The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-03-26 00:00:00

PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT.

(Continuel fron first page of Supplement.)
HOUSE OF COMMONS.—FRIDAY,

The Factories Bill was proceeded with in committee,
and an am?,ndinent was moved by Mr. TATTON EGERTON,
with the view of exempting silk factories from the opera-
tion of the bill, it being a comparatively light and healthy
employment.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM objected to omitting silk factories
altogether from the bill, but said he had introduced certain
modifications by which the lighter processes of the manu-
facture would not be subjected to the same provisions as
other factory employment.
After some discussion, the amendment was withdrawn.
On the eighth clause being proposed,
Lord ASHLEY moved his amendment, that the word
" ten " be substituted for the word " twelve." He had
brought this question before the house upon the broad
principles of justice and humanity, and did not believe it
would lead to a reduction of wages, for in 1836, when he
went through the manufacturing districts, he found that
the operatives were receiving as much for eight hours'
labour as they had formerly been in the habit of receiving
for twelve hours ; but even if this were the result, the
operatives were themselves willing to submit to an abate-
ment of their wages with a view of receiving the ad-
ditional time for their improvement ; nor could this be
esteemed such a misfortune if Mr. M. Gibson was correct
as to the high wages the operatives were now receiving.
The noble lord called upon the government and upon the
house to recollect that the question had been for thirteen
years growing to its present magnitude, and he warned
them against the danger of disappointing the long-cherished
hopes of the operatives, and of lessening themselves in the
estimation of the public, by rescinding the vote they had
already agreed to.
Sir W. CLAY opposed the motion, contending that the
whole evil of this erroneous legislation would fall upon the
operatives whom it professed to serve.
Mr. M. MILNES thought the proceeding undignified on
the part of the government in taking advantages of chance
contingencies to endeavour to overturn the solemn decision
of the house. Ile reminded the house of the fact, that
the delegates of the operatives of Yorkshire and Lan-
cashire had issued an address, stating that they had ex-
amined paragraph by paragraph the whole of Lord Ashley's
speech, and could vouch, from their own experience, for
the correctness of every statement.
Mr. CARDWELL was opposed to the proposition of Lord
Ashley. Every derangement of labour caused additional
:
improvements in machinery, which called forth an increase
of infant labour in lieu of that of adults. They should,
however, beware of encouraging foreign competition, by
legislating on short-sighted principles of humanity. Al-
ready Belgium had English machinery, but was in want of
capital. If, however, we continued to legislate too much
between the employer and the employed, we might find
ere long that British capital would be as abundant in
Belgium as British machinery.
Lord JOHN MANNERS gave his unhesitating support to
the proposition of Lord Asley, asserting that it was pre-
posterous to suppose that there could be any weight in the
argument that the commercial prosperity of England
could be dependent upon the circumstance as to whether
women or children should work ten or twelve hours in the
day.
Mr. WARD freely admitted that in a moral as well as
social point of view ten hours' labour was better than
twelve; but he was still justified in opposing the limited
time without any imputation on his feelings of humanity,
when it was remembered that in the consideration of this
question was involved an export trade of no less than forty
millions. The fact was that we were overridden oy an im-
perious necessity, which forbade such theoretical experi-
ments.
Sir R. INGLis said that this question was in one re-
spect extraordinary, for it was a proposition of the go-
vernment supported by ordinary opponents of that
government, while some 99 of its ordinary supporters
were now arrayed against it. He had no doubt that the
triumph of his noble friend (Lord Ashley) on Monday
would lead to ultimate success, whether Sir R. Peel, Lord
John Russell, or Lord Ashley should be the leaders of
that house.
Mr. C. BULLER, in supporting Lord Ashley's amend-
ment, admitted that it would be a departure from the
ancient principles of legislation ; but he was prepared to
apply new principles of legislation to a new social state ;
for it would scarcely be denied that the old system pro-
ceeded too much upon the principle of leaving the people
to shift for themselves. The hon. member referred to the
reports in circulation as to the probability of the amend-
ment, if carried, leading to a repeal of the corn law, and
called upon hon. members who had voted in favour of
that amendment, not to hold out to the people of England,
by rescinding that vote, that they were willing to sacrifice
every principle and every feeling of humanity in order to
uphold that law.
Mr. COLL TT moved the adjournment of the debate.
Mr. T. DicoMBE called upon the government not to
divide agaiiis the adjournment without favouring the
house with some declaration of the reasons why they
called upon the house to rescind its vote of Monday night.
He believed the hearts and hopes of the operatives through-
out the kingdom were fixed upon the success of the
amendment. _ _ _ .__. .

Sir JAMES GRAHAM said he would have willingly ac-
ceded to this amendment if he really thought it would
benefit the operatives of the kingdom, but considering all
the circumstances, he had not the slightest hesitation in
again taking the senseof the committee upon the division of
Monday, which had more or less taken him by surprise.
The right hon. baronet entered at some length into the
question, adducing information with which he had been
furnished since the former debate to prove that the amend-
ment would be injurious to all and destructive to some
branches of our manufactures. _

Mr. COLLETT withdrew his motion of adjournment.

Mr. BECKETT and Mr. ALDAM severally stated that the
manufacturers of Leeds, though opposed to Lord Ashley's
amendment, were in favour of an eleven hours bill.
After some further discussion, the committee divided,
and the original motion (twelve hours) was lost by a
majority of 186 to 183.
The committee again divided upon Lord Ashley's
amendment, which was also lost by a majority of 188
to 181.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM then said he would take time until
Monday to consider what course he would pursue.
Lord ASHLEY declared that although defeated now he
should still continue to persevere, until he should, with
God's blessing, ultimately succeed.