Chapter L: Section III (3)

_Mr. W. Smith_ observed, that he never heard of any proposition of reform which was not likely to be inconvenient to some persons; and therefore he was not surprised at the assertion, that the adoption of the Bill before the House would operate to injure the interests of particular persons. The apprehension of such injury was, however, in his judgment, unfounded. But still, those who expressed the apprehension were entitled to attention; and the objections which certain petitioners urged against this Bill, would, he had no doubt, meet all due consideration in the committee. The fact was, as to the statute of Elizabeth, that its existence served to create monopolies; and the effect of those monopolies was, that when the demand for an article was large, the price was enhanced to the public; while, when the demand became small, many workmen were thrown out of employment. Therefore, the repeal of that statute would tend to serve both the public and the workmen. As to the argument advanced in support of the statute of Elizabeth, merely in consequence of its antiquity, he could not admit that it had any force. He declared that his ears were quite tired of the phrase "the wisdom of our ancestors," which phrase was, in fact, calculated only to impose upon the superficial. For, after all, what did this phrase mean? The world was younger in the time of our ancestors, although they were older than us. Time, Lord Bacon said, was the greatest innovator; and if, at this advanced time of the world, after all our experience, we could not improve upon the system of our ancestors, our intellects must be what would hardly be asserted, not only quite unequal to theirs, but infinitely inferior. How, then, could it be pretended, that the same legislative arrangements applied in the reign of Elizabeth, when the trade of the whole British Empire was not equal to that of the port of London at this day, was strictly applicable at present, and suited to our improved situation?

_Mr. Serjeant Onslow_ replied, and, observing upon the petitions on the table against the Bill, expressed his conviction that they were not the unsolicited acts of the petitioners; as indeed appeared from several placards about town, inviting signatures to such petitions; and those petitioners, he meant especially the journeymen mechanics, would find the repeal of the Act of Elizabeth rather materially serviceable, than in any degree injurious to their interests.

The Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Tuesday.

[The apprenticeship regulations of the 5 Eliz. c. 4 were abolished by 54 Geo. III. 96, 1814.]

[Footnote 352: For enforcing the Statute of Apprentices.]

[Footnote 353: Parliamentary Debates, Series I, Cols. 423-25, Vol. XXVII.]

[Footnote 354: Parliamentary Debates, Series I, Vol. XXVII, Cols. 563-74.]

[Footnote 355: Parliamentary Debates, Series I, Vol. XXVII, Cols. 879-884.]

[Footnote 356: The apprenticeship regulations in the woollen industries had been set aside by Acts of Parliament, 1803 and 1809.]

14. RESOLUTIONS OF THE WATCHMAKERS ON APPRENTICESHIP [_Report of Committee on Petitions of the Watchmakers, 1817 (VI)_], 1817.

1. That the obvious intention of our ancestors, in enacting the statute of the 5 Elizabeth, cap. 4, was to produce and maintain a competent number and perpetual succession of masters and journeymen, of practical experience, to promote, secure, and render permanent the prosperity of the national arts and manufactures, honestly wrought by their ability and talents, inculcated by a mechanical education, called a seven years' apprenticeship; whereby according to the memorable words of the statute itself "it will come to pass, that the same law (being duly executed) should banish idleness, advance husbandry, and yield unto the hired person, both in time of scarcity and in time of plenty, a convenient proportion of wages."

2. That it is by apprenticeships, that the practitioners in the arts and manufactures attain the high degree of perfection, whereby British productions have arrived at the great estimation in which they were heretofore held in foreign markets.

8. That the apprenticed artisans have, collectively and individually, an unquestionable right to expect the most extended protection from the Legislature, in the quiet and exclusive use and enjoyment of their several and respective arts and trades, which the law has already conferred upon them as a property, as much as it has secured the property of the stockholder in the public funds; and it is clearly unjust to take the whole of the ancient established property and rights of any one class of the community, unless, at the same time, the rights and property of the whole commonwealth should be dissolved, and parcelled out anew for the public good.

10. That in consequence of too minute a division of labour, injudiciously allowed in several manufactures, the workmen employed are not enabled to make throughout any one article however simple, or even to maintain themselves by their industry.

11. That the unlimited or promiscuous introduction of various descriptions of persons without apprenticeship into the manufactures occasions a surplus of manufacturing poor, and an unnecessary competition, ruinous to the commercial capital and industry of the nation; because the overflow of goods causes all the productions of the manufacturies to fall in price, and be sold to foreigners for less money than they cost in making; which deficiencies are necessarily made up by the ruin of the master manufacturers, bankruptcies, and dividends to creditors; and are the cause of increased parochial and other rates, thus necessarily created, for the support of the poor workmen, who are deprived of the fair price of their honest labour.

17. That the system of apprenticeships, whether considered in a religious, political or moral point of view, is highly beneficial to the State, and from the neglect thereof is to be attributed the great defalcation of public morals, the numerous frauds committed in trade, the increased numbers of juvenile criminals, public trials and executions.

18. That the pretensions to the allowance of universal uncontrolled freedom of action to every individual founded upon the same delusive theoretical principles which fostered the French Revolution, are wholly inapplicable to the insular situation of this Kingdom, and if allowed to prevail, will hasten the destruction of the social system so happily arranged in the existing form and substance of the British constitution, established by law.

19. That the meeting highly approves the proceedings of the 62,875 masters and journeymen, who have already presented petitions, to the House of Commons, praying for leave to bring a Bill into Parliament to amend, extend and make more effectual the statute of apprenticeship, 5 Elizabeth, chap. 4.

21. That the most effectual preventive against and check upon combinations of journeymen, as also of masters in any trade, is for the persons engaged in such trades to take apprentices as required by law.

15. REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON THE RIBBON WEAVERS [_Report of Committee on the Ribbon Weavers, 1818 (IX)_], 1818.

Your Committee also report, That it appears by the examination that the silk, and ribbon weavers in particular, are and have been for some time past suffering great privations and distress, arising out of inadequate wages; that such distress has had the effect of reducing thousands of them to seek parochial aid, and have, in consequence, increased the poor-rate, especially in the parishes of Coventry and in the County of Warwick, where the ribbon trade is the staple manufacture, to an extent too burdensome to be much longer borne.

That the low rate of wages complained of by the Petitioners is not in consequence of the want of trade, it having been proved to your committee that there are as many silk goods, particularly ribbons, now making, as at any former time.

That a system of half-pay apprenticeship has been resorted to, which has been attended with ruinous consequences to the morals of such apprentices, and exceedingly injurious to the trade.

That the evils complained of do not exist in London, Westminster, and Middlesex; which your committee believe to be owing to the provisions of the act called the Spitalfields Act, which extend to those places, the effects of which are fully detailed in the evidence.

That the whole of the masters and weavers in the Ribbon Trade concur in the propriety of an extension of the Spitalfields Act.

Your Committee are, therefore, of opinion, that it is absolutely necessary, for the protection of the weavers in the silk trade, and the ribbon trade in particular, and to enable them to support themselves and families, and also for protecting the parishes in which these trades are carried on, that some legislative interference should take place; and your committee think that a remedy could be found in the extension of the provisions of the Spitalfields and Dublin Acts, or at least a trial of that extension for a period of a few years, by way of experiment.

Your committee cannot but remark, that whilst the Statute of 5th Elizabeth, c. 4, was in force, that the distressing circumstances now complained of, never occurred.

3 June, 1818.

16. THE COTTON FACTORY ACT OF 1819 [_Statutes, 59 Geo. III, 66_], 1819.

An Act to make further Provisions for the Regulation of Cotton Mills
and Factories, and for the better Preservation of the Health of young
Persons employed therein.

I. No child shall be employed in any description of work, for the spinning of cotton wool into yarn, or in any previous preparation of such wool, until he or she shall have attained the full age of nine years.

II. And be it further enacted, that no person, being under the age of sixteen years, shall be employed in any description of work whatsoever, in spinning cotton wool into yarn, or in the previous preparation of such wool, or in the cleaning or repairing of any mill, manufactory or building, or any millwork or machinery therein, for more than twelve hours in any one day, exclusive of the necessary time for meals; such twelve hours to be between the hours of five o'clock in the morning and nine o'clock in the evening.

III. And be it further enacted, that there shall be allowed to every such person, in the course of every day, not less than half an hour to breakfast, and not less than one full hour for dinner; such hour for dinner to be between the hours of eleven o'clock in forenoon and two o'clock in the afternoon.

IV. Provided nevertheless, and be it further enacted, that if at any time, in any such mill, manufactory or buildings as are situated upon streams of water, time shall be lost in consequence of the want of a due supply, or of an excess of water, then and in every such case, and so often as the same shall happen, it shall be lawful for the proprietors of any such mill, manufactory or building, to extend the before mentioned time of daily labour, after the rate of one additional hour per day, until such lost time shall have been made good, but no longer.

V. And be it further enacted, that the ceilings and interior walls of every such mill, manufactory, or building shall be washed with quick lime and water twice in every year.

17. OASTLER'S FIRST LETTER ON YORKSHIRE SLAVERY [_The Leeds Mercury, Saturday, October 16, 1830_], 1830.

Slavery in Yorkshire.

To the editors of the Leeds Mercury.

"It is the pride of Britain that a Slave cannot exist on her soil;
and if I read the genius of her constitution aright, I find that
Slavery is most abhorrent to it--that the air which Britons breathe
is free--the ground on which they tread is sacred to liberty."

Rev. R.W. Hamilton's Speech at the Meeting held in the Cloth-Hall
Yard, Sept. 22nd, 1830.[357]

Gentlemen,--No heart responded with truer accents to the sounds of liberty which were heard in the Leeds Cloth-hall yard, on the 22nd instant, than did mine, and from none could more sincere and earnest prayers arise to the throne of Heaven, that hereafter Slavery might only be known to Britain in the pages of her history. One shade alone obscured my pleasure, arising not from any difference in principle, but from the want of application of the general principle _to the whole Empire_. The pious and able champions of _Negro_ liberty and _Colonial_ rights should, if I mistake not, have gone farther than they did; or perhaps, to speak more correctly, before they had travelled so far as the West Indies, should, at least for a few moments, have sojourned in our immediate neighbourhood, and have directed the attention of the meeting to scenes of misery, acts of oppression and victims of Slavery, even on the threshold of our homes!

Let the truth speak out, appalling as the statements may appear. The fact is true. Thousands of our fellow-creatures and fellow-subjects, both male and female, the inhabitants of a _Yorkshire-town_, (Yorkshire now represented in Parliament by the giant of anti-slavery principles,[358]) are at this very moment existing in a state of slavery _more horrid_ than are the victims of that hellish system--"_Colonial Slavery._" These innocent creatures drawl out unpitied their short but miserable existence, in a place famed for its profession of religious zeal, whose inhabitants are ever foremost in _professing_ "Temperance" and "Reformation," and are striving to outrun their neighbours in Missionary exertions, and would fain send the Bible to the farthest corner of the Globe--aye in the very place where the anti-slavery fever rages most furiously, her _apparent charity_ is not more admired on earth, than her _real_ cruelty is abhorred in heaven. The very streets which receive the droppings of an "Anti-Slavery Society" are every morning wet with the tears of innocent victims at the accursed shrine of avarice, who are compelled (not by the cart-whip of the negro slave-driver) but by the dread of the equally appalling thong or strap of the overlooker, to hasten half-dressed, _but not half-fed_, to those magazines of British Infantile Slavery--_the Worsted Mills in the town and neighbourhood of Bradford_!!!

* * * * *

Thousands of little children, both male and female, _but principally female_, from SEVEN to fourteen years, are daily _compelled_ to _labour_ from six o'clock in the morning to seven in the evening with only--Britons, blush whilst you read it!--_with only thirty minutes allowed for eating and recreation_.

* * * * *

The Blacks may be fairly compared to beasts of burden _kept for their master's use_. The whites to those _which others keep and let for hire\_! If I have succeeded in calling the attention of your readers to the horrid and abominable system on which the worsted mills in and near Bradford are conducted, I have done some good. Why should not children working in them be protected by legislative enactments, as well as those who work in cotton mills. Christians should feel and act for those whom Christ so eminently loved and declared that "of such is the kingdom of heaven."

Your insertion of the above in the Leeds Mercury, at your earliest convenience, will oblige, Gentlemen,

Your most obedient servant,
Richard Oastler.

Fixby Hall, near Huddersfield, Sept. 29th, 1830.

[Footnote 357: September 22, 1830, an anti-Slavery meeting at the Coloured Cloth Hall, Leeds, addressed by Lord Morpeth, Henry Brougham, etc., in favour of the abolition of Slavery in the British colonies.]

[Footnote 358: Brougham.]

18. FACTORY ACT [_Statutes, 3 and 4 Wm. IV, 103_], 1833.

An Act to regulate the Labour of Children and young Persons in the
Mills and Factories of the United Kingdom.

... no person under eighteen years of age shall be allowed to work in the night, that is to say between the hours of half-past eight o'clock in the evening and half-past five o'clock in the morning, except as hereinafter provided, in or about any cotton, woollen, worsted, hemp, flax, tow, linen, or silk mill or factory....

II. And be it further enacted, that no person under the age of eighteen years shall be employed in any such mill or factory in such description of work as aforesaid more than twelve hours in any one day, nor more than sixty-nine hours in any one week, except as hereinafter provided.

VI. And be it further enacted, that there shall be allowed in the course of every day not less than one and a half hours for meals to every such person restricted as hereinbefore provided to the performance of twelve hours work daily.

VII. And be it enacted, that from and after the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and thirty-four it shall not be lawful for any person whatsoever to employ in any factory or mill as aforesaid, except in mills for the manufacture of silk, any child who shall not have completed his or her ninth year of age.

VIII. And be it further enacted, that from and after the expiration of six months after the passing of this act, it shall not be lawful for any person whatsoever to employ, keep, or allow to remain in any factory or mill as aforesaid for a longer time than forty-eight hours in any one week, nor for a longer time than nine hours in any one day, except as herein provided, any child who shall not have completed his or her eleventh year of age, or after the expiration of eighteen months from the passing of this act any child who shall not have completed his or her twelfth year of age, or after the expiration of thirty months from the passing of this act any child who shall not have completed his or her thirteenth year of age: Provided nevertheless, that in mills for the manufacture of silk children under the age of thirteen years shall be allowed to work ten hours in any one day.

[XI. No child under thirteen to be employed without a certificate that the child is of normal strength and appearance.]

XVII.... it shall be lawful for His Majesty by Warrant under his Sign Manual to appoint during His Majesty's pleasure four persons to be Inspectors of factories and places where the labour of children and young persons under eighteen years of age is employed, ... and such Inspectors or any of them are hereby empowered to enter any factory or mill, and any school attached or belonging thereto, at all times and seasons by day or by night, when such mills or factories are at work....

XVIII. And be it further enacted, that the said Inspectors or any of them shall have power and are hereby required to make all such rules, regulations, and orders as may be necessary for the due execution of this act, which rules, regulations, and orders shall be binding on all persons subject to the provisions of this act; and such inspectors are also hereby authorised and required to enforce the attendance at school of children employed in factories according to the provisions of this act....

XX. And be it further enacted, that from and after the expiration of six months from the passing of this act, every child hereinbefore restricted to the performance of forty-eight hours of labour in any one week shall, so long as such child shall be within the said restricted age, attend some school....

19. PROPOSALS FOR A WAGES BOARD FOR HAND-LOOM WEAVERS [_First Report from Committee on Hand-loom Weavers' Petitions, 1834 (X), pp. 48-9_], 1834.

_Evidence of Hugh Mackenzie, June 28, 1834._

Have the goodness to explain to the Committee ... what are the boards of trade for which you have sent up petitions to the House?

We have endeavoured upon many occasions to make this system of a board of trade, which we pray for, as well understood as possible.... Now the old Spitalfields Act every one that is not friendly to the present proposed plans of boards of trade never fails to bring forward as an objection, as a thing which has been practically tried and failed. There is, however, nothing more different. The Spitalfields Act carried its own ruin in its constitution; it was framed upon the principle of being local, and confined to one place only. It was impossible that such an act could stand long, for whilst competition went on in the country, other manufacturers who were only at ten miles distance, or anywhere where the act did not extend, were at liberty to set up the same kind of work, and pay for it, without any transgression of the law, at a great reduction. This being the case, the trade of Spitalfields then began to spread to different parts of the country where the act did not extend; the consequence was, that Spitalfields was soon undersold by cheaper goods than it could make itself, and this led to the ruin of the Spitalfields Act. But had the thing been made general, and extended over the whole nation, the towns in the neighbourhood could not have underwrought Spitalfields; they would have been on the same footing. Had that act been made general, it would have been very good for the country at large; not the fixed price that the Spitalfields Act contained, but the minimum, the lowest price; it might rise and fall according to the circumstances of the trade. Now our views of it are exactly and principally founded upon that; a board of trade that shall extend over the whole nation, and that it shall be under one superintending head. We suppose that that superintending head could be nothing short of His Majesty's Board of Trade in London, and that boards of trade in local places in the country, who are only branches, locally established, not to do as themselves pleased, but they are to be all subordinate to one general board: that these boards shall be at all times guided by the circumstances of the times; and that this data, or lowest minimum of price, shall be taken from what the manufacturer or manufacturers of respectability are able and willing to pay, provided that others were obliged to pay the same prices with him, and that he could not be undersold in the market: that the foreign trade shall by no means be excluded from the consideration of the board; they are to be taken into consideration whether it is expedient that the prices shall be brought down a little, or up a little, just as the nature of trade might require....

Have you any parties introduced in these boards of trade consisting of masters and workmen, who would belong to neither party, who would act in conjunction with them in arbitrating where there was a difference of opinion whether the master paid too little or too much wages? Yes, we had conceived that the self-interest of both parties might induce them to differ, supposing an equal number of manufacturers and weavers composed this board; and one party under such circumstances must of course be in the wrong. Now the only arbiter that could be brought forth under such circumstances must be a neutral, that was pretty well versed in the nature of trade, and that arbitrator could be none other than His Majesty's Board of Trade in London.

In Glasgow or anywhere in Scotland, have you a board of trade in operation upon the principles you approve of, that you think would answer all purposes? It is going on just now; it is working at Paisley very finely, and at Glasgow.

* * * * *

Just explain those principles as far as you can? The working of the Paisley board at the present time, and the working of the Glasgow board, are exactly upon the same principles. The principle is this, that for all the species of work made at Paisley, the manufacturers made out a table of prices, and the weavers made out another; they were reciprocally handed to each other for correction, and the result was, they came to a mutual agreement; they entered into a 12 months' agreement, that they would issue no more work out to their workmen below the minimum price fixed, say it was 1s. for a certain fabric.[359]

[Footnote 359: _Cf._ Fielden's proposals, as reported by the Committee's Second Report, 1835 (XIII), p. 14.

"The principal feature of Mr. Fielden's Bill is, that returns shall be made every three or six months of the prices of weaving paid by the smallest number of manufacturers, who collectively made one-half of the goods of any description in the parish or township whence the returns are sent, and the average of the highest prices paid by a majority of such manufacturers, shall be the lowest price to be paid in such parish or township during the succeeding three or six months. The effects of the measure would be to withdraw from the worst-paying masters the power which they now possess of regulating wages, and to confer it upon those whose object it is to raise the condition and character of the workpeople."]

20. COAL MINES REGULATION ACT [_Statutes 5 and 6, Victoria 99_], 1842.

An Act to prohibit the employment of women and girls in mines and collieries, to regulate the employment of boys, and to make other provisions relating to persons working therein.

... That from and after the passing of this act it shall not be lawful for any owner of any mine or colliery whatsoever to employ any female person within any mine or colliery, or permit any female person to work or be therein, for the purpose of working therein, other than such as were at or before the passing of this act employed within such mine or colliery; and that from and after three calendar months from the passing of this act it shall not be lawful for any owner of any mine or colliery to employ any female person who at the passing of this act shall be under the age of eighteen years within any mine or colliery....

II.... That from and after the first day of March, one thousand eight hundred and forty-three, it shall not be lawful for any owner of any mine or colliery to employ any male person under the age of ten years ... other than such as at the passing of this act shall have attained the age of nine years, and were at or before the passing of this act employed within such mine or colliery.

III.... That it shall be lawful for one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, if and when he shall think fit, to appoint any proper person or persons to visit and inspect any mine or colliery; and it shall be lawful for every person so authorised to enter and examine such mine or colliery ... at all times and seasons, by day or by night, and to make inquiry touching any matter within the provisions of this act; ...

[VII. No provision of the Act to affect employment on the surface.]

X. And whereas the practice of paying wages to workmen at public houses is found to be highly injurious to the best interests of the working classes; be it therefore enacted, that from and after the expiration of three months from the passing of this act no proprietor or worker of any mine or colliery, or other person, shall pay or cause to be paid any wages ... at or within any tavern, public house, beer shop, or other house of entertainment.

[XI. Wages so paid can be recovered as if no payment made.]

21. DEBATE ON FACTORY LEGISLATION [_Parliamentary Debates, 3rd Series, Vol. 73, Cols. 1073-1151_], 1844.

Hours of Labour in Factories. House of Commons in Committee on the Factories Bill. March 15, 1844.

_Lord Ashley_ rose to propose the amendment of which he had given notice--

"That, the word 'night' shall be taken to mean from six o'clock in the evening to six o'clock in the following morning; and the word 'mealtime' shall be taken to mean an interval of cessation from work for the purpose of rest and refreshment, at the rate of two hours a day, with a view to effect a limitation of the hours of labour to ten in the day."

The form of my amendment (said the noble Lord) requires some preliminary explanation. I move it in its present shape at the suggestion of my right hon. friend and the Government, though I fear that in adopting that course I subject myself to some disadvantage. The House will allow me at the outset to explain my amendment. I propose that the word "night," in this clause shall be taken to mean from six o'clock in the evening till six on the following morning, that will leave twelve clear hours during which work shall cease, and I propose further, that out of the twelve hours of day, there shall be two hours during which there shall be a cessation of labour; but that no person shall be affected by this amendment, except those who, under clause ten, are guaranteed against night-work, children, and young persons under thirteen years of age. If I succeed in this amendment it will be necessary to make some corresponding alteration in the eighth clause. The tenth clause I propose to leave, as that will afford an opportunity of giving some relaxation through the summer months. During the winter months, that is from the 15th of October to the 15th of March, hours of labour are not to exceed ten, two being for meals; but during the summer months, that is from the 15th of March to the 15th of October, the hours to be twelve and two for meals, making fourteen in the whole. Now, I would say with a view to conciliate opposition, that though I shall be ready to propose, as I intend to do, to limit the labour of all young persons and children to ten hours in each day, I am yet willing to obtain that object in parts and by degrees; that is, I propose to limit the hours of labour for such persons to eleven hours a day from the 1st of October in the present year, and ten hours a day from the 1st of October, 1845. Nearly eleven years have now elapsed since I first made the proposition to the House which I shall renew this night. Never, at any time, have I felt greater apprehension or even anxiety; not through any fear of personal defeat, for disappointment is "the badge of all our tribe;" but because I know well the hostility that I have aroused, and the certain issues of indiscretion on my part affecting the welfare of those who have so long confided their hopes and interests to my charge.

And here let me anticipate the constant, but unjust, accusation that I am animated by a peculiar hostility against factory masters, and I have always selected them as exclusive objects of attack. I must assert that the charge, though specious, is altogether untrue. I began, I admit, this public movement by an effort to improve the condition of the factories; but this I did, not because I ascribed to that department of industry a monopoly of all that was pernicious and cruel, but because it was then before the public eye, comprised the wealthiest and most responsible proprietors, and presented the greatest facilities for legislation.

As soon as I had the power, I showed my impartiality by moving the House for the Children's Employment Commission. The curious in human suffering may decide on the respective merits of the several reports; but factory labour has no longer an unquestionable pre-eminence of ill fame; and we are called upon to give relief, not because it is the worst system, but because it is oppressive, and yet capable of alleviation. Sir, I confess that ten years of experience have taught me that avarice and cruelty are not the peculiar and inherent qualities of any one class or occupation--they will ever be found where the means of profit are combined with great and, virtually, irresponsible power--they will be found wherever interest and selfishness have a purpose to serve, and a favourable opportunity.

* * * * *

This will conclude the statement that I have to make to the House--and now, sir, who will assert that these things should be permitted to exist? Who will hesitate to apply the axe to the root of the tree, or, at least, endeavour to lop off some of its deadliest branches? What arguments from general principles will they adduce against my proposition? What, drawn from peculiar circumstances? They cannot urge that particular causes in England give rise to particular results; the same cause prevails in various countries; and wherever it is found, it produces the same effects. I have already stated its operation in France, in Russia, in Switzerland, in Austria, and in Prussia; I may add also in America; for I perceive by the papers of the 1st of February, that a Bill has been proposed in the Legislature of Pennsylvania, to place all persons under the age of sixteen within the protection of the "ten hours" limit. I never thought that we should have learned justice from the City of Philadelphia. In October last I visited an immense establishment in Austria, which gives employment to several hundred hands; I went over the whole, and conversed with the managers, who detailed to me the same evils and the same fruits as those I have narrated to the House--prolonged labour of sixteen, and seventeen hours, intense fatigue, enfeebled frame, frequent consumptive disorders, and early deaths--yet the locality had every advantage; well-built and airy houses in a fine open country, and a rural district; nevertheless, so injurious are the effects, that the manager added, stating at the same time the testimony of many others who resided in districts where mills are more abundant, that, in ten years from the time at which he spoke, "there would hardly be a man in the whole of those neighbourhoods fit to carry a musket."

Let me remind, too, the House of the mighty change which has taken place among the opponents to this question. When I first brought it forward in 1833, I could scarcely number a dozen masters on my side, I now count them by hundreds. We have had, from the West Riding of Yorkshire, a petition signed by 300 mill-owners, praying for a limitation of labour to ten hours in the day. Some of the best names in Lancashire openly support me. I have letters from others who secretly wish me well, but hesitate to proclaim their adherence; and even among the members of the Anti-Corn-Law League, I may boast of many firm and efficient friends. Sir, under all the aspects in which it can be viewed, this system of things must be abrogated or restrained--it affects the internal tranquillity of those vast provinces, and all relations between employer and employed--it forms a perpetual grievance and ever comes uppermost among their complaints in all times of difficulty and discontent. It disturbs the order of nature, and the rights of the labouring men, by ejecting the males from the workshop, and filling their places by females, who are thus withdrawn from all their domestic duties and exposed to insufferable toil at half the wages that would be assigned to males, for the support of their families. It affects--nay, more, it absolutely annihilates, all the arrangements and provisions of domestic economy--thrift and management are altogether impossible; had they twice the amount of their present wages, they would be but slightly benefited--everything runs to waste; the house and children are deserted; the wife can do nothing for her husband and family; she can neither cook, wash, repair clothes, nor take charge of the infants; all must be paid for out of her scanty earnings, and, after all, most imperfectly done. Dirt, discomfort, ignorance, recklessness, are the portion of such households; the wife has no time for learning in her youth, and none for practice in her riper age; the females are most unequal to the duties of the men in the factories; and all things go to rack and ruin, because the men can discharge at home no one of the especial duties that Providence has assigned to the females. Why need I detain the House by a specification of these injurious results? They will find them stated at painful length in the Second Report of the Children's Employment Commission. Consider it, too, under its physical aspect! Will the House turn a deaf ear to the complaints of suffering that resound from all quarters? Will it be indifferent to the physical consequences on the rising generation? You have the authority of the Government Commissioner, Dr. Hawkins, a gentleman well skilled in medical statistics--

"I have never been (he tells you) in any town in Great Britain or in
Europe, in which degeneracy of form and colour from the national
standard has been so obvious as in Manchester."

I have, moreover, the authority of one of the most ardent antagonists, himself a mighty mill-owner, that, if the present system of labour be persevered in, the "county of Lancaster will speedily become a province of pigmies." The toil of the females has hitherto been considered the characteristic of savage life; but we, in the height of our refinement, impose on the wives and daughters of England a burthen from which, at least during pregnancy, they would be exempted even in slave-holding states, and among the Indians of America. But every consideration sinks to nothing compared with that which springs from the contemplation of the moral mischiefs this system engenders and sustains. You are poisoning the very sources of order and happiness and virtue; you are tearing up, root and branch, all the relations of families to each other; you are annulling, as it were, the institution of domestic life, decreed by Providence Himself, the wisest and kindest of earthly ordinances, the mainstay of social peace and virtue, and therein of national security.

_Right Hon. Sir J.R.G. Graham[360]:_

Sir, I never rose to discharge any duty in this House which I considered at the same time more painful and more imperative. The pain, I must admit, is considerably increased by the eloquence of the address which my noble friend has just concluded, and especially of the passage which marked the close of his speech. The noble lord has asked whether any man will be found in this House to resist the proposal which he has thought it his duty to make, and he has appealed to considerations of justice and mercy, intimating, if not directly, at least by implication, that resistance to his motion is inconsistent both with justice and mercy. I, on the other hand, having due regard to those sacred principles which my noble friend has invoked, am bound, on my own part, and on the part of the Government, to offer to the proposal of the noble Lord my decided opposition.

The noble lord said, the time is come when, in his opinion, it is necessary to lay the axe to the root of the tree. Before we do this let me entreat the Committee carefully to consider what is that tree which we are to lay prostrate. If it be, as I suppose, the tree of the commercial greatness of this country, I am satisfied that although some of its fruits may be bitter, yet upon the whole it has produced that greatness, that wealth, that prosperity, which make these small islands most remarkable in the history of the civilised world, which, upon the whole, diffuse happiness amidst this great community, and render this nation one of the most civilised, if not the most civilised, and powerful on the face of the globe.

* * * * *

My noble friend stated that he would not enter into the commercial part of the question; but if I can show that the inevitable result of the abridgement of time will be the diminution of wages to the employed, then I say, with reference to the interests of the working classes themselves, there never was a more doubtful question before Parliament than this. The House will remember that the branches of manufacture affected by this Bill are dependent upon machinery. Such is the rapidity with which improvements are made, that no machinery can last more than twelve or thirteen years without alterations; and master manufacturers have been obliged to pull down machinery that was perfectly sound and good to make the necessary alterations which competition forces upon them. Well, then, it is necessary to replace machinery in the course of twelve or thirteen years. You are now discussing whether you shall abridge by one-sixth the period of time in which capital is to be replaced, all interest upon it paid, and the original outlay restored. Such an abridgement would render it impossible that capital with interest should be restored. Then in the close race of competition which our manufacturers are now running with foreign competitors, it must be considered what effect this reduction of one-sixth of the hours of labour would have upon them. The question in its bearing upon competition must be carefully considered; and I have been informed that in that respect such a step would be fatal to many of our manufacturers--a feather would turn the scale: an extra pound weight would lose the race. But that would not be the first effect. The first effect would fall upon the operative. It is notorious that a great part of the power of the mill-owners, a power which alone justifies such legislation as this, arises from the redundant supply of labour. It follows that when a master is pressed upon by your legislation, he will compensate himself by forcing upon those in his employ a decrease of wages. I believe the large majority of intelligent operatives comprehend that proposition thoroughly. I have seen many, and conversed with them, and they have admitted that the proposal involves a necessary decrease of wages. In the report presented in 1841 by my excellent friend Mr. Horner, who has discharged with the most honourable fidelity the duty of inspector of factories, there is information upon this point, and with the permission of the House I will read a passage--a single passage only--but one which goes to the root of the whole subject. Mr. Horner said:

"I have made an estimate of the loss a mill would sustain from
working eleven hours a day only instead of twelve, and I find it
would amount to £850 per annum. If it were reduced to ten hours, it
would be about £1,530 per annum. Unless, therefore, the mill-owner
can obtain a proportionately higher price for the commodity, he must
reduce wages or abandon his trade. I have made some calculations as
to the probable reduction of wages, and of the whole loss that would
be thrown on the operatives. I make the amount in the case of eleven
hours a day to be 13 per cent., and in the case of ten hours a day 25
per cent. at the present average rate of wages."

Now, I believe this to be perfectly accurate. The question then arises, whether you shall create in the manufacturing districts one sudden general fall of wages to the amount of 25 per cent? I believe that the adoption of the motion of my noble friend would produce that effect. Though I am most anxious to take every precaution with regard to infant labour--though I am as firmly resolved as my noble friend to urge upon the House to put a limit upon female labour, still, upon the whole, I cannot recommend the House to adopt an enactment which limits the labour of young persons to a shorter period than twelve hours.

_Mr. T. Milner Gibson_[361]:

As the right hon. baronet had alluded to the argument of not destroying the profits upon manufactures, he (Mr. Gibson) would read some remarks upon that point by Mr. Senior, a gentleman whose name would be of great weight with hon. members. In 1836 or 1837, Mr. Senior, with some other gentlemen, went into the manufacturing districts with the view of ascertaining the effect of factory legislation, and making observations upon the factory population. Mr. Senior wrote a letter dated the 28th March, 1837, to Mr. Poulett Thomson to the following effect:--

"Under the present law, no mill in which persons under eighteen years
of age are employed (and, therefore, scarcely any mill at all), can
be worked more than eleven and a half hours a day, that is twelve
hours for five days in a week, and nine on Saturday. The following
analysis will show that in a mill so worked the whole net profit is
derived from the last hour. I will suppose a manufacturer of
100,000l.--80,000l. in his mill and machinery, and 20,000l. in raw
material and wages. The annual return of that mill, supposing the
capital to be turned once a year, and gross profits to be 15 per
cent., ought to be goods worth 115,000l. produced by the constant
conversion and reconversion of the 20,000l. circulating capital, from
money into goods and from goods into money, in periods of rather more
than two months. Of this 115,000l., each of the 23 half hours of work
produces 5-115ths, or 1-23rd. Of these 23-23rds (constituting the
whole 115,000l.) 20, that is to say, 100,000l. out of the 115,000l.,
simply replace the capital; 1-23rd (or 5,000l. out of the 115,000l.)
makes up for the deterioration of the mill and machinery. The
remaining 2-23rds, the last two of the twenty-three half hours of
every day, produce the net profit of 10 per cent. If, therefore
(prices remaining the same), the factory could be kept at work
thirteen hours instead of eleven and a half, by an addition of about
2,600l. to the circulating capital, the net profit would be more than
doubled. On the other hand, if the hours of working were reduced by
one hour per day (prices remaining the same), net profit would be
destroyed; if they were reduced by an hour and a half, even gross
profit would be destroyed. The circulating capital would be replaced,
but there would be no fund to compensate the progressive
deterioration of the fixed capital."

It was clear that this principle of Mr. Senior's was sound, and if hon. gentlemen would consider it carefully they would find it indisputable. The House would consider whether they would not, as the right hon. baronet had expressed it, be affecting the safety and stability of the great staple manufactures, under the impression that they were legislating humanely for the working classes, while, in point of fact, the result would be that by the depreciation of manufactures, the greatest possible injury would be inflicted upon the operatives.

_Mr. J. Bright_[362] said, It is with unfeigned reluctance that I rise to speak, having so recently addressed the House at some length, but being intimately connected with the branch of industry which is affected by the proposition now under consideration, and having lived all my life among the population most interested in this Bill, and having listened most attentively for more than two hours to the speech of the noble lord, the member for Dorsetshire, I think I am entitled to be heard on the question now under discussion. I have listened to that speech without much surprise, because I have heard or read the same speech, or one very like it, on former occasions, and I did not suppose that any material change had taken place in the opinions of the noble lord. It appears to me, however, that he has taken a one-sided view, a most unjust and unfair view of the question; it may not be intentionally, but still a view which cannot be borne out by facts; a view, moreover, which factory inspectors and their reports will not corroborate, and one which, if it influence the decision of this House, will be most prejudicial to that very class which the noble lord intends to serve. The right hon. baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department, who is, I presume, the promoter of this Bill, should have given the House some reason for the introduction of a new Factory Bill. No such reason has yet been given, and I am at a loss to discover any grounds on which it can with fairness be asserted that the Bill now in operation has failed in its effect. I know the inspectors affirm that it cannot be fully carried out. Every body who knows anything of the manufactories of the North, knew when it was passed that it could not be fully carried out; and the proposition now made, is to render this impracticable Act more stringent. In a trade so extensive, employing so many people, carried on under circumstances ever varying, no Act of Parliament interfering with the minute details of its management, can ever be fully carried out. I am not one who will venture to say that the manufacturing districts of this country are a paradise; I believe there are in those districts evils great and serious; but whatever evils do there exist are referable to other causes than to the existence of factories and long chimneys. Most of the statements which the noble lord has read, would be just as applicable to Birmingham, or to this metropolis, as to the northern districts; and as he read them over, with respect to the ignorance and intemperance of the people, the disobedience of children to their parents, the sufferings of mothers, and the privations which the children endure, I felt that there was scarcely a complaint which has been made against the manufacturing districts of the north of England, which might not be urged with at least as much force against the poorest portion of the population of every large city in Great Britain and Ireland. But among the population of Lancashire and Yorkshire, where towns are so numerous as almost to touch each other, these evils are more observable than in a population less densely crowded together. I can prove, however, and I do not wish to be as one-sided as the noble lord, I can prove from authorities, which are at least as worthy of attention as his, the very reverse in many respects of what he has stated as the true state of those districts. Now the Committee will bear in mind that a large portion of the documents which the noble lord has quoted, have neither dates nor names. I can give dates and names, and I feel confident that the authorities I shall cite are worthy of the deepest attention. I must go over the grounds of complaint which the noble lord has urged, and although I may run the risk of being a little tedious, yet considering that for two hours or more I have listened to the charges which he has made, I do think that, connected as I am most intimately with the population and the district to which the noble lord has alluded, I have a right to an audience for the counter-statement which I have to make. Now, with respect to the health of the persons employed, and I will speak more particularly of the cotton trade, with which I am more immediately connected, Mr. Harrison, the inspecting surgeon for Preston, says:--

"I have made very particular inquiries respecting the health of every
child whom I have examined, and I find that the average annual
sickness of each child is not more than four days; at least not more
than four days are lost by each child in a year in consequence of
sickness. This includes disorders of every kind, for the most part
induced by causes wholly unconnected with factory labour. I have been
not a little surprised to find so little sickness which can fairly be
attributed to mill work. I have met with very few children who have
suffered from injuries occasioned by machinery; and the protection,
especially in new factories, is now so complete, that accidents will,
I doubt not, speedily become rare. I have not met with a single
instance, out of 1,656 children whom I examined, of deformity that is
referable to factory labour. It must be admitted that factory
children do not present the same blooming, robust appearance, as is
witnessed among children who labour in the open air; but I question
if they are not more exempt from acute disease, and do not, on the
whole, suffer less sickness than those who are regarded as having
more healthy employments."

This was the statement of a man who had for a long time been inspecting-surgeon in a district where there are a large number of mills, and it may be taken as a fair criterion of the rest. In the analysis of the Factory Report, page 16, I find the following statement:--

"In conclusion, then, it is proved, by a preponderance of seventy-two
witnesses against seventeen, that the health of those employed in
cotton mills is nowise inferior to that in other occupations; and,
secondly, it is proved by tables drawn up by the secretary of a sick
club, and by the more extensive tables of a London actuary, that the
health of the factory children is decidedly superior to that of the
labouring poor otherwise employed."

From the Factory Inspector's Reports in 1834 I have extracted the following testimony, and no doubt this evidence is quite as good as if it had been given this year; for from that time to this there has been a progressive improvement in everything relating to the management of the factories of the north of England.