Lord Broughamwas particularly anxious to correct a misrepresentation of his sentiments; or rather, he ought to say, a misunderstanding had arisen from particular sentiments of his not having been expressed with sufficient clearness, in presenting a Petition the other evening, when he had referred to employment in factories. He had received letters from different parts of the country on the subject. He had received very abusive letters; but these he did not mind. He was asked why he tried to keep the poor people labouring, when he himself did nothing at all for the money he received out of the taxes paid by the poor? His answer to this was, that he did labour—that he did work pretty hard too; and there was nothing he should like so much as that he might be allowed to give up what he received out of the taxes, on condition that he might go back to the Bar. What he received as a pension—and such was the case of his noble and learned Friend near him (Lord Cottenham)—was in the way of compensation for not returning to their practice at the Bar, where they would receive a great deal more money than they now did. But his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell) was in a still worse situation, for he gave up a very large income made by him, at the Bar, and he received no compensation, and yet worked there for ten hours a day, and was often there at night most ungratefully employed, so that he must often envy even the factory children. What he was now about to state was, however, of a much more important nature. It was said to him by friendly persons—by those who thought well of his exertions, that he ought to finish his good work—that he ought to follow out his useful sugges- 1597 tions as to wages—that he ought to limit wages—that he ought to bring in a Bill to prevent manufacturers from giving a less amount of wages. What he had said was, of the two greatest absurdities, that of limiting the amount of wages would he less bad, though both would be abominable, than the limiting the number of hours in which a man might choose to labour. He said if he were to do the one foolish thing, or the other, then he said he had rather limit the quantity of wages than of work. If he were to restrain ally person in the use of his property, then, he said, he had rather restrain the rich capitalist in the use of his capital than he would interfere with labour, and let a man or woman, if they choose to work a certain time, that they should not be allowed to do so. But then it was said, that it was not inconsistent in him to say that it was the lot of man to toil, and vet be a friend to the abolition of slavery? How, it was said to him, could he seek for the abolition of slavery when he declared it was the lot of man to toil. Yes; but the toil was to be voluntary toil—not toil imposed by another. He hoped, then, that no idea could go abroad, of his sanctioning a Bill to limit the amount of wages; or that he thought they did wrong in the emancipation of their slaves in the colonies, because he would not limit the hours at which a man might choose to work.
§ House adjourned.