^* rose to move the Clause of which he had given notice, and spoke to the following effect: It may seem to be almost superfluous, after three distinct declarations of this House, (and in a single Session,) to appeal again, by rhetoric or argument, to your feelings or understanding. We determined only seven weeks ago, three times actually, that the period of labour should be less than twelve hours; and twice virtually, that it should not exceed ten. The world at large believed that a middle term would be offered; but Her Majesty's Ministers have refused concession—they have invited, nay more, have compelled us to revive the debate; and now summon the House of Commons to revoke its decision. We, then, who stand in the old paths, and protest against this novel and somewhat questionable course, shall not be regarded as guilty of wearying your attention, and wasting your time, if we urge every possible consideration, and press forward every hitherto-omitted argument, as some counterpoise to the enormous weight of ministerial influence and official autho- rity. Sir, I cannot but be aware that enough has been said on the physical and social condition of the people—one way or the other, the minds of all are fully made up; and it is, indeed, unnecessary to say more, as all, even the hottest of my opponents, admit that a reduction of the hours of labour, could it be effected without injury to the workmen and manufacturers, would be highly desirable. The only objection, then, in the minds of many honourable and thinking men, is the danger to the people themselves; and I find myself in the condition of being summoned to refute the charge, that I, who propose the scheme, am far more inhuman than those who resist it. Now I, for one, will reject the use of such epithets as these; nor will I retort any accusations that, here or elsewhere, have cast on me the imputation of malignity or cant. I regret but one thing in the course of these debates; I deeply regret that I should have been accused of calumniating the whole body of masters—I totally disclaim it—I should be ashamed of myself if I held such language towards a class of men that can boast of as worthy and munificent individuals as ever supported or adorned the institutions of this country—nor am I, because I address myself to a particular evil, to be considered as the enemy of the Factory System—remove some few imperfections, and it may become a blessing, if not absolutely, at any rate relatively to the present state of our labouring people. Sir, when I first introduced this subject, I did not attempt to handle the commercial argument—I did not think it necessary for my view of the question, nor do I now; but I owe it to those, whose interests I represent, to show that I have not left any part without due consideration; that I have not rushed, like an enthusiast, into this career, neither knowing nor caring what consequences might ensue from the attainment of my ends. I said then, that I entertained a full confidence that what was morally wrong could not be politically right; I had, and I have, an equal confidence that what is morally right cannot be politically wrong; and everything, that I can acquire by thinking, reading;, and, above all, by communication with those who are able to instruct me from their practical experience, confirms my conclusion. And now, Sir, I shall entreat with much respect and earnestness, the indulgence of the House to a subject, always perhaps dry, and now both dry and somewhat exhausted. Now, after all that has been written and said on the subject, I can discover no more than four arguments urged by our opponents against this Measure, all of which are comprised in the Manchester Petition lately presented to this House. 1st. That the passing of a Ten Hours' Bill would cause a diminution of produce. 2nd. That there would take place a reduction, in the same proportion, of the value of the fixed capital employed in the trade. 3rd. That a diminution of wages would ensue, to the great injury of the workmen. 4th. A rise of price, and consequent peril of foreign competition. Even supposing that these assertions be separately, they cannot be collectively, true: it is very fair to place before us a variety of possible contingencies, but it must not be urged that we are threatened by a combination of them. Any one event may occur; but such an occurrence prevents, in one case at least, the full accomplishment of the other. Let us look at the first argument, that " the passing of a Ten Hours' Bill would cause a diminution of produce." It has hitherto been urged by all our antagonists, that a reduction of one-sixth of the time would involve a corresponding reduction of one-sixth of the produce. I am happy to say, that the opponents of the Bill have somewhat receded from their ground, and state, in their Petition, an abatement of one-seventh; this is so far a gain on our side of the argument. But is the case so? What authority do they urge for the assertion? Do they quote any facts? None on the face of the Petition. But I think I shall be able to urge some very sufficient reasons to disprove altogether these general assertions, and establish some more favourable to myself. The first statement to which I shall refer, is contained in a letter from a Gentleman who carries on a very large concern; employing, I believe, no less than 1,200 hands; it is dated March, 1844.—

^* From a corrected Report.

"It is a mistaken notion," writes this Gentleman, "to suppose that the produce of yarn or cloth from machinery, would be curtailed in an arithmetical proportion to the proposed reduction of working hours from twelve to ten, because in very many instances the workman can produce much or little during the day, as he feels disposed, or as his strength enables him; and in my own trade, in which we employ at least 1,200 hands, I have proved beyond a doubt, that whenever we have reduced the hours for working from twelve to ten per day, which is equal to one-sixth, the quantity of work produced has not fallen below one-tenth or even one-twelfth."

Another very important testimony is to be found in a valuable essay, published in 1831, entitled, "An Inquiry into the State of the Manufacturing Population," and written, I believe, by the owner of the largest establishment in Europe, Mr. Gregg:—

"That a reduction of the hours of labour would cause a corresponding reduction in the quantity produced," says the writer, "we entirely deny; it is probable, that if factories were to work ten hours instead of twelve, the loss in the quantity produced would not be one sixth, but only about one-twelfth, and in mule spinning scarcely so much. We know that in some cases, when the mills only worked four days in the week, they have often produced five days' quantity, and the men earned five days' wages. That this would be the case to a considerable extent every one must be aware, as all men will be able to work much harder for ten hours than they can for twelve."

Another Gentleman who is the proprietor of a large establishment, writes to me thus:—

"I am persuaded by experience, and from actual experiment, that the mill occupier would lose very little by such a regulation (a Ten Hours' Bill): the workers would be so improved in their physical condition, that they would do very nearly as much work in ten and a half as in twelve hours."

Now, I have been anxious to obtain upon this point the opinion also of the operative cotton-spinners themselves, and I submitted two questions to them to which I have received answers from twenty of the principal towns in Lancashire. My first question was, "Is the reduction in the produce in the direct proportion of the reduction in time— that is, would a reduction of one-sixth in the hours of work lead to the reduction of one-sixth in the amount of produce?" The answer I have received from twenty principal manufacturing towns was "Certainly not." My next question was, "At how much do you estimate the reduction of produce?" The answer took the view the most advantageous to my opponents, and was, "Not more than one-eighth." So far, then, as argument can go, and practical opinion, the case is established; there is no set-off to this statement; at least I have heard none; our adversaries have no where adduced actual facts to shew that the abatement of produce is, in any degree, proportionate to the abatement of time. Now the second argument may very probably follow on the foundation of the first, that "a reduction would take place, in the same proportion, of the value of the fixed capital employed in the trade;—this is not unlikely — but what does it amount to? Great authorities have calculated the diminution of produce by one-twelfth or about 8 per cent. Let us admit this sum, as indicating the amount of the diminution of value on the fixed capital. Is this pure loss? are there no compensating circumstances? Look at this estimate furnished to me by one of the largest proprietors in the cotton-trade of England.—Here it is.

"Calculations of expenditure saved by diminution of hours of labour.—Horse power at work in the concern 200; original fixed capital, 100,000l., or 500l. per horse power, which is the usual estimate. Diminution of produce by reason of two hours less labour, I will say 10 per cent., putting the argument advantageously for my opponents, for the reduction of produce will not exceed one-twelfth. The calculation will then stand thus:—On twelve hours time, or sixty-nine hours per week, the quantity of production is now measured by sixty-nine hours; and this table will show the yearly cost of fixed capital—

That is, 24 per cent. of the fixed capital for carrying on the concern, for a production of 69—say 69,000 bundles of manufactured goods —then 24 divided by 69=24–69, which is nearly ⅜ per cent. per annum of the fixed capital for each thousand bundles. On ten hours time, or fifty-nine hours per week, the production being calculated at 10 per cent. less, may be measured by sixty-two hours production—

That is, 20½ per cent. of the fixed capital for carrying on the concern for the production of 62,000 bundles—then 20½ divided by 62=20½–62, which is a trifle less per 1,000 bundles than when working twelve hours, so far as the fixed capital is concerned. Now from the above table, it appears that the cost of goods (allowing the wages to be reduced in proportion to the work done) will be less than at present."

But the cardinal argument of my honourable opponents is hung on the supposed reduction of the operatives' wages, and on the calculated mischiefs that would ensue to the work-people from so large an abatement of their weekly earnings. Sir, I have already observed, and I must observe again that these statements, founded, as they principally are, on the researches of Mr. Horner, must be taken with many grains of allowance; Mr. Horner, with perfect candour, admits the plea, when he tells us that he draws all his inferences from the statements by the masters, and that he has never been able to obtain, on the other side, the statements of the work-people. This is an important consideration: the men themselves take a different view; and while they admit an abatement of earnings, urge that it will be in a lower proportion. Sir, very hard things are said about the folly, and the nonsense, with other expressions equally pointed, of expecting twelve hours wages for ten hours work. Sir, I am not aware that anybody expected any such thing. It should be borne in mind that the earnings of these work-people are regulated by the piece, and not by time; that a man receives, every week, a certain sum, not for the labour, but for the produce of sixty-nine hours; and the abatement of his wages will be estimated, not by the limitation of the time, but by the reduced amount of yarn or cloth that he carries to the counting-house. A reduction of one-sixth of the time may involve, as I have endeavoured to shew, a reduction of one-twelfth of their earnings. Should the demand continue, and there is nothing in this Bill to affect either the demand, or the rate of spinning per pound, the wages will fall only in proportion to the abatement of produce, one-tenth or one-twelfth, for the prices of labour will be governed, like those of all commodities, by the demand and supply. To this extent the operatives anticipate fully a reduction of their earnings: I endeavoured to shew, some short time back, the calculations of household economy, by which they were prepared to meet even an abatement of one-sixth; this, however, is beyond the mark—the countervailing advantages of reduced time are so great, as compared with a reduction of wages, that they readily accept the loss, and find their interest in the improvement of health of body and mind; in social and domestic comfort; in the practice of household economy; and specially in the prolongation, by three or four years, of their working life, of their physical capacities to obtain a livelihood. The fourth and last argument with which I have to deal, is founded on an apprehended rise of price, and consequent advantages to the foreign competitor. Now, on this head I must produce two calculations exhibiting very minutely the degree to which such a result may take place. I will state it as founded on two establishments. The amount of sunk capital in each is 20,000l.; each having forty-horse power at work, one spinning No. 36, the principal count of yarn used; the other manufacturing shirting cloth from the same:—

Again, the time being reduced to sixty hours, or one-seventh less, as before observed, the production will not be reduced more than one-eighth, that is to say:—

This is the total cost for spinning 14,000 lbs., allowing profits and interest to remain the same, which is 33/10d. per lb., or one-tenth part of a penny more when working sixty hours instead of sixty-nine.

Which is the total cost for manufacturing 2,950 pieces of shirtings, being 2s. 4d. per piece, or ⅝ths of a penny more when working sixty hours instead of sixty-nine, allowing profits and interest to remain the same."

This, then, on a minute and accurate calculation, is the fair estimate of the advantage, if advantage it can be called, which is offered to the foreigner as a set off to the great advantages to be bestowed on our own people! But, Sir, I should like to try the question by the test of experience, and examine what has really been the effect upon production and upon the earnings of the workmen in all those cases where the hours of labour have been reduced. Forebodings were uttered of the most melancholy description—were they, any of them, fulfilled? This great question was agitated from 1815 to 1819. Several witnesses of experience and character maintained before Committees of the Lords and Commons in 1816, 1818, and 1819, the same propositions as those laid down in the Manchester Petition of the present year, that is to say, "the diminution of produce, the rise of price, the reduction of wages." Now observe; the hours of labour, before the restriction of 1820, ranged between thirteen and six teen in the day. The Secretary to the Associated Mill Owners in 1819, gave in the following table, which falls short of the exact truth; but this is its result. The total number of cotton mills was 325. Of these 5 worked 66 hours a week; 19 ditto, 68 to 68½; 38 ditto, 69, the present duration—in all 62. But the 263 which remained worked in a range from 70 to 93 hours a week. The population employed in the 62 mills was 7,486. But the population in the 263 mills was nearly 50,000. Here observe what a large proportion of the workers were occupied on the long periods of labour. Well, what was the result. In 1819 the Act passed, to take effect from January 1st, 1820, which reduced the hours in all the cotton factories to twelve actual working hours. It had been most boldly asserted that there would be a diminution of produce; but how was this confirmed? I will just compare the prophecy and the issue. In three years, from 1817 to 1819 inclusive, the cotton-wool imported was 451,934,946 lbs. Now 1820 was the first year under restriction of labour to 12 from 14 and 15 hours a day; in three years, from 1821 to 1823 inclusive, the cotton-wool imported was 466,776,751 lbs. The estimated weekly consumption in those years, before restriction, was, in 1817, 2,051,400 lbs.; 1818, 2,132,000 lbs.; and 1819, 2,116,809 lbs. In the three years after restriction the weekly consumption was, in 1821, 2,476,800 lbs,; and 1822, 2,750,100 lbs.; and 1823, 3,025,000 lbs. You must observe, too, there was no falling-off in aggregate production; for instance, the average quantity of cotton-yarn retained for home consumption, and exported in each year, before restriction, from 1818 to 1820, both inclusive, was 134,420,757 lbs.; whilst in the three years, from 1821 to 1823, after restriction, the quantity was 140,142,224 lbs. The official value of cotton goods exported from Great Britain in two years, 1818 and 1819, before restriction was 37,988,893l. In the three years after restriction, from 1821 and 1822, the official value was 46,202,208l. The official value of yarns for the two years exported before restriction, in 1818 and 1819, was 2,882,529l. In the two years after restriction, 1821 and 1822, the value was 4,250,450l. Look to the aggregate of goods for five years before and five years after restriction; from 1815 to 1819, both inclusive, the aggregate official value of goods exported was 95,787,626l. From 1821 to 1825 the aggregate official value was 124,090,698l. The statement of yarns, did I enter upon it, would be still more striking. But now, with respect to the second apprehension, which lay in "the consequent advance of prices, and in the advantage to the foreigner," that argument has proved no more true at to the past than I believe it will as to the future. The declared value of the cotton goods exported in 1818 and 1819, together, was 29,032,412l. before restriction. But the declared value of cotton goods exported in 1821 and 1822, together, was after restriction only 28,321,210l., being an increase of 21½ per cent. in the quantity, and a decrease of 2½ per cent. in the price. The same statement holds good in respect of the yarns exported. The declared value of yarns exported in 1818 and 1819 was 4,902,088l. The declared value in 1821 and 1822 was 4,915,207l., being an increase of 47½ per cent. in the quantity, as nearly as possible, at the same cost. The same might be seen on an aggregate of five years. The declared value of goods exported before restriction from 1815 to 1819, both included, was 75,445,940l. The declared value from 1821 to 1825, after restriction, was 72,249,105l. But let us consider still further the advantage given, as is said, to the foreigner, with respect to two countries from which the competition is the greatest. The import of cotton wool into France for consumption in 1820 was 20,203,000 kilogrammes, or, at 100 kilogrammes to 220½ lbs. 44,547,615 lbs. The same in 1840 was 52,942,000 kilogrammes, or about 116,737,110 lbs. being an increase of 162 per cent. The export of cotton twist and woven cottons from France in 1820 was 1,441,000 kilogrammes. The same in 1840, 4,446,000 kilogrammes, being an increase of 208½ per cent. The consumption of cotton in America in 1826 (I cannot obtain an earlier year), was 103,483 bales, or 38,392,193 lbs. The same in 1840, was 297,288 bales, or 110,293,848 lbs., being an increase of 187 per cent. The total value of manufactures exported from America in 1826, was 1,138,125 dollars, as stated in Hunt's Merchants' Magazine, published at New York. The total value in 1840 was 3,549,607 dollars, being an increase of 212 per cent. The statements respecting the French trade I believe to be strictly accurate, they are taken from Mr. MacGregor's tables. But now turn to the British trade. The imports of cotton wool into Great Britain for consumption in 1820 was 152,829,633 lbs. The import of cotton wool in 1840 was 592,488,010 lbs., being an increase of 288 per cent. The total of manufactured cottons (twist and goods) exported from Great Britain in 1820, as by official value, was 22,531,079l. The total value exported in 1840 was 73,124,730l., being an increase per cent. of 225. Thus, while foreign countries increased 162 per cent. in the first case (France) and 187 per cent. in the second (America) the amounts respectively of 44,547,6151bs., and 110,223,848 lbs. the British trade increased 288 per cent. on the amount of nearly 153,000,000. In support of my argument I quote Mr. M'Culloch:—

"It is ludicrous indeed," says that able writer, "to suppose that a half-peopled country like America, possessed of boundless tracks of unoccupied land of the highest degree of fertility, should be able successfully to contend in manufacturing industry with an old, settled, fully peopled and very rich country like Great Britain."

speaks like a man of sense. Now, the third point of alarm which I wish to test by the experience of the past, is the question urged so strongly then, and with double vehemence now, the reduction of wages! Now, here is the actual statement of the case, which will show how weak was the ground on which the assertion was based. I will take the facts without pretending to assign the causes. In 1818 and 1819, the two years preceding the limitation of the hours of labour, these were the wages of the operatives:—The fine spinners made 1l. 12s. per week, the coarse spinners from 20s. to 28s. per week, the women spinners 17s. per week, the reelers 10s., the stretchers 14s., the pickers 9s. I find from the same table—a table in Tooke's "High and Low Prices"—that in 1820, the first year of the limitation, the wages continued the same. I have not been able to get any tables to show the state of their earnings in the two following years; but the subject is a very important one, and we can arrive at it by an easy process. The records of the operative spinners in Lancashire show for many years the prices paid for spinning per lb, In 1818 and 1819, in the Manchester and Bolton district, those prices were for 40s., 3½d. per lb.; 60s., 5½d. per lb.; 80s., 8¼d. per lb.; 100s., 9d. per lb.; 150s., 1s. 10d. per lb.; and 200s., 5s. 4d. per lb. I find, that in 1821 and 1822, the years following the limitation of labour, the same prices were obtained for spinning as in 1818 and 1819. I have already shewn to the House that the weekly consumption of cotton-wool, in the three years following the restriction, was greater than in the three years preceding the restriction. Therefore, as there was a greater quantity of cotton-wool to be worked up, and the prices of working it up were not reduced, we have good ground for asserting that wages continued, at least, at the same level. So much for the predictions of wages to be reduced. Did the loss then fall on the profit of the manufacturer? Suppose, for the sake of argument, that it was so: surely an adequate return must have been left, for I find that the

And mills are, at this moment, in course of construction in every quarter. But, let people say what they will, the whole subject is contained in an extract from a letter written to me in March, 1844, by a very large proprietor:—

"When," says he, "we see around us men of all trades and professions going into the cotton trade, some with little capital, others with less knowledge or experience of the business—when we see gentlemen, brokers, merchants, doctors, lawyers, drapers, tailors, &c, leaving their respective professions and trades, and we see them building mills in almost every town in Lancashire—when we see capital thus finding its way into the spinning and manufacturing business, surely the profits cannot be so small that a little reduction of the hours of labour to suffering thousands is impracticable."

Now, Sir, I have long been regarded as a monomaniac on these subjects, as a man of peculiar opinions, one having a fixed idea, but without support, or even countenance, in my wild opinions—yet is it not the fact, that the reduction in the hours of labour is a question maintained and desired by many great manufacturers in the cotton-trade? I may quote in this House the Members for Oldham, Salford, Ashton, and Blackburn—I will just indicate a few without its walls, firm friends of the Measure; Mr. Kay, of Bury; Mr. William Walker, of Bury, perhaps the largest consumer of cotton in that district; Mr. Hamer, of the same place, a partner in the firm of the late Sir Robert Peel; Mr. Cooper, of Preston; Mr. Tysoe, of Salford; and Mr. Kenworthy, of Blackburn. I set great store by the opinions of this Gentleman last named, because he has passed through all the gradations of the business, and has by his own talent and integrity, raised himself from the condition of an operative to the station of a master. I may add, too, the name of Mr. Hargreaves, of Accrington, no inconsiderable person in Lancashire, who feels so strongly on this subject, that he attended a public meeting in support of the question, and moved a resolution himself. Now, consider here the famous argument of Mr. Senior, an argument urged almost more frequently than any other, to prove the folly and mischief of my demand. Every one, no doubt, will readily acknowledge the talents and learning of this Gentleman, but practical experiments are worth ten thousand of his calculations. Mr. Senior declares that the profit of the manufacturer arises from the labour of the last two hours. Now, observe, this assertion might be met in various ways by reasoning, but a fact is far better. I find a letter addressed, in April, 1844, to the Editor of the Bolton Free Press, and signed, a Bolton Cotton Spinner, but known to be by Mr. Thomason, a highly respectable mill-owner.—he speaks from personal experience; and what does he say? These are his words:—

"There is also another consideration for employers, namely, that in a day's work of twelve hours, the last hour, by reason of the exhaustion and listlessness of the workers, more especially young children of thirteen or sixteen, is the least productive in quantity, and the least satisfactory in quality."

And he adds, now mark this:

"The probability is, that the twelfth hour produces more spoiled work than any other two hours of the day."

Here is the opinion of a practical cotton spinner; and it is confirmed by every statement that I have received on the subject; not a few experienced persons having declared that they could tell, by the feel and the appearance of the cloth, whether it had been made at the earlier or later periods of the day. But, further, I submitted the question to the operative-spinners of Lancashire, and this is the answer I received from twenty principal towns:— "What is the character of the work of the last two hours, is it equal in quality to that of the first?" The answer which they have given me is—" Certainly not, especially in the winter months." Sir, is it necessary further to detain the House by proofs, that the arguments of Mr. Senior rest, by no means, on the firmest grounds? The commercial argument, in truth, is really feeble; it has always been urged, and has never been verified, and yet experience should go for something in these great considerations,—it was broached in 1816; repeated and enforced in evidence before Committees, in speeches and pamphlets, in 1817, 1818, and 1819, and utterly refuted by the whole subsequent history of the cotton trade from that day to the present—you had no diminution of produce, no fall in wages, no rise in price, no closing of markets, no irresistible rivalry from foreign competition, although you reduced your hours of working from 16, 14, 13, to 12 hours in the day. What change has there occurred so mighty as to prevent a similar result in 1845? Is British energy so exhausted, our skill so decayed, our resources so dried up, that 2 hours taken from 12 will produce nothing but misery, when 2, 3, or 4, taken from 16, 14, or 13, produced nothing but good? You argue, moreover, as though there existed no difference of opinion among master cotton-spinners—as though every commercial authority lay on your side, and were not found in equal weight and character upon ours. But while your financial argument has failed, not so that arising from moral considerations. The antagonists, even, of the restriction pronounce it desirable, could it be safely effected; and your own inspectors have told you, that without such a limitation of the hours of toil, there can be no hopes of the social or moral improvement of the working classes. Here then, springs up a curious and important problem for solution by this House—no, not by this House, for they have already resolved it— but for Her Majesty's Government, who deny our conclusions, and oppose themselves to the thrice recorded wishes of the British empire.—Which is the preferable condition for a people—high wages, with privation of social and domestic enjoyment, without the means of knowledge or the opportunities of virtue, acquiring; wages which they waste through ignorance of household economy, and placed in a state of moral and physical deterioration? or lower earnings, with increased advantages for mental improvement and bodily health; for the understanding and performance of those duties, which now they either know not or neglect; for obtaining the humble, but necessary accomplishments of domestic life, and cultivating its best affections? Clouds of witnesses attest these things; clergy, ministers of every persuasion, doctors, master-manufacturers, and operatives, have given, and are ready to give again, the most conclusive evidence; but Her Majesty's Ministers refuse to listen, and will neither adopt the remedy we propose, nor assist us with one of their own. Sir, this House is now placed in a novel position; it is summoned to rescind its resolution, not because new facts or new conditions have appeared, but because the Minister has declared his hostility. Nothing has been stated that was not stated before—no fresh knowledge communicated, no unseen danger discovered. The House is summoned to cancel its Vote, not upon conviction, but to save a Government. The Minister surely has no right to expose his supporters to this alternative—either to abandon their opinions or dislodge their political friends. A determination such as this should have been signified beforehand, and not reserved until a time when it will be obeyed certainly with great pain, and perhaps not without disgrace. Sir, I do think that Members should pause to consider the precedent they are about to establish. Very alarming words fell from my hon. Friend the Member for Somersetshire—manly and conscientious as is everything that he says or does—that while he retained his opinions, he should change his conduct, because he found himself at variance with the Minister. And so it is come to this, that great questions are to be tried, not by their merits, but by their aspect as affecting the will or the fancies of a Government, opposing, be it remembered, not a set of principles to introduce a new system of rule or policy, but asserting a mere opinion against the extension of an existing law, hastily taken up, and somewhat arbitrarily maintained. Sir, the whole question of representative Governments is at stake—Votes have been rescinded before, but never such as this; you are almost declaring, to those who are your ordinary friends, that they shall never exercise a Vote but at the will of the Minister. This is a despotism under the forms of the Constitution; and all to no purpose; for your resistance will be eventually and speedily overcome, but your precedent will remain, more fatal to true liberty and independence than all the Reform Bills. Sir, it is possible, nay more, it is probable (for their efforts have been great) that Her Majesty's Ministers will carry the day; but for how long?—If they would render their victory a lasting one, they must extinguish all the sentiments that gave rise to mine. Their error is stupendous—

"Scilicet illo igne, vocem populi, et libertatem senatûs, et conscientiam humani generis aboleri arbitrabantur."

Could you, simultaneously with your extinction of myself, extinguish for a while the sense of suffering, or at least all sympathy with it, you might indeed hope for an inglorious repose; and, by the indulgence of your own ease, heap up, for your posterity, turmoil, anxiety, and woe. But things will not end here. The question extends with numbers, strengthens with their strength, and rises with their intelligence. The feeling of the country is roused; and, so long as there shall be voices to complain and hearts to sympathise, you will have neither honour abroad, nor peace at home, neither comfort for the present, nor security for the future. But I dare to hope for far better things—for restored affections, for renewed understanding between master and man, for combined and general efforts, for large and mutual concessions of all classes of the wealthy for the benefit of the common welfare, and specially of the labouring people—Sir, it may not be given to me to pass over this Jordan; other and better men have preceded me, and I entered into their labours; other and better men will follow me, and enter into mine; but this consolation I shall ever continue to enjoy—that, amidst much injustice, and somewhat of calumny, we have at last "lighted such a candle in England, as, by God's blessing, shall never be put out." The noble Lord concluded by moving the following clause:—

"And be it enacted, That from and after the 1st day of October in the present year, no young person shall be employed in any factory more than eleven hours in any one day, or more than sixty-four hours in any one week; and that from and after the 1st day of October 1847, no young person shall be employed in any factory more than ten hours in any one day, or more than fifty-eight hours in any one week; and that any person who shall be convicted of employing a young person for any longer time than is in and by this Clause permitted, shall for every such offence be adjudged to pay a penalty of not less than £ , and not more than £

Clause 1 brought up, and read the first time.

On the question, "That the said Clause be now read a second time:"^*—

I can assure the House, that it is with very great pain I rise to take part again in the discussion of this subject, which has been so often debated, and that I must again speak, in opposition to the noble Lord who has just sat down. Sir, I shall not be unjust towards the noble Lord, whatever others may be; and I am quite satisfied that the cause which he has advocated this evening can never fall into the hands of a better advocate. I am quite satisfied that his motives are of the highest and purest nature, and he is no less an able and a powerful advocate than I believe him to be a sincere one. The noble Lord has, however, said, that Her Majesty's Government seek to exercise a tyranny upon this occasion. Now, Sir, with humble submission, I say that I am quite prepared to bow to whatever decision this House may adopt upon this question, but I can conceive no tyranny greater, none more intolerable on the part of the Crown, and I should certainly say that it would be the extreme of tyranny on the part of a popular assembly, to expect that any Minister should remain responsible for the conduct of public affairs, when the Representative Assembly of the nation, bearing so large a portion of the whole power of the Government of the country, demands a course to be taken which that Minister, in his judgment, and in his conscience, believes to be fatal to the best interests of the country. I must say, with perfect submission and perfect equanimity,

^* Much uncertainty having prevailed respecting the extent of Lord Ashley's Amendment, it is necessary to state, that the term "young person," is taken according to the definition of the Factory Act, and is applicable to all between the ages of thirteen and eighteen.

that I leave this case to the decision of the House, but with equal firmness and with equal frankness I am bound to state, that if the decision of the House should be that the proposition of the noble Lord shall prevail, it will be my duty to seek a private station, hoping that the decision of the House may be conducive to the welfare of the country. As the noble Lord has favoured the House with a Latin quotation, I may follow it up with another. The noble Lord talked of the toil and trouble which he had undergone in bringing forward this subject. I admit it. I also have endured something: and I can contemplate without sorrow or regret retirement from public life in defence of opinions, which I believe to be sound, and on account of a firm resistance to errors, which though unavailing has been firm and disinterested:—

"— nil dulcius est, bene quàm munita tenere

Edita doctrinâ sapientum templa serenâ;

Despicere unde queas alios, passimque videre

Errare, atque viam palanteis quæere vitæ,"

From that private station I may be able to say, that I have acted with the best of my ability to obtain what I believed for the good of the country, and I shall see errors committed by the House from which I have endeavoured to dissuade it. I believe the Measure of the noble Lord to be uncertain in its effects as regards the working classes, but inevitably it would cause injury to the masters of a greater extent than has ever been contemplated. The noble Lord said, and I think somewhat unjustly, that the Government had proposed no remedy for excessive labour, and the noble Lord also, with similar harshness, has taunted us with having departed from our principles; and he was cheered in that sentiment by the noble Lord the Member for Sunderland. The fact is, that we have pushed our remedies too far in the hope of meeting the case as stated by the noble Lord and in our desire to satisfy the feelings and wishes of the working classes. I admit to the noble Lord that we have trenched upon principle, and I admitted it frankly in the discussion upon a previous evening; but it is no new infraction of principle—the first inroad was made in 1833, and interference has now become a question more of degree than of principle. This has driven me aside from the argument which I meant to have addressed to the House, but still there are questions of degree so important, that they are hardly second to principles, Take the question of the franchise, for example—it is a question of degree as to the amount of property that shall give the franchise; but still it is a question of paramount importance. So with regard to protection—the amount of protection is a question of degree; 5s. more or less make all the difference, but such questions are hardly inferior to questions of principle. The noble Lord, I think, used the phrase, that it was only a "little reduction of the hours of labour " he wanted. I appeal to the noble Lord and to the House whether that was a just representation of the case. The noble Lord used the expression and it sounded very smoothly, that it was only a little reduction which he desired. The noble Lord must remember that as far as the four staple branches of our manufactures are concerned he is introducing what is equivalent to another Sabbath—an institution as it appears to me, undoubtedly divine in its origin, which I regard as one of the most merciful dispensations of a wise and beneficent Providence; but the noble Lord seeks by legislation to introduce into these branches of manufacture another day of rest in every week. His amendment is equivalent to taking from each week twelve working hours. It is, in fact, saying, that in addition to the Sabbath and all the holidays still allowed, you shall have six weeks in each year, by force of law withdrawn from productive industry. Six weeks in each year deducted from productive industry! the noble Lord calls that a "little" reduction in the hours of labour. The noble Lord says, he has been exposed to great obloquy and some misrepresentation. Does the noble Lord stand alone? Is Her Majesty to be obliged to remove me from her councils because I oppose the noble Lord? and yet it is said in distinct terms in an address which I had the honour of forwarding to Her Majesty, that the intentions of the Legislature are to be defeated by one of Her Majesty's servants, who has avowed his intention of withholding all relief from the oppressed women and children in factories. Talk of calumny and injustice after this! Then the noble Lord reproached me that I had violated principle. To meet the noble Lord's wishes with the consent of this House, and with the consent of the master manufacturers—to their eternal honour as I consider—we have curtailed the labour of children to six hours and a-half each working day, We have actually trenched upon principle, and we have compulsorily now abridged the hours of female adult labour to twelve hours in each four and twenty. Principle has as the noble Lord says, been violated. I can assure the noble Lord, who, perhaps, does not recollect what he stated in his eagerness, that he taunted the Government with having violated principle. [Lord Ashley—"I said constitutional principle."] Then I must apologize to the noble Lord. The noble Lord opposite, the Member for Sunderland, cheered the expression, and I thought it was intended to taunt us for a violation of economical principle. Now, I must say, that the discussion which has already taken place has not altogether been fruitless in its results, for when this question was first introduced the noble Lord scorned to rest his case upon any grounds which he conceived to be lower than moral and religious grounds; at any rate the question was not to be treated on commercial grounds. Now, the noble Lord has descended from that height, and proceeded to argue the question upon commercial grounds; and I am very glad, because, considering the assembly which I address, it was absolutely necessary, before the close of this discussion, that we should proceed to argue the question upon some practical and intelligible basis. But surely the issue has somewhat shifted. I do not see the hon. Member for Oldham in his place, but, as it appears to me, he stated the issue very fairly upon a former evening. I think, he stated that the working classes had got it into their heads that they were worked too hard and that they produced too much, and that if they did less the manufacturers would get better prices and the workmen better wages. Now, that is the question fairly stated, and I believe that the idea contained in it has entered the minds of a great body of the working classes, and I conclude likewise, that those Members of this House who really believe that by the passing of the Ten Hours Clause the manufacturers would get better prices, and the workmen would obtain better wages, are thoroughly justified in voting with the noble Lord. But, on the other hand, I feel very strongly that all the Members of this House who believe that proposition to be a gross fallacy, all those who believe, if you strike off six weeks in the year from productive industry in our staple manufactures, that such diminution of our pro- ductive power would render it impossible for the masters to get higher prices or the workmen to get better wages—all those who are satisfied in their consciences and who in their judgment believe the contrary proposition to be a fallacy, are bound, I think, in the present condition of this country, to resist the Motion of the noble Lord. Now, Sir, I am very unwilling to weary the House with abstract theories, and it is somewhat difficult to follow the calculations of the noble Lord through all their details; but I must trace the commercial argument as brought forward by the noble Lord through some of its mazes. Now, Sir, I hold competition as the source of cheapness to be of the utmost public advantage, and I believe it to be so, because competition is the origin and the source of cheapness, and cheapness as a general rule is the real interest of the great body of the people. Everything, therefore, which acts against competition and against cheapness I repudiate as spurious, and I am consequently glad that we have heard nothing to-night against competition. I wish the House to bear two cardinal points in their recollection while arguing this question. In the first place it must be remembered that the workmen as stated by the noble Lord, are paid by the piece and their wages depend upon the quantity of work done. It must also be remembered that a reduction of time must occasion some loss of quantity. We may dispute about the quantum of that loss—the noble Lord endeavours to reduce it much below the estimate I should form—still it must be admitted, that a reduction of time so great as one-sixth of the working hours must be attended with some diminution of the quantity of goods produced; and the House will bear in mind, that wages being dependent upon the quantity produced, a diminution of the quantity must be attended by some loss of wages. Now, the measure of the quantum of the loss of profit will be the difference between the diminution of the raw material employed for the purposes of production arising from the abridged time, as compared with the value of the article produced in a longer time, and without any such abridgment. I conceive the loss must be measured by those terms. Then, there are only two modes, as I conceive, in which the loss can be compensated to the producer. It must be either by a reduction in wages, or by a rise in the price of the productions, I will first deal with the last proposition, as it is one upon which the noble Lord touched at some length. With respect to our great staple manufactures, cotton and woollen, we are exporters to a great extent of those articles, and we meet in the foreign market rival manufactures; and I need scarcely point out to the House the well-founded axiom, that there can't be in the same market two prices for the same commodity, and that the price in the foreign market must rule the home market. The price in the third market therefore must be the maximum of price that can be commanded at the home market. Now, I don't wish to take a gloomy view of foreign competition, but still, with reference both to our cotton and our woollen manufactures, it is a fact not to be denied, that the present rate of profits is reduced to the minimum. If you look only to the state of the money market you may infer how low is the rate of profits, when the funds are at par—and indeed all the evidence which the Government possesses leads us to believe that foreign competition as regards woollen and cotton is intense. The noble Lord and I agree upon certain premises with regard to this subject, but he draws conclusions very different from what I should draw from the same premises. I think it right, now to state to the House with regard to the increase of competing manufacturers certain facts, which are very much confirmed by the facts mentioned by the noble Lord, though drawn from other sources. In the year 1827, the manufactures in the United States, consumed only 103,000 bales of cotton; whereas, in 1843, they consumed 325,000 bales, being an increase of 222,000 bales, or upwards of 200 per cent., while the consumption of the present year will, it is confidently expected, reach 400,000 bales. The consumption of France has increased from 276,000 bales in 1832 to 430,000 bales in 1841, being an increase of 154,000 bales in those years, or 131 per cent., and the consumption of cotton on the rest of the continent is also rapidly increasing. That increase affords an evidence of an increased application of capital, and of a successful competition in third markets, with the produce of British industry. Perhaps the House will allow me to read to them, as it bears both upon the state of the closeness of competition, and also upon the hours of labour, a paper which has been put into my hands by Mr. Horner, the Factory Inspector, the statements contained in which are founded upon personal communication which he has had in the course of the last three weeks with one of the principal cotton manufacturers in Switzerland. It commences,—

"On the 9th of April, 1844, I was introduced at Manchester, by Mr. William M'Connell, to Mr. Diethelm, a Swiss merchant here; and to Mr. Rieter, a cotton-spinner of St. Gall, who has been in Manchester to purchase some machinery, I asked some questions about his mills, and finding him very open in his replies, I met him at the counting-house of Mr. Diethelm, and obtained the following information;—'He is a partner in the house of J. J. Rieter and Co., who have two mills at St. Gall, and two at Winterthur, in the canton of Zurich. There are other mills in both places. There are about 125 cotton-mills in the canton of Zurich; their own, and all the rest, are driven by water-power.' "

The House would observe that the rest of the mills were driven by water-power, which was a great advantage.

"' Extent of the works:—In the two mills at St. Gall there are 15,000 spindles, and the same number at Winterthur; together 30,000 spindles. They reckon the fineness of quality of the yarn spun by the number of hanks to the lb., each hank having the same number of yards as in England, 840. They spin from No. 4 to No. 200, a far wider range than is known in any mill in Great Britain, in all probability. By law the hours of working are limited to fourteen hours a day; but as there are no inspectors, the law is often transgressed in this respect. The hours are as follows:—they work from five o'clock a.m. to twelve o'clock, which is seven hours. The people take breakfast in the mill whilst the machinery is running (which is now absolutely prohibited in this country.) They have from twelve to one o'clock for dinner."

Here they have an hour and-a-half; and,—

"They then work from one o'clock p.m. to eight o'clock p.m.—seven hours more, making fourteen hours in six working days; and the machinery actually runs for eighty-four hours every week."

I propose sixty-nine hours, and the proposition of the noble Lord is to reduce it from sixty-nine hours to fifty-eight—and the competition is then to be between England limited to fifty-eight hours, and Switzerland working eighty-four — Enggland, with all the expenses of steam machinery—Switzerland, with the advantage of a boundless command of water power? Mr. Horner continued, "in the mills at St. Gall women only are employed"— there are no children, no adult men, but actually women only, working fourteen hours a day for six days in the week. But is that confined to Switzerland? In Austria, Mr. Horner was informed that

"Messrs. Rieter, and Co. have a mill about 20 English miles from Vienna, with 30,000 spindles, spinning from No. 10 to No. 160. The hours of work are limited by law, in Austria, to 14 a day; but there being no surveillance, the hours are often extended to 15, and even 16. The wages,—Children from 12 to 14, 6d. per day; 14 to 16, 8d. per day; 16 to 20, 1s. per day. Spinners make about 20s. a week clear of deductions."

Then, with regard to America, Mr. Horner also reported, that

"On the 12th inst. I was introduced to P. P., who is the buyer for a very extensive export house in Manchester. He said, that in all the fabrics into which a large weight of cotton enters, those called drills, domestics, &c, the Americans are not only formidable competitors, but in some markets they have quite superseded us: That his house used to export drills and tweeds to a very large amount to Syria; that after some time they attempted to meet the American competition by a somewhat inferior, and, therefore, cheaper quality, but without success; that they then made a contract with manufacturers, who undertook to make the article at a very low profit, but that also failed, and now they do not send a piece."

Here is a case of an article of British manufacture being supplanted in the foreign market of Syria by American manufacture. I do not fear competition if you do not tie up one of the hands of our manufacturers. [Viscount Howick: " Hear."] I suspect that it is not in reference to hours of labour that the noble Lord gives that cheer. I will at once say that the noble Lord refers to the Corn Laws. Upon a proper time and a proper occasion I shall be quite willing to enter into the argument—and to continue that, when the home market and foreign market are both considered, protection to British agriculture is for the present at least, the true interest of the British consumer and British manufacturer? That subject is not one that can fairly be introduced upon the present occasion; but suppose for the sake of argument, that the Corn Laws by their restrictions do limit industry, and do narrow the field of productive labour, more especially with reference to foreign competitors,—is there common sense, is there common justice, your Corn Laws being maintained, to support in addition to that restriction, a Measure which lessens by one sixth the productive power of the country? A rise of price is not a possible mode of covering the loss which the diminution of time would produce; and if a rise of price is impossible, it necessarily follows that there must be a reduction of wages. If there be no reduction of wages the loss must fall upon capital, and one of two things must take place —either capital must be withdrawn from industry in this country, and embarked in other countries, or else it must be withdrawn from this particular business, which would fall into decay, and in either case a great and simultaneous fall of wages must inevitably ensue. If the reduction of wages be not immediate, it must be the ultimate consequence of commercial ruin occasioned by unsuccessful competition; if it be immediate, the only question is, what would be the quantum of that reduction? The noble Lord has repeated upon more than one occasion, the maxim, "What is morally wrong cannot be politically right"—the onus is with the noble Lord to prove that—labour as now carried on in this country is morally wrong. A bolder assumption either in fact or reason was never attempted. But admitting, in the broadest sense, the intimate connection between that which is morally right and that which is politically expedient, I am yet to learn that it would be possible to diminish the general scale of wages in the manufacturing districts without producing such general poverty, such physical degradation, such absence of all civilised manners and habits, as must lead to general confusion, almost to primitive barbarism, to desperate crime, and to such degradation in the whole scale of society as would be disgraceful to those who, foreseeing such consequences, do not endeavour to the utmost of their power, and at every hasard to prevent them. Whether the loss would fall upon capital, and, falling upon capital, lead to the abstraction of capital, or whether the fall of wages would be immediate, must be to the working classes a matter of complete indifference; for the loss, from whatever cause it proceeded, must cause a large diminution of the demand for the only article they possess—viz., their industry, and a consequent fall of wages and deterioration of their condition, and a diminution of everything necessary for their welfare must inevitably ensue. Talk of confiscation!— this Clause, if passed, will be a confiscation of the most extensive and of the very worst kind; it would be confiscation without compensation—it would lead to the deprivation of a large portion of the only property the great mass possess—a confiscation of one sixth part of their work which is their capital. Many confiscations have had the excuse of some supposed benefit for others; there is not that excuse in this case. It. is quite clear that it places in great jeopardy the capital of others; and it places in the same jeopardy our national prosperity. What now let me ask is the only reason urged in favour of this proposition for taking away one-sixth of the labourer's capital? Would you propose it or agree to it except you believed it was for his benefit? If I could be satisfied that this matter was understood by the working classes, I should be prepared to pay great deference to their opinion. ["Hear."] The hon. Member for Weymouth cheers. But who knows better than the hon. Member for Oldham the opinion of the working classes? What does he tell you. His words are—" They have got it into their heads that they work too hard and produce too much, and they think that if they did less, the manufacturers would get better prices, and the workmen better wages." Now, I think it is clear that prices cannot rise, and that wages will fall. I hold, then, that the leaders of this movement are more responsible than public men ever were for not setting before the working classes the truth of this matter. There is no slight point of difference between us, and until lately the noble Lord was not prepared to admit that his proposition if carried into effect would cause any reduction whatever in the rate and amount of wages. It is quite clear that the Member for Oldham, the noble Lord's great coadjutor maintained the opposite proposition in the last discussion. In all the meetings in the north too, an opposite doctrine was maintained. It has been generally asserted there that reducing the hours of labour would cause no reduction in wages. [Lord Ashley: " No, no."] The hon. Member for Knaresborough who has attended several of these meetings, is in his place, and we shall hear from him whether that doctrine was maintained or not. You have heard the opinion of the working classes as stated by the hon. Member for Oldham, the coadjutor of the noble Lord, the great champion of the ten hours' Bill. It is of the last importance that those who advocate this Measure should frankly and manfully state their own deliberate opinions, because, if the working classes are deceived in this matter—if they should be told that practically there will be but little difference between their fu- ture wages and their present wages, and if this should lead them earnestly to press for the Measure, and disappointment should ensue—it will be no consolation to me— but I feel persuaded that the persons whom in their despair they will most blame are those to whom they will say, unjustly perhaps, but in bitterness of heart, "You have betrayed our real interests, while you flattered our hopes, and while you pandered to our passions." Therefore I do say to those who advocate this Measure, before God and man they are responsible for the frank declaration of their real opinions. If they contend that this Measure will not be attended with a fall of wages if they say to the working classes, "You may seek with perfect impunity, as far as it relates to your temporal interest, this infringement of your time and labour," that is a fair matter of debate. I think the Gentlemen who make this assertion wrong, and that it is our duty to discuss this point, and to convince them of error if we can. But that man is unpardonable who has a serious doubt on this matter, who believes that wages must fall, that profits cannot be maintained, that profits not being maintained with respect to foreign competition, and a rise in price being impossible, there must be an abstraction of capital, that the demand for labour being reduced thereby, a reduction of wages must ensue, and that the master having the strong hand, will diminish the cost of production its to minimum—the man who knows and feels the truth of all this, and still contends for this proposition, does incur greater responsibility than any which in my memory has attended the adoption of any line of policy. To my mind the ruin of the workmen is a clear and inevitable consequence; and there is no responsibility which I would not incur rather than the responsibility of supporting the proposition of the noble Lord. The noble Lord says, I seek to violate the principle of a representative Government, because I press for the reconsideration of this subject. If I had presumed to use the language of menace, and if I employed any influence but persuasion and argument, then I should be unpardonable. But so far as I am concerned, being resolved not to incur the responsibility of such a decision, I think it right to call upon the House while there is yet time to reconsider the matter, and to reflect seriously whether their judgment upon deliberation and full argument can be sustained. Surely there is nothing incon- sistent with the conduct of a representative Government that those who gene-rally have a majority of the Representatives with them, finding the House has come to a decision adverse to their own opinion, thinking the matter of great importance, and the decision adopted in opposition to their judgment erroneous and dangerous— surely there is nothing overbearing in saying they are prepared to retire from the Government should the House persevere in the course, which leads, as we think, to ruin and disaster. The noble Lord says this is a simple question of the quantum of reduction in wages. He relies upon some one whose name is not mentioned, for his statement, that the reduction of wages would not be one-sixth of the whole although the proposed reduction of the hours of labour is equal to one-sixth. Does that statement rest on any good authority? I have presented to the House a petition from 328 master manufacturers, employing 100,000 hands, paying 50,000l. a-week in wages, which is equal to 2,500,000l. a-year, whose property is rated at 160,000l. a-year, and they one and all state that the contemplated Measure would he fatal to the profits of their capital, and attended with a large and serious reduction of wages. The noble Lord has mentioned the name of Mr. Kenworthy, who has published a pamphlet on the subject; we have him, therefore, in black and white. He has given us his estimate of the reduction of wages consequent on the passing of a Ten Hours Bill; and it is very important, because the noble Lord cited him as a person of great authority, and on a former occasion his name was mentioned by the hon. Member for Oldham. He gives an estimate of what he thinks would be the effect, as bearing upon the cost-price of yarn, by the reduction of the hours of labour. The cost he says,

"Of the yarn, as previously shown, would be about three-eighths of a penny more than at present per pound. But that sum, though small, as this description of cloth averages about 51bs. of yarn to the piece, the whole cost would be about seven-eighths of a penny, and adding one to seven-eighths, and four to seven-eighths, the increased cost of the manufacture of twenty-five yards of cloth is 5d., which is less than three-fourths of a penny per yard."

5d. upon twenty-five yards of cloth does not sound a very large loss; but that is the estimate of a ten hours' Clause; 5d. on every twenty-five yards will be the amount of the increase of the cost of production; and twenty-five yards per day is a low estimate of produce of each loom. I should put it higher, but Mr. Kenworthy's admission of the practical effect of the Measure now under discussion is, that it is equal to an increase of 5d. cost to each twenty-five yards, and each loom producing twenty-five yards per day. "The loss to an establishment of 200 looms," he says, "is 4l. 3s. 4d. per day, which gives 20l. 16s. 8d. per week, and 3l. 2s. 6d. for the Saturday, which is a short time day." In any manufactory, then, of 200 looms there would be a loss of 23l. 19s. 6d. per week, for fifty weeks compared to the law as it now stands or a loss of 1,196l. Such a mill could be worked with a capital of 12,000l. (fixed and floating), and thus the loss would be within a fraction of 10 per cent. on the capital. I have had this statement tested by a most competent authority. It is a calculation drawn from the admissions of a great advocate of the ten hours' Bill. I apply the same test to a new concern established near Manchester in December last, with 1,600 looms a-week. The loss then would be 33l. 6s. 8d. per day, 191l. 13s. 4d. per week, and 9,583l. per annum, a sum equivalent to a loss of 5 per cent. upon a capital of 190,000l. These are the interests which, if this Measure were passed, we should injure and destroy, and I believe we should thus give the deathblow to the manufacturing industry of the country. It is important, since I take so firm a stand upon a subject likely to expose me to so much obloquy, that I should show why I have formed so strong a conviction. The noble Lord says, putting the loss at one-sixth is much too high an estimate of the effect likely to be produced by the diminution of the hours of labour. His estimate of the loss upon wages is probably about one-twelfth, and not one-sixth. I am informed that the fixed charges of production, independent of wages, are very nearly equal to the amount of wages, and if you have a loss of one twelfth upon wages, you will have a loss of one-twelfth upon the fixed capital engaged in the production, making together a loss of one-sixth. Unless, therefore, you are prepared to suppose that with this diminution of quantity there will be a corresponding increase of price, I cannot believe that any misfortune which could befall the working classes would be more disastrous or fatal than the reduction of 20 per cent. in the value of their labour. I am sorry the noble Lord the Member for London is not in his place, as he is the representative of the great metropolis of the commercial world. In 1839, when the noble Lord was responsible for the conduct of public affairs, and when the Lord, the Member for Dorsetshire made his proposition, limiting labour to ten hours a day, that noble Lord, the Member for London, declared that what-ever shortened the hours of labour, with the present high price of provisions, would be a proposition of the greatest inhumanity, and, if carried into effect, would be most cruel in its operation. That was the view of the noble Lord, the Member for London, now representing the great emporium of the commerce of the Empire. He, the Minister of the Crown, said, that he should vote against the proposition of the noble Lord, the Member for Dorsetshire, because it was an act of great inhumanity. I, then in opposition to the noble Lord, and to his general policy, having been, with him, a party to the original restrictions upon factory labour, was willing to share in the obloquy of voting against the ten hours Clause, because, distinctly, upon the moral view of the question I, did concur, and I do still concur, in the opinion,—quite contrary to the intention of those who promote the Measure—that it will be in its practical effects and results, both inhuman and cruel. But is that all? The noble Lord did not then represent the City of London; but he was then responsible for the conduct of public affairs. Did the noble Lord change his opinion after he went into opposition, up to the present Session? By no means. The noble Lord, after his election for London, and representing that City, so late as 1842, leading a powerful party against the Government, heard there was a rumour that the Ministers were vacillating upon this particular question—that they had interviews with Ten Hours deputations, and meant to introduce a Ten Hours Bill, and accordingly, on the first day of the Session, 1842, jealous upon the subject, thinking that the Government were about to give way to popular impulse and popular feeling in a manner which he considered dangerous to the national interests — on the 3d of February, 1842, in the present Parliament, the noble Lord representing the City of London, and dealing with the commercial part of this question, called the attention of the House to the subject. In 1839, he spoke of its moral effect; he called it a cruel "Measure;" in 1842 he took a commercial view of it in these words:—

"We have heard much of such things since the last Session of Parliament; and much has been said of remedies of totally different classes which have been suggested, and in accordance with many of which it has been represented that Her Majesty's Ministers were disposed to act. There were, first, the delegates with respect to the Ten Hours Factory Bill, and after their somewhat theatrical interview with the right hon. Baronet, and other Members of the Government, and a great deal of stage display, they thought fit to encourage the hope—no doubt raised first by the Gentlemen who came to the Government in favour of the Ten Hours Bill, and who turned out after all to be the Socialist Editors of some new Moral World, that the attention of the Government would be given to the subject. But now it appears from a letter written some short time ago, to a noble Lord, who is most sincere, I believe, in his exertions on this point, that the right hon. Baronet, who I have no doubt is no less earnest, and is actuated by motives no less praiseworthy, but with more wisdom and caution, is ready to oppose the Ten Hours Bill, and that limit of labour which, if adopted, would cut to the roots the manufacturing prosperity of this country, will not give his assent to such a Measure."

Thus in 1839, you have the noble Lord, then the responsible Minister of the Crown, declaring this proposition to be inhuman and cruel; and, in 1842, when representing the City of London, declaring that "it would cut to the roots the manufacturing prosperity of the country." Though the noble Lord is now absent, I hope before the debate is over, we shall have an opportunity of hearing what new facts and circumstances have come to light to induce him to change his opinion. I voted with him in 1839, I voted with him in 1842; and regardless of the obloquy and the consequences of adhering to the opinion which the noble Lord then expressed, it is my determination to give to the Motion of the noble Lord, the Member for Dorsetshire, the most uncompromising opposition. That noble Lord, referring to the treatment which this House is alleged to have received at the hands of Her Majesty's Government, and intimating that there had been some vacillating on our part, says, "Why did you not tell us you entertained a strong opinion on the subject?" What could have been so strong as voting, in 1839, against our intimate Friend and supporter, the noble Lord himself, and with the then Government, to which we were generally opposed? Although sitting in opposition and trying to overthrow the Administra- tion, we did not yield an inch. Again, when the present Administration was formed, the noble Lord gave us to understand, in the most emphatic manner, that unless we adopted his view on this question, he was not prepared to take part in our councils, and because we refused our assent, as he was distinctly told, we lost his services. [Lord Ashley, " No."] From what then occurred, no room was left to expect any vacillation on the part of any Member of the Government. I believe that the noble Lord's proposition is peculiarly inexpedient at the present juncture when the commerce and the trade of the country, which have too long languished, are just beginning to revive. I believe the Measure itself to be dangerous, and I am quite satisfied that, if you adopt it, it will ultimately prove destructive of the interests of the working classes. Entertaining these opinions, come what may, I shall vote against it.

wished to explain, in reply to the statement of the right hon. Baronet, that a distinct answer had been given to him as to the intentions of the Government respecting this Measure. He certainly never would accept office, under any circumstances, if aware that the Government were opposed to the Measure. But it did so happen, that no answer was given to him as to the intentions of the Government upon the subject, and he did not know whether the Government would accept or reject his proposition for a reduction of labour.

:^*—Sir, I shall certainly accept the challenge of the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State, to those who support the Amendment of my noble Friend, and I shall state distinctly my opinion on the important point of the probable effect which would be produced upon wages by the proposed alteration; but before I do this, I must revert to something that was said by the right hon. Baronet at the commencement of his speech which I heard with very great regret. When this subject was last discussed, the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government disclaimed in a manner which I had hoped that I understood, having held but any threat to the House; I firmly believed and I hoped that what the right hon. Baronet meant was, that in the event of being defeated upon this question, Ministers did not contemplate retiring from the service of the Crown, as it had been rumoured they would; but, Sir, it now appears that I was mistaken, for the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State has just distinctly told us, that should this Clause be carried, he would not as a Minister of the Crown consent to its coming into operation, and that his resignation will be the consequence of the success of my noble Friend. The right hon. Baronet says, in defence of this determination, that no tyranny could be greater than to expect that a Minister should remain in power when the House requires a course to be taken, which he believes will prove fatal to the interests of the country. In general, no doubt, this is true; it is clearly the duty of a Minister to retire from the service of the Crown, if he finds that on some great question of policy the House is opposed to him; but it is no less obvious, that if the operation of this rule is pushed beyond a certain point, there is an end to the deliberative power of the Legislature and I appeal to the House whether the question before us is one of those great questions of principle to which alone the rule can properly be applied. How is it possible to call this a question of that kind when it is admitted on all sides that the right hon. Baronet's own Bill has the same object in view and proceeds upon the same principle as the Clause proposed by my noble Friend—the principle of both is the same, that of assigning by law a limit to the hours of labour for women and young persons, and the difference between us is simply as to where that limit should be fixed, and whether Ten Hours or Twelve Hours of labour shall be allowed. This most clearly is a question, not of principle but of detail, and in all such cases when the opinion of the House is against the Government of the day, when no great principle is at stake, and no disapprobation of their general policy is meant to be implied, it is the duty of the Government to bow to the decision of the House. If it were not so, a representative Government could not practically work; in this very instance the right hon. Baronet knows that those who are agreed on this question are wide as the poles asunder in their opinions upon almost every other subject, and that therefore the resignation of a Ministry upon a question of this kind, involving no great principle which unites their opponents, would render it impracticable to form any Government whatever. Compare this case with the course pursued by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government on another occasion; not very many years ago that right hon. Baronet who was then, as now, the leader of the Government in this House, offered the utmost resistance in his power to the Motion of my noble Friend the Member for the City of London, for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. That Motion was carried, but did the right hon. Gentleman resign? No, he acquiesced in the decision of the House, the Bill was passed, and the colleagues of the right hon. Baronet actually were the means of carrying it through the House of Lords, so that it became the law of the land. Will any man tell me that the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts was less a question of principle than that now before us? yet the conduct of the Government upon that occasion was universally approved. I again repeat, that to maintain that a Government ought not to give way on a point of this kind, would be a most dangerous invasion on the deliberative powers of the House. I will now turn to the subject more immediately under discussion. It is, Sir, I think, admitted, that upon the opponents of the Amendment lies the burthen of proving that by adopting it we should incur some great and overwhelming inconvenience, which renders it incumbent upon us to refuse to make a change, which in itself none can deny to be most desirable. It must not be lost sight of, that when we take upon us to regulate by law the hours of labour, the Legislature virtually lends its countenance and sanction to the practice of requiring that number of hours of labour which we say shall be the maximum; it is a very different thing from not interfering at all, and allowing, merely by the absence of any legislative provision upon the subject, longer hours than we may perhaps approve to be required. When the Legislature steps in and says, that beyond a certain limit labour shall not be carried, it does in effect declare, that up to that limit there is no objection to going; and this being the case, is it possible to deny that it is most desirable so to fix that limit, that less than twelve hours of daily labour may be required from women and young persons? In support of this opinion, we have first the authority of the officers of the Government itself; the Inspectors of Fac- tories, in their Reports, which are on the Table, have declared that it is the result of their experience, and that of the medical gentlemen they have consulted, that twelve hours' work is too much to require from women and young persons. But more than this, our own common sense tells us the same thing; who is there that does not feel that ten hours a day in a standing position with at times considerable exertion, in addition to the time required for meals, and about an hour for coming and going from the mill, is at least as much fatigue as you should require women and young persons to undergo? We must all, therefore agree, that it would be most desirable, if it were possible, to reduce the number of hours of labour to ten; but the right hon. Baronet contends that this would necessarily occasion so great a fall of wages, and so much danger to our foreign trade, that the real injury to the working classes would far exceed any advantages they could derive from the change; and the all-important point we have to consider is whether this is really the case. In considering this question I am prepared to admit, for the sake of argument, that a reduction in the hours of labour would cause a proportionate diminution in the amount of work done; I admit this, I say, for the sake of argument, but in point of fact, I utterly disbelieve that it would be the case. I disbelieve it, in the first place, because my noble Friend opposite (Lord Ashley) has produced a great deal of evidence from persons fully informed and of much experience, who all concur in saying that no such effect would follow. But I disbelieve it still more, because it seems to me impossible that women and young persons who have already been toiling for ten hours in a factory can do as much work, and do it as well, in two more hours, as they did in the two first hours of the morning, when they came fresh and unwearied to their task. But, as I said before, let us, for the sake of argument, assume that the quantity of goods produced will be diminished in the same proportion as the hours of labour, the question is, how will this diminution affect the rate of wages? If the goods were intended only for the home market, it will no doubt be admitted that neither the profit of the manufacturers nor the wages of the persons they employed could fall lower than profits and wages in other occupations; the tendency which there always is in wages and profits to find their level would effectually prevent any such result. The produce of a given amount of capital and labour would still exchange for the produce of a like amount of capital and labour in other trades; and if labour in factories became less productive, the result would be that a smaller amount than before of the produce of such labour would be obtained in exchange for a certain amount of corn or other commodities; in other words, the price of the goods affected by the new regulation would rise. There would be a less abundant supply than at present for the use of the population of certain articles principally of clothing. This, no doubt, would be an evil, but the burthen would fall upon the whole community. Such would be the operation of the change proposed by my noble Friend if factories supplying the home market only were concerned; but in point of fact I am well aware that the measure affects manufactures supplying a very large part of our export trade; and such being the case, the right hon. Baronet contends, that diminished production can only have one of three effects—he says it might raise the prices of the goods produced, or it might diminish profits, or failing these, it must occasion a fall of wages. But an increase of price, the right hon. Baronet says is impossible, because in the foreign market where these goods are sold, we have to meet the manufactures of other countries, and the competition with these is already so close, that even a small increase in the price of our goods, would give so decided an advantage to our rivals, as entirely to drive us from the field. Profits too, the right hon. Baronet has justly stated are too low to make any further reduction: and the whole loss, he therefore contends, must necessarily fall upon the wages of labour. Now, Sir, in this argument plausible as it sounds, it seems to me, that there is a great fallacy, and that the mistake which the right hon. Baronet has made is that of supposing that the profit of the manufacturer depends entirely on the price obtained for his goods in the foreign market. This, Sir, I contend is not the case; the expense of remitting home to this country the amount of the consignment must also be considered. Any practical merchant, I believe, would bear me out in this assertion, and would tell you, that if, for instance, you sent a cargo of cotton goods to Rio, the price per yard of your calico remaining the same, the speculation might be a losing one if you had to pay a heavy premium for a bill of exchange; or a profitable one if by a different state of the exchanges you had to receive, instead of to pay, the premium. This results from that which has been to a great extent overlooked in the arguments upon this subject—namely, that the whole of our export trade is in point of fact a barter of one description of goods for another. Our export trade I conceive to arise from this circumstance—that there are a great number of articles which either cannot be produced here at all, or not so well as in foreign countries, and that to meet this demand our manufacturers produce those goods which our merchants find by experience to afford the best means of paying for the commodities we require from abroad. It is to pay for the tea, the wine, the coffee, the sugar, the tobacco, and the various other goods which are consumed in this country, that the vast hives of manufacturing industry in Yorkshire and in Lancashire are set in motion. Now this being the real nature of our trade, I wish to ask how it is possible, even if the Amendment of my noble Friend be carried, and if it should in some degree increase the cost of production in factories, how this could diminish our power of carrying on our foreign trade? would the demand for foreign produce in this country cease?—would the desire to obtain coffee, tobacco and wine—the mainspring of the whole machinery of our commerce — fail in consequence of the adoption of the Amendment? We know that it would not, and if not, these articles would continue to be imported and our merchants to seek the means of paying for them; the goods too, which we have heretofore sent, would be as available for that purpose as before; they would not be deteriorated in quality and the only effect which, in my opinion, we should have reason to dread from foreign competition would be this, that it would compel us to give a larger amount of the produce of our own labour for the articles we should continue to import. [Mr. Roebuck; "Hear, hear."] I shall presently explain to the hon. and learned Gentleman what I mean by that statement. I do not deny that to a certain extent this would be an inconvenience to the country, but what I wish to show is this, that the inconvenience would not fall exclusively upon our manufacturers or upon those whom they employ, but that it would fall where it ought to fall, upon the community at large, in the shape of a somewhat increased price of foreign commodities. Instead of endangering the safety of our trade and producing that extraordinary reduction of wages which the right hon. Baronet anticipates, I maintain that all we should have to apprehend from the Amendment of my noble Friend would be a comparatively small diminution in the returns we should get from foreign countries for the manufactured goods we export. I am far from denying that any such diminution in the whole amount of commodities we can consume, any reduction whatever in the national power of production is in itself an evil, but I am perfectly persuaded that the real diminution in the whole produce of the national industry which could thus be occasioned, would be far too small sensibly to affect the comfort of the people, it would, therefore, be an evil very different indeed from that which the right hon. Baronet would teach us to fear, and is not sufficient to deter me from accomplishing what I think the undoubted good of relieving the helpless classes of the population from an excessive amount of toil. I am well aware that this is not the view which is generally taken of our export trade, and of the extent of the danger to which it is exposed by the competition of foreign manufactures, but I am not the less persuaded that it is a just one. That trade is in reality but a barter of one sort of goods for another we see easily enough in the infancy of commerce; when the enterprising mariners of antiquity exchanged the manufactures of the earliest civilized communities for the tin of the then rude inhabitants of this country—when at this day we send to the coast of Africa calico or hardware to be exchanged for palm oil and gold dust there can be no doubt as to the real character of the transaction, and all the complicated dealings of civilized nations with each other are in truth of the very same nature, the money or bills of exchange by which payments are made, are nothing more than the instruments to facilitate a larger and more extensive barter. Hence, whenever the inhabitants of any country have a strong desire to consume articles produced by foreign nations—when they have also the power of themselves producing articles, which, directly or indirectly, others are ready to accept in exchange for what they want, they will carry on foreign trade so long as they are willing to give the produce of their labour in sufficient quantity to purchase those goods which they wish to consume. No foreign competition can prevent this; all that it can do is to compel a country having such a competition to encounter, to make a greater sacrifice of the produce of its own labour to purchase a given quantity of foreign goods than might otherwise be required. It is, therefore, the amount of foreign produce which this country imports, not the competition of rival manufactures, which really limits our export trade. Sir, I think it is no slight evidence in favour of this view of the subject, that it affords a simple and easy explanation of facts, which, on the principles of the right hon. Baronet, it is very difficult to account for. If it be true, as he has argued, that the power of the manufacturers of different countries to compete with each other in third markets depends entirely upon the comparative cost of producing their goods,—if this be true, how comes it, I ask, that Switzerland, as he has himself told us, is at this moment competing very closely with us in many descriptions of goods? We know that Switzerland receives the raw material and sends back her manufactured goods by a long land carriage, or by an inland navigation hardly less expensive, and I ask how it is possible, that in spite of this great disadvantage, she can still compete with us in distant markets? The right hon. Baronet says, that she has the advantage of cheap water power, but we know perfectly well that the advantage of water power is so slight in comparison with that of situation, that the great water power of the Highlands of Scotland, accessible as they now are by good roads, has not been able to draw away our manufacturing industry from Manchester where steam is the moving power employed. The advantage of situation is infinitely more against Switzerland than against the Highlands, yet she is able to compete with us. And why? Switzerland requires certain articles of foreign produce for her consumption—for these she must pay— she has not the power of greatly extending her agriculture, and she is thus driven to manufactures, and she exports them, not because she can produce them cheaper than us, but because her industrious people are willing to give in this form so much of the produce of their labour as is required to purchase what they want. No doubt the want of better channels of communication is a serious evil to her; not by preventing her from exporting her manufactured goods, but by diminishing the return she obtains for them, it renders her industry less productive than it otherwise would be. Yet, after all, I believe that industry in Switzerland is not ill rewarded, because, alone of European nations, Switzerland has had the wisdom not to add to the effect of her natural disadvantages, by imposing restrictions on the freedom of commerce. The right hon. Baronet mentioned the still stronger case of the United States of America, whose manufactured goods, he said, were driving us out of many neutral markets. I believe the fact to be as the right hon. Baronet has stated it; but how upon his own principles does he account for it? It is notorious, that both the rate of wages and the rate of profit are greatly higher in North America than in this country;—what advantage have the manufacturers of the United States in return? I know of none; certainly they have none in the price of the raw material, for the voyage from New Orleans to the manufacturing districts of North America is not less expensive than that to Liverpool; and I believe that a bale of cotton in bond at Liverpool is at this moment cheaper than it would be delivered in a Massachusets factory, It is not, therefore, the lower price of the raw material that enables the North American manufacturer to meet us successfully in the Chinese market,—the real cause of doing so is that which I saw stated only a few days ago in a China trade circular namely, that tea, being admitted into the United Stales either at a very light duty or altogether free, its consumption there is rapidly increasing, and the American manufacturers produce their goods because this is found to be the cheapest way of paying for the tea their countrymen require. I have no doubt that if you calculate the expense in money at which goods are produced by the American and British manufacturer, you would find that a yard of cotton costs much less in Manchester than in the United States; but this does not prevent the American manufacturer from sending his goods to China, in spite of our competition, because he finds that upon the whole, by bringing back tea, he can do so to advantage. I have no doubt we might, if we pleased, at once put an end to this competition with us of America in the China market; I am convinced, that if we would consent to receive the corn of America in this country the American merchant would find it more advantageous to send corn here to purchase manufactured goods to send to China, than to produce and send there his own manufactures. But by our laws we will not allow this to take place; the corn of America cannot be sent to China: for our manufactures, to the extent required, she has not the means of paying; and, therefore against nature, which intended that the more fully peopled country should produce manufactures and that a half peopled one should be chiefly agricultural, we compel the American merchant to pay for the tea his countrymen consume, not with British but American manufactures. The conclusion, then, to which I come is, that the apprehension of ruin to our trade by the competition of foreign manufactures in the event of the success of my noble Friend's proposal, is altogether visionary; and the fall of wages anticipated from that ruin of our trade is equally improbable. All that we should have really to fear would be a diminution, to a certain extent, of the productive power of the country, which would be felt by the whole community in the slightly increased cost both of the manufactures we require for our own consumption, and also of the foreign commodities which are paid for by the exportation of manufactured goods. With respect to the home supply of manufactured goods, it is obvious that its diminution, owing to the reduction of the hours of labour, would, so far as it went, be an injury to the consumer; but I cannot believe that this injury would be seriously felt, since we know that so great has been the improvement of machinery, that ten hours' labour now would produce a far greater quantity of goods than twelve hours' labour but a few years ago. To limit the hours of labour to ten instead of twelve, would, therefore, merely put us back in respect to the supply of goods to where we were a short time ago; and the progress of improvement still continues to be so rapid, that there can be no doubt that in two or three years more we should recover the ground so lost. So far therefore, as the supply of our own population with home manufactures is concerned, the loss which would fall upon the country, would scarcely deserve consideration; the loss in the importation of foreign commodities would also, I am persuaded, be very small. But whether small or large, we should always have the remedy in our own hands, since, by repealing the restrictions on foreign goods, and reducing what are miscalled protecting duties, we could at any time more than restore the productive power of our industry in purchasing the commodities of other countries. Shall we, then, maintain a law which it is admitted requires more labour from women and young persons than they ought to be called upon to perform, for the sake of bolstering up our vicious protective system? Still, Sir, I admit that some reduction of wages will probably follow if my noble Friend's proposition should be adopted. There would be a reduction in two ways; first, those engaged in factories would suffer in the trifling degree I have described, in common with the rest of the community, from the general diminution of the productive power of the country; but they would also lose to a certain degree in another way. We know that relative wages in different employments in this country are determined by their comparative advantages; if a particular kind of labour is more severe or unhealthy than another, it is paid higher in proportion; therefore if the amount of toil were reduced in one class of employments, some reduction in wages must be expected, or their comparative advantages would be increased, which competition would not allow. I believe, therefore, that a reduction of mere weekly money wages would be occasioned by the adoption of the Clause before us, but I entirely concur with my noble Friend, in thinking that for such a fall of wages as I should anticipate, the working classes would find ample compensation. There would, as he has observed, be some compensation in the greater economy with which they would be able to live, but what is far more important they would economise in health and strength. Health to the working man is not merely as it is to all, the first essential to happiness, but it is also money. When health fails, wages fail also, and we know how great is the distress in a poor man's family when his expenses are increased by sickness, and at the same time his only income fails him. Knowing this, we must also remember that all medical men have declared that twelve hours' labour is more than women and young persons can long endure without injury to their health. Taking all these things into account, if you consider the greater economy the labouring classes would be enabled to exercise—the improvement in health, and diminished necessity for medical attendance—the smaller number of days in the year, which on an average would be subtracted by sickness from their earnings, as well as the prolonged duration of the years of labour—and if you calculate, not the wages of one day, or one week, or even of one single year, but of a [series of years—when you look at the question in this manner, I am persuaded you will find that the change proposed by my noble Friend, though it might make some reduction in nominal wages, would make no reduction in the wages really available for the purposes of enjoyment, and comfort to the manufacturing classes of this country. In this persuasion I shall support the Clause proposed by my noble Friend, and I cannot help expressing my deep regret at the course which Her Majesty's Government has thought proper to take on this subject. After the divisions of a former night it was, in my opinion their duty to have acquiesced in that compromise which it is clear the majority of the House was disposed to accept. I cannot, for one, look without great apprehension at what may be the consequence of their now prevailing on the House to rescind its past decisions. I believe it is not denied, that whether their reasons for it are mistaken or not the great body of the working classes in the manufacturing districts are in favour of this Amendment—I do not understand even the right hon. Baronet himself to contest this point—and such being the case, knowing the great intelligence of these men, and how well many of them are able to judge of their own interests and of the principles involved in this question, I must say, that their opinion has with me the greatest weight. But further, I will ask, is it not dangerous that this House should be induced by what is undoubtedly an unusual exercise of Ministerial influence, to set aside the decision to which it has more than once deliberately come? Considering the state of mind of the working classes in the manufacturing districts, is not this a step it is most hazardous to take? Already much dissatisfaction exists as to the constitution of this House; the working classes complain that they are not directly represented; and but a short time ago a general disposition showed itself—which I fear is not yet by any means extinct—to insist upon what seemed to me very wild and dangerous alterations in the representation of the people. All these things are notorious; and knowing them, can we think it a wise or a safe experiment to shake the confidence of the working classes in this House by showing that we can be so easily induced by Ministerial influence to retract our recorded and deliberate decision on a point in which their interests are so deeply involved—to show that upon such a point we are prepared to set at nought the opinion of those most deeply interested, and refusing to listen even to the most reasonable compromise—that we are determined to maintain without any alteration a law which, in fact prescribes a number of hours for labour which no man denies that it is unreasonable to require? I own this does appear to me to be a hazardous experiment on the temper of the population in our manufacturing districts; so much so, that even if on former occasions I had voted against my noble Friend the Member for Dorsetshire, I should have hesitated to repeat that vote—I should have shrunk with apprehension from being one of those to induce the House to alter the decision it had previously come to. If injurious consequences should result from our doing so, the exclusive responsibility for these consequences will rest on Her Majesty's Ministers; but I, for one, hope and trust that the working classes will be patient. They may be certain, that although what they desire may be postponed it is virtually carried. [A cry of "No."] Yes, virtually carried; for I believe, in the whole course of our Parliamentary history, no instance can be found of any great question in which the great body of the people took so deep an interest having so nearly triumphed without being ultimately brought to a successful issue. How long the struggle may be protracted I know not; but of what must be its final result I entertain not the slightest doubt; and I can hardly help asking Her Majesty's Ministers whether they are not themselves, in their hearts persuaded that it can only end in one way; and if in the end concession will be inevitable, is it wise to allow the struggle to be continued?

^* From a corrected Report.

could not help observing that the noble Lord had so qualified some of his propositions as somewhat to perplex his arguments, and, if he were not much mistaken, his supporters also. Among the noble Lord's other arguments, however, in support of the proposition of the noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire, he said that a remission of the duties on foreign produce would balance any of the evils which it was alleged would arise from the noble Lord's plan. He must say, that he thought that argument of the noble Lord misplaced, and he therefore would not follow him into it. As, however, he had not been present at the former discussions he wished now to state the reasons which guided him in giving his support to Her Majesty's Ministers on this question. Never since he had held a seat in Parliament had he experienced so much difficulty in reconciling his feelings with his judgment as he had done on the present occasion. His feeling was entirely with the noble Lord (Lord Ashley), but after the most deliberate and careful exercise of his judgment he felt bound to vote for the Bill of the Government. He was with the noble Lord in feeling, because the noble Lord proposed by a compulsory restriction on the hours of labour to confer a vast benefit on large classes of the people. Now he confessed he did not look on the proposition as being either so very novel or very unreasonable. Practically, a similar restriction existed on other kinds of labour. He did not know whether or not it was under the operation of any old law, but agricultural labourers, bricklayers, masons, and many others, laboured only from six o'clock in the morning till six in the afternoon, two hours being allowed them in the interval for refreshment and rest. And they were also to be seen working in their gardens after their day's labour. In all these respects his feelings went along with the noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire, and nothing but the deep reflection he had bestowed on the subject, the confidence he entertained in the views of the Government, his knowledge of the care they had bestowed on the subject, and of the liability to official responsibility under which they acted, would have induced him to withhold his support from the noble Lord. Here was a Bill brought in by Her Majesty's Government for the express protec- tion of labour. To what extent did it go? Why, to so great an extent, that ultra-economists in that House considered that principle had been greatly trenched upon in it. They dissented from the grounds on which it was sought to protect adult female labour. Upon the subject of infant labour there was no doubt. It was admitted on all hands that it was the duty of the state to place itself in loco parentis, in cases where the cupidity of parents was subjecting their children to excessive labour. He (Mr. Liddell) thought that the same principle ought to be extended to adult female labour, and the measure of the Government did go to a great extent in doing so. But, on the other hand, it was with some pain that he (Mr. Liddell) said that he could not consider Her Majesty's Government had on this occasion acted with their usual foresight, consideration, and ability. If the Government were prepared to take so rigid a stand upon this question—if they were prepared to refuse to enter into any compromise in spite of the decision of that House—it appeared to him that they ought at least, as the noble Lord said, to have made their opinions and intentions manifest to their friends and supporters in that House. Not having done so they had been exposed to considerable public censure. He did not hesitate from his own knowledge to say, that if it had been known that so great an importance was attached to the twelve hours Clause— [Ironical Cheers.] hon. Gentlemen might cheer before they heard the end of the sentence—but had the wishes of the Government been known, many Members who under the influence of those vague feelings which he confessed led him towards the noble Lord's proposition, had voted for that proposition, would, after examining more closely all the arguments, have come to the conclusion he had himself come to. The feeling in the case was obvious and on the surface—the reasoning was not so, and he believed that a more careful consideration of the subject would have induced those Members to have refrained from voting, in which case they would have been very differently situated from their present position, after having given their vote in favour of the noble Lord's proposition. Why, some of those hon. Gentlemen had already said that they would retract the votes they gave on a former occasion. If some hon. Members had done this, was it so very unreasonable or extraordinary to suppose that others might be found who, although they would not perhaps, retract their vote, yet would not have given their vote had they been fully aware of the real state of the case? Looking at the matter in this point of view he had no hesitation in saying that the Government had not acted with their usual foresight and prudence in not having given their supporters some intimation of their intentions. But, although, he thus found fault with the management of his right hon. Friend at the head of the Home Department, yet he did not the Jess give him credit for honesty and sincerity of purpose. The noble Lord who had just sat down had told them that this was not, in his opinion, a question that called for any threat of resignation on the part of the Government, adding, that a great question of this kind ought to be tried on its own merits, and not at the will and pleasure of the Government. Had the noble Lord considered the provisions of this measure? Was he not aware that no Government could bring forward a measure of this nature, affecting such extensive interests and acting so directly on large masses of labour without much previous conference and understanding with the parties immediately concerned? And, if the right hon. Baronet felt bound to adhere to the arrangements so made by him with the parties concerned, surely the noble Lord ought not to blame him for adhering to such an arrangement, and for saying, that rather than agree to a dishonourable compromise he would retire from office? No man could regret more than he did that the right hon. Baronet should assert such a determination; but he was certainly right in resisting what he thought to be an imprudent and impolitic measure. He did not see what fault could be found with the course the Government had pursued with respect to the recent proceedings as to this measure. They had not attempted to influence their friends by corrupt means; for if there was a majority against them, it would be a majority composed of Friends, and headed by the noble Lord, their own supporter. Another charge that was often made against the Government was that of truckling to their opponents and yielding to the pressure from without. But it was because they had not yielded to that pressure that they were placed in their present position. Under these circumstances he could only suppose the conduct of the Government to be guided by a sense of their responsibility, and a belief that any compromise in the case would be a detriment and an injury to those classes to benefit whom the measure was introduced. For all these reasons, painful as it was to him to differ with those on his own side who supported the Measure of the noble Lord, he felt bound to vote with the Government.

begged to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department, to his allegation that the noble Lord, the Member for Dorsetshire, had changed his tactics on the present occasion, and had taken up the question on those commercial grounds, which, on a former occasion, he had expressly abandoned. Now, if that charge was to be made against the noble Lord, he must beg to call the attention of the House to the manner in which hon. Gentlemen opposite also had shifted their ground in the arguments they had adopted to-night, as compared with those used by them on the former occasions when the subject was before the House. It would be fully in the recollection of the House, that the question was before argued on the other side as one of principle, and not of degree. But now a wholly different ground was taken by the supporters of the Government, and surely if the noble Lord, the Member for Dorsetshire, was to be charged with shifting his ground, those hon. Gentlemen were chargeable with it also. The right hon. Baronet opposite had, on a recent occasion, given utterance to sentiments marked by equal good feeling and good taste, on the subject of the necessity of devising some measures for securing the moral and physical condition of the people, and, above all, of providing them with the means of healthful and innocent recreation. Good God! how were people who worked twelve or fourteen hours a day to have recreation? Going to work at half-past six o'clock in the morning, and not leaving until half-past seven in the evening, where was their opportunity for the enjoyment of recreation? And when those who supported the ten hours' proposition were charged, by direct or indirect insinuation, with pandering to the passions of the people, were not those chargeable also with something very like hypocrisy who talked of providing them healthful recreation? But he did not like to retort, or say anything that might savour of injustice in argument. Surely there were grounds enough on which he might retort charges against the supporters of the Government Measure. Throughout the whole of the discussion on this Measure, there had been contradictions which to him were quite puzzling. On the one hand, these factories were asserted to be earthly Paradises; on the other they were declared to be receptacles of misery reeking with disease. Now, although he much respected the manufacturers as a body, and thought them a most valuable class of men, yet he was no more disposed fully to credit everything that was said on their side, than he was to deny all that was said on the other. There were other means, however, of coming to an opinion. Deputations from the operatives of Lancashire and Yorkshire had come up to state their views to Members of that House, Among others, they had called upon him. The very first question he put to them was, whether they were prepared to enter into a consideration of the chance of an abatement of their wages, should this Measure be adopted? They said they had considered the question. Now, he asked those hon. Gentlemen who had been present at the great meetings in the manufacturing districts whether this chance had been fairly laid before the artizans? Had not the case of wages been fairly laid before the operatives? Had not the statements of the hon. Member for Oldham upon this point been commented upon forcibly, but with wary ingenuity, by the right hon. Baronet, the Home Secretary, misrepresenting the purpose and tenor of the hon. Gentleman's argument? Was it denied, that the operatives of the country had heard the case stated to them as to the possible reduction of wages? "Sir," continued the hon. Gentleman, "they have! For myself, I can say, that I put repeated, and searching, and sifting questions to those who called upon me as the committee of the operatives, as to whether the point had been considered by them. They declared it had. When I referred to the probable proportions of reduction in wages, they mentioned one-eighth as what they thought of. I said distinctly, many Members would not like to consent to an abatement of their wages. They said, strongly, 'What we look to is the increase of our domestic comforts; we look to domestic thrift and economy. You must be aware,' they explained, 'that when families are separated in different departments of factories, considerable waste in their total consumption is occasioned by the consequent subdivision into different meals. Then again,' they added, 'there are certain domestic avocations, perhaps appearing insignificant enough to wealthier classes, but involving all to the poor in the way of domestic comfort, no unimportant incidents in their "short and simple annals," such as mending of clothes, and all the little attentions to the economy of home—these things cannot be carefully regarded when a whole family are engaged in the various departments of the factory.' Such were the arguments which the operatives put per contra (in mercantile phrase) against the reduction of wages. And there are Gentlemen here who are called upon to state succinctly whether they do not know the case, as respects wages, has been placed fairly and fully before the operatives at the recent meetings in the manufacturing districts. Sir, if there be any Member who, knowing that the wages of the mechanic would be reduced by the ten hours' Measure, should conceal that from the operatives he addressed, he would indeed be guilty of 'pandering to the passions of the people.' But those who believe, even supposing that some reduction of wages would ensue, that it would be amply compensated, mentally and morally, by the increased comforts of home, through an augmented attention to all the duties of home—those who believe this, and therefore support the humane Measure now proposed with that object— they cannot be charged with 'pandering to the passions of the people.' And I, for one, hope that they will continue to support that Measure, notwithstanding all the taunts thrown out against them. This, of course, is not according to the doctrines and the dogmas of political economy. But whatever of sagacity there may be in the philosophy of Adam Smith, of Ricardo, or of Senior, this I cannot help feeling, that you cannot deal with human beings as with chessmen. You cannot deal with beings who have souls as well as bodies as though they were mere mute figures on a board— human beings with passions, and feelings, and habits, cannot be moulded or moved about as the 'pawns,' and the 'knights' of chess. You cannot sit down at a table and square down human nature to the rigid regularity of your abstract theories. It is impossible! And this—forgive me—this is the error that pervades all the ideas of these bigotted professors of political economy. Yes! bigotted is my word!—though many of you are men of kind feelings and humane intentions—upon your theories you are the most intolerant and unbending set of men I ever knew of. The rigour and the harshness of your political economy surpasses anything I have elsewhere seen. Now, don't take it to yourselves personally; I know you've good feelings; but don't accuse us of entire ignorance; and don't arrogate to yourselves entire omniscience on these questions. Knowledge and wisdom upon this subject, as on all others, are not monopolised by yourselves. And I regret to find this made too much a party and political question. We should take higher and better ground upon it. Let us not have the hateful language of cant—the affected love of morality, or the unnecessary assumption of religious feeling—let the question be tried by our common feelings. [An hon. Member: "And common sense!"] Yes; I was about to aid—our common sense; for does the hon. Gentleman imagine he has an exclusive diploma for common sense? Is he so regular a practitioner of that valuable virtue that he allows no others to exercise the attribute? Will he not permit his opponents to claim some portion of it? I repeat, let the question be decided upon common feelings and common sense. Is it to be supposed, that here, in the nineteenth century—amid the enlightenment of public opinion, and the advance of information—is it to be imagined that the mechanics of this country are incompetent to arrive at some sound conclusions as to their own interests, without the aid of pseudo-philosophers on the one hand, or panderers to popular passions on the other? I say, the artizans of this country are not to be told that they do not at all understand their own interests. Is it to be supposed they cannot estimate the probable consequences of a reduction in wages? Is it to be believed they are not aware of, and awake to this, and every other aspect of the question? And here allow me to advert to something that fell with truth and force from my noble Friend, about the tone and temper prevailing among large masses of the manufacturing population. Do any of us suppose that if we "give the go-by" to this question it will " go to sleep?" No. I know what will be the consequence. I believe the great portion of the working people of this country are as loyal—as constitutional — as quietly disposed as any set of men; but, I fear, there will be a feeling of irritation existing among them on the rejection of the humane measure proposed—something has reached my ears upon the subject—and, if things are left in their present position, I know the consequences. [Oh!"] Who says "Oh" to that? Let him controvert me, and not merely use that contradictory exclamation. I de- mand whether, when the working people (not perhaps fully represented in this House) are told "You have no right to form a judgment upon the subject, you are not competent to come to a conclusion upon wages, yours is all the ignorance upon the question; and such is our paternal prudence that we will not allow you to exercise your own opinion in regard to your own wages"—I demand, if when treated thus they will feel satisfied? And now to advert to an argument of the right hon. Baronet, the Home Secretary, that in a canton of Switzerland the manufacturing artizans worked legally fourteen, and illegally fifteen or sixteen hours daily. Does he not see that this carries him a little too far in the argument? for if he so fears Gall and Massachusets (or the factories near Vienna, he mentioned, I believe), we had better take off our restrictions and regulations on factory labour altogether, and recur to what preceded even the Hobhouse measure. Not that I impeach your consistency—God knows it's enough to defend one's own; but, speaking ludicrously on a subject too serious, I fear that some of us are seduced on the question to play Jim Crow, and to "turn about." At all events, if the argument of the right hon. Baronet were good for anything, it would be good for abandoning his Bill entirely, and going back to the plain principle of entire nonintervention. It is impossible to know what ground the right hon. Baronet really takes on this question. He is contending, not for principle, but for the degree of its operation. Can the right hon. Baronet pretend that ten hours' labour in factories are not enough for women and children? Have not his own inspectors affirmed that period to be quite enough for those classes? Has not medical authority avowed, when appealed to, that ten hours of factory work are enough for women and young people? Will the right hon. Baronet profess that twelve hours would not be prejudicial? Can any one doubt it? I hear a great deal talked about agricultural labour. Where do female country labourers work more than ten hours a-day constantly? Your own officers, the Assistant Poor Law Commissioners, have reported that in Somersetshire, Wilts, Dorsetshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, and Lincolnshire, women rarely work more than eight hours a-day in winter, or ten in summer, except, to be sure, in harvest, &c, when they work extra hours occasionally only. But who does not know that outdoor open-air work is far more salubrious to the human, especially the female constitution, than factory labour? How often are old men seen in factories? Whereas in the fields you may see labourers working to forty, fifty, or sixty years of age. I say forty; for I asked one of the operatives who saw me his age, and he said he was thirty-two—"in his prime;" and another —fifty—said he was "too old." So great is the stress upon the muscles at one time. [An hon. Member: "The old story."] "The old story?" Yes, it is so. But not the less afflicting is it to those who feel for the sufferers of such toil and fatigue. Nor is it the less true, for being an often-told story of suffering and toil. Sir, the working myriads of this country are not insensible to their condition. Their situation, with all its suffering, is forced upon their minds. This question of the limitation of labour is one of principle. It is a principle which will not be lost sight of—which cannot be got rid of. There has been error in arguing, as if the principle had not been already acknowledged and acted upon. The question is now only of degree; and the Measure of my noble Friend can now never be abandoned, and must, ultimately, succeed."

said, that he would occupy the attention of the House for a very short time; but that, as it was his intention not to support the Amendment which had been moved by his noble Friend, the Member for Dorsetshire, he was anxious to explain the reasons which induced him to adopt this course. In the first place, he begged leave to state that his change of opinion had nothing on earth to do with the position, be it what it might, of Her Majesty's Ministers. On many occasions—on most occasions — he should consider it the height of folly, by pressing any individual opinion of his own, to embarrass a Ministry to whom he had once given his confidence, but the present question was of so peculiar and mixed a nature, involving moral as well as political considerations, and affecting the welfare of vast numbers of our countrymen, that he considered the question an exception. Neither had he been enlightened by any great progress in the science of political economy, nor by any increased affection for long mills and tall chimneys—he could not say that he liked them much better than before—he regretted, that the greatness of England should in any way depend on the factory system; but in dealing with such a question as the present he must not be guided by any likings or dislikings of his own: he must look at things as they were; he must look at the large numbers of our countrymen who were employed in the factories, and he must seriously consider what, upon the whole, would be most for their advantage. But his noble Friend had asked what new thing had taken place since the last discussion of this question that could justify any change of opinion? He admitted that nothing new had taken place; nothing had occurred except time to inquire—time to reflect — time to get sober. Since this question had last been discussed he had made it his business to inquire as diligently as he could into this matter—he had anxiously revolved it over and over again in his own mind, having in view the real welfare of the operatives, and that alone. If the House did not mean to deceive themselves, they could only look upon the proposed Amendment as a Ten Hours' Bill; for, if the Amendment were once adopted, it would be impossible to withhold the promise of a Ten Hours' Bill at the end of three years. If we were now upbraided with dashing the chalice from the lips, what would be said at the expiration of the three years, with double reason and double force? And in whatever proportion the labour of women might be restricted, the labour of men would be restricted also; because, as he was informed, the work could not be performed by the men without the assistance of the women. The House then must consider this Amendment as a Ten Hours' Bill: and the result of all the information which he had been able to obtain went to this, that if we insisted upon enforcing such restrictions upon adult labour as would ultimately be the consequence of adopting this Amendment, we should strike a fatal blow at our present position in the foreign market. We must remember how sharp the competition was already—we must remember that it was by superior cheapness alone, that we either hold our ground on the Continent, or are likely to win our way in China, Rio, and other places; and if, by any measure which might now be introduced, British goods could not be afforded at as cheap a rate as at present, those markets would be closed against us. From all he had been able to learn, he was convinced that the British merchant had not margin enough left to make it safe so much to interfere with his operations. If the loss of the foreign market were only to entail a certain reduction of the profits of the masters, he did not see why he need care much about it, because the master manufacturers generally speaking, seemed to care very little about the total extinction of the rents of the landed proprietors. If it were only to entail a certain reduction of wages, he would make up his mind to that, because the operatives said they were willing to meet that reduction. But he could not help believing, from the calculations which had been laid before him, that the loss of the foreign market would, eventually, not only entail a much larger reduction of wages than the operatives were prepared to expect, but would strike at the root of all employment. Mill-owners, though possessed of abundant capital, could not go on, for any length of time, manufacturing at a loss. If they were shut out of the foreign market, many of them would be manufacturing at a loss—many mills would be stopped, and thousands of operatives would be turned off. The commercial part of this question was the part upon which the whole thing turned, because it was that part upon which depended the sustenance of those very persons for whom his noble Friend was so laudably interested. If the operatives were thrown out of work, how were they to obtain food? Nothing was more wonderful than the rapidity with which men forgot recent events, even such as are calculated to produce a deep and lasting impression. How short a time was it since this country had been suffering from a severe depression of trade? Had we so soon forgotten what consequences that depression had produced? Had we forgotten how it affected the operatives? Had we forgotten the effects of the working for short time, the numbers wholly unemployed, their complaints, their outbreaks, our own regrets, and our own alarms? And yet, were we to lose the foreign market, that depression which, lasting for but a few years, had been so disastrous in its effects, would become, not the temporary and transient, but the permanent state of our trade; and, in that case, he would ask any man in that House what would be the condition of our operatives? What would be the condition of the country—a condition frightful even to think of. He held in his hand a letter from a friend of his who had long possessed mills, and upon whose testimony he placed the greatest reliance, because he knew him to be no less humane than he was intelligent. At that hour he would not trouble the House with the calculations contained in that letter, upon which calculations, the opinions which he had declared were chiefly grounded, but he would take leave to read a very short extract which applied to the general subject. His correspondent said:—

"I have lived long enough amongst the operatives to be acquainted with their habits, and I am sure that the friends of a Ten Hours' Bill would be disappointed with the effect of the Measure if it were passed. The national prosperity would be seriously endangered by a Ten Hours' Bill, and the operative himself would be injured by the change. All those who are best informed on the subject dread the effects of foreign competition if the reduction of hours be enforced."

The Bill, as it was, took care of the children, about whom it was the duty of the House to be most solicitous, and about whom the House had an undoubted right to interfere. The Bill limits the labours of women to a certain degree. For the reasons which he had given he durst not insist upon any more. He durst not insist upon absolutely restricting, by law, the labour of adults, at all times, to ten hours. He was, however, persuaded that the discussions which had taken place, on this subject, would have a beneficial effect. He was persuaded that master manufacturers, in general, would be induced to pay more attention than heretofore to the comfort and welfare of those by the sweat of whose brow they obtained large gains. It was well known that factories could be conducted on a benevolent principle. It was well known that the Marshalls, and others he could name, conducted them on that principle, and he was persuaded that the effect of these discussions would be to make that which had hitherto been the exception the 'general rule. It had cost him not a little to come to the determination which he had announced. It would have been much more agreeable to him to have continued to follow in the wake of his noble Friend, of the purity of whose motives no man could entertain a doubt. It would have been much more agreeable to him to have complied with the desires which the operatives, in many instances at least, have expressed; but having come to the decided opinion, that by supporting the Amendment he should not be promoting the interests of the country, or the interests of the operatives themselves, he felt himself bound to adopt the opposite course.

said, that the case of his hon. Friend the Member for Nottinghamshire (Mr. G. Knight) showed the remarkable facility with which a man could forget recent events; but there were three events which had not escaped the recollection of his hon. Friend, namely, the three votes which he had given in favour of the noble Lord's proposition. He could not compliment his hon. Friend on having brought forward any new facts or new arguments to account for his change of sentiments. Indeed, his hon. Friend did not lay claim to that, but it appeared that some time must be given his hon. Friend before arguments addressed to him were absorbed. His hon. Friend said that the reason why he had made this change in his mind was that he had had time to get sober. Now, he (Mr. C. Buller) must say, that such habitual, continued intoxication, going on through three votes and a week's time, he bad never heard avowed in that House. Considering how fully the arguments on his present side of the question had been gone into, and how totally his mind had been shut to them in his former state, his hon. Friend, he must say, must have been very bad indeed. But, passing this matter, he should not discuss this question on personal grounds, but he should meet the question on the same ground that he assumed in a speech of his on a former night which had been much commented on, and he must say much misrepresented. He, like other men, occasionally indulged in personal attacks; but he must say, that looking at the importance and novelty of the principles involved in these discussions, and the enduring nature of those principles, they ought not, he was sure, to go into the consideration of them without getting out of the mud of their little petty personalities. On no question had so much harm been done by personalities as on this. Since he gave his last vote on it he had had the pleasure of discussing it with some of the most eminent master millowners in the country, and his sorrow was to find that the opposition to the noble Lord among them did not so much arise from apprehension of the consequences of his scheme, as from the injurious statements which had been put forth concerning some of the master manufacturers. He, for one, had never dwelt on those statements. He was not inclined to question the facts brought forward by the noble Lord; but he thought that they only applied to a certain number of particular cases, and not to the masters and millowners generally. He was speaking of the statements of facts which had given so much dissatisfaction to the masters and millowners. He thought it was exceedingly right that when a great grievance appeared in the country, measures for its redress should be agitated, for such he thought was the only plan by which any change for the better could be brought about; but he also held that there were cases of exceptions, and that the House would not be justified in interfering with manufacturing industry, unless they did so on an enlarged view of its ordinary, not of exceptional character. One thing was observable—that the opponents of the noble Lord had very much lowered their tone. The House heard nothing about principle now; principle was thrown overboard; and the question was argued as one of degree. The hon. and learned Member for Bath (Mr. Roebuck) had very honestly, but not very prudently, proposed to test the House, and brought forward a principle. He attempted to pledge the House to the principle that interference with labour was unjustifiable. [Mr. Roebuck — I never used the word "unjustifiable."] His hon. and learned friend, he believed, was right; he had proposed to the House to vote that it is inexpedient to interfere with the adult labourers in factories. His hon and learned Friend found but few to support him on that occasion. The House maintained that it was justifiable to interfere with contracts respecting adult labour in factories, and he would venture to say that they had the majority of the master manufacturers with them, for he believed that the great body of the master manufacturers were for a limitation of labour in order to prevent the majority being obliged, by the cupidity of a few, to work their mills longer than they would otherwise work. However, the principle of interference with contracts for adult labour the House maintained, and they did so because they could not contradict the whole course of their legislation. It was expedient that the House should know how much this had been the course; be would not go fully into the matter; but he could show satisfactorily it was not only in factory labour that the Legislature had interfered in this way. He would take four capital instances of interference with adult labour. The first was the Mines and Collieries Bill of last Session, which had been brought forward by a great supporter of the right hon. Baronet, and carried by him through the House. Another Bill which interfered with contracts respecting adult labour had passed last Session. He saw a great authority before him, the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Gladstone), who had taken no part in these debates, and he asked on what principle it was, that the right hon. Gentleman had brought in his Coal Whippers Bill? a Bill not merely to regulate the wages of labour, but to limit the number of labourers. The third case was that of a number of adult labourers who wished to remove from one part of the Empire to the other and were prevented; the House interposed and prevented the Hill Coolies from entering into contracts for employment of that nature at all. That was a strong instance of the interference of the House with adult labour. But the fourth instance he would mention was the strongest of all, for it was an interference, not with the contract for the labour itself, but the manner in which the wages of labour should be paid under that contract. How could they justify the interference with the truck system on the principles which were put forward against the proposition of the noble Lord? He had thus shown that on all points, the wages of labour, the number of labourers, the place, and the mode of payment of wages, the Legislature had thought fit to interfere with adult labour; and the House must therefore be well aware that there was no inflexible principle to be laid down on this subject. The right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), in his last speech, had said that the only general rule—for he would not call it a principle—that could be laid down, was that the Legislature might interfere if the inconvenience of interference did not more than counterbalance the advantage to be gained. That was precisely his principle, which had been so vehemently attacked by the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham), that it was said to be a principle of Jack Cade, and now so great was the progress of the principles of Cadism, that they had made converts of the two right hon. Baronets. In fact, the question was now only one of degree. He was willing to say that non-interference should be the rule, and that the Legislature without good cause should not interfere, but that principle should go further, because no sound Legis- lature ever interfered on any subject without good cause. One or two reasons in favour of the proposition have occurred to me since the last discussion on the subject. An eminent authority in my favour is the hon. Member for Stockport. No other greater advocate of the cause of the people, or more able exponent of his views, Was to be found in the House than the hon. Member to whom he had referred. What did that hon. Member say? He (Mr. Cobden) admitted at once that labour for the period of twelve hours per day was too long, and should be reduced to ten; but he maintained that this alteration should be effected by removing the restrictions Upon the trade and commerce of the country, and not by any particular legal enactment passed for that specific purpose. The hon. Member for Stockport said that there was a great evil connected with the manufactures —that the people employed there did labour too much, and that it was desirable that a reduction in the amount of labour should take place. He maintained that the people employed in the factories laboured too long. He, and those who thought with him, wished to avoid giving what might be considered an exaggerated account of the condition of this part of the population. They could not look, however, to the condition of the manufacturing population without feeling greatly how the labour to which they were subjected affected their health, and shortened the duration of their lives. Let the House consider the well established fact with reference to the difference in the amount of mortality in the large manufacturing districts as compared with the mortality in the agricultural parts of the country. Did not the greater mortality in the manufacing districts clearly prove that there existed an evil of some magnitude which required to be removed? Did it not point out the necessity for the adoption of some means for the improvement of the health and longevity of that part of the population of this country? He would take his second view of the case. Could any hon. Member deny that labour protracted to the period of twelve hours a day did not greatly interfere, and was inconsistent with the moral improvement, education, and well-being of the people who were subjected to it? It had been said that every facility would be offered to those employed in the factories to indulge in recreation and amusement; but they would have no time to play. There was something required be- sides recreation. This would be a mere delusion—it would be all a mockery, unless they attended to that essential element so necessary to be considered when legislating for the permanent welfare of the working classes. He now came to the third feature which justified the interference of the Government, if they were disposed to promote the social condition of the manufacturing population. He referred to the necessity —the absolute importance, of keeping the two sexes to their own distinct and proper provinces. A master manufacturer had put forth a statement on this subject. What was that statement with regard to the proportion of men and women employed in the manufacturing districts? Why, in the large town of Manchester it was stated that of the labouring portion of the population employed in the factories three-fifths were females and two-fifths were males; as three to two. That was a great evil, requiring certainly legislative interference. The question of the necessity of interference having been settled, the point at issue resolved itself into this,—whether the proposition of the noble Lord which they were then considering for the reduction of the hours of labour was a dangerous one, or one likely to be followed by beneficial results? Here he (Mr. C. Buller) must take the opportunity of vindicating the extreme caution which the noble Lord was charged with exercising with regard to the proposition of reducing the hours of labour at first only to eleven, and subsequently to ten hours, as it was said. It had been said, "Oh, if you adopt the proposition of the noble Lord and carry an eleven hours' Bill, and it should be found to have a prejudicial effect, it will be impossible for you to retrace your steps." He could not see any reason why they should not retrace their steps, should such a course be necessary. Nothing appeared to him more easy. Supposing the proposition carried, and it should be found that the interference with the manufacturers of the country was followed by the evils predicted, would it not be in the power of the Legislature—would it not be in the power of the labouring classes themselves to effect a change, and to retrace the steps which they had taken? He felt as certain as that the estimates would be proposed next year, if the Measure failed, that this House, that the labouring classes themselves, would call for an alteration in the system. It was right if they proposed and carried great changes in the social system, they should proceed cautiously. This he did not say. But, he asked, how could the noble Lord have proceeded more cautiously? Let the proposal have a fair trial—let them see whether the mischief which had been predicted would or would not result—let them see whether it would be dangerous by a legislative enactment to limit the hours of labour from twelve to eleven hours a-day. Let them do this before they condemned the suggestion as being fatal and dangerous to the interest of the class for whose benefit the Measure was intended. Many arguments had been advanced to show the effect that this proposed reduction would have upon the rate of wages. It had been maintained that if they limited the duration of labour it would be followed by a reduction of the wages of the working classes. He did not see why this should be the necessary consequence. It had been stated that it was totally impossible that in the present state of things the manufacturer could fear any additional burthen to that already imposed upon him. It had been argued that if they imposed any further restrictions upon the manufacturing body, it would have the effect of driving us altogether out of the foreign markets. He asked with what decency could hon. Members opposite connected with the Government come forward and advance such arguments? Did that tally with the statement made by hon. Members opposite in a former debate? Was it not stated by the Anti-Corn Law League party, so great was the competition, that under the burthen of the Corn Laws the British manufacturer was unable to compete with foreign countries? Did not hon. Members on the opposite Benches deny that statement? Did not they come forward with their arguments and their statistics to establish the fact? He should like to see how the hon. Member opposite would be able to reconcile their contradictory statements when the debate upon the Corn Laws came on. People would ask how hon. Gentlemen opposite could defend these Corn Laws, having admitted the existence of these great restrictions and burthens upon the manufacturers of this country. He would not repeat the arguments which he had advanced on a former occasion. It was said if they raised the price the manufacturer would be driven out of the market. He had on a former occasion argued the question of prices, and the right hon. Baronet had not succeeded in answering or overthrowing his statement. It was necessary to enter upon the question with regard to the effect of the proposed alteration upon wages. He felt assured that if they compensated for the additional loss by taking off the duty, the prices would remain the same. It had been said, that a great delusion existed in the minds of the manufacturing population on this subject. It was said, that the people were so stupid that they were led by the grossest assertions made upon the hustings in reference to the subject. The hon. Member for Old-ham said, that the people said, when asked, that they were prepared for a reduction of wages consequent upon the passing of this Measure. It was his belief that it was in the power of the Government to assent to the eleven hours proposition without the slightest danger to the manufacturing population. A great deal had been said about pandering to the feelings of the people; and in solemn tones they had been warned not to do so. They talked of the danger which they who supported this proposition incurred. But he asked did not those who opposed it incur any danger? Was it not dangerous to give out to the people of this country that they were to expect nothing from our legislation? Would not such an announcement inspire in the minds of the people a feeling of disgust and despair? The House could consider deliberately and at length questions relating to the capitalists and landlords of the country; but as soon as a practical matter, connected with the employment of the people engaged in the manufactures was brought forward—as soon as any suggestion was made for the improved education of the people—for their well-being, it was said the questions were beyond the jurisdiction of Parliament. He trusted that the House by supporting the proposition of the noble Lord would prove that Parliament was prepared to consider questions involving the interest, welfare, and happiness of the people of this country.

answered, he said, at once the challenge of the hon. and learned Gentleman as to the sphere and object of legislation. It might be dangerous to tell the people to expect nothing from legislation. It might, however, be still more dangerous to tell them to expect everything from the same source. But it was most dangerous when persons told the people—persons in whom the people placed any confidence—that the rate of wages could be regulated by Act of Parliament. On this point he was there to discuss the question with his hon. and learned Friend. He was there to show that the rate of wages—for that could be shown to be the object of the noble Lord —that the rate of wages was attempted to be affected by the noble Lord's proposition, and that that could be the only object; and he should be able to reduce it to that, step by step. He should be able to show that that could be the only object of his Measure, and that the effect must be to produce a larger labouring population, at a lower and reduced rate of wages; and when that were done, he said, let his hon. and learned Friend meet him and talk of his humanity. Let his hon. and learned Friend then turn on him with his pictures of misery, and ask him if he contemplated with satisfaction that picture, or if he were not prepared to legislate for this misery? He acknowledged the horror of the picture that was painted; but he answered his hon. and learned Friend at once, by saying he quarrelled with his remedy. However dangerous were the circumstances in which they lived, the proposition that was now made, he affirmed, could but aggravate those evils. His hon. and learned Friend escaped this question altogether. Every man who attempted this question, escaped it also. They confined themselves to an exaggeration of the mischiefs that really existed, but they never pointed to the effects of their own remedy. The noble Lord the Member for Sunderland indulged in day dreams of enlightened legislation, of " bold legislation," the noble Lord called it; but he must call it another name—it was " rash and mad legislation," for

"Fools rush in, where—;"

But he did not mean to finish the quotation. He wanted to know what was the object of the noble Lord's proposition? Let them understand the end to be attained; but before they could learn the end and object, they ought to understand distinctly the grounds that the noble Lord had for interference at all. He had challenged the noble Lord on this point, and he had not heard an answer to that challenge. His hon. and learned Friend admitted that the principle of interference should only be applied in an exceptional case. He said that the general rule should be to let things go on according to the ordinary rules which regulated contracts between man and man. He had never spoken about the violation of a general principle, nor had he insisted on the inherent rights of labour. What he had said, as a general rule as to contracts, was to let those enter into them who had a full knowledge, and who were best able to judge of the different incidents which entered into the bargain they were about to make. His hon. Friend said, that a departure from that rule should be the exceptional case. All the labouring population, according to the general rule, before they entered into a contract with their masters, were the best judges as to the nature of their own labour; but then it was said, that the noble Lord showed a case for interference. What was their case? They pointed to circumstances which formed, they said, an exceptional case. He was shown a set of men in such a position who were so congregated together, as to be still more alive to publicity and responsibility than any other portion of the labouring population of the country. That was the first incident. Now, he said, let them show him a population—any population, better fed, better clothed, better lodged, than the factory population of this country. They were much better off than any other portion of the population. That was the fact, and he defied them to disprove it. Then what was the exceptional case? It was this — that they would interfere with the factory population more easily than with any other. He defied any man, however humane, however desirous he might be to interfere, to show him a single incident, as far as related to the manufacturing population, which called for their interference, except the single incident that they could interfere with that population more easily than with any other. He defied them to show that the manufacturing labourer was not worse— no, but was not better—he said far better, than any other part of the labouring population. That assertion, he said, required an answer; and all the humanity-mongers in the world could not drive him from it. Instead, then, of that portion of the population being worse off than others, he said that they were better; and he said, let them disprove that assertion, which he made in the face of the House in the face of the world, and not answer him by talking of "bold legislation," or mystified arguments, which no one could comprehend, as to what might be done by an "enlightened system of legislation." A dangerous principle had been already adopted with other modes of labour, and he had already warned the House as to the consequences likely to follow from it, when it was first proposed to be acted upon. But his hon. Friend had found fault with the hon. Member for Nottinghamshire, who had given three votes on the opposite side. "Those," he said, "who lived in glass-houses ought not to throw stones." Let his hon. and learned Friend look to his right hand and his left, and then ask who were those who had voted and spoken with authority, and with the great responsibility that attached to them, amongst their hon., their right hon., and their noble Friends, and then, he said, when his hon. and learned Friend had looked at these, let him not be so ready with his sarcasms—for it might be the case that his hon. and learned Friend would be found following in their wake, and that when they were in office, it might be found that they were engaged in a mischievous course of legislation. He did honour to the boldness of the right hon. gentlemen opposite, in daring, on the present occasion, to resist this system of humanity-mongering. The right hon. Gentleman had stood out upon this question in spite of all the temptations which had been held out by his friends to his foes; by foes who wished to put the Government into a difficulty in consequence of apparent defection in its own ranks, by friends who were not unwilling to lance a side shaft, as it were, into the ranks of the Anti Corn-Law League. He asked, had either of these parties made out any statement of grounds for the interference of this House; and, if so, in what way it would benefit the labouring man? The noble Lord the Member for Sunderland had threatened the House with consequences if they should reject this proposition. He had warned them to beware how they disregarded the feelings and demands of the labouring population of this country. He and his friends on that side of the House had said the same thing when speaking of the desire of the people to regulate their own affairs in this House, and the noble Lord had, on such occasions, not been backward in opposing those demands; and, therefore, he was by no means alarmed at the sudden discovery which the noble Lord had made of the danger of resisting popular demands — demands of a kind which hitherto the noble Lord had been so stedfast in resist- ing. He had some regard for the feelings and demands of the people of this country, and, therefore, he did not wish to take them at second-hand. He wanted the people to have the power to send their representatives into this House, to speak for them as they should desire, and to discuss for them the value of the opinions as to the necessity for this proposition, instead of taking, as an effort of gratuitous humanity, the cause which was now advocated. When he (Mr. Roebuck) found the noble Lord more anxious that the demands of the people should command some attention in this House, he, for one, should pay attention to his warnings. The noble Lord said, that the result of this experiment, producing as it did a diminution of the product of labour, would be either a rise in the price of the commodity produced, or on the other hand a fall of profits or a fall of wages. A rise of prices, the noble Lord stated, was most likely, at the same time entering into a mysterious disquisition upon foreign commerce, which he (Mr. Roebuck) could not pretend to enter into, for the simple reason that he could not pretend to understand it. He heard very proper words and problematical sentences fall from the noble Lord in very neat array, but when he attempted to put them into form as a proposition, he was really quite at a loss to attach any earthly meaning to them. He did not wish to quarrel with the noble Lord, for generally he had a very great respect for his statements, and the character of his mind, but upon this occasion, he could see where he had been for his doctrines; he had been to nowhere else but to the moral world of Mr. Owen for the materials of his dissertation. The noble Lord had uttered all those vague and unmeaning generalities which distinguished the friend of the parallelograms, and who fancied that he could regenerate mankind by a new and bold system of legislation. He confessed, that until the noble Lord put his views of foreign commerce in a more intelligible form, he could not grapple with them, because he really could not comprehend them. He said that prices could not rise, because in regard to foreign competition, which was influenced by no legislative interference, purchasing labour at the lowest cost, with machinery becoming every day more and more effective, we were compelled to sell at the lowest possible price; and above that he did not think we could aim at reducing the hours of labour, if we had any hope of competing in the foreign market. This was a proposition which must be answered, not by vague generalities, but by ascertained facts. It was for the noble Lord to show how we could continue to enter upon competition in foreign markets with a rise of prices. The next question was that of a fall in the people's wages. The noble Lord had not dared to face this plain question. He had not even mentioned it. The noble Lord had not left out such an important ingredient in the argument involuntarily; but being an able disputant, and seeing the weak point, he had doubtless, omitted it intentionally. He, on the other hand, seeing the strong point of the case, placed it in the vanguard, and he asked the House whether they were prepared to meet the consequences of a fall in the prices of products? The hon. Member for South Nottinghamshire said that he was not enlightened in the modern system of political economy. He really need not have acknowledged so much; for the fact was perfectly clear without the admission. If the hon. Gentleman had talked of ancient architecture, he should have listened to him with the greatest respect. And this he would say on the present occasion, that, however the hon. Gentleman might differ from others upon questions of political economy, he should at least show some respect for those great minds who had perfected this science, which had become so important a feature ancillary to modern legislation. At any rate the hon. Gentleman need not have made up for his confessed ignorance upon such matters by expressing a disrespect for the subject very unworthy of any Englishman. Now to enter upon this question. If the result of this experiment was not to be a falling off of profits, nor a rise of prices, it must be a falling in the wages of labour; and here he came to the real question which affected the interests of the people. The hon. Member for Oldham had spoken on this point with the eloquent diction for which he was so celebrated. ["Oh, oh."] He did not think the hon. and learned Member for the University of Oxford had heard the hon. Gentleman, or he would not have partaken in this outburst of virtuous indignation. He would put this, however, to the House: Had it ever been distinctly asked of the people, "Do you really believe that wages will fall in consequence of this measure, and believing so, are you prepared for the consequences." No; the question which had been put was, "Are you willing to chance it?" What did this mean, and how had it been answered by the people? They said they were willing to chance it, because they sincerely believed that wages would not fall. Now he had put the question to various manufacturing men, and the answer was, that if they believed that their wages would fall, as a consequence of this act of legistion, they would be the first to oppose the measure. And why? Because at present they were, by their utmost labour, only able to obtain what, by the views of the world, was not better than a comfortable existence—an existence which did not pretend to luxury. They were hard worked: some said they were inadequately paid. He did not pretend to say that he did not sympathise with the working classes, on the contrary, he wished that their lot might be ten thousand times better than it was. But that was not the question. The working classes said—"We are anxious to obtain sufficient for the support of our existence, and we are very unwilling to lose this by obtaining so many hours of idleness in the day." There had been a great deal of talk about the advantages which would result to the working classes from these hours of leisure devoted to moral discipline and mental culture. Depend upon it, however, that there would not be any improvement in morality amongst the people by diminishing their wages. Diminishing wages deteriorated every chance of their improvement in morality. Again, he said, that the condition of the working people was not such as he could desire, but he said that this nostrum which was now presented to them was a mischievous one—one likely to do great injury whilst it pretended to offer relief; that it was a mischievous opiate, which would deteriorate the condition of the working classes, and which, under the pretence of doing good, might lay the foundation of great misery to the people. Let those who advocated such measures look to Ireland. There they would see the people suffering a much greater amount of misery than it was pretended the manufacturing classes suffered in this country. If he (Mr. Roebuck) was to state the grievances of the Irish people, and were to come down to this House to ask them to adopt some measure of legislation, in order to remedy so much distress, who was there amongst hon. Gentlemen opposite who would support him in such a scheme? He appealed to those who pretended that the condition of mankind depended upon an Act of Parliament, how would they act if he were to come down with some measure to relieve the distresses of the Irish people? Suppose he were to propose a measure to take away the land from the present landowners, and out of it to make provision for the starving people of Ireland. Would they not say that he was a madman —either a fool or a desperate knave—in proposing a scheme which must tend to the ruin of the people, under the specious pretence of doing good? There was, he maintained, a distinct analogy between this suppositions case and that of the noble Lord. He charged the noble Lord distinctly with gross exaggeration as to the state of the manufacturing classes of this country—an exaggeration of at least one half in the amount; he accused the noble Lord of having mistaken, and of having totally and grossly disregarded the evidence, a copy of which he held in his hand. He was not here to question the noble Lord's motives—he knew nothing about them— but he was there to discuss the noble Lord's actions; and he said that the noble Lord had widely misstated the facts of this case, and exaggerated the statement of the condition of a class of the population by no means the most miserable in the country. If any one proposed that they should go into an inquiry as to the condition of the labouring population of the country, and as to the best modes of improving that condition, he should be quite prepared to join in it. He would be quite prepared to inquire as to any means to improve the education of the people, apart from points of sectarian difference. Such obstructions to mental culture he would never countenance. But short of that, he should be prepared to do everything to promote this good object. This was what the House could do, and what they ought to do: but he maintained that they could not increase wages by any Act of Parliament. He maintained that to limit the hours of labour must incur a reduction of wages; and that if the House reduced the hours of labour, and had any regard for the position of the labourer, they ought also to he prepared to say that beyond a certain limit wages should not fall. Why, what would be the natural consequence of this proposition, reducing the hours of labour? The first effect of it would be to call into employment a large number of additional hands, and who would receive a lower sum for their services than those whose labours they supplied. This would go on from time to time, until the labourer would find that he had not enough to support himself in the ordinary comforts of life. And why should this be? Was it because the labourer was miserable now with scanty wages, that he should be rendered more miserable with diminished hours of labour? If the labourer had a right to have his hours of labour curtailed, he had also a right to demand indemnity from the consequences of such an Act; to demand, in short, that a minimum of wages should also be fixed. And having this right, could not the people enforce it? And when the House, in obedience to this demand, should attempt to carry on this vicious system of legislation, they would see the manufactures of the country declining under a daily decreasing capital, and with a manufacturing population each hour becoming weaker and more degraded. They would then see a vast industrial people made miserable in consequence of their injudicious interference; and would learn, when too late, how fatal were the consequences of a mistaken course of legislation.

The hon. and learned Member calls for proofs, and yet he makes a speech to the House consisting wholly of assertions, without a particle of proof. He declared to the House that he was a great friend to the people, and especially to the working classes. I am bound to say I have received information which leaves no doubt on my mind that they entertain a very indifferent opinion of him. They have declared that they consider the Member for Bath to be one of their bitterest enemies. They have not forgotten that be has always shown himself a strenuous supporter of the New Poor Law. If I were speaking my sentiments as an individual Member of this House, I should not take up a moment of your time, after the eloquent speeches which have been uttered in favour of the principle of this measure. But I am not here to speak my own individual opinions. I speak on this occasion the sentiments of hundreds of thousands of my fellow-countrymen belonging to the working classes, and I say, with the noble Lord the Member for Sunderland, it is a question which belongs solely to the working classes of the manufacturing districts. During the last autumn I was requested to aid the working classes of the manufacturing districts in the generous effort to release Mr. Oastler from prison, in order that he might aid them in advocating a Ten Hours Bill. It is a question which the working classes have contended for, for twelve years, and which they are determined to stand by and struggle for by every constitutional means. In advocating their opinions before the House to-night, I shall briefly revert to the declarations of the three parties within the House who advocate the three different measures before it. The first proposal is, that we should let the manufacturers and the work-people alone, and not interfere between them; the second is the proposal of the Government; and the third that of the noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire. Those Members in the House who declare we have no right whatever to interfere between masters and workmen in the manufacturing districts, and amongst them none more earnestly than the hon. and learned Member for Bath, assert that the masters and men are free agents, and have a right to enter into their own contracts,—that they have good wages and are not overworked,—and that the mothers remain at home and attend to their domestic duties. The hon. Member for Sheffield and the hon. Member for Manchester, as well as the noble Lord the Member for Newark, have declared that the work-people are completely satisfied, and that if we interfere we shall cause a stagnation in trade. The hon. and learned Member for Clithero declared that if we interfered we should "sow the wind and reap the whirlwind." The hon. Member for Halifax declared that if the people did not like to work long hours they might refuse to do so. With regard to the assertion of their being free agents, I will briefly call the attention of the House to the engagements entered into by some of the manufacturers in Lancashire, with the Poor Law Commissioners, in which it was proposed to take off the surplus population of the agricultural districts into the manufacturing districts, in order that they might bring down wages. They did this to a very great extent, and, having done this, what was the result. Sir, I hold in my hand a most important return, laid on the Table of the House on the 12th of May, 1843. It is an account of the labourers removed from the agricultural districts into the manufacturing, under the arrangements entered into by the Poor Law Commissioners and the manufacturers in the country districts. According to that return there were 4,228 labourers removed—only a small portion of the vast number of the labourers who were enticed, under professions of great improvement to their condition made by the manufacturers. Of that number there were 1,326 of whom there was no account of their age, sex, or wages; 609 had the amount of their wages, but not the names of their masters stated; there were seven mothers of families whose wages varied between 4s. 6d. and 5s. 6d. per week. Out of the whole of this number there were only 114 fathers of families. Of these twenty-six received wages from 5s. to 9d. a week, seventy-two from 9s. to 12s. a week, fourteen from 12s. to 15s., and two from 15s. to 20s. a week. Thus, Sir, we find that, instead of the wages of these labourers being increased by that removal into the manufacturing districts, they literally are less than the wages which were given to them before they left their own neighbourhoods. But what, let me ask the hon. Member for Sheffield, was the result of this removal of this large number of agricultural labourers in 1835, 1836, and 1837? They were removed under a distinct pledge that they should have their condition ameliorated. The hon. Member for Oldham, and the two hon. Members for Sheffield, declared in this House that the manufacturing labourers of Manchester and the neighbourhood were existing on 1¼d. a-day; and that the mills in all the large towns were closed, and the hon. Member for Manchester declared that there were many cases

"Where whole families are compelled to pawn the clothes which they wear during the day for the purpose of redeeming the bedding on which they are to take their nightly repose, and who are able to redeem their clothes in the morning only by replacing their bedding in the hands of the pawnbroker."

Now I should like to hear from the hon. and learned Member for Bath if, in the agricultural districts in England, he ever found the labourers in such a state of degradation and misery as that which I have just described to the House. But I will not weary the House by detailing the oppressions inflicted on the labouring classes in the manufacturing districts, by some of their employers, by the system of truck shops: but there is an unanimous feeling among the working classes that they have been reduced to the most abject state of misery and slavery, and that there are no means of rescuing them from that degraded state but the Ten Hours' Bill. They have declared with an unanimous voice that they will have that measure, whether wages are reduced or not. The hon. Member for Oldham knows that the question has not been put to them whether they would change experimentally? but they have been deliberately asked whether they had studied the question in all its bearings, and two-thirds of these labourers are more competent to discuss this question than three-fourths of those whom I now address, and they have declared that, whatever may be the consequence, they will have their hours of labour shortened. Sir, I hold in my hand an account of no less than sixteen individuals, who appeared before the Magistrates of Manchester, for the purpose of asking their aid to remove them back into the agricultural districts from which they had been entrapped. The acts then detailed were as disgraceful to those who sent them from the agricultural districts as to those who held out inducements to them to leave their homes. I am not going for one instant to extenuate the conduct of any landed proprietor who shall have lent his aid to such a system, nor am I going to hold back my reprobation of the conduct of the Poor Law Commissioners engaged in this proceeding. These poor wretched beings were induced to leave their homes by offers made to them by manufacturers, and when they arrived at the manufacturing districts, instead of being employed, they had to sleep for three weeks in a barn upon straw. The Magistrates expressed their indignation at the treatment they had experienced, and intimated their opinion, that those who have so deceived them ought to be prosecuted. The late hon. Member for Kendal was presiding on the Bench that day as a Magistrate. ["Question."] I do not address the House for the purpose of taking up its time. I would remind you, that the eyes of the kingdom are on this debate, and I implore hon. Members to allow me to address the House for a short time. If the House will allow me, I will just allude to what took place in the autumn of 1842, when the working classes in the manufacturing districts adopted the advice which was given to them by the hon. Member for Halifax. They were then told, to take that measure into their own hands; that, if they wanted to obtain their rights, they were to refuse to work; they adopted that advice; and what was the consequence? Why, the working classes in the manufacturing districts, left their masters, and went through Yorkshire and Lancashire in masses; for several days, in fact, the whole of those counties was in their possession, and it was not till the military were called out, and blood was spilled, that the majesty of the law was asserted. Some of the most active of those poor creatures were imprisoned and tried, and when called on for their defence, they narrated such tales of misery and woe to the Court, that the Attorney-general, your public prosecutor, wept, and he expressed himself in language which, if the House will allow me, I will read to it; for I think I cannot more strongly bring the matter home to the convictions of this House, than by reading a few lines uttered by the Attorney-general upon the occasion of the Chartist trials. In reply he stated, that

"He entirely agreed with what had been stated, that the present was one of the most important trials that had ever occurred; and if he had felt considerable responsibility when he addressed the jury several days ago, he did not feel that that responsibility was diminished by the evidence that had been produced for the prosecution, and the statements made by the several defendants. It was impossible not to feel the deepest sympathy for the distress which had been described, and no one could doubt that it extensively existed in the neighbourhood of Manchester, and throughout a large part of the country surrounding that manufacturing town. If they could quit the large public meetings assembled (it was said) 'to quiet the country,' and if they could go to the dwellings of those who did not join in those exciting crowds, they would hear of many a tale of heartrending distress, such as the defendant Pilling told yesterday, and which it was impossible to listen to without feeling that sympathy and compassion which it produced upon many persons around him, and, which he was not ashamed to say, he himself shared in, to an extent almost preventing him maintaining that demeanour which one ought to preserve in a Court of Justice."

I am anxious, also, to call the attention of the House to a calculation which has been made by the working classes themselves, as to the hours of labour which they will have to work in factories under the Government proposal of a Twelve Hours' Bill. If the House will kindly indulge me, I will read to them a statement which I think will clearly show that the working classes are fully justified in declaring that they will not be satisfied with any Measure save that proposed by the noble Lord, the Member for Dorsetshire. The account which the working classes have given to me as to the amount of time which they will have for recreation and sleep, states that young persons between the age of thirteen and eighteen require to have,—

"Half an hour to dress, &c, before leaving home, half an hour to travel to the mill, twelve hours actual labour, one hour and a half for meals, half an hour to travel home, half an hour for supper and preparing for bed—fifteen hours and a-half in all; leaving eight hours and a-half out of the twenty-four for recreation of mind, seeing and visiting friends, and sleep. In winter, when it is dark, they require half an hour extra for travelling to the mill, half an hour extra for returning to the mill—making sixteen hours and a-half, which leaves seven hours and a-half for recreation and sleep."

But the statement as to the hours of labour which the mothers of families have to endure is still more startling:—

"Half an hour to dress and suckle her infant and carry it out to nurse; one hour for household duties before leaving home; half an hour for travelling to the mill; twelve hours' actual labour; one hour and a-half for meals; half an hour for returning home at night; one hour and a-half for household duties and preparing for bed—making in all seventeen hours and a-half, and leaving but six hours and a-half for recreation, seeing or visiting friends, and sleep; and, in winter, when it is dark, half an hour extra time on the road to the mill; half an hour extra time on road home—making in all eighteen hours and a-half; and leaving only five hours and a-half out of the twenty-four for recreation, visiting, and sleep."

Now, I will ask the House, whether they think the working classes are not justified in declaring that they will no longer submit to such a Bill, but that they will have a Ten Hours' Bill, which the noble Lord has asserted he will never rest till he has carried? I am prepared to inform this House from the working classes, that if this House upon this occasion refuse to grant this Measure, they will not cease to agitate, and, what is more, those parties who have stuck by them in their agitation throughout the country will not cease to join with them in their renewed agitation. Let this House remember how this agitation has been produced; it has been produced by hon. Members like the hon. Member for Halifax asserting that the working classes did not care for the Ten Hours' Bill, and that the Petitions of the working classes being laid upon that Table, year after year, unheeded and unread by hon. Members of this House, they find that their Petitions have been useless, and, therefore, they are determined to call public attention to their sufferings by agitation. I implore the House to do justice to the working classes. If the House wished them to remain peaceable, justice must be done them. This House had been accused of legislating for the rich, and not for the poor; but now when it has triumphantly asserted that it will legislate upon principles of humanity, and of justice and protection to the working classes, fancy not that you can by a side-wind to-night, or by unfair means, debar the working classes of their just rights. Depend upon it, if you refuse this Bill, they will eventually adopt the advice of the hon. Member for Halifax— they will continue to agitate, and they will eventually refuse to work. What will be the consequence to yourselves? You have admitted that it is the trade of this country on which the prosperity of this country depends. Let the working classes refuse to work for one week, at four different periods of the year, and what will be the result? The working classes have a desire to endure and to suffer without complaint; but you may try their patience too long, and, if you refuse this Measure, the clay will come when you will deeply regret it, and when the working classes will extract it from your unwilling hands.

said, there was one circumstance connected with this debate which, as it appeared to him, had been lost sight of by the Ministers, the lawyers, and the philosophers, and that was, whether a vote of that House could prevent the evil so much feared. His opinion was, that it could not, and his advice to the right hon. Baronet would be to give the people what they wanted, and to take the grace instead of the abuse. It was quite evident that a strike for wages amongst the operatives would have all the ill effect that the Ten Hours' Bill could have, and, as the people had made up their minds to have the Ten Hours' Clause, he would recommend the Government to concede it; otherwise, the people would strike to obtain it. He had asked every one he had come upon specifically the question whether they were ready to put up with the abatement of wages in case the Ten Hours' Bill was carried, and, invariably, the answer was, that they were prepared to do so, as they considered the advantages they should derive from more time and convenience more than counterbalanced the loss they should sustain. And there was a great deal of truth in that. He thought much more was made of the question than it was worth, and that the reduction of wages would not be so great as was represented. And who are the parties to be acted upon by the Ten Hours' Bill? Only the women; and let him mention another circumstance, and one very important for consideration, and that was, that the women, being more suitable for certain species of labour, they obtained it in preference to the men, provided they could do it, and, that being the case, the men were left, to a considerable extent, to walk about whilst the women were doing their work. But their argument was, that if the women worked only a reasonable time, they, the men, would have more work. Then it was said, this Ten Hours' Bill was opposed by the Government on principle. Now, had there been any principle at all connected with the Government for the last thirty years? Since the last Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, he had searched with great care, and he could not find any principle connected with any Government for the last thirty years. The only principle he could find was legislative expediency. Every measure for the last twenty-five years against the interests of the people had been grounded upon the principle of expediency. They had no right to go against the people upon such a principle. Talk of philosophy—it was an idea. Philosophers and philosophy! Their philosophy would be found when many other things would be found—when it was too late for use. It was a mere question, whether they were right or he was right. For his own part, he repudiated the doctrine of interference altogether; but these parties had given very good reason why they should have this interference. He thought the Government could not prevent it, and it would therefore he better to let them have it. And what was it that was said would be the result? That it, would affect the export trade. Why, that trade was not worth having. Then it was said it would produce mischief to trade generally. Did not the right hon. Baronet, on the Bank Charter, say, that if any mischief arose from his Measure, he would come down to the House and rectify it? And why could he not do the same with this Measure? But, speaking of principles, what had been the laws of the last twenty-five years which materially interfered with the happiness of the people at large? He found five excrescences—for such he should call them —upon bad systems of Government—the Corn Laws, the Poor Laws, the Truck Laws, the Emigration Laws, and, most of all, the Factory Laws. Now, as to the first, they found difficulty in keeping up rents; there was a necessity for high-priced corn, and they instituted the abstract Corn-laws to keep up the rents. What principle did they call that? He called it a very bad one. The next question was the Poor Laws; and what did those Laws do but place men in such a position that no honest man could ensure to himself labour, and, when he applied for relief, the answer was, "We cannot give it, you must come into the workhouse and undergo the workhouse test; you must sell what little you have, and be separated from your wife and family." The next was the Truck Law. He contended that they had no right to interfere with the trade of barter. The last question was that of the Emigration Laws. And it appeared to him that, if there were anything unnatural and unprincipled, it was those Laws. They exported the best men: the worst would not go. He contended that those four Laws were contrary to the principles of right and the interests of the people, but those were the principles of philosophy. They were the principles of expediency; there was no philosophy in it. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would reconsider his threat of the consequences, if the Ministry were left in the minority. He thought his threat of little value; for, if the Ministry were defeated on this question, the right, hon. Baronet knew they would soon be recalled, and with greater power than before. At the same time he gave the right hon. Baronet joy of his new ally the hon. and learned Member for Bath. It was quite clear that every species of philosophy and power and knowledge of commercial affairs was concentrated in that one quarter. If they took advice from that hon. and learned Gentleman, it appeared, from his own statement, they must be right. But no matter what his abilities might be, he could not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. He went here and there, and everywhere, found fault with everybody and every thing; but it did not appear to him (Mr. Muntz) to prove that he had any remedy to offer in this case. "The poor creatures," he said, "are to be left to themselves: if you drive them to a Ten Hours' Bill, they will all reproach you." At all events, they could not reproach the Government. The Government had done all they could to oppose the Measure, and the wisest thing for them to do now was, to go with the noble Lord, and, if they did not, they would repent of it. They had much better give way in a decent manner, than, as they will be obliged to do, give way in an indecent manner. For himself, he should like to see the Ten Hours' Bill fairly tried. He was quite willing to take his share of the responsibility, and he should therefore support most cordially the Motion of the noble Lord.

said, that many of the statements made by hon. Gentlemen in the course of the debate had filled him with amazement; it had been stated that our foreign trade was of no value to the country; but, if that were so, he had been labouring under a delusion all his life. These opinions had been stated by various Members, but he never could believe that they intended them to be received as their solemn and sincere conviction. It was clearly impossible that the manufacturers of this country could obtain two prices for their commodities—they could not have a home price and a foreign price for the same article; the price in the foreign market must regulate the price elsewhere. England could, no doubt regulate the price of her manufactures in her dependencies; but, let it be recollected, she also carried on commerce with countries over which she had no sway; in them she would find competition, and if that competition were made more formidable by our own acts, the price in those markets must necessarily be reduced, and our manufacturers suffer in proportion. What would he the consequence to the foreign trade of this country, if under the specious guise of humanity they should proceed to cut off so large a portion of the industry of this country as was proposed by the noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire? The House must not legislate upon chance—for suppose chance went against us?—suppose that for six months we lost the export trade, could the House remedy and patch up the evil caused by its previous ill legislation? If that House was to legislate only from hand to mouth, and make mere experiments because of a certain degree of pressure upon a question of this nature, their legislation would be unsound and their experiments disastrous; legislation would become a farce, and they would inflict some experimental evil upon this country which would exist as long as the House of Commons itself. He would yield to no one in a hearty desire to see the working classes placed in a position of prosperity and comfort, but he did not believe that this end would be accomplished by the mode of legislative interference now proposed. Thinking this, his course was clear, and no fear of a failing popularity would induce him to stir from the point at which his conviction fixed him. He regretted that the noble Lord should have come down to the House and made so many statements without having put himself in communication with the manufacturers, who thought themselves unfairly dealt with by the noble Lord. He thought the noble Lord relied too much upon the grossly exaggerated statements made to him from other quarters. He wished to mention a curious circumstance in illustration of this matter. In 1836 he joined the noble Lord in disapproving of the manner in which the duty of inspecting the factories was sometimes performed. There were a set of persons who used to haunt the lobby of the House called delegates, who came to give hon. Members information about the factories. When he (Mr. Philips) visited a factory after that, he found one of these very delegates working two children under the age allowed by the Act of Parliament, and remonstrated with him upon the subject. That individual addressed a letter to him in the newspapers, which was noticed in that House by the former Member for Tynemouth, (Mr. G. F. Young), and he then gave an answer for the statements in those letters, which was not recorded in public reports of the proceedings of the House, nor was it to be found in Hansard. But there was in Hansard a speech purporting to be one delivered by the then Member for Ashton (Mr. Hindley) which was never uttered at all in that House, and which made him think that something unfair went on between parties behind the scenes.^* He was not a cotton-spinner, and consequently had no individual interest upon the subject, but he really believed that there had been great exaggerations made use of with regard to factory labour. The ventilation of factories, from the number of windows, was in a great measure in the hands of the labourers themselves; and many of the other evils complained of did not exist to anything like the extent stated. His opinion was, that the factory labourers were better off than other labourers, and their employment more wholesome and certain, and he could not but be sorry for any act of legislation which would injure not only the manufacturers, but the operatives of the land—for this measure must certainly injure them. There would be a reduction of wages in the first instance, and then the next step which they would have to take would be to interfere with them; and as they had enacted a maximum of labour, they would be called upon to enact a minimum of wages. It had been stated by the Member for Knaresborough, that he had been invited to attend the meetings recently held in the north to discuss this subject, and that he had refused to attend. He never had been invited; if he had he might not have refused to attend, but would have gone to any place where the question was likely to be fairly and calmly discussed. If the present measure were agreed to, the next step in legislation must be an interference with wages; a step which could not be taken without producing much mischief. In fact, it would be impossible to make any such measure operative, for in slack times people would go to the masters and ask for work, promising to take low wages, and to say nothing about the terms. He looked with anxiety to the result of this debate. He had every feeling to promote the prosperity of the working classes, but he had never been called on to take part in the discussion of any measure so diametrically opposed to his wishes in this respect as was the proposition brought forward by the noble Lord; and he must therefore give it his most determined opposition.

^*The passage to which this note refers reflecting on the Editors of these Debates, we called the attention of Mr. Mark Philips to the subject, and from his written reply, with his permission, we quote the following passages: —

"I beg in the most unreserved manner to assure you, that I do not now, and that I never did at any time, harbour the thought that you were cognizant of the fact of my speech being suppressed in the pages of your Parliamentary Reports."

"Allow me to repeat, that I never for one instant imagined that the conductors of Hansard's Parliamentary Debates were aware of the omission to which I alluded in the recent debate upon Lord Ashley's Motion. I entirely acquit them, whilst I suspect that it was not the result of mere accident."

Conceiving that these passages exonerate us from every personal imputation, we feel it unnecessary to enter into any investigation of a circumstance which occurred eight years ago, and has never since that Session of Parliament been brought, that we are aware of, before the public, or to our recollection. We feel fully assured, that those who are acquainted with our humble labours, particularly the Members of both Houses of Parliament, are thoroughly convinced, that neither personal nor party considerations have ever been for one moment allowed to interfere with the honourable discharge of our duty to supply as accurate and faithful a Report as can be made of every Debate which takes place in Parliament.

Debate adjourned.

moved that the Speaker do leave the Chair, in order that the Poor Law Amendment Bill should be committed pro formâ, that he might have an opportunity of making some alterations.

wished to know what question was before the House. He had loudly called out "No," to the adjournment of the debate on the Factory Bill, and he had done so because he saw no fun in carrying on a discussion with respect to which hon. Gentlemen had made up their minds.

said, that the question was, that he should leave the Chair.

said, that before they went into Committee pro formâ on this Bill, he wished to know when the discussion on it would come on.

said his object now was to make alterations in the Clauses of the Measure, and have the Bill with the alterations printed, in order that the Bill might be circulated, and the sentiments of the country with reference to the alterations ascertained. What he asked was the most certain means of expediting the progress of the Bill.

said they had been promised that this important Bill was to be brought on for discussion immediately after Easter, and what he wished to know now was, whether the Government intended to proceed with the Bill immediately after the Factory Bill?

was not in a situation to reply to the hon. Gentleman, and he thought the course he was taking would be the most satisfactory.

said, that although it was desirable some time should be fixed for the debate on this important subject, he thought the right hon. Baronet had stated sufficient reasons for the course he adopted. When, however, the question came on he hoped they would not be limited to the details of the Bill, but would go into the whole question.

The House in Committee.

Bill passed through Committee pro forma.

House resumed and Report received. Bill to be recommitted.

House adjourned at one o'clock.