The Sun.
London, England, 1860-02-13 00:00:00

them that makes the new skin come" (No. 285).
" I have always sore feet in summer time" (No.
583).—" Feet often so sore that the skin comes off
with my stockings" (No. 504).—" Worked when
the skin was off my feet very badly" (No. 492).
" I have often had the skin off my feet " (No. 232).
—" Her feet very often got raw" (No. 448).—" My
feet were always sore in summer : they were blood-
raw at bottom, and my ankles are swelled with a
deal of pain" (No. 463).—p. 28.
But, it may be asked, how is it possible to keep
those children going " for four days and nights
together." Well : it is not possible. They will go
to sleep, these perverse little souls. Not even their
aching heads, their blood•raw feet, nor the cloth
sawing against their cut and festering fingers, nor
the hoarse, rough voice of the hired bully, no, nor
the feeling that they are upholding " the groat
manufacturing interests of the country,"—nothing
can hinder them from sleeping standing at their
work :"
Mr. Butt—How did you awaken them (alluding
to the little children of one of these establishments,
when they fell asleep " standing: at their work ?"
Many a time by shouting, and at, other times getting
a board and rapping it on the table, making a loud
report that used to startle them, and I could keep
them awake then for an hour, or more than that,
perhaps, by frightening them.—p. 32.
We search in vain the annals of American slavery
for anything like this. Dante's " Inferno" contains,
to our mind, nothing so horrible. The establish-
ment here alluded to employs " nearly six.., hun-
dred" workers, and (mark this, reader) it " affords
rather a favourable than an unfavourable spacimea
of the management of bleaching-works in that part
of the country."
" I have scores of times seen both adults and
children asleep at their work, and very dangerous
work too" (No. 10).—" Very often they go to sleep
over their work" (No. 51).—" I have had almost
every day to take a board and beat it on the table
to waken them, as they were slumbering at their
work." "At that time they would be hooking
cloth; and while they should be doing it, I see them
nodding and trying to catch the hook" (No. 83).
" As to the older ones, I have often and often seen
them down asleep, not being able to hold up for
their work. If the manager had gone out, they
would drop down in a minute in the packing-boxes
and go to sleep" --(No. 68).—" We have often gone
to sleep on the tables, or with our heads on the wet
cloth, or anywhere where we could sit still" (No.
378).—" The little ones very often fall asleep
standing to their work. They fall asleep stading
before their hooks. I have to keep them awake ;
and my heart is fso sore for them that I cannot
speak to them. I have worked at bleach-works in
the finishing room, twenty years, and it has always
been so in all the works where I have been." (No.
462)—" It falls very hard upon the weaker boys. I
often saw them sleeping on their legs, and I have
done so often myself. Their whole frame suffers. •
I have known at least eight in the last twelve years
who have fallen into consumption and died." (No.
414)—p. 29.
This retiring from work to die is of course very
common :
" I have often been ill from working in the great
heat. My leg is now bad from it, and the doctor
told me I must give up. The girls very often suf-
fer from it ; go away and die from it and the long
hours." (No. 646)—p. 29.
Mr. Hopley, after indicating ten consecutive wit-
nesses—ten consecutive witnesses, mark you—em-
ployed at different establishments, who mention
" many cases within their knowledge of boys and
young men having died from the long hours," and
after showing that with females matters are even
worse, thus continues :
" Reader, it is no use mincing wards. Look upon
all this calmly, weigh the matter well, and have
the manly or womanly honesty to call it by its
right name : and what is it? WHOLESALE MUR•
DER—murder for GOLD !
" The man who poisons another to escape the
payment of a debt is hung. The man who stops
another in the Queen's highway and demands
" your money or your life" is hung. But these,
who build up princely fortunes with the bloody
hands and bloody feet of helpless little ones—
who wade through killing tyranny to wealth—
who live upon women's and children's life-
blood— who are guilty of the death not of
one only, but of scores of their fellow•creaturee
—these roll about in carriages; and after
founding a church or two, and a school or two,
are looked upon as just, liberal, and benevolent
men ; and sit on magisterial benches ; and take
their place in Parliament ; and assume an interest
in the welfare of the poor ; and argue upon the
riethts of labour ! Woe to the Legislature that con-
tains within its body the rust that must corrupt !
Woe to the nation that hears such things, and_ will
not raise its voice !"—p. 30. ;10,
We don't like this language somehow. It rather
awes us. But the worst of it is, we really do not
aitnf at uhleti
rt o
race find
awf
tiet
rh it
riches, gacotldi-wn osruschhip-a .
as to cause thinking, moral men to rank
kPtmhenaerofnwewrilhl below the vulgar highwayman or the common
poisoner, theirs be the blame, should the community
play with alliterations and talk in one breath of
manufacturers, millionaires, and murderers.
But will the nation " hear suck things, and yet
not raise its voice ?" We trust not—nay, we are
confident not. But let us help our readers to think
a little. The Select Committee of the House of
Commons (a largo proportion of its members were
of the manufacturing interest) having heard all
these horrors, came to the conclusion, in May, 1858,
that this was not a matter in which it was neces-
sary for the Legislature to interfere. Further : the
other day, Mr. Crook begged leave to bring in a
bill to place these women and children under the
regulations of the Factories Act. Up sprang Mr.
Kirk, Mr. Turzer, Mr. Richardson, and Mr. Chest-
ham (manufacturers all), who expressed astonish-
ment at such a suggestion, and argued that there
was no sufficient cause for legislative interference.
Well, this might have been expected.. But what
are we to think of Mr. Henley, the late Cabinet
Minister ? What are we to think of his arguing that
it would be imprudent to interfere, inasmuch as
(we quote from the Times) " interference ought
not to be resorted to until a strong case had
been made out for so exceptional a proceeding !"
At the close of the milk-and-watery debate—if it
deserve the name of a debate—only thirty member,
of the House of Commons could be found to vote
for the rescue of these women and children I
Now, we revert to our first inquiry. We ask, not
of tyrannical employers, nor of upstart " reformers,"
nor of lukewarm do-nothings—we ask of men whom
we can respect, men whom we have a right to believe
have hearts that feel, men whom we have a right to
believe are really interested in the social amelioration
of our people—we ask, then, of Lord Shaftesbury, we
ask of Lord Carlisle, we ask of Lord Ebury, the
Earl of Ripon, Mr. Sidney Herbert, the Bishops of
London, Oxford, Durham, Manchester—we ask, too,
of Lord Brougham and Lord J. Russell—we ask of
every one who has taken a prominent part in move-
ments of a social or philanthropic character—What
should be considered a sufficient cause for inter-
ference between employers and employed ? Are
operatives to understand for the future that unless
they bring forward proofs of something more ter-
rible than girls being almost baked—" their feet
burnt," " their legs red as scarlet from the heat of
the flues" ; something more terrible than their
being frequently carried lifeless out of stoves ; some-
thing more terrible than bloody-handed, bloody-
footed " little ones" kept from bed and, home for
two, three, and four days and nights together;
something, in short, more terrible than women and
children being literally worked to death by ex-
quisitely cruel processes, and hounded on to their
destruction amid the " hallooings" and" frighten-
ings" of hired brutality ; are operatives, we ark, to
understand that unless they can bring before the
attention of the Legislature something still mere
frightful than all this devilry, they may hope in
vain for a redress of grievances ? We will not be-
lieve it. We appeal with confidence to the names
which we have cited, and we humbly and respect-
fully, but at the same time, as we say, with
confidence, solicit them to come to the rescue of
women and helpless children. We make this ap-
peal in no party spirit whatever, but as a duty—s
duty to our country and to our Queen, herself the
mother of " little ones." When her subjects are
murdered, the loss is hers ; her's and her country's.
Let this, then, be the touchstone of the reformer's
sincerity, this the test of loyalty, patriotism, and.
true nobility :—Who will stand most manfully for-
ward for the rescue of these women aid little
children P— Court Circular.

We have reason to believe that a meeting of the
Earl of Derby's supporters will take place at his lordship's
residence on Wednesday next. It is therefore impossible to
state, until after that day, what course the Conservative
party of the House of Commons will take with respect to
the Budget. All statements upon the matter are mere sur-
mises.— iforning Herald.

The new titles to be assumed by Lord Ward
will, we understand, be Viscount Edenham and Earl Dud-
ley.

; .BREACH OF PROMISE.—In the Court of Queen'/
Bench, on Saturday, the cause of Hart v. Page was tried.
The plaintiff, Elizabeth Hart, was a widow lady residing in
Tavistock-square, and she sued the defendant, William 3-
Page, an attorney, residing in Manchester-square, to vetoer
damages for a broach of promise of marriage. The e$
count of the declaration was in the usual form, but there
was a second count, in which it was alleged that the plain"
tiff was a Jewess, and was about to be baptized as a leen°_l;
her of the Church of England, and the defendant prof:deg;
that as soon as she was baptized and became a member on
f
the Church of England he would marry her ; it was the
alleged that the plaintiff was baptized, &c., but the defen-
dant refused to fulfil his promise. The jury found for LTh.
plaintiff—damages, £1,200.