The Sun.
London, England, 1836-05-09 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY, MAV 9, 1836.

England and of Scotland ! this is your cause as
well as the cause of the Irish. You are as deeply
'interested in the result of this night's Parlia-
mentary proceedings as your fellow-subjects who are
separated from you by a narrow channel. The same
Ministers who achieved for you a reform of your mu-
nicipal institutions offer a similar measure to Ireland,
and they are opposed by the self-same titled and unti-
tled enemies of popular liberty, who resisted, with an
energy and perse.verance which malice and selfishness
alone could supply, your emancipation from their cruel
grasp, and yielded to your just demands only when
terror seized upon their hearts. We will not harbour
for a moment the humiliating thought that Britons will
tamely permit a mere handful of bigots and oppressors
to crush that liberty in a sister land which they have
mainly endea-voured to stifle in this, and for the good
which ourselves have extorted from their fears to
take vengeance upon a people allied to us by the
closest bonds that can connect two countries, a com-
munity of interests, a love of the same laws, and—to
say nothing of the Act of 1800—an ardent admira-
tion of the same Constitution. The House of Lords
may go on madly in its mischievous career—it may set
itself against public opinion, and believe that the
plaudits of its mercenary parasites are the echo of the
public voice—it may indulge the insane hope that its
puny arm can slay the mighty giant which, in the
peaceful garments of Reform, walks through the land,
cheering the oppressed and scathing the oppressor—
all this folly the House of Lords may perpetrate, but
it must in the end yield to the just claim of the mass,
or perish in the conflict. Emphatically we tell the
Lords the empire will not have Lord Lyndhurst's de-
structive measure. Let the Hereditary Chamber but
adopt that infamous Bill, and the nation will soon
make known its feelings in a voice at the sound of
which their House will tremble.—Morning Chronicle.
Various speculations were afloat during the week
last past as to the probable motive of the adjournment
to be proposed by Ministers from the 20th to the 30th
inst. The rumours of a dissolution at first obtained
some credit, it being clear that the evidence before the
Committee on the-Dublin Election must eventually de-
prive Ministers of their indispensable leader in the
Lower House of Parliament. A joint of the tail,
however, has just been cut off to provide for this con-
tingency, and the rumour of a dissolution has conse-
quently died away. Another motive for the adjourn-
ment was sought by some in the perplexities of the
Whig-Radical Government, who, in one sense of ,the
phrase, may truly boast that they are " open to all
parcies, and influenced by none ;" for, with a disposi-
tion to truckle in all directions, they cannot muster de-
termination sufficient to adopt any one decided line
whatever. A respite in the middle of the Session
from such a state of bewilderment, though at first
sight it may appear an assignable motive for the pro-
posed adjournment, will scarcely bear consideration.
For, upon the same principl—namely, the difficulty of
extricating an incapable Ministry from the poli-
tical perplexities in which it has involved itself
by a tortuous and truckling policy—on this principle
Lord John Russell might reasonably move the adjourn-
ment of the House of Commons sane die. The pre-
sent generation can hardly hope to see the day when
the Noble Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment will be competent to dispose of the tithe ques-
tion ; the " superficial" Chancellor of the Exchequer
to administer our financial concerns to the satisfacion
of the community ; Lord Morpeth to compete with
the House of Lords in legislating for Ireland ; Lord
Palmerston to maintain the balance of power by his
protocols ; or Lord Glenelg to preserve our Canadian
possessions by his imperturbable repose. Thus we
are compelled to seek elsewhere for the secret of this
unusual adjournment. Left to conjecture, we shall
perhaps be pardoned should we be somewhat wide of
the mark, and the " superficial inches" at the service
of Mr. Rice arc open for a refutation of our conjec-
ture. We have heard, then, that not the public affairs
of this nation, for the administration of which the
Prime Minister has so. abundantly proved that he is in-
competent, but certain achieVements in a field on which
the Noble Lord has already L.,,-ainecl triumphant laurels,
render it necessary that for his own sake, and for that
of the Government of which he is the head, the un-
divided attention of the Cabinet should be given to a
matter of the most delicate nature. The Lord-Lieu-
tenant- of Ireland, on many grounds eminently qualified
to give the best advice in this crisis of moral character,
is forthwith to repair to England ; and here, for the first
time since his appointment to his high station, will be
required to do the bidding of the Prime Minister, and
not that of the prime agitator. That he will do this
cheerfully, no one who has observed Lord Mulgrave's
career can doubt ; nor will • the head of the Govern-
ment look in vain for the sympathy of Lord Palmerston,
Lord Lansdowne, Lord Holland, Mr. Poulctt Thorn-
son, and other "men of the world," as they are emphati-
cally called. But what will the more staid members
of the Government, such as Lords J. Russell, Dun-
cannon, and,Howick, and, above all, the immaculate
Lord Glenelg—what will they say to this new diffi-
culty ? There will be a " division in the Cabinet"
with a vengeance. Nor can we well see how, on the
re-assembling of Parliament, those Members of the
House of Commons classed under the generic term
" saints" can, without considerable qualms of con-
science, sanction this social interpretration of the
" Repeal of the Union." Surely Sir Andrew Agnew,
Sir Oswald Mosley, Mr. Buxton, Mr. R. Colborne,
and others, who are solicitous lest Sunday-baked joints
and Sunday air and exercise should inflame the pas-
sions of the poor, will think of framing a clause to
preserve the wealthy from temptation. We have
merely indicated the subject of the little drama which
is said to be in contemplation. A few days will show
how far our conjecture is correct ; and, perhaps, the
organs of Government will favour the public with an
authorized list of the dramatis persona., and an an-
nouncement of the day fixed for the public representa-
tion.—Times.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer having this year,
as an honest Hibernian might say, " opened" the
Budget in effect before it was " made up," little or no
interest attached to its more regular and formal open-
ing—the greater part of the surplus revenue that could
be spared it was known long ago would be applied to
the reduction of newspaper stamps, or, as they are pe-
dantically called, the " taxes on knowledge" and the
paper duties. Of the 660,0001. in round numbers,
which Mr. Rice takes as the actual balance of the
year, after deducting the charges of the West India
loan, he disposes of the sum of 351,0001. under va-
rious heads of reduction, each of which is of an insig-
nificant amount, with the exception of the two items
that we have mentioned, amounting together to
275,000/. ; leaving but 76,0001. more to be disposed
of under the other heads of reduction-20,0001. of this
is the estimated loss upon the Post-office treaty with
France—another 20,0001. the loss upon probates by
the new system of stamp duties-6,0001. the re-
duction upon Irish advertisements-5,0001. the re-
duction on tax-carts, flvs, &c. Then there remains
15,000/. of the 351,060/. to be disposed of. How
does the ingenious Chancellor of the Exchequer
get rid of that "odd 15,0001.? He generously be-
stows it in the way of relief to the agricultural
interests, by reducing the fire insurances on farm-
ing buildings. Oh, too happy agriculturists we may
say with the Roman poet, if they only knew their own
happiness. Surely, after this, it must be admitted
that Lord Chandos's motion was quite superfluous,
and that Sir Robert Peel did right to oppose it, know-
ing, as he did, how equitably the mob-led Ministers
would deal with the quiet, loyal, and suffering culti-
vators of the soil, whose distress they deeply commis-
serated in the Speech from the Throne, and upon
whom they lavish the splendid relief of 15,0001. out
of a surplus of 660,000/. ! The foregoing short pa-
ragraph contains the sum and substance of the Budget,
upon which Mr. Spring Rice bestowed a speech which
filled six columns of small print in our paper. If the
greatness of the orator was to be calculated by the
magnitude of his speeches, Mr. Spring Rice would
fairly bear away the palm of eloquence from most of
the orators of ancient times, and from many of the
moderns, by a very considerable extent of measurement
in " superficial inches." But we ask the Right Hon.
Gentleman whether it is right of him, when he is about
to curtail Newspapers of their fair proportions, to
" monopolise.' a whole side of one of our broad sheets
with a statement upon the Budget, which might have
been despatched in one-sixth of the space. We have

measured his speech, and it occupies no less than 459
superficial - inches, which is nearly one-third of the
space which he is about to fix as the Exchequer maxi-
num of size. If we were at present limited to 1,530
aches, deducting his speech, we should have had only
1,071 inches, little better than two-thirds of that space
Lo give to the remainder of the debate in the Commons,
the whole of the discussion in the Lords, our foreign
intelligence from various countries, our domestic in-
telligence, comprising public meetings, the reports of
Law Courts, police offices, &c., Court news, City
news, fashionable movements, agricultural, commercial,
and manufacturing intelligence, and all the other mis-
cellaneous matter, independently of leading articles
and advertisements. Why then—(and we ask the ques-
tion in the greatest good humour)—why then will the
Right Hon. Gentleman persist in cutting down our
double sheet to 1,500 inches, when he has ocular
demonstration that a single speech of his own can
cover one-third of that space, and, consequently,
three speeches of the same length would exhaust the
whole superficial measurement, and deprive the news-
paper-reading public of all that varied intelligence,
foreign and domestic, which constitutes the attractive
miscellany of a daily Journal ? We still trust and
hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will re-consider
and revise his ill-conceived and ill-digested measure. It
concerns as much his own reputation as the interests
of the Press and the public convenience, that he should
not signalise his financial career by rashly adopting,
and obstinately clinging to a principle of restriction
upon the Press, and consequently upon the " diffusion
of knowledge" which was suggested by some " inge-
nious" blockhead to a Tory Chancellor of the Exche-
quer—Mr. Goulburn, and contemptuously rejected
Politically opposed, as we are, to the Chancellor of the
Exchequer and his party, in most of their measures,
we bear him no personal hostility, notwithstanding
the blow which he has aimed, at us, and the undue
preference which he originally gave by his scale of
measurement to a ministerial journal. If, indeed, we
were supporters of his politics, we would think it
necessary to his fame—and to the character of the
Cabinet in which he fills so conspicuous a station
—to make every effort to dissuade him from
persisting with the " superficial inch of know-
ledge" plan, to the injury of the Press, the inconveni-
ence of the public, the detriment of the revenue,
and the lasting discredit of the Administration. If,
however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer be resolved
to cling to a principle so opposed to the " diffusion
of knowledge," and to the principles of free trade, the
enlargement of his scale to some few hundred super-
ficial inches more will still leave the principle untouched.
Let him only measure the largest sheet now published,
we mean, of couse, a double sheet, which is only one
sheet folded like two ; and let him take the measure
of that largest sheet as his nzaxinzum of size. He will
thereby avoid the actual restriction of any existing
Newspaper, and the restriction will only operate
against future enlargements of existing journals beyond
that maximum. To the subject of an efficient copy-
right protection for Morning Newspapers, which we
before endeavoured to bring under the notice of Go-
vernment, we hope he will edirect his attention. It
was always understood that the reduction of the Stamp
Duties was to be accompanied by some measure of the
sort to protect the Daily Papers against the piracy of
their origiiial intelligence. We also unite with those
who recommend that far each Newspaper there
should be a distinct and peculiar stamp, with the
name of the Newspaper upon it. This would
prevent much delusion being practised upon the
public in regard to the comparative circulation of
Newspapers. And as the Stamp-office must have new
dies for the altered duties, the thing can be done with-
out additional expense. In consequence of what fell
from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget-
speech, respecting the alleged assent of the petition-
ing Newspapers to his plan, we have only to repeat
our denial of Thursday last—viz., that " with the
Right Hon. Gentleman we have had no communica-
tion, either personally or by representatives, touching
his superficial inch of knowledge plan, nor did he with
our privity or concurrence, extend his original restric-
tions from the exact dimensions of a Ministerial Morn-
ing Paper to the more enlarged area of fifteen hundred
superficial inches." We may add, that we never heard
of such a change of his plan being in contemplation,
until it was notified to us that it had been determined
upon. Surely it does not stand to reason, nor is it
consistent with the possession of the most ordinar
degree of discretion, that we should have solicited tilt
Chancellor of the Exchequer, or employed any one
else to solicit him, to take a step most prejudicial to
our interests. The thing is so absurd on the face of
it, that the mere statement ought to carry with it its
own refutation.—Morning Herald.
The cruel and brutal treatment which children of
both sexes endure in our manufactories excited about
three years ago a considerable share of public attention.
For this humane and truly patriotic direction of the
public mind, the nation was mainly indebted to the
persevering and laborious efforts of the late Mr.
Sadler, who struggled against discouragements and
obstacles, which would have paralysed any man who
was not a Christian enthusiast, until he had brought
a large and commanding proportion of the whole
British people to think and feel with him. The
cunning worshippers of Mammon, with Mr. P. Thom-
son for their leader and High Priest, were made to
feel that they could not attempt to defend the factory
system, without incurring a desperate risk of utter and
complete ruin to themselves, and to the political party
with which they are indissolubly allied. They ac-
cordingly gave way to the sense of the community.
They agreed to abandon the system. of extracting
wealth from the moral and physical energy, from the
social affections, from the minds and souls, from
the bones, and sinews, and blood, to the utter destruc-
tion of all these, of the infant population of England.
The mills which ground into gold the health and the
life, the bodies and the minds, the morals and the sal-
vation of tens of thousands of the sons and daughters
of Great Britain by the year, were to be checked in
their pernicious and destructive career. But time was
to be given for the idolators of mammon gradually to
detaCh themselves from their accustomed worship at
his blood stained altar. The temples of the British
Juggernaut were to be dismantled by degrees. Lord
Ashley, treading in the steps of Mr. Sadler, and aided
by the full tide of national feeling, could only obtain a
partial mitigation of the horrors which that amiable
philanthropist had exposed. The rest was decreed by
the Legislature, but it was to be postponed until in-
terests could have time to adjust themselves—humanity
and religion were to wait, in a word, until vested
capital could secure to itself a commodious retreat.
Well, the time which vested capital required to
withdraw itself from the profitable trade of infant
ruin is about to expire, and the House of Commons
has this night to decide whether Mr. P. Thomson,
in order to cultivate the favour of the Manchester
people, who made him a Member of Parliament, shall
he permitted to grant a new lease to infanticide—whe-
ther the mills which crush the bones and the flesh,
which transmute the affections, and the intellects, and
theand souls
nce of m p
shaillll inos of children
pursue
theirh ldn re into pounds,
unabated
processous, s
ohfi lgl inuigl
guilty
and barbarous alchemy. The idea of Mr. P. Thom-
son and his friends is that the people of England have
forgotten the subject, and become indifferent to it, and
that they may now do what they like with the factory
children. They are fools enough to fancy that their
cunning speculation as to the effect of postponement
and delay has been successful. They have deceived
themselves, as such persons are prone to do. The
life, and health, and morals of children in countless
numbers will not be left to their tender mercy. Al-
though Mr. Sadler has been taken away to reap the rich
reward of his benevolent exertions in the cause of hu-
manity, the feelings which actuated him are not, as
they will soon find to their cost, wholly extinct.—
Morning Post.
The Tories in the House of Commons, to whom
repeated defeats and decreasing numbers might have
taught a more salutary lesson, have, it would seem,
decided upon one more formal trial of strength. The
executive Dierctory of the Carlton Club have just
issued a circular, " earnestly entreating the uninter-
rupted daily attendance in their places in Parliament,
until the adjournment for the Whitsuntide holidays,
of the Members professing constitutional principles."
The circular proceeds to state that, within the time
indicated, various important measures will be submitted

to the consideration of the House, upon some 91 which
a division is inevitable. It will be observed that this
Tory manifesto is cautiously worded, and endeavours to
secure the constant attendance of the adherents of the
faction without committing its contrivers to a division
upon any definite or specific point. The object in adopting
this vague mode of expression is at once fraudulent and
shallow. The party, ready to take advantage of any
favourable opportunity, will muster in full strength,
but they will carefully abstain from a division, unless
they are encouraged by the appearance of disunion in
the ranks of the Reformers, rumours of which have
for some time been industriously circulated. We
have designated this piece of Tory tactics by the
epithets of fraudulent and shallow. It is fraudu-
lent because its professed purpose is to put forward
an appearance of numerical strength, which does not
intrinsically belong to the party, but is expected to
be derived from a division of the force of their most
determined political antagonists—it is shallow, be-
cause it is based on the gratuitous assumption of
dissensions in the ranks of the constitutional re-
formers, which assumption has no better foundation
than a rumour circulated by the runners of the Con-
servative clique. But although the Tory circular
avoids naming the precise subject which is to be made
their cheval de bataille before the Whitsuntide recess,
there is a pretty general understanding that Sir Ed-
ward Knatchbull's proposed substitution of the repeal
of the tax on Soap, in place of the Newspaper Stamp-
duty recommended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
will be the point on which a stand will be made—if,
indeed, they can muster resolution to make a stand at
all. For our own parts—with the certain conviction
that another formal division will be only another expo-
sure .of weakness, with the additional mortification of
proving that the weakness is progressively aug-
menting—we think the Tories will not venture to
make a fair stand-up fight, unless an opportunity
offers to take the Reformers at a disadvantage : and
the best possible way to prevent such a misfortune is
by a simple exposure of the meditated fraud of the
enemy. We are not, in general admirers of Con-
servative sentiments, or Conservative language; but
we are tempted upon this occasion to borrow a sen-
tence from the Carlton circular which gave occasion
to our present observations, and " earnestly to en-
treat the uninterrupted daily attendance in their places
in Parliament, until the adjournment for the Whit-
suntide holidays, of the Members professing constitu-
tional principles." It is needless to observe that in
our vocabulary " the professors of constitutional prin-
ciples" are :comprehended under a very different cate-
gory from that assigned them by the learned lexicogra-
phers who superintend the printing press of the Carl-
,on Club.—Morning Adverviser.