The Bishop of Exeterhad to present to their Lordships some Petitions upon a very important subject—so important, that he was sure they would permit him to trespass on their attention for a few minutes. The petitions were upon the Factory Question. The first was from the master manufacturers and cotton-spinners of the town and neighbourhood of Bradford, in the West Riding of Yorkshire. It was the result of the deliberations of a meeting of the master manufacturers and cotton-spinners, called by public advertisement, and was adopted, after a discussion, by a great majority of those present at the meeting. The next was a petition from persons acting as delegates of the workmen of the manufacturing districts of Yorkshire and part of Lancashire. The third was the petition of an individual, at least it must be treated as such, because it was signed by the chairman of a meeting of delegates representing the opera- 1129 tives of Bradford, Halifax, Huddersfield, and other places. The petitioners prayed their Lordships to pass a Bill providing that the time of working in mills and factories for persons under twenty-one years of age be limited to ten hours on five days of every week, and eight hours on the sixth. In a matter which concerned so large a class of the community, for it appeared that those engaged in manufactures and handicrafts, amounted, according to the decennial census, to no less than two-thirds of the population of Great Britain; he was sure their Lordships would be of opinion that their interests and rights deserved the most serious consideration. Notwithstanding this, it did unfortunately happen — and he thought their Lordships would admit that it had happened—that not only the condition of the factory children, the state of whom had so frequently engaged the attention of that House, but the moral interests of the manufacturing population in general, had not been dealt with as their vast and incalculable importance demanded. Due care had not been taken that the rising generation should be well instructed, should be brought up in the fear of God, and in the knowledge of their duty to man—a care which ought never to be neglected in any well-regulated community. He believed he might say, that there was scarcely a country in Europe, in which manufactures abounded, where greater attention had not been paid to the religious and moral welfare of the persons engaged in them. He believed that this might, in some degree, proceed from the political circumstances of this country: it was partly inseparable from its free government, for, in a country under a rule at all approaching despotism, an absolute monarch would have felt it to be his duty to watch more strictly the labour performed by the workmen, and the institutions intended for their protection and improvement, than was possible in a free country like this. He might say, that this was one of the penalties which we were compelled to pay for a free constitution, and he was quite ready to admit they must be ascribed to this cause; but still he thought they would agree with him, that all that was consistent with the spirit of our free institutions ought to be done for the protection of this most important and valuable part of the community, on whose labours the strength and importance of this great empire mainly 1130 rested. He would not attempt to detail to their Lordships any part of the misery and vice described in the evidence taken before the Parliamentary Committees. It was not necessary that he should do so on this occasion, but he must be permitted to say, that it appeared from returns recently made, that in one town alone, the great town of Manchester, no fewer than 8,000 children had been deserted by their parents, and found abandoned in the streets. This return comprehended the last four years, but it did not extend to the suburbs, where a number almost equal in amount had been found in a similar way deserted by their parents. The oppression to which the poor children were subject, and which they were constantly enduring in many of the mills, was too tremendous to contemplate. Within these very few weeks several persons had been convicted before a magistrate for employing five children for thirty-four hours consecutively without allowing them more than five hours for food and rest at differents parts of that time. The petitioners prayed that there should be a restriction on the hours of labour. He was well aware that it might be said, that such a restriction would be productive of great evil; that to grant it, would be to abandon the principle of freedom of labour. On that, he should not think it necessary to say much; he would only remark, that he thought it a most reasonable and well-founded demand, a demand resting on notorious facts, that it was the duty of the state to interfere even in behalf of the adults, to prevent them from being exposed to any destructive and pernicious intensity of labour. They might be told, that the labourers were not compelled to work—that they were free to abstain from it if they chose. But what freedom was that, where the only alternative was starvation, and while there was such an excess and superabundance of labour in the country, that the masters were certain of being able to extort from some of those in want of employment labour on any terms they chose to impose —namely, that they should work so long as human nature held together. Minors possessed of property were protected by the state, yet no steps were taken to guard the interests of those who were destitute and helpless. This was an important consideration, but it was so obvious, that he did not think it necessary to press it on 1131 their Lordships' attention. The prayer of one of the petitioners was, that the duration of labour might be restricted to ten hours for young children. Medical evidence of the highest character, both from the metropolis and the provinces, went to the full extent of saying that ten hours' labour was more than ought to be imposed on children, and that it was certainly the utmost extent that could be tolerated. Such was the testimony of men who had no interest but that of truth, whose character was pledged for the accuracy of the testimony which they gave, and who gave it as a most solemn duty which they owed, not only to their own character, but to the unfortunate subjects of it. It was a happy consideration in this case, that they had great reason to believe that no real loss would be incurred by the master-manufacturers, for many mills were now conducted where the work both of adults and children was restricted to ten hours, though the work was of the most important kind. He held a list, containing the names of many of these mills, in his hand, and he might state that the greatest individual cotton-spinner in Scotland, Mr. Dunn, of Duntocher, Mr. Greig, also a very extensive manufacturer, and Mr. Wood, of Bradford, the greatest worsted spinner in England, had voluntarily introduced this restriction into their factories from a sense of duty, and had had the satisfaction to find, that while they had obeyed the dictates of duty, their own interests had not suffered. A fourth gentleman to whom he felt bound to allude, was Mr. Fielden, Member of Parliament for Oldham, from whom he differed on almost every political question, who avowed himself a Radical Reformer, but who did not the lesson that account appear to him to be worthy of respect and veneration. That gentleman was a Radical Reformer, and he had never heard of any other, though there might be such, who began by carrying reform into his own business and affairs. He believed this gentleman had a vast property embarked in manufactures, to an amount, indeed, he was told, that would scarcely appear credible, and yet he had not only been willing to hazard all upon this great question; but, when the matter was under discussion in another place, he had had the magnanimity to exclaim, "If the question is between the Stability of manufactures, interested in them as I am, and justice to these poor 1132 children, throw manufactures to the winds." That declaration was made before an assembly, in which was delivered the famous speech of a right hon. Gentleman now no more, but which seemed to him to sink into insignificance before the declaration of Mr. Fielden. "Perish commerce, but live the constitution," was the famous apophthegm of Mr. Wyndham. In conclusion, he would only say that he thought the case, coming to their Lordships, as it did, with so many strong considerations, entitled to their most serious attention.
§ Viscount Melbournewished to make one observation in reference to what had fallen from the right rev. Prelate, but it was not his intention to go into the subject, although undoubtedly it was one of the greatest importance and interest. The right rev. Prelate had stated, that within the last four years 8,000 children had been abandoned by their parents in the town of Manchester. On hearing this statement, he had inquired of persons who were closely connected with that part of the country, and who declared that the statement was most erroneous. The return cited by the right rev. Prelate comprised all children who had been lost or had strayed, and had been taken in consequence to the police-office. It by no means followed that those children had all been deserted by their parents.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, that it appeared from a return in his hand, that in Salford 470 children had been lost in the course of four months. He then went on to say, he was reminded that recently an attempt had been made to fasten on their Lordships the blame consequent on the failure of an Act of Parliament introduced three years ago, for the protection of the factory children. He held in his hand a newspaper which appeared about a month ago, just at the time when public attention was most anxiously directed to the possibility of a collision with the other House of Parliament. It was there stated as aground of complaint against that House, that the failure of the Act of 1833 was owing to the treatment it received from their Lordships. That Act was so full of defects as to make it nearly inoperative, and to such a degree that Government thought it necessary to bring in a bill to repeal one of its worst provisions. This statement was as follows; —The clauses of the Act providing for the education of the factory children were mutilated very much, if we remember 1133 rightly, in the House of Lords, and neither the factory Commissioners, nor Government, who had adopted their plan, were responsible for the alterations which had pro tanto marred their efficiency. The fact, however, was, that the noble Lord whose name could never be mentioned (with too much respect), who had introduced the Bill elsewhere, had endeavoured in vain to get it through the House—that he was at last compelled to give it up to the Government—that they altered the whole of its provisions—that when it came up to their Lordships, one Committee reported in favour of the principle, and another (composed by a majority of two to one of noble Lords on the Ministerial side of the House) in favour of the details —and that it was ultimately passed with only such amendments, as rendered a provision clear and efficient, which would otherwise have been useless and ridiculous. It was, in fact, the measure of the Government of 1833.
§ Petitions to lie upon the table.