Hours' Bill would cause a reduction of produce—that
there would be in the same proportion a reduction in
the value of the fixed capital employed in trade ; that
there would be a great diminution of wages to
the great injury of the workmen ; and lastly, that
there would be a rise in prices, and consequent danger
from foreign competition. Now, upon these four
points the commercial argument rested. With re-
spect to the first, he would observe that hitherto
it had been urged that the reduction of the hours
of labour by one-sixth would involve a reduction
in the same proportion of the goods manufactured.
Was the case so ? Was the reduction in the amount of
produce in proportion to the reduction in the amount of
the hours of labour ?—(Hear, hear.) He could produce
evidence to disprove that position.—(Hear, hear.) In
the first place he would read an extract from a letter
written to him by a gentleman who employed 1,200
hands in his mills. (The Noble Lord here read an extract
from the letter alluded to, in which the writer stated that
a reduction in the hours of labour to ten hours would only
cause a decrease of 1-12th in the amount of production,
as the increased energy of the work would make up the
difference; and this the writer stated to be the result of his
own experience.) Another millowner in a very exten-
sive way of business had stated to him that the mill-
owners would lose very little by the reduction of
the hours of labour to ten hours.—(Hear, hear.)
He had, however, not been content with the opinions of
the millowners. He had sought the opinions of the ope-
rative spinners. He had proposed to the operative spin-
ners two questions. The first was, Is the reduction in
the produce in direct proportion to the reduction in the
hours of labour? The answer was, Certainly not.—
(Hear, hear.) He then asked at how much they esti-
mated the reduction of produce? Taking the estimate
in the way most disadvantageous to themselves, they
estimated the diminution would not be more than one-
eighth. He had never heard it argued that a reduction
of the time by one-sixth would cause a reduction of one-
sixth of the profits. The second argument with which
he had to deal was this, that a reduction would take
place in the same proportion of the value of the fixed
capital employed in trade. Now, it was probable that a
reduction would take place in the value of the fixed
capital, but not to the amount supposed, as he would be
able to show from a calculation which he had in his
hand. (The Noble Lord then read the calculation, which
showed that, owing to the less amount of oil, candles,
tallow, coals, and gas, which would be required if the
hours of labour were reduced to ten, the loss of the
fixed capital would only be the difference of twenty-four
per cent., which was the loss when the work was con-
tinued for twelve hours, and twenty •and-a-half per cent.
which it would be if the work was 'reduced to ten hours.)
He had this calculation from one of the most ex-
tensive manufacturers of Europe. Those compels.
sating circumstances he had mentioned he was
convinced would more than counterbalance the
loss that might arise from the diminution of time.
But the cardinal argument he had to meet was the
alleged diminution which it was supposed would take place
from a diminution of time. Many of the statements of
this kind were taken from the calculations of Mr. Horsier,
who stated with perfect candour that he derived his
statements from the manufacturers, but had never exa-
mined the workmen themselves. The terms " folly"
and " nonsense" had been applied to those who denied
that such a result would take place. But no such ex-
pectation was ever entertained.—(Hear, hear.) He had
never said so, and he had never heard the operatives say
so. The earnings of the people were not regulated by
the time they worked, but by the piece, and the sum of
money which the workmen received at the end
of the week he received not for the sixty-nine hours
ho laboured, but for the produce of his labour.—(Hear.)
The operatives were of opinion that by the reduction of
the hours of work they would have increased means of
social and domestic economy, and that a prolongation
of the term of their working lives would be conferred
upon them. They held that a diminution of the time of
labour would lead to a rise in price. It had been asserted
that there would be a diminution of produce in conse-
quence of working shorter hours. This had been as-
serted both in speeches in that House and in evidence
taken before Committees. But when the hours were
reduced in 1820, from fourteen, fifteen, and even
sixteen hours, to twelve hours, this result had
tayi
moenaorusno
tf
efdo following n6a
sg6
not followed.l
cottony I
cnon
swtuhomeo
pl 0
oli
onB,coorOoe
oa
btehsd.e:
importationan and the we weekly
while there was no falling off in the aggregate con-
sumption. In the years following 1820 the exports
from this country were increased to 46,000,0001. official
value. Let them observe what had taken place in other
countries. In France the importation of cotton wool in,
184 Q, as compared with the importation in 1820, had in-
creased 162 per cent., and the exportation of cotton manu-
factures had increased during the same period 212 percent.,
while in England from 1820, the first year of restriction, to

1840, the imports of cotton wool had increased 288 per
cent., and the export of manufactured cotton had in-
creased 220 per cent. It could never be imagined that
America, a new country with large tracts of fertile land
unoccupied, could compete in manufactures with an old
wealthy country like Great Britain. The third point to
which he would call the attention of this House, was the
argument of the reduction of wages. In 1818 and 1819,
the two years immediately preceding the years to which
the restriction upon the hours of factory labour was im-
posed, the wages of the fine spinner of cotton were IL 12s.
a week, of the coarse spinner,ll. 55., of the women, 145.;
and in 1820 and 1821 the wages, notwithstanding the
restriction, continued the same. The records of many
of the factory districts, which were most carefully con-
structed, particularly those of Manchester and Bolton,
showed that in 1821 and 1822, there were the
same wages for labour as in the preceding years.
In fact, no one of the predictions which bad
been made on the decline of labour that would be con-
sequent upon the restriction of the hours of labour were
verified. It was said that the loss fell on the profits of
the manufacturers. Now, even if so, there was quite
enough of profit left,
It did not deem that the energy