The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-02 00:00:00

plain the master. On the other hand, if the servant
had a good ground of complaint against the master, the
magistrate had no power to adjudicate. But this Bill
gave to the magistrate the power of giving damages
against the master, and allowed the arrest of the
servant only upon warrant, issued in cases where
the servant was about to abscond, or had ab-
sconded. The power of imprisonment was limited,
and confined within the limits of the Bill introduced by
the Hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Home), 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 had 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 could 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 against the 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
present Bill ; but, in his opinion, this was a Bill of
such vast importance in its provisions and in its conse-
quences that it ()Tight 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 ought 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 wore Bills had been passed in
more barbarous times.
Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND opposed the Bill.
It would affect the relations between employers and the
employed in every branch of industry. It would 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 au hours' notice, and there
was no reason why his power should be increased. He
felt. therefore, bound to vote against the motion.
Mr. GALLY KNIGHT was convinced from
what had been said by both sides of the .House—
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 na:ne 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'woutd press as hardly as ever upon the colliers. The
lion. 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 condoled by saying that he
would support the Bill.
Mr. P. HOWARD said it might be very wise and
prudent to consolidate the various laws upon one sub-
ject, but the House must recollect that they might have
even gold too dear.—(Hear, bear, and laughter.) On a
subject like this, which required so much varied informa.
• tion, and such a dispassionate judgment, he thought the
Government of the couatry was the only quarter from
which they could expect a sound and useful Bill. He
must, therefore, give his support to the motion of his
lion. Friend the Member for Finsbury.
Mr. COLLET, amidst continued cries of " Divide,
divide" and great confusion, announced his intention of
voting for the committal of the Bill that day six months.
Mr. R. PALMER, amidst great uproar, addressed a
few worts to the House, which were wholly inaudible in
the gallery.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the Bill
For the Amendment
Majority against the 8i11........ —43
The Bill is consequently lost.

. 97

DETACHED PARTS OF COUNTIES BILL.
On the motion for going into Committee on this Bill,
Mr. COLVILE moved that it be committed that day
six months. _ _

Mr. LII)I)ELL supported the Bill.
Mr. M. SUTTON could not give support to the Bill
in its present shape, as it interfered with the franchise.
lie did not, however, oppose the principle of the Bill;
and if the Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Scott) would
consent to alter it in Committee, he (Mr. M. Sutton)
would give it his support. -
After a few words from Mr. SCOTT and Lord H. VANE,

Mr. COLVILE withdrew his amendment, and the Bi;
a ent into Committee.

On clause one being proposed,
Mr. M. SUTTON moved the omission of certain
words, upon which the Committee divided, when there
appeared—
For the Amendment l9
Against it . . l5
Majority for the Amendment —4
An How. MEMBER then moved that the House do re-
sume and be counted, and there being but 38 Members
present, the House adjourned at a Quarter past Seven.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, May 1.
'The Lord Chancellor sat in his Court at Westminster to-
day.

TdE ORP.AT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY V. THE BIRMING,

HAM ,LND GLOUCESTER RAILWAY.-JUDGMENT.

The LORD CitANCELLon gave judgment to-day in the
motion in this case, affirming the decision of the Vice-Chan-
cellor of England, granting an injunction restraining the Bir-
mingham and Gloucester Railway Company from proceeding
with their works.
TILE DEAN AND CHAPTER OP ELY P. BLISS.—JUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR also gave judgment in this case,
which came before the Court upon appeal from the decision
of the Master of the Rolls. His Lordship observed that the
question before the Court turned almost entirely upon the
construction of the late Act of Limitations, the 3d and 4th
William IV., chapter 27 ; and the question arising out of that
Act of Parliament was a question of great public im-
portance, namely, whether that Act related, as far as
tithes were concerned, to estates between' adverse claimants
of the estates and the tithes, or whether it extended
to cases between the tithe-ownerand the occupierof theland.
His Lordship, after going at some length into the arguments
that had been adduced before him, and the facts of the case,
observed that he could not help thinking that if he was to
pronounce a decision on the construction of the Act of Par-
liament adverse to the opinion pronounced by the Master of
the Rolls, that the consequence inevitably would be, from the
nature of subject, its. importance, and extensive opera-
tion, that the matter would go further, and a great expense
and loss of time would take place. His Lordship thought,
therefore, considering this as a mere question of law, of con-
struction of a statute, that would he most extensive in its
operation, and that it might affect the decision of the Tithe
Commissioners, who had put a construction on the Act
supporting the narrower ground of interpretation, and having
been informed on the highest authority that an appeal was
depending in the Court of Queen's Bench, he should best
consult the interest of all parties if he directed a case for the
opinion of the Court of Exchequer as to the construction of
the Act of the 3d and 4th of Wm. IV., chap. 27. That case
;night be argued in the course of the next term, so as to
enable. his Lordship to dispose of the case altogether before
the long vacation.
The Court then proceeded with the case of Canty v. Holds-
ditch.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT May 1.
The Vice-Chancellor of England was occupied the whole
day with the further arguments in the part heard motion of
Booth v. Glover.