of humanity was necessary, which no one will doubt, how much more necessary the 58 hour act for the offspring of Englishmen!
On the meeting of the first reformed Parliament, Mr. Sadler not being a member, Lord Ashley was prompted to take the question in hand. He was beaten in the House of Commons, on the motion of Mr. Patten, because the ministers thought they could protect the children without interfering with the adults.
It would much exceed our present limits to examine in detail, all the various movements of the friends and foes of this bill for the last fifteen years. Motions and counter motions in the House, reports and counter reports out of it, have been constantly before the public. Sometimes one party have had the lead, and sometimes the other. One now proposing to "lay the axe at the root and cut it (the factory system) down;" another begging that the country would consider first what sort of a tree it was, and look at the fruit it had produced.
It is matter of congratulation, however, that the bill has been suffered to have an existence, if for nothing more than to test its merits in removing the evils of which the factory people complain. Of its success I have strong reasons to doubt.
If there is any merit in the ten hour system, the benevolent portion of the manufacturers will come in for their share. We find the first man to move in it was a manufacturer; and since then, many petitions have been sent to the House, and the ministers, for the bill, by manufacturers. Lord John Russell presented petitions signed by nearly 500 master manufacturers, employing 140,000 hands, for the bill.
It is also curious to observe that Sir Robert Peel opposed the measure, although he is the son of a cotton spin-
