The Sun.
London, England, 1834-04-25 00:00:00

OLD BAILEY BILL.

The LORD CHANCELLOR informed the house that
it was his intention to withdraw the clause in this bill re-
lative to throwing open the Court of Common Pleas, his
Majesty having been pleased to do so by his Royal

Admiral FLEMING presented a petition from a parish
in the county of Stirling, against church patronage in
Scotland ; also from Dumbarton, against the Dumbartoql
Roads Bill ; and from the hand-loom weavers of the same
place, praying for relief.
Colonel DAVIES presented'a petitition from Worcester
for the better observance of the Sabbath.
Mr. BISH moved for some returns connected with lot-
tery contracts.
Sir J. SCARLETT presented a petition from Norwich
for the better observance of the Sabbath ; also a petition
from the same place against the General Registry Bill.
Mr. GROTE presented a petition from Great Parnell,
against tithes.
Mr. 'HARDY brought up the report upon the Bribery
Laws Amendment Bill. The hon. member then presented
two petitions for the better observance of the Lord's Day.
Mr. GUEST presented two petitions from Merthyr
Tidvil, against the Small Debts Bill.
Mr. WM. ROCHE presented a petition from the guild
of carpenters of Limerick,praying for arepeal of the union.
Mr. FITZ SIMON presented two petitions from Swords
and Malahide, and from Garrestown, county of Dublin,
praying for a repeal of the union.
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET presented a petition
from Monmouth, signed by 1,900 persons, against the se-
verance of church and state. Also i petition from the
traders of Newport, praying for a repeal of the light-house
duties.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL presented a petition from the
dissenters of Merionethshire, praying to be relieved from
their disabilities.
REPEAL OF THE UNION.

On the order of the day being read for resuming the ad-
journed debate on the repeal of the union,
Sir SAMUEL WHALLEY begged to ask the noble
Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would
postpone the second reading of the Poor Laws Amendment
Bill until that day fortnight. . .

Lord ALTHO‘RP said that as it was desirable the bill
should be forwarded during the present session, he could not
assent to the proposition of the honourable member.
Sir HENRY HARDINGE complained that the second
reading of the bill had been moved after the termination
of the discussion on the repeal of the union, at a Tate hour
last night. Thore were several individuals who wished to
take a part in the discussion of the bill brought by the
noble lord, and he ( Sir H. IL) complained of the unusual
proceeding that had taken place last night.
Some conversation also took place respecting the Foreign
Enlistment Bill, during which some hon. members corn-
complainod that it was introduced at such a late hour last
night.
Lord G. SOMERSET wished to ask the noble Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer whether if the Irish debate was
eoncludcd to-night the poor laws would be introduced
immediately thereafter.
Lord AL THORP was understood to reply in the affir-
mative. The order of the day was then read for resum-
ing the adjourned debate on the Repeal of the Union.
Mr. RUTHVEN said that he was quite aware that
this question was not an acceptable one to the
house ; and though he would not detain it by hia
speech to the extent that other honourable members
had gone, he felt he must do his duty to his constituents
and country. The repeal of the union wasmaking rapidpro-
gress in Ireland, so much so that, even at public dinners
for charitable purposes,it was impossible to repress thefeel-
ings of the Irish people in demanding a repeal of the union.
He did not say that Ireland was the most charming
picture in the world; no such thing. But Ireland had
natural advantages, and she did not receive justice
from a British House of Commons. Partial laws were bad
the same administration of justice should be extended to
all parts of Great Britain. The Coercion Bill had been
passed without affording Ireland tne power of resisting it in
impartial discussion, because of the preponderance of English
representativestheunionu.as t
iinieanonllmyp:ermiael
dPyafrol iramlreenita.lo: TheThreepealof
ques-
tion could dot be kept back. Eight millions of people
were calling for it, and it could not be delayed. (Hear. )
The state of Europe was one in which there were a great
many particles of a highly combustible nature. The state of
France not quiet. Another three days might arise
which might make a change, and another revolution in
France. Ireland had been looked upon as a vulnerable
part of Great Britain. The Irish Parliament was
not one of that execrated and corrupt bodies
that had been described by the right honourable
Secretary for Ireland. The parliament here before it
was reformed was not free from corrruption, neither
were its ministers exempt from that serious imputation.
The difference, he contended, between the Irish
and the Imperial Parliaments was not so great
as • some people seemed to imagine, for the
Irish parliament had its own habeas corpus, and
the controul of its own Exchequer. There was, no
doubt, great corruption in that Parliament, and Ireland
had ever been governed by corruption and the bayonet. If
however the bayonet were taken away, Ireland would
be lost [to this country. Absenteeism was also
a bane ; even the Irish Secretary was absent from
his duty the greater part of the year. To suppose that Ire-
land could prosper under a shadowof was impossible.
Catholic emancipation was refused one year by an immense
majority, and granted the following year by au equally
large majority ? Why then should they despair of repeal ?
(LErr SPEAKING.)

WHOLESALE GIN DRINKING.—It has
been stated by the keeper of a liquor-shop at Green
wieh, that many of his female customers swallow no
fewer than 40 glasses of gin per diem. He also states
that they bring their children with them and gradually
initiate them in the practice.
The conduct of the trades' unions is exciting
very great attention throughout the country ; and it
will be seen from the letters of our London commer-
cial correspondents, that considerable alarm is felt in
the metropolis from the suppo3ed effects of the unions
on trade, and that there is an expectation of some
legislative interference on the subject. Delicate as
this matter is, we feel it to be our duty to declare
our opinions frankly. We think, then, that the
trades' unions have in many instances been very greatly
to blame. The men have combined, in the first in-
stance, for the proper object of keeping up, or perhaps
of raising the rate of wages; but when they had felt
their power, their views extended, and the persons
who were the secret managers of the unions have often
wantonly abused that power ; and have, in many parts
of the kingdom, insolently dictated to the masters,
not only as to the rate of wages, but also as to the
persons whom they should or should not employ, and
with whom they should or should not deal, and have
almost taken out of their hands the management of
their own concerns--thus inverting the natural order of
things, and making the servants masters. In some of the
unions, perhaps in most, secret oaths have been taken,
contrary to law ; and everywhere turn-outs have en-
deavoured to intimidate the workmen who chose to
work at lower wages than the unions demanded. We
are convinced, therefore, that the trades' unions have
done some mischief, but that the mischief has fallen
more upon themselves than upon the masters ; and
one unfortunate effect has been, that the payments of
the men to the union have absorbed all the money that
it was in their power to spare, and that when a time of
slack trade. comes (as at present they have no savings
to fall back upon), they will, therefore, be reduced at
once to a state of destitution. The question then
arises—ls this a subject for legislative interference ?
We think not. The law is already strong enough to
punish those who administer illegal oaths, and those
who annoy or intimidate either their masters or their
fellow-workmen. The law properly allows men to
combine, but it requires that they should respect the
freedom of others, and punishes them if they attempt to
control that freedom. If the men make unreasonable
demands, the masters have the power to refuse com-
pliance ; and if the former combine to gain additional
strength, the latter are equally at liberty to combine
for mutual protection..—Leeds Mercury. i