The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-05 00:00:00

i a
~d
~~~1~~~ -~ ~~

LONDON, FRIDAY, MARCH 5, 1847.

The Lords met at Five.
Lord BROUGHAM moved for the documents relating to
the commitment of a boy, five years and two months old,
to Tothill Fields' prison on a charge of felony. He
moved for these papers with a view to the removal of
the committing magistrate.
Agreed to.

On the motion of the Earl of ELLENBOROTIGII, certain
returns relating to the Navigation and,Export trade were
ordered to be made.

The Labouring Poor (Ireland) Bill passed through
Committee, and their Lordships adjourned.
The Commons met at four o'clock.

Mr. SPOONER, on behalf of Mr. ORMSBY GORE, post-
poned the motion of which he had given notice, for the
removal of Smithfield market, to Thursday, the 18th, on
which day he would move for a Select Committee to in-
quire into the subject.

In answer to Sir A. L. HAY, the LORD-ADVOCATE
stated that the civil authorities were in no way to blame
for calling out the military during the late meal riots in
Scotland.

Mr. J. O'CoNNELL gave notice that on the order of
the day for the House going into Committee of supply
being read, be should move that those person• at present
employed on the public works in Ireland, be for the re-
mainder of their term employed in the tillage of the
land.

Mr. VERNON SMITH then rose to move—." That, in
order to assist and encourage voluntary emigration to
the colonies, it is expedient to increase the importance
and authority of the Land and Emigration Board, to
add to their agency in Great Britain and Ireland, and
promote their vigilant superintendence of the passage
and future location of the emigrants."
Mr. MAcxvoroN seconded the motion.
Mr. LEFROY and Mr. KERR thanked the Hon. Gentle-
men for having attracted the attention of the Govern-
ment to the subject.

Mr. HAwEs did not wish to offer any direct opposition
to the motion, but would content himself with moving
the previous question, as he thought it unadvisable to
interfere with the proceedings of the Emigration Board.
The House was subsequently addressed by Dr. BowalNc,
Mr. S. O'BRIEN, Lord J. RUSSELL, who was of opinion
that no assistance was required from Government, hut
that the subject should be left to private enterprise, Mr.
HOPE, Mr. C. BULLER, and several other Hon Members.
Ultimately the motion was withdrawn.

Mr. Hintz then brought forward his resolutions with
respect to Cracow. The Hon. Member addressed
the House at great length, and was followed by Lord
SANDON, Lord J. RUSSELL, and other Hon. Members.
The debate was, however, adjourned till Thursday next.
The report on the Factories Bill was then brought
up, and ordered to be further considered on March 18.
The other orders having been disposed of the }louse
adjourned at half-past Twelve o'clock.

The Ten Hours' Bill has been subjected to another
ordeal. Its opponents appear to be influenced by the
most unrelenting hostility, and determined to let slip
no opportunity of recording their sentiments, and re-
tarding the settlement of a question upon which the
great mass of the operatives—the persons most deeply
interested—whose means of livelihood, the amount of
wages to be obtained in return for the labour of the
weaker members of their families, are not only in-
volved, but also the health and happiness, and mental
and bodily powers of those helpless creatures—are all
but unanimous. It might have been supposed that
when the principle of the Bill was affirmed by so
great a majority as that by which its second reading
was carried, a fortnight since, that no further time
would be wasted in discussing that principle; that the
Speaker would have been suffered to leave the chair
without debate or division ; and that the arguments
would have been restricted to the details
of the measure in the Committee, particu-
larly to that on which some difference of opinion
exists amongst its supporters, viz., whether the limita-
tion should be ten or eleven hours. It could scarcely
have been expected that the House would consent to
stultify itself, as it had done on a former occasion, in
reference to this very Bill. Many influences, how-
ever, were then in operation to lead to such a result
The fate of a Ministry was at stake; it existence was
trembling in the balance. It was announced, that if
the advocates of the measure were again triumphant,
there would be a change in the Government of
the country ; and many, who were convinced of its
justice and propriety, were not prepared to obtain it
at such a price. They loved not the Factory Bill less,
but protection more.; and they believed that the cause
of protection would be seriously damaged by such a
change in the Cabinet, and therefore they voted
against the Bill ; or, if too deeply committed to its
support to appear in direct hostility, deliberately ab-
sented themselves from the division, in consequence
whereof the House reversed its former decision. Now,
however, the gigantic monopoly, for whose support
and maintenance its advocates made such a sacrifice
of justice and consistency, is numbered with the past,
and no longer cripples the resources of the great body
of the people for the fancied benefit of a class. The
measure itself, too, is an open question in the Cabinet,
the most influential members of which hold widely
different opinions respecting it. No party triumph
was to be obtained whatever might be the result of
the division, whether it might obtain or be denied
the legislative sanction. It was therefore certain
that it would wholly depend on its own merits, and
neither be assisted or retarded by extraneous in-
fluences. Why then should there be a change in the
deliberate opinion of the House, expressed by a ma-
jority so clear and decisive ? It could not possibly be
expected, and yet an entire day was literally thrown
away in a second time obtaining that opinion which
was given in an equally decided manner-190 Mem.
bers, out of 290, being for going into Committee
on the Bill.

The opponents of the measure have rested their
case chiefly on the impropriety of any legislative in-
terference with labour, too often the only property
of the hard-working operative, and that the regulating
the time and manner of that labour should be left
entirely to the arrangement of the masters and men
themselves. Now, we fully concede the propriety of
this argument generally, but there are many cases
in which there must be restrictions and interference
with private rights. The greatest good for the
greatest number must be the rule, and if it can be
shown that the health or morals of any portion
of the community may be, and practically are,
injuriously affected by unlimited freedom of
action, :it becomes the duty of the .Legislate
I forthwith to establish such regulations as may pre-
' vent the possibility of such injury, more particularly
when the persons requiring protection are the weaker
and feebler classes, those unable to defend themselves,
or to guard their own -rights. Can it for a moment
be supposed that girls budding into womanhood, that
children of tender years, or mothers having:the care
of helpless infants, can, without injury, be confined