The Sun. — London, England, 1836-05-11 00:00:00

P - 111,IT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS Strange as it may appear, the fact is, we•believe, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has abandoned the idea of introducing, in connection with his Bill for the consolidation of the different S:amp Acts, a mea sure to protect the copyright of those journals which incur the expense of procurins - the earliest intelii,7ence, against piracy. Thus it %sill be in the power of any parcel of needy, unprincipled adventurers, who may speculate in journalism, tinder the reduced duty, to filch from the newspapers which are conducted with energy and capital the original articles and intelligence that have been procured at great expense, and by publishing, as they can easily do, within a short time after the Morning Papers have gone to press, a large sheet containing selections of all that is valuable or interest ing in them, profit by the labour, skill, capital, and talent employed by others, and rob the fair trader of his reward as effectually as by breaking open his counting-house and rifling • his desk. The why and wherefore of this change in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's , opinion we do not understand ; nor can we fathom the motive for a pro ceeding so fraught with injustice. Perhaps the Hight Honourable Gentleman may be able to explain satis factorily to the House of Commons, and to the coun try, his conduct in refe rence to this matter. There is another point which we believe Mr. Bice has also con ceded, and that, too, to the clamour of his own re vilers, and the rancorous assailants of the Administra tion. We allude to the die. This a point which deeply concerns the public, as well as all those news paper proprietors who do not cheat advertisers by a fictitious show of circulation. Advertisers will very naturally employ those journals for the publication' of their wants and sales, which appear to circulate most extensively. Is it not due to this large class of per sons to protect them against a fraud which we know, and which the Chancellor of the Exchequer must know, to be constantly practised—a fraud by which advertisers are cheated out of the value they ex• peet for their money ? The fraud we allude to is this :—A paper-maker supplies provincial jour nals with stamped paper. He sends, for instance, 100 reams of paper to the Stamp-office, and gets it stamped in the name of a London newspaper, which, knowing that returo of newspaper stamps are some times ordered by PariLment, he wishes to serve by swelling its apparent circulation. This paper, stamped under these circumstances, is taken out of the office and distributed among, it may be, half-a-dozen jour nals, having no sort of connection, either fiscal or po litical, with the establishment in whose name it has been stamped. Parliament orders a return of the mit ber of stamps issued to all and each of the newspapers published in Great Britain, and when this document is made public, the establishment in whose name the one hundred reams have been stamped, gets the credit of publishing 50,000 sheets, not one of which it ever printed. The advertiser is in utter ignorance of the process by which this trick is practised—he does not even suspect that he is the victim of a cheat, when he fancies that the nominal circulation of the paper thus un fairly puffed up is real and bona fide. Thus a double fraud is committed: the favoured London paper ob tains money under a false pretence, and the advertiser does not obtain the value for which he contracts. Surely this is not a system to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be a party, or which the House of Commons will sanction, especially when the remedy s simple, effective, and not calculated to injure the private interest of any Newspaper proprietor who means to deal fairly by the public. Let each News paper-office supply its own die, having the name of the paper engraven on the rim, and then an end will be put to the fraud of which we complain. But there is another reason, which may possibly have more weight with the Finance Minister, why the proposi tion respecting the die ought to be adopted. It is the only effectual bar to frauds upon the revenue arising from the duty on advertisements. At present the re medy the Stamp Department has against Newspaper Proprietors, who do not pay the advertisement duty, is nominally twofold ; the amount of the security (which is limited) may be estreated, and the Stamp-office may refuse to issue stamped paper when the Newspaper gets into an arrear of more than a month's duty on advertisements. The first may often be insufficient— the second is inoperative. A Newspaper Proprietor chooses not to pay the advertising duty for one, two, or three years, or at all. Well, his bail is sued, and the amount of the security is recovered. But this does not cover a moiety of the debt due to the Commis sioners of Stamps ; and they resolve not to issue any more stamps to the defaulter. He laughs at them. They may threaten, but cannot act. The paper-maker steps in to the aid of his customer, takes out as many stamps as be requires, in the name of some paper that stands clear at the Stamp-office, and the default ing journalist continues to publish in defiance of the Commisgioners of Stamps, who cannot a second time pounce upon the sureties. This is no fancy sketch—we speak of a case that has actually occurred. And yet Mr. Rice refuses to correct the abuse—to pre vent a repetition of the fraud upon the revenue, by adopting the easiest and most efficient remedy may be answered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Bill contains a clause to prevent the fraud upon the public, the revenue, and the fair dealer, by imposing a penalty upon the sale or purchase of stamps in the man nor already described. The object of the penalty is to prevent fraud, or it is not. If it is intended to prevent fraud, it will fail of its purpose, for the measure does not supply a means by which the guilty parties can be discovered. Mr. Rice will punish offenders, but he will not prevent crime. if he can catch a delinquent lie will mulct him ; but he will not adopt the plan which is most likely to prevent the commission of crime, and most certain to lead to detection. Adopt the proposition of the die, and no journalist can pos sibly escape detection, should he, in contravention of the law, publish on stamped paper fraudulently ob tained. Indeed, no such fraud could then, by any possibility, be committed ; and the security against de falcation in the advertising duty would be rendered complete. In fact the Chancellor of the Exchequer completely stultifies himself by making it penal in one journal to sell stamps taken out in its own name to any other journal, and yet refusing to adopt the only effectual means to prevent the offence. This refusal is utterly unintelligible, and cannot be reconciled to any prhiciple of common sense. We should like to know undet what influence the Right Hon. Gentle man rejects this proposition—who have been his men tors on this occasion ? The manner in which the counsel was given must have been peculiarly attractive to blind the Right Hon. Gentleman to its incon sistency.—Morning Chronicle. Mr. T. Duncombe moved last night for the prlduc tion of a copy of the Parliamentary Surveys of Church ,Lands preserved in the Library of Manuscripts at Lambeth. It was stated_ by the lion. Gentleman, that the documents bore most imrortantiv on the ques tion of the Tithe Bill, and that the House ought to be in possession of them before it pronounced its deci s ion on that measure. In courts of law their .authen ticity was admitted ; they were public property, and the public ought to have the benefit of the informa tion they contained at.this time. It was allowed by Lord John Russell that the' documents were public property ; but be saw no reason for the motion, as they could he inspected where they were. With all sub mission to hi. Lordship, this is hardly a fair argu ment. Where rig ns of property are contested, parties will go to the-expense of - making extracts from these documents, ; but the public sre deeply interested in ob taining access to all the information in the documents, and the printing them, therefore, is a sine qua non to - their being made generally available. • In fact, there are strong reasons for believing that large masses of property belonging to the Church—consequently to the public—arc wrongfully possessed by private indivi duals. We remember to have seen a thick volume in 'folio, printed about a hundred years ago, containing a minute account of the glebe lands in the diocese of London ; and we do not believe that one-tenth of these lands now are in the possession of the Church. If the clergy have proved unfaithful stewards of the pro perty entrusted to them (from the connection between patrons and incumbents), which sta suspect they have too often been, we do not see why that property should be withheld, any more than that which the trustees of estates left for charitable purposes have misapplied. The Lreat difficulty in both cases is, that so many of th 2 aristocratic families in the coun try have participated in this spoliation that Par liam:rit discountenances all inqu:ry into the sub ject. The Attorney-General said they might as well propose to print Doomsday B.:ok by order of the House. The best answer to this is, that Dooms lay Boo!: has been printed by order of the House. Yet Doomsday Book, though it contains very curious in formation with respect to the state of England at the per;ol of the Conquest, has no earthly bearin , on any public interest in the present day. But the .Par liamentary surveys have such a bearing ; and it is pre cisely because they have such a hearing that the reluct ance to have them printed is felt. We arc only asto nished that• Mr. T. Duncombe should have received be support of 40 Members i:: a House of 139 Mem bers. When the public generally understand the dues :ion, it must be carried ; for in tie preeent day few men will he found so bold as openly to oppose a motion of this kind on the real merits of the case. We trust, therefore, that M. T. Duncombe will not let the matter sleep.—Morning Chronicle. 'We rejoice most heartily, and so will every loyal and right-minded man in the United Kingdom, at the proceedings of the House of Lotds on Monday evon mg, whereby their Lordships crushed effectnally the unprincipled or foolish attempt of the King's Ministers. to add one more element of mischief to those by which Ireland has for so many years been harassed, and to hasten that final consummation by which Protestant safety, property, and religion, b:d fair to be ruined irre coverably. The usual quantum of roystering decla mation, seems to have filled up the accustomed ab sence of solid argument on the side of the advocates fur the unamended measure of the Melbourne ( f, pro perly speaking, it be still the Melbourne) Government. It is true that not much novelty can now from either party be expected, when the subject in and out of doors has been so thoroughly ransacked. But there is an ob stinacy sometimes ingrafted on absurdity which makes them in their conjoint state worthy of occasional expo sure. Lord Holland wondered at " that being called an exclusive" system of Municipal Reform which " admitted the whole people, of every class and deno mination." We have answered that question an hun dred times, by observing, that every class of people are not admitted to equal powers, for under it the Papists are admitted to supremacy, and the Protestants to a state of bondage. Lord Holland again asked whether "the majority or minority were to govern the country?" We have already answered, that the " majority" in sisted on by sophists like Lord Holland is no more than a. colourable majority, the abject tool and passive creature of an oligarchy of Popish priests. To the question reiterated by the Ministerial parrots,—Lords Holland and Lansdowne bein - _ , of the number—whe ther Ireland was to be branded as unfit for the same legislation as had been applied td other parts of the kingdom ?—we reply, in the emphatic words of the Duke of Wellington—" Do your Lordships think there is no difference between the people of Eng land and Ireland ? Is the history of property in that country forgotten, and likewise the history of reli gion, and the state of society thence arising ?" The childishness of the question put by the sinecurist Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, deserves no notice but the master's rod. Then Lord Lansdowne, the sinecurist President of the Council, was loud in his plaudits of that Act of George IV. which vested certain powers of sweeping, paving, &c., in the Si. in habitants of certain Irish towns. Assuredly the busi ness of cleansing the towns of Ireland is, if well pets formed, no light 'or easy task. But as for the conse quences of that Act of Parliament, when Lord Lans downe challenges the world to inform him whether any popular election under it was ever improperly con ducted, if the Noble Lord means anything better than the mere quibble of confining " improper conduct " to outrageous violations of the law, we beg to ask him whether he ever heard of a town called Clonmel, where, as it appeared in this journal, not many weeks ago, all the respectable inhabitants, if under any de nomination of Protestant, had been arbitrarily re jected by the administrative power, and the whole body of small jurisdictions created by the Act had been lodged in the hands of low, uneducated, un , respected, but noisy and turbulent partisans of the agitation clique, whose main ambition was to swagger down, torment, and humiliate the upper class of the population? This Act of George IV., in stead, therefore, of having been applied beneficially, has been grossly abused, as have privileges of a far b hio-her order' than any of which it was the vehicle, and instead of a precedent for the extension of the so called " liberal" policy, by which those measures of the last reign were dictated, they ought one and all to be taken and cherished for an inexorable warning against similar legislation for the future. Lord Lans downe, borrowing an exquisite hint from the profound wisdom cf the Marquis of ClanriCarde, thought fit to taunt the Conservative party with their long indifference to the evils of " exclusion," when that exclusion was directed by Protestants against Papists, and with the suspicious, virtue of their new dislike to the con verse of the same principle, when about to be ap plied by Papists against Protestants. But there is nothing inconsistent in this. Those who have hither to enjoyed exclusively the privileges of the Irish towns have exercised those privileges in a spirit of devotion to the interests of Church and State, of loyalty to the Crown, and attachment to British connection, while the present candidates for exclusive power in Corpora tions exhibit and boast of their hostility to the State, their abhorrence of the Reformed Church, and their determination to separate from Great Britain. The exclusiveness, therefore, of the old municipalities might fairly and honestly have been looked upon with indul gence by those friends of the Constitution who detest and dread the novel direction which that same principle threatens to assume. As for the curious, and, in one so grave, the grotesque and unbecoming vehemence of Lord Lansdowne, towards the close of his speech, where he " protested solemnly" against the implica tion of the amended Bill, that the " people of Ire land" (bah I—people of Japan) were unfit for ail the purposes of local Government, and declared, both for himself and his colleagues, that he and they " would adhere to the contrary doctrine," it meant, we suppose, that they would not accept the Bill as altered by Lord Lyndhurst. Within this day or two, but not bef . ore, we have been prepared for some such revolution in the schemes of his Majesty's Ministers, who became his Ministers in April, 1835. A word upon this point is sufficient. If a certain legal proceeding goes forward, Lord Mel bourne's career of office is at an end, and by what de vice or subterfuge can "mouths be now stopped" in time to have such critical' proceedings arrested ? If Lord Melbourne goes—who comes? That is the question. Lord Lansdowne and others, on condition of remain. ing Ministers, might gladly have agreed to the terms of amended Bill. Whereas the Noble Marquis, ceasing to be Minister, may find it convenient to make a noise about " justice to the people of Ireland," and thus turn thEstail to some account, while cooling him , self on the Opposition Benches. There is an augury to be deduced from the uncharacteristic warmth of the last expressions which fell from the President of the Council a month ago. He never would have dreamed 9f using them. There is nothing like a flourish of trumpets, to cover one's retreat.—Times. It is now quite obvious that Mr. P. Thomson must give up or modify his Bill for destroyin g helpless in fancy by excessive labour. We are far from meaning to insinuate that the President of the Board of Trade has been stimulated to this inhuman sort of legislation by the least desire to inflict pain upon children, or to harden the hearts of parents by administering to their avarice a barbarous temptation, and indulging it at the expense of their miserable and unprotected off spring. We consider the Right Hon. Gentleman a mere political economist, indifferent to everything in the world but the " scientific," or the pseudo. scientific, relations between certain causes and certain conse quences—ignorant of all that lies beyond the precincts of that specious theory of which " produ'etion" is at once the subject and the idol—of that exclusive, and so far narrow and mischievous problem, of which the solu tion is how to increase to the utmost pitch the materials and amount of "production." A political economist is an animal with limited brains, and altogether destitute of bowels. With moral principles or results he never ven tures to trouble h:mself. Duties, affections, virtues, vices, happiness, afflictions are all the same to him. To THE SUN, LONDOIsi, WEDNESDAY, MAY 11. 1836. trace to them, or develope in them, any elements of production," would lm a task beyond his faculties. He therefore carts them away bodily, as so much sur plusage ; they have no place in his inquiries as a stu dent, or in his policy as a statesman ; the human race ‘vith such a philosopher are hut necessary incum brances to spinaing jennies. On 'any other ground it would be difficult, and might be cruel, to account for Mr. P. Thomson's endeavour to frustrate the operation of a law which only passed last session for reducing o eight hours the period of daily lab6ur—there !nfore indffinite—dunng which children under thir teen years of age should he compelled to toil in our unwholesome manufactories. The law, at its enactment, was blessed by every unsophisticated heart in the empire, every parent who had not been reduced to a machine, and even every child who had not yet practically felt the beneficence of its provi sions. But a description of manufacturers, who de serve themselves to have some Pharaoh for their own master, found in Mr. P. Thomson a ready tool of their cupidity, and the Right Hon. Gentleman, on looking at his primer, found that " the less labour is interfered with, the better." Very well ; then, it was quite monstrous that the State should intermeddle between the master manufacturer and the young children whom he employed. " By all means," quoth Poulett, " it is very barbarous and unscientific to prevent those chil dren, under 13 years of age, from being worked to death, if they themselves like the process." We must not interpose between them and their liberal masters ; " leave the children, free to perish, if it suits their fancy." Now, the serious: answer to this un feeling mockery is, that the poor children exercise •no free will—that they must do as their covetous or needy parents, and those who have no parents, as their masters order them, and that therefore the parties are not on equal terms, one party requiring protection against the other, which the—law only can afford. Poor and uneducated parents, with their breasts indurated even towards their own offspring by the constant struggle against privation, will at times be tempted by an increase of wages to engage their young in a course of toil destructive of their feeble con stitutions. Griping or embarrassed masters will buy the cheapest labour they can find, and if the law admits of any exercise of compulsion upon an in fant so as to prolong and aggravate its physical exertions to the most destructive excess, such em ployers will wring the last life-drop out of them, rather than lose an inch of cloth or a single hank of yarn. There are two parties, therefore, each singly too strong for the child, who has no support but in the law of the country. The principle of non-interference, therefore, with free labour does not here apply, because the labourer is not free. The unnatural (perhaps thoughtless) parent, the unfeeling and selfish master, arc those who really do interfere with the free agency of poor dependent children, and the balance is but ad justed by the humanity of the law, not disturbed by its superfluous intrusion. With a majority of no more than two in so large a division, it is impossible for any pedant of a political economist, mistaking the very nature and bearings of his own profession, to per sist in the maintenance of so untenable a project. The pretence that the law cannot be enforced is sheer nonsense. The Minister must see it executed at his peril, or let the law be amended. It is not on party considerations that we take up this question. We have never held any other opinion. We would not for all the earth have the weight on our consciences of upholding such a scheme as this of Mr. P. Thom son, any more than he would have tolerated the mur der of the innocents by Herod.—Times. Mr. Poulett Thomson, the Ministers, and the mill owners, may boast of their triumph over humanity and the factory children. The triumph, inglorious as it was, and transient as it will be, was obtained for them by the support of Sir Robert Peel, Lord Sandon, and one or two more Conservatives. To the Right Hon. the Member for Tamworth they were recently indebted for the defeat of the motion of Lord Chandos, on be half of the just claims of the suffering agriculturists. On that occasion we confessed our inability to com prehend the policy or the principles upon which the Right Hon. Baronet has, for some time past, acted. If the IVlinisters are as grateful for his services as he seems anxious to serve them, they will have a large debt of gratitude to pay, and he will value it highly if he considers it an equivalent for all the sacrifices which he makes to obtain it. But Mr. O'Connell is in the same category upon the factory question with Sir Robert Peel. We recollect when the Learned and Honourable Member for Dublin, in an eloquent speech in behalf of the factory children, at a pub lic meeting, exclaimed, " Who are they that dare, in the face of this Christian country, to weigh the blood of infants against pounds of cotton and bales of silk ?" Yet Mr. O'Connell voted with Sir Robert Peel for the cause of the pounds of cotton and bales of silk, against the cause of the helpless factory chil dren. On the same side we find the name of Mr. Pease enrolled, whp no doubt regards the oppression of the black children of Africa as a crime, and not only tolerates, but supports this system of white-slavery at home ! Lord Ashley, the worthy successor of Mr. Sadler, whose memory is hallowed with the blessings of the most helpless of the children of oppression and misfortune—advocated, with the generous energy of a manly devotion, the cause of • which he has taken the sacred charge. Such a man is not only an ornament to his high rank, but to human nature itself. Com pare the conduct of many of the professed advocates of liberal doctrines, the philosophers of the " march of intellect," with that of the Conservative scion of a Noble stock—the faithful and unflinching cham pion of Mlle rights and interests of the suffering poor--;i3w greatly does their conduct fall below his in- - :•the scale of moral worth, of social benevolence, and in the estimation of all good men -If we feel some degree o shame and mortifica tion at beholding the names of some men—of whom we expected better things—in the majority against the factory 'children on this occasion, we have no less satis faction in observing that, with many Liberals, many Conservatives united in resisting the attempt of Mr. Poulett Thomson to take away from the infant victims, of manufacturing cupidity the scanty protection which the Legislature had thrown over them, after hearing evi dence of their sufferings and their wrongs, which was calculated to excite the sympathy and compassion of every bosom animated by a human heart. We find, for instance,- the names of Lord Chandos and Sir Henry Hardinge, with those of Dr. Lushington and Ser geant Talfourd. But among the names of the pro tectors of the factory children that chiefly deserve to be honoured, are those of Mr. Fielden and Mr. Brotherton—both mill-owners, but mill-owners who would make the manufacturing system a blessing, not a curse to the human race, and who would not sacrifice the health, the morals, the happiness, and lives of the infant poor upon the altars of a relentless cupidity. Now that the Ministers—the liberal Ministers—have got a majority of two, in support of the infant white slavery system, what will they do with it ? Will they consider it a virtual defeat, as it is, and retreat in time, though not to save character, yet to prevent a more decisive overthrow ? If they do not turn their backs upon their ignoble trophies, and retire from the field of their disgraceful achievement, they will suffer a more signal defeat : or if their majority of two should help them through the House of Commons, what will rt avail ? Will not the indignation of public opinion pur sue them ? Will not the generous energies of the Christian and enlightened nation that broke the chains of the African, demand that white slavery shall be extirpated from the soil of England ? Is there not, in the last resort, the House of Lords, as an impas sable barrier between the poor and their oppressors ? Morning Herald. The public will learn, without much surprise, that Ministers have agreed to put off the second reading of the Irish Tithe I3ill until the Ist of June ; nor will the feeling of surprise be much increased, when it is inferred, as it very confidently may, from this post ponement, that Ministers never had any serious inten tion of urging the measure forward during the present session. This Irish Tithe Bill with its appropriation clause, has rendered such excellent service to the pre sent Ministers of the Crown, that they would be :he most ungrateful of men if they were to manifest any great anxiety to get it off their hands. They cherish it as the very apple of their eye, having a natural and lively recollection that this is the measure which ori ginated and cemented the alliance between them and the O'Connell party, and that to this measure they " arc indebted for their admission to the delights of of fice. It would be the height of folly, on their part, besides, to bring to a precipitate crisis a measure which secures them the support of the Radicals and Papists so long as it remains unsettled, and which, if adopted or decidedly negatived, would, probably, be succeeded by other questions in respect to which it might not be q rite so easy for them to agree with their present confederates, or with each other. The short eonver sation on this subject which took place last night in the I House of Commons is both amusing and instructive. Sir R. Peel thought it would be convenient if the Noble . Lord would state the course he intended to pursue with respect to the Irish Tithe Bill. It was at least an in disputable position ; and, without pressing the Noble Lord too hard, Sir R. Peel might have added that it was quite time, too, that this should be done. Of such a remark the present leader of the House of Corn mons could not have complained ; seeing that this measure embodies the, principle by the assertion of which he and his colleagues forced themselves into office something more than a year ago ; that the se cond Session of Parliament since that event is already more than half expended ; that nothin g has vet been done during the present session for the advancement-of this darling principle ; and that Ministers have announced their intention of affordina themselves the unusual recreation, at this season of year, of a ten days' recess from their Parliamentary labours. Let us hear, however, what Lord John Russell had to say to the quiet,,pithy, and somewhat sarcastic re mark of Sir R. Peel. Lord John is cautious how he commits himself as to the course he means even tually to pursue ; but, in the meanwhile, has no objec tion to a delay of three weeks, although it be now drawing towards - the middle of May. The Noble • Lord however, shall speak for himself :—" If the Right Hon. Baronet still entertained the same view as before respecting the postponement of the question, for the purpose of giving an opportunity to the per sons in Ireland interested in the measure of becoming acquainted with its details previous to the second read ing, he should be willing to postpone it until after the holidays."' Who an sufficiently admire the naivete of Lord John ? " If the Right Hon. Baronet still entertained the same view !" This view being, like most of the views of the Right Hon. Baronet, founded upon common sense and justice—it was, to be sure, a view not very likely to undergo any change. But of this Lord John Russell could form no opinion, common sense and justice being things with which he is not remarkably conversant. The end of the edify ing conversation is, however, just what might have been expected. The second reading of the Irish Tithe Bill is postponed until the Ist of June ; in other words, the measure is abandoned for the present ses sion, or, if kept alive at all, kept alive only for the purpose of agitation, and of gratifying the Papist and Radical allies of Lord John. For another year, of course, the tithe war is to go on in Ireland, with all _ . the excitement and encouraiemsnt that the Irish Go vernment can afford, without positively shutting up the Courts of Law, civil and criminal, to the aggres sive belligerents. It will naturally occur to our readers to ask why Lord John Russell did not accede to the suggestion of Sir Robert Peel, that the Bill should he printed and sent to Ireland, to afford the parties interested an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon it, when that reasonable and equitable suggestion was first thrown out. The Leader of the House of Commons ought surely to be a man capable of making up his mind at once upon so plain a propo sition. As to the idea of Sir Robert Peel giving up the opinion that this very proper and necessary step ought to be taken, it is very difficult to suppose that Lord John Russell could seriously have entertained it for a moment. Nor, is it much less difficult to imagine that the decision of the Noble Lord really depended, as he intimates, in his reply, upon the pertinacity of a political opponent. How, then, is this vacillation on the part of Lord John Russell to be explained ? It is utterly unintelligible, we again say, unless upon the supposition, to which many other circumstances lend their sanction, that the appropriation principle is one which Ministers have found to be exceedingly conve nient for their own purposes ; that they cannot very well afford to part with it just yet : and that they have accordingly determined neither to abandon it, nor sin cerely to urge it onward, but just to keep it in their own possession as a kind of household utensil of the- Cabinet.—Morning Post. The second reading of Mr. Poulett Thomson's Fac tories Act Amendment Bill was carried in the House of Commons on Monday night, after an animated dis cussion, in which we were gratified to observe an earnest anxiety manifested by all parties to protect the interests of commerce, and at the same time to respect the cause of humanity. The object of the Bill is to extend the num ber of hours of labour for children from 10 to 13 years of age, from eight hours a day, to which it was limited by the late Bill, to twelve hours a day. The subject is evidently one of much delicacy and difficulty. On the one hand it is necessary to protect the rising gene ration from being stunted and crippled by over-exer tion ;—this is the first and most important object to be kept in view ;—but on the other hand, we are not to sa crifice our commercial supremacy, nor succumb to foreign competition from feelings of overstrained humanity, which, however laudable, must not be allowed too potent an influence on the decisions of the Statesman. The market of labour, like that of every other com modity under a healthy commercial regime, might be safely left to the natural regulation of supply and de mand, and when legislative interference is called for, as was the case in regard to the overwrought factory children, we may feel assured that the cause of the evil is seated deeper than the surface. The avarice of - master-manufacturers may strongly urge them to work the operatives to the utmost of human endurance ; but a competition in the demand for labour would act as a protection, if there were not something rotten at the core which forced the artizan to encounter excessive ' labour, starvation, or the workhouse. -As appears from the ineffective operation of the late Bill, the necessities of the market will regulate itself indepen dently of legislation. This alone should convince our Statesmen that they are merely throwing chaff against the wind while they legislate against effects without reference to causes. It was stated by Mr. Poulett Thomson that time strict enforcement of the present law would cause 27,000 children to be thrown out of employment, as manufacturers could not, with out loss, limit their labour to the legal time. And were the manufacturers to comply with the dictates of hu manity, and accept the shorter time of labour, the in creased price necessarily placed on the manufactured product would exclude foreign and limit domestic consumption. What then is to be the remedy ? Labour cannot be limited without injuring the manu facturer, or depriving the operative of employment, and it cannot be left unrestricted without exposing the artizan to excessive exertion, which prevents the due development of his stature and shortens his exist ence. It is, therefore, evident we are legislating at the wrong end. In a word, the great origin of the evil—the cause of distress to the operative and diffi culty to the manufacturer is the Corn Laws, which renders the sustenance of life, or the procuring of the means of existence, contingent on an amount of labour in itself slowly, but surely, destructive of the human constitution. It is the raising of the price of food by inquitous enactments which forces the labourer to over-exertion, and the employer to goad his workers beyond the capabilities of nature, in order to maintain a competition with foreigners, who are allowed, without let or hindrance, to use the food which the cheapest market offers to them. It is utterly impossible, while these laws are allowed to pollute the statute-book, to limit or extend the time of labour without injustice either to the maim . facturer or the operative, or both. The motion for the second reading of Mr. Thomson's Bill was carried only by a majority of two—the number being 178 to 176. We, therefore, think the more judicious course would be for the present to let the Bill stand over, and direct attention to the fountain of the ill—the corn laws—the atrocious corn laws. It is the abo lition of these restrictions which will enable the ope rative to exist without superhuman exertion, and the employer not only to bear up against, but totally to outstrip all competition. If the Legislature would give fair play to the industry and commercial enter prise of the country, fully develope its yet dormant resources, do justice to all parties, and open a new and unpar:lllellel career to the nation—they will abolish IL! corn latv.-11f» - iiing - Advertiser. Sl , E.~ C A« ; 4 A- lINIPEPLIAL HOUSE OF COMMONS. The SPEAKER took the chair at a kw minutes to four o'clock. Mr. BROTHERTON presented a petition from Sal ford in favour of the Macclesfield and Salfo:il Junction Canal Bill. FESTINIOG RAILWAY. Colonel PARRY brought, up the report of the Commit tee on the Festiniog Railway Bill. The Hon. and Gallant Member moved that the Bill be recommitted. The Com mittee had reported that part of the preamble had not been proved—that part had since been struck out, and on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, who had incurred a very heavy expense, he now moved that the Bill be reco►u mitted. Lord DARLINGTON, as a Member of the Commit tee, would object to a re-commitment of the Bill ; and he thought it very extraordinary that the Hon. Member should have moved its re-commitment without havin4. - stated any grounds to induce the Hoese to accede to the proposition. The matter had undergone a very fu'l inves tigation before the Committee, which had sat - :or five days, and they decided that the preamble ;vas not proved. He objected to the recommittal of the Bill, as no reasons had been given for it, and it would put the pa; ties to great expense. There was no part of the conduct of any of the Committee impugned, and therefore he hoped their decision would not be overset in this manner. Colonel PARRY thought he had given sufficient rea sons fbr the recommittal of the B:11. The opponews of it hail gained their object, and he thought ,justice would not be done to the parties, who had spent a large of meney, if the Bill were not recommitted. Mr. PRINGLE thought the House was not in a situa tion to re-construct the Committee, as no sufficient ground had been stated for that purpose. lie should therefore oppose the motion. Colonel PARRY thought that all private, as well as public, interests would be satisfied by expunging the objec tionable clause to which he bad referred. Sir G. CLERK said, that in this case the Committee had decided that the preamble of the Bill was not proved. Now, he apprehended that under such circumstances it was perfectly unprecedented to refer the Bill hack to the Com mittee, and that if anv party were dissatisfied with the course adopted by the Committee, a different course of pro ceeding ought to be adopted. He wished to bear the opi nion of the Speaker upon this point. Colonel PARRY understood that there were no objec tions to any part of the Bill, but the part which he had consented to withdraw. Lord DARLINGTON was given to understand that it was intended to introduce another clause having precisely the same effect. _ Colonel PARRY would n)t trouble the House to di vide, as he, would withdraw his motion, and merely move that the Report do lie on the table. He begged, however, to give notice, that on some future day he would m Lke a motion on the subject. The Report was then laid oa tl.e table. GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY. Mr. MILLS moved that the amendments of the House of Lords on this railway be assented to.—Agreel to. ABERDEEN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Mr. BANNERMAN brought up the Report on the Aberdeen Public Schools Bill, and stated that he should on Monday next, call the attention of the House to the special circumstances contained in the Report. BRANDLING JUNCTION RAILWAY. On the motion of Sir M. W. RIDLEY, the Brandling Junction Railway was read a third time and passed. GREENWICH RAILROAD. Mr. BARNARD presented a petition from the inhabi tants tants of Greenwich, praying that any railroad that might be formed from London to the coast of Kent, might pass through that borough. BIRMINGHAM, BRISTOL, AND THAMES JUNCTION RAILWAY. On the motion of Mr. TWISS this Bill was read a thin time and passed. HEPPINGLEY INCLOSURE BILL. Sir W. FOLKES brought up the Report on this Bill, which was then read a second time and ordered to be com mitted. SHOTTS ROAD BILL. Sir W. FOLKES moved the second reading of Shotts Road and Hamilton Bridge Bill. An Hort. MEMBER presented a petition for the abo lition of the land -tax, which would practically relieve the farmer ; and one from the Guardians of the Poor of Brighton, in favour of the Fisheries Bill. Mr. M. PHILIPS presented a petition from the Build ing Association of Manchester and Salford, praying that no duty might be imposed on the transfer of shares in Building Associations. Sir G. STRICKLAND presented two petitions from places in the West Riding of Yorkshire, complaining of the injury done to the feelings of private families by the holding of Coroner's inquests, and praying that none might in future be held without t e previous sanction of a Magistrate. Mr. SHERMAN CRAWFORD presented a petition from Kilmore, county of Down, in favour of the Bill for amending the laws respecting Excise Licenses ; from Dun dalk, for repeal of duty on Marine Insurances ; from Rich ard M'Cormick, stating that he knew of corruption and pecu lation being carried on to a great extent in the Army and praying the House to institute an enquiry into the same ; that if he should be examined he could show that 300,0001. a-year would be saved to the country by the pre vention of the peculation, which petitioner could prove to have taken place in the army. The petitioner had, on a former occasion, presented petitions, and he complained that on the occasion of an enquiry instituted by Government, he was not allowed to be examined on the subject of his statements. TAXES ON KNOWLEDGE. Mr. AGLIONBY ,presented petitions from Bethnal green, Southwark, and several other places, all praying for the total repeal of the duties on Newspapers ; also from Cockermouth and another place in favour of the abolition of punishment of death, except in cases of murder ; also in those cases of forgery which are still capi tally punished ; also from Newport-Pagnell, praying that children under 21 years of age should not be compelled to work more than ten hours each day ; and another petition in favour of Mr. Buckingham's claims. SMALL DEBTS. • Lord LINCOLN presented a petition from certain iron-workers, traders, and others, praying for the repeal of certain clauses of the Act of the 39th and 40th Geo. 111. on the subject of small debts. "EXCISE LAWS. Sir R. BATESON presented a petition from Belfast in favour of the alteration of the Excise Laws. The Com missioners of Poor Laws in Ireland had called attention to the fact of grocers being allowed to :3cll spirits as one of the most productive sources of crime. OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH. Mr. LEFROY presented a petition from Galway for die better observance of the Sabbath. Mr. Sergeant JACKSON pressented a petition, to the sonic effect, from Bantry._ FACTORIES' Aft AMENDMENT BILL. Lord DARLINGTON presented a petition against this Bill. Mr. GROTE presented a petition from the parishes of Christchurch and St. Leonard's, praying an exemption from residence on the part of rectors might no longer be conti nued, and that the Bill for regulating the duties of clergy now in the upper House might be passed into a law. (LEFT SITTING. ) DUBLIN ELECTION COMMITTEE (THIS DAY.) The Committee n:et this morning at 11 o'clock. Mr. HUTTON proceeded to object to the vote of James Baldwin, on the ground of bribery. The evidence in this case was read at length, and after some deliberation the Committee came to the following reso lution : That from a careful review and compat ison of the evidence, notwithstanding the unprincipled character of some of the witnesses, and the suspicion thrown on the case by the sup pression of the voluntary affidavits so reprehensibly made, and the fact of Payne and Murray having been summoned, but not examined by the agent for the sitting Members, the Committee are still of opinion that it is sufficiently estab lished that James Baldwin voted under an expectation of re ceiving money, and that money was subsequently paid, and his vote must thet efore be struck off the poll." This restored Mr. O'Connell's majority, and Counsel on behalf of the petitioners proceeded to object to one of the voters fur the sitting Member for arrear of Wide-street tax. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Mir 10. The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour. Mr. WILLIAMS presented a petition against cer4l:n clauses in the Midland Counties Railway Rill. On the motion of Mr. GLADSTONE the Le'ce. , ter Small Debts Bill was read a third time and passed. IRISH TITHES BILL. Sir R. PEEL wished to know what course the Noble Lord intended to pursue with respect to the Irish Tithes Bill? Lord J. RUSSELL wished rather to ask the Right Hon. Baronet what course he meant to pursue ? He understood the Right Hon. Bart. to say he thought it desirable that the Irish Tithe Bill should not be read a second time till an opportunity was afforded of sending it to Ireland, and obtaining some opi nion upon it. If that were still the view of the Right lion. Baronet, there would not be suffieient time to send the Bill in te d Ireland, and have it considered there before the holidays, le! ( Lord John Russell) NOUIII In that case def er the seco en n reading till af t er the holidays—say to the 30th of the pres take the same view of it, he I:ad no wish to postp one it. month. on the coatrerv. the Right Hon. Ba rt. did not Sir R. PEEL did take the same view of it , an d that without referenoe to this pertieular Bill, but to all Bills. When mea sures of such importance 'xere brought fcrward, it was only fair that a sufficient interval should he suffered to elapse to all? . w e of its reco mmen d at i ons t o b e taken into consideration. H thought it better, therefore, that under present circumstanc es, the second readin g o f thi s Bill should be deferred till after the holydays. Lord J. RUSSELL thought it reasonable that the second reading should be postponed ; and therefore he would make no objection to it. He would postpone it to Yonday, the 30th of May, or to the od of June. Sir R. PEEL thought that there was at tendance on the first day of meeting, and that theref ore one or too days after would b e tt e r suit the g eneral convenienc e. Lord J. RUSSELL w o uld postpone it till Wed nesday, the Ist of June. generally a thin OFFICERS OF THE HOUSE. Mr. WARBURTON brought up the Report of the Com mittee appointed to inquire into the fees, &c. of the officers of the House. Mr. HUME cave notice that he would, as soon as the Report . was printed, submit to the House a resolution, with a view ot carrying it into effect, and of taking the opinion of the House upon its recommendations. TITLES TO ESTATES.—ADJOURNED DEBATE. The Order of the Day having been read for resuming the debate on this question, Mr. PEASE proceeded to address the House, but from the noise occasioned by Hon. Members leaving their places, his observations did not fully reach the gallery. He was under stood to object to the amendment, and to support the original resolutions which was only, in his opinion, an act of justice both , to the landed proprietors and to t h e rail way companies. He was surprised to hear the terms of the amendment, which were in point of fact relieving the railway companies from the contract into which they had entered, aml which he trusted would not receive the assent of the House. Mr. TOOKE said the object of the present proposition was roor tou t g h l e it t e l to protect landowners from the extortion of R a ilway Com panies,xi o ei r Z t a i I n w a o y f Ctohionpainaniedsed propt ietors . required som e protection ti b n ut l from thought re cord, and even so far back as th e Liv er pool and Manchest er Railway, a landowner, not content with o btaining an enorm ous sum as compensation for what he co n s id e r e d an intolera ble nuisance, actually demanded and was paid 5,0001. to build his There were many curious instances of that extortion 4fl house elsewhere, alleging that he could not live so near the railway ; and yet, after the railway was finished, he enlarged his house, for the purpose of having a better view of it. The landowners were fully capable of defending themselves, with out this additional protection, which would be in its operation very injurious to the interests of public Companies. Mr. HUME thought the matter was one of very great im portance, and ought to be well and seriously considered in a Committee. He objected to both propositions as being tor, exclusive. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL would not agree to the proposition of the Hon. Member who moved the resolutions, though he could not support the amendment of the Membe r for Truro. Mr. D. W. HARVEY believed the question could be hot considered in Committee. _ _ Sir M. W. RIDL E - Y thought that the time of the HOUfie would be saved by referring this Resolution to a Committee. where it might be fairly and properly argued and decided. He had no objection that it should be referred to the ores Committee as the resolution of his Hon. Friend. w ell Mr. AGLIONBY thought the question was one worthy the consideration of the House. He did not think it a subject for a Committee. The question was ens of principle, upon which, after a Committee of ten or fifteen Members had decided, the House would be as winch abroad as it was now.—(Hear.) The suggestion of the Hon. Member, that there should be some plan to enable the parties through whose land the railways should go, to ma ke a title, without going through that strict investigation whi e " was generally gone through where the parties were willing'• vendor and vendee. He was surprised at the statements of the Solicitor-General, that there was no necessity for the provision proposed by the Hon. Member for South Durham. because the law as it now stood enabled parties to re cover the sums to which they were found entitled by a P i l l' A jury was sammoned to decid e , an d i n most cases they ee eided upon the value of the land before the title was in vestigated. The title was the next matter that came into consideration. He called upon the House to interfere il some way, and he would leave with th e H ouse t o s ay which was the most likely to give that protection that ought to be worded. After a few words from the ATTORNEY-GENERAL and Mr. HARLAND, Mr. G. J. HEATHCOTE called upon the House to prc'' tect the vast number of small farmers and proprietors i n th! county he represented, whose property would be much affected by the vast number of railways which passed through it. The Gallery was then cleared for a division. For the Resolution B4 Against it Majority for the resolution HAND-LOOM WEAVERS. At the suggestion of Lord J. Russell, Mr. J. Maxwell, af ter a few observations from Lord D. Stuart, Mr. Potter, ae' Mr. Warburton, postponed his motion on the condition of the hand-loom weavers to Tuesday next. INCLOSURE OF ARABLE FIELDS. Mr. A. PELHAM obtained- leave to bring in a Bill to fa cilitate the inclosure of open and common arable fields to England and Wales. PARLIAMENTARY SURVEYS OF CHURCH LANDS. Mr. T. DUNCO MBE said that he did not feel disposed t° accede to the suggestion of the Noble Lord for postponing his motion relative to the Parliamentary surveys of the Church lands preserved in the Lib rar y o f L am b e th Pala, ce . t. " - Those dooume o t s were o f th e grea t est i mportance now t"'" 7 the question of tithes was under the consideration of the Houses inasmuch as they formed the connecting link between the value of that property to which they referred as given King's books and its actual value at the present time. . I" ' had been made by order of the long Parliament—co nsc : quently they were the property of Parliament, and moreore' the Archbishop of Canterbury admitted that they were de posited with him—that lie was the keeper of them—for the Parliament. He (Mr. Duncombe) thought it neccssary 4 't they should be in every Hon. Member's hands, embracing they did much valuable information on a su bj ec t un.(.o dis cussion in Parliament, in place of individuals having to P a .:, two guineas for a single extract to the Archbishop's. secrets; as thy were now obliged to do. He did not see how anY ° l d jection could be made to his motion, and he trusted he shetier have the House with him in making it. The Hon. Me °l , - , i s concluded by moving for a copy of the Parliamentary ser'`l i t of Church lands preserved in the Library of Manuscrip t ' Lambeth. Lord J. RUSSELL had expected that his flonour a Friend would have evinced the same courtesy in postr e' L his motion as other Hem. Members bad, but as he did ri ot f o r so he (Lord J. Russell) should briefly state his reasoroLe, opposing it. He thought it was unnecessary in the first p_o' c law as according to his Hon. F'riend's own statement these o _ o ments were not difficult of access to any one. In the nese place he saw no more reason for copying them at the, ex P r e s of of the country than he did for copying the parish regis t ?,ii a r any part of the kingdom, or those documents of a ? 4 . !- - rio nature in the Rolls Chapel, the Tower, and other depubit° it of them. If his Hon. Friend's motion was acceded tubers to would afford a plea and a precedent for other Hon. M t . n t he to move for other records of the same character ; and by end, all the records in the kingdom might be moved an that means. The Noble Lord concluded by movings, oIY , 4 . In , gill amendment, that the order of the day for the Hou se ', IL ta ke itself into a Committee on the Tithes Commutation B precedence of all notices of motions. Mr. FIUME supported the motion. The Mr. J. JERVIS also supported the motion. lie looked u T p O on ßN it E a Y s -GENERAL necessary. , 11 00 there appeared-- some further conversation the House divided, ainnoatitioun: For the motion, --59 _._ Against it Majority ........... TITHES COMMUTATION BILL. . The House went into Committee on the Tithes Co. tion Bill. On reading the 33(1 clause, Lord JOHN RUSSELL placed in the hands of they lisii; man the 33(1 clause, as it was proposed to be amende. was in the following terms :—" And be it enacted, t hat ill every case in which the Commissioners shall intend makiug such award, notice thereof shall be given in suc h manner 115 to them shall seem fit ; and after the exp i rat i o n of twen t y -ene ays, after such notice shall have been 'riven, the Commission; d ers, or some assistant co mmissioner, shall p roc eed to ascertain the clear average value (after making all just deductions on accoku of the e xpenses of collecting, preparing for sale, and mar e,I ing) of the tithes of all the titheable produce of all lands 90 J.; ject to tithe in the said parish, according to the seven years preceding Christmas, in the year 183 5 ; P (3 ,. vided that if during till:said period of seven years, or aiyP beenpart thereof, the said tithes or any part thereof, shall have : d compounded for or demised to the occnpicr of any o f the tithed lands, in consideration of any rent or payment instead of n.O averapre.l the amount of such composition or rent, or sum agreed t o b,. paid instead of tithes, (including all unrcmitted arrears there y shall be taken as the clear value of the tithes included in a . e i c_l l composition, demise or agreement, during the time for ?A i ; the same shall have been made, and the commissioner or en 7 taut commissioner shall award the average value of ther,_e years so ascertained as the sum to be talfen. for calculatingno z" 1 the rent charge to be paid as a permanent conunutatio 0„.,e said tithes ; provided also, that in estimating the v alue r VII I said tithes, the commissioners or assistant commissione ,p_n_.'o.., estimate the same as as chargeable to all Pa.rliamentarYetnts"to chial, county, and other rates, charges, and asses sl . o h e ll which tith es are li a bl e ; and whenever the said tit he s ithenus isi,_,i. have been compounded for, on the principle of. such y c i . 00 7 0. Lion b e ing paid, free from all such rates, charges, a- :_ ista t inents, or any part thereof, the said commissioners or ni s; i 00 mu l‘ t i a r t . io li n commissioner shall have regard to that circumstance, " make a fair addition on account thereof." • the ° ln ' of tire land. Now, if the corn laws were , b 1 , 1 8 1 : . an a cre, ,ÜbeAclaEusoebijtecdtiedd it,ontthailslonmofdnro othfnesftninit:a7u.n.ds_eg,ped, who sooner or later lie expected, land paying,.nay L. would probably fall to 10s.; and suppoeseido6o3 i seven yeah average value of the tithes during the pre rweecriesttiohne 142 caostfl,in &Wl"'