to regulate the hours of night labour in all | have a right to enter the House. Take factories where bobbin lace and warp lace your choice-either the common informer machinery is employed," and the preamble or the domiciliary visit. We shall have recites thatdomiciliary visits on the suspicion that a man is toiling for the support of his family. Why, the Bill makes no provision for circumstances which are provided for in the case of cotton factories. In the cotton manufactories, should an accident happen to the machinery by which the work will "For the preservation of health and morals, it is necessary to regulate night-labour in all factories where bobbin-net or warp-lace machinery is employed or worked for making lace or any other fabric." Then the first clause provides that night labour should henceforth cease in all facto-be suspended, in such a case permission ries where such machinery is employed or is given to work extra hours. But in this worked. It directly prohibits, whether chil- Bill there is no such provision. Now, I dren are employed or not, all working in take the case of an adult who is working in those mills or factories for more than six- his own house for the support of his fateen hours a day. Now, see what you mily. If he continues his work after ten will be driven to in your attempt to or eleven o'clock at night, he is liable to a carry out these regulations. You will find, domiciliary visit, or to the accusation of a when you prohibit labour in what you call common informer. Suppose that his loom factories-over which you think you have has met with an accident, or that the man a direct control-that you will give a direct himself has been ill for three days-suppremium upon more severe labour in those pose that he has been subject to a visitasmaller edifices which are emancipated tion of sickness, so that on Monday, Tuesfrom your power. You will feel that the day, and Wednesday, he has only been immediate consequence will be, that so far able to work five hours a day, and his from correcting the evils, you have only wages are reduced in a corresponding deprohibited labour in those factories where, gree. The man has no alternative in from the number of persons who work to- order to obtain subsistence for his family, gether, a certain degree of moral control but to work on Thursday, Friday, and Sais established; for the very circumstance of turday, additional hours. It is the case of working in the face of our fellow creatures an adult working without children, and in imposes obligations and a sense of shame his own house. If a man says, I must reupon numbers, which would be altogether pair the misfortune which befell me at an absent where the work is carried on in early part of the week by extra labour at privacy. There is at present a certain its close-if an accident has happened to amount of competition in this trade be- his machinery-or if the corporeal matween the hand-loom and the power-loom chine has been weakened or incapacitated weavers; and this measure would give a through disease, and the man is afterwards direct premium upon the labour of the engaged in extra labour to provide for hand-loom weaver. We must have another the subsistence of his family-would you law to prevent that. It must follow, as a tolerate that this man, so engaged from necessary consequence, that you must ex- the laudable, the honourable motive of tend your interference. Your measure earning a subsistence for his family-do you must necessarily increase the moral evil mean to subject that man to a domiciliary in the hand-loom department, and lead to visit? And then it is proposed to enforce taxing more severely the frame of the child upon such a man a 50l. penalty. I should as well as of the adult, and then you must like to see the indictment that would be interfere with the labour of the hand-loom drawn against him. After five or six perin the single House, and you must prohi- sons had been brought up for robbery and bit that. Then, how will you interfere? for petty larceny before the magistrates, Take your choice between a common in- and their cases dealt with, I should like to former and a domiciliary visit. As you see this man brought up before the magisshrink from the idea of a common informer trate charged with the offence of working -as you will not probably allow a man to till ten or eleven o'clock at night, and subbe subject to the information of a vindic-ject to a 50l. penalty, probably by an idle, tive neighbour, perhaps of a rival in trade dissolute fellow, neglectful of his own -the practice of domiciliary visits must work, and envious of the advancement of be resorted to, that is to say, a Government the industrious man. He sees a light in officer, whenever he sees a light burning his house, and he says now I shall punish after ten or eleven o'clock at night, will you. I want 107. I want to advance my self, and to depress you-I am idle-I am | Gentlemen who don't like a Bill at all, a vagabond-you are industrious, you are ought to vote against it. honest. I saw a light in your house at MR. FERRAND could not but express eleven o'clock. I found out that you were his deep regret that the right hon. Baroworking for the maintenance of your fa- net who had just sat down should have mily-I shall lay an information before the taken so much pains to turn that Bill, and magistrates against you-I shall gain 101. the arguments used in its favour, into rias a reward for my honourable exertions in dicule. It was a melancholy fact that maintenance of the law, and you shall be whenever an hon. Member in that House fined 50%., which will probably depress you proposed to legislate for the welfare of the for ever; because, in order to make up for working population of this country, he was lost time in the first three days of the always met with the strongest opposition. week, and to prevent your family from The working population for several years starving, you taxed your physical energies had appealed to that House to take the beyond the time allowed by law. The man peculiar circumstances under which they will be committed and sent to prison, and laboured into consideration. They had then he will rejoice at our charitable inter- almost appealed in vain, and they had ference with the rights of labour. Now, now commenced to legislate for themselves; what answer can you make to that? The and he would ask Her Majesty's GovernBill is a Bill to regulate night labour. It ment, as well as hon. Members on both is not a question of children. It does not sides of the House, to look for one instant regulate the labour of factories. The ques- to the manufacturing population of the tion is this, whether a man is to have a north of England. They were entering right to labour in his own house at such at this present moment into an alarming hours as he pleases. To prevent that is combination to protect themselves against the object of the Bill. But the hon. Gen- what they called the tyranny and opprestleman (Mr. Wakley) says, that the prohi- sion of their masters. Let the House bition of children's labour would be so be- look at the fearful strikes for wages which neficial as to compensate for all these de- have taken place in Manchester, Liverfects. But does it? I feel all the evils of pool, and other large towns in the north taxing infant labour too severely, quite as of England; and he thought there was much as the hon. Gentleman. But what there sufficient to induce the House to is all this to the Bill before us? Is it pos- consider that it was high time for Parsible that the hon. Gentleman can consent liament to take into its most mature to such a Bill as this? What does the Bill and deliberate consideration the serious propose to do? It permits and sanctions quarrels which had from some causes the employment of children above eight taken place between masters and their years of age for sixteen hours a day. It servants. In the case now before the would be to give a legislative sanction-if House, they found that the master manuwe were to vote for the second reading-to facturers and their own workpeople had the principle that children above eight united in a body to come before that years old may be employed for sixteen House, to ask redress; and what had they hours-that is to say, from six in the morn-witnessed that afternoon? Ridicule cast ing till ten at night. If I were to interfere with infant labour I should take a different way of doing it. It would be much easier to make a new Bill than to amend the present. If we are to have a Bill which interferes with infant labour, let us have a Bill which shan't compel us on the second reading to affirm the principle that chil-drive them ultimately to their own redren above eight years of age may work for sixteen hours a day. I would put it to the hon. Gentleman opposite, whether, if we are to have a Bill at all, we should have one which treats the question in this peculiar manner? [Mr. WAKLEY: Oh, I don't like the Bill at all.] You don't like the Bill at all! Then, Sir, I have not a word more to say, except to suggest that hon. upon this attempt to legislate on their behalf, from both sides of the House. They had asked for the second reading of this Bill; and he had no hesitation in saying, that if that House refused the second readof the Bill, it would be offering to those working classes a direct insult, and would sources, as he had before said, to legislate on this matter, which they would do by entering into one universal combination throughout this country, and compel their masters to consent to protect them and their interests, as Parliament had refused to interfere in their behalf. He would not say one word about the question whether the manufacturers of this country were in favour of the second reading of spect to the feeling between the employers and employed, he should think that the hon. Member would have recollected that, with the exception of Yorkshire, there had not for a long period been any disagreement or ill-feeling between the cotton manufacturers and those in their employ, and that there never was a better feeling between them than at this moment. He was sure that with respect to the cotton trade there was less reason for any vindictive feeling between the manufacturers and their employed at this moment than at any period since he was acquainted or connected with it. The feeling that had existed between masters and men during the last two years in that trade was equally creditable to both parties. All argument based upon the statement of the hon. Member was fallacious; and so far as it had any bearing upon this question, it was in favour of the present state of things, and against the Bill at present before the House. MR. SHARMAN CRAWFORD did not deny that he entertained objections to this Bill-he did not deny that he felt an objection to limit the hours of adult labour; but, at the same time, he did not think they were precluded from interfering to prevent the younger portion of the manufacturing classes of England from being LORD JOHN RUSSELL thought that overworked. That was what he should the present Bill was not to be objected to desire, and he hoped to effect that object solely, if at all, on account of its interferby voting in favour of this Bill. The great ence with the labour of children. It apquestion before the House was, whether peared to him to be a perfectly just princithe infantine labour of this country should ple that, as the State protected the probe protected from the oppression of the perty of minors, who were the children of holders of capital. The long hours which the rich, so with regard to the children they were compelled to work injured their of the labouring classes, the State should, health and morals, and he, therefore, con- by legislation, take care that neither their tended that, no matter whether this Bill bodies nor their minds sustained any detriwould injure the interests of the manufac- ment by excessive labour. If, therefore, turers or not, the Legislature was bound that alone were the object of the present to extend its protecting influence to the Bill, he should have thought that the dehard-working children of England. The tails of the measure might be allowed to hours of labour, which this Bill sought to be considered in Committee. But there restrict, were more than human nature were two objects in the present Bill, could endure. Taking that position, he which seemed to him to violate every conceived it to be the duty of the House principle of prudent legislation. In the to pass some such measure as this, what- first clause of the Bill, night labour was ever might be the effect of wages. He prohibited, and the labourer was required should, therefore, give his hearty support to work from a certain hour in the mornto the second reading of the Bill. ing to a certain hour at night. That evidently was an interference with the labour of the adult males of this country. Now, if a man could earn his living by no other means than engaging to work eight or nine hours at night, ought they to legislate to prevent him from earning his wages in that way? Ought his means of subsistence to be endangered by a legislative enactment? Were there not, in fact, cases where they could not prevent night labour? Were there not instances where men had no other means of subsistence except by working at night, such as the driver of a stage coach, MR. BRIGHT wished to make one observation in answer to the hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Ferrand), who had asked the House to interfere with labour on the ground that certain strikes had taken place in the north of England. He begged to tell that hon. Member that those strikes existed only amongst trades not in any degree connected with mills or factories, and amongst a class of workmen who never worked more than ten hours a day, and respecting whom there was no proposition before the House. With re infants engaged in this trade, for no man could be an advocate for excessive infant labour; and, therefore, seeing that the present Bill was full of absurdities-he did not wish to use the word offensively-he recommended the hon. Member to withdraw his measure, and bring in a Bill having similar clauses to the Factory Act which was now in force. the guard of a coach or a police office, and various other species of business, which were carried on at night, and which could not safely or conveniently be abolished, either for the sake of the public or of the parties themselves? Another part of the Bill was nominally for the purpose of interference with children only; but, in fact, it sanctioned entering private houses; and he, for one, thought the interference MR. BROTHERTON had for the last with private houses, whether through thirty years taken a part in restricting the the instrumentality of the informer or hours of labour in factories, but he must domiciliary visitations, would be an act confess that he had great difficulty in supof tyranny impossible for Parliament to porting such a measure as this. His feelsanction. He thought that the labour-ings were in favour of it, but it appeared ing classes who asked for this Bill, would soon petition the House to repeal the Act if they were to be subjected to domiciliary visits. The hon. Member for Rochdale said that labour was oppressed by capital, and therefore the hon. Member was for interference, in order to prevent capital tyrannising over labour; but he thought that if the House acted on that principle, and interfered with a voluntary agreement made between a person in the possession of capital, and a person whose property consisted in his labour, they could not interfere with the hours of labour alone, but must legislate with respect to the remuneration which the labourer should re-principle of working children, above eight ceive. Considering, therefore, that two portions of the Bill violated every sound principle of legislation, he should not give his consent to the second reading. The to him that the hon. Member for Finsbury years of age, sixteen hours a day, and therefore, upon the whole, he did not feel disposed to give his vote in favour of the measure. MR. W. COWPER would put it to his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury, whether it were desirable, for the object which he had in view, to put the House to the trouble of a division. It appeared to him that many hon. Gentlemen who had declared their intention of voting against the present Bill, had also declared in fa MR. M. PHILIPS advised the hon. Member who had introduced the measure to withdraw it, and bring in another Bill, confined to protection to infant labour. Even the hon. Member's Colleague-for Finsbury was divided against itself on this question could not give the measure a cordial support. With regard to what had been said by the hon. Member for Knares-vour of the principle of interference with borough, namely, that it would be an insult to the working classes of the community if those who were sent to that House, and saw the practical difficulties of the measure, did not assent to it, he could only say that he differed entirely from the opinions which that hon. Member seemed to entertain. The principle of having recourse to informers and domiciliary visits, he, for one, could not consent to; and he thought that they ought to point out the absurdity of such regulations to the people, who, he was sure, would be thankful to have the practical difficulties in the way of the measure exposed. He wished to see a measure introduced for the protection of infant labour. The division, therefore, which the House was about to take, would not be a division on the question of interference or non-interference. He himself should have great difficulty in voting for the Bill, and he would wish his hon. Friend to withdraw this measure, and introduce one which he had framed himself. MR. T. DUNCOMBE observed, that if this Bill were thrown out he should not be much worse off than if he were to accede to the suggestion made by his hon. Friend. He should certainly take the sense of the House upon the question. He should not think it worth while to take any notice of the ridicule and sarcasm which had been thrown out against the Bill if it had been | places should be brought within the operahis own composition and the production of tion of the Act. The fact was, the House his own pen; but the fact was, that he was was against all interference with factory the reluctant instrument, as he had already labour; and it would be more honest and stated, of a highly respectable, hard-work- manly to come forward openly and boldly, ing, and industrious body of men; and he and say at once they would not interfere, represented not only the industrious popu- instead of pretending to argue the question, lation, but four-fifths of the capital em- and using ridicule instead of argument. ployed in this trade. Admitting that the He, hoped, however, that the House would Bill divided itself into two branches, namely, not disappoint the expectations of a very interference with infant labour and adult meritorious body of the working population, labour, there was nothing to prevent the but would follow the course he had sugHouse amending the Bill in Committee. gested. The Short Time Committee took as deep an interest in that Bill as they did in the Factories Bill. They considered it, in fact, part and parcel of the same system. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) seemed, by the course he was pursuing with regard to the Bill, to wish to retrace his steps upon the Factories Bill; but he trusted that the noble Lord would reconsider the He matter. It was no argument against the Bill to assert that, because the lace machinery was set up in shops and private dwelling-houses, that the same measures as had been extended to great factories could not be made to reach them. contended that the word "factories" was in itself sufficient to include, not buildings devoted exclusively to the working of machines alone, but also all workshops, dwellings, and private houses in which factory labour was carried on. But in order to set the question at rest, he would suggest that in the next alteration of the Factory Bill a proper explanation of the word "factory should be inserted. But ridicule was not the mode by which the arguments adduced in favour of the Bill should be met. He did not complain of anything said or done by the right Baronet (Sir J. Graham) during the discussion; but he would say, if the principle of non-interference with adult labour were to be adopted, whilst the regulation of infantine labour was to be kept up, the proper course would be to pass the second reading of the Bill, all clauses in which having reference to adult labour might be struck out, and to confine themselves in all future legislation to infantine labour solely. But as to the difficulty of bringing labour in dwellinghouses under the operation of a Factory Act, he would refer the House to the report of Mr. Berry, one of the sub-inspectors of factories, who was clearly of opinion that it was not only possible, but very much desired by the manufacturing population, that the works carried on in such MR. STAFFORD O'BRIEN, understanding from the hon. Gentleman's observations that he was willing to withdraw all the clauses of the Bill which had reference to adult labour, confining its operations to infantine labour only, would, under such circumstances, vote for the second reading. The House divided on the Question, that the word "now" stand part of the Question:-Ayes 66; Noes 151: Majority 85. List of the AYES. Adderley, C. B. Browne, hon. W. Cole, hon. II A. Adare, Viset. List of the NOES. Arundel and Surrey, |