He denies that this cause is to be found 'either in the country itself or in the character of its inhabitants.' As to both he quotes Lord Bacon: 'This island has so many dowries of nature, the fruitfulness of the soil, the excellency of the climate, the ports, the rivers, the quarries, the woods, the fisheries, and especially its race of valiant, hardy and active men, that it is not easy to find such a conflux of commodities, if the hand of man did but join with the hand of nature.' He next proves that the cause of all this misery could not be surplus population as compared with produce,' inasmuch as, whilst 'multitudes of her people were starving,' Ireland was exporting millions of bushels of corn and thousands of head of cattle.' He shows that 'in those parts of the country where the population is most dense, or in other words, where the property is most divided, there is it the most valuable, and there is found the greatest degree of peace, comfort and prosperity.' He then, in a high style of indignant eloquence, denies the alleged 'indolence and improvidence of the Irish': 'It is notorious that, either in this country or in the New World, wherever labour is to be obtained, no matter how hard, there are the Irish. In the most laborious season of the year thousands of them annually traverse the breadth of both islands, and cross the sea that separates them, in search of a few weeks' employment, at which, when obtained, they work like slaves, while they live like ascetics. And then, resisting every temptation, they carry home their hard earnings in their tattered garments, I wish I could say, an offering to lay on the humble altar of domestic enjoyment-but, on the contrary, a means wherewith to pay those exorbitant rents which are demanded for the wretched cabin, raised by themselves, which affords them shelter, and the narrow plot which furnishes them with their scanty food. They are nevertheless accused of indolence and improvidence! and while deprived of labour at home and thus eagerly seeking it elsewhere, the economists exclaim, in the language and with the feelings of an oppressor of ancient times, "Ye are idle! ye are idle !" " Twelve Members spoke in favour of Mr. Sadler's motion, only four, all of them connected with the Government, in opposition to it, and all pleading only for postponement. Ministerial influence, however, prevailed, and the resolution was negatived by a majority of twelve. The comment of the Times was: Mr. Sadler's speech was able and eloquent; nor are we among those who consider it a defect that he treated the matter broadly.' Thus a great through the weight of Mr. Sadler's advance had been made, chiefly speeches and writings. On the dissolution of Parliament, resulting from the death of George IV., Mr. Sadler had been again returned for Newark, in face of the opposition of Sergeant Wilde. Three weeks after the opening of Parliament the Duke of Wellington and his Cabinet resigned. On the 1st of March, 1831, the new Ministry brought forward their Reform Bill. Mr. Sadler was strongly in favour of an extensive, equable and consistent reform in the Parliamentary Representation of the coun. try, which should really remedy the capricious and injurious anomalies of the antiquated system it was intended to supersede. But he as strongly disapproved of Earl Grey's Bill, just because it egregiously failed in these essential particulars. Its fatal defect in Mr. Sadler's judgment was that which still awaits rectification, that very defect which Mr. Gladstone has recently exposed with so much eloquence and cogency, (Contemporary Review, November, 1877; January, 1878,) namely, the enormous disproportion between the representation of the towns and that of the counties. On the 18th of April Mr. Sadler, with one of his most brilliant and effective speeches, seconded the motion of General Gascoyne, 'That it is not expedient to diminish the num ber of representatives for England and Wales.' One of his most telling points was the contrast which he pointed out between Earl Grey's Reform Bill and Oliver Cromwell's plan for a fair distribution of the franchise. He showed that Cromwell 'really did' what this Bill only professed to do: he 'conformed to the basis of property and population which he evidently laid down as his guide. He gave two hundred and thirty-seven members to the counties of England, and one hundred and forty-three to the towns; these give one hundred and forty-nine members to the counties, and two hundred and ninety-five to the towns. The masculine mind of the Protector could not produce anything so false and incoherent as this attempt.' It was on this motion of General Gascoyne and Mr. Sadler that the Ministry were beaten as to one of the leading provisions of their Bill. In consequence, the Bill was abandoned, and Parliament dissolved. As Mr. Sadler had taken such a prominent position and such effective action in opposition to a Bill which, with all its glaring defects, incoherencies and unfairnesses, was the best the country saw any hope of obtaining, his third return for the borough of Newark was thought somewhat precarious; he therefore consented to become candidate for Aldborough, Yorkshire, for which he was elected, and which he represented to the close of his parliamentary career. Meanwhile, in his absence and without his knowledge, he was nominated for the city of Norwich, in opposition to two ministerial candidates; and nine hundred and seventy-seven unsolicited votes were recorded in his favour. In pursuance of what he regarded as his philanthropic mission in Parliament, Mr. Sadler, on October 11th, 1831, called the attention of the House to the wants and wrongs of anxious to secure not only their political, but also their personal, especially their moral rights. He held that a comfortable cottage, roomy enough to prevent an overcrowding inconsistent with decency, was quite as due, and would be quite as dear, to the hard-worked villager as a vote at an election. Mr. Sadler was no stranger to the British husbandman. The thresher, thatcher, ploughman, reaper, was no barbarian to him. Himself a farmer's son, he had spent the first twenty years of his life amidst the toiling peasantry. The farm-labourers of South Derbyshire may be, probably are, as a rule, somewhat above the average in their mental and moral qualities. And 'while the swink'd hedger at his supper sat,' Michael Sadler had talked with him freely on higher themes than 'bullocks,' and discussed something nobler than bread and cheese, or beer and bacon. Many of these labourers were religious men, who not only enjoyed the meditative rest and the tranquilizing, elevating exercises of the Sabbath, and the sublimity and sweetness of the Scriptures, but also the soul-sharpening fellowships of a Church reconstructed on the true Society-principle of Pentecost, and the thought-awakening clas sical hymnology of a great religious quickening, of which the birth-place was a university, and the originators men of culture and genius. In his speech Mr. Sadler showed how the poor commoners' had been robbed of their time-sanctioned rights, by private Inclosure Bills, and compelled to herd and huddle together, in a way most perilous to virtue, by the systematic demolition of their tenements, and annexation of their little gardens. The legislative measures he proposed were somewhat more advanced or, at least, more defined than those of Mr. Joseph Arch and his sympathizers in the present day. He would have an Agricultural Labourers' Dwellings Act, (and why not?) as well as an Artisans' Dwellings Act. But, beyond this, he urged that 'a certain number of cottages should be rebuilt, in those parts of the country where they are most wanted,' with, at least, its rood' of garden-ground around each, which should be 'let to the cottager' at a fairly remunerative rental. He asks, Where would be the difficulty of Government granting a small loan, secured by the respective parishes at the usual interest; which parishes should possess the property, to their own great and obvious advantage, as well as that of the poor?' He pleaded that the revival of cottage horticulture would yield employment to the peasant at those seasons of the year when he is now often without it, would increase his comforts and go far to restore him plenty at all seasons.' .He says, 'By a garden, I mean not the barren, overshadowed patch that may still sometimes be left at the back or in front of some of the ruinous cottages of the country, sufficient to grow a shrub or two on which the inmates can hang a few rags to dry.' He points out the connection between the wretchedness and involuntary idleness' of the poor, and 'the moral and political dangers of their condition.' He also recommended that 'cottagers selected for their good conduct and industrious habits, should be admitted tenants of little intakes, or to depasture upon a general allotment.' He preferred, however, giving 'the cottager his own share in severalty.' Leave was given to bring in his Bill, but very shortly afterwards Parliament was prorogued. In the autumn of 1831 various circumstances directed his attention to the case of children working in factories, and on the 15th of December, 1831, he brought in a Bill, 'for regulating the labour of children and VOL. II.-SIXTH SERIES. young persons in the Mills and Factories of this country.' On March 16th, 1832, he moved its second reading, and showed its object to be 'the liberation of children from that overexertion and long confinement which experience has shown to be utterly inconsistent with the improvement of their minds and the preservation of their morals and their health.' He proved that children cannot be 'regarded as free labourers,' but are doomed to 'infantile slavery,' either by the indigence or the intemperance of their parents; because they must otherwise starve, like Ugolino, amidst their starving children;' or that, 'instead of providing for their offspring, they may make their offspring provide for them. At the very same hour of the night that the father is at his guilty orgies the child is panting in the factory.' Or else they are orphans, a class which this system is a very efficient instrument in multiplying.' He adduced evidence that children of thirteen had been confined in the factory from 6 A.M. to 8 P.M.-fourteen hours continuously, without any time being allowed for meals, rest or recreation; their meals to be taken while attending the machines; and this the practice for years.' He says: Such is the practice at Bradford and the neighbourhood. It is not the degree so much as the duration of their labour that is so cruel and destructive to these poor work-children. How revolting the compound sounds! I trust it will never be familiarized to our feelings. It is the wearisome uniformity of the employment which is more fatiguing to the body and the mind than more varied and voluntary, though far stronger, exertion.' He shows how the fine-enforced necessity for punctuality at such an early hour aggravates the sufferings of the child, since, not in one case out of ten, perhaps, the parent has a clock.' He touchingly describes the patter of little pattens on the pavement, in a manufacturing town, many hours before light on a winter's morning.' He exhibited to the House one of the 'heavy leathern factory thongs,' with which even female children were beaten to keep them awake over their work. All that Mr. Sadler could obtain at first was a Parliamentary Enquiry; so powerful was the opposition of the mill-owners. A Committee was appointed consisting of some of the most distinguished members: Viscounts Lowther and Morpeth (Earl of Carlisle), Mr. Fowell Buxton, etc. The labour thus imposed on Mr. Sadler was excessive, in the chair of the Committee during fortythree days of actual session; by immense correspondence and the task of carrying through the press the whole mass of evidence. Mr. Sadler's representations were only too amply verified, but again the manufacturing interest interposed, deImanding local investigation. Accordingly, a Royal Commission was issued to fifteen gentlemen, ' to collect information in the manufacturing districts as to the employment of children in factories.' The Commissioners did not always find it easy to arrive at the facts of the case, even on the spot. The testimony of the parents as to the age of the children was questioned by the masters; so the Commissioners were obliged to consult the teeth of the children in confirmation of their parents' tongues. To qualify themselves for forming an accurate judgment they visited the large public schools in the manufacturing districts in order to acquire expertness in determining the age of a child by dental inspection. ourselves, along with our ninety-nine schoolfellows at Woodhouse Grove, had the honour of contributing to this induction, by opening wide. mouth to the conjectural scrutiny of We our a leading member of the Commission and an eminent Leeds surgeon. This little contribution to the cause of science and philanthropy was rewarded by a half-day's remission of our own studies. The Report of the Commissioners vindicated Mr. Sadler's statements, by presenting a mass of touching, sometimes tragic, evidence that the factory children were the subjects of a cruel, often crushing, servitude; that they were 'not free agents, but let out to hire, the wages they earn being received and appropriated by their parents and guardians; ' and that 'a case is made out for the interference of the Legislature in behalf of children employed in factories.' Mr. Sadler, therefore, pleaded for leave to introduce his famous 'Ten Hours' Bill' a Bill for restricting the labours of children and young persons to ten hours a day.' We vividly recall the excitement produced in Leeds; squalid girls, on their way to and from the mill, crying in a tone more like that of a wail than a demand, 'We will have the Ten Hours' Bill.' But, alas! they had to wait till they were tired of wailing. The Government stole a march on the children's champion: they brought in and carried a mocking measure of their own. The appointment of Inspectors, however, and the awakening of the press to this abomination made its ultimate removal sure. It was reserved for Lord Ashley (the Earl of Shaftesbury), after Mr. Sadler's death, to acquire for British bairns a consideration which had long been granted to criminals and slaves. Among his most earnest hearteners in this enterprise were his old and close friend the famous Local Preacher, William (Billy ') Dawson, and several manufacturers and great employers, especially Messrs. Wood and Walker, of Bradford, and the generous George R. Chappell, of Man chester. A letter from Dawson to Sadler, dated Barnbow, January 27th, 1832, was extensively published in the papers and separately. In this he expresses his anxiety to throw into the scale the weight of his humble influence, to turn the beam on the side of justice and mercy.' There can scarcely be a more fitting conclusion to our account of Mr. Sadler's labours on behalf of the factory children than a lyric composed by him in the very heat of those labours, narrating in simple ballad style an illustrative incident attested before him as Chairman of the Committee. THE FACTORY GIRL'S LAST DAY. It was a winter's morning, The weather wet and wild : 'Father, I'm up, but weary, This is, we believe, the only instance in which Mr. Sadler made his muse subservient to his philanthropic politics. After the Dissolution of Parliament, which followed on the Reform Bill, at the general election, December, 1832, Mr. Sadler was induced, by the earnest solicitations of a large number of his fellow-townsmen, to come forward as a candidate for the representation of Leeds, in opposition to no less a personage than Thomas B. Macaulay. Could the election. have been determined by show of hearts Sadler would doubtless have been returned. But the classes whom he had befriended could help him little, whilst those whom he had called to account were, of course, dominant in a great manufacturing town. The result of the contest was for Sadler, 1,596 votes; for Macaulay, 1,984. As is well-known to the readers of Lord Macaulay's Life, he never forgave Sadler this honourable competition and his eloquent replies in Parliament. It was one of the very few, but very grave flaws in the fine character of that splendid writer that he indulged in an arrogant, uncandid, spiteful animosity towards |