The Sun.
London, England, 1836-05-19 00:00:00

jurisprudence. It is a presumption of law that the
person of every BriCsh suhject is enti:led ru protec-
tion from injury, just as it is a maxim of state eco-
nomy that every practicahle means should be taken to
secure generally a virtuous,- healthfol, ;Ind intelligent
populpopulation ; and since children might he exposed,
ation
their helplessness and inexperience; to certain
tufferings which adults arc more able to avert or
endure, their protection and support has always been
cared fur, to some extent, by special statutes made
iand provided i.s hu;ic !.:;tl., a parent is
unisn ma ahle for ruing of injuring his child ;:1 master
tie apprentice, and so rm. In the large discretion,
however, which is justly allov,.ed to every parent in the
management of his offspring, the law hits not defined
either the amount of withheld food that shall con-
stittitu s'.arvation, or the corporal chastise:mut that
fi,hall be consideted an injury. Leaving this to be
jildged of by the phenomena
,and evidence pre-
sented in individual cases of alleged suffering, it so
s:aerediyr regards the rights of the helpless as the para-
mount ol jert of its protection, that it seems studiously
to have avoided defining the kind or quantity of
puniAment which parents or masters may inflict upon
children with impunity ; and for this obvious reason—
that as a statotory maxi»zum of chastisement or cruelty
might be exercised
.upon robust constitutions without
much perceptible injury, while the infliction of a mini-
mzim one upon feeble and sickly frames might in effect
be tantommint to murder, so the laws of this realm hail
considered that an undefined responSibiiity on the part
of parents and masters (the more perilous because
undefined) would be sufficient to deter them from
seriously injuring the children under their charge. But
since it was toned that the introduction of machinery
into our manufactures, and the accompanying low.
rates of wages, presented to parents with large families
and. to masters anxious to hire cheap labour, such a
tenrotation to eet mere children to work in mills and
factories, as ultimately subjected them, under the
prostitute 4 name of industry, to sufferings which,
though not Olen cognizable by law, were almust equal
to any that c7tlertY or caprice could inflict, an ir-
resistible appeal was addressed to the Legislature
by the late Mr. Sat:.ler and others on their behalf,
which issued in the Act u 4: 1833, whereby all under
13 years of age were restriCied from working more
than eight hours a day. Now ev'f,ri this, considering
the evidence that was adduced respe,7ting the chronic
diseases and habits of gin-drinking contrad.ed by young
children, and especially by young females, driven
by animal exhaustion to seek relief in pernicious sti,
mulants, might well have been deemed too much.
But, alas the day I these poor wretched beings are
now delivered over to the tender mercies of the poli-
tical economists ; and, as the cotton-spinners of Man-
chester,-like the Town Councillors of Edinburgh, pos-
sess the advantage of having a Member of the Govern-
ment to get for them whatever they want, they have
demanded, with honourable exceptions, that the eight
hours' labour shall be increased to 12 ; and thus, if the
amended Bill be persevered in, thousands of innocent
and unprotected children, with their livid cheeks and
varicose veins, will be re-fastened to the car and crushed
beneath the wheels of the great manufacturing Mam-
mon whom all Lancashire worshippeth. This latter
subject we shall zealously recur to, in the hone of being
able to furnish sufficient grounds to induce the Legis-
lature to re-consider
It might be necessary to apologize for our frequent
recurrence to the discussion of Irish affairs, were it
not that the House of Commons itself sets the example.
It might also be thought useless, were it not that we
still find facts maintained about Ireland which are
wholly unsupported by any evidence that an impartial
man would think worth a straw, and theories promul-
gated which, if started respecting any other country
in the world, would be resisted as false, or scouted as
ridiculous. Between party zeal, which on Irish mat-
ters is so extreme that it will not look on truth at all,
and a sort of national habit of exaggeration, which
runs away with truth to such an altitude that it can
hardly be seen, we are still left in a sort of mist which
discussion does not dissipate ; and the same subjects
arc again and again recurred to, to be again wrangled,
and again left in " palpable obscure." These observa-
tions are, we think, strongly illustrated and borne out
by the discussion on Tuesday night in the House
of Commons, upon the conduct of Irish landlords
and Irish priests generally, and that of the priests and
landlords of the county of Carlow in particular. Mr.
Wallace of Greenock, who adds to his active solicitude
concerning the local affairs of his own country, and his
super-active solicitude concerning the Post-office esta-
blishment, an ultra-active solicitude about the land-
lords of Carlow, wished that the House should ad-
dress the King to cause a Royal Commission to go
into that county, and to inquire and report concerning
the allegations in certain petitions presented to the
House, relative to the interference of landlords and
priests in election matters. He made a motion to this
effect, introduced by a speech in which he said a good
deal about " combinations of landlords against Catho-
lic tenantry "—an imagination wholly unsupported by
any, even the smallest portion, of the huge volumes of
evidence that had been for years past collected by Com-
mittees upon Irish affairs. That Protestant land-
lords have often been recommended to replace their
Roman Catholic tenantry by Protestants, is true, and that
some individuals here and there have to a certain de-
gree acted upon the recommendation, is we believe also
true ; but of ant' combinations of landlords for this
purpose, we have not heard, although not inattentive
to the evidence which has been obtained in such abun-
dance. It is indeed not much the practice of Irish
landlords to combine with any view to the improve-
ment or their estates. Their attention is generally di-
rected to their objects. Mr. Wallace quoted a num-
ber of cases of " turtling off" of Roman Catholic te-
nantry in the county of Carlow, which, if correct,
wool(' nearly have cleared the county (it is a very
small one) of that considerable part of its former popu-
lation. But the whole catalogue was merely a loose
statement, unsupported by ally authentic documetlt,
or other evidence which cautions men generally seek
for, as confirmation of, important truths, and very pro-
bable were Mr. Wallace to itinire into these cases,
he would find them all either wholly untrue,
or grossly incorrect. Yet they were poured upon
the House of Commons, as part and parcel of the state
of things to he inquired into. One case, and one case
alone, was referred to, as distinctly detailed in Colonel
Bruen's evidence before the " Intimidation Commit-
tee." It Wa. this :—A man named Keogh held from
Colonel Bruen seventeen acres of bog,,for which he
had uut.paitt rent, yet he was a registered -ci-
lonel Broen's evidence says—" Keogh-came to me. 'I
wished him to support me with his vote. He replied
he would do so, hut that he dare not. I endeavoured to
persuade him. He said he would rather lie at my
mercy than any one else's, but could not comply, and
so I took the seventeen acres of bog hack again." Now
we ask any man,
whom party spirit has not abso-
lutely driven out of his sober senses upon Irish affairs,
whether there is any thing in this for which a land-
lord is to be blamed ? Would not any English land-
lord have done the same thing ? Would he let a man
hold his land without paying hint any rent for it, in or-
der that by so holding it he (the tenant) might be enabled
to vote against him ? Every man's common sense
must tell him that such a thing in England would not be
allowed. Col. Brut took blek the land and gave it
to another, who paid him 40.5. a year for it ; and he
would have acted the part of a ninny if he had not
done so. Yet Mr. Wallace and Mr. t Varburton call
this intimidation, and the latter of these gentlemen
prays the House to observe that Colonel Bruen had
taken the land from his tenant in consequence of the
vote he had given. It is not so. IL took the land
because the rent was not. paid. The rent was his
right—the vote was a favour • that favour the tenant
refused, and the landlord went upon his right. Is
ihere any tyranny in this ? The privilege to vote is
in a right of property—the property was Colonel
Bruen's, (for the tenant had given him no equivalent
:for 0,—is he then to allow his property to be used
for the purpose of giving political power to those
-,,Those politics he believes to be ruinous? The sup-
po silage is,meinstrons, and yet, because he would not
do OIL', t'
,5749 be accused, by persons professing
ordinary sanity, ofT having practised intimidation and
tyranny
j_ Solona fts the privilege of voting for Members
oVthe-H orbpmmons is by law dependent upon
the holding • of certaityproperty,it is plainly reasonable t hat
the owners .9f large property should with discretion,