The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-18 00:00:00

simpathy had been expressed by the newspapers some
time back, and was generally felt through the whole
community, in the fate of those unfortunate female-
who were milliners to the great, and slops
workers for the shopkeepers. (Hear, hear.)
Some benevolent gentlemen connected with the
Mansion-house, he forgot his name, suggested the
formation of a society which would not allow those
females to work longer than they could earn 15s. a-
week. What became of it? Why, it did not last
three weeks.—(Hear, hear.) It was impossible any-
thing could last which did not pay. The proper way
to benefit the condition of these poor girls was to
give them encreased employment and cheap food—
(Hear, hear.) This was plain common sense—it was
the carrying out of an obvious principle, and was
better than all the rhodomontade which Lad
been uttered by all those exclusive ad-
vocates of humanity. Those short-time men

usurped our practical rights. He (Mr. Ward) would
say, give the people cheap food and plenty of employ-
ment, and then they would be able to work short
time. Lord Ashley's speech was full of kind feelings
and humanity—spurious humanity, as he considered
it. The speech was founded on superficial and
narrow views, and if it aimed at anything it aimed
at the subversion of the whole commercial system of
the country. It was not an accidental abuse the
Noble Lord deprecated, but it was a speech against
manufactures and against trade. He would
say the same thing of the speech of a
friend of his, Mr. Charles Buller, and he
disdained to say anything behind their backs
which he would not say to their faces, and which
he had' not said before them ebiewhere.—(Hear,
hear.) The theory of these men, if carried out,
would be the ruin of trade, and all concerned in it.
It was strange that those public journals which con-
tradicted one another in everything else, were agreed
in one point. The Mori,* Post—(Laughter, and
cries of "Oh t")—was full of eulogy upon Mr.
Oastler. Now he (Mr. Ward) considered Mr.
Oastler a very well-intentioned fireman—(Laughter)
—a man who would set a stack on fire with the very
best intentions—there never was so well-intentioned
a mischief-maker.—(Hear and laughter.) Mr. Oast-
ler said it was the demon of competition that
produced that ugly monster "cheapness." Why,
it was the working classes themselves, whom
he pretended to advocate, that had the greatest
interest in cheapness. Nothing could be made
dear without its coming home to them. (The Hon.
Gentleman made some further quotations from Mr.
Oastler'a speeches against the extension of trade with
China and India, whilst the people at home were in
want.) They should, he said, make clothing for
themselves at home, instead of ruining foreign coun-
tries, in order to force our trade upon them. And
such were the sentiments, the preposterous
doctrines, which the Post supported • and this
was the nonsense which the Post called
broad facts and enlightened principles of
political economy I Mr. Oastler said if the British
manufacturers continued to export their goods, they
would rot in the store-houses of foreign countries.
Now, the character for common sense of the gentle-
men around him had been sometimes impugned, but
never to such an extent as that if they sent a cargo,
which rotted for want of customers in a foreign store-
house, they would send others with a prospect of
meeting with the same fate.—(Hear hear.) Why it
was by foreign trade our people lived. What did
Mr. Gladstone say ? Why, that a reduction of 1-15th
in our foreign trade had produced all the calamities
which resulted from the depression of trade in Lanes-
.shire and the other manufacturing districts, which
Dr. Taylor had so emphatically depicted. It was to
foreign trade the wives and daughters of Lancashire
spinners were indebted for garments and house furni-
ture, which would have been articles of luxury to a
Plantagenet Princess.—(Hear, hear.) He now came
to another great authority—the Northern Star—the
organ of the Chartists: What Said Mr. Fear-
gus O'Connor ? He said that the factory ques-
tion was a measure in importance only second to
the Charter itself. It was not a Ten Hours' Bill he
advocated as a practical limit to labour. He did not
acquiesce in any such principle—far from it ; for,
although ten hours was a comparative improvement
on the Government scheme of fourteen hours, yet he
held the imposition inflicted by the amendment as
positively cruel and murderous. No full-grown man
could devote twelve hours a day to his business with-
out sustaining an injury to his health. The poor
should have regular holidays. He (Mr. Ward) did
not wish, any more than Mr. O'Connor, that the poor
should be subjected to any cruelty or hardship. He
dared say they would like ten hours better than twelve
—so would he, but he did net know the way by
which they could arrive at it without injuring
their condition. A man must work to live
in this country. The condition of the labour-
ing classes was certainly harder in this country
than in others which were less wealthy. But
he did not think the condition of the working-classes
could be improved by legislative enactments restrict-
ing the hours of labour. Suppose, for a moment, that
the theory of these men could be 'carried out—sup-
pose Lord Ashley's principle tt*triction could be
acted upon, that labour was to Iv restricted-.---that
everything was to be regulated by Acts of Parliament
—and the whole business of theicountry managed by
the landed majority in the House of Commons. Did
they wish for that? Had they not had enough of it?
Lord Ashley's Ten Hours' Bill was striking the largest
rivet out of the labourer's fetter. It was recognising the
great principle of restriction, so said Feargus O'Con-
nor. He (Mr. O'Connor) cordially supported Lord
Ashley's principle of restriction, for, said he, if the
time of labour was not restricted the labourer could
not compete with the master. He (Mr. Ward) con-
fessed he did not understand this sort of reasoning.
The great object of the operative was to gain
a livelihood by his labour.—(Hear.) lie heartily
wished that to gain that livelihood it was not neces-
sary for the operatives to work more than ten hours—
so did all those gentlemen around him, but he and
they perfectly well knew that dabbling with Acts of
Parliament would never effect so desirable a con-
summation. Just let them look for a moment at the
question as it really stood. Suppose they- restricted
labour to ten hours. In that case wages would fall, it
was generally apprehended, 25 per cent., or, according
to the opinions of others, thousands of working men
would be thrown out of employment, and there
would be greater competition among the working
classes ; manufactured goods would be dearer ; people
would pay more for less ; and thus whilst there were
dear goods, there would be a fewer number of opera-
tives employed, and consequently a fewer number able
to purchase these goods. A million and a half were
employed in factories—suppose all these received
higher wages, then the natural consequence would
be, that the manufactured articles would be higher
priced. See how much all the other members of the
community would be affected by those high prices.
Again, the labourers in every other department would
expect similar restrictions in the hours of toil; they
would ask for the same boon ; they would
call for Acts of Parliament, which the ad-
vocates of the restrictive system declared afforded
a greater leisure, and invigorated the health and
improved the morality of the people. There could
be no just reason for refusing to extend the. prin-
ciple, and what the effect of such legislation would
be on the interests of the country it would be easy to
determine.—(Cheers.) Let them not be misled by
false or vague theories. Let them not try ex
periments which must eventuate in the most fearful
results. They had arrived at a most critical
period. They had come to a crisis. They
stood at what the. Germans called entschiedenpunkt
—that was the point of discussion. They must
distinguish betweetY the evil and the good
—between the Mt kdirthe fictitious—and not allow
those absurd theories of restriction upon labour to
throw the country into the same state of chaos which
the maximum Bill produced in France. The wages
of labour in that country, it was well known, was
attempted to be regulated by the Government. They
issued a quantity of paper, called assignats, which when
the mechanic presented to the shopkeeper would not
be accepted for more than one•fifth or one-fourth of
the amount which they purported to represent. But
the Convention, as Lord Ashley would, soon found
out their mistake. The next step the Conven-
tion took was to fix the price of every saleable ar-
ticle—first they took bread, then cotton and sugar, and
they took care to keep the guillotine at
work for all who dared to question the propriety of
their policy. The consequence was that in six weeks
all the retail shops in Paris were shut up; not a
single man would venture to sell his goods for these
assignats. Within twelve months the law was ab-
rogated by common consent. The people of Eng-
land had a plain and simple course before
them. He advocated as much as any man
increased leisure and increased enjoyments to every
class, but with respect to the mode of arriving at it,
he called upon them in the most earnest manner to
protest against those newfangled doctrines which had
been so industriously circulated amongst them, and
to proclaim their decided conviction that there was
nothing could insure the prominent im-
provement and comfort of the people of this
country, or ameliorate the sufferings, or lighten the
burdens of the working man, but that legislative
change which would enable him to exchange the pro-
duct of his labour, in a fair and equitable form, in
all the markets of the world.—(Great cheering.) If
a more effective receipt than this could be shown him
for the present social disease, he would be anxious and
willing to support it; but, as such had not been
pointed out, he would be guided by those principles
which clearly led to this object, instead of embarking
in a route of which he would never see the end.
The Hon. Gentleman concluded amid loud and
prolonged cheering.
The CIIAIRMAN next introduced
Colonel THOMPSON to the meeting. The Gallant
Colonel, on advancing to the front of the stage, was
received with reiterated cheers. He said—it would