The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-01 00:00:00

the tone in which this grievance, real enough we think
it, was successively deplored by the speakers. But we
must confess to a slight abatement of our pity, from the
fact that almost every speaker, In the midst of some
most piteous whine about the duty he annually paid on
his raw cotton, interjected some angry flings about the
factory question. Has it ever occurred to any of these
lugubrious gentlemen, that if they had done their part,
the State might have done its part ? It is but natural
that a Government which knows more of definite
treaties than of uncertain speculations should refuse to
sacrifice revenue without securing that the benefit shall
light on the heads of those who most need ti. The
Manchester meeting presents rather too close a resem-
blance to that committee of ironmasters the other day
which agreed to raise the price of iron 20s. a ton, and
before they separated signed a petition against a Ten
Hours' Bill.
Yet there is some hope from this quarter. Some of
the arguments used in the House on Friday, including
those of Mr. Cobden, are encouraging. He considers
shortening the hours of labour not only desirable but
possible—compatible with social prosperity, and that in
England. We have sometimes heard what seemed a
contrary doctrine. " More work, more produce, more
wages, mare comforts," &c. Not so, Mr. Cobden.
Holding that the desired rasult will be obtained by com-
mercial freedom, but retarded by legislative restrictions
on labour, but Le yet considers that shortened hours are
a result to be desired r

" Instead of the supporters of free trade advocating
the system of long hours, they maintained that the
surest way, and the only sound and practical mode,
of shortening the hours of labour was by abolish-
ing restrictions upon trade. He would in two words
tell the House why he thought carrying into effect
the principles of free trade would diminish the hours
of labour. He did not say, with the Noble Lord the
member for the City of London, that by reducing the
price of bread, it would compensate the labourer for
the reduction of the hours of labour. Ho repeated
what he (Mr. Cobden) had often stated to the House,
that he did not think reduction in the price of wheat,
coffee, or sugar, would afford a sufficient compensa-
tion to the operatives for a reduction of the
hours of labour. But if they enlarged their markets,
and allowed a free exchange to take place with the
commodities of other countries, the effect would be,
that the value of labour would increase in this country,
and the capitalist would also derive great advan-
tages from the interchange. Under such a system
the labourer would derive as much benefit from
working ten hours as he did now by working twelve.
It was only last night that lie had a conversation with a
large capitalist. That capitalist instruced him
(Mr. Cobden) to go inky the House of Com-
mons and make a bargain for hire. The capi-
talist said, if the House would consent to remove all

the restrictions upon trade, he would at once pro-
mise to give his workmen the same wages for .10 hours'
as he now gave them for 12 hours' work. Dr. Deacon
Hume said that the only effectual way of giving the ope-
ratives a Ten Hours' Bill was by removing the restric-
tions upon the commerce and trade of this country."
This may be all true. We hope there is this road to
a Ten Hours' Bill. But it certainly does considerably
damp one's sympathy for the free traders to see the
order in which they always place these two questions.
Trade first, the factory women and young persons next,
is not the order of humanity—perhaps not the order of
success.— Times.