The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-01 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 1 184.

STRIKE AMONG THE FACTORY

HAND-LOOM WEAVERS.

We regret to find, that in consequence of a dis-
pute betwixt the hand-loom factory weavers and their
employers, in this city, not fewer than 700 of the
former are, at this moment, going idle. Of the
nature of the quarrel which has arisen betwixt the
masters and the workmen we know nothing, beyond
what was stated at a meeting of the latter, held in
Nelson-street Chapel on Friday evening. Mr. Ro-
bertson, who was on this occasion called to the chair,
explained that the weavers had addressed a circular to
their employers, craving an advance of ninepence on
the piece of 60 yards. This circular, he observed, not
being satisfactorily answered, a second was served
upon the masters, in which it was stated, that if the
advance was not agreed to, those who refused would,
on Monday, the 7th current, " hazard the loss of their
workmen." Two firms, viz., those of Messrs. Gilmour
and Kerr, and Messrs. David M'Michael and Co.,ad-
vanced 6d. on the piece of sixty yards, but the others
did not follow their example. The workmen of Mr.
King, not finding their wishes complied with, struck
work; when certain other manufacturers gave no-
tice, that unless Mr. King's men returned, they
would, on the following day, turn out all their hands.
In consequence of this intimation a meeting of the
operatives was held, when it was resolved that as Mr.
King's men had left off work without the advice or
request of the general body, " they left them at
liberty to return to their employment as soon as they
pleased." This resolution was not considered satis-
factory to the masters, and five firms turned out all
their weavers, to the number of 700.
In this state of matters, the public meeting of the
factory weavers to which we have referred, and at
which the above statement was made, was held on
Friday evening, when resolutions were carried to the
effect, that the dismissal of the men for not exercising
a power over Mr. King's men which thay did not
possess, was shameless, tyrannical, and cruel ; that
the factory weavers, being miserably underpaid, were
entitled to an advance ; that the general body of the
weavers were unconcerned in the strike of Mr. King's
men, and had no control over them ; and that, "as
those weavers who had been forced out of their em-
ployment were willing to return to their work if
permitted (leaving King's men to be guided by their
own judgment), they were not blameable for being
idle, but were compelled to be so by the will of manu-
facturing capitalists; and they consequently deemed
it a duty to make immediate application to the autho-
rities of the city for employment.
The above resolutions were carried unanimously.—
Glasgow Argus of Monday.

REDUCTION OF RAILWAY FARES. -- To-morrow
(Friday) the new Act of Parliament for the regulation
of the fares on railways will come into operation. The
inspectors appointed by the Goverment have been for
some time past busily engaged in visiting the different
railway termini. for the purpose of inspecting the new
third-class carriages, which have been constructed ac-
cording to the Act of Parliament. Those on the
Brighton and Dover Railway were inspected last week ;
they are close carriages in the form of large boxes, they
are twenty-six feet long by ten broad, and capable of
holding about forty passengers. There is an opening on
each side, which can be closed up against the weather.
The rate of travelling in those carriages will be a penny
per mile, therefore the fare to Brighton will be 4s. 3d.
rho fare for the third-class will be at the same rate on
all the railways.
MARRIAGE (NOT) ALA MODE.--.A. very ludicrous
scene took place at St. Mary's Church, yesterday, when
a well-known character, named Ben Wilson, appeared
e whichwhencannotbeen
untie
with his betrothed, in order to enter into that happy state
The
h ee
em o
by bachelorsn y
they
having
on
they
cnt ice with
"l
liee da,
knottwhhelicr teeth.
s t
with
experienced
t"i ie r hands,
there was a subsequent part of the performance to go
through, not unimportant to the clergyman or his
clerk, and that was the payment of the marriage fees.
When the sum was demanded, Ben dived with
his fist to the bottom of his pocket, turned the
" browns " over and over again, and at length proved
" a defaulter." The happy smiles of the bride were
changed to clouds of confusion, and Ben scratched his
head (but there was nothing in that), and an I 0 U
would have been useless in such a place as a church, espe-
cially on a wedding day. Ben, who had been just " tied
up," was therefore detained a prisoner in the sacred edi-
fice (to the no small laughter of the gossips assembled)
until the clergyman at length forgave him the fees, and
released him from his whimsical situation. Ben, having
thus early experienced the sours of matrimony, departed
with his rib to enjoy the sweets of the honeymoon.—
Bury Farmer's Journal.

DR. PYPER.—A public dinner was given to this
gentleman in the Iropeton Rooms, Edinburgh, on Tues-
day, on his appointment to the Professorship of Hu-
manity in the University of St. Andrews. Lord Provost
Black was in the chair, and nearly 100 persons of the I
first respectability were present on the occasion.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.
GLOBE.—Game-preserving is, no doubt, espe-
cially in the case of country gentlemen, a great allevia-
tion to the miseries which flow from idleness and in-
digestion. Even our gravest senators find the slaughter
of the battue a very agreeable recreation after the
fatigues of a Parliamentary campaign. We would
not needlessly curtail the amusements of the
rich, any more than we would deprive the
poor of those sports which tend to re-
lieve the monotony of continued labour. It
is well, however, to inquire, in all cases where
simply the amusements of life are concerned,
whether they are, in any way, prejudicial either
to those who indulge in them, or to those who
are not permitted to partake of them. If an
amusement be found the subject of very stringent
legislation—an amusement to be exclusively enjoyed
by the wealthy—above all, if we find this amuse-
ment the source of a great amount of crime—it is
well, under such circumstances, to reflect whether
right feeling and sound policy—both which will inva-
riably aim at securing the good of the community—
do not indicate the abandonment of what is a mere
selfish gratification, seeing that gratification can only
be obtained by the infliction of suffering, and the
prompting of crime in others. We do conscientiously
believe that never, in modern times, was a series of
enactments framed of a tendency more injurious to the
morals of the labouring classes in the agricultural dis-
tricts than are the existing game-laws. Well did the
late justly-venerated Dr. Arnold demand of our
National Church, why it shrunk from " exposing the
wickedness of the spirit which could maintain the
game-laws ? " lie well knew them to be some of the
bitter dregs of that system which, in days of yore, laid
waste whole villages to extend the "game preserves"
of some local tyrant, and made the pursuit of a wild ani-
mal by a peasant an offence to be expiated only by death.
Of late years there has, happily, been a considerable
amelioration of the criminal code. There has been an
increasing feeling that the ends of justice may be
attained more certainly by lowering the amount of
punishment, as much as is consistent with the purposes
for which penalties are inflicted on offenders against
the laws. As regards the most venial offences, how-
ever, there has not hitherto been a proportionate
relaxation in the penalties. A child is detected in
picking up a few apples from under the trees of an
orchard, and is sent to prison for a month, there to
associate with hardened offenders, and to be trained for
the adroit commission of frauds and felonies. Scarcely
a day passes, but the reports of the police-courts and of
the quarter sessions supply instances of the dispro-
portion between the wrongful act and the amount of
punishment inflicted for minor offences. It is, how-
ever, to the game-laws that we at present confine our
remarks. The ferocious statutes which disgraced our
land in days of comparative barbarism have, it is true,
been repealed. But much, far too much, of their exe-
crable spirit still remains. The trespasser on the
rights of game is still classed with the hardened
robber, and treated as if their crimes were
equally prejudicial to the welfare and stability of
society ! Can any human enactments ever persuade
the poor—nay, will they ever convince candid and
considerate men in any walk of life—that their cases
are similar ? We earnestly hope the day is not far
distant when the example set by some patriotic noble-
men and gentlemen will be pretty generally followed.
We shall then see landlords discharging their game-
keepers, and freely allowing their tenantry to
share in the amusement of destroying those wild
birds and animals which frequent the lands they
cultivate, and often consume a considerable por-
tion of the fruits of their husbandry. The Duke
of Bedford, it is stated, has given his tenantry
free permission to treat rabbits as rats • and to
shoot, or take them in any way, as marauders whose
ravages are a fearful drawback from the farmer's
gains. If really desirous of improving the condi-
tion of the poor, Lord John Manners, and the other
leaders of the " Young England" party, should
assail the game-laws, as among the worst engines
of oppression, by which the poor are ground down
to the earth by the unthinking rich. So sanguine
are we as to the feeling which now pervades the more
enlightened portion of the community on this
subject, as to feel assured that, were a Bill in-
troduced in the next session of Parliament—providing
proper securities against trespass upon private lands,
and other necessary protection against the wilful inva-
sion of personal property, but at the same time greatly
modifying and ameliorating the game code, as it now
exists—it would have the support of a majority in
both Houses. Notwithstanding the force of deeply root-
ed prejudice with which it would have to contend, the
voice of public opinion would be raised in its favour.
This would sustain its advocates in the conflict, and
obtain for them and their measure a certain triumph.
The Government, through Sir James Graham, is
pledged to inquiry. If the inquiry be an honest and
searching investigation into the whole question, the
result, though attained by a long preliminary process,
will be convincing to all who are not pre-determined
to oppose the force of evidence. The humanity of
the age will not longer permit the game-laws to work
the extensive demoralization, and other forms of
misery, of which they are notoriously the source.
STANDARD.—A few days ago we announced
that her Majesty had been graciously pleased to
confer upon the Earl of Powis the order of the Garter,
vacant by the Duke of Grafton's death. One would
think that this simple affair of a favour, which the
Queen must confer upon some one, being conferred
upon a nobleman, it is by all admitted every way
worthy of it, might be suffered to pass without pro-
voking malignant commentary ; but no, one of
the " Nothing if not critical' this morning makes
the matter the subject of a dissertation, in which it
ingeniously contrives to insult the Premier, the Duke
of Buckingham and Chandos, the Earl of Powis, and
Lord Ashley. The Premier, it says, prostitutes the
highest honours of the Crown, to corrupt the three
noblemen named ; the noblemen being bribed by these
honours to desert the causes'of the parties who had com-
mitted themselves to their guidance and protection.
This is the plain meaning of the dissertation to which
we refer, and to sit down to gravely answer such a
charge would be to descend almost to the level
of those who make it. What is the truth of the
case ? Out of office and in office the present
Premier has for many years had the zealous and
most valuable support of the three distinguished no-
blemen associated with him in the calumny referred
to, and each of these noblemen is, party claims
aside, confessed to be entitled to the highest ho-
nours the Sovereign can bestow; but each has,
upon one or other question, thought differently
from Sir Robert Peel, and opposed him, it is
not denied, with vigour and sincerity, upon
that question on which each differed from
him. The Prime Minister, supported by the Par-
liament, prevailed against each, but without any
compromise on the part of him who was defeated.
We may think the Prime Minister and his Parlia-
mentary majorities in the wrong—and in the case of
the Factory Bill we do think them decidedly wrong
—but they who think least favourably of the de-
cisions of Parliament upon the modifications of the
corn-laws and the tariff, the suppression of the
Welsh bishopric, and the Factory Bill, must surely
owe an ',obligation to the noblemen by whom these
decisions were ingenuously, though unsuccessfully
opposed. How, then, does the case stand ? Sir
Robert Peel finds among his most zealous, most
valuable, and his most honoured general sup-
porters, three noblemen who prove the honesty
of their general support, and, if possible, en-
hance its value, by opposing him as independent
members of the Legislature, but not as mem-
bers of a faction, upon questions on which they
differ. How are they to act ? Is Sir Robert Peel
to withhold from these noblemen the honours to
which they have a fair claim, and which, but for
the isolated differences spoken of, he would be ex-
pec
to reject the proffered
tedtoofierto them
;. or are
they,because
from a Minister with whom they had each of them
once differed ? Would not such conduct on the
part of a Minister, justly expose him to the charge
of treating his supporters as slaves ? Would not
honours, on the
coming
other
hand,
such conduct on the part of the three noble-
men prove a factious resolution to enslave the
Minister? Such is not the relation subsisting be-
tween Sir Robert Peel and his supporters ; they
are cordially united in maintaining the same sound
principles of government, but at the same time they
are reciprocally independent. There is, we are
aware, some novelty in this state of political
relation ; but, though perhaps new, it is that which
best suits the candid genius of our people and
the free spirit of the British constitution. The
Duke of Buckingham and Chandos received
the Order of the Garter from Sir Robert Peel's
Government, as his father had received the same
order from Lord Liverpool's Government, and his
grandfather received it from the Government of Mr.
Pitt. We cannot go back to count all the garters
in the Noble Duke's illustrious lineage, but putting
one one side his Grace's royal ancestors, we do
not hesitate to say that from John Chandos down-
ward, not one of their race ever presented higher
personal claims to the favour of a Sovereign and to
the gratitude of a patriotic Minister than its present
representative. The Duke differed from the Premier
upon a particular question, and thus differing, he
felt it to be due to himself, to his colleagues
who out-numbered him and to his Sovereign,
to resign the high office (the second or third,
we believe, in dignity) which he held in the
Cabinet; not resigning, however, in hostility
or
anger, but upon the plain and just ground that he
would not be responsible for a measure or measures of
which he disapproved, or exhibit to the country the
fatal phenomenon of a Government divided upon any
great question. Having disencumbered himself of
office, the Duke gallantly fought the battle of his
own opinions, and was beaten. Was he, therefore, to
go into opposition, and to enrol himself in a party
with which he had a hundred living differences,

in hostility to a Ministry with which he had
had one difference, but that dead and buried ? Yet,
without his Grace going into opposition, Sir Robert
Peel could scarcely withhold from him the Garter,
and he, without declaring a perpetual war, could
as little refuse it. The case of the Earl of Powis
differs from the Duke of Buckingham in this
that the Noble Earl had no office to surrender ; but,
in other respects, it is nearly alike. The Premier
does not proscribe the Earl of Powis because
of a single difference; the Noble Earl does not
feel that, by such a difference, he is "fore-doomed
to wage perpetual war " against the Queen's
government. But we now come to the most
honoured and beloved nobleman in the United
Kingdom, and the public man in the wide exteut
of that kingdom most worthy of honour and love.
This description would at once point out Lord
Ashley, even had we not mentioned him as involved
in the slander that has challenged these remarks.
Lord Ashley refused office, that he might be free to
assert the claims of the factory labourers. He did
assert those claims, with what ability and zeal the
country knows ; and the country also knows how
near he was to a complete victory. That he failed
of that victory was surely no fault of his, but coula
suspicion light upon the sincerity of such a man,
what is there to support it ? Lord Ashley has
received no Garter—no office—no favour of any
kind. lie refused office, as we have said, and still
refuses office, though it would be as gratifying per-
sonally to the Sovereign as it would be to the
country to see his Lordship in the highest
station, and the bearer of the proudest ho-
nours. Is it not like the very wantonness
of spiteful impertinence to affect to sneer at such a
man as Lord Ashley ? We are rejoiced, however,
that the offence has been committed, because Lord
Ashley can easily bear such an attack, and the attack
upon that nobleman brings out in the boldest possible
relief the malice and the meanness of the writer with
whom we have to deal.

FREE CrIURCH SUSTENTATION
FUND.

The following circular addressed to the sup-
porters of the Free Seceding Cisurch, within the
bounds of the Presbytery of Kelso and Lauder,
shows the pressing nature of the necessities in
which the ministers of that Church are involved
by the scanty contributions from the majority of
their congregation to the Sustentation Fund :--
Circular addressed by the Committee appointed by
the Free Presbytery of Kelso and Lauder regard-
ing the Sustentation Fund.

The Committee appointed by the Free Pres-
bytery of Kelso and Lauder to take into con-
sideration the state of the Sustentation Fund,
must lament in common with all who are acquainted
with the condition of that fund, and who are inte-
rested in its objects, that many of the congregations
within the bounds of the Presbytery have fallen far
short of the contributions that might have been ex-
pected from them ; and while they believe that one
great defect lies in the managemen t of the Associations;
and while they would aim at stirring up these to
greater activity, they think, at the same time, that
the people generally are not aware of the deficiencies
so often complained of by the Central Committee;
they have, therefore, agreed affectionately to present
the following address to the congregation within their
bounds:—

Dearly Beloved Brethren,—We crave your atten-
tion to one of the most important subjects connected
with the prosperity of our Church. You are all
aware that what is called the Sustentation Fund is
the united contributions of all our congregations, and
from this common fund all the ministers of our
Church receive their annual stipend. You can easily
see that our system can only be carried out efficiently
by the regularity of payments made throughout all
our:Associations, and by the resolution made and
followed up by every adherent of our Church, to give
as the Lord hath prospered him. We regret to say
that in many congregations this has not been
attended to, and the consequence is, that the state
of the Sustentation Fund is far from being satisfac-
tory. There is, perhaps, no congregation in the Pres-
bytery who have it not in their power to be inde-
pendent of aid from the fund. That is to say, we be-
lieve every congregation might give to the common
fund as much as their minister draws from it, and yet
there is only one congregation in the whole Presby-
tery in this prosperous state, and some of them do not
yield even one-half of their minister's stipend. It is
plain that, if other Presbyteries were to follow our
example, and if this were continued, our com-
mon fund would cease to exist, and each con-
gregation would be left to support its own minister,
and as a necessary consequence of this, very many
of our weaker congregations would be dispersed. We
believe that, generally, you are not aware of the defi-
ciency, and your ignorance of the state of the fund is
unquestionably the very reason that it is not in a
better condition. We think it will be enough, there-
fore, simply to make this statement of facts. ronfident
that, when this is done, your liberality will imme-
diately supply the deficiency, and that every congre-
gation within the bounds of the Presbytery shall aim at
being independent of the general fund, and at not
being burdensome to others. Moreover, we trust that
every individual will aim at the same praiseworthy
and Christian spirit of independence. As we would
not be burdensome to one another as congrega-
tions, we should endeavour not to be burdensome
to one another as individuals—not depending on
the bounty of others for the supply of those spiri-
tual blessings that God giveth without money and
without price. This suggests a fact which we can-
not pass without notice, namely—that there are in-
dividuals in all our congregations who are living
entirely on the bounty of others—individuals who
give nothing for the support of the Gospel. We
would not upbraid them—we do not seek them to
withdraw from amongst us, on the contrary, we ear-
nestly invite them to come and be partakers with us
of the same precious promises with ourselves, but we
ask them one question—What is the Gospel of Jesus
Christ worth to you ? In many families there is only
one contributor ; surely every member of the church,
and every seat-holder, ought to feel his own personal
responsibility in this solemn matter.

While we crave your temporal things, dear
brethren, in return for spiritual things, we would
have you to remember that the Lord loveth a cheerful
giver, and we seek no man's silver or gold but as the
Lord desireth it to be given, even cheerfully; and we
are assured that all who have tasted that the Lord is
gracious, and who have the spread of the Gospel of
Christ truly at heart, will esteem it a privilege and
an honour to serve our Lord and Master with those
talents He has committed to their care till he come
again.
In conclusion, we would have you to remember that
the cause we plead is not our own, except in so far
as we are the Lord's, and have one interest with
Him. It is His cause we plead when we ask you
to support the Gospel where it is, and to send it
where it is not. It is primarily for His sake we
do it, as we are bound in duty to do. It is se-
condarily for your own sakes, because we know some-
thing of the value of your souls. It is your interest
much more than ours, as much more as spiritual
things are of greater value than temporal things. We
are not ashamed, then, to ask all who love the Lord
Jesus Christ, or who profess to love him, to give proof
of their sincerity, in returning to Him a portion of
what he has given to them. It is a small matter to
us to be judged of man's judgment, and if any
should impute secular motives to us in making
bold to state our wants again and again, we have only
to answer, it is the Lord's doing. He constrained us
to forsake what we had for His sake, and having done
it, we are assured He will provide the Gospel for our
people by means of their own liberality.
By authority of the Committee,
ROBERT LANG, Convener.
—Edinburgh Advertiser.