The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-30 00:00:00

impediment in the way of the poor, patient, and hard-
working man, who strived to obtain a living for himself fi
and his family.—(Hear, hear.) If they increased their
poverty (as he contended would be the effect of this Bill),
they would run the risk of corrupting their morals.—(Hear,
hear.) If they degraded their station he was satisfied they
would corrupt their morality.—(Hear, hear.) Any measure
of this kind was fatal to the independence of the Working
classes and the destruction of that independence
would be surely fatal to their morals.—(Hear, hear.)
Nothing could be mere fatal to that independence than the
alteration of the present system of labour. He had received
several petitions from all parts of the country, stating that the
effect of such a measure would be to reduce the amount of the
profits of the manufacturer 16 per cent. Whatever the mea-
sures of the Legislature might be, the effect of that measure
would be, not to mitigate this evil in any way. All he asked
was, that they would proceed with caution, and not
depart, from any decision of their own laid down,
so as to cause a violation of a principle.
to which the House of Commons had, in its legislative
capacity, already acceded. He, as a member of the Govern-
ment, acting in conformity with the other Members, felt it
bis duty to oppose this Bill.
Mr. COWPER moved that the debate be adjourned.
Mr. COLQUHOUN thought that it would be better if the
debate were continued till six o'clock.
Dr. BOWRING said there were a number of other orders
of the day to be disposed of, and he really considered that it
would be hard if the debate should be continued so as to
make them dropped orders.
Sir ROBERT PEEL did not see why they should adjourn
the debata at so early a period, therby losing half an hour.
Mr. COWPER said if the sense of the House was against
his motion he would not persevere with it, it was to prevent
the other orders of the day from becoming dropped.
The motion was then withdrawn.

Mr. M. PHILLIPS said, that frequently as the present
subject had been introduced there had been no attempt
made by its advocates to disprove a fact which he considered
of the utmost importance. In former times they were
frequently attempted to be seduced into a support of the Ten
Hours' Bill by the allegation that there would be an equal
quantity of work done in ten as there was in twelve
hours. But now the fallacy of that statement had been
entirely exposed. Experiments had been made by ma-
nufacturers, and he was then able to stand up in
his place, and say that it was utterly impossible
with ten hours' work to perform the same amount of business
as was done in twelve. Well, then, it comes to this plain
question, can the persons employed in the different branches
of trade live on ten hours' pay?—(Hear.) He stated in that
House formerly, that if they would take the question by ballot,
of the working classes whether they would prefer ten hours'
pay to twelve hours the question would be at once settled,
and they would unanimously prefer the latter. It was very
singular, in the number of strikes which had taken place among
the working classes, if they were so anxious for the measure.
that they had never attempted to obtain it. Taking the
question in a political and economical point of view, he con-
sidered, that in agreeing to it, they could do nothing that
would tend so much to inflict evil on the labouring com-
munity of this country. He cordially concurred in what had
fallen from the Right Hon: Gentleman (Sir J. Graham), and
he was persuaded the Government, in deciding to oppose the
Bill, were doing the best thing, not only to protect the com-
mercial interests of the country, but also the best interests of
those who lived by labour. On these grounds he opposed the
second reading of the Bill.—(Hear, hear).
Mr. GEORGE BANKES then moved the adjournment of
the debate till to-morrow night.
The SPEAKER said it was not competent for the lion.
Member to move it to:any precise time.
Mr. BANKES then simply moved the adjournment.
He hoped Hon. Members who had motions would postpone
them in order to allow the debate to come off. He hoped
also the Government, who had the Coercion Bill adjourned
debate for the same night, would give way to this arrange-
ment.

Mr. HAWES said he had a motion, the first on the paper,
to-morrow night, and as he had already twice given way be
should certainly not do so on the present occasion.
Sir R. PEEL would be willing to fall into any arrange-
ment that might be come to, to allow the present debate to
come off to-morrow night; still there was an understanding
with the Irish Members, that if there was any time to- morrow
night, the debate on the Irish Protection Bill should be resumed
He must say, however, to Hon. Members, that when the
Corn Bill was under discussion there was no disposition
shown to allow the ciscussion on that Bill to proceed day by
day. Still he would be willing, with the concurrence of the
Irish Members, that the debate on the Irish Bill should be
taken on Friday, at five o'clock, so as to liberate to-morrow
night.
After a few words from Mr. T. Duncombe, Sir R. Peel, and
Mr. Fielden, the debate was adjourned.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the House rose at six o'clock.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
Elizabeth Larkin and her daughter, Eliza Larkin, were
brought before Sir Peter Laurie yesterday, charged with
having robbed their employer, Mr. Tallis, of No. 100, St.
John-street, of a great number of prints, and a large quantity
ofaper, on which Mr. Henry's Bible was printed.
City policeman 651 went to purchase some butter at the
shop of a cheesemonger, and found that it was wrapped
round with a sheet of Henry's Bible, which he at once sus-
pected to have been stolen. He forthwith went into Pater-
noster-row, and exhibited the sheet to several of the book-
sellers and publishers in that place, and at last he was re-
ferred to the premises of Mr. Tallis, where it was at once
identified as part of property which had been stolen from
that gentleman. Accompanied by Mr. Tallis, the policeman
returned to the shop of the cheesemonger, who without hesi-
tation stated that he had purchased a quantity of paper of
that description from a female who resided in hartholomew-
close. Upon calling at the house in Bartholomew-close to
which the cheesemonger gave the direction, the policeman
saw the two prisoners, apprehended them, and told them
they were charged with the serious offence abovementioned.
They did not deny the truth of the accusation, and sub-
sequently the eider prisoner ackuowledged that she was
guilty, and that she had sent her daughter to dispose of the
property which she had taken from her employer's premises.
Mr. Tallis stated that he had, about six weeks before, dis-
charged the elder prisoner, who had been in his service as a
stitcher for a considerable time, because he ascertained that
she had defrauded some of the other women, who were em-
ployed in a similar manner, of a large part of their earnings.
His suspicions of her integrity on other matters were, of
course, excited.
The policeman 651 stated that the cheesemonger, im-
mediately upon seeing the younger prisoner, declared that
she was the person who had sDld the paper to him. Witness
found, upon searching the room 450 prints, which Mr. Tallis
identified as hie property. Upon calling at a house in a
court in Goswell street, witness found ten more prints, which
had been given by the elder prisoner to the person who re-
sided there, and which were also identified by the prose-
cutor as having been stolen from him.
Mr. Price, cheesemonger, of Bishopsgate-street, stated that
he had given 3d. and 2d. a pound for a quantity of the
paper produced, to the younger prisoner. He had purchased
altogether, of the Bible sheets, about twenty pounds weight.
Sir P. LAUII.IE—Did it not strike you as suspicious to see
—suclhasakqeudantthiteymofpsaurtciheuplaarpleyr wwihtherethtehseeywogmotenit?;
allrd theitness
answer
la.enmdatnhdeerde.fore must be
sold
b y waswe thatigh it
weight.—The e p
srismo sePr sr nt
e wered