The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-25 00:00:00

FREEDOM OF LABOUR.

4 (From the Leeds Times.)
• *" Why should Parliament dictate to grown men and
lo:een, or even tb youug men and young women, how
eti% they should work ? Have not these parties sense
to refuse doing what they find injurious to
at r May they not leave their work any day that
theia ?"--Leeds Mercury.
b044,.'4:b°3' e all, it should not be forgot that factory la-
hi is Voluntary, not compulsory. No man, woman
14,3 need stay in a factory a single day longer than he
It Mercury.
is contended by the opponents of a Ten Hours'
katLtila the interference of the Legislature in a
ties of of this kind is a gross violation of the Tiber-
es of the subject; the advocates of corn-law repeal
• thileecially insisting that the only way of shortening
suellii°llll of labour is to destroy the necessity of
(4n Prolonged drudgery by removing those bur-
ial,: and restrictions which cripple trade, rartiDA•
che.ap
and provision dear ; while the Leeds
ttleiril pressingly insist that all legislative enact-
is„., an interference with freedom of labour, and
ohroires
(a),rfliTentilas •nothing to do with shortening the
inasmuch as it is voluntary on the part
14 labourers, man woman, and child, and they
theynot stay in a factory a single day longer than
y pleas."

Why was not the same objection urged when the
Government proposed to take the women and children
out of the coal-pits? That, too, was an interference
with the poor man's labour ; and its tendency and
actual result was greatly to diminish the earnings of
the colliery population. But, no! Writers of all
political parties lauded this measure as one of
great humanity and unquestioned necessity. When
the revolting-features of colliery labour were brought
to light by the Children's Employment Commission,
and it was found that tender women and helpless
children were daily employed underground to do
the work of brutes, one general shudder of horror
ran throughout society. The thing was too bar-
barous to be tolerated in a Christian country ; the
practice of female and infant slavery in mines was
universally condemned ; and men of all parties de-
manded the interference of the Legislature. They
did not see in the question one merely of vested inte-
rests, of capital sunk, of profits suspended,—but of
national humanity. of benevolence and philan-
thropy. The Legislature, thus invoked from all
sides, stepped in and put an end to the practice at
once, and let us hope, for ever. Now, the very same
principle is involved in the question of factory
labour. Society in this country has established the
principle of interference, in the case of women and
minors. It regards them as unable to protect and
defend themselves ; and where it finds them over-
worked or oppressed, it steps in and interferes. This
has already been done in the Factory Bills repeatedly
passed by the Legislature. What is now sought for
is, that ten hours, and not twelve, should be the
standard period of labour in factories, for women and
children.
But this would be "an interference with the
rights of labour, and a violation of the liberties of
the subject !" Alas ! how slender are the rights
of labour ! How worthless are the liberties of the
subject ; What is the " liberty" of the English
labourer ? To starve or to toil! He has no alternative.
He has no liberty. He has no proprietorship in the
State. He is cut off from all rights and privileges.
He is taxed without his consent ; his earnings are
taken from him by a class who are altogether
irresponsible to him; and thus he is, to all
intents and purposes, a slave. He has no
alternative but to toil or famish. He yokes
himself, body and soul, to the iron machine—
a sleepless, indefatigable labourer, whose only
food is a little oil. Not only himself, but his
wife and children, must also yoke themselves
to the work. They run a neck-and-neck race with
want. What a mockery to speak to them of free-
dom! And oh, what bitterness of mockery to tell
them that after Parliament has interfered to protect
the dumb brutes, and also to protect the women and
children of the colliers, that they are not to be re-
lieved because it would be an interference with their
liberty !

STATE OF TRADE.
(From the Manchester Guardian of yesterday,)
There was no material change in our market yester.
day. Perhaps, upon the whole, yarn was a little steadier
in price than last week, and rather more business was
done, principally on Russian account. In goods, with
the exception of shirtings, and other fabrics suitable for
the East Indies, which continue in good demand, there
was not much business doing, and, though prices are
generally firm, in some faw cases trifling reductions
were submitted to by manfacturers.
ROCHDALE FLANNEL MARKET, MONDAY, APRIL 22.
—There has been a rather quiet market to-day, some-
what similar to those of the two last weeks. It has
been, what is called " Little Monday," and in general
fewer buyers attend. The business transacted has been
upon a limited scale, and prices have undergone little or
no change. The wool market still continues dull, and
prices stationary.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
WORSHIP-STREET.

John Hickey, a process-server, employed at the Palace
Court, Westminster, was charged before Mr. Broughton
with hawing committed a violent assault upon Miss
Jane Perry, the daughter of a respectable tradesman re-
siding in Brunswick-street, Hackney-road, under the
following aggravated circumstances:—
The complainant stated that between nine and ten
o'clock on the preceding night the prisoner knocked at
her father's door, and on its being opened by witness he
stated that he was an officer of the Palace Court, and
had a writ to serve upon John Perry, whom he wished
to see immediately for that purpose. She requested the
prisoner to call next morning, as her father had retired
to rest, at the same time intimating her belief that he
was mistaken in the person, as her father's name was
William and not John; but the prisoner insisted that he
was right, and after using very gross and insulting
language towards her, he seized her by the
shoulder and forced her back to the end of
the passage, where he struck her a violent
blow on the face. On hearing the disturbance, her father
instantly hastened down stairs in his night clothes, and,
on asking the prisoner what he wanted, the latter said
that he had a writ to serve upon him, and that he knew
him to be a common thief and swindler. Although re-
peatedly urged to produce the writ, the prisoner re-
fused to do so, and he was ordered to leave the house,
which he at length did, but, on getting outside, he re-
newed his violent language, and collected a large crowd,
whom he addressed in a loud tone of voice, and, point-
ing to the house, explained that it was inhabited by a
nest of swindlers. The prisoner persevered in his out..
rageous conduct until the arrival of a policeman, when
he was given into custody.
The father of the last witness corroborated the
greater part of her evidence, and said he was wholly
at a loss to account for the extraordinary behaviour of
the prisoner, as he did not owe a single farthing to any
one, and had resided for 30 years in the neighbourhood.
His daughter-in-law was lying dangerously ill at the
time, and her complaint was so greatly aggravated by
the prisoner's violence that he did not expect to find her
alive when he returned home from the Court.
In answer to the charge, the prisoner said that he had
been instructed to make some inquiries preparatory
to issuing a writ against a person named John Perry,
whom he supposed to be the complainant, but on dis-
covering his error he immediately withdrew, and posi-
tively denied having committed any assault on the oc-
casion.
Mr. BROUGHTON ordered him to pay a fine of 505., or
to be imprisoned for two months in the House of Cor-
rection.