Hide Article Text (OCR)
Is SKTTIdSETRKTT OF THE FACTORS QSHSSTJOH.ThThe Factory Question is settled, so far as an Act of Parliament can settle it. The ministerial compromise has been sanctioned by both Houses of Parliament. The royal signature alone is wanting to make treachery law. The honour ofe Parliament is a fine theme for an orator, the disgrace of Parliament will be no less valuable to the historian. Nothing -* : has so great a tendency to produce dissatisfaction and sow v - the seeds of revolution in the hearts of a people, as a want of - confidence in the honour of judicial and legislative authority.4 The facts of the case must be familiar to our readers. We : again state them in a simple form. A bill was passed byParliament regulating factory labour for yonng persons and ‘ women to fifty-eight hoars per week. There was no law to I ; prevent the factory labour from being extended over fifteen | I hours per day, although actual labour could only be performed j during ten hours The intention of the legislature to prevent j | working by “ shifts was frustrated by a few rich men, whose j * [ moral worth is beneath consideration. The liability of those I 1 | men to penalties whose boast was that they could do as they ; pleased in opposition to Parliamant, was found to be, technically, insupportable ; thereupon the government entered into a league with the law breakers. Parliament has supported the law breakers at the bidding of her .Majesty's advisers. A ^ j more flagrant disregard of honour, honesty, and justice, is not t j to be found in the annals of the most corrupt courts of ancient . ! or modern times.^ j The chief agent, whose unprincipled disregard to former 1 I pledges, added to most immoral abuse of confidence, has ren-5 ! dered, we regret to say, this vile plot successful, is au English i nobleman. The name of Lord Ashley will for ever stink in1 | the nostrils of honest men. We will not now comment on 1 i his lordship's treachery ; we wait for his reply to Mr. Oastler’s j | letter of queries, unfolding his lordship's course step by step.; If Mr. Oastler’s letter remains unanswered, the guilt of Lord ! Ashley and Sir George Grey can be no matter of doubt.. i Lord Ashley can have no excuse for not replying to Mr.) Oastler. The “ Old King,” as Mr. Oastler is affectionately called by his factory children, is his lordship’s superior in I ability, character, influence, and reputation. Among other I queries in Mr. Oastler's remarkable letter are the following,| which bear directly on the character of Lord Ashley :—“ Has not Lord Ashly, during the many years that he has been the leader in the Ten Hours* Bill cause, assured the people that ‘it was the cause of God'—that ‘he would never compromise'—that ‘ if needful, he would die in the last ditch’ —and that ‘ if they wished to compromise, they must find another leader!’“ Did not Lord Ashley agree upon the compromise, with the government, before lie made any motion on the Ten Hours’ Act this session of parliament ?“Was it not always usual for Lord Ashley, before he commenced proceedings in parliament on the factory bills, to consult and arrange with friends of the measure what those pro ceedings should be?“ Did not his lordship proceed this session without such consultation ?“ When Lord Ashley had given notice of his intended motion on the Factory Bill, did not a friend call upon his lordship * to offer him every legal assistance he might require, so as to he sure that his declaratory bill might be effective ?’“ Was not the first bill introduced this session by Lord Ashley to amend the Factory Act of 1S14 a mere ruse, known to be worthless—concocted without any legal advice, and never intended te be carried ?“ Was not a perfect bill (at the expense of the friend before alluded to) drawn by a first-rate lawyer, and immediately placed in Lord Ashley’s hands ?“ Was not that bill altered, mutilated, and made worthless by Lord Ashley (in consultation with Mr. Philip Grant, stationer, of Manchester) before it was presented to the House of Commons?“ Was it not soon withdrawn, because it was thus made worthless ?“Was not another bill, prepared by counsel at the expense of the operatives and their friends, afterwards submitted to Lord Ashley ?“ Was not that bill rejected by Lord Ashley ?“ Was there not, soon after (at the expense of the aforesaid friend and others), a consultation of five lawyers, to draw an effective bill, and were not their efforts frustrated, because Lord Ashley refused what he called ‘ new matter,’ to be inserted, that ‘ new matter’being only such a3 related to ‘the dinner hour, as suggested by the judges of the Court of Exchequer?“ Did not Mr. William Band (on the 22d of April) present to Lord Ashley two clauses, drawn by Isaac Butt, Esq., Q.C., which contained no ‘ new matterwhich clauses were declared to be effective by the lawyers to whom Lord Ashley showed them ?“ Were not those clauses rejected by Lord Ashley ?“Did not Lord Ashley withdraw his second bill, declaring it was impossible to provide an effective bill?On that declaration did not Sir George Grey promise tohn’nfr in ft Taill V
Newspaper Details
London Reynolds Weekly Newspaper
London, Middlesex, GB
Sun, Jul 28, 1850
Page 3
Full Page
Clipped by
Anonymous
USA 20 Jul 2023
Other Publications Near London, Middlesex
Bingleys Journal
Arminian Magazine
London Daily Mail
London Stars and Stripes
London Daily Universal Register
