The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-08 00:00:00

noticed. It was 4 predicted that the forcible levy of
the income-tax, which upon all visible property—such
as lands, funds, railroads, &c.,—cannot be evaded,—
would very seriously diminish the produce of the other
taxes; that people, in short, would save their income-
tax out of their general expenditure. Such, however,
does not appear to be the case. We find an actual in-
crease in customs, excise, and almost every other de-
partment of tho revenue. The use, however, that we
areilesirous of making of these important and gratifying
facts, is a strictly practical one. We wish to shake, by
their force, the fears and doubts expressed by several
over-cautious speakers in the late debates on the ten-
hour's clause. It was often admittedlhat it would be in-
deed a very happy thing if we could excuse the poor
labourers in the factories from more than ten hoursbf
daily labour. It was not denied—it could not be de-
nied, that fourteen hours of confinement, which the
twelve-hours' clause implies, is injurious to health,
destructive of home habits and domestic vir-
tues, and incompatible with any kind of mental
or moral cultivation. All admitted that a more
moderate amount of labour was very desirable, all
professed to wish that it were practicable ; but there
came one difficulty in the way. However we might wish
to be kind, and humane, and considerate, we must not
attempt to indulge in such expensive sentimentalities,
for "we can't afford it!" We are certain that none who
followed the course of the late debate will charge us
with misrepresenting or exaggerating that which was,
in fact, the main argument on which the advocates of
" twelve hours" relied. None ventured to assert that
protracted labour was better than labour to a mode-
rate extent, in itself—none were at all backward in
asserting, that they would gladly vote for " the ten
hours' clause," if they dared—but one and all,
on that side of the question, agreed in expressing
their apprehensions, that so to limit the hours, in
the present state of the national affairs, would prove,
in a commercial point of view, a dangerous, and probably'
a ruinous experiment. Now, surely the surprising fact
with which we began this article should have some
. weight in the question. The nation is wonderfully rich
—is far richer, it is now ascertained, than she believed
herself to be when she laid down twenty millions in one
moment to purchase the freedom of the black inhabitants
of her West Indian islands. Now, we say, not that
another twenty millions is needed, or any similar sum ;
but we do say, that in whatever way the freedom of our
own factory slaves can be obtained, whether by
remitting the duty on cotton, or by any other sacrifice
that can meet the case, England is rich enough, and is
willing enough, we will answer for her, at once to pay
the price, and make the sacrifice.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, April 6.

Mr. Commissioner Holroyd heard a number of in
solvent cases under the new Act.

IN THE MATTER OF JOHN SLEIGH.

The insolvent, who has the charge of the telegraph
illazelmere, applied for his final order. He was
opposed on the part of a creditor named Bridger, and
supported by Mr. T. B, Hughes.
The complaint was, that the insolvent was in a con-
dition to pay his debts, and it was prayed that the
petition might be dismissed. It was urged on his be-
half that he only wanted time, and would set aside 301.
a year for his creditors. He required protection from
law proceedings.
Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD thought that, as pay-
ment was the object in view, the case should stand
over to amend the schedule, and for the insolvent to
make a distinct prdposal to pay a yearly sum.
The case was adjourned till the 11th of May, and the
" protecting order" from all legal proceedings enlarged
until that day.