The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-14 00:00:00

ettienins Ant

LONDON, THURSDAY, MAY 14, 1846.

We have hitherto taken no part in the discussion on the
Ten Hours' Bill for various reasons. It is one of the most
difficult questions, if not the most difficult, that can be

brought before the Legislature. It requires a great deal of

practical knowledge of the system of labour in factories, of
the nature of the work to be performed, the fatigue in-
curred, the difference between a certain number of hours

of work fully employed, and a larger number of
hours of work in which the full energy of the operatives
is not exerted, though the vast machinery is going on in the
most efficient way; the difficulty of finding hands to work
additional time in case the prosperity of trade should greatly
increase; and even with the knowledge of all these facts,
it might be impossible to anticipate with anything like
precision what might be the result of a change
which will affect nearly one million of labourers,
and interfere with the most gigantic and expen-
sive machinery in the world. Persons unacquainted
with such complicated operations may therefore be excused
from giving any decided opinion on the subject, and we are
the more confirmed in this opinion from the very diversity of
lodgments pronounced by persons who should be best in-
formed. The Bill is opposed by the Government chiefly
we believe, from a reluctance to interfere with the
regulations of the master manufacturers, or to control
in any way, by legislative enactments, the use of
capital. We do not blame them for this caution,
because experience shows that nothing is so dangerous to
the prosperity of any particular trade, or undertaking, or
speculation, as laws decreed by absolute monarchs, or even
popular assemblies, which may bind down the masters or the
men to a specific course of operation. Some trades cannot
be touched without ultimate ruin. For these reasons, pro-
bably, such men as Mr. LABOUCHERE and others, who
have attained the rank of statesmen, may be opposed to
the Bill. The master manufacturers, one may suppose,
would be opposed to it unanimously, because they naturally
dislike all interference, and are inclined as much to rebel
against the office of factory inspector as against the abridge-
ment of the hours of labour. But the Bill for the appoint-
ment of inspectors has been found to work well ; it affords
some protection to the ill-used operative, who previously had
absolutely no protection whatever, and might be treated
with the utmost cruelty by an overseer or a master with ab-
solute impunity. The master now finds that he gains rather
than loses by treating those under him like rational beings, and
that men who are well used are both toore willing and more able
to perform their work. Under sues a conviction some of the

largest manufacturers are in favoo.r of the measure, for, con-
trary to what might is priori be taken for granted, the
masters are by no means unanimous on the subject. The
Bill has been brought in by one of the most distinguished
cotton manufacturers of I,;ngland, by a man who has
amassed great wealth, thoug'n he always treated his men well,
and did not fear to compete with others, though he en-
forced less strictly his power. The authority of such a man
is of tenfold importance when compared with that of Lord
ASHLEY, or any other humane but uninformed innovator.
Besides, if we are not mistaken, Mr. FIELDEN has worked
his way from the condition of a labourer to his present envi-
able position, and cannot fail, therefore, to be thoroughly
acquainted with the nature of the employment, the debility
caused by over-working, and the consequent loss to the
master; and it may also be presumed that he is as likely to
forsee the results of the proposed change as any cotton-spinner
in Yorkshire or Lancashire. But there is another equally
important witness in its favour, one who has admitted in the
House that he bad gone through all the grades of the sys-

teen, that he had worked himself as a common operative,
and had been subjected to the tender mercies of an overseer
or superintendent, armed with a billy-roller. These are
strong authorities when balanced even with the most learned
and confident political economists. But even these cannot
in any way agree as to the amount of mischief
which this Bill will inflict. Sir JAMES GRAHAM calculates
that the change would reduce the profits of the manufacturer
by 16 per cent. Mr. LABO OCHER E agrees with him, and
estimates the loss at one-sixth ; while Mr. DENNISTOUN seems
afraid to calculate, and merely foretels that the results will
be " most disastrous." Mr. W. COWPER did not an-

ticipate any diminution in the produce. When
such division prevails among men of experience,
and who profess to be well acquainted with the subject,
writers in newspapers may well be allowed to hesitate.
From all accounts the operatives themselves are in favour
of the measure ; and as they seldom have a " say " in the
deliberations of Parliament, and a brief experiment could
not cause much injury, they might be indulged for once to
prove that they are not altogether unrepresented.

From the Parliamentary votes for this evening we observe
that the Hon. Member for Birmingham, Mr. SPooNER, will,
immediately subsequent to the termination of private busi-
ness, move that a Select Committee be formed to consider
the petitions of Mr. TOULMLN SMITH, and the papers pre-
sented to the House relative to the case stated in those
petitions. In the question thus submitted to the investi-
gation of the Legislature is involved one of the leading
principles of our Constitution—a principle, indeed, upon
the maintenance of which rests not merely the stability, but
the very existence of perhaps the most vaunted and the
most cherished among what are usually termed our birth-
rights as Englishmen. It appeals to every individual mem-
ber of the community, being a matter of the most essen-
tially public character; and in bringing it before Parliament
the petitioner is not only vindicating his own prerogatives
as an English citizen, but he is vindicating the prerogatives
of every one of his fellow-countrymen, and is striving for
the preservation (?) of one of the noblest and most valuable
boons an inhabitant of the British Isles is supposed to pos-
sess. Every student of BLACKSTONE is familiar with the prin-
ciple here implied, the principle through the operation of
which every householder in the United Kingdom would
enjoy as great security both to himself and his 'pos-
sessions, as though he were girt about by impregnable forti-
fications, and filled with the exultation, at which reflection
the great commentator, in his fourth volume, page 223, revels
in the idea that " every Englishman's house is his castle ►"
Repeatedly, however, as this boast is upon our lips, we have
been compelled, again and again, to pause in its very utter-
ance—a dubious suspicion of its emptiness has invaded
our minds—and we are brought at last to the blunt question,
t htehecroen trearrey,eonf arveery
Is this really the case? Do we, in truth, possess
immunities of this nature? Are our houses castles? Or,
vul-
nerable not
Unhappilyf
facts, which too fullythe
merely arguments, but. a
of
eur prove
boast.
d rights,
are no t those
description?vaunt
The case of WILKES— so remote, and of itself so im
portant as to become invested;rid the fallacy
matter beyond all doubt, as
torical transaction—places
of our.. scepptii
iA concerned. The case of
nencismeosw with the dignity of an his•.
more important
Mr. JosiwA Totgzas Suala
far as an obnoxious demagoguetlle
(infinitely