The Sun.
London, England, 1832-04-02 00:00:00

" . tOF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.
s •
r•;/ - ation at Oxford has, as might he
Ai • , by a swinging majority to
1,4114 s against the Reform Bill. 01
r to wigs of Oxford would not dis-
- onvocation history of ages past by
"InrapallyNisi)Zrthodox decision. If it were put to
the vote by their reverences, whether the revolu-
tion of 1688 should be unravelled, and James
11. recalled from the sepulchre, for the service
of true Toryism in Church and State, who
doubts that the affirmative of both propositions
would be carried by a swinging majority ? It is
said by a Sunday paper, in its simpleton de-
fence of the Bishops and the Universities, that
these grave bodies have refuted the slanderous
imputation too often cast upon them, of their
subserviency on all occasions to the Minister of
the day; for that, with regard to the Reform
question, they have " preferred the Constitution
to the Minister." Yes, when the question is
between a Constitution full of vices, by which
they hope long to profit, and a Minister bent
upon the purification of those vices, whom they
reckon on ousting from the Government by op-
posing him, it- is easy to see which they
will " prefer," as well as their motives
for the preference. Yet this is ascribed
to the superior " education and intel-
ligence" of the reverend convocators of
Oxford. Why, if education be college discip-
line, and if all useful intelligence be summed up
in ill-learned Greek, stale port wine, and furious
hatred of ame,idment, to be sure the people of
England ought at once to accept the votes of a
convocation as a basis for all Acts of Parliament
in this country. But the obvious truth is, that
the habits of our Oxonian residents, connected
with, and aggravated by, the prevalent corrup-
tions of the church, have little to do with the
acquisition of that species of " intelligence"
which fits men to judge upon matters affe, ting
our political constitution. Their large majori-
ties against " Reform" are neither no more nor
le,s than so many measures of inferiority to the
hulk of their countrymen in the most important
branches of general knowledge. The larger their
majorities in opposition to the general voice and
determination of the people of England, the
more palpable and more offensive is the brand by
which they are separated from the rest of the
community, and stigmatized as foes to the com•
loon rights of Bri ons. If they can see an inch
before them, they must be satisfied that Parlia-
mentary Reform is out of their keeping, and in-
vulnerable by their wretched cabals. If facts,
notorious to all the rest of the world, speak still
a tongue unknown to them, let their advocates
boast with somewhat less assurance of the
" education and intelligence" of these recluse
intriguers. Let them stick to their school-
books, and not meddle with subjects beyond their
comprehension.— Times.

The sufferings of the poor and oppressed
factory children are not likely to be soon
alleviated. Though Mr. Sadler's Bill to einan-
cipte them from a state of bondage as painful
and degrading as negro slavery was carried
through a second reading in the House of Com-
mons, its further progress has been stopped,
at least for a long time, if not defeated, by be-
ing referred to a Select Committee, instead of a
Committee of the whole House. The only
ground for sending a Bill before a Select Com-
mittee is to collect evidence to enable the House
to legislate upon an accurate knowledge of
facts. We should have thought that so much
of Mr. Sadler's statements as was indisputeti
would have been sufficient to warrant the House
of Commons, without further inquiry, in adopt-
ing the provisions of' his Bill. It is not—it
cannot be denied that children of a tender
age are worked in our factories 12, 14, and 15,
and sometimes 16 and 18 hours a day. Let us
take the smallest number of hours—namely, 12,
and we nay say this alone, as an admitted fact,
fty ms a groundwork for .legislation. God
and nature never intended that- half the period of
exi,tence of a child of tei der years should he
cow timed in constant drudgery in unwholesome
air. We care not how light the labour may be,
in one sense of the word—that is, how little
muscular power it may require ; the constant at-
tendance- upon it for such a length of time de-
prives ch ldhood of the necessary hours of recrea-
tion, without which disease and infirmity must
take possession of the human frame at the very
time when it ought to be braced and invigorated
by open air and healthful pastime. It also de-
prives it of the hours necessary for instruction,
whether moral or intellectual; and thus, whether
the human being be regarded as a mere animal,
or as a being of higher powers and destinies, it
is, by this cruel system, in the first years of' life,
cut off from the attainment of the physical
energies of the one and the moral improvement
of the other. Besides the number of hours in
the twenty-four to which it is obviously re-
quisite to restrict the labour of children, it is
equally imperative on the Legislature not to al-
low children of a certain age to be worked in
the factories at all. In regard to both
these points what does Mr. Sadler's Bill pro-
pose ? It goes to enact that children under nine
years of age shall not be employed in the
factories, and that the labour of children above
that age shall be limited to ten hours in the day.
Now it is not denied that children under nine
years are at present employed in the factories,
and that children are, in general, worked consi-
derably more than ten hours a day. To know
these two facts was all that Parliament needed
to prove the existing necessity for passing Mr.
Sadler's Bill. What sort of a House of Com-
mons is it, either for intelligence or humanity,
which requires specific evidence to show that it
is improper and inhuman to place children under
nine years of age in the harness of fatiguing and
unwholesome labour, and that it is equally im-
proper and inhuman to condemn children above
that age to a continuance of toil beyond ten
hours in the day ?—a duration of labour which
has been considered too oppressive even in re-
gard to adult felons. The production of evi-
dence before a Committee of the House of
Commons is attended with great expense. How
can the poverty of the poor workmen contend
in such a place against the resources of the rich
masters? It is with pleasure we refer to
an advertisement in our Paper of to-day, from a
society. which Las just been formed to meet the
difficulties of this case, of which his Royal High-
ness the Duke of Sussex is Patron, and the
philanthropic William Allen the Chairman.
That society purposes to collect funds necessary
to prosecute this great contest, to advocate the
cause of the helpless children, and " remove the
reproach of infant slavery f'rom this Christian
land."—Morning Herald.

It may not be in the nature of some people
to learn wisdom even from experience. We hope,
however, there is nothing in the unassuming
character and modest deportment of the present
Irish Chief Secretary, that could place him
within such a description of short-sighted, ob-

tuse mortals, who cannot see beyond the pre-
cinct of themselves, nor mark the signs of the
time we live in. Indeed, we should hope better
things of Mr. Stanley, and that he has by this
time learned from the patriotic resistance of the
small but firm body of Irish Members, in %vim'
manner his system of coercion without concilia-
tion will be received in Ireland. He may pos-
sibly recollect the unhappy fate of his Arms Bill,
for which he has acquired in that country an
unenviable notoriety, and with which his tithe
measure seems to be so nearly allied—and
he should pause in his wild career before he
attempts legislating for a country that has
been but too long blessed with having a
Secretary with every season, and a sys
tern with every Secretary." We understand,
however, that another effort will be made
this evening, in the House of Commons, to en-
lighten Mr. Stanley on the tithe question, and
that a set of counter-resolutions will be moved
on bringing up the report of the Committee, than
will place the subject in a right point of view
before the public, and caution them against the
dangers that will be likely to arise from the folly
and fatuity of the coercive measures which
Ministers still seemed disposed to adopt against
the unfortunate peasantry and land-owners in
Ireland.—Morning Chronicle.
The declarations of Lords Harrowby and
Wharncliffe, that they will not oppose the second
reading of the Reform Bill, have not afforded
much satisfaction to the country. The great
fear is, lest Lord Grey should be out-manoeuvred
by this apparent defection of these two Peers
from the out-and-out Anti-Reformers. The
fear is, that his Lordship will be drawn on till he
has no longer power to extricate himself from
the critical position in which he may find himself.
The Leeds Mercury of Saturday last observes:—

" From all that we can learn, Ministers have no secu-
rity that they will even carry the second reading. They
reckon, indeed, on a small—a very small majority, includ
ing the votes of the Harrowby and Wharncliffe party;
but in contest of such vast importance, on which we may
ti my assert that the safety of the empire is staked, is it
the part of a good General to give battle with the chances
so equally balanced, when he has it in his power at once
to command the victory by increasing the strength of his
army? Lord Grey is leading on a party, of which not a
few are reluctant supporters of this measure, and some are
possibly treacherous aides. Why not insure success,
when it may be secured, anti when failure would he so
disastrous? What would be the consequences of a defeat
on the second reading, or of the destruction of the Bill in
the Committee? As regards the peace of the country,
there would be imminent danger; an explosion of popular
violence, however much to be deprecated by every true
friend of his country, would be too probable to result of so
grievous a disappointment ".

In a well-written article in the New Monthly
Magazine for April, the Ministerial plan of
operations is, we think, satisfactorily shown to be
full of hazard :

" Lord Grey (says the writer) positively declares—at
least so we are assured I.y those who would not deceive us
—that he is ready, the moment he foresees any obstacle
in the Committee that requires greater strength than the
Government possesses at present in the Upper House, to
make the necessary creation. But who denies—dues my
Lord Grey even doubt—that these obstacles will be found,
and the creation, therefore, necessary? Why not, tl en,
we ask, as p 1 ,in men, wky not make it at once ? Be-
cause,' reply Lard Grey's friends and confidents, 'it is
better that no Peers should be made for the second read-
ing, though it may he necessary to make Peers for the
Committee. Let the Anti- Reformers pass the principle,
and then they can scarcely blame us if we call in new forces
to carry the details of this measure, the principle of which
they themselves have sanctioned. Nor is it likely that so
large a number would then be necessary. Several Peers who
will be Reformers if the creation be not made will be Anti.
Reiormers if it be. They are delicate logicians' and do
not care much for a small swamp at one stage of the Bill,
if they escape a great swamp at arm her.' To me, how-
ever, this argument seems but a pl etraible sophistry. How
can my Lord Grey foresee with so unerring an accuracy
the exact portions of the Bill which will be objected to in
the Committee? May he never be taken unawares ! It
is easy to say, if necessary, Peers shall be made. But the
necessity may collie before the cr, ation ! Tt a Bill is read
a second time; no Peers are made. Well ! Schedule A
is to be passed. That clause will be stoutly opposed. No
one denies that the Harrowhys who vote for ti e second
reading will oppose schedule A. My Lord Grey is now,
therefore, called upon to make Peers : he makes (accord-
ing to the principle by which he is reported to be actuated)
the stna lest number possitil. —he just pours enough demi,
crat-y into the old ch noel to fl .at off schedule A. But
next comes schi du'. B. It is well known tha, many, very
many Piers who will swallow the vaniels of schedule A.
strain at the gnats of schedule B. If your fii at little
batch has been a moderate one, we shall now want a few
more votes for schedule B. So. presto ! off with a second
batch ! Then comes the 101. franchise. May you not
want a al. batch for that? And, lastly, the Aletropo
litan districts; may nut a fourth batch be wanting
fur them ? So that, instead of making one batch
for one purpose, in a scholarlike and cleanly manner,
we nay be obliged to go on hlunilering, and sprays ling,
and sputtering out little batchkina of a dozen at a tune,
making use of the same violent strugg'es for three or four
occasions which would have sufficed fur one, and swamp-
ing, at it is called, the House of Lords. not for one gre it
.end majestic end, but for a strictured and tedious series of
events. Either Peers are necessary or they are not. The
whole juggliog arid :eeislation of 'Not fur the second read-
ing,' and Certainly for the Committee,' may do very well
for the metaphysical Sihellites of a college of schoolmen,
but it is not the braid and stern line of argument that be-
cAnes a great statesman. New Peers are necessary or
uot. If they are necessary, as it is universally allowed, it
is better to make them at once than at any .übsequent
stage ; and for these simple reasons, which plain men can
understand. By making them now, you remove anxiety,
fear, suspic'on among the people. By making them now,
you put yourself beyond the power of surprise. You de-
lay making you dependent on the caprice--the humour (or
even be it said) the honour of your enemies. Your firm-
ness would make these enemies dependent on you."

Our weekly contemporary ( The Examiner)
places the arguments against Earl Grey's policy
in a very striking light :
" Here the danger is laid in Lord Grey's chart, and it
is one against which he cannot he secure, except by a cre-
tion. If ho carries the Bill to a third reading, without a
reinforcement to he relied on, he, for no adequate olject
(for there is no obj,ct adequate to such a risk) runs a
hazard of mischiefs inc.alculatde to the country, and thus
proves himself, in any event, favourable or disastrous, un-
worthy of the great task he has undertaken. There are
acts of r:tahn.ss, which success itself wit not sanction. If
he succeed, having pl iced himself at the mercy of faction,
he will have chile with difficulty and danger which he
might have done with security and rave: he will have
played such a trick as lEmas would have done, had he
danced the tight rope with Anchises on his shoulders.
But if he should fail through the craft or whininess of the
Tiny Lords, or the versatility of the Trimmers, what then ?
The 510 ke would be final as regards the Ministry, and they
know it; and the indignation of the nation would run ny re
against the imbecility that had given the opportunity, than
at the treachery with which the advantage of it was taken.
If the stork will thrust his neck down the wolf's throat,
why the stork is more to be blamed than the wolf for what
may happen."
From every quarter, then, we hear only the lan-
guage of despondency. No man doubts the
honour of Earl Grey ; but all seem to question
his possession of the energy demanded by the
present crisis. We confess we have no faith in
the skill of the Whigs in mancevring. Their
opponents are ten times more dexterous than
they are at that work. Earl Grey's strength
is
in
his great cause, with which the nation is
identified._Morning Chronicle.

The present Ministers of the Crown seem to
entertain notions so flexible and accommodating
as to the validity of the obligation contracted 1))
public men when they give pledges respecting
the policy they mean henceforth to pursue, that
we should not be much surprised to see then,
drop by one or two at a time- into the C miser•
vaiive- ranks, and become as decided Anti-Revo-
lutionists as ourselves. An amusing illustra-
tion of this peculiarity in the character of our

Rulers occurred the other night in the House
of Commons, in the debate upon the subject
of Irish tithe. Mr. Sheil maliciously quoted
the resolution rejected by the House on the
6th of May. 1824, viz.—" Resolved, that it
be referred to a Select Committee to inquire
into the Revenues of the Church of Ireland,
and whether they were not more than sufficient
for the payment of the Clergy." He stated that
nine Members of the present Government voted
for this resolution, that he did not see how the
Lord Chancellor and the Noble Paymaster
of the Forces could escape from this resolu•
tion, and that a persuasion existed in Ireland,
that the Ministers were pledged to abolish the
tithes, and lessen the amount of the clerical
property in that country. Certainly Mr. Shiel
was right enough in this. The resolution im-
plies the confiscation of Church property, and
the putting the clergy upon the quantum merutt,
for work and labour done. But how did Mr.
Stanley extricate himself from the difficulty
in which he was involved by this mischievous quo-
tation ? Listen. Mr. Stanley declared that none of
the Ministers would be found to depart from the
fair interpretation of any pledges they had ever
given." Indeed. Is there then to be at once
confiscation and no confiscation ? Or is this
tithe question to di-solve the Cabinet ! Or
are Lord Goderich, Lord Palmerston, the
Grants, and the other Canningites who are
deeply pledged to no confiscation, absolute
nobodies ? Or are pledges given by public
men for the future to be considered as words
without meaning ? We take it for granted
that the last must have been what the Right
Honourable Gentleman intended to convey,
for any other construction of his language
would make it revolting to some of his Col-
leagues, and this makes it revolting only to
men of principle and integrity. It is, no doubt,
a great misfortune to a country when its leading
politicians cultivate the habit of pledging them-
selves to specific measures, for no other pur-
pose than to serve the party purposes of the
moment. When the nine Members of the pre-
sent Government voted in favour of the confis-
cation of Church property in Ireland, they little
imagined probably that the time would come
when they, being in power, the recollection of
this pledge would be one of the main causes of a
tithe rebelllion, accompanied by the most horrible
circumstances of outrage and bloodshed in that
country. Neither is it probable that Mr. Henry
Brougham, when, to gain the votes of the Quakers
and other dissenters in Yorkshire, he promised the
speedy emancipation of the blacks, foresaw very
distinctly that in a few months he would be Lord
Chancellor of England, and that his pledges,
coupled with his elevation, would in Jamaica
operate as a firebrand, consign numerous planta-
tions to the flames, produce the destruction of an
incalculable amount of property, reduce some
hundreds of families from independent affluence
to sudden and fearful ruin, condemn large bodies
of the negroes, whom he affected to patronize,
to death by famine, by the sword, and by the
hands of the executioner. But they did give
these pledges ; they did sow the dragon's teeth ;
and they did this while they were striving with
all their energy, and not without hope, to bring
about the state of things in which the armed men
were sure to spring up, in which it was morally
certain that the natural harvest of blood and fire
must be produced. The present Ministers have
cost the country much—incalculably more than
their utmost services can ever repay. But why
do we speak of repayment or of services ? The
highest talent, the purest integrity, the most
ardent zeal in the public service, could never re-
pair the mischief which these too eager and too
successful hunters after place have occasioned.
What compensation then is to be expected from
the future services of" men who have already
shown themselves so utterly destitute of at least
one of the most essential qualities of a States-
man, prudence or integrity ? Can it excite
surprise that the Ministers, whose accession
to power, in consequence of the symathtes
they had evinct d, the doctrin,es,
hadthey
had
made,
c
encouraged, and the promises they
while desperately struggling for power, was a
signal for insurrection in half the dependencies
of the empire; and of democratic turbulence in its
very heart, should be compelled to increase that
standing army, against the maintenance of which
they had always been the most violent de-
claimers ? It can excite none. It \sill he a just
subject of astonishment indeed, if, even with this
increased military force at their command, they
should be enabled to restore die empire they
have disturbed and endangered to security and
peace. We do not deny, far from it, that the
increa,e is necessary, ; but this necessity is the
opprobrium of die present administration.
Would an increased army have been necessary
to their predecessors ? No man believes it.
Their constant cry when out of office was that
the standing army is an unconstitutional descrip-
tion of force. Were they factious in opposi-
tion ? Or are they unconstitutional despots now
that they are in power ? Let them make their
choice.—Morning Post.