The Sun.
London, England, 1842-07-27 00:00:00

must be allowed to enter into these employments. There
were many such employments which could not be
learned unless young persons began at twelve or
thirteen years of age to be initiated into them.
Therefore these unwholesome trades, if they were to be ex-
ercised at all, must not only be exercised by men, but by
youths under the age of 21, or under the age of 17 or 18.
This argument might be held to apply to boys of ten years of
age and upwards, but he believed that it ought not, and did
not, apply to children of more tender years. But when they
were under the guidance of natural and humane feelings en-
tering upon this field of legislation, it was very fit that they
should look about them to see how wide that field was, and
how far they proposed to advance into it. He would remind
their Lordships that they were making laws to control the
labouring classes of the community, and not intended to affect
the rich. They were rearing up a power to affect not the
strong but the weak, and let them take very good care not to
subject themselves to the well-grounded imputation which had
been made against almost all legislators, in every age and in
every country, that they were very apt to forge fetters for the
weak, but only to cast a gossamer over the strong.

Lord BROUGHAM'S contrast between the colliers send-
ing their children at an early period into the mines, and
other parents stunting the growth of their boys to fit
them to ride races for the aristocracy, was done in his
happiest and most effective style. His allusion to women
sacrificing their own children in order to gain a little
money by nursing the children of the aristocracy, the
ladies of which frequently cannot, or will not, perform the
duties of a mother, was, however, still more effective
and searching.
Was there anything (he said) more certain than that the
most wholesome nutriment a child could have was that with
which nature had furnished its mother ?—was there any-
thug more certain than that by withdrawing their natural
nutriment, and thus entailing the absolute necessity
of bringing the child up in a less wholesome manner
—was there anything more certain than that children,
for want of their mother's nursing, must often perish before
their time ?—was there anything more certain than that this
was an unnatural stopping in nature the duty of a mother to
suckle her own child? But did he blame these poor women
who handed over their own infants to the care of a foster-
mother, in order to get advantageous places for themselves ?
Did he blame this? No, he lamented without blaming it; but
he could not close his eyes to the fearful extent of the evils
produced on the bodies and minds of children, and he would
add, on the minds and feelings of the mothers too, by that sys-
tem which was now so universally practised by parents among
the working-classes, of not suckling their own children, in
order to be employed in suckling the children of those in easy
circumstances, and especially in that rank of life to which their
I.ordships and the Members of the other House of Parliament
belonged.

Such home thrusts, by so polished a weapon as Lord
BROUGHAM'S language, must have made a deep impres-
sion on their Lordships' understandings, and we hope,
also, on the understandings of the ladies of England,
who, we believe, take an active interest in collier women
and little trappers; and they may perhaps think that the
vast sacrifices requited to provide jockeys and nurses for
them, are at least as proper objects of legislation as
women and children working in mines. The
public are under a great obligation to Lord
BROUGHAM for his courage and manliness in
stemming the heavy torrent of the suddenly swollen
humanity of the upper classes, and for the calm, dispas-
sionate, and able manner in which he compelled them to
look on themselves. But we must not omit to say that
for manliness and courage the Earl of RADNOR is the
equal of the Noble and Learned Lord, but wanting his
eloquence. The just sentiments he has more than once
expressed on the Collieries Bill, have not been so effec-
tive as the admirable speech of Lord BROUGHAM.

The first Report of the Commissioners appointed by
Sir R. PEEL to inquire into the collection and manage-
ment of the revenue has been published. It relates ex-
clusively to the port of Liverpool, and discusses such
matters as the employment of tide-waiters, paying
officers by fees or salaries, and the exorbitant salary of
the collector, 2,9001. The Report may be interesting and
useful to the Treasury—it may not be without its charms
for the merchants and Custom-house officers of
Liverpool, but it is of no importance as a State
document, and of little interest to the public. It
is altogether and exclusively an office paper
proper for the Treasury to possess, and nothing
n.ore. It will not, however, disappoint the hopes of the
public, fur so little was expected of the Commission,
that, till the Report revived the recollection of such a
Commission having been appointed, it had entirely
slipped out of the public mind. Every one of the Com-
missioners is a sub of the Government, and the Report is
little more than a statement made by the Treasury to the
Treasury. Perhaps it is more a striking example of an
easy mode of multiplying useless documents, putting the
public to a very unnecessary expense for printing and
paper, than of anything else. If the public is to pay so
largely for becoming acquainted with the Treasury se-
crets touching the arrangement of Custom-houses, they
might as well remain shrouded in mystery. The Trea-
sury might have acted on the Report, if it contain one
valuable suggestion—which we have not been fortunate
enough to discover—without printing it.

Yesterday the Earl of STANHOPE in the House of
Lords threatened the Peers with a convulsion. Yester-
day Sir jAMEB GRAHAM, in an interview with the Anti-
Corn-law Deputies, let fall a phrase which indicated
that he is alarmed fur his estate. For our Ministers to
hear such things, and express such apprehensions, is both
new and startling. That the danger is freely talked about
is, however, one good guarantee that it will be warded
off—in what manner, is the business of Ministers. They
have one and all assured the Anti. Corn-law Deputations
that the subject of the national distress has engaged the
serious attention of the Cabinet.

In the House of Commons on Monday, before going
into a Committee of Supply, Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE
brought forward the motion, of which he had given
notice, relative to the trial and incarceration of a
Chartist lecturer in Staffordshire, on a charge of at-
tending a seditious meeting. A report had gone abroad
that were a Chartist to make his appearance in the town
of Sedgeley, he would be committed to prison by order
of the Magistrates. A Mr. MASON, a Chartist lec-
turer, did go there, and called a public meeting, at which
many of the working classes were present. The Magis-
trates were represented by a constable, whose loyalty
was offended by the lecturer telling the people that those
who worked the hardest were worst paid, and that they
were not fairly represented in the House of Commons.
Accordingly this worthy Dogberry interrupted the
lecturer, by telling him that he could not
stand that, and that being paid for exerting
his authority, his first exercise of it would be
to disperse the meeting, which he did by pulling
down the form upon which the lecturer stood. lie was
then told that his proper course was to apply to a Magis-
trate, and to take a note of any objectionable words
spoken ; but he knew his ground too well to give him-
self any such unnecessary trouble. MASON obtained a
warrant against him, which was dismissed ; and a war-
rant was granted against MASON and seven others at
the instance of the constable, upon which they were
found guilty, and sentenced to various periods of im-
prisonment, ranging from two months to six. At the
trial the constable was the only witness examined, and
after conviction, the Chairman consulted the prosecuting
constable respecting the length of the imprisonment
which he would recommend in their respective cases,
In fact, it appears from the whole trial that it was a
stretch of politeness on the part of the constable to
have gone through the constitutional form of trying the
prisoners at all. As he was virtually witness and judge
there would have been no great innovation in assuming
the functions of jury, and committing the prisoners tc
Staffordshire gaol on his own authority.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM read the House some curious law
doctrine. He was, he said, of opinion that a constable
might interrupt and dissolve any public meeting, at
which he heard language which in his opinion tended to
a breach of the peace. The Right Hon. Home Secre-
tary admitted that he was not profoundly skilled in the
law, and after the above exposition of his views we are
well inclined to believe him. But who is to inform
an ignorant, illiterate constable, or policeman what
language tends to endanger the peace ? Is he to judge
by the gestures of the orator, who may be a man of
fervid eloquence and animated gesture ? Is he to pre-
sume to judge what doctrines are suitable or unfit for the
public ear ? Do the people of England enjoy only by
the sufferance of policemen and constables the right to
meet publicly to discuss their grievances, and suggest
remedies for them ? If constables are to decide what is
and what is not seditious language we may as
well abolish trial by jury at once. But we con-
tend that the doctrine laid down by the Home Secretary
is entirely erroneous, and that were any constable in the
county of Middlesex to act upon it, a London Jury
would send him to the House of Correction for six
months. It is the duty of constables not to interfere
where no overt act has taken place violating, or decla-
rative of an intention to violate the peace. For the rest
they can only report the proceedings, and be guided
thereupon by the instructions of a Magistrate.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM and the ATTORNIIY-GENERAL
complained of the irregularity of bringing before the
House of Commons all malversations in the Administra-
tion of Justice. With admirable presence of mind Lord
PALMERSTON reminded them of the doctrine laid down
by Judge PENNEFATHER the other day at the trial of the
Belfast Vindicator, in which it is affirmed that, if
judges and juries act unjustly, the proper remedy is
an appeal to Parliament. The Noble Lord, who has had
as much official experience as the Knight of Netherby
denounced as most dangerous the doctrine that consta-
bles should be allowed to exercise their own discretion
with respect to the dispersion of meetings. Sir R. PEEL
came to the assistance of his colleague, and, in common
with the Law Officers of the Crown, refused to accede to a
motion which would call in question the constitutional
infallibility of a Stafibrdshire constable. There is a
1 sympathy between beadles and Cabinet Ministers to