The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-04 00:00:00

`promote the iO'cial.eharcter and happinesS of the people ? He
would admit thiit it might be a good thing to limit the hours of
factory labour. But there were other trades, such as fustian-
cutting and pin-heading. If he was not to restrict them,
then it was perfectly open to him to consider whether the ad-
vantage gained by interference in particular instances, would
countervail the disadvantage of giving a premium and en-
couragement to employments that were still more unhealthy.
Let him in that case suppose they interfered with those em-
ployed to render their condition better, would they be adding
to their comforts?—(Hear, hear.) His object and desire to
promote their happiness would be countervailed by his inter-
terence, and therefore he was bound to consider whether a de-
parture from the general rule was one which wisdom and expe-
rience sanctioned ; and if it was proved to him that an excep-
tion to the rule would increase the moral comforts of the peo-
ple, he thought such exception would be justified ; but they
must show him it would have this effect.—( Hear, hear.) Then
with regard to the Ten Hours' Bill, he admitted that if he took
a narrow and limited view of it, it would in certain times and
in certain localities, have a good effect ; but would they com-
pel other nations to follow their example, and if they did not,
what would be the consequence?—(Hear, hear.) Why, was
it possible to suppose that persons whose labour was restricted
would receive the wages of more lengthened employment?—
( Hear, hear.) Was it not common sense, that if they re-
duced the time from ten to twelve hours, the wages would be
reduced in proportion ? Suppose that by this measure they
stimulated the manufactures of other nations—of France and
the United States; suppose they raised up great manufacturing
establishments in those countries and by that means diminished
the power of employing labour at home ; suppose such a mea-
sure could take away that which constituted the independence,
the moral character of the labourers (Hear, hear.)--
namely, the desire to earn a subsistence by hon-est and inde-
pendent labour ; suppose it drove them to the workhouse—
( Hear, hear)—suppose the means of employment failed, by
being admitted into a third market, in consequence of others
working longer, with a greater command of the raw material
—(Hear, hear)—suppose they diminished the means of
employment and lessened the power of the individual to earn
his subsistence by honest industry—did he then promote the
moral character or social comforts of the people ?—( Loud
cheers.) He had no doubt about their intentions.—(Hear,
hear.) He admitted the general principle, that their object
ought not to be to increase wealth, but to improve the moral
character of the people ; but if he was able to show that, by
their unwise legislation—by supplying the place of parental
authority—(Cheers)—by forcing morality on the people by
law—(Loud cheers)—he only showed they were running the
hazard of defeating their own objects, and of diminishing the
physical comforts and lowering the moral character of the people.
The Noble Lord opposite said the time was come for inter-
ference.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lcrd seemed to him to be
more desirous of making a justification of his vote in favour
of the ten hours' clause than of establishing the principle of
interference as 'one which ought to govern the legislation of
the country.—( Hear, hear.) He agreed with the Noble Lord
in the opinion that it would be desirable to increase the volun-
tary amusements of the people, but when the Noble Lord said
that the Government ought to interfere in all trades, it would
be better if, instead of dealing in generalities—(Hear, hear)
—and coming down full of them, after reading Adam Smith—
(Cheers and laughter)—he told them in what particular mode
this was to be effected.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord HOWICK—I would increase the sphere of employ-
ment.—(Cheers. )
Sir R. PEEL—But the Noble Lord said more. He said
he rejoiced in the limitation of the hours of labour in factories,
because he said it must then be: extended further. He said
that the masters ought not to be allowed to make money out
of the industry of the people, and he would therefore compel
them to work their labourers less. The Noble Lord would
introduce this into every employment—( Hear, hear)—to pro-
mote, as he said, the morals of the people. The principles which
the Noble Lord held would lead to a compulsory attendance at
Church.--(Loud cheers.) The doctrine of the Noble Lord
would lead to an inquisition in every employment throughout
the country.--( Hear, hear, and cheers.) The principle that
shey were not to content themselves with the accumulation of

wealth, but were to watch over the morals of the people would
justify any former proposition of former times—there was no
la.v which would net be justified by such a principle.—(" Hear,
[ hear," from Lord Howick.) Hear ! hear !—(Cheers.) He
wanted to know how they were to carry out such a principle as
that proposed into every trade.—c Hear, hear, and cheers.)
That which constitutes the morality of the people was their
feeling of independence—(Hear, hear)—their sense of honour
—( Hear, hear)—their hatred of oppression.--( Hear, hear.)
This had grown up with 'perfect independence and freedom of
' action, and if they attempted to substitute legislative enactments
for that freedom of action, it would change the whole character
of the people.—( Hear, hear.) There vt as one point with regard
to which he thought they might interfere with parental autho-
rity—that was the case of education.—( Hear, hear.) He
thought they would be justified in interfering at least with
the instruction of children employed in factories.
He thought they were entitled to give the elements
of instruction to children employed in factories, and that be-
cause the labour there was excessive, and they had the means
of enforcing it in the case of those children. He doubted
whether it would be wise to interfere in other cases, but where
200 or 300 were brought together, and where they had an op-
portunity of giving them instruction, he thought they were
justified in interfering.—( Hear, hear.) With regard to women
he was quite aware that the law made a distinction in their
case. 1 here were circumstances with regard to the female
sex which rendered it desirable that their labour should:be re-
:LUC; so high was the principle of non-inter-
that it was said they ought not to inter-
ferefsetrreicn re-
stricted.
with
labour
But
in this case, where the parties determined for themselves
what should be the nature of their occupation. He con-
fessed
that a departure from the great principle of non-inter-
ference he acquiesced in with great doubt and hesitation.
They curtailed the hours of labour in cases of females to twelve
hours ; but this arose from the effect of the law, which they
passed, limiting the hours of labour of children. Men could
not work alone in cotton factories. They were anxious to
work, but it was impossible for them to do so long, as the em-
ployment of children was restricted ; they would work 15
hours a day, but could not do so, because the children were
prevented from working. The consequence was, that women
were employed as a sustitute for children; but that was in
consequence of the law which they had made on the subject.—
( Hear, hear. ) They imposed upon the master the necessity of
employing females, and they gave inducements to the females
to labour which they would not have if not for their enact •
merits. Now that was an argument against their interference
even with the labour of children.—( Hear, hear.) But he was
inclined to think the reports of the Factory Inspectors showed
that the evils of legislation had been less than usual in
these cases ; but he thought the mischief of interfe-
rence should be limited to these cases. Few mills
worked more than twelve hours, and all that his Right Hon.
Friend proposed was to prevent women from working more
than twelve hours. The master-manufacturers were not ad-
verse to that.—( Hear, hear.) The great body of them were in
favour of it. The factory inspectors were in favour of it. It
was an exception from what ought to be the general rule, and
the advantages of it in certain cases would be great ; but he
thought it was an exception, and almost the only one, and it
grew out
.of their former legislation. These were the reasons
which induced him to give the proposition his full and cordial
support. He regretted that the Noble Lord had anticipated the
discussion, which would more properly arise when the
proposition of the Noble Lord came before the House ;
but believing that the principle of the Noble Lord,
if carried out, would diminish the comforts of
the people and impair their moral character, and thinking
that it was due to the respect and integrity of the Noble
Lord, and to the just weight which generally attached to his
opinions, he was desirous of not delaying in giving, perhaps,
an impolitic, but at any rate a sincere reply to the arguments
which he brought forward.—( Cheers.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the Right Hon. Gentleman
who had just sat down reminded him of a speech made by Mr.
d Gsvehnitclhemwaany
ahgeasinhsotulidusvNotoeb. —le
Wyndham, who talked for some time on one side of a question
and then on the other, and at last turned round to a friend who
nttiliehill%ahntdHaoskne.
laughter and cheers.) . He thought that some of the arguments
usastedbebhyi
(Lord Howick) would be spared Übe kept before his mind the
vote which he was prepared •
to give.—( Hear, hear.) He
could not see how the Right Hon. Gentleman could k
vote.—(Much
u Friende h
sp•a as he
did in favour of non-interference with labour, and still vote for
a "new principle which interfered with labour, and even
arrult labour. If the Right Hon. Gentleman meant to vote
not only with the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath, but, if,
having succeeded by a majority, he gave notice of a motion to
repeal the Act of 1833, then he could
understand all the former
part of the speech. The arguments of the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman were very eloquent for the purpose of shaking the Act
of 1833, but he (Lord J. Russell) did not agree in the conclu-
sion of the Right Hon. Gentleman. But he did not see how
the Right Hon. Gentleman could reproach his Noble Friend,
because he thought it was time to interfere with labour, and
even parental care, when he himself interfered with the labour
and industry of the country. The Rig ht Hon. Gentleman
asked his Noble Friend whether he was in favour of a law
which would compel attendance at church. He (Lord John
Russell) thought he knew of an interference proposed, not by
his Noble Friend, but by the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite,
in the course of last year inteference which could not be
carried into effect without violatiug liberty of conscience, and
which would place the education of the whole of the factory
children under the Bishops and clergy of the Established
Church.—( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman said
if they interfered in this case, how could they carry their in-
terference imo those trades, with regard to which the
labour was more irksome and the confinement more unwhole-
somelban it was with regard to factory labour. In the first
place, he thought there was nothing to show that the Act of
1833 had been mischievous, he thought it was beneficial, and
till lately it was thought to be of advantage to the working_
classes and their children. He had seen two arguments against
the proposition of his Noble Friend (Lord Ashley). The first
was that they ought nut to interfere with labour at all. The
second was, that their interference had been so very useful that
everything they wished had been effected. With regard to
those employments to which the Bight Hon. Gentleman alluded,
the " fustian-cutters," and " pin-makers," and with which
'hey had not interfered by Acts of Parliament, the hours of
labour were more protracted ; while in those cases which they
had regulated by Act of Parliament, they found, con-
currently with sufficient wages, wholesome employment.
Why that was not an instance to quote as conclusive against
interference by Act of Parliament. That was not an instance to
show how injurious all interference was. But in the next place,
he said he limited interference in this case—as all legislation
was limited—by the principle that you might interfere where
more good than harm was effected by such interference.—
( Hear hear.) He thought that the Secretary of State had
taken that principle that night. The Right Hon. Gentleman
had said that they naturally interfered in factories—that they
were large establishments, where the inspectors could enter
and thake their investigations sithout any exercise of tyranny
—without any interference with the professional business•;
whereas there were some employments in which it was im-
possible to interfere without inconvenience and without great
tyranny, arid, in short, without much greater evil than hoed
being produced. What was their ptirigiplp of
Hr mina law
Tfley tranoportell
• orsne, of Sent him to prison, because
he had stolen a oaf. 'Why, there were persons who committed
acts of ingiatitUde, and who brought their benefactors to an
untimely grave by their persecutions and ill eond..4, and
lor
were far more A'n •
pock' 1112'11
rho stole'thp Vat - ye( the het proceed ffr iaw to nueist'i
trim as they did 'the 'other ; d l'R! ii,t,.cause it they
flttcfp;Pts..pl iniefiv.erice, and syo i,nreugh'ail the ft-ansae:.
floes 'of 'priVte they 1,4
• Gcl more
more real Cril'iiriality—theh interference would do more harm
than goOd ; because, in the other case they could easel
ha stole th -
ittaint 9;9. finger to the man IV , "
an overt act. Whereas, if they went 11,1? tln.. relations
61' pfivitelifil, tho4h would find more ot con
deer, yet their interference wold iiFslFly th:p !'t=ae el and bar:
tri`Oy,of o'4o Ilfe, 00 6e prerinictive of greater evil.—( Hear,
14. ) ' 'Orne principle they should apply in this case.
Whenever he thought he could see that he would do
Food then he would interfere t).t wnen her
diet out •oen tiat good wouldresuit fr(Ytu interference
then !, le` `could Stop.—( Hear, hear. ) The same rules
which were adopted with regard to criminal legis!ation, he
would apply to the present we• 7T.1 the 183:,, the first
questiow was, whether they would iiteeforo at all, Looking
back to that' period, he thatight lie }fad then said that Govern-
Merit were quite agreed .as to the appointment of a Commissic;n
to investigate the subject. That Coforuis4on reporte d certain
propositiorit, which, in the Bill Wirieli'.was then passed' oh the
subject, were' carried much farther. • Among other things,
they adviied the Government not to deterrad by, tie: saying
that the thin 7 i7as impraLticable anti 196pil)le,- bte-Fan4e it .wav
tlie'eustorn ti'Tel;Plt tiMse''WOr'4 to whatever was considered in-
convenient to mcfip parties, and "
"---
- -

to usual custom.

Now, what was the statement of that Commission with regard
to the employment of young children ?—what faults did they
observe ? First, the common, general deterioration of the
physical constitution, and the production of general
disease ; secondly, the exclusion from the means
of obtaining education, moral and religious, or the
means of enabling them to profit by elementary instruction, by
reason of the excessive fatigue they underwent in the factories
during the day. Those were two reasons which appeared to
him (Lord J. Russell) sufficient for interference. They were
not reasons founded upon an economical question of the pro-
duction of wealth—but one was founded on the physical evils
produced to the persons employed; the other upon the priva-
tion of the means of education and moral and religious in-
struction. He (Lord J. Russell) said both those questions—.
the physical deterioration of the people of this country, and
their moral and religious education—were questions in which
the State had an interest, and the State having seen that it
could interfere in that instance with advantage, a law had been
proposed on the subject by the then Government, and that law
had been carried—he forgot by what divisions—but at all evelits
by the general assent of Parliament. He believed that that
law had produced good and useful effects in its operation ;
and when tie saw such principles accompanied by such results
in experience and in practice he did refuse his consent to the
general principle of non-interference, to the principle that they
were never to intermeddle, and that they were only doing harm
by attempting to control the natural authority of parents over
their children, and the freedom of adults in the disposal of
their labour. He said that when a sound principle showed in
practice good results, he would rather proceed than be de.
terred from proceeding. With regard to the question of the in-
troduction of adult labour, he owned he did not think the
Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of Stale for the Home
Department had that night made a greater advance in showing
reasons for the introduction of that part of the Bill than he had
an a former occasion. He (Lord John Russell) bad already
said that he had certainly heard as much as made him believe
more strongly on that point, that the best course would have
been to have introduced a Bill which did not apply to the
labour of persons who were more than eighteen or twenty-one
years of age. He thought that twenty-one, as in the Bill of
1841, would have been the better limit, and with that
proposal there should be the proposal of the Noble
Lord the Member for Dursetshire, to limit the
time of labour, first to eleven hours, end next to
ten. That would have been a better principle than that of
immediate interference with adult labour. Let them recollect
there were two principles in the present Bill—one was inter-
ference with the control of a parent over his child ; the other
was interference with the :rule 'which gave to every adult per-
son the free power to choose his own occupation, to employ his
labour in the manner he chose. Now, he thought it would
have been better to have only interfered with one of those
principles, and to have left the other as beyond the scope of
legislation. As the evil they proposed to remedy was hardly
worth interference by legislation, seeing that the Right Hon.
Gentleman stated that that evil had been produced by the le-
gislation regarding children, that in the mills where they em-
ploy young people but twelve hours, they would not be worked
beyond that time, and that that evil might be remedied by this
Bill, he (Lord John Russell) owned that he thought the
House, having already assented to the principle, there
would be a far greater evil in now refusing its
assent to the proposition of the Noble Lord, than
in rejecting the proposal of the Hon. and Learned Member
for Bath ; therefore, he (Lord John Russell) agreed with
the Government to-night. At the same time, with regard to
the proposal of the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath, he
must say the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had not gone very
deeply into the argument. He had ranked all those who had
voted for the proposition of the Noble Lord the Member for
Dorsetshire in one class—those belonging to. the other side of
the House, who, he said, were much annoyed by the Hon.
Member for Stockport going into the agricultural districts,
and those on that side of the House who were much dis-
appointed at finding themselves in the cold regions of Opposi-
tion, and would gladly seize an opportunity to embarrass
Ministers.—( Hear, hear.) Why, the Hon. and Learned
Member had better not have interfered in that matter. If he
could give a good reason for showing that that vote was wrong,
or that adult labour should be free, let him use his arguments
to convince them of that; but that ho should set himself up as
containing the whole of the wisdom of the House, and as
supposing that there could be no purity of motive except in
his possession—( Hear, hear)—he (Lord John Russell) really
thought, without taking any pains to vindicate himself or
those who voted with him, that it was taking a station which
he believed the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was hardly
entitled to.—(Hear, and cheers.) They might have been
exceedingly mistaken in voting for the Noble Lord's proposition.
At the same time what he had heard since had net induced
him to think they were so far wrong; and particularly as it
was only a few nights ago that he had heard the Hon. Mem-
ber for Stockport declare that the time at present which was given
to labour in factories was unreasonable.---(Hear, hear.) Why,
surely if the time that was employed was unreasonable, there
was nothing so far wrong or irrational in his Noble Friend at-
tempting to alter that unreasonable time ? Then, it was
said, and he (Lord J. Russell) had heard manufacturers de-
clare the same thing, that it was their opinion that if the
corn-laws were totally repealed, the consequence would be
that labouring persons would declare they would not remain in
factories longer than for ten hours a day. Why, if that was
the case, those ten hours' labour would only produce" the
same quantity of manufactured articles which would be pro-
duced if the Noble Lord's proposal took place. And they
stated that increased demand for the articles, and consequent
enhancement of the price, would take place under that state
of things. Without going the whole length of that proposi-
tion, he (Lord J. Russell) took it, that a great altera-
tion of the corn-laws, by which a larger quantity
of food would be introduced into the country, would
promote the welfare of the manufacturing classes,
as well as the general prosperity of the country. That was his
opinion, but he owned he thought that if they were entirely to
take away the corn-laws, it was doubtful that those conse-
quences would follow, and that there would be an immediate
reduction to ten hours' labour. He much doubted whether
the anxiety of parents to send their children to obtain more
wages would not in many cases lead to a greater employment
than now took place. At all events, having those opinions,
he did not think that his Noble Friend was making a proposi-
tion extremely injurious to the country in proposing a Ten
Hours' Bill. He (Lord John Russell) had not meant to have
entered upon this subject at all. The question, as stated by
his Noble Friend, was rather an abstract question, and the
reply of the Right Hon. Gentleman was rather to the abstract
parts of that question. But at the same time it was extremely
difficult to enter upon that abstract discussion, without alluding
to those practical propositions which had been made to the
House. He should content himself, then, with declaring that
he could not vote with the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck),
and that he thought the best law that could be made upon
this subject would be one confining interference to persons
under twenty-one years of age working ten hours a day.
Mr. WARD thought he was perfectly right in giving notice
of his intention to divide on the 32d clause, which contempla-ed
the interference he so much dreaded.' He agreed with the
Noble Lord the Member for London, that when he interfered
he should like to see Isis way. He (Mr. Ward) would like
very much to see his way, but that was a thing he could not do
if he followed the Noble Lord, nor did he believe that the Noble
Lord himself clearly saw his way.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh. )
He (Mr. Ward) could not see any good result that would fol-
low from those new principles laid down by his Hon. Friend
near him. Although they might make out a case to a certain
extent for protecting children—and in granting that he
granted a great deal—yet he was not sure that
in the Act of 1833 it was all plain sailing. They
had ascertained, from the reports of the inspectors, that
the first operation of that Act was to drive 10,000 children
from good to worse employment—from the factories to the
coal mines—and many of the statements on which that mea-
sure was founded had been since ascertained to be exaggerated.
He could not but feel surprised that the Noble Lord, and those
who supported him, so loquacious out of the House, were so
silent in it, after the speech of the Hon. and Learned Member
for Bath.—( Hear, hear.) Some of the charges of the Noble
Lord had recently been proved to be utterly unfounded. He
held in his hand a paper containing the results of inquiries as
to no less than 412 of the principal factories in this country.
t,
worked there
in were
some only
factories. l, 000 ma r
Nowr
i married
m
The Noble Lord had stated that out of 61,000 females who
were e
inu
slfaico
and factories, s
out of 10,000 married females included in this statement,
there were 5,000 husbands who were employed in the same
women
nmployed whose
h
factories as their wives; 3,400 more were employed
in other branches of manufacture all connected with factories,
and all were contributing their share towards the support of their
families. Well, then, the Noble Lord talked of ill health arising
from constant standing, privation of pure air, and other causes ;
but it might be shown that this argument would apply equally
to other branches of industry. He spoke of accidents. Why
this paper proved that the accidents arising out of faotory
labour were beyond all comparison fewer than those which oc-
curred in any other employment.. He said that the married
women were preferred, not because the labour was more suited
to them, or because they would work for the least wages, but
because they were more attentive and docile than unmarried
females, and thus, he said, the virtues of the female were made the
means of her injury. The mistake was, that the Noble Lord
said they bad a choice. It was his peculiar error that the
matter depended on that House.—( Hear, hear.) In no branch
of industry was female labour excluded. In agricultural pur-
suits, and in every other branch of industry, women were com-
pelled to do something for the support of their families ; and
he declared it to be his conscientious belief, that the women and
young people employed in factories were infinitely better off, as
regarded wages, and morals, and comfort, than almost any
other class.--( Hear, hear,) A gentleman who had recently
visited the faetory of Mr. Ashton, expressed his astonishment
on leaving it, that the Noble Lord should wish to interfere with
such a system. He had never listened to a speech • h wit more
curiosity than he had felt on hearing that of the Noble Lord,
the Member for Sunderland. He had thought that if the
matter could be made intelligible, it would be made so by that
Noble Lord. But he seemed to him only to have made darker
that which was dark enough before.—(Hear, hear.) He c ould not possibly comprehend the grounds on which they were to
interfere with the present system. The working men had been
asked if they would chance it, The heads of families were
too prudent hg hoped to do that. No man
could enswer for the result of adopting the Noble
Lord's proposal. That education and religion had not
been properly attended to, and that efforts should be made to
secure a better system of drainage and police, they all admitted;
but the only question was, whether it was certain that they
would improve the condition of the working man by restricting
the hours of labour. It seemed to him that this was the most,
singular, cruel, and unwise experiment, which had ever sug-
gested itself to the minds of practical legislator's.—(Hear,
hear.) Even document; 94-i whieli the Noble Lord had relied
did not bear ont hie views. The Noble Lord had quoted, on
se' eral occasions, the evidence of Mr. Horner. The Him.
Member then quoted a reprint of Mr. Horner:, who said that he
had visited a great number of fec.teriee within the lest
four years, and ho considered it his duty t(! say that the
stetMentS of oppression and ill health 'were•
greatly exeggee
rated, The mass of persons employed in factories were well
clothed, well fed, and healthy, lie had voted with the
Noble Lord last year aneiaet the
employment of women in
mines, because i',ete wag it gu.eetion of morality; but because he
Ihcetins iteteeference in bite ease would be attended with in-
preeks results, he eheuld give it his decided opposition.
Lord ASHLEY said that an Han. Member had made so
direct a challepge to him that it was indispensably necessary
fer him to. take up the time of the House with some observa-
tions. He would not now travel into the pert of the question
which he had already discussed twins the 14th of test month.
He hoped that in the feet observations which he had to make, he
elmeld slut 4 provoked to. imitate the language which had
hceil tig4 towards him. He thought the question was too im-
pel-tent, tee mighty, to. be interrupted by poor and miserable
Beret:so:stifles. In referring to the authorities produced before. the
-Committee of the House of Commons iOC3F, he found it
stated, without contradiction; thet the eseployment of women
in the factories lees sleieitoented to health, and often destructive
of soorels, • IC Vie gale Lord then read extracts from the evi-
denee taken before the Committee, but in a. tone se re :id and
indistinct that it was impossible to foreeve elm.) fie had had
communications with t:„.. iienreeetiti*brth, and the reply of
the.. eeetleieass was sot bf a nature to satisfy him that his state-
rts;:fitai ivere-ereoneous. • Its a further correspondence ,pith Mr.
Ashworth, he stated that, upon ell inquiries, he had fot.nd
that his former eteteneenss were borne out. Upon the most
eareiui examinatien that
.he could give to all the statemeets,
Written and veibal; which had been made tee had
_
ar
rived at the conclusion thee his repreesitaKieVe n ti 4 lictl,4e
hid bete encle.stated'ent,ho 019' hve.;t4aced." t;;.
*bleb helm!' nlede -eeekiecting th.
loaf ftilly horror - '

_
employment of. Lenient women
out by all the evidence, and it
was clearly proved that the proportion of women
and young persons employed had been greatly in-

creased since the year 1839. Withrespect to the
difference of age of those employed in ti manufacturing and
those employed in the agricultural die' Leiets, it should be recol-
lected that only 8 per cent, of the '
nufacturing districts were aboe e
40
oorking people in the ma-
years of age, whilst of
Per cent. above it. To a
those employed in the angrier
u. tura districts there were .50
.0 sure, if the statements made b • the
Hon. Gentleman (Mr
Bright) were correct,
pains
tot inform
was not correct, ).'e+.. he had taken the greatest
himself on the s'-soject. His (Lord Ashley's) statements re-
ferred to
t_the 'spinning and manufacturing of cotton, and in sup
port wr.at he advanced he would refer to Inspector Horner's
reports He craved the indulgence of the House whilst he re-
butted certain charges that had gone forth, throwing aspersions
,of a very grave nature on his charaeter. He held in his hand
a letter, signed by Mr. Ashworth, on behalf of himself and 200
other manufacturers, that put forward statements which re-
flected upon his (Lord Ashley's) veracity, and which he felt
bound to answer. The letter of Mr. Ashworth stated that the
only witness- that Lord Ashley had quoted by name in
his speech on the recent debate, was thoroughly discre-
dited and was finally abandoned even by the Noble Lord
himself. Mr. Ashworth said he could not say how many of
" the facts," which the Noble Lord had stated were furnished
by Dodd. Why, he (Lord Ashley) had during his speech, in .
the most distinct manner disavowed and disclaimed having re-
ceived any of the information he stated to the House from
Dodd, and so far from having mentioned his name, he never did
so during the whole debate. Again so far from net quoting
any witness by name, but William Dodd, he had quoted 29 se-
parate and distinct witnesses, and mentioned their names ; as
also the evidence of 'several factory inspectors.—( Hear, hear. )
It was really unpardonable that a document should be pub-
lished in all the newspapers, containing such gross aspersions on
his veracity, and such unfounded mis-statements. —( Hear.)
This letter, signed by Mr. Ashworth, on behalf a those 200
mill-owners, further set forth, that he (Lord Ashley) had, in his
speech, quoted only those portion of M. Villermets pamphlet
which were for his own argument, and exempted those por-
tions of it which were against his position. •He (Lord Ashley)
had quoted that passage in the pamphlet which stated " that
the sacrifice of human life, Consequent upon factory labour, was
hardly more deplorable than the development of ecrofula,
which took place in the masses of our working people engaged
in manufactures." Mr. Ashworth writes, that " the Noble
Lord had not quoted that part of M.Villerrne's pamphlet which
referred to the establishing of a maximum of labour as unwise
and inexpedient." After much search, he (Lord Ashley) had
eertainly found such a passage. But he would read for the
House the sentences with which M. Villerme concluded his
pamphlet : "If there had been one argument necessary for
putting manufactures under the restriction of law, and deter-
mining the maximum of daily toil, surely it shauld be applied
in the case of children--those creatures who were sacrificed in
the laborious employments of factory labour. Twelve years ago
a measure on this subject had been propounded and „rejected,
but the principle of restriction had made great progress since
that time. In many foreign countries the restrictive principle had
been adopted and pursued. The negro had been emancipated,
and the public mind had taken up the question, and, sooner or
later, the result would be favourable to the cause of humanity,
but that result they should hasten by all possible means." Such
were the words of M. Villerme ; and yet he (Lord Ashley) had
been so grossly aspersed for quoting the opinions of this writer;
and the country were told by this Mr. Ashworth, and the 200
master-manufacturers, that no confidence could be , placed in
Lord Ashley's statements, who had so perverted M. Villerma's
meaning. He had been charged with gross exaggeration, and
with painting the evils of the factory system in too. strong
colours. Now he would read to the House a letter from Mr.
William Kenworthy, the member of an eminent commercial firm,
and he would remind the House that Mr. Kenworthy's
testimony, as regarded cotton-spinning, was the very
best that could be had, for Mr. Kenworthy - had been an
operative himself, and passed through all the various degrees
of factory labour until he became, the principal of a
great firm. He said that " the occupations of the factory
labourers cried loudly for relief and relaxation, and for a re-
stricted
term of labour. Let the British nation be degraded
no longer by tolerating such a system—a system exercising a
most baneful influence over the unhappy people employed in
it. Let them relieve those weakly and emaciated creatures,
and curtail the time of their remaining in an atmosphere in
which they breathed nothing but noxious gases, and detri-
mental, in a high degree, to human life. Thousands had their
miseries protracted under the delusive belief that danger
would come to their home manufactures from foreign com-
petition. He entreated all parties to go into the considera-
tion of this subject, and to snatch from the vortex of
disease, and immorality, and crime the manufacturing popula-
tion who were involved in it." Why, in the speech which he
(Lord Ashley) had made, he had said nothing so strong,
nothing so conclusive and striking, as those expressions of Mr.
Kenworthy. As he was thus put upon his defence he would,
in addition to the authorities he had already quoted, refer the
Hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Ward) to the language of
the Rev. Mr. Hearn, the Roman Catholic priest of Manchester.
It would hardly be supposed that that reverend gentleman had
any sympathy with him (Lord Ashley.) That reverend gen-
tleman, in a publication then in his (Lord Ashley's) hand, said,
" This was not the first time he had addressed the public on the
subject of factory labour. When he reflected on the respon-
sible situation he held in that town, and that a
whole mass of his people were engaged in that
labour, he felt he should be warring against justice and against
his own conscience if he did not stand forward to claim protec-
tion for the factory children and women." Now had he (Lord
Ashley) stated anything beyond that ?—(" Hear, hear," loud
cries of "Divide, divide, and confusion.) He was stating
facts —quoting facts—and he only did so on compulsion—he
only did so because the statements he had made had that night
been questioned.—( Hear, hear.) He would now go to Halifax,
where Mr. Robert Sutton, as he understood a most highly
respectable man, had publicly stated, " that the factory people
could not stand such excessive and protracted labour, which
incapacitated all of them for the proper duties of life, and more
especially the women for those domestic duties which nature
had specially awarded to them." Had he (Lord Ashley) stated
anything but this ?—( Hear, hear, and confusion.) He was
aware he was trespassing on the patience of the House, but
when he commenced his address he stated that he had not in-
tended to have alid one word upon the subject that night, but
as he had been called to account so sharply for his conduct and
his statements, he had felt called upon, in duty to the cause and
to himself, to reply to the charges which had been made.
—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear." Amidst great con-
fusion the Noble Lord then read several extraots
from speeches made by Mr. Samuel Smith, an eminent
surgeon of the north, at a meeting (as we thought) at Chorley,
and by Mr. John Moore, at a meeting at Bolton.) The latter
gentleman, who had been a medical practitioner in Bolton for
upwards of forty years, had declared publicly that the race was
rapidly degenerating, and that unless something were done the
most serious evils to society would take place.—(Great con-
fusion, and loud cries of " Divide.") Ile (Lord Ashley) had
never said more than this. As, however, the House was se
impatient, many as were the authorities he had it in his power
still to produce, he would not detain them. What he had
stated had been forced from him.—( Hear, hear.) He never
intended to have said a word that night, but for the attack
made upon him, and in addressing the House at all he lied
been forced into it in self-defence, to show that all be had
stated in his speech upon a former occasion had been borne out
by facts and statements that nothing could impugn.--(Hear,
hear, and loud cries of " Divide.")
Mr. C. WOOD rose with Mr. Bright, Mr. Ainsworth, and
others, amidst a complete shout of " Divide, divide," " Oh,
oh," and other discordant cries. The other Hon. Gentlemen
succumbed to the storm, but Mr. Wood persevered, and after
a struggle with the House, was permitted to address them,
though amidst continued interruptions. The Hon. Gentleman
was understood to say that no one in that House was more sa-
tisfied than he was that the Noble Lord who had just sat down
was incapable of wilfully making any misstatement io that
House, or anywhere else. The statements, too, which he had
made, and which, no doubt, he thought himself compelled to
make, had nothing to do with the question before the House.
—( Hear, hear.) The question of the Hon. and Learned Mem.
ber for Bath was simply this, whether they should or should not
interfere with the labour of young people. For his (Mr.
Wood's) part, he never in his life came to a conclusion more un-
lesitatingly than he did this night, that it was his duty to
vote with the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath; for he
knew nothing more unsafe or unwise than to interfbre with that
discretion which all persons had a right to exercise as regarded
their own labour.—( Hear and contusion.) In his opinion the
House ought not to interfere upon the subject at all ; Wei if it
would do so, then the next best thing he and others could do
was to persuade the House to interfere as little as possible.
He could not acquit the Government of departing from a
general rule and principle for the first time. They were now,
for the first time, about setting the example of violating an-
other principle, The Government admitted that they had
abandoned principles, and now there was nothing to guide
them but the caprice of Hon. Members, and where this was to
stop it was impossible to tell. The First Lord of the Trea-
sury, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department,
had stated that it was a necessary consequence of the Bill of
1838, which regulated the labour of children in factories. Ac-
cording to his (Mr. Wood's) opinion, that measure was
founded upon a different principle, namely,. peutecting those
who could not protect themselvee.-,-(nes of " Divide,
divide.") That measure was not to reetrict the laboter of
children alone, but factory labour altogether. If it was. 'Coe-object
of the Government te restrict the Lours of labour of all persons
in factories to ten, eleven, or twelve hours, let that be stated
--let there be no O:-Laing, but let the government bring in a
Bill on the subject.—(Cries of " Divide, divide.") He be-
lieved k was most injurious 41 the workman himself to in-
terfere with his labour, and he for one was unwilling to do by
legislation for any roan what he could do for himself. He
knew that a public meeting of his constituents, had been held
on this question, and that the opinion ef that meeting was in
favour of a Ten Hours' Bill. Algt that did not at all affect
what he had stated in that House, that up to the time of hold-
ing that meeting ate representation on the subject had reached
him. The ieference he drew from this was, that they did not
tale much interest in the matter. He did not believe that
the measure would improve either the morals, the religion, or
the education of the working classes, but any other measure
that would better their condition he should be ready to support,
Mr. P. AINSWORTH rose to complain of a matter some-
what personal to himself. At an early part of the evening, the
Hon. and Learned Member for Rath had accused him of in-
tolerance, and this charge he denied was well founded. With
respect to the Bill, he thouseeltt a limitation might be effected,
The legislative regulaa'saus that had been already introduced sit
the factories 4,1 done no harm to the masters, mad had effeeled
great good for the working classes; even, with resreCt to the
cleanliness and ventilation of the Isaias this had been the case ;
it had also done much for the education oi the children in thesee
districts, which heretofore had teen totally neglected.
thoughtlf
Government would
he
ropo-
proteed wisely and judiciously e
1\""" good might. Le done by legislation ; and when _
to
rt
sition f
e ore the House, be should be prepared
,iipp.o
Ur. plan which the House had already sanctioned, by rejecting
theplan
of ten hours and twelve hours,
both the proposal
of king eleven hours as the limit of labour.
Mr. ROEBUCK said he had never made any charge of
a particular nature agams • t the Hone Member, of intolerance.
While speaki
ng, he heard a running commentary behind him
and he made a general observation that those who had changed
very often themselves were often the most intolerant to change
in others.

Mr. iiELDEN and Mr, C,. BU.LLER rose together, but the
latter Hon. Gentleman having given way,
FIELDEN commenced by referring to a statement of
the HoAl. Member for Halifax (Mr. C. Wood) that the workers
of that place were not in favour of a Ten Ho) n. He'went
amongst the constituency of the Hon. Qeutleman to ascertain
that fact. He attended a meeting there, and, after reading the
the words of the Hou. Oeutleman, he put this question to
them—“ His Mr. Wood fairly represented you when he wade
thi.i r.taYement) "—cries of '. No, no.
__(l
Then
tie put this question
.to them—" Do .you wish a .Ten Hours'
Factory Bill to be passed INkkhout delay ? ".----cries of " Yes.
yes."—(Lond laugter.) He then put a third questkon ti
them—(l.taixgiiterj—" Are you willing to run tiie risk of
begwaes being reduced if• a Ten 49urs% •Pactory Bill
passed?"—loud cries of " Wa are, we are." He then
put a fourth question to fueel.--- A laugh.) " Do you autho-
rise me to, qtate this in the House of Commons P""—cries of
"- 14si yes:' He knew the Hon. Mewber had as kind a feeling
towards the people of HalifaT, as anybody, but be did not repre-
sent their feelings fairly on thin subject; I'4l tqu' 1'"7:,, io Ha-
lifais—(. Laughtei).— to the cW leritu's f""..._(/.,
~..„ ou
—be was eonvii*;i 11,4 kg.... 1.3 .
mixAciOd a, ' ....,, c
properly
that they had not s
''''.-- - _.- k Dir. Fielden) was, .
t He had no such fear
_ ~..esented their feelings on this subject.
di, a:rned Member for Bath!
''
s ' -."." come from the meeting as well
d laughter)
as those entertained by the Honn.tahils
'subject. The Hot are
with regard to legislation o
labourers
had
t if
power to protect themselves, and had _ _
their 0 .
would accomplish
Learned Gentleman, said that thefatcht.orreywn
they held out for a short time theyout hints . a b

ject. Did they wish, then, to have a turn-out in Yorkshire ?--e
' (Hear, hear.) .Was it wise to encourage such a thing ?----
(Hear, hear,) He believed they would not succeed. They
were helpless, and that was the reason they ought to interfere.
He had always thought the business of the-Legislature was to
protect the weak against the strong.—( Hear, hear.) That
sa as
never the principle of protection he contended for. and he had
thought it was very wrong to attempt to do that.--(Hear
hear.) If they were of that opinion, they should
not be de:
terred from carrying the principle into. , practice.—
( Hear, hear.) Their own inspectors recommended it,
They should not forget that the poor had at one time a claim
of maintenance upon the land. —(Hear, hear.) They were
deprived of that right. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman
d
assiste in depriving them of it. That was protection from
lawyers.—(Laughter.) No humane man in the country would
agree with the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. He believed
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman knew nothing of the effect
of shortening the duration of the hours of labour. —(Laughter.)
(The Hon. Gentleman went on making allusions to the Hon.
and Learned Member for Bath, who sat exactly under him,
which excited considerable merriment in the House, but !rem
the low tone of voice in which the Hon. Member spoke, ar &the
laughter of the House, their import did not reacts us.) _He
-denied that a curtailmeut of the hours of labour would have
the effect mcribed to it.' He appealed to the Hon - Member for
Sheffield on the point. The period of the labour of some of
the constituents of the Hon. Member; was reduced to 7i hours
a day, and they got more wages for those 74 hours labour than
when they worked twelve hours. He thought it would- be
hard to convince the people of Sheffield that they were not
benefited by this.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) He could say
that all which had been advanced by several Hon. Members of
this House was contrary to the interests of the working classes.
He thought that if the hours of labour were restricted to ten
hours instead of twelve,' it would tend much to improve the
moral and physical condition of the people. •
Mr. PHILIPS could say that he seldom had heard a speech
more.strongly.marked by an anti-national spirit than that ,of
the Hon. Member for Oldham. With respect to the town of
Sheffield, he (Mr. M. Philips) could assure the house that"
the system of combination lately adopted in that town, by
which the duration of the hour of labour was diminished, had
driven many of the principal manufacturers out of the country.
He himself had been engaged in the foreign trade of this
country, and he understood that there was no town throughout
England had suffered, more than Sheffield from these circum-
stances. If in extending the operation of these prin.
ciples to other towns, they thought they would secure higher
wages, he could assure them they were much mistaken ;
for the result would be, that they would be placing the interests
of those trades in jeopardy. He had the interests of the ope-
ratives of the country too much at heart to adopt this mea-
sure, ani he should, consequently, vote for the motion of his
Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Bath, for he cer-
tainly could not reconcile with his conscience the justice of- in-
terfering, in the slightest.degree, with the application of adult
labour. The Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for
the Home Department had stated that many of his (Mr. P.'s)
constituents were in favour of a limitation of labour, or at least
regarded the matter with indifference. Now, the fact was,.
that property had been so considerably diminished in many
parts of Lancashire, that many of the manufacturers looked
with apparent indifference upon the whole matter. In the
town of Manchester there was not snore than twelve mills
which worked more than twelve hours. He, for one, was
most anxious that the artisan should not be obliged to
work more than ten hours ; but he thought, in the
the present state of the country, this could nut be done.
If they worked more than twelve hours a day, those doing so of
course received the higher wages for it. The Hon. Member
sat down amidst much confusion and cries of " divide, divide."
Mr. PARKER thought, after what had been stated con-
cerning Sheffield, they must feel convinced of the propriety of
allowing the labourers to be perfectly free agents in this
matter. He was also very much opposed to any inter-
ference with employment of adult labour, because be
thought any such interference would be fraught with
the utmost danger, and have a decided tendency to destroy the
prosperity of the country. He felt convinced, therefore, that
the only elan for this House to adopt was a plain and intelli-
gible proposition ; and instead of talking of ten or twelve hours,
declare that they would not interfere with adult labour .but:
that all labourers who had arrived at the years of
discretion,.
should exercise their labour as they liked; and that the House had
no right to interfere with their free-will in the slightest degree.
With respect to infant labour, he considered it to be a different
question, but this was a question upon which he shoe. C 1 not
then speak, but leave it to other
--The House then divided—
s better acquainted with the
For going into Committee ........ . ....... . 282
For Mr. Roebuck's amendment 76
Majority against the amendment ...... ...206
The House then went into Committee pro forma on
the Bill.
and immediately resumed, .Monday next being the day fixed.
for proceeding with the Committee.
ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS BILL.
On the motion of Dr. NICHOLL for going inteCeessmit.
tee on this Bill,
Mr. P. BORTHWICK objected to the motion, or, account
of the lateness of the hour.
After a short conversation strangers were ordered to with-
draw, but no division took place.
The Bill then went through Committee pro forma.
POOR LAWS (IRELAND. Sir DENHAM NORREYS moved for the appointment of
a Committee on Poor-laws (Ireland), to consist of Sir
Denham Norreys, Lord Eliot, Mr. More O'Femll, Mr.
Young, Mr. French, Viscount Bernard, Mr. John O'Connell,
Lord Claud Hamilton, Mr. Tuite, Mr. Shaw, Lord Courtenay,.
Mr. Vesey, Sir Edmund Hayes, Sir Arthur Brooke, and Mr..
E. P. Shirley.
Mr. SHAW was decidedly averse to the appointment !,f the
Committee as tending to unsettle men's minds in Ireland, on the
question of poor-laws. -
Lord JOCELYN -opposed the appointment of the Com-
mittee for the same reasons.
After a iew words from Sir DENHAM NORREYS the
1n9.,:50n was withdrawn by consent, with an understood inten-
tion of being renewed on Monday.
Sir GEORGE CLERK obtained leave to bring in a Bill
to regulate and secure the debt due by the City of Edinburgh
to the public; to confirm an agreement between the said city
and its creditors ; and to effect a settlement of the affairs of the
said city and the town of Leith.
The House then, at a few minutes after One o'clock, ad•
journed until Monday.

- -
CU URT CIRCULAR.
Tiu QUEEN DOWAGER.—IIer iioyal Highness the Einthtss
of Gloucester, and other members of the Royal Fan,ily, sent yesterday to Marlborough House, to learn the state
of their
august relative. Many of the Nobility and Gentry also
called yesterday at Marlborough House, to make inquiry
after the health of her Majesty. The following was the
bulletin issued:—
" The Queen Dowager still suffers pain in the band and
armkbu rlboro ugt bor Majesty is altogether going on very favourably.
" ah Muse,
"May as 1844. " " DAVID DA VIES, M.D.
TILE DueliEss OF GLOUCESTER.—The ans Ten yes-
terday at Gloucester House to the numerou sinqu ies after
the state of her Royal Highness, made by the Dii3lomatie
Corps, and also by the Nobility and Gentry, were, " Her
loyal Highness is going (hi very favourably. '
l• 11

- -
The Queen and Prince Albert honoured the exhibition of
the Royal Academy, in Trafalgar-square with a visikYester-
day. Her Maiesty and his Royal Highness arrived at the
Academy from Buckingham Palace, shortly before 1 o'clOck,
attended by the Duchess of Buceleuch, Mistress of the Robe%
and the Marchioness of Douro, Lady in Waiting. The Ho-
nourable Miss Hamilton and the Honourable Miss Stanley,
Maids of Honour hi Waiting, and the Kari-of Hardwick% Lord in Waiting, followed in a secondroyal carriage; and
the Equerries in Waiting, Colonels Buckley and Wylde, oc-
cupied another royal carriage.
Sir Martin Archer Slice, President of the Royal Academy,
received the Illustrious Visitors on their arrival and coilducted
her Majesty and his Royal -Highness through the different
schools.
The Lord Chamberlain, the Master the Horse, and the
Groom of the Stole to Prince Albert, were in attendance
the Acan-iy-, and attended her Majesty and the Prince
thi;;ki-gh- the exhibition.
At two o'clock the Queen and Prince Albert, attended by
the Royal suite, left the Academy, and returned to Bucking-
ham Palace.
II is Royal Highness Prince Albert presided yesterday after-
noon, at a meeting of the Commission for promoting-6nd en-
couraging the Fine Arts in the re-building the Palace of
Westminster. His Royal Highness, attended by Colonel
Wvide, arrived at Gwydyrlleuse, at three o'clock.
he Commissioners present were the Duke of Sutherland.
the Marquis of Lansdowne, Viscount Pattnerston, Lord. Col-
borne, Sir Robert Peel, Sir James Graham, Sir Robert Harry
Inglis, Mr. 11. Gaily Knight, M.P., Mr. Benjamin Hawes,
111,1 ~ Mr. Henry Hallam, 'Mr. George Vivian, and Mr.
Thomas Wyse,
The meting broke up at a quarter before six o'clock, when
ritic-Albert, attended by Col. Wylde, returned to Bucking-
ham Palace.
The Royal Family were taken carriage airings yesterday in
the Roy,al Gardens of Buckingham Palace.
His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge left town yOl-
terday morning for his residence at Kew.
The Governor of the Bank of England, and the Deputy-
Governor, had an interview with the Chancellor of the Et
chequer yesterday, at his official residence in Downing- street.
Captain Sir ThomasHerbert,erbert, R.N., had anintemew with Lord Stanleyyesterday, at the Colonial-offiCe.
anlinortderSviatewidowni,th3tlh.l:.
evening.
Mr. had an interview
The mess of her Majesty's honourable corpsqoferGe'netlemrdefial'
'-ealittincSeliforlieforhaerEd Exchequer had
at-Arms dined together.yestentay
Mr. John Wood, Chairineln-of the
qhuaevrexyearrstereia. their rest_t
with the Chancellor of theK eErrixscohjei
Sir Edward and Lady
Hotel, Belgrave. street.
dein,coerdinprmt Stanhope-street.anhasleftl,air
an
for Bfighton.
Dispatches were sent off yesterday_ evening from. the
Colonial-office, for Sir Charles Metcalfe, Governor of Canada,
and the Governors of the other North American colonies.

F -SPORTING, INTELLIGENCE
CHESTER RACES.—Tuunsaa.Y.
The Cup settling commenced this morning the Royal
Hopi, and, with occasional interruptions from the light-
ebtreoduggehntttroy,awphaortwiaeliteermnuminaetrioous,n
about aci active; e;twoanod'clSocuelcc. The
essful
wasaccounts were heavy, and, owing to the absence of several
persons interested, either as winners or losers, cannot be finally
adjusted before the next Newmarket meeting. The Red
Deer party are said to have netted, in the aggregate, about
10,0004 a large sum to take out of the ring previous to the
Derby, and net at all calculated to facilitate the settling on
the Tuesdity after Epsom, if dither of the favourites .should
happen to.win.
£he racing this afternoon commenced about the usual time,
and; thanks to the heats, was spun out until eight o'clock!
—one-more heat, and there would not have been light to
distinguish the colours. The principal event was the Dee
Stakes ; it brought out several horses engagid in the Derby.,
lOvianka,d St.ner.alnastye arLesgaenrd;i-athmunonegis,tatdaihemk
hTohresCe iurn es,caotros
sd4p:Abe__tic
both strongly fancied; the result proved how accurat6y their
pretensions had been weighed. Lancet did n_ettim, having
stet with an accident on Tuesday, in leaving the stable; the
injury he riNciv-ed is slight, and.. not likely to prevent hia
rune ug ibr the Derby. - -

Mr. ',urge
__G
Robins is again waving his wand in
°ur-atiVertising columns, and its flourishes clothe at mace our
:adds and homesteads in all the gorgeousness of eastern dra-
pery.; Wherever ho plants his foot crops spring up ripe and
ready for the sickle, and we almost hear the tenants groan
beneath, the weight of their money bags. The very scent of
" the little host of dunghills" is -"quite refreshing" when
turned over by his pen ; here " an army of thorns contrasted
with an infinity of evergreen oaks, are seen contending ftjr
the ascendancy'—or rather we should say for the firstitotici
the green sw r1:1 itll w
in the advertisement, but this Mr. Robins's modesty
e do not
, is because
him-to add; there we behold " hill wad dale, am dells
precipices, without termination;" flowers (of rhet • la
and
t frighten away
up everywhere as if indigemiva, to the Soil; a d
,aric) spring
actually see fairies dv,uang On
aboutaucl ttigli
peapinretemrsisofes.thVeedariill:
tLire.yßazinsratisleroonled-orfasthlliocZfoUc,
landscape
I:lt:lcg.!it on cauV€ls3 te-adora legs
ptiimtyidi.ipi
su rseklemstebiele•sai4flfvoulnlodt
wads of the new Houses of Parc'
tricts,—Zsex H 4741 'I)"
Plsetec e runt
414'
hatilsileut loth
, w they would
make -the Members' hearts N -
% •