The Sun. — London, England, 1844-05-01 00:00:00

Utittion SUN OFFICE, Seven o'Cloch. BOW-STREET.-(THIS DAY.) SERIOUS CAARGE AGAINST A POLICE-OFFICER. — George Weston, a sergeant of the F division of police, was summoned before Mr. - Twyford, charged with receiving certain bribes, in his capacity as a police-officer, to screen certain parties against whom warrants had been issued. It appeared that there have latterly been a great many indictments issued by,the parish authorities, for the sup pression of certain houses of this district. The warrants in these indictments were entrusted to Weston, to execute, and the present charge was, that he had given, for bribes,. information to the parties, whereby they were enabled to escape punishment. Mr. Ballantyne appeared for the complainant, and Mr. Clarkson for the defence. The case was gone into on this day week, but owing to its length it was adjourned till to-day, in order that the defendant might leave an opportunity to prepare his defence. The facts are shortly these as detailed in the evidence :—in the month of June last, indictments were preferred against a man named Orchin and his wife for keeping a house of ill-fame in Shire-lane. In that month, the defendant called upon a hairdresser of the name of Clements, who was an ac quaintance of the Orchins, and told him to write to them to inform them that there was a warrant out against them. The `witness wrote to them at Maidstone to guard against it. After this Weston called again, and said that Orchin bad not given him what he had promised, and told wit ness to write to them about it. The witness did so, and a post-office order was returned for 10s. The witness's shop-boy got the order cashed, and the money was given to the defendant. This witness was subjected to a severe cross-examination by Mr. Cliarkson, but his evidence was not shaken. The Orchins were called, and they corroborstel the evidence of the other witness. Another witness was called, named Anne White, and she swore that she had paid Weston several. sums of money, in order that he should Opted her against the effect of a warrant that was out againt her for keeping a house - of ill-fame. Mr. Clarkson addressed the Bench at great length, and cated w,itnesses.(policemen), who stated that they bad often heard the witnesses who had been called state that they would have, the coat off Weston's back. Mr. TwitFono deferred his judgment till Saturday. SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS. Fitoll/ THE EVENING PILFERS OF THIS DIY. GLOB ,—The law of Debtor and Creditor in this country was, until the last 'few years, in a most imper fect state. Instead of being founded on the obviously rational and just principle of rendering the property of the debtor available to the payment of his debts— which in other couhtries is principally aimed at by their laws on this' subjeet—personal, restraint, aptly described as a " power which exposes the liberty of one man to the passions of another," was the remedy provided by.the Legislature for securing the payment of debts. The unfortunate and the fraudulent were treated alike. The dishonest debtor was no more subjected . . to imprisonment than the honest one. The man who bad long struggled with misfor tunes—who had daily submitted to privations of or dinary- comforts, that his means of meeting the pecu mary claims upon him might be increased, and who had distributed every pound he could acquire and save to avert the calamitieS: that eventually overtook him, was regarded 'with equal eye by the law with the reckless spendthrift, the headlong speculator, and the fraudulent practitioner ! An alteration in this cruel and im politic system was contemplated with reluctance. Partial ameliorations of its rigour were made at dis tant interi'als, by the Legislature, which thus showed the confidence that was felt in the efficiency of imprison ment to'coerce payment of pecuniary claims, not merely from the fraudulent, but from the unfortunate and impo verished, On moving last night in the House of Lords the second reading of the .Bill for assimilating the ex isting laws of creditor and debtor, Lord Cottenham entered largely into the legislative history of the sub ject. To the Noble Lord's masterly exposition of the imperfect 'principlesand defective operation of the successive changes which were made by Parliament, we refer those who desire .to become acquainted with the pasts • They will there tee how unwilling the Legis lature showed itself to interfere with the system of in discriminate. imprisonment ; and, when it did interfere, what inexplicable distinctions were recognised and ap plied to differenCelass of debtors. The poorest, and most unfriended—alike destitute of 'resources and of help—were doomed to a prison. Persons who could not meet their obligations to their creditors, if their debts were of large amount, were relieved, partially' or wholly, from the degradation and misery of incarceration. The law only reserved its un mitigated vengeance for the poorer classes—those whose debts were small, and whose destitution was absolute! Lord Cottenham, by the Bill which he' has in troduced, seeks to remove those distinctions, and to place the law of creditor and debtor on principles more consonant With sound policy. Its object is to assimilate the law relating to bankrupts and insolvents, by abolish ing altogether imprisonment for debt, and giving to the creditor. greater facilities for obtaining cessio bonorum. Debts contracted without prospect of being ahle to pay them are to be treated as fraudulent transactions; and the delinquents may be tried before a jury, and punished according to the flagrancy of the case. The future pro- perty of insolvents, like that of bankrupts, is to be ex empted front the power of former creditors; and all pro ceedings in bankruptcy and insolvency are to be assimi lated, and . .carried on in one court, before one set of judges. Such is the outline of this greatly beneficial mea sure, which will, we trust, shortly receive the sanction of the Legislature. The honest and unfortunate debtor will be releived by it from imprisonment. Thus punishment will be reserved wholly for the fraudulent debtor ; whose case will be regarded, as it ought to be, in the light of a crime against society ; subject to be dealt with, as other offences against socieiy are, by a court of crimi nal Jurisdiction, and be no longer left to the partial and freqUently malevolent -passions of individuals. Speaking of imprisonment for debt, Mr. Burke long since said, ",Every process of judicial order is subverted by this proceeding. If the insolvency be no crime, why is it punished with arbitrary imprisonment ? If it be a crime, why is it delivered into private hands to pardon without discretion, or to punish with out mercy and without measure ?" The credi tors 'of an insolvent will, by this measure, obtain prompt possession and early and equal distribu tion of,'the assets of his estate, comprehending every de scription of his property.: This principle of cessio bonorum has been long found to work most advantageously in Scotland, and has been frequently urged on the con sideration . and adoption of the Legislature, as well calCulated in this country to secure the property of insol vent trailers from waste, by delay and mal-appropriation. STANDARD.—Lorticettenham last night introduced a Bill for the abolition, in all cases, of imprisonment for debt - leaviug the fraudulently incurring of debt, or the fraudulently withholding payment of a just debt which the party is.ableao pay, to be dealt with criminally, as a substantive offence. The Bill met the unanimous ap probation of the House; and 'we trust will soon be the law of the land. The power of imprisonment for debt is the most unjust, and, in a country where ninety-nine men out of's hundred have no estate but in their time and their;Character, the Most cruel tyranny that it is pos sible to imagine. Of the injustice of leaving with one subject the power of depriving another of liberty, charac ter, and occupation—if the latter happens to be his debtor—whether by misfortune, venial imprudence, or the arts of the creditor himself—of the injustice of in vesting the richer class with this tyranny, to be ex exercised at their caprice, it is unnecessary to say anything after all that has been said and written upon the subject during the last 200 years. The injustice of the tyranny is acknowledged universally ; but the degree of its cruelty is not so generally appreciated. The injury inflicted upon a debtor by imprison ment, is frequently measured merely by the amount of the pain of three months' confinement and by three months loss of time ; but this is a ridiculously inadequate measure ; in the vast majority of ewes— , we should say, that in every case where the debtor is `really an honest and industrious man—imprisonment is ruin. They are only the knaves and the dissolute who make light of it The poor labourer, the artisan, the clerk, the professional man, who has no prospect in life but the fruit 'of patient labour and of a fair character, finds impri • sonment for three months a very dreadful matter ; turn ed loose at the three months' end, he finds the place that'he formerly occupied filled up, and has to begin the world anew, and work out a new place for himself with worse than no reputation—with a damaged reputa tion. So dreadful are these consequences of impri sonment to industrious men of proper feeling, that they will sLbmit to any terms of em ployers' to avoid it, or make any bargain with usurers. - Pei', who know the real lives of the struggling Millions can have escaped seeing many examples of men who might have adorned and served their country in the highest stations creeping in obscure employments to mean graves, in terror of the horrid 'phantom of 'ignominious improvement. But,it will be said, creditors are not generally so hard-hearted in o a this Christian country. We do no t k now what to say to this ; the love of money y has a gr ea t tendency to the • heart ; and with the exampl e of .lr. Oastler's three years' suffering, and the knowledge of the fact that that gentleman s wealth} creditor, a ft er wringing two or three thousand pounds from the compassion and sympathy of the people, still main t t ha such ins his t • position in society, we can hardlysay hard-he2rtedness is either rare or unpopular in Eng land. The truth is, however, that the creditor is not always the party to blame. He, a poor man, perhaps, watts his money ; a ready solicitor sug gests that it can be had on a peremptory demand ; the demand is made, costs accumulate ; these costs, must be paid by the creditor himself, if h e cannot extract them from the debtor or the deb tor's friends ; so that he (the creditor) having once begun, is forced to push matters to extremity, if he would evade greater loss. This is not hard-heartedness—it is merely' folly at first and necessity afterwards. Abolish imprisonment for • . debt, bewsver, and what do you effect ? ' You take fr m creditors the temptation to commit this - folly, and you destroy at a stroke the trade of the worst • deseripq in of usurers—the men who lend money at high interest up al bills of exchange, in contemplation of actions upon those bills, the lenders upon cognovits and warrant to confess judgment. In nearly every case these loans are contracted in order to per `delfts, because debts unpaid drag a man to prisdn and to ruin ; but abolish imprisonment, „amiss men will have no motive for changing cre . Aiwa . the exorbitant cost of flying to usurers. In . • this way a pestilent trade will be extinguished, and a co nsiderable amount of capital let lob - se for fair -com mercial purposes; while the metal effect must be to en- Nance the value of character by making character the only safe ground for giving credit. STATE OF TRADE. (From the Manchester Guardian of this day.) There has been, upon the whole, a fair and steady business in the yarn market this week, especially for mule yarn, which is in rather better demand than for two or three weeks past. For goods, too, the market is rather firmer, especially for light fabrics above thirty inches wide, which are in general demand at full prices. Printing cloths and domestics, however, continue dull ; and the prices are still rather tending downwards. ROCHDALE FLANNEL MARKET, MONDAY, APRIL 29. —There have been rather more inquiries after prices to-day, and some merchants have purchased more freely, but, upon the whole, there has not been much more business transacted than on the preceding Moßday. A spirit of speculation has been excited among the buyers, as many are inclined to think that ere long there will be a further advance in wool, notwithstanding the new clip will soon be in the market. In wool prices remain firm, and the demand steady. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. (THIS EVENING.) HOUSE OF COMMONS. The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour. Colonel CONOLLY presented a petition from a place in Ireland against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. Mr. M. BELL presented a petition from Yorkshire against any alteration in the corn-laws. Captain LAYARD presented a petition in favour of a Ten Hours' Bill. Sir B. HALL presented a petition from the parish of St. Pancras against the Masters and Servants' Bill; also petitions from the same parish against the New Poor law. Mr. WILLIAMS presented a petition from a place in Yorkshire in favour of a Ten Hours' Bill. Mr. WILSON PATTEN presented a petition from Chorley, praying for the abolition of the duty on cotton wool. - - - Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD presented petitions from Carrickfergus, Donaghadee, Glascar, Baloo, and Winterton, in Ireland, praying that a law might be passed to render valid all marriages solemnised, or hereafter to be ; solemnised, by Dissenting ministers between persons of proper age and not within the prohibited degrees of affinity. Mr. GISBORNE presented a petition against the Masters and Servants' Bill. Mr. GLADSTONE moved that Sir John Young be added to the Committee on the Hull Docks Bill. Mr. KEMBLE presented a petition from the inhabi tants of Wandsworth, Battersea, and the adjoining dis tricts, against the Common Lands Enclosure Bill. Mr. W. 0. STANLEY presented a petition from se veral ministers and inhabitants of North Wales, praying that the 10th clause might be expunged from the New Poor-law Amendment Bill ; and that the poor might be buried in consonance with the wishes of their relatives. Mr. ALDAM presented petitions against the Mas ters and Servants' Bill. ARCHES BILL. The Court of Arches Bill was postponed to this day month. On the motion for going into Committee on the Mas- ters and Servants' Bill. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented twenty - nine petitions against the Bill. On the motion that the SPEAKER do leave the chair, Mr. T. DUNCOMBE rose for the purpose of giving effect, as far as it laid in his poa er, to the petitions that he had just presented to the House, and he must say, that as far as it was in his power to adopt it, there was no form of the House he would not use as a weapon to defend an enactment which had been truly designated in some of these petitions as one of the most insiduous, op pressive, arbitrary, and tyrannical attempts to oppress the working classes that was ever made.—(A laugh.) It might suit Hon. Gentleman to laugh at an attempt to oppress the working classes—("No, no")—but if the House would give him its attention, he would prove to it, and would satisfy the public, that this was the object— and the sole object—of the Bill. He had reason to complain that the Bill had arrived at this stage at all. To the original Bill no one could object ; it had a humane object in view, and though it increased the power of the justices, yet it was for the purpose of facilitating the recovery of wages. Under that belief, the House passed the Bill through its first stages, but it was under false colours and false pretences. It was then proposed to go into Committee to make cer tain alterations ; those alterations were made, and the Bill came out of Committee without a single word, from the first line of the preamble to the last line in it, referring to that object. Therefore, it could not be said that the Bill had been read either a first or second time. The Bill had been brought to its present stage under false colours and false pretences. Now, what we; the reason assigned for this measure ? When his Hon. Frienri, the Member ft . !. Lambeth, asked for some ex planation the other night, the Secretary of State for the Home Department said he did not approve of the man ner in which the Bill was drawn, and he referred him to the Hon. Member for Somersetshire. The Hon.,, Member for Somersetshire said that the Bill in as drawn up by the desire of the Government. Sir J. GRAHAM—The form of the Bill was ap proved by me, not the substance. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said it was the substance of the Bill which he had to deal with—he cared nothing about the sbadow.—(Laughter.) Now, if he went to the lion. Member fur Somersetshire, and complained of the provisions of the Bill, he said they were forced upon him by the Government ; whereas the Right Hon. Gentle man said he was not responsible for them. The Hon. Member for Berkshire said it was a totally different Bill from what he approved, and the Hon. Member for Not tinghamshire expressed tt,iimilar opinion. Now he repeated that this Bill had not been properly read a second time. Now what were the provisions of this Bill which were so objectionable? A new principle was introduced by the Bill unknown to the Legislature of the country.— (Hear, hear.) The only legislation in reference to labour which had heretofore taken place bad been in re spect to persons hired for a certain term, and the Ma gistrates had power to fine or imprison persons who had not fulfilled their contract. But this power was never given in cases of piece or job work.—(Hear, hear.) They were now going to confer a power of this kind on the Magistrates. By this Bill a person would he liable to be sent to the House of Correction for two months on the single oath of a fore man.—(Hear, hear.) If this were the case, could they be surprised that they had petitions on the subject from every species of trade in the kingdom. This Bill would affect every species of labour. The Right Hon. Gentleman intended that the Bill should only affect labourers employed in husbandry. But as it stood now it would affect those employed in factories. They might be imprisoned for two months upon the oath of the foreman or overseer if they were only five minutes too late.—(Hear.) In order to carry out this Bill they proposed to repeal six Acts, and it would be well before this iniquitous Bill received the support of the House, that Hon. Gentlemen should know what those Acts were. The first Act which was proposed to he repealed was the sth of Elizabeth, c. 4 ; but on referring to that Bill it would be found in the preamble that the object of the Statute was to protect the labourer, and to secure to artizans wages of a higher rate than was paid at the time, which both Houses of Parliament affirmed to be too small. He wished to call the attention of those who were in favour of a ran Hours' Bill to the provisions of this Act, which was now sought to be repealed. The Act of Elizabeth re gulated the hours of labour as fourteen hours, from March to September, in thirty-two trades, and ten hours froth September to March. Be tween the months of September and March the time was still more limited; they were allowed the same pe. riod of time for their meals, and they were only to labour from sunrise to sunset, and no one was compelled to work longer. Having limited the hours of labour and settled the wages of the labourers by law, it was but right that the magistrates should have the power of compelling parties to work, but this Act was repealed, and nothing for the satisfac tion or security of the working classes enacted in its place. The 20th George 11. was also to be repealed by that Act, which was considered nearly obsolete. Any ser vants convicted:of misconduct were liable to be corrected and imprisoned. There was nothing in that Act relating to piece or job work. The 27th George 11. merely repealed a proviso of the last-mentioned Act ; and the 31st George 11., which was passed in 1757, made the law applicable to husbandry servants hired for a less period than one year. The Act of 4th Geo. IV., passed in 1823, said nothing of job work, but related to the violation of contracts for service, and enacted either that such contracts must be in writing, or else that the ser vant must have entered upon his hiring, which was to be taken as evidence of the existence of a contract, in either of which cases, if the servant violated his contract by neglecting his work, he was liable to imprisonment. These where the Acts which it was now proposed to repeal. In this Bill it did not matter how much the master mis• behaved himself, the punishment only related to the servant.—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. Fernand.) This was nothing but a law for the rich and one for the poor —one for the employer and one for the employed. He called upon the House not to sanction the principle which was contained in this Bill. What had Sir Augustus Henniker said at the Suffblk Quarter Sessions lately?— That if they sent down the whole body of police from London they would not keep the people quiet, unless they materially altered in their treatment of them. Such was that gentleman's opinion—so great was the discontent;; and he (Mr. Dnncombe) would advise them to take care that this feeling did not spread, that it did not work its way into the manufacturing districts. The other day when discussing the subject of the limitation of the hours of labour, Sir James Graham had said to those in the House favourable to limitation that the working classes did not agree in opinion with them—that they had forwarded no petition in its favour.—(Hear, hear.) W e ll, th e y would see r o.v what was the eff ec t of' petitioning, for against this Bill nearly two hundred petitions had been presented.— (Cheers.) He (Mr. Duncombe) asked him (Sir James Graham) where were his petitions in favour of it.—(Hear, hear.) Those petitions against the Bill represented nearly two millions of people asking the House not to pass this Bill. If the • House went into Committee upon it, he should feel it his I duty to read several extracts from these petitions ; but he did hope he had made out such a case as would in ' duce the House to reject a Bill which would createmore discontent than any Act that, or any former House had ever been guilty of. Therefore, he trusted they would at once reject it, and so place thousands, and hundreds of thousands, who were not there to protect them irlves. Mr. P. HOWARD was understood to second the motion. Mr. HUME, in the hope to put a stop - at once to this Bill, would appeal to the Bight Honourable Baronet (Sir James Graham) to allow the order for Committee to be discharged, and either introduce a new Bill, or send the matter to a Committee up stairs, where it could be thoroughly examined, and then reported upon. The present Bill was not the Bill originally introduced—it was altogether a new Bill. The only proper principle in such a Bill was to make its provisions alike applicable to all, so that it might equally protect the master against the servant, as the servant against the master. This Bill did no such thing; and he could assure the Right Honourable Baronet that it had created the greatest excitement amongst the labouring classes. He hoped the Right Hon. Baronet would give them his support, and not allow this Bill to go further. He did not think that the House was in a condition to legislate anew upon the subject. Sir J. GRAHAM had not the least difficulty in as suring the House, that he had no desire to do anything which which would interfere with the interests of the working-classes. His impression of the existing law was, that it operated injuriously to the workman, and too favourable to the employer. Under the present law a labourer might be commit ted to prison for three months, with hard labour at the discretion of a single magistrate upon the com plaint of the master. On the other hand, if the servant had a good ground of complaint against the master, the magistrate had now power to adjudicate. But this Bill gives to the magistrate the power of giving damages against the master, and allows the arrest of the servant only upon warrant, issued in cases where the servant was about to abscond, or bad ab sconded. The power of imprisonment was limited, and confined within the limits of the Bill introduced by the Hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), called the 'Arbitration Act. The only novelty in the Bill was the question whether the House of Commons would extend the operation of the Act of George the Second to what was called piece-work. He thought that was a very fair subject of discussion to the House. He had fairly stated to the House the present state of the law and the alterations contemplated, and he should oppose the motion of the Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Fins bury, and should vote for the measure going into Com mittee. Mr. GRANGER opposed the Bill, for it would place servants in a far worse position than they were at present. The Bill bad excited from one end of the country to the other a feeling of opposition, for it was looked upon as a most arbitrary measure. The House, in the present state of the country, ought to be very cautious not to pass any Bill which might be considered as militating against the interests of the working classes. Mr. MILES had some difficulty in saying whether this Bill was his, or whether it belonged to the Govern ment.— (Laughter.) He thought if Honourable Gentlemen had looked carefully into this Bill, they would have found that there was not a very material difference between the present Bill and the former one. The Bill he considered to be necessary, for the present law was entirely against the servant. He admitted that formerly no damages could be given on either side, but now damages can be given on either side, and it would be a question when they got into Commit tee, whether, in case of a refusal to pay damages, there should not be a power of imprisonment againstthe master. If he were to have the Bill at all, he should hope to have advice and assistance on every clause of it in a Commit tee of that House. But as to a Committee up stairs, they all knew what that would probably end in. —(Cries of " Divide, divide.") He was aware it was a most un fortunate duty to bring so important a measure before the House, but it had been postponed from time to time, and it was desirable to come to some decision upon it with as little delay as possible. Mr. BERNAL was quite satisfied of the kindly mo tives towards the working classes which influenced the Honourable Gentleman who had affiliated the previa Bill. But, in his opinion, this was a Bill of such vast importance in its provisions and in its conse quences that it ought to have been introduced by the Government, and on their own responsibility alone. — (Cheers.) He did not see his way on the present Bill, as it now stood before the House, and he repeated that it was a question that ouht alone to be brought forward by the Government, with the aid and office of their law-officers.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. ESTCOURT considered that the fourth clause ought to be fatal to the Bill. It was no argument in favour of this Bill that worse Bills had been passed in snore barbarous ttmea. Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND opposed the Bill. It would affect the relations between employers and the employed in every bramh of industry. It could place in the hands of the employer an immense engine of oppression. —(Hear.) There was no analogy between the conditions of the two parties. The master could dis charge the servant without an hours' notice, and there was no reason why his power would be increased. He felt, therefore, bound to vote against the motion. Mr. GAILY KNIGHT was convinced from what had been said by both sides of the House—both Whig and Tory—that there must be some thing essentially bad in the Bill. He had been greatly surprised at hearing himself described as a monster and a tyrant, because his name was on the back of the Bill.—(Laughter.) He believed that the oppo sition to the Bill in the House was owing in a great measure to its being coincident with the strike of the colliers in the North.—(Cries of " Oh, oh," and laughter.) He believed that the Bill would only effect such alterations in the law as would benefit the working classes. If the Bill were thrown out, the existing laws would press as hardly as ever upon the colliers. The Hon. Member referred to the evidence taken before the Committee of the House on the subject of the colliers, to show that the law as it stood at present was oppres sive to the workmen, and concluded by saying that he would support the Bill. [LEFT SITTING.I THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MAY 1, 1844. the tone in which this grievance, real enough we think it, was successively deplored by the speakers. But we must confess to a slight abatement of our pity, from the fact that almost every speaker, In the midst of some most piteous whine about the duty he annually paid on his raw cotton, interjected some angry flings about the factory question. Has it ever occurred to any of these lugubrious gentlemen, that if they had done their part, the State might have done its part ? It is but natural that a Government which knows more of definite treaties than of uncertain speculations should refuse to sacrifice revenue without securing that the benefit shall light on the heads of those who most need ti. The Manchester meeting presents rather too close a resem blance to that committee of ironmasters the other day which agreed to raise the price of iron 20s. a ton, and before they separated signed a petition against a Ten Hours' Bill. Yet there is some hope from this quarter. Some of the arguments used in the House on Friday, including those of Mr. Cobden, are encouraging. He considers shortening the hours of labour not only desirable but possible—compatible with social prosperity, and that in England. We have sometimes heard what seemed a contrary doctrine. " More work, more produce, more wages, mare comforts," &c. Not so, Mr. Cobden. Holding that the desired rasult will be obtained by com mercial freedom, but retarded by legislative restrictions on labour, but Le yet considers that shortened hours are a result to be desired r " Instead of the supporters of free trade advocating the system of long hours, they maintained that the surest way, and the only sound and practical mode, of shortening the hours of labour was by abolish ing restrictions upon trade. He would in two words tell the House why he thought carrying into effect the principles of free trade would diminish the hours of labour. He did not say, with the Noble Lord the member for the City of London, that by reducing the price of bread, it would compensate the labourer for the reduction of the hours of labour. Ho repeated what he (Mr. Cobden) had often stated to the House, that he did not think reduction in the price of wheat, coffee, or sugar, would afford a sufficient compensa tion to the operatives for a reduction of the hours of labour. But if they enlarged their markets, and allowed a free exchange to take place with the commodities of other countries, the effect would be, that the value of labour would increase in this country, and the capitalist would also derive great advan tages from the interchange. Under such a system the labourer would derive as much benefit from working ten hours as he did now by working twelve. It was only last night that lie had a conversation with a large capitalist. That capitalist instruced him (Mr. Cobden) to go inky the House of Com mons and make a bargain for hire. The capi talist said, if the House would consent to remove all the restrictions upon trade, he would at once pro mise to give his workmen the same wages for .10 hours' as he now gave them for 12 hours' work. Dr. Deacon Hume said that the only effectual way of giving the ope ratives a Ten Hours' Bill was by removing the restric tions upon the commerce and trade of this country." This may be all true. We hope there is this road to a Ten Hours' Bill. But it certainly does considerably damp one's sympathy for the free traders to see the order in which they always place these two questions. Trade first, the factory women and young persons next, is not the order of humanity—perhaps not the order of success.— Times. COURT OF ALDERMEN. Yesterday a Special Court was held, for the purpose of receiving a report from the Committee for general purposes, on the petitions of several solicitors to be admitted attorneys of the Mayer's Court. The report of the Committee was read, and proved to be to the effect that the Committee did not consider it expedient to agree to the applications of the petitioners. Upon the motion that the Court should agree to the report, Alderman WILSON rose to dissent. He could not see why the Court should put the petitioners to the heavy expense of applying to the Court of Queen's Bench for a mandamus, to compel them to accede to the application, when it was for an object the most palpably just and necessary. The recent Act of Parliament provided in the most unequi vocal terms, that attorneys who practised in the superior Courts should have the power to practise in all the infe rior Courts, and contained no clause of re,ervation. He should move that the petitioners be admitted attorneys of the Mayor's Court. Alderman Sir C. HUNTER seconded the amendment. The RECORDER said that without entering into the merits of the question, he should advise the Lord Mayor that it was inexpedient to comply with the request of the petitioners to practise in the Mayor's Court. The question was one of consider able legal difficulty, and that very circumstance rendered it more necessary that hesitation should precede decision. His Lordship would assume that by the general words of an Act of Parliament it could not be meant to confiscate the offices of four gentlemen who had purchased those officCs from the Corporation. The Court decided against the prayer of the peti ;loners, four hands having been held up for the motion .n their favour, and seven having been held up against it. The Court then adjourned; COURT OF COMMON COUNCIL. Immediately after the adjournment of the Court of Aldermen, a Court of Common Council was held. THE CITY RIGHTS. Mr. R. L. JONES brought up the report of the Committee appointed to consider the report of the Select Committee relative to proceedings having been instituted in the Court of Chancery, at the suit of her Majesty's Commissioners of Woods and Forests, as to the City's rights to the soil and bed of the river Thames, with power to confer with her Majesty's Ministers and others on the subject, and to report thereon. The report certified that the Corn niittee had proceeded in the reference, and had been attended by the Recorder, the Remembrancer, and the Solicitor, and subsequently held a conference with Sir Robert Peel, which would be likely to lead to a satisfactory result, and that it was desirable to open a communication with the law officers of the Crown'; but the unexpected change which had taken place, and other circumstances having occasioned con siderable delay, and the time approaching for filing an answer to the Bill to provide for the defence, it was re quisite that they should be empowered to give the neces sary instructions for that purpose. THE THROWING OPEN OF THE MAYOR'S COURT. Mr. ASHURST then rose, and after having made some allusion to the course just pursued by the Court of Alder men on the application of several petitioners to be admitted attorneys to practise in the Mayor's Court, submitted the followingresolutions to the Court :—" That it is desirable that the Mayor's Court should be thrown open to the public. That it be referred to a Committee to consider of the steps necessary for that purpose with reference to the present and future constitution and practice of these Courts, and also to inquire what, if any, compen sation ought to be made to t he counsel and attorneys of the Mayor's Court for the surrend er o f t h e i r exc l us i ve Ar. offices, t o rights, nitl R Dseconded s and ded the resolutions. privileges, or any portion of them." Mr. LAWRENCE objected to the resolutions. He moved the previous question. Mr. BURN seconded the amendments. The amendment was negatived, and the resolutions were agreed to.—Adjourned. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS , A p ril3o 30. Their Lordships assembled at Five a o'Clock. Lord Campbell, the 111a;quis of Salisbury, and severe, other Noble Lords, presented petitions for and against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. The Marquis of NORMANBY presented a petition complaining of a practice which had lately sprung up, of enlisting boys out of union workhouses without the consent of their parents. The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from Sussex, complaining of the refusal by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to renew leases of property held of sup pressed prebendaries. The Noble Duke, in supporting the prayer of the petitioners, complained of the hardship which this refusal had imposed both on the large land owners, and the small foragers in the country. Lord IVHARNCLIFIC". said the object of this Bill was to have the Church property made available to Church purposes. The chief complaint which his Noble Friend had made, was, that although the Commis sioners might grant leases for a stated number of years, yet that thoy could not give reversionary leases. He (Lord Wharnclifle) could not see how the Noble Duke %Nes jus tified in finding fault with the Commissioners for making the most of the property consigned to their care. He could assure his Noble Friend that in every case where a tenant in possession sought a reversionary in terest he invariably got the preference. The Duke of RICHMOND said the question he wished to put to the Noble Lord was, how a person could be expected to expend 10,000/. on a property in which he had no reversionary interest ? The Bishop of LONDON thought that the Ecclesias tical Commissioners would be guilty of unfairness, if they did not try and make the most of the - property over which they were appointed as agents. Why, if their Lordships would recollect, they would see that in cases where the Crown lands were to be let, the Noble Lord opposite refused, in his capacity at the head of the "Woods and Forests, to grant any new leases, and therefore he (the Bishop of London) thought that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were fully justified in adopting the same course as that which the Crown took. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE characterised the conduct of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as unjust and arbitrary, and expressed his opinion to . the effect that if such conduct had for a moment been anticipated at the time of the appointment of the Commission, that Commission never would have been appointed. He hoped the Noble Duke, on an early occasion, would bring this subject forward in a more tangible shape than he had done that evening. After a few words from the Earl of BESBOROUGII and the Marquis Of CLANRICARDE, The Bishop of LONDON said'he ought to state in the name of the Commissioners, that every proposal made to them for the renewal of leases would meet with ample consideration by them. The Bishop of EXETER said be had opposed the ap pointment ofthe Ecclesiastical Commissioners from the first, but that Commission having been appointed, it was their duty to obtain as much money from the Church property as they could, in order to provide for the reli gious instruction of the people. He did not rise from any personal feelings, but merely because, as a member of that Commission, he was deeply impressed with the importance of the subject. The Marquis of NORMANBY gave notice, that, on Thursday next, he should present a petition from a number of artisans in Edinburgh, praying for the adop tion of sanitary regulations in large towns. The Duke of RICHMOND gave notice that on Thurs day next he should move for certain returns with re spect to the importation of foreign wool. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY, after presenting, a petition from the north of Ireland, praying for the le galization of Presbyterian marriages, asked whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to make any grant for the improvement of the harbours of Do naghadee and Portpatrick. The Earl of HADDINGTON said the report of the engineers sent down to examine the ports, induced her Majesty's Government not to make any grant for the purposes alluded to by the Noble Lord. The Forestalling (Ireland) Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Friday. DEBTORS AND CREDITORS BILL. Lord COTTENHAM, in moving the second reading of the Debtors and Creditors Bill, said that he felt confident he should be able to show to their Lordships, from undoubted authority, that the law, as it stood now with respect to the imprisonment for debt, was perfectly useless and futile. In support of that, ho could adduce the report of the year 1832, which report was signed by some of the most eminent men in the legal profession, amongst whom was Sir Frederick Pollock, now Chief Baron :of the Exchequer, and Mr. Justice Wightman. He called upon their Lordships to remove a grievance the existence of which no one doubted. In the month of March last no less than four hundred and twelve per sons passed through the Insolvent Court; and if their Lordships took that number as the monthly average, nearly five thousand persons annually passed through the Insolvent Court. Their Lordships would therefore see how extensive was the evil which he was then soliciting Parliament to abolish. The Noble and Learned Lord then proceeded to describe the various Insolvent:Acts which have been passed since the time of Queen Anne. The first Insolvent Act on the statute-book was that of Queen Anne, which their Lordships upon examination would find to be very rude in its character. It provided that any person could get rid of his debts by means of enlisting into the army.—(A laugh.) This law was in the statute-book, and, be had no doubt, was in force at the present time ; but he apprehended that her Ma.;esty's army now-a-days was not very often recruited by means of the Insolvent Act. He then came to what was called the Lords' Act, which provided that unless a man gave up the whole of his goods on becoming insolvent, he should be subject to transportation for seven years. This was found to be harsh, and another Act was passed, which was called Lord Redesdale's Act ; but a man could not avail him self of that Act until he hal been in prison for three months. This Act was found to be unsatisfactory, and it was consequently repealed ; and the Act at pre sent in existence came into operation. By this Act, a man might apply to the court for his discharge the day after he was conveyed to prison. But by the reports to which he had referred, it would ap pear that, generally speaking, a man could not ob tain his discharge, even under the most favour able circumstances, under two months. The Noble and Learned Lord then referred to the Act which passed in the year 1836, abolishing imprisonment of debt on mesne process. This he had always looked upon as a most important Act, although he recollected that at the time it was passed considerable alarm was felt amongst the commercial community. Since it had come into operation, there had been no petitions against it, and he had not heard that credit had been impaired by it. He did not, however, think that this Act had had fair play, inasmuch as now, instead of arresting a debtor on mesne process, the creditor obtained judgment against his debtor, and took him in execution. The Noble Lord then referred to the report of the exa mination of certain witnesses, who were exa mined two years ago with respect to this subject. The amount of the cost expended in one year by in solvent debtors was 86,970/., being an average of 15/. for each person who got his discharge. He thought that there was considerable hardship in the distinction between bankrupts and insolvents, by which the latter were doomed to imprisonment and subject to subsequent contingencies. After the, r Lordships considered the high authority which had been adduced on this subject, he trusted their Lordships would give their sanction to a measure which would have the effect of abolishing im prisonment, which tended to injure commercial credit as well as inflicting many social evils. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he thought nothing could be more inconsistent than the law as it now stood, namely, that there should be a distinction between its application to the cases of insolvents and bankrupts. The unfortunate insolvent, after he had given up all his property and passed through the court, when he began the world again had all his debts still hanging over him, and it certainly required more energy than fell to the lot of ordinary men to exert their talents, ingenuity, or industry, when they knew the result would be for the benefit of ethers. In conclusion, he should express his concurrence in the Bill of his Noble an Learned Friend, but be hoped that he would defer it for a short time, in order that a measure of such im portance might receive the consideration it deserved. Lord BROUGHAM hoped that some penalty might be imposed in way of misdemeanour upon those who were guilty of fraud towards their creditors, or of frau dulently transferring their property to others, or of giving bills of sale. Such were the provisions of the bankruptcy laws of almost all the commercial states of Europe, and he hoped they would be adopted in this country. 'rhe Duke of RICHMOND perfectly agreed in what had fallen from his Noble and Learned Friend, who had just sat down, as to the propriety of having some penal enactment, as applicable to those who were guilty of fraud towards their creditors. Lord DENMAN said he concurred in the Bill intro duced by his Noble and Learned Friend (Lord Cotten ham) which he hoped would be so dealt with as to enable their Lordships to gain every information respecting it. He hoped sincerely this Bill would be carried into effect. With respect to the provision suggested by his Noble and Learned Friend near him (Lord Brougham), con cerning persons in the last stage of insolvency, obtaining goods by false representations from others, he could only say, that that was amply provided for by the criminal code at present ; for a case of this kind had lately come before him in his judicial capacity, where the offender was convicted of felony, as having obtained the goods under false pretences. He thought the subject of bills of sale was one which deserved the deepest consideration from the Legislature, for it was not at all unlikely that, in many instances, persons exchanged these instruments with each other ; but still he would be rather jealous of adopting precipitately any measure which would make the execution of such a deed a felony. There was another point to which be would briefly allude, and that was where persons allowed others the use of their pro perty, and in consequence that those persons got in debt. He thought that it would be only justice if such property was to be considered to belong to the assignees. After a few words from Lord COTTENHAM in reply, and from the LORD CHANCELLOR, The Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on this thy fortnight. Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 30. - JAVA SUGAR. Mr. D. BARCLAY wished to know from the Right Hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) whether it was his intention to admit Java sugar into this country upon the same favourable footing that the sugar of Manilla and Siam was to be admitted ? There was some doubt upon the point, in consequence of the high duties imposed on articles of British industry in Java ; and it would be well to have the doubt cleared up before the departure of the Overland Mail. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that he would take an early opportunity of bringing the subject of the sugar duties before the House, and he would then explain fully what were his intentions. SHIPWRECKS COMMITTEE. Lord INGESTRE wished to know from the Right Hon. Gentleman (the Secretary to the Admiralty) when he would bring in a Bill founded on the report of the Shipwrecks Corn.. mittee; and also whether there was any intention of making a provision for the periodical inspection of masters of ships and masters' mates ? Mr. S. HERBERT said that with regard to the subject of the examination of masters of ships and masters' mates, it was under consideration; and with regard to the other subject, it was the intention of the Admiralty to carry the recommenda tion of the Committee into effect. RECAL OF LORD ELLENBOROUGH. _ Lord JOCELYN, seeing the Hon. Member for Beverley in his place, wished .to know whether he was prepared, on th. part of the Directors of the East India House, to lay any papers on the table of the House, with respect to the recal of the Governor. General of India',l ) —( Cheers. ) Mr. lIOGG said, that he was not the organ of the Court of Directors, and he had no authority to answer the ques tion.— (Hear, hear.) He had no objection however, as a mem ber of that body, to state his own opinion, and having done so, it would rc3t with the Miniecra to rictctinine, with reference to the public interest, as to the propriety of the production of papers in that House ; and as to the production of papers before the Court of Proprietors, the Court of Proprietors would be influenced by the course that Ministers should adopt. He would venture, however, to express a hope, that in conse quence of what had occurred in another place, that the House and the country would suspend their judgment upon the course the Court of Directors had pursued.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. ASTELL trusted that the House and the country would give the Court of Directors credit for having done their duty. He agreed with what had been stated by his Hon. Friend.—( Hear, hear ) In consequence of what had occurred in another place, he trusted the House and the country would suspend their judgment.—( Hear, hear.) Ir. HUME wished to know whether there would be any objection to lay before the House a copy of the correspondence which had taken place between the Government and the Court of Directors o n the su bject. He thought the Court had acted rightly, and he did not see why parties that had done so should be blamed.—( Hear, hear.) Sir R. PEEL said that with respect to the period when the correspondence would be laid on the table he could give no in formation to the House. Mr. HUME wanted only to know whether the Government would lay the papers on the table or not ? To this question no answer was returned. ATMOSPHERIC RAILWAYS. Lord 11. VIVIAN begged to ask the Right Hon. Gentle man, the Recorder of Dubliq, whether it was his inteniton to introduce a Bill on the subject of atmospheric railways? 111 r. SHAW said that there was new before Parliament a Bill which would afford an opportunity of putting the princi ple to the test of experiment, upon a line of . twenty-oneRELIGIOUSTESTS IN UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND.) Mr. FOX MAULE rose, according to notice, to move for leave to bring in a Bill to alter the law relating to oaths taken by professors in the Universities of Scotland. The inconve nience occasioned by the present administration of oaths . to professors was so great, that he thought he was justified in t once moving for leave to bring in a Bill, without any previous step. He wished that the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite would meet him at once upon the principle, instead of object ing to Oil form of his proceeding. It was no t his intention to go into the whole question of university reform in Scotland, which would open too wide a field; but he would confine him self entirely to the subject of the oaths administered to those who hold offices in the universities. lie would read to the House an extract from the Act o f S e . curity, which was passed in 1607, prowl:ling the test to be taken by those who should thereafter hold office in the Uni versities of Scotland. (The Right Hon. Gentleman here read the extract in question, by which it was provided that no pro. tenor, principal, registrar, or other person holding office in any of the universities, colleges, or schools of Scotland, should be permitted to exercise their functions, unless they should have first acknowledged the Civil Government as established. and pro. fessed their belief in, and subscribed the Confession of Faith, and worshipped in the Church, and submitted to the government and the discipline thereof. Such were the provisions of the Act of Security, and it had been at the suggestion of the professors themselves for the time being, that all persons holding autho rity in the universities bad been required to take this test. Now, however illiberal and narrow-minded those opinions might appear at the presen t day, he could find an excuse for those who had enacted them. They were not directed against any body of Dissenters, as the law was tthderstood in the pre sent day ; they were not directed against the Roman Catholics. The Scottish Universities were protected against them by the penal laws. They were intended to preserve the religious worship of the country. That Act of Security was confirmed by the Act of Union, such confirmation having been insisted on by the Scotch themselves. There were excuses to be made for their insisting on the re-enactment of the Act of Security. They recollected the persecutions which they, as Presbyterians, had suffered under Charles the First. The y recollected their sufferings on account of th-ir religion in the time of Charles the Second and James the Second. They could not but re member the 12,000 Presbyterians who, in the latter persecu tions, had suffered death on account of their religion. All these things were fresh in their memo ies at the time of the passing of the Act of Union, and when they were uniting themselves to a Legislature composed of a majority of a nation professing a faith which they had such reason to regard as hostile to theirs, they were right to take care to guerd themselves against any attempt which might be mode to subvert their national religion. That wss the only excuse that could b made for their insisting on the professors of their own universities and colleges taking these tests. How long this practice of administering the test had gone on in the University of Edinburgh he could not sty, but there had not been for years to the lay professors any test administered. Principal Bene, in his evidence, said that in Edinburgh Uni ver ity he was not aware that any lay professor hid been obliged to take the test. In the University of Aberdeen, since 1826, the tests had been strictly administered, but that previous to 1t426 there had been a laxity respecting these tests. In the honorary offices of rector and dean no test had ever been ad - mini , tered ; and, what was still more singular, in the Uni versity of Abet deen, the greater number of the lecturers who taught the pupils to the fullest extent were subjected to no test. The practice of administering this test had been in Aberdeen and in Edinburgh productive of no benefit whatever, and the absence of the test had been attended with no manner of in jury to the Established Church. If they looked to the nature of the test, and considered the character of the Scotch ministry, they would at once see there was no necessity what ever for its application. They were seminaries for instruction in literature, science, medicine, and the arts.—( Hear.) Little danger was to be apprehended to the Established Church from this mode of education. He did not contend that professors of divinity should be excluded from the test—it was from lay professors, he contended, and the administration of the test to them would give the Universities a sectarian character. He had hoped that this practice of ad ministering the test would gradually fall into oblivion, but the late unfortunate religious differences in Scotland had renewed the question in all its bitterness. One of the most distin guished men in the Scotch Universities had already refused to take the test, he had been subjected to the grossest indignity by being thrust from his distinguished position by the Estab lished Church, and it was quite clear that if the tests must stand they must be universally and impartially administered to all as well as to one. What would be the consequence of such a step as this"' Why, all would be subjected to a confession of their faith, and the members of Glasgow, St. Andrew's, Aberdeen, and Edinburgh Universities would be called upon to sign the frrmuke of the Church of Scotland, and either they must record themselves members of that Church, they must sacrifice their position, or abjure their conscientious opinions. But that was not the only thing. It would also restrict them hereafter to a most limited extent for their own basis. There was, at the present moment, a vacant chair in the University of Edinburgh, and the University and the public would be deprived of the services of no less a man than Mr. Farraday, because he would not subscribe to the rules of the Established Church.—( Hear.) Then, if they looked to those chairs which include the teaching of classics in the Scotch Universities, they all knew very well, that the Heliconian spring did not exist in Scotland, and were they to be refused the services of the distinguished members of other Universities, because they would not subscribe to the Confession of Faith of the Established Church of Scotland ? He next came to the honorary offices in the Universities. Great stress was laid on the necessity of their being tests for those offices, or at all events of the per sons appointed to them being subject to be called on to sub scribe to the Cunfes-inn of Faith. He believed, however, that the practice in all the Universities was never to require these tests in any honorary appointment. The appointment of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite to the dignity of Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow was an instance in which no test was required; and when he ( Mr. Fox Mettle) was honoured with the same office for one year, he did not subscribe to any test The principle of the University of Glasgow was, that the test should remain in force even with regard to honorary ()ices, though it appeared the practice did not very well agree with the theory. Last year he made inquiries respecting the rules of the University, while passing through Glasgow, and the principal held him disqualified because he would not sub scribe the tests ; but the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, when Lord Rector, presided at an election for a professor of divinity, and it was in fact, by his casting vote, that the election had been decided in favour of Dr. Hill, though he had taken no oaths, and it was well known was directly opposed to doing so.—( Hear.) He did not think the House had ever had an easier or a clearer case to deal with. The majority of the professors in all the Scotts-h Universities were favourable to the Bill, and he believed, with the exception of some in stances, in the Universities of Edinburgh and o' Aberdeen, they had all expressed their opinion on the subject by pstitions to that House. It should be spoken to their credit, that they had had the liberality to banish the system of tests from among them for many years past, and be would call on the House to beware before they attempted to renew that system again. By doing so they would raise up rival institutions, from which professors favourable to the Established Church would be banished ; and not only that, but every individual educated in these institutions would be brought up in rivalry and hostility to the Established Church, whereas by being educated in the present Universities with members of that Church, such feel ings would never be created amongst them. Perhaps Members were not aware that the Established Church was at present the church of itie minority or the peoplc of Scotland. . _ In the year 1707 it was the religion of nearly the entire of that people, but the time was past when a. Scotchman could boast of such king the case any longer. He did not make that assertion without having gone through some calculations. On looking into the report of the Church Education Committee, it appeared that the proportion was about a million of Church men to half a million of Dissenters, but since the disruption had taken place in the Church, he was not over the mark in stating that 400,000 individuals had le ft the Established Church. He would not ask the House to accede to hi, motion if he thought it would affect the stability of the Church. He did not want to lay any rude hands on her institutions, even though he differed from her doctrines, but, on the contrary, in submitting his motion to the House, he was convinced that the test system, if allowed to continue, would not only endanger the well-being of the University, but the permanence of the Church, by raising up the rival establishments to which he had before re ferred. Now, he begged to state that he had no objection in the Bill which he proposed to introduce for the purpose of relieving professors from these tests, should it be desired by Honourable Gentlemen opposite to him, to introduce a sort of negative test. That was, he was willing to insert a clause requiring them to make a declaration that, in their &asses and lectures they would not teach anything which might tend to the pre judice or lead to the subversion of the Established Church. He had no objection that professors should be re quired to do that, though he thought it was per. fectly useless, because he knew that in the arts and in the sciences the professors of the Universities of Scotland were men who attended to their own business, and never at tempted to go out of their way to bring in subjects with which their lectures had nothing to do. He should simply conclude by entreating the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Graham) to weigh well the decision to which he would come. lie also entreated the House not to seal with its approbation the revival of a system of tests which, perhaps, might have been justified at the time it was adopted, but which, in the present spirit of the age, was totally and entirely obnoxious to the feel ings of all men of liberal education, and which could be attended with no good effect to the Established Church. but, on the contrary, was calculated to pull down rather than to support that venerable fabric. —( Hear. ) Sir A. LEITH HAY said he should very briefly second the motion of his Right Hon. Friend ; and in doing so he per frctly agreed in all the arguments advanced by him, and iii all . his opinions, more particularly in the one with which he had concluded, that the measure new recommended to the House was not calculated to weaken the foundations of the Chu ch, or to pr. judice its interests, but rather to strengthen the one arid advance the other. He could assert that among all the professors, past and present, of the Universities of Scotland, tot an instance could be found of a profes-or introduciug tenets into his lectures foreign to the subject which he was appointed to teach. The question would not have been mooted, but for the unhappy divisions which had occurred in the Church of Scotland ; but as they had occurred, it was doubly necessary that something should be done upon the sub ject. If the course now suggested were adopted, he was satis fied it woul.l tend greatly to soothe asperities, and to soften those unhappy differences which had shaken Scotland to its foundation. He thought the Right Honourable Gentle man opposite (Sir James Graham) must now greatly regret the supineness he had Amen on the subject of the Scotch Church ; for he must by this titne have found that that delay had been the most preiudicial thing that had ever happened to Scotland, and, in his ( Sir A. L. Hay's) opinion, it would be more prejudicial still. He therefore trusted that the Llight lion. Baronet would now assist in allay ing the anhnositii s, and hindering, as much as possible, the consequences of the shocking and lamentable disruption which had taken place. The House must recollect that the adherents of the Established Church of Scotland did not now amount to more than one-third of the population. This made the qnes tion of these tests mare important than ever. He therefore trusted leave would be given to bring in this Bill, so that. there might come down to their country, and fill the chairs of their professors, men of the highest eminence from this, and who, under the present circumstances, were unable from their reli gion to do so. On the question being put that leave be given to bring in a Bill, Sir J. GRAHAM said, in the commencement of the ob servations he should address to the House, he would take leave to notice a point which had been alluded to in the early part of the speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman who had introduced the subject before them. Ho must say that, in a matter like this, which was avowedly to affect the Etablished Church of Scotland, and which was in connection with the fundamental article of the Act of Union, he thought the Right Hon. Gen tleman had done well in avoiding a resolution of the House, and in preferring to ask leave to bring in a Bill upon the sub ject. However, he thonght his Right Hon. Friend had shown very sound judgment, but beyond this he would not go, for he was sorry to say he felt it his duty decidedly to oppose the mo tion just submitted from the Chair. He, however, must admit the historical truth with which the Right Hon. Gentleman had introduced his cave ; and with respect to the policy which ori ginally suggested these tests, there was no material difference between them. lie now wished to remind the House that they wen invited to deal with a matter which had been so lemnly settled by the Scotch Parliament, which formed the fundamental article of the Union, and which the treaty of Union declared to be indispensable. The treaty made that declaration in the strongest manner, arid in words which admitted of no misrepresentation whatever—not that he (Sir J. Graham) was going in the present day to argue that because at a far distant period something had been declared fundamental that it should for ever be immutable—but what he should contend for was that changes should not be made on any slight ground, or upon any trivial occasion. Least of all did he think they ought to tamper or meddle with that which, having originally been de clared fundamental, was still held in the same regard by a vast mass of the population of Scotland of the present day. For this matter came under the consideration of Parliament in the year 1826, and in the year 1830 a report had beers presented, signed by the names of some of the most eminent men that hail ever been sent from Scotland to that House. The Members on that Committee concurred in recommending not only that the tests should not be discontinued, but that they should be more vigorously ap plied.—(Hear, hear.) Now he thought when he reminded the House that this system of teats was the fundamental article of the Union, and when he quoted the opinion just referred to, the House would be slow to disapprove the course which he • (Sir J. Graham) felt it his duty to pursue. In vain had h listened to the speech of the Right Honourable Gentleman for an enunciation of the grievances occasioned by it. Not a trace of a grievance had he 3et heard of, and most attentively had he listened to all that had been uttered. But the Hon. Gentleman, to justify his assertion that he would be no party to any measure which should be prejudicial to the Church, and which assertion he e Sir J. Graham) most unfeignedly be lieved—had declared that he would offer no objection to a sort of negative test or declaration on the part of professors. Now, he (Sir J. Graham) could understand very well what a test • meant, but he was really at a loss to understand what w as meant by a negative test. He must be permitted to say, though it could be shown, he believed, that in all the Universities to Scotland honorary members were exempt from the test--• though it could be shown that in the University of Glasgow Episcopalians had filled the professor's chair—yet they bad taken the test. No teacher in Glasgow had filled the chair without taking the test. Though Episcopalians had been admitted either by sufferance, or avowedly to fill the professor's chair, yet, up to the preseht time, no Presbyte rian dissenter had been admitted into the Universities of Scotland. He ( Sir J. Graham) would not now enter into the secession—he deplored it—it was a great misfortune—it was extensive—most extensive ; and he was desirous that no word should fall from him that should exasperate that secession. .. Now, it was with peculiar pleasure that he heard the Bight Hon. Gentleman state, that though he had seceded from the Establishment—and he (Sir J. Graham) considered that his loss to it was great indeed—yet, having seceded from it, be was not its enemy, and would not do anything to subvert it. He (Sir J. Graham) was sorry to say that that was not the language of some of the seceders. Msn had been found among them who had declared themselves the enemies ef the Established Church of Scotland, and stated that they considered that that Erastian Establishment, as they called it, was a nuisance which ought to be abated. He was sorry that the Right Hon. Gen tleman had b, ought forward his motion at the present time. He had told the House that no Presbyterian Dissenters had been admitted into the Universities of Scotland. Now what was the nature of the patronage of those Universities, and who held it ? It had been held by the members of the different Corporations; but at the present time st, might be held by men who preferred Dissenters to fill the different chairs of those Universities, unless some tests existed. If a Dissenter was appointed to those chairs, who could doubt that he would teach his own peculiar views.—( Hear, hear.) He did not think there was any great evil in the establishment of rival institutions to which Dissenters might go and obtain the best education. On the contrary, he thought rivalry would have t'.-e best effect. It was a T astier of primary importance that the connection of the Universities with the Church should remain. It was very true that, these tests were erected against the danger of Episcopacy ; but ho cause that danger had ceased, it would be most unwise, in his opinion, to remove them. Those tests were available again st Presbyterian Dissenters seeking to obtain a preponderance in • the Scotch Universities. Those tests had existed for a cen tury and a half, and some of the first men in this conntrY connected with science and the arts had filled the chairs of those Universities, notwithstanding these testa: very many men of eminence, among whom he might mention' Lord Melbourne, the Marquis of Lansdowne, and the Noble Lord, the Member for the City of London, had gone to Scot' land for the purpose of receiving part of their education, note • • withstanding these tests ; and he ( Sir J. Graham) was tads - • fled that if they would only leave the matter untouched all would go well. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for • Perth had asked whether they were prepared to revive tests. It was not a question of revival, bat whether they should abo lish tests which had existed for a hundred and fifty yea"' • The Right Hon. Gentleman had alluded to several petition" t from the Scotch Universities, but so far from those petitions being in favour of the proposed measure, they were • against the change.—( Hear, hear.) In short, many of the petitions stated that the removal of the tests would have the effect of destroying the Universities, by driving away their scholars. The Hon. and Gallant Gentle man who rescinded the motion talked of the spread of secessiou. Why it was only that very day that he had seen, in a Dundee newspaper, that a Scotch clergyman who had seceded had re' , turned to the Church.—( Hear, hear, from. Mr. Fox Mettle.) The Right Hon. Gentleman, perhaps, might be prepared to prove that it was not so. Mr. FOX Al A ULE—No, no. Sir J. GRAHAM was glad to see that they must come tn . the turning point, and secession must be considered as at an end.—( Hear, hear.) He hoped before the debate closed they would hear what Scotch Members had to say upon the sub ject. They had still in that House many whose names and ancestors were eminently connected with the history of Scot land; and he hoped that they would give their evidence frankly and fairly in favour of the Church of their ancestors. He thought that, as Scotchmen, they should proceed with their. usual caution upon this important question. As a Minister o f the Crown, bound as far as in him lay to maintain inviolate the Presbyterian Church as established in Scotland, h e o ust oppose the introduction of the Bill. Mr. RUTHERFORD agreed with the Right Hon. Gene, tleman, that this entirely was a Scottish question, and one 0' most vital importance, and before he entered into the merits of the case, he must express a wish that the Right Hon. Ba." ronet opposite, would not lay " the flattering unction to log • soul," that any alteration had taken place in the generality of the people of Scotland, with respect to this secession quea" tion. It was supposed that the Clergy of Scotland ner° , mercenary men, • and would not give up their living'. Look to what had been the result. There had been a secession of more than one half of them from the Church. The Church was no longer what it was in the towns of Scotland, or in the country amongst the rural population. It was nn longer known • as the Church of Scotland—( Hear, hear)—which of all the churches in the world had most closely united the affections of the people to it.—( Hear, hear.) That which was now the Established Church of Scotland was the church of the min°" rit.y—aye, and not a very large minority.—( Cheers.) Thos who travelled through Scotland might read the signs of l ee , times, for they could not move through the cou n t T e without seeing everywhere the consequences of e secession, even in the southern counties.—( Hear, be*) There were 700 churches in course of being built by 1 - 0 , seceding psrty, and the sum which had been subscribed srii.) far beyond what had been calculated upon.—( Hear, ll t s e e Larger subscriptions were given for the support of the ch ar the than were given before the secession. The application of a. at test to the admission of teachers to the Universities stro ex ," two-thirds of the population of Scotland. He would elltlte case of Dr. Brew s t er , a man o f an E uro p ean fame—( B ear e ; hear)—of undoubted e loqu e nce, and whose atta c hment to t.- Church of Fcotland was undoubted, to show hew scandalou sl y this test was applied. Because he seceded f rom the Chereb e was assailed by intolerant opponents, and the a of the test was insisted on in order to oust him.— He He referred to this case to show how the test would be allowed to operate if they did not, in good time, opplY, remedy.—(Hear, hear.) He trusted that the Ropes: Parliament would hold the balance between both parties, an that English Gentlemen would look upon this as a Scotcus question. The Right Hun. Gentleman referred to the . %,f t : of 1707 as the ground on which he opposed the motion. IP_ Right Hon. Gentlemen, at first, seemed to doubt whether the pplication system of tests was good or not, and whether the How ° , ought not to deal with the question ; but he tu rn s round at the end, and said that lay and secu la r teachers e ould be likely to instil their own particulate, doctrines into the minds of their hearers. This was not fou n d to be the case in Scotland. The:teachers of jurisprudence a n medicine, aed the other lay professors, discharged their duties with perfect impartiality, and did not interfere with matte" °i religious belief. The Right Hon. Gentleman referred t o another danger in the establishment of rival Universiti e l: He though the more education there was the better. He ask ed would they give those rival Universities, which the secede; might establish, the power of granting those degrees whit they gave to the State Universities?—(Hear, hear.) Ag afr „:l Scotland was not a very large country, and if those tests wee applied, the number of the pupils would be diminisbeo ' and the remuneration of the professors being in eon s! ' quence diminished, professors of ability would 0`"" be found to fill the chairs at the Universitie l tS There was nothing in the test to make professors bett er s . qualified to teach medicine, chemistry, jurisprudence, Greek, o f Latin.—( Hear, hear.) Would any body be less qualified tl. teach an abstract science because he had not taken i s ,. —( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman then refe rr n to two professor s in Glasgow who signed the test, not being t" the Established Church of Scotland, One of the worst couse quences of the test would be, that it would lead men to palt e e s r and act with reservation, instead of acting in a plain, stra i g ht ; forward manner. The evil consequences of the It s might not have been felt when all Scotland w as nnited in one Church, but now when the Church of Sco tia was divided, not into a variety of creeds, but when there la!: a large party who would not conform to the practice and erei, ship of the Church, and who would not submit to its discip lit i it was time for the Legislature to interfere.—(Hear, bear The main ground on which the Right Hon. Baronet refuse to accede to the introduction of the Bill was, that it was OP; posed to the Act of 1707—the Act of Security.—( Hear, h ear When the Act of Union passed, this separate Act was i.O passed, and it became part and parcel of the Act of ITtn e ' t ' e The people of Scotland thought it would be a security t their Church. But they had soon reason to -find t!' 1 0 it was not a very strong safeguard against innovat! ° ‘ —(Cheers)—for in about five years after the pa' s°l s of the Act of 1707, the Imperial Parliament passed a n A bl which changed the constitution of the Church of Scotland , 1 , removing the patronage from the hands of the clergy , a 0 restorirg it to the patron from whom it was previously ta k . e n. away by an Act of the Scotch Parliament passed in lo w s That was an old instance, and here was a new one.--( Cheer.' In the last year they touched the constitution of the Church e t Scotland. Were they still prepared to call the Act of 4: 0 year a declaratory Act ?—(Cheers.) Were they preparet.l,t, do so in the face of the opinions of Lord tenham, Lord Brougham, and all the other judges n' s pronounced judgment in the case ?—( Hear, and cheerae s :, They touched the constitution of the Church of Scotla nd that enactive Act in a most delicate point—the distribution eof patronage. The Church of Scotland was now the Chord' re the minority ; and the worst consequence of what they nt, now doing would be that they would impress the character o f sectarian church on the Church of Scotland.—(Hear, h e s sr ,; e s These schools would become odious to the great majority 0 ' ' is , people.—(Hear, hear.) They would found other echo° of Learning would be injured—( Hear, hear)—because lut e e' ability would be precluded from becoming teachers in Oro quence of their peculiar religious opinions, and two-thlrytt of the people would not send their children te,, te l. taught in those universities where the test was reeln'the A brand was placed upon two.thirds of the people, beeattaf eee s Legislature considered them unable to furnish tea u 7 ro y of their own.—( Hear, hear.) They•would not only deals's • the Church of Scotland, but they would create a fleet to church, which would become the most intolerable of evt the country.—(Cheers.) nid e ' The LORD ADVOCATE felft himself bound by his e° _ or e tions to state that he was opposed to a motion whereby they 7be called upon to repeal certain tests that had been enacted bY;ot.. wisdom of their ancestors, and which had continued in e, s tia t ence for a period of about a century and a half. 118 "i t ed heard that any one instance of any practical evil h ad re' rise from the existence of those tests, with the exception of the alluded to as having occurred in the University of S t. Andretbst It had been admitted, that it was for important reasons act those tests were enacted. It was admitted that their ler was to protect the Established Church of Scotland from d are that was apprehended to it from Episcopacy. If these teAtdiangcr reasonable to protect the Church from the anticipate d t he of Episcopacy, then he concluded they were reasonable for the protection of the Church from any other danger. N ° ' i d be there had been a change of circumstances , and if it con v as made out, that that change of circumstances tote sufficient to require the repeal of dins% But theft they might listen to the demand for their rePe o a sun port it was no liht case that was required to be made out t t. a t: ero such a demand; for let them observe the importance Let attached to those tests at the time they were enacted•vr_": $ them recollect that the establishment of those tests .ty "_,a fundamental article of the Act of Union, for the sect!trait, a ' n 'a protection of the Church. They were to remove fi n_ „ion ce tri why ? Because there had within the last year or t f t e o ren a great change of circumstances in that country in re_ an the Church. He did not know whether his Right tio. o f eirCU ' Learned Friend meant to say, that because a c hange .0 _ h a d stances had arisen, that tests and protect' meant to become necessary, or whether be _ bad say, that because that change of circurnatnc'lt to g arisen the Church should be no longer protected . I ni Either - 1 one of those two propositions which they meant. sao account of that change of circumstances the test ecaii i s l e u . j d dis t necessary, for the danger no longer existed, or b r deserved p r° ; change, of circumstances the Chur ch no long e Aira i n i,hess tection. Now, he did not see that the danger way _ • THE FACTORIES BILL. The factory question is now in the hands of the land owners. So it bas ever been in fact; but just now their intimate relation to it happens to be more evident than ever. Its opponents cannot be called a party, either Whig; or Liberal, or manufacturing; for it has its sup porters from all classes. " The Opposition" is divided upon it. The agriculturists, then, can, if they please, pass Lord Ashley's amendment—not quite scot-free, perhaps, for they are threatened with the perils and ex penses of a dissolution, or even a change of Ministry. Still, if they choose to run these risks, they can pass a Ten Hours' Bill without the smallest difficulty in the world. They have only to say aye, and the thing is done. Now this is a very important fact, and deserves to be remembered hereafter, whatever the present result may happen to be. Long hours are generally considered the sin of the master manufactured. These unnatural monsters, it seems to be commonly supposed, in order that they may accumulate enormous fortunes, get thirty per cent. interest on their capital,—as the Agricultural Protection Society informs us,—buy up the estates of the impoverished landowners, ruin all the other manu facturers in the world, and perpetrate other like atroci ties, forcibly and illegally impress and detain from their natural guardians myriads of helpless women and chil dren, regularly drain their life's blood out of them, com pelling them to work till they drop. By alternate seduction and violence they get the miserable creatures into their clutches, and only resign them as a spider— the original of all cotton-spinners—resigns his prey, viz., when he has sucked it thoroughly dead and dry. The agriculturist, on the other hand, is represented as a dis tracted mother deprived of her children, roaming over the face of the earth, and finding them at last in the den of the millowner, from whom she in vain demands her own. The philanthropist, like another Theseus, is to attack the Minotaur in his labyrinth, and by the extinc tion of the monster is to put an end to the cruel tribute which he has hitherto been suffered to exact. Such is the ordinary picture. But, like many a scene of ro mance, the course of human affairs has now made it a practical question. It comes home to the landowners. Here is the monster; here are his victims. It is in the power of the landowners to set the victims at liberty, at least to alleviate their misery. What they have wished and talked about so many 3 ears they now can do. Do it. Why hold back? What's the the matter now? "If we do," they reply, " we shall turn out a Minister or two, get into a mess perhaps with our own labourers, and, horrendum dictu, have cheap corn." 0 raae philan thropists! 0 easy compassion! 0 flummery of talk! It is an atrocious cruelty in the millowners to overwork women and young people, because otherwise they cannot sell their calicoes ; what is it then in you to acquiesce willingly in this cruelty, because otherwise you cannot keep your friends in poiver, or get a good price for your corn ? Whatever you have said of the manufacturers, posterity will surely say of you. Wis© men have always been chary of benevolent talk, from a sort of presentiment that they might some day find a sort of necessity to eat their own words. The wisest man could not have foreseen such an emergency as this. There is no doubt that the agricul turists can pass the measure, but then it may possibly touch their pockets. Yet how little mercy had they on the pockets, and even the bare solvency and subsistence, of the manufacturer! So long as somebody else was to pay, their generous indignation knew no bounds. The merest shadow of a possibility of the price coming out of the landowner's purse, puts to flight the whole army of philanthropists. We will eonfess that we never have thought the land owner and the millowner to be different orders of hu manity. They are both of them capitalists ; and, as capitalists, are generally found to possess a decided leaning towards the fnterests of capital. They like other things, but perhaps nothing so decidedly and constantly as a good per tentage. Amongst the things which they do not like, unprofitable burdens, useless aad superfluous mouths, human waste and refuse, all that impediment and friction that clogs and cripples speculation, are the most odious. The treatment of the agricultural la bourer at the pands of the landowner is a sufficient indi cation of what every other industrial class must expect from him. They who acquiesced so easily in the New Poor-law will never pass an effectual Factory Bill, if they can help it. Both of them are ultimately questions of rent. The old Poor-law charged the land, or, what comes to the same thing, the process of production, with certain expensive social duties. A good Factory Bill might possibly involve greater freedom of trade. That is all the landowner wishes to know about the matter. Everybody can point to the localities, and the councils, where the fate of the factory question has been decided, for decided we believe it is, for this turn at least. The cause does not fare much better with the manu facturer. Just now, perhaps, rather better; but there is still the old story. "Do not limit labour, but remove one burdens." For thirty years or more, two questions have always presented themselves to a Lancashire mind as a sort of disjunctive duality, viz., the factory cause, and the duty on raw cotton. Innumerable meetings have been held to consider petitions on these two sub jects ; and have universally ended in rejecting the peti tion for restricting factory labour, and unanimously re solving on th a t aga i nst that o b nox i ous i mport d uty. Last Tuesday a m ee ti ng was h e ld at- M anc h ester osten sibly for the latter p ur p ose on l y ; and most pathetic was