The Sun.
London, England, 1836-05-11 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDOIsi, WEDNESDAY, MAY 11. 1836.

trace to them, or develope in them, any elements of
production," would lm a task beyond his faculties.
He therefore carts them away bodily, as so much sur-
plusage ; they have no place in his inquiries as a stu-
dent, or in his policy as a statesman ; the human race
‘vith such a philosopher are hut necessary incum-
brances to spinaing jennies. On 'any other ground it
would be difficult, and might be cruel, to account for
Mr. P. Thomson's endeavour to frustrate the operation
of a law which only passed last session for reducing
o eight hours the period of daily lab6ur—there-
!nfore indffinite—dunng which children under thir-
teen years of age should he compelled to toil
in our unwholesome manufactories. The law, at
its enactment, was blessed by every unsophisticated
heart in the empire, every parent who had not
been reduced to a machine, and even every child who had
not yet practically felt the beneficence of its provi-
sions. But a description of manufacturers, who de-
serve themselves to have some Pharaoh for their own
master, found in Mr. P. Thomson a ready tool of their
cupidity, and the Right Hon. Gentleman, on looking
at his primer, found that " the less labour is interfered
with, the better." Very well ; then, it was quite
monstrous that the State should intermeddle between
the master manufacturer and the young children whom
he employed. " By all means," quoth Poulett, " it is
very barbarous and unscientific to prevent those chil-
dren, under 13 years of age, from being worked to
death, if they themselves like the process." We
must not interpose between them and their liberal
masters ; " leave the children, free to perish, if it suits
their fancy." Now, the serious: answer to this un-
feeling mockery is, that the poor children exercise •no
free will—that they must do as their covetous or
needy parents, and those who have no parents,
as their masters order them, and that therefore the
parties are not on equal terms, one party requiring
protection against the other, which the—law only
can afford. Poor and uneducated parents, with their
breasts indurated even towards their own offspring
by the constant struggle against privation, will at times
be tempted by an increase of wages to engage their
young in a course of toil destructive of their feeble con-
stitutions. Griping or embarrassed masters will buy
the cheapest labour they can find, and if the law
admits of any exercise of compulsion upon an in-
fant so as to prolong and aggravate its physical
exertions to the most destructive excess, such em-
ployers will wring the last life-drop out of them, rather
than lose an inch of cloth or a single hank of yarn.
There are two parties, therefore, each singly too
strong for the child, who has no support but in the
law of the country. The principle of non-interference,
therefore, with free labour does not here apply, because
the labourer is not free. The unnatural (perhaps
thoughtless) parent, the unfeeling and selfish master,
arc those who really do interfere with the free agency
of poor dependent children, and the balance is but ad-
justed by the humanity of the law, not disturbed by its
superfluous intrusion. With a majority of no more
than two in so large a division, it is impossible for
any pedant of a political economist, mistaking the
very nature and bearings of his own profession, to per-
sist in the maintenance of so untenable a project.
The pretence that the law cannot be enforced is sheer
nonsense. The Minister must see it executed at his
peril, or let the law be amended. It is not on party
considerations that we take up this question. We
have never held any other opinion. We would not
for all the earth have the weight on our consciences
of upholding such a scheme as this of Mr. P. Thom-
son, any more than he would have tolerated the mur-
der of the innocents by Herod.—Times.
Mr. Poulett Thomson, the Ministers, and the mill-
owners, may boast of their triumph over humanity and
the factory children. The triumph, inglorious as it
was, and transient as it will be, was obtained for them
by the support of Sir Robert Peel, Lord Sandon, and
one or two more Conservatives. To the Right Hon.
the Member for Tamworth they were recently indebted
for the defeat of the motion of Lord Chandos, on be-
half of the just claims of the suffering agriculturists.
On that occasion we confessed our inability to com-
prehend the policy or the principles upon which the
Right Hon. Baronet has, for some time past, acted.
If the IVlinisters are as grateful for his services as he
seems anxious to serve them, they will have a large
debt of gratitude to pay, and he will value it highly
if he considers it an equivalent for all the sacrifices
which he makes to obtain it. But Mr. O'Connell is
in the same category upon the factory question with
Sir Robert Peel. We recollect when the Learned
and Honourable Member for Dublin, in an eloquent
speech in behalf of the factory children, at a pub-
lic meeting, exclaimed, " Who are they that dare,
in the face of this Christian country, to weigh the
blood of infants against pounds of cotton and bales of
silk ?" Yet Mr. O'Connell voted with Sir Robert
Peel for the cause of the pounds of cotton and bales of
silk, against the cause of the helpless factory chil-
dren. On the same side we find the name of Mr.
Pease enrolled, whp no doubt regards the oppression
of the black children of Africa as a crime, and not only
tolerates, but supports this system of white-slavery at
home ! Lord Ashley, the worthy successor of Mr.
Sadler, whose memory is hallowed with the blessings
of the most helpless of the children of oppression and
misfortune—advocated, with the generous energy of a
manly devotion, the cause of • which he has taken the
sacred charge. Such a man is not only an ornament
to his high rank, but to human nature itself. Com-
pare the conduct of many of the professed advocates
of liberal doctrines, the philosophers of the " march
of intellect," with that of the Conservative scion of
a Noble stock—the faithful and unflinching cham-
pion of Mlle rights and interests of the suffering
poor--;i3w greatly does their conduct fall below
his in--:•the scale of moral worth, of social
benevolence, and in the estimation of all good
men -If we feel some degree o shame and mortifica-
tion at beholding the names of some men—of whom
we expected better things—in the majority against the
factory 'children on this occasion, we have no less satis-
faction in observing that, with many Liberals, many
Conservatives united in resisting the attempt of Mr.
Poulett Thomson to take away from the infant victims,
of manufacturing cupidity the scanty protection which
the Legislature had thrown over them, after hearing evi-
dence of their sufferings and their wrongs, which was
calculated to excite the sympathy and compassion of
every bosom animated by a human heart. We find, for
instance,- the names of Lord Chandos and Sir Henry
Hardinge, with those of Dr. Lushington and Ser-
geant Talfourd. But among the names of the pro-
tectors of the factory children that chiefly deserve to
be honoured, are those of Mr. Fielden and Mr.
Brotherton—both mill-owners, but mill-owners who
would make the manufacturing system a blessing, not a
curse to the human race, and who would not sacrifice
the health, the morals, the happiness, and lives of the
infant poor upon the altars of a relentless cupidity.
Now that the Ministers—the liberal Ministers—have
got a majority of two, in support of the infant white-
slavery system, what will they do with it ? Will they
consider it a virtual defeat, as it is, and retreat in time,
though not to save character, yet to prevent a more
decisive overthrow ? If they do not turn their backs
upon their ignoble trophies, and retire from the field of
their disgraceful achievement, they will suffer a more
signal defeat : or if their majority of two should help
them through the House of Commons, what will rt
avail ? Will not the indignation of public opinion pur-
sue them ? Will not the generous energies of the
Christian and enlightened nation that broke the chains
of the African, demand that white slavery shall be
extirpated from the soil of England ? Is there not,
in the last resort, the House of Lords, as an impas-
sable barrier between the poor and their oppressors ?
Morning Herald.
The public will learn, without much surprise, that
Ministers have agreed to put off the second reading of
the Irish Tithe I3ill until the Ist of June ; nor will
the feeling of surprise be much increased, when it is
inferred, as it very confidently may, from this post-
ponement, that Ministers never had any serious inten-
tion of urging the measure forward during the present
session. This Irish Tithe Bill with its appropriation
clause, has rendered such excellent service to the pre-
sent Ministers of the Crown, that they would be :he
most ungrateful of men if they were to manifest any
great anxiety to get it off their hands. They cherish
it as the very apple of their eye, having a natural and
lively recollection that this is the measure which ori-
ginated and cemented the alliance between them and

the O'Connell party, and that to this measure they "
arc indebted for their admission to the delights of of-
fice. It would be the height of folly, on their part,
besides, to bring to a precipitate crisis a measure which
secures them the support of the Radicals and Papists
so long as it remains unsettled, and which, if adopted
or decidedly negatived, would, probably, be succeeded
by other questions in respect to which it might not
be q rite so easy for them to agree with their present
confederates, or with each other. The short eonver-
sation on this subject which took place last night in the I
House of Commons is both amusing and instructive.
Sir R. Peel thought it would be convenient if the Noble.
Lord would state the course he intended to pursue with
respect to the Irish Tithe Bill. It was at least an in-
disputable position ; and, without pressing the Noble
Lord too hard, Sir R. Peel might have added that it
was quite time, too, that this should be done. Of
such a remark the present leader of the House of Corn-
mons could not have complained ; seeing that this
measure embodies the, principle by the assertion of
which he and his colleagues forced themselves into
office something more than a year ago ; that the se-
cond Session of Parliament since that event is already
more than half expended ; that nothing has vet been
done during the present session for the advancement-of
this darling principle ; and that Ministers have
announced their intention of affordina themselves
the unusual recreation, at this season of year, of
a ten days' recess from their Parliamentary labours.
Let us hear, however, what Lord John Russell had
to say to the quiet,,pithy, and somewhat sarcastic re-
mark of Sir R. Peel. Lord John is cautious how
he commits himself as to the course he means even-
tually to pursue ; but, in the meanwhile, has no objec-
tion to a delay of three weeks, although it be now
drawing towards -the middle of May. The Noble
• Lord however, shall speak for himself :—" If the

Right Hon. Baronet still entertained the same view as
before respecting the postponement of the question,
for the purpose of giving an opportunity to the per-
sons in Ireland interested in the measure of becoming
acquainted with its details previous to the second read-
ing, he should be willing to postpone it until after the
holidays."' Who an sufficiently admire the naivete
of Lord John ? " If the Right Hon. Baronet still
entertained the same view !" This view being, like
most of the views of the Right Hon. Baronet,
founded upon common sense and justice—it was, to
be sure, a view not very likely to undergo any change.
But of this Lord John Russell could form no opinion,
common sense and justice being things with which he
is not remarkably conversant. The end of the edify-
ing conversation is, however, just what might have
been expected. The second reading of the Irish
Tithe Bill is postponed until the Ist of June ; in other
words, the measure is abandoned for the present ses-
sion, or, if kept alive at all, kept alive only for the
purpose of agitation, and of gratifying the Papist and
Radical allies of Lord John. For another year, of
course, the tithe war is to go on in Ireland, with all
_ .

the excitement and encouraiemsnt that the Irish Go-
vernment can afford, without positively shutting up
the Courts of Law, civil and criminal, to the aggres-
sive belligerents. It will naturally occur to our
readers to ask why Lord John Russell did not accede
to the suggestion of Sir Robert Peel, that the Bill
should he printed and sent to Ireland, to afford the
parties interested an opportunity of expressing their
opinion upon it, when that reasonable and equitable
suggestion was first thrown out. The Leader of the
House of Commons ought surely to be a man capable
of making up his mind at once upon so plain a propo-
sition. As to the idea of Sir Robert Peel giving up
the opinion that this very proper and necessary step
ought to be taken, it is very difficult to suppose that
Lord John Russell could seriously have entertained it
for a moment. Nor, is it much less difficult to imagine
that the decision of the Noble Lord really depended,
as he intimates, in his reply, upon the pertinacity of a
political opponent. How, then, is this vacillation on
the part of Lord John Russell to be explained ? It
is utterly unintelligible, we again say, unless upon the
supposition, to which many other circumstances lend
their sanction, that the appropriation principle is one
which Ministers have found to be exceedingly conve-
nient for their own purposes ; that they cannot very
well afford to part with it just yet : and that they have
accordingly determined neither to abandon it, nor sin-
cerely to urge it onward, but just to keep it in their
own possession as a kind of household utensil of the-
Cabinet.—Morning Post.
The second reading of Mr. Poulett Thomson's Fac-
tories Act Amendment Bill was carried in the House
of Commons on Monday night, after an animated dis-
cussion, in which we were gratified to observe an earnest
anxiety manifested by all parties to protect the interests
of commerce, and at the same time to respect the cause of
humanity. The object of the Bill is to extend the num-
ber of hours of labour for children from 10 to 13 years
of age, from eight hours a day, to which it was limited
by the late Bill, to twelve hours a day. The subject
is evidently one of much delicacy and difficulty. On
the one hand it is necessary to protect the rising gene-
ration from being stunted and crippled by over-exer-
tion ;—this is the first and most important object to be
kept in view ;—but on the other hand, we are not to sa-
crifice our commercial supremacy, nor succumb to foreign
competition from feelings of overstrained humanity,
which, however laudable, must not be allowed too
potent an influence on the decisions of the Statesman.
The market of labour, like that of every other com-
modity under a healthy commercial regime, might be
safely left to the natural regulation of supply and de-
mand, and when legislative interference is called for, as
was the case in regard to the overwrought factory
children, we may feel assured that the cause of the evil
is seated deeper than the surface. The avarice of
-master-manufacturers may strongly urge them to work
the operatives to the utmost of human endurance ; but
a competition in the demand for labour would act as a
protection, if there were not something rotten at the
core which forced the artizan to encounter excessive '
labour, starvation, or the workhouse. -As appears
from the ineffective operation of the late Bill, the
necessities of the market will regulate itself indepen-
dently of legislation. This alone should convince
our Statesmen that they are merely throwing chaff
against the wind while they legislate against effects
without reference to causes. It was stated by Mr.
Poulett Thomson that time strict enforcement of the
present law would cause 27,000 children to be thrown
out of employment, as manufacturers could not, with-
out loss, limit their labour to the legal time. And were
the manufacturers to comply with the dictates of hu-
manity, and accept the shorter time of labour, the in-
creased price necessarily placed on the manufactured
product would exclude foreign and limit domestic
consumption. What then is to be the remedy ?
Labour cannot be limited without injuring the manu-
facturer, or depriving the operative of employment,
and it cannot be left unrestricted without exposing
the artizan to excessive exertion, which prevents the
due development of his stature and shortens his exist-
ence. It is, therefore, evident we are legislating at
the wrong end. In a word, the great origin of the
evil—the cause of distress to the operative and diffi-
culty to the manufacturer is the Corn Laws, which
renders the sustenance of life, or the procuring of
the means of existence, contingent on an amount of
labour in itself slowly, but surely, destructive of the
human constitution. It is the raising of the price of
food by inquitous enactments which forces the
labourer to over-exertion, and the employer to goad
his workers beyond the capabilities of nature, in
order to maintain a competition with foreigners, who
are allowed, without let or hindrance, to use the food
which the cheapest market offers to them. It is
utterly impossible, while these laws are allowed to
pollute the statute-book, to limit or extend the time
of labour without injustice either to the maim-
. facturer or the operative, or both. The motion for
the second reading of Mr. Thomson's Bill was carried
only by a majority of two—the number being 178 to
176. We, therefore, think the more judicious course
would be for the present to let the Bill stand over,
and direct attention to the fountain of the ill—the
corn laws—the atrocious corn laws. It is the abo-
lition of these restrictions which will enable the ope-
rative to exist without superhuman exertion, and the
employer not only to bear up against, but totally to
outstrip all competition. If the Legislature would
give fair play to the industry and commercial enter-
prise of the country, fully develope its yet dormant
resources, do justice to all parties, and open a new and

unpar:lllellel career to the nation—they will abolish
IL! corn latv.-11f»-iiing- Advertiser.

Sl, E.~ C

A« ; 4
A-

lINIPEPLIAL

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER took the chair at a kw minutes to four
o'clock.
Mr. BROTHERTON presented a petition from Sal-
ford in favour of the Macclesfield and Salfo:il Junction
Canal Bill.