The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-26 00:00:00

GRIEVANCES BEI, ORE SUPPLIES
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
Sin,—We really were anxious to see in your popular
columns the petition which Mr. Perry left at your office
some days ago, which, if you have read it, you will have
seen was discussed and unanimously agreed to at a
public meeting held at the King's Arms, Philip-lane,
City, on the 14th inst.
That petition advocates the principle of the right
which the people have to call upon their representatives
to take into their consideration the grievances which
most seriously affect them before they proceed to vote
the usual supplies, and the chief of which grievances are
specified.
The petition, with the full approval of Mr. S. Craw-
ford, had the somewhat anomalous heading of "To the
Honourable the Commons of Great Britain and Ireland,
who represent the 950,000 British subjects who possess
the right to exercise the Electoral Franchise;" and you
know its fate. By a singular fatality, however, all the
morning. papers of this day have stated that it was from
Rochdale; and we are desirous, not only that you should
give it insertion in a paper which so faithfully advocates
the cause of the many, but that you should correct the
above-mentioned misnomer.
Mr. Crawford will not fail to call the attention of the
House to the contents of the document in question.
We are, Sir. your most obedient servants,
G. W. PERRY,
A. MORTON.
Hart's Hotel, Aldersgate-street, City, Feb. 23.
P.S. Since writing the foregoing, we have seen your
paper of this evening, and regret to see that you have
fallen into the same mistake that the morning papers
have committed. Be assured that those who drew up
the petition feel that they have no reason to shrink from
seeing the utmost publicity given to the petition in ques-
tion. Nay, they are desirous to lay it before the whole
of their fellow-subjects.
[We have not seen the petition referred to. Probably
it has been mislaid, and our Correspondents will there-
fore oblige us by sending another copy.]

THE FACTORIES BILL.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

LITERATURE.
HAYNES BAYLY'S POEMS. 2 Vols.
Bentley, London, 1844.
In these volumes we have a reprint of the whole of
Mr. Bayly's poetical works, accompanied with a
biographical sketch of the author from the pen of his
widow, from which it appears that he was born in
the year 1797, so that at the period of his death, in
1839, he could only have completed his forty-second
year. From the account here given of him we should
judge him to have been a man of the most friendly
and companionable qualities ; and indeed his poems
show this, for they abound in tender, amiable senti-
ments, expressed in chaste, simple, and perspicuous
language. As they were chiefly intended for the
drawing-room, it was not necessary that they should
be conspicuous by manly nerve and vigour, and ac-
cordingly we find written no bold, striking thoughts
or images, but instead—in the; more serious songs
and ballads at least—a vein of gentle, pleasing melan-
lancholy. As a lyrical writer, Mr. Bayly is sur-
passed only by Moore, in ease and grace and melody
of versification. Not a few of his earlier ballads—
especially his " Oh no, we never mention her," and
"Friends depart, and memory takes them," are still
popular, and are long likely to retain their popula-
rity, if only for the beauty of the music to which
the words are set.

observe the Factories Bill brought in by Sir
James Graham and Mr. Manners Sutton was issued on
Friday, the 9th inst. It states that the law for regu-
lating the employment of children and young persons
in factories needs amendment. Then follows an inter-
pretation clause. No child under eight years of age to
be employed in factories. How humane ! Nor any
young person to be employed under sixteen years. From
this it would appear a boy or girl is reckoned a child
until they reach sixteen. Children not to work more
than six hours and a half daily. How beautifully this clause
would work for a journeyman cotton-spinner (and his
employers), who employ from six to eight hands, the
one half of which are generally under 16 years of age.
It shows how absurd it is to attempt to legislate on a
subject not properly understood.
Young persons and women not to be employed more
than twelve hours a day, nor to work after half-past
seven o'clock in the evening, and to cease work on
Saturdays at half-past four o'clock. This has long been
the general practice. One hour and a half to be allowed
for meals. Now this is decidedly too little, and no
good reason can be shown why people employed
in factories should not be allowed two hours for
meals, as well as masons, carpenters, smiths, and
in fact all artisans, and even day labourers. Now,
it often happens that public, works are so situated
that dwelling-houses cannot be obtained near to the
work, which often compelst he work-people to walk half
a mile, and others a mile, to breakfast and dinner ; or
to be at the trouble and expense of having their food
carried to them. How painful it is to see hundreds of
men, women, and children coming out of factories at the
breakfast hour, and running as if they were on a life
and death message !—not having as much time allowed
them by their employers as to say may God bless me and
my food. These great exertions must be very hurtful to
many of them. Now this bad system must have ori-
ginated with some very selfish master, and others have
followed the bad example, to protect themselves against
those selfish men from underselling them.
In place of the proposed alterations in the Factories
Bill, had Sir James introduced a ten hours' Bill, and
prohibited all boys and girls from being employed in
factories under•ll or 12 years of age, he would have
conferred a very great blessing on both old and young
so employed ; the general voice of the country would
have been with him. A few interested, selfish indivi-
duals might and would have disapproved of the measure;
but what of that ? The boys and girls at 11 or 12
years of age would have been able to work the ten hours
without injury, their employment being generally
light. By this plan, all complex rules and regulations
would have been avoided, which would have
prevented a world of trouble, vexation, and
expense. Were half a dszen of boys and girls at eight
or nine years of age brought before the House of Com-
mons, and the Members asked, will you make a law
authorising such mere children to be wrought m fac-
tories ? I should think the unanimous answer would be,
certainly not ; would you have us to disgrace our-
selves? The truth is, it is only the children of worth-
less and dissipated parents that find their way into fac-
tories at eight or nine years of age. Honest and in-
dustrious parents would not allow such young children
to go into a factory.
The laws of the land should be made to protect such
young children, instead of putting it into the power of
worthless parents to subject their offspring to worse
than slavery. It is to be hoped a British Parliament
will not allow such a foul blot ever to stain their records,

I beg pardon for troubling you with this letter ; I in-
tended it for Sir James Graham, as you will see by the
alterations, but have changed my mind. If you think
proper to give it a place in your excellent paper you
will oblige a constant reader of The Sun ; should you
decline doing so, there will be no harm done.—l remain,
Sir, your most obedient servant, A. C. R.
Glasgow, Feb. 22.

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 26, 1844.

GREAT ANTI-CORN-LAW MEET-
ING AT GLOUCESTER.
TRIUMPHANT RECEPTION OF MR. COBDEN, M.P.,
AND A DEPUTATION OF THE LEAGUE.
GLOUCESTER, SATURDAY AFTERNOON, FEB. 24.—One of
the greatest and most important county meetings was held
to-day, at noon, at the Shiro Hall, in the city of Gloucester,
for the purpose of receiving Mr. Cobden and a deputation of
the Anti-Corn-law 'League, in order to hear the sentiments
of those gentlemen relative to the queson of removing all
restrictions as to a free trade in corn. The meeting was one
of the most imposing and enthusiastic demonstrations in
favour of free trade ever witnessed in this county. The Shire
Hall was literally crammed to
.suffocation, upwards of 4,000
persons being present, and huddreds went away, who were
unable to gain admission.
About a month ago a requisition, most numerously and
influentially signed, was presented to the High Sheriff, re-
questing him to convene a county meeting, on the subject of
the corn-laws, which that gentleman refused to comply with,
alleging that the requisitionists " did not represent the
feelings of the freeholders of the county." This requisition
received the signatures of no less than upwards of one hun-
dred and fifty great landholders of the county, embracing
among that number two Peers of Parliament, six of the
Members of Parliament connected with the county, and about
twenty magistrates, as well as several of the niost eminent
practical agriculturists of the vale of Gloucester. On the
refusal, the requisitionists, with the Earls Dude and Radnor
at their head, determined to call a county meeting on their
own responsibility, in order to afford the tenant and practical
farmers of the vale of Gloucester an opportunity of hearing
the arguments of the League.
The leaders of the " Anti-League" exerted all their influ-
ence among the farmers of the Cotswold hills to induce them
to refrain from attending the meeting, and not to listen to
the " balderdash" of the " Lancashire strangers." A re-
commendation was also given to the farmers that they should
commence a system of " exclusive dealing." It was really
a most gratifying sight to witness that the farmers, not-
withstanding all the persuasions and entreaties of the mo-
nopolists, determined to be present at the meeting, and
attended in considerable numbers. "At any rate," said one
of those sturdy yeomen to a brother agriculturist, "at any
rate, it would do no harm to hear what the great Parliament
men had to say on free trade in corn."
Shortly after eleven o'clock the deputation from the
League took their station on the platform. Mr. Cobden
was received with a burst of tumultuous applause.
On the platform we noticed Earl Ducie, C. E. Handford,
Esq., the late High Sheriff of the County, E. Holland, Esq.,
late High Sheriff of Worcestershire, C. Staunton, Esq.,
brother to the Member for Stroud, Mr. Codden, M.P., Col.
Thompson, and Mr. Moore, the deputation from the League ;
and the following Magistrates of the county :—J. Whitwicke,
E. Kendal, L. Clutterbuck, J. Raymond Barker, L. S. Austin,
and Anthony Fewster, Esqrs., besides several other gentle-
men whose names we could not ascertain.
On the motion of C. ROWLEY, Esq., seconded by C. E.
HANDFORD, Esq., the Right Hon. the Earl of Ducie was
called to the chair, amidst bursts of acclamation and re-
peated demonstrations of respect.
His LORDSHIP said he deeply regretted that accidental
circumstances alone had deprived them of the pleasure of
the presence of his Noble Mend, Earl Radnor, who was
heart and soul in the cause.—(Loud and continued cheering.)
It was only at the eleventh hour that his Noble Friend was
deprived from giving his support and countenance to this
important meeting—(Cheers)—on account of illness. He
had received letters of apology from the two Members for
the city of Gloucester, who, however, fully concurred in the
object of the meeting, as well as several other Members of
Parliament, who were detained in London expecting the di-
vision on Lord John Russell's motion.—(Great applause.)
Several other friends of the cause and champions of free-
trade were also unavoidably absent; but, while regretting,
he had only to look around him, and from the vast as-
sembly by which he was surrounded, which represented on
this occasion the wealth and intelligence of the county, he
was fully satisfied that himself and brother magistrates were
perfectly justified in calling this meeting, notwithstanding
the refusal of the High Sheriff to comply with the requisi-
tion.—(Loud and protracted cheers.) Had he not occupied
the chair, he would have embraced the opportunity of de-
fending his conduct in giving his most cordial and hearty
support to the Anti-Corn-law League.—(Loud cheers.) In-
sinuations had been cast upon him, and some very unfair
statements had gone abroad relative to his conduct.—(hear,
hear; shame, shame.) He should, perhaps, better consult
the unanimity of the meeting if he refrained from making
any remarks on the subject till the close of their proceedings.
—(Loud cheers.) He was surrounded by a great number of
influential landholders and tenant-farmers, who had been
taught to consider the League as the enemies of themselves
and of their interests ; but he trusted that before they left
this meeting, the arguments, good temper, and gentle-
manly feeling of his most excellent friend Mr. Cobden—
(Loud cheers)—would convince them that these opinions
were founded in error, and based on ignorance ; and that the
object of the League was, not to injure the agricultural in-
terests, but to benefit every class of the community, from the
peer to the peasant.—( Great cheering.) lie was one of the
largest landholders of this county; yet ho had been publicly
accused of being inimical to the best interests of agriculture.
He could only say for himself, that he believed few men took
greater interest in promoting the prosperity of agriculture
than himself. He was one of those who wished to see it
flourish, and " God speed the plough" was his motto.—
(Tremendous cheering.) Upwards of three-and-twenty
years had he been engaged in agricultural pursuits, and his
entire energies had been devoted to its improvement.—
(Cheers.) His reason for becoming the advocate of free
trade was that he verily believed, from his heart an soul,
while the manufacturing and every other interest would
benefit by it, the interest and prosperity of the practical
Working agriculturist would experience the benefit of free
trade in a ten-fold degree.—(Loud, long, and continued
cheering.) His Lordship said, having expressed these sen-
timents to the tenant-farmers, lie would now call upon Mr.
Cobden.—(Cheers.)
Mr. COBDEN, M.P., was greeted with the most enthusiatic
cheering from all parts of this vast auditory. The applause
having subsided, the Hon. Gentleman said—lt always
afforded him the sincerest gratification to deliver his opinions
relative to free trade among practical farmers.—(Hear, hear.)
He rejoiced in doing so in the presence of such men whom he
saw around him ; and he was happy that he had now an op-
portunity, for the first time, of addressing the highly respect-
able and intelligent farmers of the vale of Gloucester.—
(Cheers.) He (the Hon. Member) would caution them, at
the outset of his speech, not to take fright, or feel the least
alarm at the name of the Anti-Corn-law League—(Hear, and
latighter)the terrible League—(Continued laughter)—
against whom they had been cautioned in such horrifying
terms, by those who took upon themselves the high sounding
appellation and title of the farmers' friends.—(Cheers.) He
could assure the farmers of the Cotswold hills and vale of
Gloucester, that the League had no cannibal propensities
about them ; they would neither devour the tenant-farmers
nor their cattle ; nor would they destroy the interests of their
calling.—(Cheers and laughter.) He trusted he should be
able to prove to them that by reason of the corn-laws the
tenant-farmers were placed in an infinitely worse situation
than they would be were the restrictions removed, and they
had a free trade in corn. Now, he would ask them what was
the meaning of the corn-law ? It was this :it was a law to
make corn sell at a higher price than it would without a corn-
law ; this was admitted on all hands, and not denied by the
monopolists. Well, then came the next question for the te-
nant-farmers. Does the price of land rise or fall with the
price of corn ? He would ask, would land let at the same
price when corn was 20s. a quarter, as when it was 80s. ?
(Cries of " No, no.") NVell then, if it would not, the object
in keeping up the price of corn must be doubtless to keep
up the price of land, or, in plainer terms, to keep up the
rents of the landlords.—(Cheers.) Admitting his propo-
Wiwi to be correct, supposing corn was raised to 100 s. a
quarter, the farmers could not possibly, by the remotest
chance, be one bit better off.—(Loud cheers.) Why, the
farmers of Gloucester were not so dull of intellect but they
must see this. It was no abstruse doctrine ; the whole
question lay in a nutshell ; -the farmers not only got nothing
by the corn-laws, but, on the contrary, were, in point of
fact, losers by this protection, unjustly so called. He was
addressing practical men, and, therefore, he would illus-
trate his meaning. In 1815, the Legislature passed a
law, after a determined opposition, for the purpose of
maintaining wheat at 80s. per quarter, and from the
year 1815, down to 1822, the rent of the tenant far-
mers was increased, while corn in reality was only 425.
per quarter.—(Cries of " Shame" from different parts of
the room.) Well, once more the law was altered, and the
sliding scale introduced in order to keep the price of
corn at 635. or 645., and yet, ' with land
valued at the same price as 1835, the corn
averages for the year gave a price of 395. 4d., while in the
month of December of that year the farmer was selling his
wheat at 365., or just 28s. under Act of Parliament price.
This was the injustice to the tenant farmer : he rented his
land at Act of Parliament prices and sold his corn at market
prices, and so when he went to pay his rent he found he had
been compelled to sell his corn at 10s. or 12s. under the price
which the landlord gave for his land. This was injustice to
the tenant; lie (Mr. Cobden) would now conic to the injus-
tice to the labourer.—(Cheers.) It was an awful fact that-in
the agricultural districts the labouring population were earn-
ing less, and were considerably worse off than in any other
part of the country. Why, the manufacturers had been
accused of growing rich by grinding down the labourers;
now he (Mr. Cobden) paid in the establishment to which he
belonged somewhere about 20,0001. a year in wages ; he em-
ployed 600 hands; thoSe who were skilful in their business
earned from 20s, to 355. per week, and sometimes extra ; and
even common labourers, employed at work which:a bricklayer's
labourer, or a man fresh from the tail of a plough, could
perform as well as anyone else, even these earned from 12s.

----
to 14s. per week. The Honourable Gentleman pledged his
word he had not an able-bodied man on his premises earn-
ing less than that sum.—(Cheers.) He did not speak of
wages as a matter of boasting—wages were no charity—
masters only gave what was the market price of labour,
and he (Mr. Cobden) did not give higher wages than his
neighbours ; but those were the general wages of the manu-
facture in which he was employed. Let the farmers con-
trast those wages with what they were giving to their own
labourers. He did not blame the farmers for giving so little
—(Hear, hear)—it was no fault of theirs—(Cries of " No,
no")—they gave what they could afford, and what the state
of competition in the labour market justified—(Hear, hear,
and cries of " That's it.") Still he understood the wages in
the agricultural districts of Gloucestershire were miserably
low. A statement had just been put into his hand by a
gentleman, a member of the Board of Guardians of a neigh-
bouring union, wherein was a statement of a man and
his wife and four young children earning Bs. per week. This
man applied for relief, but his application was refused, thus
proving that his case was only the common state of his
neighbours. Another man was mentioned, who had also a
wife and four young children ; his wages were 7s. per week,
and he was receiving relief; and although he would not
mention names, he might state that this man was working
for a gentleman who made himself very conspicuous at the
Anti-League meetings, and talked very loudly of protection
to the agricultural labourer.—(Cheers, and cries of "Shame,"
and " Name him.") Now in the very union of which he had
been speaking the cost of maintenance in the union work-
house was 2s. 4d. per head per week, and yet here were
labourers only receiving half that amount, or ls. 2d. per head
to maintain their families. Was that a case to go to Parlia-
ment for protection ? Was that a state of things to be main-
tained by Act of. Parliament.—(Great cheering.) Away
with such cant ; away with the idle and crocodile tears
which pretended to flow for the interests of the labourer,
while he was receiving just half the wages which it cost to
maintain the pauper in the workhouse and the criminal in
the gaol.—(Bursts of cheering.) In conclusion, he would
caution the farmers to examine the matter for themselves—
(Hear)—to endeavour to act for themselves, and to keep
themselves clear of political landlords—(Hear, hear)—and
above all things, to eschew the miscalled protection of Acts
of Parliament. It was said at the sea ports, when a vessel
was seized by the custom-house authorities, she was marked
by a broad arrow ; and this was called, in the cant of the
ports, the devil's claw. The intermeddling of the State with
agriculture was the devil's claw, and this had been on the
shoulders of the farmers for the last twenty-eight years ;
and they might depend upon it they would never prosper
until it was removed from them.—(Loud cheers.)
The Hon. Gentleman's address, of which the above is
scarcely an outline, occupied nearly two hours in delivering,
and was cheered in the most enthusiastic manner through-
out. On his resuming his seat the entire meeting rose, and
greeted him with three times three hearty cheers. .

EWDARD HOLLAND, Esq., of Dumbleton, rose to propose
the first resolution, which was to the effect that protective
duties were not only injurious to commerce, but to the in-
terests of agriculture also, and that free trade would promote
the interest and prosperity of the whole community. Mr.
Holland stated that he was a landowner and a land culti-
vator ; the whole of his income and the support of his fa-
mily was derived from the soil, and therefore if free trade
would, as alleged, ruin the cultivator, destroy the rent of the
landlord, and throw land out of cultivation, lie, of all men,
ought to oppose it—(Cheers)—but, so far from that, he cor-
dially agreed with the resolution, and cordially united heart
and soul with the objects of the League. He had been a
practical farmer for many years, and his opinions in favour
of free trade were based on his own experience and observa-
tion ; lie had looked attentively to the proceedings of the
Anti-League societies, but had found no single argument
brought forward which at all shook his previously formed
opinions. The corn-laws, while they wore framed ostensibly
for the benefit of one class, did no real good to that class, at
the same time that they were an injustice to the other classes
of the community.—(Loud cheers.) He cordially proposed
the resolution.
Mr. JOSIAH HUNT, of Almondsbury, a practical tenant
farmer of great experience, seconded the resolution.—(Loud
cheers.) He had long been opposed to the Corn-laws. He
was convinced they were no benefit to the tenants, and were
only designed to raise rents and to keep the tenantry sub-
servient to the political domination of the landlord.—(Cheers.)
If he needed anything to fortify his opinion on the corn-
laws, it was the fact of the best practical agriculturists in the
kingdom entertaining the same views. There was the Noble
Earl Ducie—(Loud cheering)—one of the first practical men
of the day—his name had always been held up as the best
landlord in the county.—(Cheers.) His Lordship's tenantry
were the most thriving tenantry in the county—(Cheers)—
and yet he was heart and soul a repealer. Then there was Earl i
Spencer—(protracted cheering)—a man whose opinion on
agricultural matters was quoted far and wide—he was a
repealer; and lie had himself heard the pro-corn-law Mem-
ber for the western division of the county say that he could
not get over the fact of Earl Spencer being in favour of re-
peal.—(Cheers.) He (Mr. Hunt) believed that with free
trade the cultivation of the land would be improved—the
produce of the land would be increased—the independence
of the tenant secured, and his prosperity greatly aug-
mented.—(Cheers.) He could fully bear out what Mr. Cobden
had said about the agricultural labourers—their wages
were miserably low, and yet the farmers could not pay more.
In his own parish hundreds of families lived on 7s. per week
—their fare was worse than that of the pauper—whole fami-
lies of grown up children slept in one room, to the total
disregard of the decencies of life, and to the total de-

struciion of feelings of propriety and morality.—(Cheers.)
It had been said the land had to bear peculiar burdens, but it
should also be said the farmers had peculiar exemptions—
(Clieers)—and if the fanners' windows were untaxed, and
his riding horse and his dogs free of duty, it was not to benefit
him, but that he might be able to pay higher rent to his
landlord.—(Hear and cheers.) Ho cordially seconded the
resolution, believing that a repeal of the corn-laws would
improve the prospects of the tenant-farmer, and promote the
physical, moral, and social condition of the labourer.
On the resolution being put, two persons made their way
to the platform and moved a counter-resolution. The design
was evidently to obstruct the business of the day, but the
resolution was put and carried by an overwhelming majority,
only about a dozen hands being held up against it. Ihe re-
sult was received with loud cheering.
C. E. ILtxponn, Esq., moved a vote of thanks to the de-
putation who attended from the League. lie fully concurred
in the object of the meeting and the principles of free trade.
—(Cheers.) As an instance of the increased value of land
under the corn-laws, he could state what occurred within his
own experience ; an estate in the county of Gloucester was
purchased about a hundred years ago for a certain price, it
was not situate near a town, and had no other adventitious
advantage, and yet that estate had been sold lately for a sum
ten times as large as the purchase-money a hundred years
ago.—(Cheers.)
C. STANTON, Esq., of Stroud, seconded the motion. He
contended that free trade benefited the manufacturing inter-
est, and that it would also benefit the agricultural interest.
The motion was put and carried, with only two dissen-
tients.

The Noble CHAIRMAN having presented the vote of thanks
in due form to the deputation,
Col. THOMPSON and Mr. MoonE briefly returned thanks.
Earl Ducie having left the chair, and the same having been
taken by L. Clutterbuck, Esq., a vote of thanks was proposed
to the Noble Lord, and carried by acclamation.
Earl DIXIE, in returning thanks, said he must take that
opportunity of refuting an insinuation which had been cast
upon his motives by a gentleman signing himself " A Vale
Farmer ;" that insinuation was, that he (Earl Ducie) had
property in the neighbourhood of Manchester, and that he
supported repeal to enhance the value of his own property.
He need scarcely give that charge his flat contradiction.—
(Tumultous applause.) The bulk of his property was in an
agricultural district, and he should scarcely go to injure that
in order to improve any small interest he might have in
Manchester or elsewhere. He advocated free free trade be-
cause lie believed it would benefit agriculture and improve
the condition of the people generally, and because he felt
with Lord Grenville, that everything was injurious to the
country which impeded the free current of natural industry.
—(Loud cheers.)

In the course of the Noble Lord's speech he made an allu-
sion to " the packed jury which condemned O'Connell."
The effect of this observation on the meeting was electrical.
The whole company rose, and, amid waving of hats and
handkerchiefs, gave several distinct rounds of applause,
which interrupted the proceedings for several minutes. An
allusion to the Irish being treated as brethren, in the earlier
part of the evening, also gave rise to a similar demonstration.
The proceedings closed about five o'clock, having occupied
nearly six hours, and was one of the fullest meetings ever
remembered in the county of Gloucester. The Earl Ducie,
Mr. Cobden, and the deputation, were loudly cheered on their
way from the hall, mingled with a few hisses.
The agriculturists, who attempted to interrupt the har-
mony of the meeting, experienced the most signal and in-
glorious defeat.