EIGHT HOURS.

Timaru Herald, Volume L, Issue 4828, 26 April 1890, Page 4

EIGHT HOURS.

In Ihe Hou«o of Commons on February 24th, Mr Cunnighanic-Grabam moved to the effcot that the representatives of G reat Britain at tbe International Labour Conference nhould j be desired to discuss the subject of restricting , thohonrsof labour. The principal speaker Mr Bradlaugh who opposed tho motion. H« said he had always been m favour of shortening the kours of labour of tbe working men m this country, but Jie was not m favour of ruining their industry. With the attitude taken by Lord Salisbury on thu question last year lie »horou e hly urirt lia&mly approved. Lord Salisbury's portion waa tiiat whila the Bngliih repr«s«ntaliwi ebould bo at liberty to take part >n

tho discussion of a number of propositions, they should not be allowed to discuss restrictions on tho hours of labour or limitation of the amount of output. Unless Govornraent wilfully meant to fetter this nation m its lnciußtriul enterprises m the world it would never be mad enough to entrust to its representatives any kind of powers for dißOUßsing proposal!! for restricting that, marvellous output m various branches ot our industry which had carried England m advance of all tha nations of the world. If they reduced the hours of labour per day did they think the working men would endure it? He did not care what become of the manufacturers, but tho margin of profit now waa not large, and if the manufacturers were ruined the manufactories would be ruined with them. (Ministerial oheers.) It was said that m Great Britain there was a demand amongst working man for a restriction of hours of labour by law. He denied there was any such general demand whatever and even if the majority of the trades unions had declared m favour of euoh proposals— whioh they had not— the great bulk of the labourers of the country did not belong to those unions. If they had an leight houra day established it would close at once the majority of the textile manufactories of the country, it would olose some of our vaßt foundries, and it would olose the bulk of those great works which had made England the workshop of the world. It did not ahow any friendliness to the poor to propose such a resolution. The -wickedest enemies of the working man could not propose more effectual measures for rendering impossible the continuance of those industries m which he was able at present to gain a livelihood. It was not true that the oondition of the labouring classes was intolerable! or was becoming more intolerable. • There was distress, too much distress, amongst the working classes ; the hours of labour were long, too long; but their houra were far shorter and their homen were far better than they were when he first began to be active amongst the people. It was true that m great centres of population like London there were extremes of wealth and poverty which were appalling, but an eight hours day would not touch that, and had nothing whatever to do with it. It was true that great fortunes were occasionally made by manufacturers from come exceptional circumstances, but m the great majority of instancess they had to watch with the greatest care the narrow margin of profit which enabled them to conduct their business. If they passed the resolution it would mean that the House believed that Parliament could regulate the conditions of labour bßtter than they could be adjusted between em--1 plover and employed themselves. It was not the duty of Parliament to interfere between the employer and the adult employed m the regulations which they made for the conduct of their own business. He was denounced as factious, and was told that his constituents would vote against him— which he did not believe— but he would always, under any circumstances, vote for what he believed to be for the benefit of the people, and would not allowany illusory will-o'-the-wisp to be danced before their eyes, which could only land them m a quagmire from which the eocial revolution party would never be able to rescue them. If they were going thus to shorten the hours of labour, where were they going to find the new wealth that was to keep the increasing millions of this country ? He could understand those m favour of revolution Baying that it ought to be done, but he, who had . always been m favour of reform, and against revolution, would give bis vote against the amendment. Mr Mark Beaufoj, m a maiden speech, Baid that he had given cosiderable attention to this question, and he could say that the gas workers and the railway workera m his constituency were most anxious that there should be a limitation of the hourß of labour to not more than ei^ht hours per day. Beplving to the argument that the consequence of such a limitation would be to greatly decrease the output, he pointed to the fact that m his own firm, where he had tried the eight hours, the resnlt had been to save Dot less than 76 per cent, of overwork, while the output bad been increased. — (Cheers). The motion waa lost by 198 t« 87.