The Sun. — London, England, 1844-05-04 00:00:00

I,AW INTELLIGENCE. .E.Y .I 7HEQUE I ? CHA:VBEI?,..May, 3. - (Sittings at Nisi I'ritt 4.. before Mr. Baron GunNEY and a Common Jury.) The following undefended cases were disposed of at the sitting of the Court, this morning. In each cause verdicts for the plaintiff were given. With one exception they were to recover the amounts of certain bills of exchange :—Sane. c. Ashcroft, 1851. ss. 6d.; Driver r. Sparks, 541. 19s. 5d.; Hill Norrine7ton, 301. 9s. 10d.; Turner v. Swaby, 1831. 195.; Rvall, 301. ss. Baron (.IL - r:szr intimated to the bar that as there were a number of actions for bills of exchange, he should give them pre:tience of other causes'Which were on the paper for to raorrow, and which were likely to occupy some time. lle therefore requested that gentlemen of the bar engaged in such causes, and their witnesses, would be in attendance at an early hour. SEAGRAVE. V. ENGLAND. Mr. Tru:nfrey appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Petersdorff for the defendant. This was an action to recover compensation in damages • fur an alleged illegal trespass and illegal ejectment. The de fendant pleaded that he was not guilty of. a trespass, and that lie was acting in the capacity of servant to another. The damages were laid at 8001. The circumstances of the case, as detailed by the Learned Counsel for the plain tiff and in evidence, are briefly these :—The plaintiff, Ann Seagrave, who is a widow, entered into an agreement with the defendant, Louis England, a house agent, carrying on business in New South-street, Islington, to rent a house, the property of a Mr. Pocock, situated at No. 44, Swinton-street, King's-cross, at a yearly rent of 421., and entered into the occupation of the premises on the 10th of July, 1843, whilst they were under repair. A few days after the de fendant intimated to her that the proprietor of the house was displeased with him for letting the house to a person who had not a regular income, and said that she must leave the house. Mrs. Seagrave, however, declined to accede to his request, as she had fairly and legally entered on the premises. }hiding that lie could not get her to vacate the house, he resorted apparently to a most extraordinary and illegal mode of effecting his purpose. lie employed se veral men to remain in the house, who were plentifully sup , plied with beer and tobacca, and whose noise, which ap ' geared to have been of a boisterous character, was thought likely to have the effect of frightening Mrs. Seagrave from the premises. But the plaintiff was obdurate, and resisted so obnoxious a mode of ejectment with imperturbable perse verance. The defendant then resorted to another mode of , driving the plaintiff from the premises. He visited 1 'the house . and intimated that he should compel her to leave, and on being remonstrated with by a lady who was about to become the plaintiff's tenant, he said lie would " turn her (plaintiff) out neck and crop" if further remonstrance were used. He even carried his violence on this occasion so far that a person, named Mrs. Micham, fainted, and died in two days afterwards. The defendant did not, however, commit any further trespass at that time, but in a few days employed persons to take her furniture into the street, Who also compelled the plaintiff to leave the house, by knocking her down and carrying her into the street, where they laid her on the pavement, and used . so much violence that her arm was bruised, and she was confined to her bed for a fortnight. It was, therefore, contended, that the plaintiff had sustained considerable injury, in a pecuniary sense, from this alleged misconduct on the pa' t of the de fendant. Mr. PETERSDORF addressed the jury at considerable length on the part of the defendant, wham he contended acted legally in ejecting the plaintiff from the house, who had not signed the agreement, and that she had obtained possession by unfair means ; in fact, that he wished the plaintiff to go with him before a magistrate to have the matter adjudicated ; and that at the time the furniture and the plaintiff were forcibly removed he had two policemen in attendance to see that no breach of the peace was committed. The de fendant merely acted in the capacity of clerk and collector to the proprietor of the house. If ifrs. Seagrave was the respectable person stated to be by the Learned Counsel, she could have had no difficulty in obtaining another house, and thus have sustained no pecuniary loss. No evidence had been produced to show that the furniture had sustained any injury. Witnesses were then called in support of this view of the case, viz., the plaintiff's illegal tenantry of the house, which, however, was not clearly proved. One stated, that "Mrs. Seagrave was carried out as carefully as a baby ;" and that no unnecessary violence was used either towards her or her furniture, and that she promised to „ ( , %1 out two days before the ejectment ;. "that' she - oillined the, key and possession of - the house surreptitionsly, -- Ai - mother policeman, who attended 4t the house on the day in question to see that no - breath of the peace was committed, also stated that no violence was used. Mr. Pocock, the proprietor of the house, said he never sanctioned the letting of the house to the plaintiff, and he directed the defendant to put her out, as she was Mete without Ms' authority. An agreement was prepared but never signed by the plaintiff, because he disapproved of it. Mr. HI:MCI:EY having replied,: Baron GCRNEY then summed evidence, and time jury having consulted for'sonie tinie,the foreman stated that there was no probability of their coming to a determination. Baron GURNEY desired them to retire and consider their verdict. The jury returned into Court at a quarter to four o'clock, after an absence of two hours, with a verdict for the plain t iff—Damages 50/. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. (YESTERDAY.) BOW-STREET. Yesterday a young man, named Wm. Clarke, describing himself as a carpenter residing at Gravesend, was brought before Mr. Hall, charged with having in his possession a quantity of valuable silver plate, of which he could give no proper account. He was extremely we dressed, and re spectable in appearance. From the evidence it was elicited that the prisoner went to the shop of Mr. Jones, pawnbroker, in Holborn, where, after some conversation with the shopman respecting the purchase of plate, he produced from a bag two small sacra ment silver cups, and salvers, a number of spoons and forks, with other articles of a similar description, worth, in the whole, a considerable sum, which he offered for sale ; but, in consequence of his being an unfit person to all appearance eo have such propel ty, he was given into custody. prisone - , in answer to the charge, said he had been on a v igi l `, with hi, uncle, who held a situation as cook at Eton College, and on his return to Gravesend he received the pro perty in charge to give to his sister, in whose house he re sided at the latter place. Mr. HALL examined the property, upon which there were dih'eeent initials and crests engraved, and then declaring he was be- no means satisfied ii ith the prisoner's accouut, he gave directions for his remand till Monday next. In the eoerse of the day a statement appeared in the Go vrtutnext Pollee Gazette of a burglary in the house of the Rev. Mr. Hod ;Ron, of Corkham Dean, near Maidenhead, an.: a description of exactly the same articles as were found on the prisoner, even to a number of postage stamps. He will on Monday be conveyed to Maidstone for examination before the county magistrates. On Thursday afternoon, about half-past four o'clock, a Scotchman named Alexander Sutherland was brought to the Court in the charge of Inspector Partridge, A division, by whom he had been conveyed from Queen-square Police Court, charged with using threatening language, and writing a threatening letter to Mr. Everett, the American Minister, his late master. The carriage of his Excellency drove to the door of the Court, an he alighted, accompanied by two female servants. They were ue t eered into the Magis trate's private room up stairs, through the Magistrate's private entrance, where the depositions were ta ken, the substance of which ' was that the prisoner had been in the complainant's service about twelve months as footman, and received his discharge a month back. He afterwards ap plied for a character to Mr. Everett, but as that gentleman could not add sobriety to his merits, the prisoner felt of fended, and repeatedly celled at the mansion house, 46, Grosvenor-place, and delivered to the domestics messages of threatening character for their inaeeer, in addition to which lie wrote to his Excellency, menacing hint With threats and violence. The prisoner was unable- to contradict any portion of the evidence, and lie was ordered to put in bail, himself in WO!, And two sureties in &)l, each, to keep the peace, and be ofgood behaviour, for the next twelve months. The required sureties could not be procured, and the pri soner was conveyed to Tothill fields Prison. [Our reporter states, respecting this: case, that if there be any error iu his account, it is attributable to the practice of •'private" hearings.] COURSE OF EXCHA: Amsterdam ...... CF 12 6 Ditto, at sight l2 3 111otterdam 2U. 12 1 Antwerp flamburgh M.B. 13 15 Altona l3 15 Paris, 3 days' sight 25 70 _Ditto, 3 months ....•• 25 90 Marseilles 25 95 Ilourdeaux Frankfort on Maine Petershargh, 3Us 364 Berlin 7 Vienna, etrot. ti. 3 M 955 rieste, ditto Madrid 364 Cadiz Uilbao 36 Barcelona 36 eV illQ — SIGE.—(YESTERDAY.) Gibraltar Leghorn 3O 55 Genoa 25 90 Milan Venice 47 Naples ........ Palermo, per oz ll7 Lisbon 534 Oporto s3i Rio Janeiro 23 Bahia 23 Buenos Ayres NewYork,2ldys sight Philadelphia PRICES OF BULLION, MB OZ. Foreign Gold, bars. £3 17 9 Portugal Gold Coin 3 17 5 New Doubloons-- 0 0 0 New Dollars 0 4 94 Silver in tars 0 4 11 FRIDAY NIGHT'S GAZETTE. WHITEHALL, MAY 2, 1844. The Queen has been pleased to constitute ant appoint the Most Honourahle John Marquis of Mite, K.T., to be her Majesty's High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. DOWNING-STREET, MAY 3. The Queen has been pleased to appoint Charles Fitzgerald, E'S• Commander in the Royal Navy, to be Governor and Commander-in -Chief in and over her Majesty's settlements in the Gambia. Queen DOWNING-STREET, MAY 2 ant F. G ii li a.:s t th e i npleased to appoint Major- . 'The Generals J. 1 Grey 'Military Order of the Ita':. Companions of the Most Honourable to be Knights Commanders of the said Order : and Colon e l J. Colonel 1. Valiant, 40th RegimentDennis' 3d Regiment of Foot ; of Foot ; Lieutenant- L Colonel A. Campbell, 9th ; Lieutenant-Colonel T. Wright 39th Regiment of Foot; Lieutenant- Cureton, 16th Lancers ; Lieutenant -Colonel Colonel. C. R. ..t . - 1 (. , :olonel G. J. M. Mae dowel!. 16th Lancers; Lieutenant. nel J. Anderson, 50th R eg iment of Foot ; Lieutenant-Colo ne l Colonel J. '). Cluide, 3d Regiment of Foot; Lieutenant_ Regiment of Foot ; and Lieutenant-Colonel J. \Sr. Bray, 39th Regiment of Foot, to be Companions of the said Outer. Her 40th Her 3lajesty has also been pleased to appoint the Officers, in the East India Com:,any's Service, Viz : following ,‘ General J. R. Lumley, Bengal Infantry, Adjutant-General lajor- of Sl:e Army, and Major-General J. If. Littler, Bengal Infantry, to be Knights C ommanders of the Most Honourable Military Order of the Bath ; and Lieutenant-Colonel W. , Yiengal Infantry. Li eu t e nant -Colonel G. E. G o w an , Bentegul Artillery, Lieutenant-Colonel A. Pope, Bengal Light Cavalry, Lieutenant-Colonel E. I3iddulph, Bengal Artillery, and Lieutenant-Colonel C. Hamilton, Bengal Infantry, to be Companions of the said Most Honourable Military Order. CROWN OFFICE, MAY 2. )(EMBER RETURNED TO SERVE IN THIS ?RESENT FARLIAMENT. BOROUGH OF Horisirit sc.—Robert Henry Hurst, of Hor skare in the county of Susses, Esq. , in the room of the Hon. Robert ' Campbell Scarlett, now Baron Abinger, anti one of the Peers of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. WAR-OFFICE, MAY 3, Ist Dragoon Guards—Lieutenant B. Newland to be Cap tain, by purchase, vice M. Pipon, who retires; Corne t J . S. ...., Stuart, to be Lieutenant, tiy purchase , vice Newland, May 3 . Ist Regiment of Foot—Captaia T. Graham to he Major, by purelaase, vice Goodall,who . . to be Captain, retires ; Lieutenant F. 11. Mein by s vice purchase, Graham ; Ensign A. W. Gordon to be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice 'Veil, ; T. G. 25th Foot—Lieut. Ensign, by purchase, vice Gordon, May 3, Foot, to be Lieutenant, vice Armstrong, ei from the half-pay 81st Foot • Ensign W. Cumming to Wellesley, appointed to the 73d vies Arms Lnirli .110 retiree ;..G. G. Needham,lutenant, by purchase, sign, by purditei ll , viiii c4utinimg, May y . 3 Gent., to be ii .. 35th Foot—Ensign R. H. Price to be Lieutenant, by pur• chase, vice T. J. G. Chctterton, who retires ; M. V. Sankey Morton, Gent., to be Ensign, by purchase, vice Piice, May 3. 56th Foot—Quartermaster -Sergeant W. Dougherty to be Quartermaster, vice T. Debenham, who retires upon half-pay, May 3. 67th Foot—Sergeant-Major J. Graham to be Ensign, with out purchose, vice Montgomery, deceased, May 3. 69th Foot—Captain C. E. Bewes, from the 85th Foot, to be Captain, vice O'Reilly, who exchanges, May 3. 73d Foot—Lieutenant E. Wellesley, from the 25th Foot, to be Lieutenant, vice Cubitt, appointed Paymaster of the 7th Light Dragoons, May 3. 82d Foot—Ensign L. F. Bernard to be Lieutenant, by pur chase, vice Nicholls, who retires, May 3 ; F. H. Garner, Gent., to be Ensign by purchase, vice Bernard, May 3. 85th Foot—Captain D. K. O'Reilly, from the 69th Foot, to be Captain, vice Bewes, who exchanges, May 3. 86th Foot—Ensign J. J. Matthews, to be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Thursbay, promoted; A. G. St. John Mildmay, Gent., to be Ensign, by purchase, vice Matthews, May 3. 87th Foot—Second Lieut. the Hon. R. W. Shirley, to be First Lieutenant, by purchase, vice North, who retires ; J. Halkett le Conteur, Gent., to be Second Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Shirley, May 3. 97th Foot—Lieutenant W. Murray to be Adjutant, vice Moore, promoted ; Ensign A. J. Loftus to be Lieutenant, without purchase, vice Murray, appointed Adjutant ; D. R. Croasdaile, Gent., to be Ensign, vice Loftus., May 3. 99th Foot—G. H. Wynyard, Gent., to be Ensign, without purchase, vice Armstrong, deceased, May 3. 3d West India Regiment—Ensign F. A. Davidson to be Lieutenant, without purchase, vice Maedonnell, superseded; U. M. Burke, Gent., to be Ensign, vice Davidson, May 3. HOSPITAL STA pr.—Assistant-Surgeon N. O'Connor, M.D. from the 59th Foot, to be Assistant-Surgeon to the Forces, vice W. Godfrey Watt, appointed to the 23d Foot, May 3. Messoaannust.—The date of the commission of Lieut. Whitty, of the 25th Foot, which appeared in the Gazette of the 26th ultimo, is 26th April. OFFICE OF ORDNANCE, Aram 30, 1844. Royal Regiment of Artillery,—Second Lieut. G. H. Vesey to be First Lieutenant, vice Olphert, deceased, April 15. Mamoru/spy 31. —The dates of promotions of the under mentioned officers have been altered as follow :—First Lieut. D. M. Fraser, March 7, 1844 ; First Lieut. J. D. Teller, March 30,1844; First Lieut. A. C. Gleig, April 1, 1844. Commission by the Lord Lieutenant of Middlesex. - Royal Eastern Regiment of Middlesex Militia—T. M. Car vick (and not T. M. Carvich, se inserted in - the Gazette of Friday last), Esq., to be Captain, April 22. Commission by the Lord Lieutenant of Wiltshire. Royal Wilts Yeomanry Cavalry—W. Long, jun., Esq., to be Captain, vice Olivier, resigned ; C. J. T. Conolly, Gent., to be Lieutenant, vice Long, promoted; E. D. B. Estcourt, Gent., to be Cornet, vice Antrobus, promoted ; R. P. Long, Gent., to be Cornet, vice Awdry, resigned. April 24. WHITEHALL, APRIL 27. The Lord Chancellor has appointed Samuel Charles Watson Buckle, of Peterborough, in the county of Northampton, Gent., to be a Muter Extraordinr •in the High Court of Chancery. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, May 3. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool sack at Five o'Clock. RECAL OF LORI) ELLENBOROUGH. The Duke of WELLINGTON took that opprtunity of informing the Noble Marquis opposite (Normanby), that his Noble Friend, the President of the Board of Control, would be in his place on Tuesday next. The Marquis of NORMANDY said he would, under those circumstances, postpone the question of which he had given notice respecting the communications which had passed between the Government and the Court of Directors, regarding the recal of Lord Ellenborough from India. _ . The LORD CHANCELLOR presented several peti tions in favour of the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition from Belfast against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. Lord BEAUMONT presented a petition from two Roman Catholic congregations in Lancashire, in favour of the Bill. The Marquis of NORMANBY presented several peti tions from various places in Ireland against the Bill. He had also for presentation several petitions on the subject of the Presbyterian marriages, which he should defer, as other Noble Lords had more important petitions to present. The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. Lord CAMPBELL presented petitions for and against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill from Thetford, and frum places in Ireland. The Marquis of BUTE presented similar petitions. Lord COTTENHAM also presented petitions on the same subject. Lord KINNAIRD presented a petition from the congregation of a free church, the locality of which we could not catch, against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from twelve Unitarian Ministers, of the highest character and long standing in their vocation, in favour of the Bill. Lord CLONCURRY presented (as we understood) a petition against the Irish Registration Bill. Earl FITZWILLIAM presented a petition from a Unitarian congregation, in favour of the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. The Earl of DALHOUSIE would suggest to his Noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond) the expediency of postponing to a future day his proposed motion for returns with respect to the importation of foreign wool. The Duke of RICHMOND assented, and the motion was fixed for Tuesday. On the motion of the Marquis of BUTE, the North British Railway Bill was read a second time. • ) . ary BANKRUPTCY SUPERSEDED. FREDERICK FORD and FRED. RILEY BROCKLE HURST, cloth manufacturers, Bow-lane, City. BANKRUPTS. HENRY ALDEN, printer, Oxford, to surrender, May 10, at half-past one, and June 14, at half-past eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Alsager, official assignee, Birchin-laae; Baylis, Devonshire-square, City. JOSEPH GIBBINS, carpenter, High-street, Marylebone, May 10, and June 14, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Belcher, official assignee, King's Arms-yard, Moorgate-street ; Rye, Golden-square. RICHARD BARHAM, linen draper, Emsworth, Hants, May 14, at half-past one, and June 25, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Follett, official assignee, Sambrook-court; Sole and Sole, Aldermanbury. JAMES DIAMOND, merchant, George-street, Tower hill, May 14, at eleven, and June 14, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Turquand, official assignee, Old Jewry chambers ; Crosby and Crompton, Church-court. JOHN GROVER, stone merchant, Regent-street, Lam beth, May 14, at two, and June 11, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Groom, official assignee, Abchurch-lane, Lom bard-street ; Beetholme, New Inn, Strand. SARAH JEVONS, shoe maker, Lincoln, May 14, at half one, and June 11, at half past twelve, at the Court of Bank rptcy. Groom, official assignee, Abchurch-lane ; Billing, King-street, Cheapside. AMBROSE SILLITOE, innkeeper, Suffolk, May 14, at half-past one, and June 19, at eleven, at the Court of Bank ruptcy. Johnson, official assignee, Basinghall-street ; Chilton and Chancery-lane. JOSEPH HEWITT ROBY, coffee-house keeper, Man chester, May 16 and June 10, at twelve, at the Manchester District Court. Fraser, official assignee, Manchester; Bridges and Mason, Red Lion-square, London ; Foster, Manchester. JOHN HARLING, farmer, Barnoldswick, Yorkshire, May 16, and June 6, at eleven, at the'Leeds District Court. Fearne, official assignee, Leeds ; owburn, and Norris, Settle ; Caries, Leeds. NOTICES OF INSOLVENCY. J. Shepherd, cabinet maker, Guisbrough, Yorkshire. T. Close, druggist, Halifax. J. Hall, farmer, Bubwith, Yorkshire. R. H. Hoskins, public-house manager, Liverpool. T. Ingham, farmer, Luddington. Lincolnshire. D. Evans, coach spring maker, Liverpool. J. G. Hatcher, coachmaker, Tenbridge. G. Baker, jun., ironmonger, St. Alban's-place, Edgeware-rd. J. Willey, grocer, Sheffield. W. Marsden, table-knife manufacturer, Sheffield. G. How, butcher, Hammersmith. C. Coffins, saddler, South Hincksey, Berkshire. J. Black, labourer, Horwich, Lancashire. J. Naylor, hosier, Liverpool. I. F. Coyle, Alexander-square, Kensington. L. Alman, musical instrument seller, Bristol. F. Mitchell, cab proprietor, Bride-lane. T. Smith, gun maker, High Holborn. J. Aspinwall, warehouse-salesman ' Manchester. A. Aspinwall, tobacconist, Manchester. W. Newman, builder, Hammersmith. . 4. Davis, governess, Gloucester-place, Portman-square. G. Frost, licensed beer retailer, Edmonton. W. Whiteley, scissor manufacturer, Sheffield. W. R. D. Brett, baker, Suter's-bs., Chapel-st., Somer'e-town: W. H. Webster, coal dealer, Mount-pleasant, Gray's Inn-lane. J. T. Hillen,t armer, Thursford, Norfolk. J. Kerby, licensed victualler, Bristol. B. Pocock, Fuller-street, Bethnal-green. J. Noke, railway porter, Manchester. .1. Gill, jun., veterinary surgeon, Halifax, Yorkshire. J. Wetenhall, stock agent, Walcot-terrace, Lambeth. B. Newnham, tailor, Frith-street, Soho. P. Stock, painter, Gray's Inn-lane, Holborn. W. Burton, innkeeper, Darlington, Durham. E. Brown, Gloucester. T. Cope, baker, Lenton, Nottinghamshire. C. Higginson, schsolcnaster, Broadwell, Oxfordshire. J. W. - Prentis, Kelvedon, Essex. C. W. Spear, waiter, Chester. J. Swinscoe, sen., wood turner, Sheffield. G. Davenport, Sheffield. J. Bedford, jun., pattern-card maker, Chorlton-onsMedlock. W. Ilore, boot maker, Bristol. S. Hall, beer-shopkeeper, East Dean, Gloucestershire. J. Chandler, market gardener, Mitcham. W. A. Wilson, painter, Granville.place, Bagnigge.wells-road. SECOND NOTICES. C. P. Poole, attorney-at-law, Pitts-place, Old Kent-road, May 9, at two, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Belcher, official assignee. G. V. Rogers, surgeon, Farnham, Surrey, May 9, at two, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Belcher, official assignee. J. Holloway, baker, Heston, Middlesex, May 9, at two, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Pennell, official assignee. 11. Newman, Stockwell, May 8, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Green, official assignee. J. Chase, grocer, Portsmouth, ' May 7, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Follett, official assignee. J. Crawford, Princes-street, Maida hill, May 8, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Follett, official assignee. A. M. Sandeman, accountant, King-street, Cheapside, May 8, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Green, official assignee. W. Shoobridge, farmer, May field , Sussex, May 8, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. • Follea, official assignee. T. Finley, sen., High-street, Newington-butts, May 8, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Green, official assignee. J. F. Wright, clerk, Loan Pit-hill, St. Paul, Kent, May 8, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Follett, official assignee. J. Kibble, clerk, Pcckam-grove, May 8, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Green, official assignee. G. Wallis, saddler, Oxford. May 11, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Groom, official assignee. R. Wells, ear,,enter, Brewer's green, Westminster, May 11, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Groom, official assignee. E. Burrell, Arundel-street, Strand, May 8, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Follett, official assignee. T. C. Varley, oil cloth manufacturer, Sheffield, May 11, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Hope, official assignee. W. Crowther, cloth manufacturer, Calverley, Yorkshire, May 6, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Young, official assignee. W. White, agent, Sheffield, May 11, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Hope, official assignee. W. Wheelwright, commission agent, Leeds, May 11, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Hope, official assignee. J. Lister, worsted spinner, Halifax, May 11, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Fearne, official assignee. D. Long, clothier, Guise!ey. Yorkshire, May 6, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Freeman, offieial assignee. T. Broadley, jobsinith. Sheffield, May 6, at eleven, at the Leeds District Gout t. Young, official assignee. W. Denniff, fruiterer, tilieffield, May 11, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Fearne, official assignee. W, Hancock, attorney, North Curry, Ramersatshire, May 9, at eleven, at the Exeter District Court. Heratman, official assignee. W. W. Osborn, tackle-maker, Exeter, May 9, at half-past eleven, at the Exeter Distriet Court. Illirtzel, official assignee. S. Randle, flour dealer, Wily . Pomeroy, Devonshire, May 9, at eleven, at the Exeter District Cowl, ilirtzel, official assignee , W. Stokes, wine merchant, Dudley, Worcestershire, May 14, at half-past twelve, at the Birmingham District Court. Valpy, official assignee. R. Davidson, bricklayer, Newcastle-u g on-Tyne, May 30, at half-past two, at the Newcastle.upon-1 yrse District Court. Baker, official assignee. at H. Tovey, coach lamp . manufacturer, Bristol, Afay ®, eleven, at the Bristol Distri ct Court. Miller, o ffi cial assignee. M. Snow, boarding-housekeeper, Liverpool, May 7, at twelve, at the Liverpool District Court. Turner, official as signee. J. Neale, cabinet-maker, Walcot, Sornersetshire, May 9, at twelve, at the Bristol District Court. Acraman, official as signee. T. Cave, clerk, Wells, May 8. at half past eleven, at the Bristol District Court. Milner, official assignee. W. Procter, butcher, Salford, Lancashire, May 8, at one, at the Manchester District Court. Pratt, official assignee. J. Bipsham, Manchester, May 9, at one, at the Manchester District Court. Hobson, fficial assignee. W. Mayler, publican, Chester, May 7, at twelve, at the Li verpool District Court. Turner, official assignee. T. Harrison, tablesknife manufacturer, Sheffield, May 11, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court. Fearne, official assignee. PRICE OF SUGAR. • . Tke Average Price of Brown or Muscovado Sugar, for the week ending April 30, 1844, is 365. 91d. per ewt., exclusive of the Duties of Customs paid or payable thereon on the im portation thereof into Great Britain. (Dividends, &c., in our next.) on Combo ' ExTßAortniNAßYinali:EAT.--,," man, named John 6 ight, th a , u , tl Who is a rigid tee totaller,Down, standing no in Tl ( a )r n e eo t c h lt , s u , i a fo q u u r a f r e r e y t in h wonderful b e e nd s l4 ti g irt b a ; :r 'a o t i l i l t lately accomplished. ded up Bath task for a wager of half-a-sovereCgn following t b g weight of three cwts. of freestone, hiii, , (I;4a t l z e the White iialr ,o a t n 'n , early Sr. 3fat•l's Church, Bathwiek, and wick-hill, and thence wer4 - , ; over the D ° ow ee n Hart, at the foot of Wideombe three miles, accomplishing the whole witftin This extraordinary feat was witnessed by many g :,' 1 ,71t 1 men, who all expresse 1 their astonishment at this exhi bition of strength. Previous to starting liancocks con trived to dispatch for his brealfast 21b. of beef, with bread in proportion, and two quarts of oeffee.—Bath Chronicle. • THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MAY 4, 1844. DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL. The LORD CHANCELLOR then rose to more that the House should resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. He expressed his surprise at the opposition which had been shown towards the Bill. The petitions, how ever, against the Bill were generally in the same hand writing, and he had no doubt emanated from the same source, and therefore he did not feel much fear for the Bill he had introduced oe account of these petitions. The Noble and Learned Lord went on to state—lt must be remembered, that there are numerous petitions, also, on the other side; but I humbly presume to say they are widely different in character from those I have men tioned, and entitled to much greater attention. There are petitions from members of the Established Church—peti tions from Presbyterians and various denominations of Dissenters, not couched in general terms, but pointing out specific hardships and evils, and praying a remedy fur the complaints which they made. There is an oppo sition, however, of a very different description which this Bill is destined toencounter—l mean that:of a Right Reverend Friend of mine (the!Bishop of London), formi dable not more for his talents than for his character and position. I do not apprehend, however, considering:the strength and justice of the case, even the effect of that formidable opposition. I feel some surprise indeed at the new association into which my Right Reverend Friend has fallen; but great advantage must be derived from it if, as I am persuaded he will, my Right Reverend Friend uses his influence to temper their zeal, and, if possible, to put an end to the differences which unfortunately prevail amongst them. I am happy to say, that as to one part Odle Bill—l mean the first section—no differ ence of opinion exists as to the necessity of some change. The Bishop of EXETER, iu a loud tone, " No, no, no."—(A laugh.) The LORD CHANCELLOR—WeII, this is the only quarter from which I have heard any objection. I be lieve my Right Rev. Friend (the Bishop of London) does not join in the opinions entertained by the Right Rev. Prelate. What is the object of this section, and the state of the law which it is intended by it to correct ? Some charities with respect to places of worship were established at a period when by law that species of wor ship was illegal. Subsequent Acts of Parliament passed legalising the form of worship. Though the foundation was illegal, those charities have since become legal ac cording to our present law. The more liberal character and spirit of the present age have repealed the statutes declaring they were contrary to law. Notwithstanding this, as the finindation of those charities was illegal, it has been considered, notwithstanding the alteration of the law, that the defect was not completely remedied ; and for the purpose, therefore, of preventing the con sequences resulting from those charities being vacated by process of the courts of equity, I have introduced the present clause into the Bill. The object of this clause is that those charities should be considered as if they were founded subsequently to the Act which legalised them, What can be more reasonable—what more just ? If they are legal, the foundation of the charity should be declared so also. And what is the object of their being set aside and declared void ? To vest them in the Crown, and thus devote them to other purposes than those for which they were originally intended. Until I hear some argument urged against the clause, I rest on this statement and the position I have made out—l rest On the support I expect to receive from my Right Rev, Friends—on the decided opinion expressed everywhere out of doors on the subject, and I shall not trouble your Lordships further with any observations respecting it. Now, as to the material point to which opposition is di rected. I must state what the nature of the provision is. Nothing. can be more simple. Places of worship are established by deed or will, for some benevolent purpose, That place has been established for one hundred and fifty or two hundred years ; but for a long period, say thirty, forty, fifty, or seventy years, the congregation meeting in that place have entertained the same religi ous doctrines and opinions. No change whatever has taken place during that period. It is a matter of speculation what the opinion of the original founder was. He has not in his deed of trust stated the doctrines and opinions which he is desirous should be propounded and inculcated in that place of wor ship. Why not take the usage which has prevailed for so long a period as evidence of the original inten• hen of the donor ? If in a deed it be declared to be the declared will and intention of the donor that particular doctrines should be preached and in culcated, to such a state of things this clause did not apply ; but when it was not laid down what parti cular doctrines should be preached, or what the precise object of the foundation was, and yet that the parties frequenting the chapel had uniformly, and for a long period continued the same usage as to religious worship and doctrines, I ask your Lordships why we may not reasonably take the usage as evidence of the intention of the donor, and not allow the title to the occupancy of the chapel to be impeached in a court of justice ? My Lords, a Noble and Learned Friend of mine stated, on a fernier night, the principle on which this law was founded. It is a principle well known to our law—that uniform possession for a long series of years establishes a title. That.great principle of our law is embraced in the law of every civilised country, and is adopted by our selves from the wise jurisprudence of ancient Rome, That principle wo apply to our estates—to our civil rights. Why not apply it to a case of this description ? Parties value their rights as connected with property of this description more highly than those appertaining to ordinary property. Those places of worship have been frequented by their fathers and grandfathers. The burial ground attache) contains the names of their relatives and parents, and is it not, therefore, most natural and important that the pr'ec'ple appl:ed to civil rights - should be nut in force as to property of this mixed character ? With respect to civil rights, if a party obtains unlawfully possession of land ; if he acquires property by a fraudulent act, or one of violence, still, if he is allowed to remain in uninter rupted possession for a long series of years (and indeed, not a very long pried according to modern law) his title becomes indeteasible. The parson kept out of pos session may say" I am wrong'ully dispossessed. I hive distinct evidence of the fact ;" the answer is " an inde feasible title has been acquired against you by lapse of time, and this has been built on a wise principle of the law." Evidence is lost by lapse of thee ; witnesses die, end their testimony is gone ; parties ase no longer able by distinct evidence to establish what their rights were, The lapse of time effects all this. It has also its connteractirig etfecte. It establishes continued possession as evidence or the right of another, thus balancing and replacing the title'which was lost. This is an established principle of the law. But it'is material to consider how it huh been recognised and extended in modern tunes, for the purpose is f seeing what importance has been at tached t 9 it, Everybody eh "lows that the rule I have h p cO nz ne a e g r e n d ed w , . it t h he Crown t i o )a superintend public pcer affairs, f b nr n dsg, its sua own n s h e pa d ed to unl be at r u an e p, s) ( ti ' alluded to did not exten to awe whore the C r ewe was tunity itefiVelY Perhaps there was another reason for the exception. It was n ot thought right that the weakness or supineness of the immediate possessor should impair the rights and interests of the successor. This for a long period was the few of the country; in modern acts it was consi dered Eo eatablish this limitation in the tfailliellseCee'rgP:e‘irvricrip,i:ertixeocde except o against tiFi; ifs r ir7Vo re P4 l ;7; sciaosne foor a r subject; and after long discussion the rule, excepting the Crown fro:n the operation of the principle I have named, was abolislig4- Jti blip case of the Church, too , Lord Tenterden, in our own ifiktlistiel the ex ception which said that no time should Fkm. egorAt this Church. Why enter into this detail for the purpose of Impressing on your Lordships the importance of this nits., and the universality of its application? The cir cumstances which >i am aboui; to though not coming within the scope Bill, stole Il e throw light on the epeetee o' ini4iFy instituted if some such mea , uro as the preeent be nq~ passed. I allude to Lady Howley's charity. o• (fife e ) ne it w • • un es to say that is not a single case ; many suc penaine, ar r d many more threatened. The Noble and Learned Laird awii y: Yet on to give a his tory of this case, by which it appeared 'that' the judge# and House of Lords voted in favour of the claimants. Tihneidoeennyge belong. g ei s nl e t es- said, a t a l t e tz tiev questionreia arer.s saidto, theatiod p w ,a, h rT o t rc es3i. d na i tr d een od t t h e, dr e_ s/c f , u T nds the h e Master had to investigate those conflicting claims, and report to the . Vice-Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor . 4a4 a second time to sift the most conflicting evidence,, and the result Was not yet determined. One thing, how ever, was determined—the costs amounted to 30,0001. and were to be paid, as usual, out of the charity. He knew that there wt re at least two hundred suits in contemplation, for the purpose of ousting the trustees of several of those charities, and he thought their Lord ships would agree with him, that he was perfectly jus- 1 tified in calling for the interference of that House.— (Ch , :ers.) The object of the Bill was to prevent liti• gation, and he felt confident that he vi ould meet with the cord:al support of their Lordships. The Bi;Eop of LONDON said, he should not venture to oppose so distinguished an authority if he had not a grave and weighty judgment on his side. lie should not say that he was about to imitate a great Roman orator, and appeal from Philip in one condition to Philip in another—(a laugh)—but he would appeal from the legislator to the judge. And here he was reminded of the truth of an axiom delivered by one who was the ornament of the Woolsack and the Bench, that the opinion of a judge was more certain than that of a senator. He should describe the Bill as one to render lawful that which was -at present unlawful. It was true another object was to prevent litigation. But litigation was a great though not unmixed good, when by it justice was vindicated. As to Lady Hewley's charity, the blame of the expense incurred rested on those who per tinaciously resisted the claims of those justly entitled to it. These chapels were at first founded by persons obliged to subscribe to the doctrines of the Church of England. Before the Act of Toleration it was not allow able for any sect to worship according to any forms, save those of the true Church of England. At the time of the Restoration, 2,000 ministers were displaced from their benefices in consequence of their refusal to subscribe to the articles of the Church. A great many dissenting chapels were then built and endowed by persons pro fessing and believing in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Dissenters were then permitted to build chapels and endow them under certain limitations. But 'there was one remarkable exception. The benefit of the Act of Toleration was not to extend to those who held views denying the divinity of Christ. About 2,000 chapels were built within twenty years from the year 1644, when the Act of Toleration was passed ; and every one of these chapels was built by persons holding Trinita rian doctrines ; nay, more—not one of these chapels was occupied by a minister who would not have thought it the height of blasphemy to promul gate Unitarian principles. The dissenters of these days, then, subscribed to the doctrine of the Holy Tri nity. They had no scruple in doing so. Presbyterians and Dissenters approved of that provision of the Act of Toleration which prevented its benefits from. being ex tended to those who held Unitarian doctrines. Dissent ing ministers could not, then, exercise their functions without subscribing to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity ; and therefore, for many years, there was no endowment established, but in the firm belief that Unitarian doctrines would never be preached in the chapel to which it re ferred. In 1647 a union took place between the Inde pendents and the Presbyterians ; but still they con tinued strict Trinitarians. At that time a curious in stance occurred to show the abhorrence in which doc trines approaching to Unitarianism were held by the orthodox Dissenters. A very distinguished Dissenting clergyman in Dublin was deprived of his benefice. He held what were called high Arian doctrines, and so strong, on this account, was the feeling against him, that when he came over to London not one of the Pres byterian or Independent ministers would hold com munion with him. He (the Bishop of London) offered at present no opinion upon doctrinal points ; he was merely urging the question historically. So matters went on until 1770, when, instead of the former subscription to the articles of the Church, a declaration was substi tuted, by which Dissenting ministers admitted that they received the Holy Scriptures in the sense usually adopted by Protestant churches, and that they held them to be the word of God. From 1689 to 1770, it was next to impossible that any chapels, or, at least, a considerable number of chapels, should have been erected for the promulgation of Unitarian doctrines. Not only were they built with the view of not promulgating Uni tarianism, but they were built with the view of com bating its advance. It would probably, however, be asked why, in the cases of many of these chapels, there were not express stipulations in the trust deeds, pro viding that no doctrines other than those of the founders should be taught therein. Why, for a very obvious reason : the founders considered that they were protected by the law. They never thought of the possibility of such a change as had occurred really happening. They never considered that Unitarianism could be legally preached. He did not say whether - the change was right or wrong, but it was a change which their fore fathers never contemplated. This was not his opinion alone: there was a letter, published upwards of twenty years ago by an eminent minister of the Independent per suasion, in which he found it stated that all who knew the old Presbyterian doctrines, from the writings of the period, would know that the authors would have shrunk with the deepest horror from lending their support to doctrines which they believed contrary to the Scriptures, and ruinous to the everlasting welfare of man. And here, he would remark, that it could not be said that the Unitarians had had no warning. The note of alarm had been sounded nearly twenty years ago. At that period an action was brought upon the subject, but the uncertain state of the law, until the late decision in the Hewley case, prevented it from being proceeded with. A controversy 'alien the subject, however, sprang up in Lancashire in the year 1825, when it was clearly shown that out of 700 Unitarian chapels in the. Duchy of Lan caster,' the possession of 274 had been usurped by Uni tarian trustees. He would remark, too, that the claim in question was put forward by only a small body of Dissenters, and that it was opposed, although not unanimously, by other dissenting sects. The Uni tarians formed, he believed, about two per cent. of the great body of Dissenters. The Wesleyan Me thodists had held a meeting, and agreed to represent strongly their reasons against the Bill. The general boiy of Dissenters had had a meeting, at which a simi lar address was agreed to. lie considered that this Bill was neither more nor less than an ex post facto law, rendering necessary to the validity of a trust certain conditions not necessary to its validity when the trust was executed. It proposed to render it necessary to the vali dity of a trust that the purposes of the founder should have been mentioned in the deed, although at the time of its:execution these intentions were perfectly notorious. And this brought him to the general and sound principle upon which, up to th is tim e , courts of equity had do himself b e hi n d a l ong array on cided in such cases — na mel y , that when the intentions of a hd s eei dsheltered not evidence speak on le ga l matters upon hi s own the founder could be ascertained, they should be strictly %; He Right Rev. Prelate here proceeded to read a number of of adhered ites t s o e . s, authority vh judgments pronounced by various judges in various cases, to the general effect, thi.t where it was possible to ascer tain what were the religious tenets of the founder of a chapel, that it ought to belong to and be in communion with the sect who maintained these tenets. That it was not in the power of the truste es o f c h apels to alter the es purpos • for which their founders endowed them. One of these judgments (continued the nigh t Rev. Prelate) had been delivered by his Noble arid Learned Friend on the woolsack, and it was to the effect, that in any case of charity, whether the object of the charity was for civil or religious purposes, it was the duty of the court to give eTeet to the intentions of the founder, provided that could be done without infringing any y known rule of law. It the terms of of the deed be clear and precise, both as to language and application, the course of the court would not be difficult ; but if, on the eontrarv, the terms were doubtful and obscure, it then became the duty of the court to ascertain by means of evidence, as clear as could be laid before it, what were the; intentions of the founder, and the moment the fact was known the application of it became clear. Such:were the legal opinions of the Noble and Learned Lord On the woolsack upon the point ; and it would be scarcely necessary for him to cite other au thorities in support of a principle so clearly laid down, and so evidently in accordance with common sense and comnian justice. But well-founded as that principle was, this Bill went to subvert it. His Noble and Learned Friend said, and said truly, that they could not believe that Lady Hewley, a pious and well-meanin g lady,eould have given funds to promote and encourage the promulgation of doctrines directly at variance with those opinions she entert lined, as regarded points universally considere I as essential in matters of religious belief. No; she never in tended her bsunty to be applied to the encouragement of the teaching of Unitarianism. It was almost superfluous for him to add another word to this argument of his Noble and Learned Friend. But his Noble and Learned Friend's Bill went directly in contravention tot lie principle he had himself so luminou •ly laid down. It was now pro posed that th.r , usage of a congregation for the last twenty years should be take n as convincing evidence of what was the purpose of the founder—it might be 150 years ago—and of the nature of the religious doctrines which lie intended to bo taught. He should have thought that they could have a better test of what those inten tions and what those doctrines were by taking the usage of the first instead of the last twenty years after the founder's death.—(Hear, hear.) If they could prove what was the usage for those twenty years they could settle the question at once, but surely twenty years preaching of a doctrine which the founder held to be blasphemous was not ''so conclUsive. It was argued in favour of the Bill that it would produce a feeling of peace and security amongst many congregations of Dis senters but lie objected to upset equity and justice for the sale of at best a doubtful peace. He believed, in deed, on the contrary, that, if carried into effect, it would excite a spirit of watchfulness and jealousy as to the 1 doctrines and words of the preachers in many dissent -1 tug congregations. The dissent of many of the chapels to which he had alluded, from what was generally called orthodox doctrine to the depths of Socinianism, had been effected Ly glow degrees, The history of these chapels showed that th a t di ssen t usua lly commenced through the instrumentality of some minister holding the doctrines of what was called High Arianism. The congregation 4 2( ' 41 i4P liiibiNgri lo his doctrines and forms of expres sion. Then he er ilia sttecessera yentnred nn the 111144 Arianism ; from thence they proceeded to Socinianism; and thus Unitarian doctrines came regularly to be r.reached in the chap e l i n ques tion. He should like to ;: ~ knqw 4(44 stavity tileFe syq,s, if this Bill were carried into effect, of chapel's not bwig ultimately Olit4e4 by q.; cialist preachers ?—(Hear.) The Act i was so vague that he did net know but that any party of individuals claim 'n,7 to be a religious body at all, might not advance Ir; cld'ids to cliapefs ilyic.;ll 4. Angther question he would pin, To the golBlas C'olieiddratiOri . 6,r 0 ,, r - -P,, , mishAv.,Yf:', wlie6o,aq was pc4 piopieclAilo %Inn rcliwifte'9,l , law 414euld be applies' to ta l k whieli was applied to private - , et. ma i nta i ne d t h a t the duty of the legisla , property. --- - cure and of the judges, in respect to trust property, was i onito different from their duty as respected private pro- I Pray.. The forss t er required more protection. more careful guardianship, than 'the !titter'. It 'appeared, ths4 to him that, by passing this Bill, Parliament wcnici, without any suflipieet cause having been shown, be purr suing a course tending to enrich and endo w Unitarianism Iwith the spoils of orthodox Dissenters. Anxious as he was to do everythingin his power.to prevent unnecessary. litigation, and to settle doubtful titles, when these objects' could be accomplished without gross injustice, he must still oppose the Bill, at least the second clause, as in volving a principle inconsistent with justice, equity, and the interests of true religion.—(Bear, hear.) The Right Rev. Prelate concluded by moving that the Bill be read that day six months. Lord BROUGHAM gave this Bill his entire support. He thought the Right Reverend Prelate had quite mis taken the object of his Noble and Learned Friend in bringing forward this measure, for this Bill did not pro vide that the doctrine of the elders of the chapels for the last thirty years should be held to be the doctrine of the original founder of the chapel. The object of taking the doctrine which had been preached in the last thirty years in these chapels, was to prevent litigation, and to save the funds of the original founder of the chapel. He did not think that the judgments to which the Right Reverend Prelate had alluded ought to be referred to as evidence against this Bill, because the judges did not lay down in their judgments what the law ought to be, but they stated in those judgments what the law was. The administrator of the land and the lawgiver were two very different officers. His (Lord Brougham's) opinion was that this Bill would be very beneficial in its opera tion. He thought nothing could be more consistent with justice and common sense than the measure now proposed by his Noble and Learned Friend, because he thought it might well be surmised from the religious tenets of the founders what their intentions were respecting the doctrines to be taught in those foundations. Because he felt the necessity of putting an end to vexatious litigation, and fulfilling the original intention of the donors, he returned his sincere thanks to his Noble Friend on the Woolsack for the Bill he had introduced, and hoped that it would meet with every support from their Lordships. The Bishop of EXETER certainly felt it to be his duty to oppose this Bill most strongly, and more parti cularly its first clause, because he thought the objects and intentions of the Bill were to set aside all the sacredness and integrity of those trusts. If the principle recommended by the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack were true and just, it should be carried out to the fullest extent. He would oppose this Bill, because he contended its tendency was to dis regard the intention of the founders; for if they had no means of knowing whit those intentions were, the Bill would be wholly useless, and all they would have to de pend upon was the general usages with respect to those trusts. He also thought it tendd directly to counteract the principle of the statute passed upon this subject, namely the 53d of Geo. 111. Their Lordships must be aware, common ecclesiastical law applied to a vast number of offences—he should, perhaps more properly term them sins—of which the ordinary criminal law of the country took no cognisance, amongst which he might enumerate incest, which was not declared a crime according to the statute law. He feared that he was pursuing a hopeless task in opposing this Bill, because he knew how vast was the power of the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack in that House. The Noble and Learned Lord was sure to triumph, for he was in that House a giant—a Briaraeus—(Laughter)— with a hundred arms, fit a hundred of their Lordships were ready to rise up and support him. He (the Bishop of Exeter) most heartily concurred in the amendment that had been moved by his Right Rev. Friend, that this Bill be committed that day six months. Lord COTTENHAM was ready to share in any odium which might be thrown upon the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack, for bringing forward this measure ; and he should support the Bill, notwith standing the dark insinuations which had been thrown out by the Right Rev. Prelate. He would ask their Lordships whether, after what they had heard, they felt the slightest doubt as to the propriety of making this Bill the law of the land? Their Lordships had heard all that could be said against it. Both the Right Rev. Prelates had argued upon the law of this case, and upon the policy, as if it were a question depending between. the congregations now in possession and some other class of persons who had been dispossessed. This was quite an erroneous view of the case, and he had no doubt that their Lordships would see that it was. The Right Rev. Prelate who had just sat down had evidently referred lately to a great number of law books, but he had omitted one which would have set him entirely right upon the subject. Had that Right Rev. Prelate, in the course of his letral investigation, turned to the case of Lord Cholmondeley, he would have found that the view of the subject of this Bill which he had taken was entirely erroneous, at least with respect to the law of the case. The Right Rev. Prelate, in the course of his speech, had said that heresy was still punishable. It was punishable, it was true, but in what courts was it punishable? Why, it was punish able in those very courts which the Right Rev. Prelate himself had so strenuously defended, namely, the diocesan courts. Now he (Lord Cottenham) trusted that what the Right Rev. Prelate had said that night would be represented to the House of Commons.— (Laughter)—before they passed the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill. With respect to the Bill before their Lord. ships, he would remind the House that many of the chapels to which it referred, had been considerably en larged at great expense by the present congregations, and he would ask how were they to deal with such cases? From the statements which appeared in the petitions which he had presented on this subject, it would be seen that in some cases chapels of the petitioners had been held hv them and their predecessors for 150 years, in others 100, and so on. The intention of this Bill was to afford that protection to property of Dissenting con gregations which every other person or species of pro perty possessed. It was merely to protect that property which had been enjoyed by those congregations for so many years, and he therefore hoped their Lordships would feel perfectly satisfied that, in passing this Bill, they were only protecting those persons from injustice, inconvenience, and loss. The Bishop of EXETER said the Noble and Learned Lord who had just sat down mistook his (the Bishop of Exeter's) meaning. What he had said, and what he would again repeat, was, that lie would wish to see all power which the Established Church possessed over the Dissenting classes abolished, provided that they were prevented froin interfering with the rights and privileges of Churchmen. Lord CAMPBELL supported the Bill, because he thought, that on the broad principle, and in the spirit of the law, the Dissenters were entitlel to the same protec tion with reference to their property as other persons, and because he felt assured that the law, as it at present stood, inflicted much hardship and inconvenience upon those bodies. Such being his conviction, he could not help expressing his hope that it was not the intention of the Right Rev. Prelate oppouite to divide the House upon this question. The Bishop of LONDON said it was not his intention to divide the House. Lord TEYNHAM would oppose the Bill, because he thought it was calculated to inflict much hardship upon many parties, arid also because of the numttr of peti tions which had been presented by various bodies of Dissenters disapproving of the measure. He agreed with the Noble and Learned Lord that something re quired to be done, but certainly this Bill would not at all provide a remedy for the evils which now existed. It was true that these congregations had had possession of those chapels for many y.ars, but then they also had enjoyed all their concomitant advantages. He felt that passing this Bill would be a gross injustice, because those sums of money were granted, not for the promotion of parti cular doctrines, but for the purposes of truth. Such being his opinion, he felt justified - in coinciding in the expression that this Bill' was one of spoliation, and he much regretted that it should be sanctioned by any high and honourable body of her Majesty's subjects. He questioned very much whether this Bill would prevent litigation, for if the trustees of any of these chapels should find that their ministers were preaching doctrines contrary to the doctrine of the particular sect to which they belonged, it would then be the duty of those trus tees to bring those ministers into Court. Believingthat this Bill would open a wide door to litigation, he should oppose it. The amendment was then put and negatived without a division. . The Bill then passed through Committee, was re ported, and ordered to be real a third time on Monday. The Eastern Counties Railway Bill was read a third time and passed. Their Lordships then adjourned. .HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 3. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock. The Pontop and South Shields Railway Bill was read a third time and passed ; as was also the Newcastle and Darlington Junction Railway Bill. Sir 1101VARD DOUGLAS moved that the Liver pool Docks Bill be re2ommitted, and that Lord Gran ville Somerset be added to the Committee, for the pur pose of adding a new clauSe to the Bill. The motion, after a short conversation, was agreed to. The Leeds and Selby Railway Purchive (No. 2) Bill was read a third time and passed. Col. WOOD presented a petition from a place in Bre ton, signed by 3,000 persons, praying for a repeal of the duty on lime u ed for manure. lqr. S. CRAWFORl7piesented a petition from Roch dale in favour of a Ten Hours' Factory Bill. Lord INGESTRE presented a petition from Bolton, in the county of Durham, against the union of the sees of Bangor and St. Asaph. 'Mr. W. PATTEN presented a similar petition from the Hundred of Amounderness. Mr. PARkiER presented a petition from Sheffield, praying for a CoMmittee of Inquiry into the principle of atmospheric railways. Sir E. COLEBROOK brought up the report on the Leeds and Bradford Railway Bill. Mr. SOTHERON presented a petition from Ton bridge and one from Tonbridge-wells, against the South- Eastern and Hastings Railway Bill. Colonel WOOD presented a petition from the c,)al factors of London, against any additional tax on coal ; on to the same effect from Uxbridge ; and one from the Enfield Coal Club, Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from the inhabitant s of Waltham-chase, in Hampshire, against the Commons Inclosure Bill. mr, AINSWORTH presented ten petitions from the persons einplOyed in ten factories in Bolton, in favour of a Ten Hours' 13111. Mr. KEMBLE brought up the report on the London Gas Bill, which was ordered to lie on-the table. The Thetford Jnclosurc and prtlinti,gs,' 441 rea4 thialiihe'i4l4as . 4e4 ; " Mr, HtME presented a petition from the inhabitants of Devizes, in which they complained that the duty on w.is goo per cent. on the valve, and prayed that it might be reduced ; also a petition from Montrose against the Commons Inclosure Bill, let e 4 .12 U LOD E.WiENWOROL:(iti, Of. TO" that' on' 7 1 7 11e . :§44Y ne44 he should move for a copy dt 411' the GerrespolitiPnee be tween the East India Company a ii.u dt r h o e u ::y freornlnn p th „ : relative to the rec al of L ord Governor - Generalship of India, ~, MARINE INSURANCES. Mr. lIUME moved for.'a return of the aggregate amount of the stamp receipts open marine insurances for the ten years ending 1843, with the rates in each year, and the amount under each rate ; also, for a return of the amount of the stamp duty received on bills of lading during the same ti ears.—Ordered. TifE NAVY. Sir C. NAPIER gave notice that on Thursday, the 16th of May, he should bring the state of the navy list under the consideration of the House. Mr. C. WOOD presented a petition from Halifax against the ten hours clause; also a petition against the County Courts Bill. Mr. ELLICE, jun., wished to know from her Majesty's Government when the report of the Scotch Poor-law Commissioners would be laid before the House ? Sir J. GRAHAM said he should not be prepared to answer the question before the early part of next week. Mr. FRENCH wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home Department; whe ther it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill for the extension of bail in error. It was reported that a statement to that effect had been made by the Lord Chancellor in the other House. Sir J. GRAHAM was not aware that any statement of that kind had been made. If the Honourable Gentl.3- man would repeat the question on Monday, he would en deavour to answer it. CRIMINAL LAN. Mr. WATSON wished to ask of the Right Hon. Bart. at the head of her Majesty's Government whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to intro duce any measure founded on the report of the Criminal Law Commission ? Sir J. GRAHAM said that the Hon. Gentleman hav ing some weeks ago given him private notice of his in • tendon to put this question, he had since directed his at tention to the subject. The Criminal-law Commissioners suggested the repeal of obsolete statutes; as that involved the consideration of various details, many of the statutes passed in the reign of Elizabeth, and James the First, having, it appeared, fallen into disuse, it was the inten tion of her Majesty's Government to direct the attention of the law-advisers of the Crown to that subject. BANK CHARTER. Mr. F. BARING wished to know what course it was proposed to follow on Monday with reference to the Bank Charter. He wished to know if the First Lord of the Treasury intendA on Monday- merely to make a statement of his proposition without calling for the decision of the House, or if it was intended at once to ask for the decision of the House on the propositions which would be laid before it ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had not had an opportunity of seeing the First Lord of the Treasury since he had had notice of the Right Hon. Gentleman's question; but he believed that it was his Right Hon. Friend's intention not to call upon the House to agree to any resolutions on Monday, if there should be any objection to his propositions. SIR A. HENNIKER'S CHARGE. 111 r. T. DUNCOMBE rose to call the attention of the House to a letter which he had received on the subject of a quotation which he had made from a charge of Sir A. Henniker to the grand jury of Suffolk. From the noise in the House, which continued during the whole time the Honourable Member was speaking, we had great difficulty in collecting even the purport of his observations. We understood him to say that in the debate on the Masters and Servants Bill he had quoted from a charge of Sir A. Henniker to the grand jury of Suffolk, in which that gentleman stated his belief that unless the landlords did something to alleviate the con dition of the labouring classes incendiarism, would con tinue to increase, and not the whole of the metropolitan police force could keep the country quiet. That was the purport of his remarks ; and he begged to say that he had not intentionally misrepresented Sir Augustus Henniker. In a letter which he had received on this subject, it was stated that Sir Augustus had said that he could not close his eyes to the wide-spread spirit of discontent. (The Hon. Member here read the letter alluded to, and it appeared, as far as we could gather, that the version of Sir Au gustus' speech given in the letter did not differ mate rially from that which the Hon. Member had previously given.) He (Mr. T. Duncombe) begged to express his regret if he had misrepresented the purport of the charge, but it appeared to him that the only injustice of which he had been guilty was in not having expressed himself sufficiently strong. FACTORIES BILL. On the motion that the Order of the Day for the house resolving itself into Committee on the Factories Bill, be read, Mr. S. CRAWFORD rose to call the attention of the House to the Belfast petition, but he was interrupted by The SPEAKER, who said that the Hon. Member was out of order, inasmuch, as the question had not yet been put. Mr. ROEBUCK rose amidst loud cries of " Order," but at length gave way. The question that the Order of the Day be read was then put, and agreed to. . Sir J. GRAHAM moved that the Speaker do leave the chair. Lord ASHLEY presented several petitions in favour of the ten hours' clause. Mr. ALDAM presented a petition from persons em ployed in the woollen mills at Leeds, against the half time clause. Mte ROEBUCK then rose for the purpose of moving— " That it is the opinion of this House that no interference with the power of adult labourers in factories, to make contracts respecting the hours for which they shall be employed, be sanctioned by this House." He believed that he Ives perfectly in order in moving this resolution before the House went into Committee on the Bill. It had been objected to him that he might have moved the resolution in Committee, but, in his opinion, great advantage would be derived from moving it as a resolution of the House. It appeared to him (Mr. Roebuck) that the Right Honourable Gentleman opposite was alternating between various practices—that at one time the doctrines of non-inter ference with labour prevailed with him, and at another time the opposite doctrine. He was anxious to learn from the Right Hon. Gentleman the principles upon which his conduct was governed. He, therefore, should first apply himself to the general principle which ought to prevail in order to deprive the Right Honourable Gentleman of the power of apply ing his own principles in any way that he liked. He meant to throw upon the Right Honourable Gentleman the onus of showing why he took from the working classes the power of contracting for themselves; and then be should address himself to the Noble Lord opposite, and throw upon him . the onus of proving the advantage he proposed to confer on the working classes by legislation. He should grapple with two ante eonists who were opposed to each other ; but he wished first so to place them, as that they should not be. able to draw from an armoury which did not legitimately belong to them. But, before all, he wished to relieve himself from the odium which was cast upon him, and others who thought with him. He meant the charge of inhumanity —(hear, hear)—of disregard for the people—of un natural selfishness—nay, of celd-bloodedness, which had been charged upon them. For himself he could say he had a sincere sympathy for the working classes, and so sincere was it that it could only be satisfied by seeing them vested with the power of governing themselves. The professing friends of the working classes would not agree in this. He (Mr. Roebuck) said to those professing friends give them the power to speak for themselves—give them the power to legislate for themselves in this House. When they gave to the working classes that power—when .he found those who professed themselves so exceedingly anxious: for. the rights of the people voting for their proper representa tion in that House, then he would believe-that they had some real sympathy for their sufferings. Now to his propositions. He (Mr. Roebuck) took it as a general rule that the labouring man had the greatest interest in forming' 'contract for himself. The next proposition was, that the working man had the best knowledge of his own circumstances, and that no general rule could be - framed so well calculated to affect his interest as his own strongly inclined views, his w ants, and necessities. The general rule, therefore, must be taken to be, that they could not interfere with private interests on this subj-ct—that the parties them selves were the best calculated to make their own contracts. Those who differed from this principle and who advocated interference, must show the grounds for that interference ; the onus lay upon them to do so. Now, what right had they to interfere with them? First, he hell that the parties having strong interest and pecu liar knowledge, it was incumbent for the party inter fering to show that they had greater knowledge ; that they had greater interest, or that they had a greater power of judging. But ti Noble Lord said there was a pe culiar (kiss t.ef men in this country called " factory men," that there were peculiar things connected with their con dition that called for the interference of the Legislature, and that those peculiarities were overwork and under pay. Now, upon that the Noble Lord had collected a great mass of evidence which he had flung upon the table of the House, staling that that evi :mice showed great immorality and great misery. Such were the Noble Lord's premises, bet the next step that the Noble Lord took was a most remarkeble one—he stated that great miseryexisted from overwork and u n d erpay , an d h e stated the person that did not suppo:t him in that proposition was an enemy to the working classes, to humanity, and to all the best feelings of the human, heart, and that as such he ought t o b e b ran d e d as the enemy of his kind. Nov, between the' Noble Lord's premises and his conclusions, th ere was in hi* (bir. Roe buck's) opinion no connection whatever. Having esta blished that an evil existed, he ought to have gone on to show that the proposition which he had brought forward was a remedy f or t h at evil.—(Hear, hear.) However anxious he might he to ameliorate the distress, he might be a bad, he might be an ignoeant physi cian, and what he proposed, instead of relieving might increase th misery he described, and so far from ameliorating a s ing l e m i s f ortune, might bring a curse upon those for whom he legislated. This, he thought, described the position of the Noble Lord. lle had be t -in misled by his sym pathies, anti hp peme to that House to show th a t grea t misery existed in a particular class of labourers. Now it was very easy for the ranting demagogue to go, a sort of wandering instrument, routia the country, for the dissemination of Iguoilanp and ; that was a very cite) , thing to 40 ; it was assumed by the , a • moot ye g e e an the most ignorant of mankind ; that was an object easy of attainment, but what the House required was something beyond that ignorance —something beyond that blustering weakness, something beyond that coward following out of opinions which in that House dared rot be maintained. That was easy it,,et th4t House was tha tilEci.,lo\ll4 tint only prove a. "01 evils, hilt show also or their remedy ; that that 'louse. efficiency ...ey should not accuse , legislation, of being the cause of uiose evils which arose out of the circumstances of our condition as human beings ; that they should not throw, on any class in this country, the odium arising from that which was the mere nece:sity of our na'ure. ere. had said that that class of mind, which thus sought to obtain notoriety, was among the lowest and most vulgar which could deprave humanity ; which, though in a time of excitement might meet with some transient favour from that House would, P°, hoped, when the House came to its right senses, be , as it ought to be, declared a calumny and a falsehood• T he first step the Noble Lord had taken was to show that the factory labourer was in a pectiliar position—that he was in a situation which distinguished him from all others -e that there was that in the peculiar incidents of, his history which enabled a Legislative body to interfere in his behalf. Now, they wanted to lin° w what were the peculiar characteristics of the factory ht" bourer. First, he found that the factory labourer WO quite as well fed, to say the least of it, as any other lee bourer in the community, and he should be enabled to show that the factdry labourer Was better fed than tole other. lie then found that the factory labourer was not subjected to worse toil than other classes of the c omma' nity, and he would beg the House to remark that it 1 05 not enough to get an undigested mass of evidenceel• this point, for it' he chose to turn the Noble Lords weapons against himself, he could draw from it ee mass of proofs of the existence of misery of every,' kind among the labourers of this country.—(ffe a " Now he would take one in this town. The one be WO about to mention might excite the merriment of the House ; but he mentioned it because he belie" ed they were a more sorely taxed class of labourer: than any in the community —he meant th women-of-all-work in the city of London.- - ( lle . e , r i; hear. Let them compare their condition that of the factory girls, and the condition of the latte r would be found a paradise compared with that of the former.—(Hear, hear.) Let them compare the ink. who worked in factories with the men who were engsP in agriculture.—(Hear, hear.) He found that th os l who worked in factories were covered and sbelter s . from all the inclemency of the seasons; he found th at they had good pay, and that they were far happier tha n - the agriculturists, who were exposed to cold, and etei , and frost; and to have bad pay, bad clothing, and 13 °_ d lodging.—(flear, hear.) The factory workers Its_ better pay, less toil, better clothing, and bet ter, lodging. And what was there to distil l ; guish factory men in such a way as ,to recl ee ll` r the interference of the Legislature in their behaltt (Hear, hear.) He found two circumstances to distill' , guish his position. Those who worked in factories wer e ' congregated into masses which invited investigation" which insured inspection—which brought their condition, continually before the public.—(Hear, hear.) They did not live, like the agriculturists, far dista nt trom the gaze of local superintendents, w i, t - might bring their misery and toil before the world, 1 1 - could bring down indignation upon the masters, al l ,. make their agricultural tyrants tremble. Now such el ; not the condition of the factory workmen. Their collar tion was to be congregated in multitudes, which Mul ti. tudes made of themselves a force which invited atte.l..l; tion, from the very fact of their being co ngregate". into masses, which covered them with an mgis P r() ; tection from the mere fact of being thus exhibited to th t public gaze.—(Hear, hear.) 'That he found was the fir s ( characteristic of their condition, and one consequenee :t e u. that condition was the present meddling 1,4 r their position.—(Loud cheers.) The factory labo ur % worked in conjunction with machinery, which being into fair ordinary English meant this, that the iii chinery had all the hard work, and that the labottre, had that which required mental labour.—(Hear, he ar./ It would not do for the Noble Lord and Gentlemen ec posite to say that as machinery was improved, the labout of the operative was increased. He (Mr. Roebu ck) denied that proposition. In every process, as machinery: advanced, its peculiarity was absolutely to imitate to o: human mind—that it discharged offices which, a priori , tw o centuries ago, if any one anticipated, he would We been described as a dreamer. It relieved the labour of the operative, and reduced him, in reality, ato be, Mere' superintendent of a certain line of superhuman r• He denied that such improvements in machinery creased the labour of those who superintended that machinery. He put forward that proposition with ota himself having the slightest doubt of its accuroli He invited every man who knew or who wish to know anything about the matter, to b!", i , it to the utmost ; and he asserted this, that every P", vance and improvement in machinery had lesse ned human labour—had lessened it in time and in int ett ' , sity. Now, he found that the peculiarities attachg to the factory men were two. One, that were congregated in masses; the other, that they in conjunction with machinery. He could find no otheroe, lend if the general rule were accurate, that they W h o had the most interest, and the greatest knowledge et, judge of their own affairs, ought to make a contrr e , ' for themselves, he asked the Noble Lord oppos i te ' how it came that those two elements, having e l e / i tered into the composition of this complicated case, should render it a ground for him to in terfere in their case, when he did not interfere, in the case of the agricultural labourer? There was on e worhe2, thing he wanted to clear up. It would not do to coinl f down there with exaggerated descriptions of misery: deformity, of want, and of suffering. He (Mr. ft e li buck) denied them all.—(" Hear, hear," and " 0 7 ' e " Oh," said the Honourable Member for Portl', 7 4 (Mr. M. Mimes). He (Mr. Roebuck) wante d to know if that Hon. Gentleman had ever investigot o , the case. It was very easy to make propositions e: 0 1 5 jingling sounds and jingling syllables, but he (Mr.e wanted knowledge before he legislated.—(Rear, heol o ;' That being the condition of the people J og whom they were about to legislate, he would e trouble the House with a mass of evidence. Indeed , b ought to apologise to the House for having already ad) dressed them at such length upon the matter.-0 - 1 0 1 He stated it broadly, and he called upon the 15T 0 ",: 3 - Lord to deny it, that the Factory Commissioners of 18 ' declared that the condition of the factor labouri ng population of this country was superior t o an y ot her labouring population.—(Bear, hear.) He knew Ch ef could pick out individual cases here and there of suff er ing, and far was it from him to speak of therfi 7 0 ; the slightest degree with anything like le/ it i c i He felt for the misery of the labourer in the factory. ° n o for the misery of the agricultural labourer, and he ee w°,, e i e by and bye argue that qu e sti on w i t h t h e P 4 °'') Lord and those who supported him.—(Dear.) What he said, however, w as thi s . I t was ver y east to bring forward individual i ns t ances o f d e f orm ity, , they must make out th a t it was t h e consequence a l'eh" system, and besides making out that it was the 0 1 1 5 ; quence of the system, they must know that by legisl a r re r enactments they could relieve it. U n l ess th e y e stablisu et these two propositions they did nothing. Now, II had " the Factory Commissioners, in 1833, declared distinee l and clearly that the labourers of th e manu f ac t u ring P °t pulation were better off in every particular than other class of the labouring population of this Country They were better off in every parti cu l ar. A s lie : e a already slid, they were better p a id, b etter lodgedoLie better fled And now he came to t h at w hi c h he loc s e would be treated as the ad c a pt an d um argument en t 7 O O occasion. The Noble Lord said, " What ! have) ( be so little regard for a wom an , as to w i s h that " it should be taken from those labours which are her liar sphere, which make her the solace of our ti, Y- 0 , which make her the instrument of oar early edue e a l f e - el - and in fact prove her and form her to be the frie r man ? Are you willing to destroy her 11 -- e a power, to make her a machine, to unfit her to rear re make her race ? Ia fact, are you willing 0 1 , 6 1 grade the human ra ce by ma ki ng th e i r m0t,.. - e s miserable beings ?" That was the, kind of ° Teas • meat which was used. No w , h e wou ld ask, fi r st, e ch o the labouring woman in the factory worse o ff than ;of i h v e o r u hsl situation t i i f o she n a swearne agricultural tad w o better eect i hat arnml alltabhsntl that i3he.s3et, her s o ituation peculiareer ae s iu u nd tt heldtani that evidence he. It in-door work—it was warm (so far it was o n e , fortable), and all that was required of her we, s ,,,T:of ui understand eualuetniarb:hracabasoeesitoduaufrner investigatedeidifnntia°ngrr labourer,y ? ub e l e g t tinuous attention. It was the peculiar characterts**ol - e ry iii woman, that she could give this continuous attention' to, t whwoman bh y e f i .a st c te t rot 11-1 not suffer in her health ; while man, when boon hich give continuou s a tt en ti on to i n -d oor labour, Jar did not task his intellect, usually did suffer in 'l e :idle' Every medical person wh o h a d exam i ne d i nto the s t a te labourers in the fa c to r y di s t r i c t s h a d d ec l ared w i thou t one boo r ception that the women in the factories bore the factory the best—that it was better suited to their habits, and t° ; s of physical and psychological con diti ons t h an any ot h er ar ee t be/ labour, that it w as an ythi ng b ut h ar d l a b our, an d that at iral were in a far better state for the maintenance and prol'l; n ted of their specie s th an th e agr i cu l tural labourers. ne": that part of the ar gumen t answered by the Noble r- nrcl. ; ( Hear, hear.) The n as t o th e men. Were the men w il % bast in any way than th e l a b ourers i n any other business ? ''iroebee shown that they w ere b et t er pa id , b etter fed, b e tter e' than the agricultural labourer. Now he asked if th erl it tio° anything peculiar in their condition with respect to the ?: t iv• which they bore to their masters, which rendered, leg''';had interference necessary. It had been said that the 1 0 . 15t n e t - ove r power over his manufacturing labourers, w' ' h he his agricultural labourers.—( Hear ' den' of ( Hear.) The same incidents he es ) That , egulated the rate °` ;„ e/e' y. persons employed in fay ! .ories that regulated them 3- 0 other case ; and y acted with more certainty and e ' et i e ll t r ee pidity wheer:;:er a multitude of persons were congre,g: whet"' paler ' as they were in the manuf • districts to - atv acturingthe to Lney were congregated and separated as they were "'forced to cultural districts. In th e l a tt er case eac h man wa s l i o ns act for himself. There were never any . conabinte woe; the country—there were always combinations in Pt hs t ,th facturing districts.—( Hear. hear.) This s howen• agricult ura l l a b ourer was i n a worse condit in ar e the labourer i n th e factory. The agriculture la oldb dare not combi ne .—( H ear .) That man who slow' 3 0 kor t i his hand for a c o m bi na ti on wou ld b e crus hed. neYriois, ap that combinations existed in th e ma nufacturing 013 ,1 " o f leg': so far the manufact u ri ng l a b ourer s t o od less in n ee They t ee lative assistance than the agricultural labourer'; ,on of l';„ quired no assistance. So much for the concht j o finitel labourer in the manufacturing districts, which was f , ricu lteri : superior to the condition of the labourer in the i 'hle L °l l 4 he , h districts. He now came to the proposition of the Lord Lora Let it be for one moment allowed that the Noble, factory .t" e ore made out his case—that he had established that, an d mo ts labourers were worse fed, worse paid, worse c lotheut .....lot them kingdom lien,. miserable than any other labourers in the . t p ropoP L og throw the Noble Lord's statement into a disonres. _ Joe , te and see what could be drawn from it. I n the 6, K i d, New were over-worked ; in the second, they were on_ nef . 7, - ,,, 5 s ctor the whole panacea for this overwork and uri . derriut the o ' fining the hours of labour to ten hours a eel' the: suppose the hours of labour to be thus liar labourer the l e gee see what would be the condition of woo f daY 0 The limiting of the hours of work to ,'en hours per go to " bat his rid of %ha question of over." ;he vrou'd the. broug ht o , d under-pay. . The I .7iourer came forward , afd price e ( labour ; :::to the market, offering it at the hese i That brought ' ° Loa get for it from the manufacturer. __ that of he had tha , le Roebuck) to the main question, which was observe, - 0 the w esi here he must t facturing capitalists. And . o f an iipatil but look seen in that House a curious feeling If they w°°,`", i , s tructio il race of manufacturing capitalists. the ahYs ° d ov e r . • an abroad, and ask who lifted them from r v ith. _ no * which was yawning for them--who iN ge h a ckt) i s (11 r. came Napoleon kluopaparte..l 1 emir tw e i Yuan • !ran • whe labo the low, Wet was whi lin g bet ter) in . I tare