The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-25 00:00:00

UI a , *lnt

LONDON, MONDAY, MARCH 25, 1844.

The discussion on the Factories Bill was resumed
on Friday in the House of Commons. On the Bth
clause being proposed, Lord ASHLEY rose to move as
an amendment " that the word ten' be substituted
for the word twelve ;' and in the event of this amend-
anent being carried, to add a. proviso to the effect
that the restriction of the hours of labour to ten in the
clay shall only take effect on the Ist of October, 1846;
and that from the Ist of October next until the Ist of
October, 1846, the hours of labour for females and
young persons shall be eleven." To this just and
humane amendment Sir JAMES GRAHAM, speaking
the sense of Government, offered the most strenuous
opposition. " He was so deeply impressed," observed
the Bight Hon. Baronet, "with the magnitude of
the interests involved in the principle then under
discussion, that he felt he could not yield one point
on the present occasion. All was dust in the balance
to him, compared with the sense of duty which
controlled him. He was quite satisfied our maim. ,
lecturing and commercial prosperity was at stake, and
'with this prosperity the House might depend that the
peace, happiness, and future welfare of the country
were connected." These are big words, but they
'svere evidently put forth for the purpose of frighten-
ing Hon. Members into an acquiescence in the views
of Ministers. Does Sir JAMES GRAHAM really believe
that our " commercial prosperity is at stake" because
two poor lorry hours out. of the twelve are proposed
to be deducted from the labour of helpless women and
children? That. our national interests demand that we
turn a deaf oar tothe sacred interests of humanity, and
1.)-4 during the night attempted to throw out of a
tWs beyond their strength those who, even if Lord
ASHLEY'S amendment. take effect, will have quite as
much work on their hands as they can get through
'without perilling their health, and cutting off at
least twenty years from their short term of life ? It
is impossible that the Right Hon. Baronet can se-
riously believe any such nonsense ; but the Govern-
's-sent happens just now to be in a " fix," con-
sequently every species of artifice and sophistry,
no matter how preposterous, must be resorted to to
get them out of it. The question—though we grant
fpott it is not without its difficulties—seems to our
limited understanding to be one between the claims
of humanity on the one hand, and the claims of the
bleeches-pocket on the other. The two parties in-
terested are the poor, toil-worn, defenceless opera-
tives, and the rich, calculating, influential manufac-
turers. As a matter of discreet policy Ministers
h.}ve .thrown the weight of their influence into the
scale of the latter, with a view, no doubt, to reconcile
em to the hold stand they have lately been compelled
to make in favour of the agricultural monopolists. But
this sop to Cerberus—this adroit throwing out of a Tub
tc.; the Whale, will not avail them; for the free-traders
can see through their manoeuvre, and will continue to re-
gprd them with just as much wholesome distrust as
ever. If Sir JAMES GRAHAM be as anxious as he
pretends to be, to maintain our " commercial pros-
PCrity," and shudders at the bare possibility of its
being jeopardised, why does he not follow the
sagacious advice of our CoBDENS, BRIGHTS, BRO..
THERTONS, and the majority of our leading manufac-
tsesers, and at once advocate a total repeal of the ac-
..
cssesed corn-laws ? He may rely on it that those gen-
tleenen best know their own interests, and what is the
surest means of benefiting our national corn-
mate, and he may safely adopt their counsels.
instead, however, of acting in this enlightened
spsiris, he hopes to throw dust into the eves
of the manufacturers, and conciliate their good opi-
nion, by opposing the small boon to poverty and
be:plessness, of a Ten Hours Factory Bill! That
tir. poorer classes must work, and work hard too,
if they desire to benefit themselves and families, we
ASE: quite willing to admit; it is the neces.
sit,7 of their condition, and no human power can
rorwler it otherwise ; but there is a differ-
eficts between their working hard, and working
beyond their strength, early and late, from sun-rise
to sunset, through the long summer's day, and the,
chilling gloom of winter, cut off from all chance of
leisure and enjoyment, deprived of all opportunity of
strengthening and informing their minds, and with no
hope of escape but in the grave Sir Jim. Es
Gssaliast will'never make us believe that this state
of things—which humanity shrinks from with loath-
ing—is indispensable to our " commercial prospe-
rity." But the Right Hon. Baronet is not the only
Minister who has been guilty of egregious cant on this
occasion. Sir ROBERT PEEL is an offender to
Auite as great an extent. But our readers shall

judge for themselves. On the discussion on Lord
WoanEr's Bill for the Inclosure of Commons, our
consistent Premier thus' expressed himself :—" The.
House had a perfect right to set the considerations of
health, innocent recreation, and moral improvement,
against the mere considerations of pecuniary gain.
And if they could prove to him that by the in-
I closure of these lands for a certain period of
time, 'there would be a demand for labour,
and ultimately a permanent increase of produce, that
would not be so conclusive a consideration with him
as the question whether it would not interfere with
the healthful amusements and recreations of the
people. It would be very unwise to apply a rigid
principle of political economy, and to say that, by in-
closing these commons, a greater quantity of vegetable
food would be produced." This was taking a
generous, lofty, and comprehensive view of the ques-
tion, for it was directly opposing to the interests of the
rich the claims of the poor, and justly sneering at
that "rigid principle of political economy," which
regarded nothing but the breeches-pocket! But now
mark the manner in which the Right Honourable
Baronet expressed himseT on the first dis-
cussion of Lord A SHLBY'S Ten Hours' Bill !—" What
would he the effect of these restrictions proposed
1-3 T the Noble Lord ? There were almost 300 working
days in the year. Five days in the week the labour
was to be two hours less than at present ; 250 of the
300 days the labour was to be reduced by two hours,
or 500 hours in the course of the year. Now, only
think of the cotton mills and woollen factories
being idle for seven weeks' in the year—seven
weeks less labour than was at present per-
formed !" Here is minute, peddling calculation
with a vengeance ! But with what grace or con-
sistency does it come from the lips of a man who,
but a week before, had advised the House not to be
influenced by " too rigid a principle of political
economy," and who had expressly stated that " the
mere considerations of pecuniary gain" ought never
to outweigh those greater considerations, " the health,
innocent recreations, and moral improvement of the
poor ?" In the one instance Sir ROBERT PEEL adopts
the lofty, magnanimous, humane side of the question ;
in the other, he takes the mere vulgar pounds-shil-
lings-and-pence view of it, and shows himself to be as
nice, petty, and scrupulous a calculator as a Jew
usurer. Yet the two questions, though differing in
form, are precisely the same in essence. The poor
are equally interested in both, yet the Premier can
heave a sentimental sigh for the sufferings of the
labourer, while he has not a word to say in favour
of the factory children ! Nay, as if this flagrant
one-sidedness was not in itself sufficiently dis-
graceful, he actually urges the " seven weeks'"
lost labour in the year, as a cousive
reason why women and children shoal still
be compelled to work unremittingly beyond their
strength ! Gracious Heaven, " seven woks' lost
labour," set off against the health—the happiness—
the moral and religious culture of thousands of our
over-tasked operatives! Was there ever a more
barefaced insult offered to justice, common-sense,
and humanity ?

Nit
The most convincing proof of the effects of the
anti-corn-law agitation is to be found in the part
which the farmers themselves are now taking against
the corn-laws. When tenant-farmers come forward,
as at the last League meeting at Covent-garden
Theatre, and denounce the corn-laws as the cause of
great injustice to the farmer, bringing practical ex-
perience to bear upon this question, and supporting
theory, by their own personal knowledge of facts,
can there be any doubt of the progress of free trade
opinions? Two "bond fide real live tenant-farmers,"
as Mr. COBDEN described them, detailing the injury
which the corn-laws inflict, upon the very class, for
whose especial benefit the landlords tell us, they are
designed, and claiming relief from that very
protection which the so-called " farmers' friends" will
insist upon keeping around them. Save me from
my friends, is now the feeling of the tenant-farmer,
and this expression of that feeling, publicly and
openly, at the great League meetings is but the com-
mencement of a long train of evidence to confirm
the testimony of two as practical and as truth-telling
farmers as England can produce.
There is yet another class of men who are, as the
Monopolists labour to make them believe, interested
in the continuance of the corn-laws—the farm-la-
bourers. Some of that much benefited class will, ere
long, we trust, be found to describe to the
public the great mercies and kindnesses for
which they are indebted to the corn-laws. To show
the external appearance as to clothes and habiliments
which the protection afforded to their labour enables
them to assume—to prove by actual fact the amount
received by them for their protected labour, and to
exhibit the actual remuneration received in hard coin
for that labour—to tell of the comfortable furniture
which is to be found in their habitations, and the
abundant supply of nutritious food, which their
wives and children share with them, and to explain
how " a bold peasantry, their country's pride," are
valued, comforted, esteemed, and assisted, by
the agricultural protectionist, who aims at pro-
ducing so much good for the farm-labourer, as
well as the tenant-farmer. And if the farm-
labourer, should show decayed and worn-out
garments, as his best clothes—eight shillings a-week
as his earnings—should speak of his mud-walled
cottage of two rooms, as the only abode for his
family of many children, with scant supply of furni-
ture and bedding—and should state, that the taste of
animal food is almost unknown to himself or
children—can there be any doubt that if this be his
condition now, with the corn-laws, he could not be
much worse, without them ? The mercury is down
to starvation point, now—it could not go lower, then.

The tenant-farmer wants no corn-laws ; but he
does want steady markets, and good customers, for
his produce, and those he can only find at home,
The corn-laws spoil his market, by making his cus-
tomers poor, and unable to give that price, and con-
sume that quantity of his produce, which unrestricted
commerce, flourishing trade, and profitable employ-
ment would afford.

The farm-labourer wants no corn-laws ; but he
does want a fair rate of wages, constant employment,
cheap provisions and clothing. The corn-laws de-
press the rate of wages by the uncertainty they cause
in the markets; prevent employment by, checking
improved cultivation of the land ; raise the price of
provisions, and thus curtail his ability to find means
of purchasing the necessaries of life.

As the eventful day approaches, on which the ques-
tion of renewing the Charter of the Bank of England,
—the conditions upon which such renewal shall be
granted,—and the preliminary steps to be adopted by
Government,—are to be discussed in Parliament,
the public expect, with reasonable curiosity, some
manifesto of the Premier's views and intentions upon
the subject. Committees of London bankers, of
joint-stock, and country bankers have hitherto
vainly endeavoured to elicit, by various deputations
admitted to conferences with the First Lord of the
Treasury, his real purpose. All that they could get
from him has been—a profusion of his cold but bland
common-places; unmeaning official intimations "that
the Government is not yet committed to any parti-
cular course; that it will reserve its judgment until
it shall have had an opportunity of hearing all which
can he urged, on all sides, for or against the renewal,
on the present terms enjoyed by the Corporation in
What question." the " inclination of his opinion" (to
use one of the odd but not ineffective phrases of poor
Lord CASTLEREAGH) may be, is not matter, it seems,et
to be trusted as yet to the profane world. man
aka mente repOstum." A report has got abroad, and
a Morning Contemporary has almost vouched its
official authenticity, that the Premier intends
to crown his gigantic labours, of five-and
twenty years ago, in paralysing the commer-
cial energies of this country, and all the main
principles of our social development and pros-
perity, by recommending to the Legislature the
total " repeal" and withdrawal of 1/. and 21. bank-
notes throughout Scotland, and the establishment of
a,, single bank of issue. We can make great allow-
ances for Sir ROBERT'S indignation at the provoking
contumacy of the Scotch, in having not only suc-
cessfully resisted the discipline of his PROCUSTES-
bed-like standard of 1819—upon which he lopped off,
without mercy, the redundant proportions of English
monetary prosperity; but—in having steadily extended
all the operations, sustained the enterprise, and re-
warded the laborious processes of their agricultural
industry, by upholding the anathematised small notes,
and thereby avoided the frightful panics and desola-

4. See Edinburgh Review for 1811, cue of Colonial
Exchanges.

, ft
40.4.
, •
•
, . 0
•
%of
•41,,- z,!«.- „ •
,
4 "
,X,„„f'ffrie:
•- • •
•
„..,1-41Ztrigg,