Debate on a Factory Act

In 1847, Parliament debated the "Ten-Hours Bill," which proposed to extend further regulation of British factories. Below are short excerpts from the debate from four participants, two on each side. This is not a party-line debate. Liberals and Conservatives by party label could be found on both sides. I will tell you in class whether it passed or not.

John Fielden (Reform-minded factory owner)

Sir, I propose to bring in a Bill with regard to the hours of labor in factories . . . I propose to limit the labor of young persons between the ages of thirteen and eighteen to twelve hours a day (those under 13 were covered by an earlier Act], allowing two hours out of the twelve for meals--that is, to ten hours actual work per day for five days in the week, and eight hours on Saturdays; and I propose to carry out this alteration by restricting the hours of actual labor to sixty-three hours in the week until the 1st of May 1848; and after that period to fifty-eight hours in the week; and I propose, further, that the same restrictions shall apply to females above eighteen years of age. My reason for proposing this measure is, that the time of working young persons and females in factories is far too long, has been very mischievous, and if persevered in, will become the cause of great national evils. . .

. . .You are now told, from authority , in figures not to be disputed, how awful is the destruction of human life in our principal manufacturing towns; you are told distinctly that one of its chief causes is the "constant and unwholesome toil" of mothers, who are compelled to leave their offspring "long days alone to breathe sickly vapors soothed by opiates," "withholding nature's nutriment," to their destruction. I agree, Sir with the Registrar General, that the "house and children of a laboring man can only be kept clean and healthy by the assiduous labor of a well-trained industrious wife." I agree with him, also, in his just but severe remark, that "this is overlooked in Lancashire (where Manchester is), where the woman is often engaged in labor from home."

. . .As to the young persons between thirteen and eighteen, whom I call children, no one, I should think, can, in the abstract, object to their labor being curtailed to ten hours per day. It is the most critical period of life; it was well ascertained that they have not the opportunities of healthful recreation and of moral instruction that they absolutely require, and that their physical powers are, in many cases, destroyed. . . .

Sir, I think that a leading principle of political economy is, the care of the lives, the health, and the morals of the people; and it is upon the ground that the life, health, and morality of the young persons, and of women, are sacrificed by too long hours of work in our factories, that I ask leave to bring in this Bill.

Joseph Hume, Liberal politician

[The principles of Political Economy] were that masters and men should be allowed to make what arrangement they pleased between themselves, both with regard to the length of hours and the rate of wages; and that Government should interfere as little as possible, except in every instance to remove prohibitions and protections . . .

. . .Gentlemen who supported the present measure were proceeding on a course likely to add to the evils which he was sure they were anxious to avoid. The professed their object to be the welfare of the laboring community. They though they know better than the laborers themselves what were their interests. Any man who took upon himself to direct another in his ordinary affairs, told that other that he knew his affairs better than he himself did, and that he could manage them better. Now, he objected to that doctrine altogether. He held that the common sense of the working classes was capable of enabling them to take case of themselves; if it were not, let them be educated and better taught. He was an advocate for that species of education which should place them in the situation of being the best judges of their own interests . . .

The House must recollect that it was not a slight matter to interfere with fixed capital embarked in manufactures. It was well known that after defraying the expenses of individual labor and interest on capital, owners of mills had fixed expenses which they could no avoid. They had therefore to calculate, besides having the competition of the Continent and of America, what their expenses were--whether they could, after returning interest upon the capital employed, and paying adequate wages, obtain a proper and fair amount of profit . . . If honorable Members had not read Mr. Senior's pamphlet upon the state of our factories and upon the hours of labor in them, he invited them to read it. If they did, they would find this result collected from impartial examination of a number of mills, that ten hours paid only the expenses of the "plant" and that wages of labor, and that if work stopped at ten hours, there would be no profit on the capital invested. . . .

Every interference which prevented men, whatever be their talents, from employing their capital, and exercising their ingenuity under protection of the laws, in any manner they thought proper, was injurious and bad. . . . Every Act the House had passed for the last three, four, five years, had been to free industry, to emancipate capital, and relieve the mercantile interest from restriction: and it would be the height of injustice now, to say to men who were willing to work, "you should not work except for such time as we permit."

Thomas Babington Macaulay, Liberal politician with a different view

The first point which as been raised, and to which I wish to address myself, is a great question of principle, and which lies at the bottom of by far the greater portion of the discussion on this and former occasions. Is it, or is it not, a subject on which we should legislate? Is this one of those matters which the State may properly interfere to settle, or which it ought to leave to settle itself? . . .I know not which of the two is the greatest pest to society--a patriarchal Government, or rather a meddling Government, which intrudes itself into every part of the system of human life, and thinks it can do everything for everybody better than anybody can do anything for himself; or, on the other hand, an easy, careless, Government, which suffers abuses, such as might be checked by an easy remedy, to exist under its sight, and to all complaint and all remonstrances answer only, "Oh, let things alone, let things take their course, let things find their level." I believe, if there is an important problem at all times, and especially at this time in politics, it is to ascertain where the line divides those cases with which the public authorities ought to interfere, from those with which they ought not. Formerly, I think, the general besetting sin of Governments was undoubtedly that of meddling. The magistrate pushed himself into everything. . . I cannot, however, but fear some evils in the reaction, and I think I see some danger of very able and eminent men falling into the other extreme. . . . I have labored to submit my judgment to theirs, but I cannot do it, and must be guided by such light as I possess. I believe that I am as firmly attached as any Gentleman in this House to the principle of free trade properly stated, and I should state that principle in these terms: that it is not desirable the State should interfere with the contracts of persons of ripe age and sound mind, touching matters purely commercial. I am not aware of any exception to that principle; but you would fall into error if you apply it to transactions which are not purely commercial. Is there a single Gentleman so zealous for the principles of free trade as not to admit that he might consent to the restriction of commercial transactions when higher and other considerations are concerned?

Take the question of lotteries. A man has an estate for which he wished to get �20,000, and he issues 1,000 tickets at �20 each, with the condition that the first ticket coming out of the wheel shall gain the estate. The Legislature interferes, and annuls the whole proceeding. But suppose the owner of the estate appeals to the principle of free trade--suppose he says "What have you to do with this voluntary contract between me and other parties? You may think it a bad speculation--then don't take a ticket; but what right have you to prevent those men from doing so who are of ripe age and sound mind?" The answer is obvious; we interfere because if we tolerated these things we should be giving encouragement to habits and qualities of mind incompatible with the virtue and morality of individuals in society. I hope I carry the House with me thus far, that the principle of non-interference is one that cannot be applied without great restrictions where the public health or the public morality is concerned. Then, I ask, is not the public health concerned in a question relating to the time of labor? Does any one who has examined the evidence, or opened his eyes in the world, or examined his own feelings, doubt that twelve hours a day of factory labor are more than are desirable for youths of thirteen? If so much labor be not desirable, the, I say, every argument on which interference can be justified calls on me to keep those youths from injuring their health by means of immoderate toil. It his, or is it not, a question in which morality it concerned? Can any one doubt--certainly my Friends around me do not doubt--that education is a matter of the highest importance, as regards the virtue and happiness of the common people? For education we know that leisure is necessary. Do we believe that, after twelve hours have been taken from the day for factory labor, and after so much time as is necessary for refreshment and exercise has also been taken--doe we believe that enough time will remain for that amount of education which it is desirable the people should have? I believe we must answer that question in the negative. . .

Sir Robert Peel, Conservative Politician, and son of factory owner

There are higher considerations than those of wealth and commerce; and if you could convince me that the present measure would tend to the moral and intellectual improvement, to the general social welfare, of the laboring classes, I should be tempted to make the experiment; for I feel that in improving the condition and elevating the character of those classes, we are advancing the first and highest interests. I fell that society is not safe unless we can do that. . . . By every means, then--by the improvement of the sanitary conditions of our towns--by substituting innocent recreation for vicious and sensual indulgence--we should do all in our power to increase the enjoyments and improve the character of the working classes. I firmly believe that the hopes of the future peace, happiness, and prosperity of this country, are closely interwoven with the improvement, religious as well as moral, of those classes. But, consistently with this persuasion, I oppose these restrictions on labor. . . .Sir, I do not deny the advantage of leisure; but I greatly doubt whether there be any better means of improving the condition of the laborer, and of elevating the character of the working classes, than to give them an increased command over the necessaries of life. You say that by this Bill you will not diminish wages. But will it not be a most marvelous event in legislation, if you provide by law that five days in the week shall be the maximum of labor in this country, and yet can induce the master to pay the same amount of wages? Notwithstanding the active competition of manufactures in America, France, Italy, and Germany, you expect that the masters in this country ar to go on paying five days' work with six days' pay. But we are told that the mod of doing this will by working the machinery so as to get twelve hours' work done in ten hours. I doubt whether you can do that; and I doubt, also, whether, if you can, you will thereby confer any advantage upon the workpeople. I doubt whether it is not for the advantage of adult women and children that they should continue working for twelve hours, rather than finish the same quantity of work in ten hours by a greater strain upon their bodily and mental faculties . . .

It has been said by a high authority--and the remark is pregnant with truth--that in prosperous times the workman shares with his employer in the general prosperity, but that he does not benefit half so much by prosperity as he suffers from adversity. The owner of capital can bear up against temporary depression, for he can draw upon the gains accumulated in the time of prosperity. It is not so with them whose whole capital is labor. And it is to him, already laboring under disadvantage in this respect, thou are about to say, "You shall not lay by a surplus from your wages, in the vigor of life and while in the enjoyment of health, to meet the evil day by which you may before long be overtaken." You cannot over-estimate the importance to these men of a small living, of the possession of some such sum as ten or twelve pounds. It may be to them the foundation of future independence. It may enable the father of a family to gather that family around him and say, "From these small gains I will lay the foundation of a fortune, such as hundreds in Lancashire have acquired by their own industry and integrity." . . . But who is to answer for the result, if you paralyze the efforts of such men by your legislation--if you fetter their industry, and restrict their hours of labor, and by preventing them from profiting by the time of prosperity, drive them, when the hour of adversity shall come, to the poor law for maintenance?