The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-13 00:00:00

(From the Herald.)

No one, we suppose, even of the warmest advocates of the
long-houi system, will attempt to deny, that the adherence
of the Government to that system, however conscientious,
has inflicted the most serious injury on the Conservative
cause that it has sustained since the last grand, mistake in
1829. That injury, too, is wide-spread, and consists of many
parts. One of these, and by no means a slight one, is the
deterioration of the character of the House of Commons.
This is too often the forerunner of some hazardous organic
change. In 1828, one-half of the House of Commons reso-
lutely opposed the Romish claims. In 1829, on the word of
command being given, nearly one hundred members were sud-
denly converted, and simultaneously discovered that to be
just and necessary, which, only twelve months before, they
had declared to be unjust and dangerous. From that instant
a deep resolve was taken in hundreds of thousands of British
bosoms to reform, i. e., to punish, to break up, and utterly to
remodel an assembly, the conscience and principle of which
were seen to be a mere pretence. And the people, having
so • resolved, did not long want an opportunity or
an instrument. The dissolution of 1831 remitted the
question to their decision, and wherever there was any real
constituency, in nineteen cases out of twenty, the re-
sponse was, " Away with the borough system, which pro-
duced the disgusting exhibition of 1829, and let us have
almost any change, almost any system, rather than that."
There were two features in the calamity of 1829 which aro
most painfully recalled to mind by some of the events now
passing. One of these is the incongruous mixture of parties
which took place at that period, as now. The Conservatives
effected their own destruction by casting themselves into the
hands of the Liberals ; and these latter were only too happy
to greet with the greatest warmth the conversion of their
opponents to their own views, assured that the common sense
of the nation would soon adjudge that if the country was to
be governed on liberal principles, it ought to be governed by
liberal men. The nation did so decide, and it took only a few
months to carry that judgment into execution. Another un-
pleasant feature is the occurrence every now and then of in-
dividual conversions, as we saw them in 1827-1828 (the
Brownlows, &c.), in which men, after voting consistently and
steadily for one view of the question, suddenly became con-
vinced of their error, and passed over to the opposite ranks ;
nt
uponto explain,t e
face
for
veal]
'd
seemed the most miserable apologies c ging si es, and
assigning reasons (as they were
.called) which to other men
forced the hearers to suspect, by their very weakness, that
the
of them, seemed utterly inexplicable. We were grieved to
hadsome i
notrhocarlicatyns,
workedlvhi those oi ts
e." aOsn conversions isoon which,nvenie
Conservative body,
and especially so when the two speeches
the very heart to behold this dry-rot again infecting
of the new converts of Friday night, Mr. Liddell and Mr.
Gaily Knight, reminded us so forcibly of those droppings be-
fore the storm of 1629 to which we have already alluded. No
two speeches of such brevity, we will venture to say, were
ever before fraught with so much loss and damage to the
party to which the speakers belonged. Infinitely better
would it have been to have calmly and • 1 •
quiet y changed sides,
without making any remark about it, than to have called.
the attention of the public to such
stitutes for reasoning, as these. One of the gentlemen chiefly
regretted that, on the former occasion, Ministers had not
more frankly declared the firmness of their determi-
nation, inasmuch as he quite believed that if they had
so done, many Members who had voted against them would
have voted for them ! He himself, as well as others, had
imagined, in the former debate, that they were allowed the
exercise of their own judgment. He now, however, found
that it was " made a point of" by the Government ; and be-
' lieving that the Government knew best, and were actuated
by the most conscientious motives, he would leave the matter
in their hands, and would restore to them his support. TN%
drift of all this is, that however Mr. Liddell may like a little
liberty at times, yet that, whenever the Government chooses
to be positive and peremptory, he is prepared to fall into the
ranks, and do as he is bid. Upon this principle of" confi-
dence in Ministers"—even in a question of working a poor
factory girl more hours than her constitution will bear—it is
evident that Mr. Lidell might vote for making the girls work
20 hours out of the 24, as well as for 12; for, in truth, he
surrenders his own judgment the moment the Govern-
ment becomes resolute; and merely leaves it to them
to say for what measure he shall vote. But is this
the proper and dignified course for an English' county
Member? Still more intolerable, if that be possible, is the
plea of the other convert, Mr. Gaily Knight. The questicou
of a ten hour clause has now been before Parliament for more
than a dozen years. It has been often argued in Mr. Knight's
hearing. Only last month it was discussed in threr! or four
long debates, spread over a period of ten days. Adler listen-
ing to all this discussion, after hearing even the P.:ble speeches
of Sir Robert Peel and Sir James Graham......hpeeches which
left nothing to be said on that side of the question, Mr. Gaily
Knight, on three several divisions, voted for the ten hour
clause ! He is now going_to vote against it ; and he very
naturally asks himself " What has occurred to justify such
a change of opinion ?" And he answers, " Nothing, except
time for inquiry, time to get sober I" He adds, that " since
the Bill was last under discussion, he had paid great attention
to the subject." That is, he first votes three times on a
question, having the liberty of going away without Voting if
he pleases, and then " he pays great attention to the subject."
Say we not truly, that such exhibitions as these, if continued
and followed up, must ruin the House of Commons,—in
fact, would ruin the character of any P, 3sembly as a reason-
able and safe tribunal?

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF SATURDAY.

STANDARD.—We should be quite contented to let
the fate of the short time question rest upon the concht-
sion formed by any rational man from the arguments in
last night's debate. We are, however, warned that we
must nut trust to the exercise of mortal understanding
on the subject, which is placed on a level with
those divine mysteries into which fools, and none
but " fools rush in where angels fear to tread."
But we deny that the matter is so sacredly mysterious.
We see no divine credentials in the possession of Messrs.
Cobden, Bright, and the other angels of the mill, who
with such pious humility guard the alleged sanctuary,
and therefore we fall back upon the plain practical con-
clusions of common sense. Every one admits the exces-
siva labour of the factories, which Lord Ashley's pro-
position would abridge, to be a very serious evil ; but
this evil, say the opponents of abridgment, must
be endured, fur two reasons—first, the profit of capital is
already so small that anything which might diminish it
must bring on ruin, and an abridgment of the hours of
labour would diininish it. But does not this argument
prove too much ? The profit of capital, as of every-
thing else of the kind, is in the inverse ratio of its
amount—as capital increases in the general amount,
its profit must, according to a law universal
and immutable as the nature of man,
dimi-
nish ; but capital has increased, and is increasing,
and will continue to increase, while the country shall
prosper. What then is to be done—are the people to be
made to work harder and harder to make good the re-
duction in the profits of capital ? According to the
principle involved in the argument, from the
diminished profit of capital, as the country advances
in wealth, the people must descend lower
and lower still in misery. We believe that the
process has been to some extent in operation already ;
but though we have all seen the phenomenon with pain,
few have explained the reason of it, and until last night
no one, we believe, defended it as a proper operation of
the system of society. It will, however, be asked on the
other side, what is to become of capital, if its ;profits
are gradually to diminish until they disappear.
We reply, that there is no danger of that ; when
capital shall fail to be profitable in one pursuit,
it will find employment in another ; and, in
the meantime, it is not the best way to nurse the profits
of capital to allow those profits to be divided among an
unnecessarily great number of persons, including, per-
haps, an addition of one hundred or fifty per cent. of
persons, who, having no capital, claim a full
share of those profits, upon the pretence of
having it—the effect of that gambling in manufac-
tures, which unlimited hours of labour go to perpetuate.
The second and only remaining argument for eon-
tinuing the long hours of labour is, that the British-
manufacturers will be undersold by people in Switzer-
land or Massachusets working without limitation. But
is not this again an argument that proves too much ?
Does it not set up the lives and happiness of our
people to a Dutch auctioneer, inviting all the
world to bid against them, and promising that
the English labourer shall never be less miser-
able than the most miserable that industrious
research can find in any part of the world? It might
however, occur to those who cite the examples of Swit-
zerland and Massachusets, to inquire whether the long
hours of labour in England may not be really the cause
of long hours of labour in those places—prima facie
it would seem to be so, for the greater
always governs the less in such matters, and, by
consequence, whether, in limiting the hours of
labour at home, we may not be conferring benefits
upon others? To suppose that by labourers working
the whole twenty-four hours, and making labourers
work without wages, we could extinguish foreign manu-
factures, or materially retard their progress, is an idle
dream. When there is surplus capital and surplus popu-
lation the people must work at manufactures—though
for the very lowest rate of subsistence. By a fierce
competition you may make them work harder, and make
them work upon worse terms, but you cannot make
them work less. The amount of capital and of hands
wanting employment is the measure of production in
every country, not price. This the mill-owners un-
derstand perfectly, as regards themselves, but they
forget that the rule is the same in other countries.
The debate was adjourned. The masterly speech
of Lord Ashley had produced an effect that at
one time led to a hope that the amend-
ment proposed by him would be summarily adopted;
but though his Lordship was very ably supported by
Mr. Bernal, Lord Ilowick, Mr. C. Buller, and above all
Mr. Ferrand, or perhaps we should rather say, because
the argument was really all on Lord Ashley's side—it
was resolved to have another night of debate—when we
suppose some reasons will be offered against Lord Ash-
ley's proposition, quantum valeat.
GLOBE.—The Duke of Richmond's speech on the
proposed abolition of the duties on wool, was made last
night. It was altogether a very jejune allair—subdued
in tone, and feeble in argument. Contrasted with the
arrogance with which, last session, his Grace
taunted Sir Robert Peel with his absolute dependence
on the agriculturists for life, and breath, and
all things essential to his official position, we
have seldom met with anything more spiritless. The
Yorkshire manufacturers may dismiss their fears. The
opponents of the relief which Sir Robert Peel has deter-
mined to concede to that branch of trade, by removing
the duty on the importation of the raw material of which,
in part, their staple is formed, will evidently succumb, and
become silent. There will be no resistance worthy of the
name in either House of Parliament. Such a speech as that
of the Duke of Richmond is made up of the expiring notes
of a silly, but still selfish class, who imagine that the
rest of the community were created for no earthly ob-
ject but to contribute to their aggrandisement ; and
that governments and legislatures are bound to ex-
ercise their functions in subserviency to that design.
" Their Lordships," said his Grace, " would not be
surprised at his anxiety that information should be
afforded on this subject, when it was considered that
the abolition of the duty on the importation or foreign
wool was a question which was likely to be brought
very soon under their Lordships' consideration." From
such asi authority as the Duke of Richmond is sup-
posed to be on all matters pertaining to agriculture, its
produce and its interests, something might have been
adduced in the character of statistical information, on
which arguments against the proposed removal of the
duty might be based by himself, or be referred to by
others. Nothing of the kind was, however, furnished.
His Grace, indeed, did express his determined hos-
tility to free trade, in the gross, as a reason for
regarding a recognition of the principle, and an
application of it to the article of wool, with anxiety
and alarm. As people in a fright are not best capable
of reasoning, his Grace might intend this as an
apology for abstaining from any such common-place
accompaniments in his speech. "He disliked the
measure—he thought it a bad one ; for he considered it
another step towards free trade." We will not say that
coronets and common-sense are incompatible ; because
we do not think it impossible for the latter to penetrate
through the former to the pericraniums of their pos-
sessors. But we will say—and we refer to the Duke
ofillichmond's speech of last night as an evidence—that
exalted rank and less exalted intellects are sometimes
associated :—" He was not a free trader, and he trusted
never would become one ; but those who talked of free
trade should do their utmost to place the people of Eng-
land in the same situation as that in which they placed
those abroad. It' they permitted the foreigner to bring
in his wool into this country free of duty, he (the
Duke of Richmond) wished to be allowed to do the
same abroad. Ile was anxious to learn whether any
such arrangement had been made with foreign Powers."
This is the old cuckoo-note of the Protectionists,
which has been answered again and again. But though
confuted, it has not been silenced. We have no wish to
under-rate the importance of the obstructions which
tie' e illiberal jealousy of foreign States may have opposed
lo freedom of commercial intercourse between this
country and their own. But our manufacturers
have suffered infinitely more from the officious
and improper interference of our own Government,
by the imposition of restrictive duties on the impor-
tation of the raw material, and especially on the
importation of corn. of foreign production. In regu-
lating our commorcuil intercourse with foreign countries,
our rulers seem td have lost sight of tile fact, that
there can be no selling without an equal buying ; and
that by preventing the importation of cheap foreign
commodities, they have effectually prevented the ex-
portation of those which would have been exchanged
for them. The present Government has shown a dis-
position to admit the only sound principle of commercial
policy—the principle which they denounced when in
opposition; and by factiously resisting which, when their
predecessors in office proposed to apply it, they obtained
official power. We wish the Duke of Richmond, and the
confederated class interests of which he is the head, joy
of the Minister they combined to create, but Id= they
'now, to their sorrow, find they cannot destroy.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
(login' OF QUEEN'S BENCH, May 11.

(Sittings at Nisi Pries.)
GREEN V. CLARKE.
This was an ae:ion for assault brought by Mr. Green,
surgeon, residing in Curzon-street,fair, and the
proprietor of the rarliamentaF Chronicle,a- against Mr.
Clarke, hairdresser, .eepinz afshop in Vigo-street. It
appeared that in Deceloab3
sMeernun Green,h accompa-
nied by one of his, sons,
the
bullion mer-
chant, went into Mr. Clarke's shop for'wsiet.purpose of
having his hair cut, his son C:.nry
toing outside.
After having been satisfactorily attei'V..cten
descended
Jones,
pay, Mr.
one of Mr. Clarke's assistants, Mr.
from the hairdressing-room into the shop 1:,1
in the shop. Mr: yarearn.
Clarke and his sister being
threw down Is., remarking that the charge was gr,?ater,
than usual. Mr. Clarke took up the money, saying th:kt
was their invariable charge, to which Mr. Green replied
that he customarily paid only 6d. The defendant then
averred that he had never taken a sixpence of Mr.
Green, who retorted that he had always paid
Mm, and that the present instance was an im-
position. Mr. Clarke then came out from behind
the counter into the shop, and Mr. Green repeated
his assertion that he had always paid him 6d. This
statement 'was again negatived by the defendant, and the
pls.tintiff replied, " You as much as tell me what I say
is lease." The defendant rejoined, " If you say that, I
say it is untrue." Green retorted, " You're a liar."
Clarke then said, " Thank you, sir." Green added, "I
tell you boldly and plainly that you are a ---- liar,
and if you were in my house I'd kick you out." Clarke
said, . Perhaps you would like me to serve you the
_ Green said, " Neither you nor all your men
could do it, and if you'll come into the street I'll lick
you." Clarke then turned round the corner and said,
flourishedrerha yhoisu will walk out if you please," and Green
umbrella in Clarke's face, and Henry
Laurie, one of Mr. Clarke's •
touched Green with two of open openedn theger
fingers
adoor.nd
Clarke then
Clarke
to the door. Mr. Green not moving to go out,
Clarke gave Mgt a, push or shove, on which Mr, Green's

foot slipped, and he reeled zig-zag all across the road,
and fell on his hands.

IA witness for the defence said he jumped up like a
harlequin and was not hurt at all. Jones, who cut Mr.
Green's hair, then went up to him, and Green spit seve-
ral times in his face. A person who was standing by
at the time Green was pushed from the shop remarked
that it served him quite right. There was no one within
100 yards at the time, and Mr. Green made no com-
plaint, and walked away by himself. When the police-
man came up, Green said, "Look at my eye. The
policeman replied, " Oh yes, I see your eye ; there's
nothing the matter with it."
Henry Green, the plaintiff's son, who was standing
outside waiting for his father, said that he saw his father
coming out of the shop, and as soon as he got off the
step of the door, Clarke stepped forward and gave his
father a violent blow on the Cheek from behind, which
knocked him down, so that he was unable to get up.
He asked him what he meant by treating his father so,
when he replied he deserved to be killed, and a stranger
said it was for calling Clarke a liar. Ms father seemed
to be in great pain.
Mr. Clarke's assistant said that Mr. Green was not ac-
customed always to speak softly, as if to an old lady.
A young man had come out of the shop afterwards,
and swore that Mr. Green did not spit in Jones's face ;
Mr. Green's face was so disfigured that he could not be
seen for a week afterwards. The policeman did not like
to take Clarke into custody as it was his own house, and
shut up.
Dr. Collier, physician, Spring-gardens, said he knew
Mr. Green as a surgeon eighteen years ago, and attended
him next day ; a severe injury had lacerated several
blood-vessels, and he was suffering under symptoms of
contusion of the brain ; two of the ribs in his left side
were lacerated, and he spat blood for several days after;
he was confined to bed for many days ; he had also a
black eye, occasioned by some very violent blow ; he was
not recovered yet.
Mr. Platt having replied, Mr. Justice Williams
summed up, and the jury returned a verdict for Mr.
Green—Damages, 201.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, May 11.
(Nisi Prius Sittings, before Baron GUaNEY and Special
Juries.)

EXCISE CASES. -- TUE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. BATES

AND OTHERS.

This was an information filed by the Attorney-Gene-
ra to convict the defendants in penalties for having un-
lawfully shipped, without a permit, goods on which the
duty had net been paid, and also for introducing into the
country goods actually prohibited.
Mr. Jervis and Mr. Wilde appeared in support of the
information, and Mr. Wordsworth for the defence.
It appeared that on the 19th of May, 1842, an excise
officer, named Evans, seized at the Great Western Rail-
way station at Paddington, 102 bales of tobacco stalks
(weight 13,3471b5.), a cask of manufactured tobacco
(weight 1691b5.), and a trunk of manufactured tobacco
(weight 103 lbs.). The defendant Gates was a master
mariner residing at Southsea, but at present in Win-
chester gaol for the offence that formed the subject of
the present information. The other defendants were
John Attwood, a farmer residing near Gosport, and
Archibald Rutledge, the owner of a carrier's warehouse
in Portsea. In 1842, Gates, who was the master of a
smack called the George the Fourth, at the instance of
the other defendants, was prevailed upon to take in a
cargo of tobacco at Jersey. On the 22d of February
In that year, he sailed in ballast for Cardiff from gorts-
mouth, and arrived at the former place on the 4th of
March, when he took in a cargo of eighty tons of coals,
and cleared out for Portsmouth; but, instead of making
for that port, he proceeded to Bouley Bay, in Jersey,
where a cargo of tobacco was to have been ready
for him immediately on his arrival in port. However'
the person having charge of the tobacco would not allow
it to be shipped, in consequence of the smack having
received some damage at sea. Gates therefore
proceeded to Gove, in the same island, where
he disposed of a portion of the coals, and
then returned to Portsmouth and disposed of
the remainder of his cargo. Subsequently, he
shipped at Liverpool a cargo of pipe clay, taking
care, however, to leave a considerable space unoccupied
in the fore part of the vessel, and cleared out for Swan-
sea, but instead of proceeding there, he went to Bouley
Bay, and shipped the tobacco in question, with
the assistance of the defendant, who immediately re-
turned to England by a steamer, and the George the
Fourth proceeded to the Severn, and having arrived at
Sharpness Point, near the mouth of the Gloucester and
Berkeley canal, passed the lock of the canal on the 16th
of May, 1842. There the defendant joined the ship, and
having hauled her to a lay-by the tobacco was unshipped
and forwarded by the Great Western Railway to Lon-
don, where the seizure was made.
Evidence in support of this statement of facts was
adduced, and
The Learned JUDGE having summed up,
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Da-
mages 2,2501.