The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-04 00:00:00

etritithlS AM

LONDON, THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 1847.

The Commons met yesterday at Twelve o'Clock.
Mr. STaurr moved that the Committee on every rail.
way should fix the rate of tolls, &c.
Agreed to.
After the transaction of private business,
Mr. FIELDEN moved the Committee on the Ten Hours
Bill.

Mr. ESCOTT moved as an amendment that the House
resolve itself into Committee on the Bill that day six
months. A debate ensued, in the course of which the
House was addressed by Sir J. GRAHAM, Lord Mon-
PETIT, Mr. M. GinsoN, and Sir R. ; and, on a di-
vision the numbers were—
For the Amendment
For the original motion l9O
Majority —9o

Tho House then adjourned at a few miautes after Six
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 furthisr 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 restrictel to the details
of the measure in the Committee, particu-
larly to that on which some difference of opinion
exists amongst its supporters, viz., wlether 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 tit 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 coun try ; and manyf who were convinced of its
nut protection and
protection more ; and they be:a-eyed 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 deep'y committed to its
support to appear in direct hostilitty, deliberately ab-
sented themselves from the diviEfion, 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 resourc es 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 bes 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 mancner-190 Mem-
bers, out of 290, being for going into Committee
on the Bill.

The opponents of the measure Irave rested their
case chiefly en the impropriety of any legislative in-
terference with labour, too (Alen the only property

of the hard-working operative, and tb at 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 conceA e, the propriety of
this argument generally, but there are many cases
in which there must be restriction.s and interference
with private rights. The greztest good for the

greatest number must be the rat., and if it can be

shown that the health or moroils of any portion
of the community may be, ax d practically are,
injuriously affected by unlit aiited freedom of
action, :it becomes the duty otf the Legislature
forthwith to establish such regu'ations 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. Caen it for a moment
be supposed that girls budding inta womanhood, that
children of tender yearn, or mothears having the care
of helpless infants, can, without i Injury, be confined
for twelve hours a day in ceaseless toil in the close,

heated atmosphere of the factory ? No; we

have the testimony of many ,medical gentle-
men that such prolonged labo ur is in the
highest degree prejudicial to health, and tends to
promote premature decay, and in mriny cases leads to
early deaths. This alone should bo decisive on the
question, but, in addition, we find clergymen of all
persuasions pointing out the injurious effects pro-
duced by these long hours of labor on the social,
moral, and educational interests of the people. We
find that, out of 260,000 operatives e t gaged in cotton
factories, no less than 230,000 have pextitioned Parlia-
ment for a restriction in the hours of ltibour, that their
families might avail themselves of the facilities for
improving their minds afforded to them by evening
lectures, mechanics' institutes, wail schools for
children, or in taking healthful exercise or re-
creation in pure air, or enjoying themselves round

the domestic hearth ; but, in additions we find manu-
facturers employing a full moiety of the opera-
tives, and including such men as Mi FIELDEN and
Mr. BROTHERTON, strongly advocati og the change,
and not fearing the pecuniary losses hich its oppo-
nents assert would be the inevitable consequences of
its adoption. How, then, can we heatate as to its
propriety ? The speech of tha honourable
Member for Salford was of the mast convincing
character, and in the highest degtve creditable,
to the speaker ; he avowed with honouta ble pride that
" when he was a boy be had been acquainted with
wasemployed,
and
be
were
in
a position
in-
strumental in shortening factory labour, he would
endeavour to accomplish that and." Such testimony
is more valuable than almost any that could be ob-

,
' ' sCAT la • , j 'l'4l: .4
.zts.i„._., rti.„.„4-‘7,4ri".4f4,1•40, ..:,41,', . .
..,,,,... -1" • , ~,* ~.t....„...