The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-10 00:00:00

THE ANTI-CORN-LAW LEAGUE
AT WOLVERHAMPTON.

WOLVERHAMPTON, MONDAY.—This day (being Easter
Monday) the Anti-Corn-law League, under the denomi-
nation of a " Great Free Trade Meeting," made one of
their magnificent provincial displays in this town. In
consequence of the comparative smallness of the public
buildings within the borough, a temporary pavilion was
erected in the Horsley- fields, capable of holding about
3,000 persons. The principal speakers upon the occasion
were Mr. Cobden, M.P., the. Hon. C. P. Villiers, M.P.,
Mr. R. R. R. Moore, and Mr. Thornely, the other Mem-
ber for the borough of Wolverhampton,
Mr. Cobden, on entering the building about two
o'clock, in company with Mr. Villiers, u as cheered by
the assembled company.
Upon the motion of Mr. J. WALKER, seconded by Mr.
CARTWRIGHT, Mr. Barkor, a large manufacturer and a
borough magistrate, was called to the chair.
The CHAIRMAN, on presenting himself, said he was
painfully sensible that there were gentlemen present
much more able than the individual to whom they had
done honour to fulfil the duties of the chair; but he
claimed their sympathy, their forbearance, and their
support. This was not a political meeting. It was a
free trade pavilion, and they were met simply to discuss
a free trade question, in which Tories, Whigs, and Char-
tists might cordially unite. Neither the ballot nor the
extension of the suffrage would be brought before them.
They were assembled to receive a deputation from the
Anti-Corn-law League, and to express their approba-
tion of the course pursued on the corn-law question by
the two gentlemen who represented them in Parliamen:.
He (the Chairman) did not, however, think that the
corn-laws were the sole root of the evils of which the
country had reason to complain. He believed that the
currency-laws required revibion; but he also, at the same
time, believed that by altering the corn-laws the Go-
vernment would be speedily compelled to alter the
money-laws.—(Hear, Hear.) The speaker then pro-
ceeded to read an extract from the work of a living
author (Sir J. Graham), entitled " Corn and Currency,"
in confirmation of the views he (the Chairman) advo-
cated; and concluded by introducing to the meeting their
excellent representative, the Hon. C. Villiers.
Air. VILLIERS said that they were assembled to give a
cordial reception to those distinguished men—he might
say that distinguished m:in, Rich rd Cobden—who
was the apostle of those doctrines of which the electors
of Wolverhampton had ever been the consistant sup-
porters. It were to be wished that all other constituen-
cies in the kingdom had been equally true to their prin-
ciples ; if they had, much misery and suffering would
have been prevented. Now, it could not be denied that
the object of the corn-law was scarcity of food ; if such
were not the object of the law, there was no sense in it.
This was the blessing promised to the working man.
When he (Mr. Villiers) first visited Wolverhampton this
question was well put and settled by a working wan.
When talking to him upon the subject he (the working
man) said to him, " Well, if scarcity of food is likely to
improve the condition of the working classes, it strikes
me they would be much better off if they had no food at
all."—(Cheers and laughter.) This to him (Mr. Vil-
liers) appeared to be a very natural deduction—if a small
quantity of fond would be better for the people, then
none at all would be still more beneficial.—(Cheers and
laughter.) Mr. Villiers next argued that the present
corn-laws had already lost them many continental mar-
kets, and that the same system was about to rob them
of the markets of the Brazils. It was at Wettenhall, near
that town, he (Mr. Villiers) first learned that England had
nearly lost the German market ; and he often thought,
had he been a working man, how cruel he should have
deemed it that persons in Parliament, who knew no-
thing of trade, nothing of manufactures, and nothing
of commerce, should not only be anxious to cripple the
business of the working classes in this country, but ab-
solutely to raise up rivals in trade abroad. He (Mr.
Villiers) owed his connexion with that borough to the
reputation which from its enfranchisement Wolverhamp-
ton had stoutly and steadfastly maintained for the as-
sertion and support of the principles of free-trade.--
(Cheers.) The late Mr. P. Thomson it was who first
informed him of the probable retirement of Mr. Fryer
and Mr. W. Whitmore, and told him that if he (Mr.
Villiers) should be so fortunate as to succeed in obtaining
the confidence of the people of Wolverhampton, he
would enjoy the confidence of the most determined
opponents of monopoly to be found in the country. The
speaker dwelt at some length upon the part taken by
Mr. Fryer, the late Member for Wolverhampton, on the
question of the corn-laws. They might rely upon it,
that nothing but agitation could get rid of that ob-
noxious law, and with agitation he believed they should
succeed.—(Cheers.) He called upon them to support the
League as the best instrument for effecting agitation.
They went into the agricultural districts and bearded the
monopolists in their own dens.—(Cheers.) If the
League had dons no other good it had at least done
this—it had raised a discussion upon the condition of
agriculture, and his friend Mr. Cobden did not despair
by discussion of convincing the landholders of the
kingdom that it would be for their benefit that the
corn-laws should be repealed. In conclusion, he begged
leave to state, that he attended there at some personal
inconvenience ; but the respect in which he held his
constituents and the prominent part which fur some
years past he had taken in the repeal of the corn-laws,
compelled him at all risks to be present on that occasion.
—(Mr. Villiers resumed his seat amidst long-continued
cheering.)'
The CHAIRMAN next introduced to the meeting Mr.
Thornely, the other Member for the borough of Wolver-
hampton. He expressed a hope that his connexion with
the borough would continue for many years.
Mr. THORNELY, who was well received, in the course
of his speech said he verily believed if no corn law ex-
isted at present there was not a man in the country who
would be bold enough to petition for its enactment.—
(Cheers.) When he and his colleague (Mr. Villiers) ac-
companied a deputation of the iron trade to Sir Robert
Peel in autumn last, one gentleman on that occasion re-
marked upon the importance of the American trade.
When this subject was mentioned he (Mr. Thornely) told
Sir Robert Peel that he went along to the full extent
with his colleague (Mr. Villiers) upon the subject of the
corn-laws—that he objected not only to a sliding scale,
but to a fixed duty—and that, in his opinion, so long as
a protective duty on corn was maintained, the American
tariff would exist in full force, but so soon as that pro-
tective law was repealed, the tariff would be abolished.
The CHAIRMAN then rose, and said the meeting was,
as he had before stated, purposely called for discussing
the principles of free trade ; but all political topics were
advisedly excluded. If, however, any gentleman present
differed from the opinions of previous speakers upon the
subject of free trade, he would now, under the restric-
tion adverted to, if he thought proper, have a right to
address the meeting. All he (the Chairman) would say
was, that if there were any such gentleman present, he
would do all in his power to obtain for him a fair, silent,
and impartial hearing. He would now call upon any
opponent of free trade to come forward and state his
views. (The Chairman paused for a short time, but no
person took up the challenge.) It appeared (continued
the Chairman) the meeting was unanimous upon the
subject.—(Cheers). He would now introduce to them
their distinguished friend Mr. Cobden.—(Great cheering).
Mr. COBDEN, upon being introduced by the Chair-
man, was received with vociferous cheering. Since their
worthy Chairman had made an offer of discussion, and it
had not been accepted, it might be said that they were
all agreed upon the question under argument. But he
(Mr. Cobden) was told, that, although silent, there were
gentlemen present who, from timidity or from other
reasons, objected to enter upon a public discussion. He
would therefore attempt, if possible, to convert one of
these stray sheep, and, if possible, send him as an apos-
tle or missionary of free trade into the agricultural dis-
tricts.—(Cheers and laughter.) Mr. Cbbden proceeded
to show that the agriculturists, instead of being taxed
beyond the manufacturers, were exempted from a great
portion of the imposts paid by the latter classes of the
community. He enumerated the farmer's dog-tax,
horse-tax, dairy and cheese-room window-tax, toll on
manure, &c. He (Mr. Cobden) was extensively engaged
in a manufacture which required a large quantity of a
ceitain description of manure. Some hundreds and thou-
sands of loads passed through turnpike-gates to his works
in the course of a year, and for which he was, as a mat-
ter of necessity, compelled to pay a heavy amount of
tollage. Now the same description of manure, which at
other times passed through turnpike-gates, paid no toll at
all ; and why ? Because it was placed upon the lands
of the great squires and landholders.—(Cheers and
laughter.) Speaking of the corn-laws generally, Mr.
Cobden said there was not a man of intellect in the House
of Commons who was not ashamed to advocate them.
He admitted that Graham and Gladstone, Stanley and
Peel, were intellectually able and distinguished men; but
it was impossible to sit opposite to them and not perceive
that it was nothing but the force of circumstances which
induced them to maintain their present position—it was
as clear as day that they were ashamed of the humiliating
task which they had to perform.—(Cheers.) No doubt,
while they were saddled and bridled by the Duke of
Richmond and the Duke of Buckingham, they would
continue their present policy, but they might rely upon
it on the first opportunity which presented itself the
Ministers to whom he had referred—by far the ablest
members of the Cabinet—would bolt out of the course,
and run in an opposite direction.—(Cheers and laughter.)
After contending that agriculturists themselves would
have no reason to complain of a repeal of the corn-law,
Mr. Cobden next proceeded to show that low prices of
bread had always a beneficial effect upon the labourer.
He put it to the labourer how high prices had benefited
him during the last five or six years? They had received
less wages, obtained less employment, and in many cases
the unfortunate workpeople had had no employment at
all.—(Hear.) They had had their wages reduced to the
lowest ebb in 1839, 1840, and 1841, when corn was high,
but when prices became more natural and free, when wheat
was reduced to 50s. Bd., then trade gradually revived;
iron, as it had done recently, rose 20s. a ton ; em-
ployment became more general, and wages were aug-
mented. Were not these facts? No man could deny
but that trade, especially in Lancashire, was in some
degree improving; and he (Mr. Cobden) would go fur-
ther—he would prophecy that if corn kept at no higher
price than 505., trade and commerce would continue to
improve; but if it got up as before to 60s. and upwards,
then wages and employment would be as low and as
scarce as
.before.—(Hear, hear.) They had been told
[that if they reduced the duty on corn this step would be
follow ed by a reduction of wages. He (Mr. Cobden)
came there to prove that what their opponents said was
not true, and he had r_o hesitation in saying that he could
prove that the working man weuld be better without
the corn-laws, even if their abolition was to be followed
by a reduction of wages.—(Hear, hear.) Again, they
had been told the working men of the kingdom derived
no benefit from foreign trade ; but it they did not,
others did. There were classes of the community who
derived considerable benefit from the importation of
the luxuries of life ; and why did not the poor and
working man enjoy with the rich equal benefit ? Be-
cause there was a law to prevent the free importation of
i bread, pork; and other necessaries of life.—(Hear.) He
knew what was pawing iu tie utiad.9 of fanners who

were then listening to him. " V'es," said they, " but
every sack of flour and cask of pork brought to this coun-
try will be to our injury ; it will by so much reduce the price
of my stock and the amount of my gains." But the far-
mers should recollect that the people of this country
were not all' fed. It was because not less than 10,000,000
of the population of Great Britain and Ireland—for he
always considered Ireland a part of his own country—
(Cheers)—were never fed at ail upon meat, that he and
his friends of the League advocated the entire removal
of all taxes upon human food.—(Cheers.) He knew no
place in the kingdom where all the elements of prospe-
rity showed themselves so clearly, so manifestly, as they
did in Wolverhampton and its neighbourhood. Free
trade was all that was wanted.—(Cheers) Why, they
had every thing about them. They in Manchester had
to go to America for every ounce of cotton they used,
before they could begin to work ; they in Wolverhamp-
ton had their materials at their very door, at every step
they kicked them before them.—(Cheers.) They had
skilled hands and skilled fingers, able to manufacture
articles from a steam-engine to a grate, and down to a
needle; and yet here they were, with all these advan-
tages, with their hands tied behind them by a parcel of
senseless squires, who knew nothing and cared nothing
for either them or their interests.—(Cheers.) It was
true, however, that they had even amongst themselves
people who stood by the corn-law, and why ? Because
it was termed a party question. There would be .just
as must sense in maintaining the old system in astro-
nomy, that the sun goes round the world, and not the
world round the sun, because Newton, Copernicus, and
Laplace made it a paity question, as making the re-
peal of the corn-law a party question. He could only
compare it to an absurdity which occurred in their own
House of Commons. A discussion took place upon the
subject of lighting the House. Some Honourable Mem-
bers maintained the superiority of the Bude light, and
others contended for a different mode of illumination.
However, at length a division occurred, and, strange
to say, the Tories walked out at one door, and the
Whigs at another. It was a party question.—(Laughter
and cheers.) Mr. Cobden concluded by saying they '
knew the object of the League. Too many kind things
had been said of himself and his friends. They had
certainly done what they could ; but the League would
be entirely powerless unless supported by such gentle-
men as those by whom he was then surrounded. But
the question was not, as stated by their opponents,
whither the League was good or bad, but whether the
corn-law was good or bad.—(Cheers.) Really, as a
farmer's son ashamed to see how the farmers throughout
the country were bamboozled on this point, he confessed
he was ashamed of his order.—(Cheers.) It was not the
League, but the corn-law, which was on its trial.—
(Cheers.) Now, he would advise the farmers present,
if, at any future meeting of the landlords they heard the
speakers begin to abuse Cobden, to interrupt them by
saying, " Please tell us how we are benefited by the corn-
laws—that is what we want to know—we want to hear
nothing of Cobden."—(Cheers and laughter.) Ho (Mr.
Cobden) cared little for the abuse heaped upon him,
Such scelding as generally proceeded from the squirts
was, indeed, entirely unworthy of the tea-talle of a
ladies' boarding-school. The squires, on these occasions,
were the laughing-stocks of the whole kingdom.—(The
Hon. Gentleman concluded a long speech amidst vo-
ciferous cheering.)

Mr. R. R. MOORE being introduced by the Chairman,
next addressed the meeting, and detailed the progress
of the League.

A subscription was then entered into, amounting to
upwards of 6001., exclusive of 1501. from Mr. Villiers
and Mr. Thornely, the two Members for the borough.
The meeting then broke up.

THE ANTI-CORN-LAW LEAGUE
The position of the principal characters in the Anti-
Corn law League is about as ticklish a one as could
wel be imagined. Here are a few men whose names
were not to be found in the book of fame yesterday or
early this morning, but who are now perched on the
topmost pinnacle, surrounded by a meridian glare of
notoriety. Half-a-dozen cotton-spinners and calico-
printers have become the world's talk. Moreover, at
present they are floating on the full tide of popularity.
They are the idols of that numerous and important class
who think that change is never out of season, and that,
if we must have change, the sooner the better. Not the
least nervous part of the business is that they hare
achieved their own greatness. They have not been born
great, nor has their greatness been thrust upon them.
The fates open their hands, it is true. The era is pro-
pitious. It is a rare combination of circumstances to
have the Premier himself a man of cotton, and a system
of agricultural protection at the same time. Something
or other must come of such encouragement and such
provocation. The blood 2nd spirit of manufacture em-
brace its high destiny. The millowners rush forward
to occupy the breach which chance has opened. Cobden
becomes the captain of our fortunes, and Bright " the
cynosure of every eye."
Their stake is aggravated by the circumstance, that
they have put themselves into the most hostile possible
attitude to everything great and powerful, themselves
excepted. Princes, powers, and potentates, spiritual
and civil, are the daily sport of their tongues. Standing
on the hoards of Covent-garden, it is their bold and sim-
ple rule to attack every individual, every class, every-
thing on earth, that is not likely to form part of their
present audience. Sure of their cause, of its vast im-
port, and awful sanctity, they denounce as their enemies
and the enemies of the human race, not merely every-
body who wags a tongue against them, but everybody
who, possessing a tongue, does not give them its active
and unreserved assistance. Nothing will satisfy them
till the whole bench of Bishops enter in procession
through the side scenes, lay down their mitres at Mr.
Bright's feet, and, addressing themselves to the "gods"
in the upper gallery, pronounce it the divinest of pre-
cepts and first of human obligations, "to buy in the
cheapest market and sell in the dearest." As for the
country gentlemen—poor things l—it's quite shocking to
think how they come off at th hands of these universal
tormentors. If, therefore, the Leaguers should chance
to fall, it is quite evident they will fall heavy. Their
defeat will be celebrated by injured monopolies, despised
ranks, insulted dignities, calumniated persons. A hun-
dred several interests will demand their respective vie-
tims. Bright must be offered up to appease the grave
indignation of the bench, and Mr. Fox the wounded feel-
ings of the inferior clergy ; scarce will Cobden satiate the
deep vengeance of Whitehall ; the purer mactation of
Mr. Villiers will hardly calm the perturbations of our
fair aristocracy. The East and the West Indies will seve-
rally lead off perfect hecatombs of twenty guinea sub-
scribers. A mixed and eager crowd of great and small
proprietors, young ladies with portions, young gentlemen
with expectations, elder brothers with their rents half
oaten up by settlements, and dowagers with life interests,
will scramble for the bodies of the smaller fry of the
League, for provincial stars, youthful debutants, and the
respectable seconders of the fourth, fifth, and sixth reso
lutions. Another Smithfield, another St. Bartholomew,
will close the awful scene.
But the greatest circumstance of peril remains. If it
were really a good-for-nothing cause, a mere ephemeral
object, puffed up into unjust dimensions, oblivion
would soon succeed on failure, and the disgraced
offenders would receive from time itself a virtual
amnesty. The world might never forgive, but it would
hs oyo nt oe rs get e te. a l
ioc
nn tihlet contrary,ans:
rude, t hger
te s warfareqneu
, andnd e
frrtiagkhetn.
ful as they are, is really an honest and noble
one ; that is, its objects are so. They don't see
it, but the greatness of their cause, the depth and
importance of their principles are their chief danger.
They trust to it and swagger. They think the end jus-
tifies the means. It must be virtuous, they think, to be
pursuingthaey fancysound and beneficial h
bene a
eficimalino(bl nsecetn.Tidhereatmioatrervvo_ef
doing it
must, then, tell them seriously and plainly, that this is
not the case ; and that they are themselves, at this pre-
sent moment, within an ace of leaving on the page of
history a lasting lesson to the contrary.
A great cause as often makes little men as it makes
great men. The greatest causes have made at least the
most notorious traitors and self-seekers. The man who
handles a vast negotialion as he would bargain with a
huckster, and puts the interests of the human race at the
bottom of his pedlar's pack, is only making himself the
scorn of ages. Better had he been content with the por-
tion of a worm, seeing that he was really no better than
one, than gibbet himself for the contempt of schoolboys
a thousand years to come.
Of course, we cannot make the Leaguers wlit they
are not of themselves. They must excuse the homely
earnestness of our proverb " We cannot make a
silk purse out of a sow's ear." It is for them, and
for them only, to prove to the world whether they are
the benefactors of their kind, or cotton grubs. For
whom, and for what, do they ask that the country should
run such risks, for risks at least there are, involved in a
greater freedom of trade ? For whom, and for what, do
they ask that important items of the revenue should be
surrendered, and the vested interests of the land should
be endangered ? For themselves only, or for the whole
nation, themselves included ? Is it their scheme of a
blessed futurity, that they are to build new mills, create
new manufacturing cities, dig new docks, lay down new
railways, enlarge their mansions into palaces, and their
pleasure grounds into parks, add town houses to country
houses, and ally themselves to the much hated, much
envied aristocracy ; while, all this time, the operative,
the mother of a family, the squalid youth, the sickly
girl, are to go on standing at the spindles for ever, winter
and summer, from half past five in the morning, by the
inexorable mill clock, to seven in the evening ? True,
they boast of their "flesh-pots." There will be all the
greater demand for labour, wages will rise, and you will
feed and clothe better. The potato-fed labourer will
envy your portion. But "if the tale of the bricks which
they did make heretofore" is still laid upon them, what
is this but a well-fed bondage ?—such a bondage as a
free state should not allow in the helpless portion of its
citizens, in its females and minors.
The factory system is a great fact, one which we can-
not be blind to without permanent injury. The League,
as a witness to it, is another great fact. It has been
glad to accept that title. But there is one aspect of that
original great fact which the League has hitherto been
miserably slow to recognise. a here are now in this
country hundreds of thousands of women and young
persons chained to the steam-engine, with no power
whatever to change their employment, any more than if
they were indeed cast and forged, and welded parts of
the fabric. Once in the factory, never out. Walls of
adamant and nine-fold Styx surround them, and for ever
close them in. Whatever power they may have to
better the other terms of their rigorous service, they
cannot of themselves procure a necessary abatement of
their daily toil. As a great fact, this vast portion of
our people must, if left to themselves, work to their
bodily and mental injury, to early decay, and shortened
lives.

will be the most thorough, universally, and deservedly
loathsome and abominable.—Times.

FACTORIES BILL.

While we will yield to none in zeal and determi-
aation for a Ten Hours' Factory Bill, as a measure for
which the strongest case has been made out, and
which has become the plainest national duty, we
must, at the same time, be excused all the trammels
of partizanship. We will not and cannot deny that
the measure is attended with various risks; but only
are we as sure as of anything in this world, that the
performance of a national duty will not be followed
by irremediable and immitigable evils. Time alone
can show how far the measure will affect the profit-
able working of the -factories ; and time alone can show
bow far it will necessarily involve a proportionate
or even more than proportionate reduction of wages.
Let us hope for the best. It is the act of a whole
nation that is called for; so all must expect to share
in the possible sacrifice. Perhaps the nation will
have to lighten the fiscal burdens of the manufac-
turer, the manufacturer to find himself not quite so
able to meet sudden bursts of demand, and the
operatives to be content with a rather lower scale of
wages, though sufficient, and probably less fluctuat-
ing than under the present system. Meanwhile we
will venture a few remarks, with a view to repress
too sanguine expectations, and to show the depth of
the question.

Apart from some unnecessary aggravations, the
most essential characteristic of factory labour—tedi-
ous mechanical drudgery—is as old as the world.
Employment of mere manual strength and skill, is
the portion of nearly all the human kind. There are
perhaps few who have not, on entering life, a chance
or two, an opportunity or two, of bettering their con-
dition and lifting their heads above the crowd. But
few, however, avail themselves of these openings, and
the mass subside into one great level of toil and sor-
row, which our faith in the primeval curse compels us
to expect must ever remain. Legislation may alle-
viate the miseries of this class—if only by undoing,
in some instances, what it has done—but it cannot
cure them. Such is the general helplessness and im-
providence, and perhaps we ought to add perverseness
and degeneracy of mankind, that the mass will press
into any employment which affords a regular and suffi-
cient subsistence, however miserable the subsistence,
and miserable the employment.
Times never were and never will be very much
better in this respect. We will go back to a very
simple age, long before the days of steam—before
even the days of the spinning-wheel. In the "Iliad"
there is a most touching description, which might
stand for the type of the wool-spinner to the end of
the world. The two armies having come to a stand-
still at the Grecian camp, neither party either advan-
cing or giving way, the poet likens their position
to a woman, who works for daily wages and is true
and just in her dealings, holding a pair of scales. She
puts into them the weight and the wool she has spun,
which she adjusts till the two scales are equally
poised, that she may receive for her children the
miserable, hard, and shamefully scanty pay,—for
such is the force of the epithet employed. The in-
terest of this image is increased by a tradition men-
tioned in the most ancient life of Homer, that he is
here describing his own mother, and that the genius
which developed into the " Iliad" and the "Odyssey"
was first cherished on the miserable, hard, and shame-
fully scanty pay of a female woolspinner. The Latin
poet introduces another feature of the factory life in
his list of the omens of a coming storm ; the spark-
ling of the lamps, and the heads gathering on the
wicks, seen by the spinning girls at their night
work : _ _

" Nec nocturna quidem carpentes pensa puellae
Nescivere hyemem."—
In the interior of Africa Mungo Park found the
woman of the house, with the greater part of her
family, spinning cotton throughout a great part of
the night, and lightening their task with songs, one
of which is that extempore chant on the sad case of
the white stranger they had taken in. The labour of
grinding corn by the hand, imposed on females or on
captives, is uniformly described as being, what a de-
scription of the clumsy process would certainly lead
us to expect, a most cruel drudgery. At the present
pwfuo winter
na ti
possiblet
meor an n2afft_yot
hours.. the
oa
fc e
candle-lightpi l o ,
a t
day, if we go into the villages of Buckinghamshire
femaledscaorf bobbinseetpopulation
twirl-
ingethhiatalhft
et tirhtheeeiirst:
and Northamptonshire, we shall often find nearly
the The
youngertoil sho a
ngdr
se atto,
sustain it, amid the diversions and distractions of
home ; so they are crowded into miserable little
" schools," where the light of four or five con.
sumptive-looking " dips" is economically transmitted
and condensed through twenty glass bottles to as
many lacemakers. A girl of fifteen must work
hard to earn half-a-crown a week, and the sedentary
nature of the employment is said to give an unhealthy
keenness to the appetite. In this case it is the com-
petition among the lacemakers themselves—the im-
mense increase in their number—much more than
the use of Nottingham net or any other external
cause, which has lowered the remuneration to that
starving point. The lacemakers of Normandy work
through a great part of the winter night in their
stables, among the cows, whose fragrant breath and
huge warm bodies serve them for stoves. Yet all
this, we may say, is nature, at least a very slight
portion of art ingrafted on rural life, certainly not
the result of any great tyranny—no mighty social
oppression—and almost utterly beyond the reach of
legislation.
Why do we bring up all this ? It might, of
course, seem to tell against us ; but we have no
fears on that head, and therefore only wished the
truth to be seen as widely and deeply as the most
unsparing research and the most self-denying can-
dour can make it. There are those who talk on
the great legislative question before Parliament, as if
all but continual drudgery was not the portion of man.
It is his portion, and would not be so if it were not
also his best and most salutary portion. Nature more
than art is continually chaining man to the plough
and the wheel : and nature works under a lord and
master. Philanthropists who close their eyes to this
great truth are sure, soon or late, to defeat their
own objects. But civilization does also introduce its
own evils, and those not the least. It is, then,
doubly incumbent on civilization to mitigate, to
diminish, to soften man's necessary lot of toil and sor-
row. Whenever we meet with an enormous mass of
suffering, brought to one head, with almost every con-
ceivable aggravation, and that in the midst of such
wealth and power and luxury as the world has no-
where hitherto witnessed, there surely may be re-
cognized a plain duty of national interposition. The
"law of suffering," as divines have called it, may be
pleaded for the consolation of the sufferers,—for the
consolation of unsuccessful benefactors,—but surely
not in excuse of wealthy, powerful, and luxurious
apathy. What we can do, we must do. More than
that is not required. Society shows on its face a vast
superfluity of wealth and power,—enough to squander,
enough to abuse; surely this indicates a possibility
of relieving that mass o.`poverty and labour with
which it presents so strong, so strange a contrast.--
Times.

Is it for these, as well as for the interests of capital,
that the League clamours so loudly for free trade ? If
not, we can only assure them that among all the names
that stink in this world, and will stink to eternity, that
union of the most outrageous importunity with the vilest
selfishness, which the League would in that case present,

There has been a debate on the Civil Contingencies
—always one of the most interesting items in a Com-
mittee of Supply. There was the old story of paying
the travelling expenses of foreigners of distinction, who
visited Great Britain ; with the interesting addition of
paying the expenses of Prince Adalbert of Prussia, when
he went from Rio Janeiro to Para ; and some other
foreign Prince, when he went from Jaffa to Beyrout, and
thence to Constantinople. This may be all very cour-
teous, and all very generous ; and as it is well known
Great Britain has more money than she knows what to
do with, no doubt it is quite right for her to do so ; but
the question naturally rises— do our Princes and Prin-
cesses, when they travel abroad, have their expenses paid
by the countries through which they pass, or which they
go to visit ? If so, there is something like reciprocity,
though the balance would be considerably against us ;
but as we do not suspect this to be the case, why John
Bull plays the same part he has been doing for the last
half century, though, fortunately, now on a much
smaller scale. Only fancy, too, the Queen Dowager,
with her 100,000/. a•year, sending in a "little bill" for
100/., for some trifling repairs to Marlborough House •
and the British Parliament being called upon to vote 68/1
for watering Park-gate-street, Dublin. Certainly these
Civil Contingencies are full of the most interesting
details l—Cheltenhain Looker-on.
ONE or THE BuowN's.—A fellow of gentlemanly
appearance and ,address has lately been conferring his
favours on several tradesmen of Canterbury, under the
nom de guerre of " Captain Brown," by giving very libe-
ral orders for clothes, boots, stationery, books, &c., pay-
ing small accounts, and getting his name inserted in the
waste book, and hence to the ledger, for larger orders,
and then withdrawing from the vicinity " by moonlight
alone," leaving his name on the debtor's side ere he had
placed it in juxtaposition on the creditor's, thus pre-
senting them with a " forget-me-not" as a " first flower
of spring." He took lodgings in Orchard-street, St.
Dunstan's, and was thought by his landlady to be a very
nice gentleman, and on his quitting his quarters he left
behind him his wardrobe inclosed in a carpet bag, which
on inspection was found to contain a very old and dirty
shirt and a sack, thus making good the old French pro-
verb said to have been established at the building of the
tower of Babel, "Chacun son sac." Captain Brown has
the appearance of having been to sea, is about five feet
six inches in height, black hair, and dark complexion,
and betrays great impatience to be attended to in giving
orders.—Correspondent of the Kent Herald.
KING GEORGE THE THIRD AND THE SCOTCH DIVINE.
—His Majesty, after the close of the American revolu-
tionary war, ordered a thanksgiving to be kept through
this kingdom. A noble Scotch divine, in the presence
of the King, inquired,," For what are we to give thanks
—that your Majesty has lost thirteen of your best pro-
vinces ?" The King answered "No !" "Is it, then
(the divine added), that your Majesty has lost 100,000
lives of your subjects in the contest ?" " No, no !" said
the King. "Is it, then, that we have expended and lost
a hundred millions of money, and for the defeat and
tarnish of your Majesty's arms ?" "No such thing,"
said the King pleasantly. " What, then, is the object
of the thanksgiving ?" " Oh, to give thaalo that it is
no worse."

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, APRIL 10. 1544.

THE INCLOSURE BILL.

This is the age of practical utilitarianism. Cui
bono Q What will it fetch ? How much per cent.?
What profit will it yield ? is the interrogative reply
with which, virtually and in effect, if not in go many
words, every proposal is met, every scheme tested,
and the merits of, we really believe, every single
created thing beneath the sun, be it what it may, as
far as possible, estimated, in this stirring and enlight-
ened generation. Times have been, it is true, when
the age has been more professedly selfish—when the
surface has shown more unblushingly, and in deeper
colours, the external badge and symbol of the fashion-
able self philosophy which was current; times have
indeed been,--we might point, in illustration of our
remark, to the latter part of the last century, with
its infidel "philosophy " and its universal laxity
of manners,—when, taking men individually,
society has been more thoroughly, as well as more
avowedly, imbued with the principles and practice
embodied in the belief that everything whatsoever is
convertible into pecuniary gain, and that all else—
health, happiness, morals, religion—is as nothing in
comparison with this. This, so far as general society
is concerned, must, we gladly acknowledge, be con-
ceded in favour of the present generation, or rather
against those which have preceded it; but for legis-
lating upon utilitarian principles,—for embodying in
public enactments, made for the benefit (!) not of the
lawgivers but of others,—the detestable morality of
Hobbes and Hume and Gibbon ;—for realising in
practice that species apolitical morality which holds
that man is no more than an impersonation of capital
—a mere representative of so much "labour"—that
charity is only a falsification of economy—and that
that " benefit of the governed," which it is universally
conceded ought to be the object of every Government
—is nothing else than the highest possible state of
" productiveness" to which the aforesaid subject mul-
titude may be brought; for legislation of this sort,
we say, give us the days of King William and Queen
Victoria, for certainly, never before, since England
was a nation, has this sort of thing been more con-
sistently carried out within the walls of Parliament.
We might, of course, instance at once many and
many a case in which this school of political doctrine
has found only too practical an operation ; many such
cases will doubtless occur to our readers; we will,
however, confine ourselves to-day to a single instance,
not perhaps the most prominent one, but which we
notice now in connexion with these remarks, because,
for one reason, it is a case where there is still hope,
or at least room, for change, inasmuch as it is still
pending ; and, for a second, because it is a case of
itself, and intrinsically, of no small moment to that
much abused class, whose nominal benefit it professes
to seek—videlicet, the poor.

We have, indeed, often already impugned Lord
Worsley's Enclosure Bill on other—perhaps more
substantial, as they are certainly the first and most
obvious—grounds of objection, viz. as being simply a
measure of spoliation—a wrong—an injustice—be its
other merits or demerits what they may.
We have impeached it, too, on its own grounds ;
we have shown that as a matter of pounds, shillings,
and pence—as a mere question of utilitarianism, and
nothing else—and supposing utilitarianism the best
thing in the world, this Bill must needs entail a loss
upon the poor owner (we call him the owner, for his
right of common is to him as valuable and as much
his own, as the fee-simple of the manor is the lord's),
as depriving him of his pasturage for the sake of
securing to the neighbouring landowners a few more
acres of park or game preserves.
We have argued the question on these grounds—
but there is yet another,—one indicated in our open-
ing remarks, and one, we think of no less weight, or
which at least ought to be of no little weight, with
any one who has at heart the very vital health,
moral and mental, as well as bodily,—to say nothing
of the mere pleasure and relaxation,—of the poor
for whom he professes, or is supposed, to legislate.
The wide green common is the poor man's park ;
the heath is his garden ; the open fields are his
pleasure grounds. He has none other. Near large
towns especially, and, to come nearer home, in the
neighbourhood of the metropolis, Lord Worsley's
Inclosure Bill would be principally and especially
odious, not, or at least not so much, on account of
the mere loss to the neighbouring poor of the value
of the land, as on account of the deprivation to the
poor, pale, dingy inhabitants of the smoky brick in-
closures which spread far and wide in the no remote
distance, of their only outlets to health and enjoy-
ment. o amount of money, we boldly say, could,
even if the money went to them, recompense the poor
of this great city for the loss of Hampstead-heath,
Kennington, or Clapham-common. Lord Worsley's
Bill, indeed, is, as an inclosure of these and similar
grounds, diametrically opposed to the admitted prin-
ciple of the Legislature in sanctioning the Victoria
Park and the other metropolitan improvements which
have been set on foot within the last few years. It is
with unfeigned pleasure, therefore, that we see that
an effort at least is to be made to rescue these often-
assailed blessings—for blessings they are—and, if
once lost, irreparable ones—from Lord Worsley's
clutches. An amendment is proposed, and we ear-
nestly hope it will be conceded at once without op-
position, to the effect that the Act shall not " autho-
rise the inclosure of any common lands, fields, or
downs, within ten miles of London, or within four
miles of any other city having 4,000, or within two
miles of any other city having 2,000, inhabitants."
We say that the inclosure of the suburban (espe-
cially the metropolitan) heaths and commons would
be neither more nor less than the sacrifice to Mam-
mon of the lives, and healths, and property of
the multitude of the poor pent within the confines
of our large cities. It would be legislating for
them (or rather against them) upon principles
which no man would think for an instant tenable,
much less applicable, in his own case. Why do not
gentlemen put under tillage their own pleasure gar-
dens, or parks, or chases ? The proceeding would,
doubtless, be profitable—and the sum total of the
productive land of the country would be greatly en-
hanced—and the economists beyond measure de-
lighted. Why, then, is it not done ? Simply, be-
cause gentlemen know very well, when the affair is
their own, that there are other things to be looked to
besides the mere maximum of production, and that
there are things to be sought besides money, and
which no money can purchase. Why, then, we ask,
do they not apply this same rule to the case of the
poor ? The suburban commons are their gardens,
their parks, their pleasure-grounds. Why must they
be compelled to give these up to be turned into money
—and that, too, when the money, after all, will not
go to them ? " They must answer to me for these
things," poor Charles Lamb used to say, every time
he marked the loss, one by one, of the few and little
comforts and refreshments which the increasing rapa-
city of the age swallowed away from the unhappy
denizens of the brick alleys among which he was
born, and so long lived; and, assuredly, if Hamp-
stead-heath, or Epping-forest, or Wimbledon, or
Streatham commons, are allowed to be among the
things thus " to be answered for" to the helpless poor
of this great city, the account will be no light one.
heartily wish s
thoroughly l‘ tr.
ISUCICVeess erkdeserves.
—Times.
amendment the