HC Deb 31 May 1825 vol 13 cc1008-11

The House went into a committee on this bill.

Mr. Hobhouse

said, that at the suggestion of others, he had been induced to alter a little his original purpose. It was his intention to reduce the hours in the day which children were compelled to work in cotton mills. When he found that no workman in any robust employment, nor even those persons who having incurred the penalties of the law were sentenced to hard labour, were compelled to work for so many hours, it grieved him to find that any opposition should be given to a proposition, that children should not be forced to work in cotton mills for more than eleven hours out of the twenty-four. Within the last few days he had inquired the number of hours that men worked at other trades, and he found the following to be the fact:—The machine-makers, the moulders of the machinery, house-carpenters, cabinet-makers, stone-masons, bricklayers, blacksmiths, mill-wrights, &c., worked no more than ten hours and a half per day; and some of them, in winter, only eight and a half. There was one circumstance which distinguished cotton-manufacturers from all others; namely, the high state of the temperature, and the variations of heat and cold. An objection had been thrown out, that in cases of this description it was ridiculous to legislate. It had been said, "Will you not let the mothers regulate their children?" He remembered, when he was at school, having read a similar argument against the abolition of the slave trade; but, did not the House legislate in that case. What he should propose was, that the children should work for five days in the week" twelve hours a day; and how could any man have the face to ask for an extension? On the Saturday, he should propose to take off three hours, in order that they might prepare for the repose of Sunday. He could assure the House, that masters who employed among them l5000 operatives, were as anxious for these amendments to be made as he was, Sir Robert Peel's bill had been found not adequate to its purpose, and therefore another was required.

Mr. J. Smith

said, he was sorry that his hon. friend felt it necessary to make an alteration as to the time. He believed that the custom of making children work for so many hours was prejudicial to the interest of their masters. In Mr. Owen's manufactory, the hours of employment had been decreased from 11½ hours, to 10½; and he knew, that 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 that of the cotton.

Mr. Huskisson

said, he would not give up one point of his opinion as to the impolicy of attempting to regulate free labour; but, as parliament had thought it right to interfere with respect to the cotton-mills, certainly the more fully the provisions of a former bill were carried into operation the better. For this reason, he agreed in the propriety of enabling magistrates to compel the attendance of witnesses, where that law was supposed to have been violated; but he by no means believed, that the children generally in cotton-mills worked fourteen hours a-day. He was glad of the alteration that had been introduced as to the hours; for the committee that had investigated the question had recommended twelve hours; and although, perhaps, other children might not have to labour so many hours, yet the intensity of their labour made it as fatiguing. Take, for instance, the children that laboured in agriculture. He had no doubt that, if they investigated every species of labour, they would find much that they could wish to alter; but, what would become of those children if they were not so employed, and what would they do for the food, clothes, and comforts that they were at present receiving? Any alteration that should induce the masters to withdraw those comforts, would be only an aggravation instead of a relief to the children.

Mr. W. Smith

said, that as to the sad condition of the children in these cotton-mills, it was enough to see them once to be convinced of it. The House had already evidence upon that point, which it was impossible to doubt. The necessity of this excess of labour he denied. The people at the Lanark-mills worked only 10½ hours a day; and those mills paid sufficiently, and gave employ to 3,500 persons. The House had heard much of the condition of the slaves in the West Indies. No one could reprobate the system of slavery more than he did; but the labour performed by the negroes in the West Indies was actually less than was exacted from these poor children at Manchester, and was far less detrimental to health.

Mr. Secretary 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; but he should have been better pleased to have had no alteration made at all as to the labour, without a commission first appointed to investigate the facts.

Mr. Tulk

thought the existing system one of atrocious cruelty, and would move, as an amendment, a return to the hon. member for Westminster's original proposition, eleven hours and a half for the daily labour instead of twelve.

Sir F. Burdett

expressed his apprehension that with that clause, the bill might be lost, perhaps, altogether.

Mr. Philips

believed, that the effect of reducing the hours of labour for the children would be to throw them out of employ altogether. The present complaints were got up by a most formidable combination, which called itself "The Grand Union of Operative Spinners." There were several unions formed for the purpose of raising funds to be used against their employers. An hon. friend of his said, "So they ought" [hear, hear]. He was not to be put down by "hear, hear." He was personally acquainted with the effects of those unions, and if his hon. friend knew them as well as he did, he would oppose them. He did not object to the limitation of hours in the day, if he could be convinced that it was called for by circumstances; but those circumstances had not been made out.

Mr. Gordon

thought, that the children should be defended, not more against the severity of their masters, than the avarice of their parents. The children were not free agents, and required the protection of the legislature as much as the slaves of the West-Indies, for whom regulations had been made, not only as to what work they should do, but what allowance of food they should receive. The fears of those who were alarmed lest the cotton trade should be destroyed by these regu- lations, ought not to weigh against the common rights of humanity. The hon. member for Westminster had done every thing to conciliate all parties. It should be recollected, that the children were now required to work twelve clear hours in the day.

Mr. Huskisson

wished to know whether Mr. Tulk would withdraw his amendment; for, after what was said as to the risk which it would occasion to the bill, no good could be answered by persevering in it. As to his own opinion, he would say that he had supported the bill, on his own view of it, and without any communication with any of the parties connected with either side of the question.

The amendment of Mr. Tulk was then withdrawn, and the bill went through the committee.