felt themselves threatened. The manufacturers
and the Liberals generally united with them, the working-men
were divided by the Church question, and therefore
inactive. The opponents of the bill, though
outweighed in the great manufacturing towns, such
as Salford and Stockport, and able in others, such
as Manchester, to attack certain of its points only,
for fear of the working-men, collected nevertheless
nearly two million signatures for a petition against
it, and Graham allowed himself to be so far intimidated
as to withdraw the whole bill. The next year
he omitted the school clauses, and proposed that,
instead of the previous provisions, children between
eight and thirteen years should be restricted to six
and one-half hours, and so employed as to have either
the whole morning or the whole afternoon free; that
young people between thirteen and eighteen years,
and all females, should be limited to twelve hours;
and that the hitherto frequent evasions of the law
should be prevented. Hardly had he proposed
this bill, when the ten hours’ agitation was
begun again more vigorously than ever. Oastler
had just then regained his liberty; a number of his
friends and a collection among the workers had paid
his debt, and he threw himself into the movement with
all his might. The defenders of the Ten Hours’
Bill in the House of Commons had increased in numbers,
the masses of petitions supporting it which poured
in from all sides brought them allies, and on March
19th, 1844, Lord Ashley carried, with a majority of
179 to 170, a resolution that the word “Night”
in the Factory Act should express the time from six
at night to six in the morning, whereby the prohibition
of night-work came to mean the limitation of working-hours
to twelve, including free hours, or ten hours of actual
work a day. But the ministry did not agree to
this. Sir James Graham began to threaten resignation
from the Cabinet, and at the next vote on the bill
the House rejected by a small majority both ten and
twelve hours! Graham and Peel now announced
that they should introduce a new bill, and that if
this failed to pass they should resign. The new
bill was exactly the old Twelve Hours’ Bill
with some changes of form, and the same House of Commons
which had rejected the principal points of this bill
in March, now swallowed it whole. The reason
of this was that most of the supporters of the Ten
Hours’ Bill were Tories who let fall the bill
rather than the ministry; but be the motives what they
may, the House of Commons by its votes upon this subject,
each vote reversing the last, has brought itself into
the greatest contempt among all the workers, and proved
most brilliantly the Chartists’ assertion of
the necessity of its reform. Three members,
who had formerly voted against the ministry, afterwards
voted for it and rescued it. In all the divisions,
the bulk of the opposition voted for and the
bulk of its own party against the ministry.
{176} The foregoing propositions of Graham touching