The Sun.
London, England, 1845-02-19 00:00:00

frbirt V2Vition

SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock.

RAILWAY COMMITTEES.
(THIS DAY.)
The Sub-Committee appointed to ascertain if the
promoters of the Wakefield, Pontefract, and Goole Rail-
way had complied with the standing orders of the
House of Commons, re-assembled to-day at two o'clock,
and proceeded with the investigation. After sitting for
about an hour the Committee concluded their labours with
allowing about 16 out of 98 trivial objections which had
been urged against the project by Mr. Platt, the Parlia-
mentary agent, on behalf of Mr. G. I. Smyth, of Heath
Hall, Wakefield, who had entered a protest against the
scheme, declaring it to be unnecessary and uncalled for.
The Chairman, Sir John Yarde Buller, intimated to the
agent of the promoters that it was the intention of the
Committee to report specially on the line, and there was
no doubt the objections would be overcome on being re-
ferred to a Select Committee on Standing Orders.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Pi ins at Guildhall before Lord DENMA' and
a Common Jury.)
SMYTII V. SMITH.

This ma an action for false imprisonment brought under the
following circumstances :—The plaintiff and defendant entered
into partnership in August, 1443, for the purpose of printing
publications of various kinds, but a disagreement shortly oc-
curred between them. ,They had a quantity of type, which
was at the defendant's office, in Mincing-lane. On the 13th
of August the plaintiff went with a p:rson named Griffin,
and others, to the defendant's, and having broken open
an inner door, they were taking away the type,
when the defendent perceived them, and gave Griffin in
charge of a policeman. The plaintiff said, " Who is to take
me?" whereupon he also was given in charge. They were
conveyed to the station-house, and were afterwards taken to
the Mansion-house. They were charged with felony, but
there were no grounds for such an accusation. The defend-
ant now brought his action.
Lord DENMAN, in charging the jury, said that there was
no doubt the plaintiff acted wrong in breaking through the
defendant's door; but that did not justify the defendant in
preferring a charge of felony against him. The plaintiff was
entitled to their verdict, but to what amount it was entirely
for the jury to say.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.—Damages one
farthing.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS

FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF TIIIS DAT.

GLOBE.—Lord Ashley says—in anticipation that
the corn-lows will be thrown in his teeth—that " if he
believed the repeal of the Corn-laws would place these
much suffering thousands of their fellow- creatures in a
condition of comfort, and kaep them in it, ho, in spite of
all his predilections, would vote at once for their entire
abolition. We do not doubt the sincerity of his lord•
ship's assertion ; bnt we doubt whether he seizes exactly
the point of view in which alone the corn-laws would be
objected to his regulative proposals by any reasonable
opponent. We have never, for our part, undertaken to
say that no regulation of infant labour was necessary ;
though we have frequently declared ourselves against in-
terference with that of adults. And when the condi-
tions of adult labour have been stated to be widely
unsatisfactory, we have affirmed that no direct regula-
tions about them could render them otherwise—and
that the defect must lie in the demand existing—or
wages available—for labour. It is as affecting these
that the policy of Food-Restriction has, by ourselves
and others, been held to render nugatory the policy of
Employment-Regulation. For example, if a hettger and
ditcher, in Lord Ashley's neighbourhood let us say, in
Dorsetabire, is seen to be seeking piece-work with the
greatest anxiety, and doing it at the lowest rates, in dear
years—the dearth of corn is deemed to have some con-
nexion with the excessive toil of that man. Regulation of
the hours of hedging and ditching, it is not imagined
would materially mend the matter ; and would only
alter it by dividing employment (already scarce suffi-
cient fur one man's wants) between two or more. In a
word, if it is dearth of subsistence that stimulates this
over• toil, no regulation (that does not increase the
supply of subsistence) can prevent the consequence of
dearth showing itself in one shape or other. The shape
of extreme toil is that which is chosen by those who
can find work. That may be forbidden, in this or the
other instance—but extremity of some kind must be
suffered ; and extreme toil will, after all, not be pre-
vented, without inspectors for every cottage, every fie:d,
every hedge and ditch. Turning to manufactures—
slackness of demand, competition of workers, readi-
ness for over-hours, will in like manner slim them-
selves. The plague of dearth is at the root of all
—men or women do not volunteer intense toil
from love of suffering. You undertake to stop the
intense toil. In the great proportion of cases (cases,
namely, outside the walls of factories) you cannot stop
it. In cases in which you can, it may happen that you
atop the power of making up orders, of dispatching
shipments—of competing with unrestricted employers
in foreign markets. If you do this—all you do is to
force capital to fly from the seats of your distressed
labour. If you stop short of ooing this, you stop
short of doing great mischief—but in any case you stop
short necessarily of cutting up the misery by the
roots. The Anti-Cord-law advocates, with reference to
measures like Lord Ashley's for regulating employ-
ments, assume that the corn-laws do produce periodical
dearth of subsistence, slackness of employment, and
consequent lowness of wages, and over-work. They
assume that those only who are distressed to live are
likely to distress themselves by toil ; and they infer that
no remedy, which does not tench the former distress,
can ever meet the latter. All this, of course, proceeds
on the assumption that we are right in our theory of the
corn-laws. That assumption granted, there is nothing
unreasonable in bringing it to bear on these Time Bill
questions.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT
(THIS EVENING.)

lIOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
RAILWAY BILLS.
Mr. Mackenzie and other Hon. Members brought up re-
ports from the sub-Committees appointed to inquire whether
the standing orders on certain private Bills had been complied
with. The Committee reported in favour of the York
and Scarborough Railway Line, the Leeds and Bradford,
the Ashton and Stalybridge, the Manchester and Leeds
(But nley Branch), the Leeds and West Riding Junction, the
Bull and Selby, the Kendal and Windermere, the Chester and
Birkenhead, the Manchester and Carlisle, the Cockermouth and
Workington, the Leeds and Dewsbury, the West York, and
other lines. The Guildford, Chichester, and Portsmouth,
reported not to have complied with the standing orders.
INCOME-TAX.

Sir J. MORDA UNT presented petitions from several places
against the continuance of the income-tax.
Colonel WOOD presented a petition from Worcester, pray-
ing that the owners of houses rented above 61. in that city
should be rated to the poor-rates instead of the tenants, as a
present.