London, March 19. To show the attitude of the press here 
towards Prussia, we have chosen two extracts, one from The 
Morning Herald, the Tory organ, the other from The Morning Post, 
Palmerston’s organ. Referring to the speech made by Sir Robert 
Peel, newly appointed Junior Lord of the Admiralty, to his 
constituents at Portsmouth, The Morning Herald remarks: 

“Sir Robert Peel has most truthfully represented the people of England’s 
sentiments when he demanded that Prussia should be urged to adopt an 
unequivocally stated policy, or our second expedition to the Baltic will be as futile as 
the first one. We have had enough of protocoling and ‘points’; it is now high time to 
cut off Russia from her resources and to bring about repercussions within Russia.” * 

The Morning Post has received the following report about 
General Wedell’s mission from Paris: 

“General Wedell has [...] communicated his new instructions to the Cabinet of 
Napoleon. And what are they? [...] General, Wedell tells the Government of 
France— First: His Majesty the King of Prussia’ is deeply afflicted at the death of 
cousin Nicholas‘; [...] Secondly: [...] Prussia quite agrees with the Western Powers 
about the protocol of Dec. 28,°° and is ready to subscribe to the same in any and 
every imaginable form! Ergo, Prussia must have a place at the Council board of 
Vienna. [...] But it happens that the protocol of December 28 does not bind any 
one to anything—it is only a diplomatic sketch for an historical work. And as [...] 
Prussia refuses to countersign the real alliance treaty between England, France and 
Austria, Mr. Wedell’s mission is, I suppose, closed”. 

It is well known that the rulers of Tyre and Carthage assuaged the 
wrath of the gods, not by sacrificing themselves, but by buying 
children from the poor to fling them into the fiery arms of Moloch. 
Official England orders the people to humble themselves before the 
Lord, to do penance and fast for the disgrace the misrule of their 
former government brought upon them, the millions of pounds 
which it extorted from them to no purpose, and the thousands of 
lives of which it unscrupulously robbed them. For the Privy Council 
has ordered a Day of Fasting and Prayer for next Wednesday,* 

“to obtain pardon of our sins, and in the most devout and solemn manner send 
up our prayers and supplications to the Divine Majesty, imploring His blessing and 
assistance ‘on our arms, for the restoration of peace to her Majesty and her 
dominions”. 

Just like the Lord Chamberlain at Court ceremonies, the 
Archbishop of Canterbury has published a “set of rules” for 
these religious ceremonies, rules which prescribe how the divine 
Majesty is to be addressed. On the occasion of this extraordinary 
competition of the English State Church with that of Russia, which 
has also entreated God’s blessing for their arms, the latter 
obviously has the advantage over the former. 

“Read by the Czar’s countrymen,” The Leader remarks, “the prayer prescribed by 
Canterbury is the prayer of cowards; read by Englishmen [...}, it is the prayer of 
hypocrites. [...] Read by Dissenters, it is the prayer of one sect dictating to the rest; and 
read by the working people, it is the praver of the rich who belong to that one sect, 
and who keep up these mummeries [...] through a belief that the mummeries are an 
indirect means of sustaining the monopolies of rank and office. The Archbishop’s 
unctuous verbiage has aroused the working classes in several parts of the country. A 
day of fast and humiliation is to them a reality. To the other ‘persuasions’, besides 
those of poverty, it only means the addition of fish and egg sauce to the usual dinner, 
with a closing of their place of business, as if it were Sunday. To the working men a 
‘fast? means stopped wages and the want of dinner.” 

In a previous despatch we stated: 

“The conflict between the industrial proletariat and the 
bourgeoisie will flare up again at the same time that the conflict 
between the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy reaches its climax.” 

At a large meeting which took place at the London Tavern last 
Friday,° this was manifestly demonstrated. We preface our report 

* March 21, 1855.— Ed. 
© March 16, 1855.— Ed. 

of this meeting with some particulars of the skirmishes which have 
recently taken place inside and outside Parliament between 
bourgeoisie and proletariat. A short time ago the manufacturers of 
Manchester held meetings where it was resolved to agitate for the 
removal of the official factory inspectors, since these inspectors not 
only presume to supervise the observance of working hours fixed 
by law, but even demand that the measures prescribed by 
Parliament to prevent damage to life and limb by machinery 
should actually be put into effect in the factories. The factory 
inspector for South Lancashire, the well-known Leonard Horner, 
has incurred their particular displeasure because, in his latest 
report,* he insisted on a legally prescribed appliance in spinning 
mills, the neglect of which, as one manufacturer—a member of 
the Peace Society,? of course—exclaimed naively, had “cost the 
lives of only five adult workers last year’. 

This was extra parliamentary. Inside the House of Commons, Sir 
Henry Halford’s Bill, which declared the “stoppage of wages” 
illegal, was thrown out during the second reading. “Stoppage of 
wages” means deductions from the money wages, partly as penalty for 
infringements of factory regulations framed by the employer, and 
partly, in branches of industry where the modern system has not 
yet been introduced, deduction of rents, etc., for looms, etc., lent 
to workers. 

The latter system prevails particularly in the stocking factories 
of Nottingham, and Sir Henry Halford has proved‘ that, in many 
instances, instead of being paid by his employer, the worker has 
actually to pay his employer. For, under various pretexts, so many 
deductions are made from the monev wages that the worker must 
give back an excess, which the capitalist notes down in the form of 
a debit. The worker is thus turned into his employer’s debtor, and 
is forced by him to renew his contract under ever more 
unfavourable conditions until he has become a bondsman in the 
fullest sense, but unlike the bondsman, he does not receive even 
the guarantee of physical survival. 

While the House of Commons rejected Sir Henry Halford’s Bill, 
which was to put an end to this malpractice, at its second reading, 
it refused even to consider the Bill of Cobbett, son of the great 

“ In his speech in the House of Commons on March 8, 1855. The Times, No. 
21997. March 9, 1855.— Ed. 

English pamphleteer. The aim of this Bill* was (1) to replace the 
ten-and-a-half hours law of 1850 by the “ten-hours law” of 
1847%; (2) to make the legal restrictions of working hours in 
factories a “reality” by the compulsory shutting down of machin- 
ery at the end of each legal working day. 

Tomorrow we shall revert to the meeting at the London Tavern.