FINANCE AND TRADE. Combination Laws. of these meetings; and he remembered that the hon. gent, asked him-what if it should turn out that such meetings assembled not "solely" for the purpose meant to be adverted to? These were all the alterations recommended at that time by the hon. gent., who did not intend then, as he understood him, to oppose this bill (hear). Mr. T. Wilson thought it right to correct a misrepresentation of the hon. member for Aberdeen. He had stated that the thirty-three workmen, whose names were affixed to the petition praying for protection, had disclaimed all knowledge of that petition. Now he had the authority of Mr. Beale, a gent. who witnessed what took place, for stating, that although three of the men expressed their dissent from that petition, all the others were called together in presence of their master, and having been asked whether they heard the petition, and were acquainted with its contents, one and all signed it, and declared that they suffered great inconvenience, and did pray for protection. Mr. Hume said that the petition of the parties in question was on the table of the house (hear, bear). They prayed to be allowed to prove their allegations, which were to the effect that he had stated. Now, under these circumstances, he must leave it to the house to decide which of the two statements was the correct one. Mr. Wallace then moved the order of the day for receiving the report on the bill. Mr. Hume was decidedly opposed to bringing up this report. In regard to what had been stated by the Attorney-General, he had proposed, undoubtedly, that every offence not punishable under his own bill, but which it appeared expedient to punish, should be inserted; and he would support such insertion. But he would not support the creation of an indefinite power to punish individuals, for offences not specifically defined. With regard to the present bill, there was but one solitary explanation to which, so far as he knew, he had acceded. It was represented to him, that whereas under the former bill, two witnesses were necessary to obtain a conviction, and great inconvenience and difficulty were experienced in most instances in obtaining two witnesses; it was now suggested that one witness should be substituted; and to that he felt no objection. Upon the whole, opposed as he was to this bill, and despairing, after the manner in which his observations had been met, of inducing gents. on the other side to take what he considered a proper view of the subject, his only course was that which he should now adopt-of moving that the house be counted. On the house being counted, and 44 members being found present, the house proceeded. Mr. Hume proceeded in his opposition, observing that the numerous petitions that had been presented against the combination laws ince the appointment of the committee ought to have been duly examined. As it was, the peritioners might as well have kept their petitions to themselves. There had been 97 petitions presented to the house. Into those petitionsinto all of them-it was the duty of the house to have entered. As the committee had refused to examine them, he had at one time intended 10 have read them all to the house (a laugh), A bill of such importance, affecting so many thousands of persons, ought not to have been introduced except after the most minute ex E 439 amination. The fact was, however, that his The house then divided.-For receiving the Mr. Peel said, that those words were accustomed to be used in acts of Parliament from the days of Charles II. Courts of justice had long been familiar with its application, and accustomed to act upon it; and no other term would serve to prevent those practices which it was the object of the bill to put down. Mr. Calcraft defended the words, without which he thought the bill would be a dead letter. Mr. Stuart Wortley expressed the same opinion. In reply to a question from Mr, Hobhouse, The Attorney-General consented to introduce two words into one of the clauses, which would make the bill apply to combinations of masters to reduce the rate of wages, as well as to combinations of the men to raise it. Mr. Hume repeated his objection to the clause containing the terms "molestation and obstruc tion," than which he declared that nothing could be more vague and uncertain. Mr. Denman followed on the same side. The words "molest or in any way obstruct" were On a misdemeanor so vaguely not found in any statutes, except those relating to the revenue. defined, no court could ever pass sentence. The Attorney-General contended that the words complained of as vague and indefinite were sufficiently precise for the purposes of legislaacts of Parliament, on which the Judges were tion. They were found in more than twenty acting every day. Such a clause was rendered. necessary by the conduct of the journeymen shoemakers of the metropolis at the present moment. They surrounded the shops of their masters, and when any workman left it who did not belong to their confederation, they did not The amendment was then agreed to, and the bill was ordered to be read a third time to morrow. assault or threaten him, for they knew that to be unfairly on the operative classes. He hoped contrary to law, but they followed and insulted that, on the part of minissers, there would exist him by every means in their power. Such scenes a determination to listen as well to the comif not checked, must evidently lead to blood-plaints of the men as of the masters, and that shed, and therefore he maintained that the they would not hastily come to a conclusion present clause was not only expedient, but unfavourable to those who had hitherto been necessary. unjustly oppressed. He had been anxious to protect them as far as lay within his power. He had done as much as he could to obtain free labour for the men, and if he had a request to make to them, it would be, that they would avoid interfering with regard to wages, by threats, or even molestation. He trusted that all magistrates who were called upon to sit in judgment upon cases arising out of this law, would act impartially between the accuser and the accused, and give the most favourable interpretation to a word so dubious in its import. It was, most unquestionably, the interest of the operative classes to submit, and if they did submit and were oppressed, they would be certain to receive the sympathy of the public. THURSDAY, JUNE 30. On the question for the third reading, the Attorney-General said, he had to propose two verbal alterations of some importance. The first regarded the limitation of time within which, as to the summary clause now in the bill, prosecutions could be instituted. He proposed six months as the period. Then as to the clause which enacted, that if witnesses did not, or would not appear, they should be liable to be kept in prison until they should answer the questions put to them. This, however, as the principals, in offences under this bill, could only be imprisoned for three months, would be rather harsh: he had, therefore, in respect of them, introduced the limitation of three calendar months. There was also a third alteration with regard to appeals. He had thought it necessary, in pursuance of the general practice in cases of this kind, to suggest another clause, to provide that convictions should be engrossed on parchment, and certified at the next quarter sessions; and after that, the party entering an appeal should bind himself in the penalty of 101., and two sureties in 101. each, to appear at the court of quarter sessions; for in case of failure in his appeal, it was but reasonable that the appellant should pay the costs of such a proceeding. Mr. Denman thought it would be extremely hard to compel a poor man to give security of this kind against the event of his failure; and yet, in case of his success, to leave him saddled with the expenses of obtaining justice by such appeal. The Attorney-General consented to modify his clause so as to give costs to the appellant in the case of his succeeding in his appeal. Mr. Hume said, his objections to this bill `had been greatly mitigated by the alterations introduced by the Attorney-General (hear, hear); but he still objected to the words "molesting and obstructing," and to permitting masters, who were magistrates, to decide causes in other trades. For instance, a ma. gistrate master-hatter might be called on to decide in a case where a master-shoemaker was concerned. Could the journeyman-shoemaker, in such a case-could the house-imagine that impartial justice could be done? On the motion that the bill do pass, Mr. Hume said, that he wished to make a few remarks before the last question was decided. No man, high or low, ought to be coerced by combination; but he was satisfied that nine-tenths of the recent disturbances had arisen from a want of conciliation between the parties, often, he was sorry to say, beginning with the masters, and attributable, perhaps, to long habit, from the existence of previous laws. These laws it was intended now to remove (whether they would be removed, in fact, was a matter of doubt), and he hoped that nobody would have occasion again to come to the house to propose any alteration, unless it were to get rid of the remaining part of the system, which pressed Mr. Peel: Unwilling as he was to prolong this discussion, he must repel the insinuation that there had been any disposition on the part of Government to bear hard upon the working classes, or that there had been the least desire to favour the masters. If the hon. member for Aberdeen had continued to express the sentiments which he had formerly entertained on this subject, he would most cordially have concurred in them. In a letter dated the 26th of March, 1825, addressed by the hon member to a shipwright of Dundee, named Allen, he found the following expressions:-" If the journeymen do not act with more moderation and prudence than they have hitherto displayed, the legislature will be compelled to retrace its steps, and to repress the demands which have been made in various parts of the country, too often accompanied with violence." The legislature did not, however, mean to go so far as the hon. member had threatened. It did not mean to retrace its steps, nor to re-enact the combination laws; and he trusted that the measures provided by this bill would induce the journeymen to return to a peaceable de meanour. The bill was then passed. LORDS, MONDAY, JULY 4.-The Earl of Liverpool moved the order of the day for committing the bill in this house. The Marquis of Lansdown had several petitions to present against the bill. He expressed his regret that the house should be called upon, within two days of the prorogation of Parliament, to pass a bill which was of so important a nature, that it ought to have engaged the attention of their lordships for a considerable time. In addition to this precipitation, their lordships were not assured that the information necessary to enable them to come to a decision was on the table of the house. Under these circumstances, it was with great reluctance that he gave his assent to this measure. Yet, as upon the whole he thought the measure necessary, he should not oppose it. The peti tions he had to present prayed that counsel might be heard against the bill, and if there were time, it would be their lordships' duty to accede to this prayer; for they ought to give their assent to no law, however necessary it might appear to them to be, if any considerable body of persons thought themselves aggrieved by it, without first hearing what such persons FINANCE AND TRADE.-Cotton Mills." bad to say against it. At another period of the session he would have thought it his duty to support the prayer of the petitioners, and to move that their counsel be heard. In the present case, however, he could only move that the petitions do lie on the table. The Earl of Liverpool thought there was sufficient time for any discussion of this bill which could be necessary. The measure arose almost entirely out of the bill of last session. Soon after it passed, disturbances and acts of violence took place in different parts of the country; and it became necessary to pass some act on the subject before the session closed. If there were any defects in the measure, the allowing them to pass could not be compared with the mischief which would follow if the law were left in its present state. This bill not only prevented the combination of workmen against masters, and of masters against workmen, but prevented the combination of workmen against workmen. This was a protection which the honest and good workman had a right to expect. The present bill repealed the act of last session, but in doing so it also repealed all the old restrictive statutes which were repealed by that act, while it restored the common law to its former state. -- The Marquis of Lansdown wished his opinion The Earl of Rosslyn concurred in the neces- The Earl of Darnley expressed his surprise The Marquis of Lansdown thought the punishment inflicted by the bill too severe. He would move to leave out the words "hard labour," and he would consent, instead, to insert "six months" instead of "three" before the word imprisonment. The Earl of Liverpool thought the punishment prescribed adapted to the nature of the offence: besides, another clause in the act gave a party sentenced to that punishment by a magistrate, right of appeal to the quarter sessions, with intermediate suspension of the punishment. Lord Lansdown's amendment was negatived. The Earl of Rosslyn wished to have the clause for allowing journeymen to meet for certain purposes, extended and strengthened by the addition of a few words, which he proposed for 441 that purpose, in accordance with his previous The Lord Chancellor said that the clause as it ment. Cotton Mills. COMMONS, MONDAY, MAY 16.-Mr. Hob house moved the second reading of his bill, for regulating the working hours of children employed in cotton manufactures. Mr. Hornby objected to the bill on account of its interference in the apportionment of labour. which he thought was contrary to the best principles of political economy. It was proposed by this bill to reduce the children's hours laboured in the mills twelve hours on each of of working by one-twelfth. At present they went to reduce the twelve to eleven hours. the six days of the working week; and this bill But it was to be observed, that if they reduced the labour of the children, they must reduce that of adults too; so intimately were their la bours connected with, and dependent on, each other. The consequence of this reduction of the hours of labour would be a diminution in the value of the total production of the cotton manufacture of two millions and a half per annum (hear). He should move as an amendment, that the bill be read a second time that day three months. Mr. Hobhouse observed, that, in 1819, Sir R. Peel had introduced a bill, to which he now only wished to add a clause to compel the at tendance of parties before magistrates. The member for Preston had told them, that there would be a diminution if the bill now before them were to pass, of two millions and a half in the annual production; but would they allow any considerations of this kind to interfere with a question that involved the health, and the comforts, and the happiness of so many children? (hear). Those benevolent masters who, with a feeling superior to considerations of their peculiar interest, had petitioned Parliament in favour of the object contemplated by this bill, had candidly stated, that the increase of machinery furnished increased temptation to employ children over hours. The children in these mills, with the exception of those employed by the member for Preston, and a few others, were now worked twelve hours and a half in the day; and for three or four days in the week were not allowed to leave the mills to take their meals, which they were obliged to take off the floor of their mills. Their skins were like parchment, and they scarcely looked like human beings. With regard to the medical evidence that had been furnished before a committee, and on which some gentlemen had relied as proving that 72 hours' labour during the week, or 12 hours per day, was not tou much for a child; what weight could the house attach to the testimony of witnesses, of whom, one being asked whether he thought a child could keep standing, without prejudice to her "That may be a matter o health, on her legs, for 23 hours successively, had answered 3 L : doubt!" (hear, hear, and a laugh) and of whom, another being asked whether the being peat up in a temperature of 80 degrees, and inhaling the flough or flew of the cotton, would not prove injurious to the lungs and the health of children, replied, "that they might expectorate it." As to the interference complained of, there were various acts of Parliament in which a similar principle was recognized. There were acts, for example, to limit the hours of labour of shipwrights' apprentices in Dublin, and yet Irish children, he believed, were quite as strong as those of Manchester. As for the losses of the cotton, or any other trade, in a case like this, he would rather give up the trade itself, than continue a system so injurious. Mr. Peel could neither support the original motion nor the amendment. He thought that if Sir Robert Peel's bill were put into full operation the object of the hon. gent, would be -attained. Mr. W. Smith replied that he was ready to furnish the most convincing proofs that the act which had been just alluded to had been most shamefully evaded. actions. But this did not apply to the subject before the house. His hon. friend, and others, who like him were connected with the manufactories, did not like to be interfered with; and yet they could not deny that before the passing of Sir R. Peol's act, the greatest abuses existed in the inanufactories (hear, hear). It could not upon anygrounds be pretended that these helpless beings should be sacrificed to the necessities of their parents, and the cupidity of those by whom their labour was purchased. We heard of slavery abroad, but he had never heard of any such instance of overworking as had been published with respect to the labour of the children in the cotton factories (hear, hear). If these representations were true-and they remained as yet uncontradicted-it was impos sible to imagine any case which called more loudly for the interference of the legislature. Whatever the house might resolve to do with respect to adult workmen, the situation and the sufferings of the children required to be immediately provided for (hear, hear). Sir P. Musgrave protested against the bill as a needless interference. He had no objection to vote for that clause which tended to enforce the provisions of Sir R. Peel's act. Dr. Lushington put it to the house, whether they were not called upon to support a bill which provided that no person under the age of 16 years should be employed for more than 11 hours and a half in every day. Adults might be permitted to do as they would, but he would never consent that children should be devoted to labours which unfitted them for the exercise of the duties of their more mature years, and in many instances brought on an early death. Mr. Evans, as a proprietor of a large factory acknowledged that there was much in the present system which required amendment. He did not think that the manufacturers would be losers if the hours of labour were shortened, because the children would be able to pursue their work with greater activity than at present. The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Friday. TUESDAY, MAY 31.-The house went into a committee on the Cotton-Mills' Regulation Bill Mr. Hobhouse said, that he had originally Mr. G. Philips said, that the whole course of his experience induced him to believe that this bill would in no degree improve the condition of the labourers. He contended, too, that those who were acquainted with the management of cotton-factories were best able to judge of what regulations were fit to be adopted with respect to them; he was satisfied that the condition of the people working in the factories was much better than that of persons who worked out of them. He had heard only this morning that the weavers did not receive more than one-third of the wages paid to the persons in factories, and the latter were besides provided with more convenient and wholesome places to work in. It would be well to limit the bours of children's working, if it were possible; but that was not possible without limiting the labour of adults; and the only effect of the measures now attempted would be to deprive the children of work altogether. He was satisfied that no such number of hours as had been asserted were ever used for the employment of children. The evasions of the acts which had already taken place had hap-wished to reduce the labour of children in cutpened, it was true, in the least respectable ton-mills to 11 hours in the day, and when he mills, where the owners were wholly regardless said that there was no trade at which evea roof public opinion. The provisions of Sir R. bust men were so long employed-that persons Peel's act had been evaded in many respects; who were actually sentenced to labour as a and it was now in the power of the workmen punishment, were not called on to work for so to ruin many individuals by enforcing the pe- many hours; he thought this proposition was a nalties for children working beyond the hours reasonable one. But he was willing to modify limited by that act. It was a great mistake to it, in order to meet the wishes.of those who had suppose that the labourers of Lancashire were objected to the bill. He found that the num under the domination of their masters, or ber of hours during which different journeymen that they had no will of their own. To agitate were obliged to work, were :---Machine-makers, the subject was at all times dangerous; and moulders of cast-iron, house-carpenters, cabi the effect of this and similar acts of legislation net-makers, stone-masons, bricklayers, millwould be to keep up a spirit of hostility be- wrights, wheelwrights, blacksmiths, &c. each tween the masters and the men. They had al- only for ten hours and a half, and some only ready produced this effect. The sale and pur-eight and a half in winter. Thus it seemed that chase of labour by the workmen and their em- the time of these children's labour exceeded the ployers ought to be left wholly unrestricted. period assigned to men; independent of which The best thing that could be done to effect this they must take into consideration the temper. object would be to repeal all that had been en-ature in which the children were compelled to acted on this subject. Sir F. Burdett agreed with his hon. friend who spoke last that no legislative interference ought to take place in merely commercial trans breathe, and which was always higher than that of the atmosphere. The alterations he proposed to make wele :-that the children, for five days in the week should work for twelve instead of eleven hours, as at first proposed-and that on Saturdays they should work only nine hours. He meant also to introduce a provision, giving power to the acting justices of the peace to compel witnesses to attend to give their evidence, when informations were laid under this bill. Mr. J. Smith believed that the custom of making children work for so many hours was prejudicial to the interest of their masters. In the factory of one of the most respectable and influential cotton-spinners in the country, Mr. Owen, the hours of employment had been decreased from 11 hours, to 10; and as much work was done in the latter, as had previously been done in the former number of hours. He believed the state of the flax-mills called quite as much for investigation, as the cotton; and he should have proposed a clause respecting them, if he had not feared it would endanger the bill. protection of the legislature as much as the slaves of the West Indies, who it was admitted were not free agents, and for whom regulations had been made, not only as to what work they should do, but what allowance of food they should receive. The bill passed through the committee, and was afterwards sent to the Lords, where it passed without discussion. Poor Rates. THURSDAY, MAY 12-Mr. Monck moved for leave to bring in a bill to prohibit for the future the payment of any part of labourers' wages out of the poors' rates. The hon. gent. observed, that this practice of rendering every agricultu ral labourer partially a pauper, went not only to annihilate all independency of principle among the lower classes, but, moreover, to incumber the country with a population which it had no means of providing for. The law, as it Mr. Huskisson agreed in the propriety of stood, amounted to a bounty upon idleness. A enabling magistrates to compel the attendance labourer who, by day-work, earned, say 8s. of witnesses, where the law as laid down in a-week, was unable, if he had a family, to live Peel's bill was supposed to have been violaton this, and received, perhaps, 6s. therefore in ed; but he by no means put faith in a great aid from the parish. If he was a man industrimany of the statements which had been handed ously inclined, and by task-work, or other extra to the hon. member for Westminster, nor be- exertion, raised his 8s. earnings to 12s., what lieved that the children generally in cotton was the consequence? He had his toil for his mills worked fourteen hours a-day. A great pains; for then the parish gave him 2s. And deal of the present complaint was got up by even this was a slighter evil than the encourageone of those combinations which would requirement which this practice gave to early marrithe hand of Parliament to put them down. As to the labour in the cotton-mills which was so heavily complained of, if its duration was considerable, there was not much. exertion required in it. In agricultural work, a ploughboy was at labour as many hours as a child in a cotton-mill; and if they investigated every species of labour, he feared they would find few which they would not wish to be otherwise than they are, But what would become of the children if their employment were taken away? Bad as their present state might be, this would only make it worse. Mr. W. Smith said, that as to the necessity of this excess of labour, he denied it; the people at the Lanark mills worked only 10 hours and a half a-day; and those mills paid sufficiently, and gave employment to 3,500 persons. No one could reprobate the system of slavery more than he did; but the labour performed by our negroes in the West Indies was actually less than was exacted from these children at Manchester, omitting the fact that it was performed under circumstances far less detrimental to health. Mr. Peel was of opinion that the most valuable part of the present bill was the power which it gave to magistrates to enforce the provisions of the existing one. He should not oppose the clause limiting the labour on the Saturday; but he should have been better pleased to have had no alteration as to the labour, without a commission to investigate the facts. Mr. G. Philips believed that the effect of reducing the hours of labour would be to throw the children out of employ altogether. The present complaints were got up by a most formidable combination, "the Grand Union of Operative Spinners." Mr. Gordon said, he thought that the children should be defended, not more against their masters, than their parents (hear). The children were not free agents, and required the ages. In his natural state, the bachelor stood better off than the married man; his gains might be equal, and his burdens less; and this comparative ease of condition formed the true and legitimate check to improvident unions. But our law now neutralized that check entire ly; or rather, indeed, gave a bounty to a man for producing children which he could not maintain. The law said now, that a single man should not earn so much by his daily labour as a married man. While he was a bachelor, he must labour at so low a rate, that all hope of the question; but he had only to marry and the making any provision for matrimony was out of parish would at once increase his wages, and give a pauper's support, as fast as they were born, to his children. The hon. member, after commenting generally upon the oppressiveness as well as the impolicy of the existing system, sat down by moving for leave to bring in his bill. Sir George Chetwynd did not believe that it was lawful, as matters stood, to pay the wages of labourers out of the poors' rate; and if he was right in that opinion, the hon. member's bill became unnecessary. Mr. Monck believed that the statute of Eliza beth, which authorized the raising a rate to Leave was given to bring in the bill. |