The Sun.
London, England, 1860-03-22 00:00:00

. ,.._....m0t..
the producer of the raw material bad a motive for
extending its produetion, and as long as the manu-
facturer was willing to pay a price bringing a profit
he might calculate upon an almost illimitable supply
of raw material. But the ordinary rules of demand
and supply did not apply to the raw material of
paper, as the home supply could not be greatly
increased. There was a very great distinction
between the raw material of paper and all other
articles. Mr. WRIGLEY said. he was willing to
meet the competition of the world, but let him have
1 all the markets of the world open to him for his
supply of raw material, as the cotton manufacturer,
1 the silk manufacturer, and all others had. Unless
that was done the result would be utter destruction
to all small factories, and whai trade remained in
this country would be centred in the few large esta-
blishments like his own, which would be content with
a fractional profit on their production. What was
there to prevent this country being supplied with
i paper from the Continent ? Would any one say that
the manufacturers of this country could make paper
any cheaper after the duty was removed than they
did now ? He knew of nothing that would ena-
ble him to make paper at 1-16th part of a
penny less per pound than it cost him at pre-
sent. It was pardonable for men who, like
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, were ignorant
of the practical business of paper making,
to talk of new fabrics being accessible,
but no one had ever yet suggested anything at all
to be compared to rags as a material for paper-
making. Mr. Deputy PEWTRESS fully corroborated
this statement for with regard to other substances
as " substitutes for rags, he could only say that
he was once persuaded to try an article that
could be procured for nothing—at only the ex-
pense of carting—but after a fortnight's trial he
found that 100 lb. of material only produced 2Slb.
of paper, and that at a cost of ls. 6d. per lb.
The truth of this was confirmed by the cheers
and laughter of the. meeting. Nor was this all;
—since the free exportation of coal was allowed
the price of the article had risen at home, and the
foreigner, who got the raw material at a less price
and paid lower wages, was working double tides
against us, thus making all the profit, and beating
us with our own weapons. So much for one-sided
free trade! Surely the House of Commons will
not ruin the paper manufacturer at home for the
benefit of rivals abroad, who feel no sympathy for
us, but inasmuch as they can get all and give
nothing.

We rejoice to find that the House of Commons
has so nobly responded to the appeal of humanity,
having carried the second reading of Mr. CROOK'S
bill by the triumphant majority of 187 ! After
such a decided success the friends of the cause have
little reason to doubt that it will pass through the
succeeding stages, and become part of the law of
the land. The debate last night must have con-
vinced all unprejudiced members that the argu-
ments of the opponents of the bill could be satisfac-
torily answered, while the appeal to humanity and
justice was incontrovertible. The only speech
which strongly opposed the principle of the bill
was that of Mr. TURNER, the member for Man-
chester, who moved as an amendment that it should
be read that day six months. He contended that
the case was different from that of the cotton mills,
as in them the machinery could at any moment be
stopped, and the operations resumed next day ;
whereas in the bleaching works critical chemical
operations had to be performed, the favourable re-
sult of which depended on a certain amount of
time being occupied in them. This assertion was
contradicted by Mr. COBBETT, on the evidence of a
manager. But, even supposing it to be the case, it
affords no plea for the cruel extension of the hours
of labour, as relays of workpeoplc could be obtained,
allowing each their fair share of rest. Mr. TURNER
brought forward the old arguments as to the evil
effects of legislative interference between employer
and employed, and declared that if the select com-
mittee, to whom the question had been referred
in 1858, reported against legislation on
the subject, it was equally unnecessary
at the present time. He threatened the House
with the disastrous and ruinous effect which the
Bill would have upon trade, and concluded by
moving the amendment, which, if carried, would
have condemned the sufferers to another year's delay.
The speech of Mr. ROEBUCK was in every respect
admirable. It was clear and forcible in its reason-
ing, undeniable in its evidence, fervent and moving
in its appeal to the hearts of the members. The
calculating and heartless logic of the hon. mem-
ber for Manchester was completely disposed of,
and the effect upon the House was most convincing.
The hon. member for Sheffield, in commencing his
speech, referred to the introduction of the Ten
Hours' Bill by Lord ASHLEY., and to his own con-
duct at that time, when he had opposed it as a
political economist, although drawing a distinction
between the labour of men, and that of women and
children. He was mainly influenced in that oppo-
sition by the statements of the Yorkshire and Lan-
cashire manufacturers, who asserted that the last
half hour was their profit, and that their trade
would be ruined by the proposed innovation. The
Bill had been carried, and what was the result ?
Who could say that the manufacturers of England
had suffered ? The same evils are prophesied now,
but the threats have fortunately lost their effect.
We fully agree with the hon. member when he said
it were better that the manufacturers should
suffer than that the present system should be main-
tained. With regard to the analogy between

the factories and the bleach works, he

said justly, that if there was analogy
in the suffering, it was sufficient to call for the

same interference and protection. Mr. ROEBUCK
then made a most forcible appeal to the sympathies
of the House. He read evidence given by persons
employed in this; trade, showing that they worked
sometimes twenty-four hoUrs in succession. lie
reminded the lion. members that they often com-
plaitied of the long hours of that House. They
came to the House at four o'clock, and went to
dinner at seven, and if after that they were kept
till two o'clock in the morning they said they had
had a terrible night's work. What then, said he,
must be the feelivgs of a poor child of 12 or 13,
not going home to a comfortable repast, not resting
on soft cushions, but standing through the long
hours of the night, and, at best, resting her poor
aching limbs on a wooden bench. He addressed
them as fathers, and begged them to reflect how
they would feel if their own children were in such
a pDsition, and concluded his excellent speech by
tho following forcible appeal:—

" For God's sake, then, I say, don't let us listen to the
hon. gentleman ! I don't want to weary the house, but I
appeal to you as men, I appeal to you as fathers, I appeal
to you as brothers, and 1 ask you for God's sake not to be
participants in this horrible cruelty. The hon. member
says he is sure you will not go into committee on this bill.
I, on the contrary, feel certain that if I know anything of
my countrymen we shall go into committee ; that the mea-
sure will be carried by a triumphant majority, and that we
shall not lay our heads upon our pillows to-night, saying,
' We have deserted those whom God has placed under our
charge—the weak, the helpless, the distressed ; we think
only of ourselves, of the wealthy, and of the great.' The
weak and the miserable appeal to you now for compassion
and for aid, and I, their humble advocate, also appeal to