The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-02 00:00:00

eithercasN the Government would be the sufferer. A

virtual triumph will be , conferred on O'Connell.
Whether .he escape, or be incarcerated, is, com-
paratively, of no moment. At liberty, he would
be hailed as the victor in the conflict.: In liilenain-
ham or Carrickfergus, his prison would be the
centre of attraction, within which the sympathies
of his countrymen would be concehtrated. From
his cell the " Liberator " would issue his periodical
behests. These would inspire more reverence,
and be invested, in popular estimation, with
more 'solemn sanctions, than. the proclamations of
Councils, or the enactments of Senates. At the ex-
piration of the sentence which removed him, for a
time, from the presence of his `.adherents, he would
come forth, wieldingan immensely increased influence ;
exercising a power over the credulous and easily ex-
cited population, more dangerous than. ever to the tran-
quillity of the country and the integrity of the em-
pire. Yet in this dangeronspredicament—the result
of that want of foresight which seems to have actuated
the Government in Its mode 'of dealing with O'Connell
and the repeal agitation—another instance is afforded
of the folly which actuates the Irish executive. The
appointment of a stipendiary magistrate is to be made.
The Government is about to give an instance of its
desire to conciliate the popular feeling, by selecting for
the important post a gentleman whose superior fitness
for the office shall he manifest to all. And when the
Government does endeavour to do the conciliatory, its
success is wonderful. They look round them—weigh
the qualifications, mental, moral, and professional, of
the numerous aspirants to the honour and emoluments
of the office—and they select Mr. O'Brien ! This
gentleman's claims to the patronage of the Govern-
ment and to the confidence of- the people were set
forth by the Marquis of Normanby on Friday evening,
in the speech by which he called the attention of the
House of Lords to the appointment in question. Not
only did Mr. O'Brien refuse to give the health of
Lord Ebrington, then Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, be-
cause of his avovVed determination towithhold the Go-
vernment patronage from members of the Repeal As-
sociation; but he wrote a letter on the subject to R.
Dillon Browne, Esq., the Member for .the town in
which the dinner took place. • In this epistle, which
was published at the time, the most fulsome panegy-
rics were pronounced on O'Connell, and the most
inflated protestations of his own devotion to Repeal,
were expressed.
STANDARD.—Our attention has been called to
a passage, in the seventh edition 'of the "Encyclo-
paedia Britannica," recently completed. It is a rich
storehouse of knowledge, reflecting honour upon the
age and country that have produced it.. We know
of nothing in any language approaching to it in fulness
and accuracy &Matter, or in excellency of arrangemen t.
This great work, however, is not faultless, but its
error certainly does not lie on the side of hostility to
the "new philosophy" in commerce and social eco-
nomy. On the other hand, we should say, that the
new science is a great deal too much in favour with
the writers of the Eneyelopmdia." From this charac-
teristic, which nobody who knows the magnificent
repertory in question will dispute, the passage
above quoted [relative to " Government inter-
ferenoe with the regulatiOn of factories] derives
additional authority., and this passage, it will
be seen, " directly impugns the propositioe _ urged
in the late debate, that the principle of in-
terference between employer and employed is
"an unsound principle." No' objection, says the
eneTeloptedist, bin 'be made to the principle
of interference 'between eitipleyer and employed,
where the latter are children and young persons. It
was in this exact cave, however, that the prin-
ciple was condemned, us introduced forty years
ago ; it was said " the Legislature committed itself
to an unsound principle in limiting the' labour of
children in factories, and it is proposed to increase
the limitation, and to include women, in it"----women
surely as helpless and as-well -entitled to the protec-
tion of the State upon principle as even infant children.
If it was our purpose, andif we could command time
and room to discuss the subject in this particular
light, we might show, by reference to returns,
that in the proportion in which the hours of
children's labour in factories have been limited
have the manufacturei of the country improved
in quality and increased in amount ; - certain and
obvious must it he to all men, that within precisely
the forty years that have elapsed since the adop-
tion of the principle said to be unsound, Great
Britain has made a progress not only in manu-
factures and arts, wealth end commerce, but
in moral and intellectual improvement, greater than
was ever made by any nation in the same period,
or even in three times the same period. And
if we are asked how to connect this vast and
rapid advance with a cause so seemingly slight as a
restraint: upon the labour of children, we point to the
orderly and peaceful character of the people, . which
has left enterprise and industry to do their work.
" If you *wild be prosperous, make a hedge for the law,"
is, if we remember rightly, the firSt precept of the " Pirke
Abboth ;" and every farmer will tell, that generally
fencing is worth more than ploughing or manuring;
at alt events, that without fencing, ploughing and
mat:wing, and all the other efforts of the hushandtnan,
are thrown away. There is, then, some.thing more
than the mere consideration of humanity to combat
the proposition that the principle of interference for
the protection of children, and we will add of women
also, is. unsound. Such protection fences the opera-
tions of enterprise and industry ; and these operations
must thrive in a country thus fenced from internal
danger, and otherwise sufficiently protected from ex-
ternal violence. In the case of Lord Ashley's pro-
position, little stress is laid upon the unsoundness of
the principle that protection is due to infancy, though
that hypothesis cannot be dispen;ed with by his
Lordship': opponents • the main objection to the pro-
position is, that the effect of limiting the labour of
'women and children to ten hours, would, accordin.-
t 6 the existing arrangements in factories, limit the
labour of men also. This we submit is 'not a fair
treatment of the question. If women and children
are not entitled to protection, refuse protection upon
that ground ; recur to the unsoniidness or the prin-
ciple which forbids to employ infants or sin and seven
ears old! for eighteen hours ! ! in a mill as formerly.
But if women and children are entitle I to protection,
then do not withhold the right, because, according to
the present arrangement of the mills, men
!may avail
Leinselves of the same protection.

- -
Ir I,P Ad' t.
-.. ANILIIR ..A.TIOCINATION.-. IS „me, • • ,
attished clergy-
man of the Universalist denomination was accused, while in
Lowell, of "violently dragging his wife from a revival meet-
in ~t, and corqpilling her to go home with him." He replied
Firstly, I have never attemted to influence my wife in
her views, nor her choice of a meeting. ,Secondly„ wr Wife
has not attended any of the revival meetinp;,:m:well.
Thirdly, I have not attended even One of thole. meetingsTh for
anv purpose whatever. ,Fourthly, neither kr wife nor my-
self :has any inclination to attend those meetingg- . 41:0'
fifttily,..l never had a wife !"—/V07.0 Orleans Paper,; 4.:' ~,.
Enuw YALU' AND SLRHOWY IRON . IVoalcs.—tin
going to pres.s,last week, we stated the fact of the sale by pri-
vate contract of thaiabnve property,- which has been for some
time advertised in this paper. The purchasers aye the 3fessrs.
Darley, of the coalbrook Dale establishment; Shropshire, and
the autnisubject to the mortgage, 216,0007. The works, long
ttottanoidthe.l4lo44South IVales,.andat one time valued
,?atico,ooo4 will,
.19r.lfb happy to, learn; be carried on with.
,(ear 4indoi'the.ex_pexle.ticcd and able mana,gement of 'lir:
41-„: 0: • nias Brown. ixt6leveift in the grak staple- trade of this
~,CepitliV-will much confkce t 7 the prosperity of Newport.--
tn. ;;:-;;;.;.7.;,...--.
ms,:: --- -- '--f".;.'"'....L''4--i,.-:' ~7'
......_ .1

rjv

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS, Aprill.

Their Lordships met at Five o'Chick.
The-Marine Mutiny Bill and the Annual I demnity
Bill were read a third time and passed.
NEW ZEALAND.
The Earl of MALMESBURY presented a petition
from the inhabitants of Wellington, in New Zealand,
praying for "the. establishment of a further armed
force in that district of the colony. This petition
had been sent over to this country in consequence of
a massacre which lately took place in Cook's Strait.
Great apprehension existed in -the 'colony at present
as to what steps the Government were likely to take
with respect to forwarding additional military force
for the protection of the town of Wellington and
the colony in general, and also' as to' what steps
they intended to take for the settlement of titles to
land with the New Zealand CoMpany.
The Earl of RIPON had to state that the com -
manding officers of New South Wales and Van
Diemen 's Land had been directed to forward forces
from those-two .colonies to New Zealand, for the pur-
pose to which the petitioners alluded. He understood
that this force was considered to be sufficient by the
commanding officer of New. Zealand. He thought the
apprehension of the settlers was greater than there
was any warrant for, but he trusted that -the rein-
forcement which had been sent over would give them
the security which they sought. At the same time
he must say, that the removal of troops in this
manner, from one colony to another, was likely
to be attended with much inconvenience, espe-
cially if our colonial empire should extend it-
self. There was, at present a law in force in
New Zealand by which the colonists themselves
could provide in a- great measure for their own safety.
By this law the Governor was authorise& to levy a
militia and establish a constabulary force
on the same principle as that in - Ireland.
With respect to the titles to land, all he could
say was that Captain Fitzroy had been furnished
with instructions which were likely to lead to a satis-
factory settlement of that subject.
The Earl 'of MALMESBURY said 'the colonists
Particularly wished a small armed steamer to be es-
tablished at Wellington. They complained, in their
petition that the Government instructions were
not obeyed by the authorities in the colony.
Lord REDESDALE presented a petition from a
place in Northumberlind, praying for protection to
the agricultural interest.
SIR HENRY POTTINGER.
_ _

The Earl of ABERDEEN, in bringing up cer-
tain papers, which had been moved for with respect
to China, said he was happy to assure their Lordships
that the connexion between Great Britain and China
was now placed upon a most satisfactory basis, and
that the best feelings prevailed on both sides. He
could not make this communication without at the
same time adverting to the merits of that great and dis-
tinguished' officer, Sir Henry Pottinger.—(Hear.)
Sir Henry had to contend against the most discou-
raging difficulties in a country which was proverbial
for being suspicious, but he had, by his energy and
talents, gained their unlimited confidence. He felt
sure that the fact of the health of such a man being in
Such a delicate state as to render his return to this
country essential, would cause•their Lordships much
regret. •
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE fully concurred
in all that had fallen from the Noble Earl opposite.
A NOBLE LORD on the Ministerial side of the
House, ‘whose name we could not learn, presented a
petition from Rutlandshire, signed by 250 tenant-
farmers, praying their Lordships not to sanction any
tneasures. which tended to destroy the protection ne-
cessary for the support'of the agricultural interest.
COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH TURKEY.

Lord BEAUMONT rose, pursuant to notice, to
call the, attention of the Government to the, state of
the commercial relations existing between this coun-
try and the Sublime Porte, and to point out the dis-
advantages under which the British merchant laboured
since this treaty. In doing so he did not mean to
attach any charge of supineness to her Majesty's
Government; -nor did he think any: blame could be
attached, to the Ministers; of the. Ottoman Empire.
On the contrary, he thought they, had been thwarted
in their friendly intentions towards England by
Russia, which in all eases had shown its hostility to
this country. Before the Convention of 1838 all
goods ...were subjected' to. certain duties be-
tween every different 'district. Although in some
parts' of Asia 'Minor these duties. were only
three per cent. upon imports, yet in some
Others-they were as high as nine per cent. upon im-
ports- and tWo per cent. on exports, an& the same
ditties were. imposed upon all the imports and 'ex-
'ports, on the sea-coast and, frontiers: By the Con-
vention of 1838, all imports and exports, should pay
three per cent. ad valorem duty.; and two per cent.
ad valorem in lieu of all those, harrassing duties im-
posed in the interior; but through the intervention of
_Russia these duties were now as high as twelve per
cent., and thus a great hardship was imposed upon
the British merchants. The Noble Lord then read
several extracts to establish these facts, and stated
that one British merchant lost upwards' of 30,000 pias-
tres by this alteration. He also proved that, by it,
the Russian merchant gained an advantage of two
percent. on all imports, andnine per cent. upon exports.
He wished to ask whether any negotiations had been
set on foot to remove those difficulties under which
British merchants, trading to the Levant laboured,
and, if such negotiations were at present being carried
on, whether they would be conducted on the principle
of former British treaties? •
The Earl of 'ABERDEEN said that perhaps the
most satisfactory answer he could give to the Noble
Lord would be to state, that within a recent period
instructions had been sent to the. Russian Consul to
'negotiate a treaty of commerce with the Sublime
Porte, taking for its basis the British Treaty of Com-
merce. . He had every reason to hope that at no dis-
tant period this negotiation would be brought to a
successful issue.
THE 'ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS BILL.
On the motion for the third reading of this Bill,
Lord COTTENHAM said he had been charged
with taunting the Government.with yielding to a ina-
jority in Parliament, whereas,. what he bad said was,
that they had yielded to authority out of Parliament.
The 'present Bill proposed to continue a state of things
which had long been considered' as a public nuisance.
Lord CAMPBELL complained that the Govern-
ment had abandoned the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill of
last session,' although there was a majority in its
favour of two to :one. ,
The LORD CHANCELLOR said the. Govern-
ment bad not abandoned the Bill of last. session. The
only difference between the two Bills was, that the
Bill of last• session proposed to abolish, the diocesan
courts, and the. present Bill proposed to retain them.
It was found that that part of the Bill of last year,
which proposed to abolish the diocesan courts, would
not pass in Committee, and therefore that part of the
Bill was omitted this session. lie believed that the
present Bill would be seen both by Parliament and
the country to be a very useful and advantageous
measure of legislation.
• After a few words in explanation from Lord COT-
TENHIM and the Loan CHANCELLOR,

Lord DENMAN took that opportunity of ex-
pressing his great regret. that the diocesan courts
were not proposed to be abolished by this Bill. For
fourteen years those courts had been considered to
be, public nuisances, for in them great oppres-
sion and tyranny frequently occurred. In other re-
spects the Bill before their Lordships would confer
great benefit on the country.
'The Bishop of LONDON said he had never heard

the diocesan courts described as public nuisances.
As to'acts of oppression frequently:occurring in theM,
he could not but admit that many cases of hardship
had arisen out of proceedings in ecclesiastical courts ;
but, .had there never been . eases of oppression in the
courts of law and equity ? He had heard of many
cases occurring in' those courts of fax greater hard-
ship' than evor occurred in the ecclesiastical courts.
'Lord DENMA.N would willingly • submit to the
rebuke of the Right Rev. Prelate if he had used ex-
pressions too. harsh ;,.hut he certainly- had always
boon accustomed to consider these courts as nuisances
—(Hear)--oral he had never heard in any other
courts of cases.Of such extreme hardship as he had
known of in these.—(llear, hear.) 'He owned be
heard the Right Rev. Prelate's concluding observa-
tions with apprehension, intimating; as he, was afraid
they
abolish thethan
that
diocesanosi r eto
thought, continue
really,th
the appointment, of . a Committee to 'inquire into the
character of the opposition to the Measure for their
abolition mip,aht not-he wholly inexpedient.-7—(xear.)'
• Lord CAMPBELL remarked, that the jurisdiction
as to the,moSt fertile subject or
rates, was not removed from thesebi"rctlle- •
complaint, I
present measure, which could rot bl courtsstaid
tyo be
substantially the same as that of
courts,
the latter having abolished all provincial
the present perpetuated them ; and as to thes'av'ttll'liole
rity. of Sir Samuel Romilly, it was inapplicable. He
believed thb hope of the Lord. Chief Justice, es to
• the ultimate-, abolition of these courts,, would be
bitterly disappointed, as the .constituted two,
new ones.
The LORD CIIA.NCELLOR said the Bill of last
session abolished the 350 "peculiars" and the diocesan
courts, retaining only the Prerogative Court. The
present abolished all the " peculiars," and retained,
the diocesan courts and the Prerogative Court. Were
they. not substantially similar ?. ' Then, as: to 'they
authority pf Sir' S. Romilly, it was precisely in p.oint,l
seeing that it had been pronounced on a measure to
all respeets.SUbstantially the same as the present.
1103111 was then read a third time, .
Lord WHARNCLIFFE having previously signi-
-fia th. 6 RoYar.Msent thereto (as a matter of form;
prerogative inVolved).
rkspectinvome points of
The LORD CHANCELLOR.then propo3ed_ggne
alterations in one or two clauses, which having been
assented to,

Lord COTTENHAM moved the Omission of the
clauses continuing the diocesan courts; and those
motions having been negatived, he proceeded to pro-
pose a clause, giving to the Arches Court jurisdic-
tion in all cases now under the cognisance of those
courts.
This motion was negatived.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then moved the
addition of, a clause to consolidate the office of
registrar lin _two of the diocesan courts, which was
agreed to.
The Bill then passed.
On the motion of Lord DALHOUSIE, the House
went into CoMmittee on the International Copyright
Bill, ,which was reported without ,amendments, and
ordered to be read a third time to-morrow (this day).
Their Lcirdships then adjourned. „ ,

HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 1.
The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four
o'clock.
Captain HARRIS took the oaths and his seat for
the borough of Christchurch.
COUNTY COURTS' BILL.

Col. WOOD presented a petition in favour of the
County Courts' Bill,.from a place in Somersetshire
(as we understood).
Mr. BROTHERTON presented a petition from
Joseph Hamilton, of Annadale Cottage, Dublin,
against the practice of duelling, and recommending a
remedy.
Mr. COLLETT presented'a petition from a place
in Ireland praying for a repeal of the legislative union.
M
r. PLMPTRE presented a petition from Kent
in favour of proteetion to agriculture.
Mr. CAYLEY presented petitions from Yorkshire
against the corn-,laws.
Sir H. INGLIS presented petitions against the
union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.
Mr. YORKE presented a similar petition from the
Archdeaeonry of York.
Colonel WOOD presented several petitions from
Wales in favour of the County Courts' Bill.
Mr. M. GIBSON presented a petition. from the
mayor and. corporation of Manchester, complaining
of neglect on the part of the Post-office authorities.
The Hon. Member gave notice that he should; on the
first Friday after Easter, call the attention of the
House to the petition.
Mr. COBDEN presented a petition from Stockport
against the ten-hour -clause in the Factories Bill.
Mr. GREGORY presented a petition from the
South Dublin Union, praying for inquiry into the
working of the poor-laws in Ireland. He gave notice
that to-morrow he should move that the petition be
printed.
Mr. MACKINNON presented a petition from
Capt. Hamilton on the subject of harbours of refuge.
Capt. PECHELL presented a petition from Lieut.
Pringle, complaining that the Admiralty had not done
him justice with respect to an invention in naval ar-
chitecture, and praying the House to take his case
into consideration.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from the inhabi-
tants of Kenmare, in Scotland, praying that the sup-
plies should not be granted to Ministers till the
grievances of the people were redressed.
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON. presented a petition
from the cigar manufacturers of the metropolis,
praying that no alteration should be made in the duty
on tobacco.
Mr. GLA_DSTONE brought up the Report of
the Committee on Railways.
NOTICES OF MOTION.

Mr. B. WALL gave notice that, after Easter, he
would move for the appointment of a Select Com-
mittee •to inquire into the building of the Houses of
Parliament,' and to report thereon.
Mr. COBDEN gave notice that he would, after
Easter, move for a Select' Committee to inquire into
the effect of protective duties upon the national re-
venues.
Dr. BOWRING gave notice of his intention to
call 'the attention of the House to the necessity cif
giving effect to the recommendation of the Commis-
sioners respecting the public revenue.
Mr. TRELAWNY wished to know from the
Noble Lord; the Secretary for the Colonies, whether
it was the intention of her Majesty's Government
to lay before the „House any papers explanatory of the
recent transactions in Canada?
Lord STANLEY had' no desire to conceal from
the house the difficulties in which the Canadian Go-
vernment was placed. By the latest accounts which
he, had received from Sir Charles Metcalfe, it ap-
peared that no Administration had been formed, and
he would submit to the. House that it would be bet-
ter to delay the granting of the papers until some de-
finite result was known.
JUSTICES' CLERKS.

An HON. MEMBER said, that seeing the Right Hon.
Gentleman, the Secretary of State for the Home De-
partment in his place, he begged to put a question to
him. It would be in his recollection that the Noble
Lord, the Member for Lincolnshire, had made a mo-
tion respecting fees to magistrates' clerks, and that
he was met by an assurance that the subject was
under the consideration of the Government, and that
a Bill would shortly be laid on the table of the House.
His Noble Friend had communicated with him, and
expressed his disappointment that the Bill had not
been brought in. On the 14th of March a positive
assurance was given that a Bill was in preparations
and would shortly be brought in. What he now
wished to ask was—whether the Bill was now in such
a state of preparation that 'it would be laid on the
table before the Easter recess—and, if not, when it
would be brought in?
Mr. MANNERS SUTTON, in answering the
question, begged to !state' the circumstances under
which he gave the explanation, which his Noble
Friend had evidently misapprehended. What he
had said was, that the subject was under the con-
sideration of his Right Hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham),
and that he hoped no long time would elapse before
a Bill was introduced i, but he did not distinctly state
that a Bill would be brought in. Of course it would
be impossible for him to state now what definite
course would be taken on a subject which was still
under consideration. It must be clear from what he
had already said, that there was no intention of bring-

ing in a Bill before the recess. '
Mr. HAWES begged to ask the Right Hon.' Gen-
tleman,-whether a Bill would be brought in before
the recess ? for the understanding was clear that the
Bill, was. in. preparation. He understood, that the
Noble 'Lord (Worsley) had withdrawn his • Bill
in,the belief that the Government had taken up the
subject. • •
Mr: M. SUTTON repeated that the measure was
under consideration;'aud he, could not undertake to
say what course Would eventually be pursued;
WELSH GRIEVANCES.

Dr. BOWRING, pursuant to notice, put a ques-
tion' to her Majesty's. Ministers, whether it was the
intention of. the Government to introduce any legis-
lative measure for the ternoVal of the Welsh griev-
ances, which had been reported on by the Commission
lately appointed by the Crown
Mr. M. SUTTON said that it was only on one
subject—that of turnpikes—the Commissioners had re-
commended legislation. That applied'only, to South
Wales, but it was under the, consideration of the Go-
vernment whether they would introduce a measure
relating only to South Wales, or one including the
whole principality.
_ GOLD AND SILVER WARES BILL.

. _
In answer to a question from Mr. lIASTIE,
The, CHANCELLOR, of the EXCHEQUER
said that he would postpone the Bill until after Easter,
and on the first night after the recess he would state
when' he would bring the Bill into t;ommittee.
THE BUDGET.

In answer tu.a.. question from Ur. DIVETT, •
The CHANCELLOR. of the EXCHEQTJER
said that he intended to bring forward the Budget on
this day fortnight. '
AMERICAN RICE.

Mr. HITME hav;tig .understood that it would be
inconvenient that he should bring forward the motion
of.which he had given= notice, for a copy of, or extracts
from the correspondence bet Ween the Am2rican. Am-
bassador and the British Government, respecting the
admission of pAdY and rice, the produce o'f the United
States, into Great Britain, at • the same rates of duty
as paddy and rice were admitted into Great Britain
from the west coast of. Africa, would postpone his
motion until after Easter.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that time was a correspondence at present going on
on the subject, and that the production of the papers
alluded to would tend to embarrass the" negotiation.
MAST 'RS AND SiRVANTS' BILL.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE • presented Several petitions
against the Matters and Servants'
QtJA-RANTINE.
Lord SWINDON wished to ask the Hon. Member
for Bolton, if it was his' intention to direct the atten-
tion of the House to thesubject of the quarantine laws.
Dr. BOWRING intended, unless some satisfactory
communication should be made on the subject by the
Government to the House, to move for the appoint-
ment of a Select Committee to consider the subject
immediately after Easter.
Mr. GLAD STONE could hardly be expected to
make any communication on the subject at present.
The Government had taken-steps which might pro-
bably lead.to.some important results. Comtnunica-
tions had been made to the different powers engaged
_in the Mediterranean trade, for the purpose of endea-
veuring to induce them to shorten the time of qua-
ranOne„ The obstacles which had hitherto stood in
the.way Of 'coming to: a satisfactory conclulion on this
subject had been removed and there was'every pros-,
pect that the Powers concerned in :the trade of the.
Mediterranean would consent to a shortening of the*
time o.
oRi
fi3.quwarantru.
would give notice of a Committee
on
eihee
nsuthbrj eicattoaftelEinaustneire.atioinivirtdh,
ei 7ittihg•ehtmleiaonn-.
Gentleman, and modify his motion- according to the
information he might .obtain.