of manufactured articles raised in proportion. But the latter is impossible on account of the competition of other countries, the former must of necessity be resorted to; in which case the condition of the workman must be rendered infinitely worse by this pretended relief. And so it has turned The Factory Bill,' for regulating the hours of labour, providing for sending the children to school, &c. has remained in a great measure a dead letter; and the masters and workmen of manufactories form such arrangements with each other as they will or can."

out.

In the early part of July last, I was told by a man who had been for several years overlooker in Ives and Sons' large factory in Duckinfield, near Ashton-under-Line, that there never had been a time when the factory children, as well as all classes of operatives had been in such a state of distress, as within the last twelve months. "The laws in regard to factory children," said he, “have never been regarded, and they never can be. The children of the operatives are sent to the mills at as early an age as ever, and worked as many hours. All the provisions of the law are evaded. It will do no good to legislate against people working more hours than the health can bear, when they must do it or starve." I give the name of this person as I may wish to refer to him again. Thomas Timparly.

The assertion of "Libertas" in regard to the factory children is about as consistent with the

truth, as his repeated statements, that speculation and repudiation in America have been the principal causes of the appalling distress that has prevailed among the labouring classes in England! Distress from whatever source it comes, I trust will always awaken my sympathy, and although no man will give him any credit for such an assertion, yet I cannot but unite with the writer to whom I am replying, in utter condemnation of the outrageous violations of justice, honour, and truth which have characterized the acts of the repudiating party of America. All good men among us have lifted their voice against the unhallowed principle. The repudiation of the State Bonds has caused a certain kind and amount of distress in England. Many a family has felt its influence, and some few have been cast by it into the deep gloom of poverty and privation. But it is really amusing to see it referred to as the chief cause of that distress which had already become so awful in England among the lower classes before the repudiation of State Bonds was thought of. The cause of that terrible distress which is now wringing the hearts of the poor in England lies further back than Mississippi Bonds. So too, think our author's countrymen, attributing as they do this incalculable suffering to a long series of oppressive misgovernment in past ages, in which the rights and happiness of the many have been wickedly and wantonly sacrificed to the interests of the few. This has been made sufficiently to

appear in my former chapter on the Condition of the British People in past ages.

"When," asks our author, with an appearance of great sincerity, " was there ever an instance in Britain of the people's petitions being rejected ?" When, I would ask, was there ever an instance of the people's petitions being granted? If instances can be adduced, they are few. How long, and how unsuccessfully have millions of DISSENTERS prayed to be delivered from the heavy burdens of a political Church? For how many centuries has IRELAND insulted, trodden down, slaughtered Ireland, appealed to the justice, to the honour, to the tender mercies of England for relief? And she still prays on, half desperate, and famine-stricken, hoping that her prayers will gain her what must otherwise be won by the revolutionary sword. How loud, and half frantic is the prayer of three millions of CHARTIST sufferers, to be heard in their defence at the bar of the House of Commons, numbering among their ranks two millions of disfranchised men, grown desperate by want, and many thousand tearful mothers, who can no longer give bread to their starving little ones. One would suppose such a prayer would be granted, if humanity had not quite left the world. Even the great champion of the Reform Bill, Macauley, unites with Sir Robert Peel in slamming the doors of the House of Commons in the face of these petitioning millions, and Parlia

ment tells them to go home to their hovels and

starve on!

How long since Parliament decided that when the ministry chose to levy a direct tax upon the people, the people should not possess the right of petitioning against it, unjust, and unnecessary though it might be? And their petitions were accordingly rejected, "unreceived, unheard, unread and unreferred." How many times have the people gone with their prayers, humbly bending at the doors of Parliament, only to be turned away. "But their petitions were received," he says. Yes, generally, and if he had finished the sentence, he would have added, "and sent down to the tomb of all the Capulets," a tomb, by-the-by, from which they will come forth at no distant day.

"In England, the jealousy of freedom, forbids all place-men from interfering in elections! It would be well if "Libertas" had passed this matter by in silence. Before the passage of the Reform Bill, Earl Grey declared that a decided majority of the House of Commons were returned to Parliament through the patronage of one hundred and fifty four powerful individuals, most of whom were members of the House of Lords. Sheridan in a searching and sarcastic speech on the overwhelming power of the aristocracy, said with characteristic severity and truth, "all these things make a farce of an English Election."

But this, it will be answered, was before the

Reform Bill, when seats in Parliament were sold by their patrons to the highest bidder! when Lord Cochran (June 20, 1817,) made his open boast in Parliament that "when he returned to England pretty well flushed with Spanish gold, he had found the borough of Houston open and had bargained for it-and was sure he would have been returned had he been Lord Camelford's black servant or his great dog." The rotten boroughs have been disfranchised, it is true for the most part, but the whole representative system in England is rotten still: and bribery prevails to an extent so enormous, there is no freedom in an election, worthy of the name. "Libertas" knows, or at least ought to know, that a large majority of the House of Commons are elected entirely through the influence of the landed aristocracy. That only a small portion of the people are allowed to vote, and that only a fragment of those who do vote, can vote against the will of their landlords and patrons without being subjected to heavy sacrifices for their independence. He ought to know too, that the great proportion of the office holders of the government are most actively, although secretly, engaged in every election that frauds, threats, bribery, and every engine of corruption are pressed into the service of the parties struggling for power. Probably no one will deny this, who has read the developments made in the House of Commons in reference to the shameful, miserable, degrading truth,