The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-11 00:00:00

Olteening 2int

LONDON, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1E47.

LORD G. BENTINCK'S BILL.

MEETING OF IRISH MEMBERS AT LORD
JOAN RUSSELL'S.-(THIS DAY.)

A meeting of Irish Members was held to-day, at
twelve o'clock, at the residence of Lord Jot's
RUSSELL, which was convened by his Lordship to an-
nounce to them the determination which the Govern.
ment had come to with respect to the proposed measure
of Lord GEORGE BENTINCK for the advance of money to
assist in the completion of railways in Ireland.

The PREMIER stated, that in the event of there
being a majority in favour of the proposition of the
Noble Member for Lynn, it was the determination of
himself and his colleagues to resign immediately.
Such a large amount of money as has been contemplated
to be advanced by Lord GEORGE BENTINCK and his sup•
porters, in addition to the immense sums that have
already been expended in that country on Govern-
ment works, added to what will be required, would,
in the estimation of the Government, disorder the
finances of this country so much that they considered it
impolitic, and even dangerous, to accede to the measure;
and, as he had already stated, rather than submit to its
being carried, they had unanimously determined to
tender their resignations as .Ministers of the Crown.
Several of the gentlemen in attendance addressed the
meeting, and, it appeared by their observations, that
with the view of obviating the necessity for his Lord-
ship having occasion to resort to the alternative which he
mentioned, they would give him all the sapport in their
power to resist the measure, which determination will
be fatal to it.

The House of Commons met yesterday at 12 o'clock.
After the presentation of various petitions, the adjourned
debate on the Ten Hours' Bill was resumed by
Mr. Hvau, who opposed the second reading of the
Bill on the ground that it was contrary to all the re-
ceived maxims of political economy, and that any
attempt at Legislative interference between the em
ployer and the employed, must end in disappointment.
The lion. Gentleman concluchd, by moving that the
Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Dr. Bow-RING seconded the amendment.

Sir GEORGE GREY having paid a high compliment to
Mr. lICME for his consistency, confessed that he would
rather this question should have been settled by a volun-
tary agreement between the employers and the em-
ployed; but, seeing that there was no chance of such
agreement, he should, as an individual Member of Par-
liament vote for the second reading of the Bill, with the
intention in Committee, so to modify it, as to make an
Eleven Hours, instead of a Ten Hours' Bill.
Mr. BAN ES supported the motion for the second
reading of the Bill, and said that those who supported
it would not accept of an Eleven instead of a Ten Hours'
Bill. The Hon. Gentleman then attacked Mr. BRIGHT
for his opposition to a Ten Hours Bill.
Lord J. MANNEns gave a detailed history of the agi-
tation in favour of a Ten Hours' Bill, and concluded by
giving his hearty support to the measure of the Hon.
Member for Oldham.

The CiIINCELLOR of the EXCLIt QUER. would support
a measure for limiting the time of the labour of children,
but he would not interfere with adults. The workme❑
were, in general, in favour of long hours and more wages,
and as the advocate of the interests of the working
classes he felt found to oppose the measure.

The Marquis of GRANBY supported the Bill.
Dr. BOWRING, as the advocate of the working man,
opposed this measure, which would deprive the work-
man of one sixth-part of his earnings. He was con-
vinced that it would be of no practical utility to the
poor.
Mr. P. HOWARD supported the measure.
Mr. MUNTZ said that during an average of years the
mills had not worked more than ten hours a day—to
work beyond would affect the health of the work-people;
and he had never given a vote with more honesty of
feeling than the vote he was about to give in support
of the present measure.
Mr. BRIGHT said that the principles on which the
agitation for this Bill had been conducted were unsound
and rotten. He contended that the work of women
employed i❑ factories was not laborious. The experi
meats in France proved this, and it should
be remembered that factory labourers were shel-
tered from the weather, and had plenty of light.
It should be remembered that up to thirteen years
of age children were exempt from the system
now complained of, and he himself was an
example that education was not necessary much after
that age, for he never went to school after he was
fifteen. Ile was as much the friend of the poor as any
man, for he would give them votes to send representatives
to that House, but he considered it a wicked delusion to
represent to poor persons that they could get the same
wages for ten hours' work that they could for twelve
hours' labour. Wages were always reduced in the
same proportion as time was reduced, and the reduction
of time proposed would make a difference of 7,000,0001.
in the revenue annually. If the Bill passed, the
manufacturers would be obliged to combine in self de-
fence, and that would do away with the gvotl feeling
between employers and employed. With regard to an
Eleven Hours' Bill, he considered it a cowardly shrink-
ing from principle. If the petitioners in favour of the
Bill were right, their demand should be granted, if they
were wrong, it should be rejected altogether. He was
astonished that the Noble Lord at the head of the Go-
vernment should have left this an open question.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL, in reply to the attack of Mr.
BRIGHT, denied that the question of ten or eleven hours,
was a question of principle : it was a question of degree
only. The question of the limitation of the hours of
labour had been carried out by several old statutes.
Neither was it a question of principle, as interfering
between employers and employed, for the old law
protected apprentices against masters. To be consistent,
the lion. Member for Durham should propose the
roefpepalrinocripleth,esethelawGs.oveArnsmeintt
that young persons of leasing it wawsasnotj
uastitiqeudestioinn
an open question. For himself, he con-
sideredworking for 1q • Pe
.., 13, or 14 hours d
of thirteen years of age
stand such severe lab ..or and thatnot sufficiently
because the bodily frame was
i give them more time for healthful matured to
a ay were overtaxed,
a short. _r period. would
recreation, and fur
1 intellectual improvement.

On the motion of S.r A. Lunt Mkt the debate was