opposition went out into the lobby,

an operation which took up twenty minutes or more, we spread ourselves over the benches on both sides of the House; for there were many of us who had not been able to find a seat during the evening.

When the doors were shut we began to speculate on our numbers. Everybody was desponding. "We have lost it. We are only two hundred and eighty at most." "I do not think we are two hundred and fifty. They are three hundred." "Alderman Thompson has counted them. He says they are two hundred and ninety-nine." This was the talk on our benches. I wonder that men who have been long in parliament do not acquire a better coup d'œil for numbers. The House, when only the ayes were in it, looked to me a very fair House, much fuller than it generally is even on debates of considerable interest. I had no hope, however, of three hundred. As the tellers passed along our lowest row on the left-hand side the interest was insupportable-two hundred and ninety-one-two hundred and ninety-two; we were all standing up and stretching forward, telling with the tellers. At three hundred there was a short cry of joy; at three hun- Three hundred and two another, suppressed, however, in a moment; for we did not yet know what the hostile force might be. We knew, however, that we could not be severely beaten.

dred and two for the bill

The doors were thrown open and in they came. Each of Three hunthem, as he entered, brought some different report of their dred and one against it numbers. It must have been impossible, as you may conceive, in the lobby, crowded as they were, to form any exact estimate. First we heard that they were three hundred and three; then that number rose to three hundred and ten; then went down to three hundred and seven. Alexander Barry told me that he had counted, and that they were three hundred and four. We were all breathless with anxiety, when Charles Wood, who stood near the door, jumped up on a bench and cried out, "They are only three hundred and one." We set up a shout that you might have heard to Charing Cross, waving our hats, stamping against the floor, and clapping our hands. The tellers scarcely got through the crowd; for the House was thronged up to the table, and all the floor was fluctuating with

422. A debate

in parliament on a factory law (June 6, 1815)

heads like the pit of a theater. But you might have heard a pin drop as Duncannon read the numbers.

Then again the shouts broke out, and many of us shed tears. I could scarcely refrain. And the jaw of Peel fell; and the face of Twiss was as the face of a damned soul; and Herries looked like Judas taking his necktie off for the last operation. We shook hands and clapped each other on the back, and went out laughing, crying, and huzzaing into the lobby. And no sooner were the outer doors opened than another shout answered that within the House. All the passages and the stairs into the waiting rooms were thronged by people who had waited till four in the morning to know the issue. We passed through a narrow lane between two thick masses of them, and all the way down they were shouting and waving their hats, till we got into the open air. I called a cabriolet, and the first thing the driver asked was, "Is the bill carried?" "Yes, by one." "Thank God for it, sir!" And away I rode to Gray's Inn, and so ended a scene which will probably never be equaled till the reformed parliament wants reforming; and that, I hope, will not be till the days of our grandchildren, till that truly orthodox and apostolical person, Dr. Francis Ellis, is an archbishop of eighty.

IV. GENERAL REFORM LEGISLATION

All reform came more easily, now that the great break with the past had been made by the passage of the bill of 1832. The agitation for laws protecting children from overwork in the factories had been in progress ever since the rise of the factories in the eighteenth century. The extract that follows, dating from the year 1815, is part of this discussion.

Sir Robert Peel called the attention of the House to the

expediency of some legislative regulation for the purpose of restricting the employment of young children in manufacturing labor. It was well known that a bad practice had prevailed

of condemning children whose years and strength did not admit of it to the drudgery of occupations often severe and sometimes unhealthy. What he was disposed to recommend was a regulation that no children should be so employed under the age of ten years, either as apprentices or otherwise, and the duration of their labor should be limited to twelve hours and a half per diem, including the time for education and meals, which would leave ten hours for laborious employment. The accounts he had recently seen showed that it was not so much the hardship as the duration of the labor which had produced mischievous effects on the health of the rising generation. It was to be lamented, however, that the inspectors appointed under a late act had been very remiss in the performance of their duty. He should, in consequence of this misfortune, propose that proper persons be appointed at quarter sessions, and that they should be paid in due proportion for their trouble.

...

bound chil

Mr. Horner observed that the former measures and even Evils of the the present bill, as far as he could understand its object, fell system of far short of what parliament should do on the subject. The dren in facpractice which was so prevalent of apprenticing parish chil- tories dren in distant manufactories was as repugnant to humanity as any practice which had ever been suffered to exist by the negligence of the legislature. These children were often sent one, two, or three hundred miles from their place of birth, separated for life from all their relations, and deprived of the aid and instruction which even in their humble and almost destitute situation they might derive from their friends. The practice was altogether objectionable on this ground, but even more so from the enormous abuses which had existed in it. It had been known that with a bankrupt's effects a gang, if he might use the word, of these children had been put up to sale, and were advertised publicly as part of the property.

A most atrocious instance had been brought before the Court of King's Bench, two years ago, in which a number of these boys, apprenticed by a parish in London to one manufacturer, had been transferred to another, and had been found by some benevolent persons in a state of absolute famine.

423. Testi

Another case more horrible had come to his knowledge while on a committee upstairs: that not many years ago an agreement had been made between a London parish and a Lancashire manufacturer, by which it was stipulated that with every twenty sound children one idiot should be taken! A practice in which there was a possibility that abuses of this kind might arise, should not be suffered to exist, and now, or in the next session, when the bill should be discussed, should meet with the most serious consideration.

In 1831 and 1832 a parliamentary committee was appointed to investigate the question of factory labor anew. The following are extracts from the testimony given before them.

Where do you live? At Leeds. Are your father and mother mony given living? No; they are dead. What time did you begin to by factory laborers to work at a mill? When I was six years old. What sort of a the parlia- mill? A woolen mill. Whose? Mr. John Good's, at Hunsmentary comlett. What were the hours of work? We used to start at five mittee of 1832 and work till nine at night. What time had you for your dinWilliam Hen- ner? Half an hour. What time for breakfast and drinking? A quarter of an hour at each end of the day. What wages had you? Two shillings and sixpence.

den, aged 19;

examined

June 13, 1832

Where did you remove to afterwards? My father and mother removed to Leeds, and I had a brother working at Tetley, Tatham, and Walker's, and they got me work there. How long did you stop there? Three years and a half. What were the hours of working there? We used to start at half past five and work till half past nine at night. What time had you for dinner? Forty minutes. What time for breakfast and drinking? Nothing for either. What is Tetley, Tatham, and Walker's mill? A flax mill. What were the wages there? I had three shillings and sixpence there. What was your business? A doffer.

Where did you go then? To Mr. Hammond's flax mill, at Leeds. At about what age? About ten years of age. At what time did you begin work at that mill in the morning?

We used to start at half past five and work till eight at night. What time was allowed for breakfast and dinner and drinking? Forty minutes a day was all that was allowed. How were you kept up to your work during the latter part of the day? The overlooker used to come with a strap and give us a rap or two, or if they caught us asleep they would give us a pinch of snuff till we sneezed; they would give us a slap with a strap if we did not mind our work. Was the strap an instrument capable of hurting you badly? It was a heavy strap with a small handle to it.

Where did they strike you with it? Generally in the small of the back and over the head. Did they strike the young children as well as the older ones? Yes. And the females as well as the males? Yes. State the effect upon your health of those long hours of labor. I was pretty fair in health but happened with two or three misfortunes. State, in the first place, the effect upon your health and limbs of those long hours of labor? It produced a weakness in my knees; I was made crooked with standing the long hours. Just show the gentlemen your limbs. (The witness exhibited to the committee his limbs, which appeared exceedingly crooked.)

Are you quite sure you were, as a child, perfectly straight and well formed? Yes. How old were you before your limbs began to fail you? About eight years and a half old. Had you any brother or sister working at the mill? Yes, I had two sisters and a brother. Have those long hours of labor had any effect upon the rest of your family? Yes, upon one of my sisters. Is she crippled? She is nearly as bad as I am. Was she originally perfectly straight and well formed? Yes. To what age did she continue to be perfectly well formed? Till she was about nine years old. How tall are you? About four feet nine inches. Are you quite certain that the deformity of your limbs was not consequent upon the accident you had? No, it was not owing to that. You were deformed, as you are now, before that? Yes. Were the children unhappy at the state in which they were? Yes, they were. Have you seen them crying at their work? Yes. Had you time to go to a day school or a night school during this labor? No. Can