The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-05-19 00:00:00

gry feeling existing I
i Cat

o weremakiogecor-mous I

,Ett. contended, on the authority of the
ed in favour of this bill, that
beat it than they did about
lore than they did about the re-
Their delegates bad published a
they had stated the readiness of the
classes to accept a reduction of the hours of la-
and to leave the value and the price of labour to be
ed between themselves and their employers. They
were ready to run all risks if this change were but made.
The corn-laws, he trusted, were on the point of being re-
pealed, and therefore the advocates of this measure, acting
on the admissions of Mr. Henry Ashworth and Messrs.
Marshall, were justified in expecting, that though the
money was

number of petitions present
the opera

cared more a

asure—ay
-laws.

peal of the CO
Inf

Drial, in whic

s of the operatives might be somewhat lower
in case it were made law, the labourers themselves would
not be worse off in consequence of th imultaneous re-
mluction which would take place in the Thee of food. At
the same time he was not prepared to admit that there
must be a diminution of produce as a result of the dimi-
nution of the hours of work. If the master manufactu-
rers continued to withhold their assent from this bill, they
most expect to be told, as they had told the landowners,
that their interests could not be allowed to stand in the
way of the interests of the great mass of the people.
Lord J. MANNERS considered that this question was
virtually settled out of doors, inasmuch as the affections
and passions of the people, as well as their deliberate opi-
nions and convictions, were enlisted in its favour. He
then proceeded to examine the facts, figures, and inqui-
ries into which Sir J. Graham had plunged, in order to
vindicate his opposition to this bill, and pointed out the
inconsistency of the matter manufacturers, in boasting,
on the discussion for the repeal of the corn-laws, that
they did not care for the miserable protection of 20 per
cent. upon manufactures, and in declaring on the present
Occasion, that so great was the press of foreign competi-
tion that they could not stand against it, if the protection,
which they enjoyed in working their operatives twelve
hours a-day, were taken from them. He also trusted
that the house would not forget the ceaseless ridicule of
the bugbear of foreign competition which it bad recently
heard night after night from the master manufacturers,
who supported the doctrines of free trade. He denied the
assumption of Sir J. Graham, that this bill would reduce
the wages of the working man, and treated with some
scorn his calculation that it would be tantamount to the
imposition of a tax of 16 per cent. on the working people.
He believed that, instead of wages falling in consequence
of the adoption of this bill, they would only be spread
wore equally over the surface of the whole year's labour;
and that instead of a period of intolerable toil, followed
by a period of no work at all, there would be an equal
-flow of labour from one end of the year to the other.

Mr. CARDWELL opposed the bill, on the ground that it
would be deeply injurious to 800,000 hardworking manu-
facturers, whose subsistence was directly dependent upon
the wages which they received for their labour. He called
upon the house not to curtail the amount of wages on the
one hand, whilst it was diminishing the price of the ne-
cessaries of life on the other. This measure, if passed into
law, would bring about first a contention between masters
and men on the subject of wages, and afterwards a period
of common suffering to both.