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

sequences, and that did nothing to prevent them,

(Hear, hear.) But whether the loss fell upon capital,
or whether it would fall upon wages, was
a ' matter to the working classes of comparative
indifference. The great injury and the great loss to
them would arise from the diminished demand for the
only property they possessed—their labour, and which
must cause a fall in the amount of the wages on which
so much of their well-being, their virtue, and their hap-
piness depended. They might talk of confiscation; but
he must say it seemed to him that this Act, if it passed,
would be a confiscation of the most wide-spread kind; it
would be a confiscation of the only property the masses
possessed; it would be a confiscation of one-sixth part
of the working capital of the country. Many kinds
of confiscation had had the excuse proffered for
them, that they were made for the benefit of
others ; but in this case there was no such excuse. It
placed in some jeopardy the capital of the country ; it
placed in some jeopardy the national prosperity. What,
then, was the excuse for it to the working classes ? It
was said that it was calculated to benefit them. Now he
(Sir J. Graham) would be satisfied, if he thought the
matter was understood by the working classes them -
selves. What was stated by the Hon. Member for Old-
ham ? No man wa; better acquainted with the work-
ing classes than the Hon. Member, and he said it had
got into their heads that they worked too hard, and pro-
duced too much, and that if they laboured less profits
would rise, and wages would not fall. Now he was com-
pelled to combat this opinion. He thought that by the
operation of such an Act, profits could not rise, and
that wages must fall. They had in their heads the in-
verse of that proposition—that prices must rise, and
that wages would rise also. Now he (Sir J. Graham)
held that those who were the leaders of this movement
were more responsible than public men almost ever were,
for setting before the working classes the truth of this
matter. It was no slight point of difference ; and until
to-night he had really believed that the Noble Lord
would be slow to admit as a fact that wages would not
be affected by his proposal. But at all the public meetings
that bad been held on this question, this was the doc-
trine that was maintained.—(" No, no.") He spoke
in the presence of an Hon. Member who attended
those meetings, and he would appeal to the words of the
Hon. Member for Oldham, who well knew the state of
opinion among the working classes, and who was the
coadjutor of the Noble Lord, and a great champion of the
Ten Hours' Bill.—(He read the passage from the Hon.
Member for Oldham's speech, as before given.) Now
he (Sir James Graham) thought that on a subject of this
nature it was necessary the Noble Lord should state
openly and manfully his own opinion ; for if the working
classes were deceived, if they were told that the effect of
the measure would be of little importance to them in
respect of wages—if they were led to press for the
measure, and disappointment should ensue, it would be
no consolation to them to knew that the persons
whom in their despair they would most blame
were persons whom they would say, unjustly, but in the
bitterness of their hearts would say, ought to have bet-
tered their real interests, while they had but ministered
to their prejudices and passions.—(Hear.) Those,
therefore, who advocated this measure were most re-
sponsible for the statement of their real opinions on
this subject. If they contended that the measure would
not be followed by a fall of wages—if they told the
working classes they might seek with perfect impunity
this abridgment of their time of labour, that was a fair
question for debate in that House. But if they were
wrong, if wages should fall, then he contended, those
who supported this proposition incurred a responsibility
greater than ever men had incurred, with respect to the
, arrangements of civilised society. He saw as clearly as
anything was ever seen, that this would be the end, and
there was no responsibility he would not incur, rather
than the responsibility of supporting this proposition.
The Noble Lord asserted that he was violating the
principles of a representative government by pressing
the re-consideration of this question. If, in asking for
this revision, he had employed any means but those of ar-
gument and reasoning, then he should consider himself to
blame; but being-resolved not to incur the responsibility of
such a decision, he submitted that he had a right to call
upon the House, while it was yet time, to reconsider the
course it had taken : and if, on consideration and argu-
ment that judgment should be sanctioned and confirmed,
then surely he had done nothing inconsistent with the
principles of representative government ;Thor, he hoped,
was there anythiny improper or overbearing in saying
that he would prefer,retiring from public life rather than
consent to this proposition. Having dwelt rather on
the principles than the details of this question, he was
unwilling to follow the Noble Lord into all those details
into which he had entered. His ;positions were these--
that there would not be a diminution of production, and
that wages and prices would rise ; and the Noble Lord
stated, on authority of a person wom he did not name,
that the reduction in the price of wages, would not be
equal to, or:co-extensive with, the reduction of time. Now
he had a statement from 328 master manufacturers, em-
ploying 100,000 hands, and paying 50,0001. per week in
wages, amounting to two millions and a half annually.
They all stated that the measure now contemplated
would prove fatal to the profits on their capital, and
would entail on their labourers a large and serious re-
duction of wages. The Noble Lord had also mentioned
that the reduction in the price of the labour employed
on a yard of cloth would be of a penny per yard. This
would amount to sd. on 25 yards. Now, 25 yards per
day was a low estimate for the produce of each loom
during the day; thus there would be a loss of sd. per
day upon each loom, which in a moderate-sized esta-
blishment of two hundred looms, would amount to
4/. 3s. 4d. per day ; and on the week a loss
of 231. 19s. 6d. On the whole year the loss would be
1,196/., or about 10 per cent. on the whole capital em-
barked in the concern. This statement he had attested
by most competent authority. Mr. Kinnersley stated
that in a mill consisting of 1,600 looms, the loss would
be 13/. 6s. Bd. per day, 91/. 13s. 4d. per week, 9,583/. per
year—a sum equivalent to a loss of 5 per cent. on
191,0001. These wore the interests they were about to
touch ; these were the interests which they would
destroy ; their interference would give the death-blow
to their manufacturing greatness. He was unwilling to
detain the House at greater length ; yet it was important,
taking the stand on the subject which he did, that he
should show he had some reason on his side. The Noble
Lord said that, putting the loss at one-sixth, it was
placing it much too high, but he was ready to allow a
diminution of one-twelfth. He (Sir J. Graham) would
take it at the lower amount. He was informed that the
fixed charges of production in such concerns were very
nearly equal to the amounts paid, and a loss of one-
twelfth on the amount of wages would also
be a loss of ono- twelfth on the fixed capital.
Even upon the data of the Noble Lord, the loss to the
employers by the reduction of time added to the loss on
the fixed capital to be transferred would amount to a
reduction of one-sixth of the existing wages enjoyed
by the workmen. Unless they supposed that, concur-
rently with the loss of' 20 per cent. in their wages, there
was to be a correspondent reduction on the price of the
articles of the first necessity, he could not believe
that any misfortune that could befal the working classes
would be more disastrous and fatal than such a reduc-
tion.—(Cheers.) He was sorry the Noble Lord the
Member for London was not in his place. That Noble
Lord was the representative of the great capital of the
commercial world. When, in the year 1839, his Noble
Friend brought forward the proposition which they'were
now discussing, the last occasion which he did so while
the Noble Lord was in office, the Noble Lord then, having
the responsibility of the conduct of public affairs upon
him, declared that a proposition for shortening the hours
of labour, with the present high price of provisions un-
reduced, was a proposition of the greatest inhumanity.
His Noble Friend said he was accused of inhumanity.
That was the first occasion on which the charge of
inhumanity was preferred against his Noble Friend.
It was made by the Noble Lord the Member for London.
—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord said it was a cruel
proposition, and that it would be the ruin of the country.
That was the view which the Noble Lord now repre-
senting the emporium of the commerce of the world took
on the moral consideration of the question. He said it
was inhuman, and would be cruel in practice, and he
should vote against it.—(Cheers.) He (Sir J. Graham)
who was then in opposition, and opposed to the general
pslicy of the Noble Lord, did not shrink from the
obloquy of voting with the Noble Lord against the
proposition of his Noble Friend, and he did so because
he concurred with the Noble Lord in the opinion that it
would be, in its practical result, inhuman and cruel
towards the working classes. That was the view the
Noble Lord took of the moral part of the question. Was
that all? The Noble Lord was not then the representa-
tive of London, but he was responsible for the conduct
of public affairs.—(Hear, hear.) Had the Noble Lord
changed his opinion since he went into opposition, or
since the commencement of the time that be went into
opposition? By no means. The Noble Lord, now the
representative of the City of London—the Noble Lord
who led the opposition with such abilitity and
power against the Executive Government, thought—
there were some rumours of deputations being sent to
the Government, and that there were some interviews on
the first day of the session of 1842, and, being jealous
on the subject, he thought that Government were about
to give way to popular impulses and feelings in a matter
which he considered as primarily important to the na-
tional interests. On the 3d of February, 1842, in the
present Parliament, the Noble Lord dwelt on the com-
mercial view of the subject—the moral view he took in
1839—and he would read to the House what that view
was. After alluding to the rumours of interviews which
were held by certain parties whom he described as the
social editors of some 'New Moral World,' " the
Noble Lord said that " the limitation of labour to ten
hours, if adopted, would cut up by the roots the manufac-
turing prosperity of this country." (Loud cheers.)
There was the opinion of the Noble Lord on the moral
effects of the measure when he had the responsibilities of
a Minister of the Crown in 1839, that it was an in-
human and cruel measure.—(Hear, hear.) There was
his opinion on the commercial view in 1842, when he said
it would cut up by the roots the manufacturing prosperity
of the country, and though the Noble Lord was absent
now, he hoped before the debate closed they would have
the advantage of hearing what new facts and circum-
stances came to light to induce him to alter his opinion
since then.—(Hear.) He (Sir J. Graham) voted with
the Noble Lord in 1839. He agreed with him in 1842,
and, regardless of the consequences, it was his firm de-
termination to give the motion of the Noble Lord his un-
compromising opposition.—(Cheers.) His Noble Friend
asked why they had not declared they entertained those
strong opinions. Why, had they not voted with the Go-
vernment in 1839, which they laboured to overthrow,
against the proposition of the Noble Lord? Was not
that sufficient evidence of their opinions ? They had
not yielded one inch. Did not the Noble Lord give it to
be understood that he would not take part in their coun-
sels, because they would not compromise any of their
opinions on the subject, and that it was on this ground
they lost the great advantages of his services?—(" No,
no," from Lord Ashley.) He understood the Noble
Lord tc, say, that because some concession was not made
on this subject he did not take office, and did not yield
to the fasoituttions of office. Ile was r9601Y04 to resist