The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-21 00:00:00

c4nticipate any objection to the second reading. It
was a Bill to amend the lam relating to
factories which was passed in 1836, and the measure
was foundrd on the report of the Commissioners on
that subject. He would now endeavour to explain
what difference there was between the proposed and
the existing law. The first alteration proposed was
with reTeet to children in factories. At present
children from nine to thirteen years of age worked
nine hours a day. Now the present Bill, in the first
place, proposed to make the age eight instead of nine,
and to decrease the hours of labour to six and a half

hours, making certain provisions with respect to the
children going to school for a certain number of hours
in each day, namely, three and a half hours in sum-
mer and two and a half in winter; and the
utmost work for any male child under the
provisions of the . new Act would be seven
hours. He was sure that he need not point
out to their Lordships the fact that such a provision
would prevent a great deal of overworking in chil-
dren. The regulation by the law, as it now stood,
was, that all young persons between thirteen and
eighteen. should be restricted to twelve hours' labour.
The present Bill made no alteration in that respect,
but it restricted the labour of females and young per-
sons. The other provisions of the Bill affected the
inspectors. In the former Bill they had the power of
acting as magistrates, and making rules and regula-
tions ; both those powers were by the present Bill
taken away. It was thought necessary that the re-
gulations should be fixed by law, and not be left to
the discretion of the inspectors. This Bill provided
that no child should be allowed to go into a factory
without a surgeon's certificate, and the expense of
those certificates was to be defrayed by the millowner.
The Bill 'also provided that the existing fines upon
millowners for infringing the provisions of the factory
laws should be reduced, so as to insure their being
imposed in every case where it should be necessary.
The Bill also contained provisions respecting ma-
chinery, inasmuch as it provided that certain guards
should be placed round the machinery in facto-
ries, so as to protect the persons employed upon
it. These were the general provisions of the
Bill. Their Lordships were aware that there
had been considerasile difficulty in passing
this Bill through the House of Commons. The Go-
vernment, unfortunately, were compelled to differ
with some of their best supporters. But there were
times when it was the duty of the Government to be
firm. It was the duty of the Government to inform
themselves, as well as they could, upon the particular
subject before they proposed any law, and they had
studiously done so with respect to this Bill.
The Marquis of NORMANBY said the Noble
Lord had introduced this Bill with sufficient clear-
ness, but, at the same time, he had not entered much
into detail as to the principles upon which the mea-
sure had been introduced by the Government. Hav-
ing occupied the department of the Government be-
fore which this subject more immediately came, he
(the Marquis of Normanby) had devoted considerable
attention to it. He felt that the present Bill did not
go far enough.—(Cheers.) His opinion, in spite
of the ironical cheer from his Noble Friends behind
him, was, that as they had once commenced inter-
ference with labour, the Bill did not go far
enough. No doubt, in stating this opinion, he should
be placed with those who had been termed idle philan-
thropists ; but this would not deter him from the full
expression of his opinions upon the subject. He had
always felt that, owing to the vast accumulation of
population in the manufacturing districts, some mea-
sure of legislation was necessary with respect to the
hours of labour of the working portion of that popu-
lation. He had observed that, for many years past,
the owners of factories had employed women and chil-
dren whenever they could, to the exclusion of the male
portion of the population ; and it was a very common
thing, in the manufacturing districts, to see a mother
and her children working, while the husband was at
home, living in a state of forced idleness. He believed
that a limitation of the laws of labour could, in a
great measure, remedy this evil. He did not believe
that a reduction in the hours of labour to ten hours
would injure any branch of our manufactures.
Twelve hours daily toil was too much, for it would
only leave about nine hours of repose, inasmuch as
one hour and a half would be daily consumed in the
meals of the operative, and the other hour and a half
would be consumed in going to and from the factory.
Those who worked by tilling the soil did not work,
on the average, twelve hours per day through the
year, because their hours were limited by the light of
day. Why, then, should the operatives in the manu-
facturing districts work longer? He (the Marquis
of Normanby) was aware that, in expressing this
opinion, he was differing from many of those with
whom he had the happiness usually to concur,
He did not intend to make any motion on the sub-
ject, or to offer any opposition to this stage of the
Bill ; he had merely risen to enter his protest
against that portion of the Bill which referred to the
hours of labour, as it was his firm conviction, that
the limits which had been proposed were much too
great. He did not think it was necessary to do more
than state his opinions upon this question. Much
as he regarded its importance in itself, he regarded it
much more in consequence of the manner in
which it had been brought to its present state.
Looking to the names by which the measure had
eventually passed in the other House, he thought
the means by which those names had been obtained
were of great importance.
The Earl of DEVON put it to the Noble Mar-
quis whether it was proper that they should in that
House discuss the grounds upon which Members of
the other llouse had given their votes ?
Lord KENYON thought the Noble Marquis was
in perfect order in discussing the manner in which
the Bill had come up to that House ; but he was not
in order in commenting on individual votes in the
other House of Parliament.
The Marquis of NORMANBY said that he did
not mean to remark upon the individual votes. But
as it had been asserted in the other House, dur-
ing the discussion of that Bill, that the working
classes were not represented in Parliament, he felt it
right to express his regret that anything should have
been done to justify that statement, and to make the
people discontented with the present state of the Con-
stitution, and to impress them with the belief that
however they might be virtually represented in Par-
liament, their interestswere not represented. He did
not think that the seat of any one Member of the
House of Commons would be affected by the vote
which he had given upon that question, because it did
not affect the interest of those who were directly af-
fected. In the northern division of the county of
York there was, even amongst that class of electors,
a strong feeling upon the subject and there
would be a great deal of surprise that the Go-
vernment, which had received so great a support
there, should stake its existence upon that Bill. If he
supported the Government, he would have thought
their conduct most injudicious and unfortunate. See-
ing that he could gain nothing by resisting the second
reading of the Bill, he would not oppose it, but con-
tent himself by giving his protest against it.
Lord BROUGHAM would occupy the House
very shortly'; but he must say that from
the very beginning of his Noble Friend's speech to
the end of it, he had only heard reasons
why he (Lord Brougham) was opposed to the Bill in
tote. He opposed a Twelve Hours' Bill and a Ten
Hours' Bill,—(Hear, hear.) Those who opposed any
interference with labour might go so far as to agree
with the restriction of twelve hours ; but that was no
reason why they should go a stage further, and vote
for a ten hours He had already so fully expressed
his opinions or the subject, when the Labour in
Mines Bill was before the House, that it was not
necessary to take up the time of the .House at any
length in that discussion. His Noble Friend re-
gretted that the House of Commons had come to this
decision, because he thought that it would be the
means of convincing the working classes that the
Reform Bill had not done them justice—that they
were not represented in that House, because that
branch of the Legislature refused to say that the peo-
ple should have a legislative shackle put upon them,
and that they should not work as many hours as they
found themselves able to do, and as they wished to
work. These shackles would be as oppressive as any
of those on the other side of the Atlantic. It would
place those people under the shackles of an Act of
Parliament, and would not leave them at liberty to
exert their natural powers to their own best
advantage. How would any higher class of la-
bourers like to be confined to ten hours of labour?
But it was from the blunder 'that they would get
twelve hours' wages for ten hours' work, that the whole
outcry arose.—(Fear, hear.) He could only ascribe
the support of f uch a measure as this to a mistaken
humanity on the part of its promoters.—(Hear.)
It had been said that the agricultural labourers were
exempt from such toil as those engaged in the facto-
ries. It was sail that those had more bread and less
labour. But that was not the fact, and if ever the
question of the condition of labourers in the factories
came before the House, he would be prepared to
show that the condition of the agricultural labourers
was much worse.—(Hear, hear.) He would show
that they were hardly fed; badly clad, severely
wrought.—(Hear, hear.) He would show that in
those districts where fuel was dear, they returned—
men and boys, and women, too—in inclement weather,
through rain and through snow, to houses which
(lid not keep out the wind and the rain—to
beds which were not once dry throughout
the entire winter--(Hear, hear)—and with, clothes
which, in wet seasons, were always wet.—(Hear.)
A boy of 17 followed the plough ; he was exposed to
all species of weather, and' yet nobody thought of
protecting him ; they left him to make his own bar-
gain, and if he was under the age that had been
adverted to, he was left to the care of his parents as
his natural protectors. He warned their Lordships
not to interfere with the provisions of nature which
-bad implaeted in parents the love of their children.
The Legislature ought to interfere between