The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-01 00:00:00

Utittion

SUN OFFICE, Seven o'Cloch.

BOW-STREET.-(THIS DAY.)

SERIOUS CAARGE AGAINST A POLICE-OFFICER.—
George Weston, a sergeant of the F division of police, was
summoned before Mr.-Twyford, charged with receiving
certain bribes, in his capacity as a police-officer, to screen
certain parties against whom warrants had been issued.
It appeared that there have latterly been a great many
indictments issued by,the parish authorities, for the sup-
pression of certain houses of this district. The
warrants in these indictments were entrusted to Weston,
to execute, and the present charge was, that he had
given, for bribes,. information to the parties, whereby they
were enabled to escape punishment.
Mr. Ballantyne appeared for the complainant, and
Mr. Clarkson for the defence.
The case was gone into on this day week, but owing
to its length it was adjourned till to-day, in order that
the defendant might leave an opportunity to prepare his
defence. The facts are shortly these as detailed in the
evidence :—in the month of June last, indictments were
preferred against a man named Orchin and his
wife for keeping a house of ill-fame in Shire-lane.
In that month, the defendant called upon a
hairdresser of the name of Clements, who was an ac-
quaintance of the Orchins, and told him to write to them to
inform them that there was a warrant out against them.
The `witness wrote to them at Maidstone to guard against
it. After this Weston called again, and said that Orchin
bad not given him what he had promised, and told wit-
ness to write to them about it. The witness did so, and
a post-office order was returned for 10s. The witness's
shop-boy got the order cashed, and the money
was given to the defendant. This witness was
subjected to a severe cross-examination by Mr.
Cliarkson, but his evidence was not shaken.
The Orchins were called, and they corroborstel the
evidence of the other witness. Another witness was
called, named Anne White, and she swore that she had
paid Weston several. sums of money, in order that he
should Opted her against the effect of a warrant that
was out againt her for keeping a house- of ill-fame.
Mr. Clarkson addressed the Bench at great length,
and cated w,itnesses.(policemen), who stated that they
bad often heard the witnesses who had been called state
that they would have, the coat off Weston's back.
Mr. TwitFono deferred his judgment till Saturday.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
Fitoll/ THE EVENING PILFERS OF THIS DIY.
GLOB ,—The law of Debtor and Creditor in this
country was, until the last 'few years, in a most imper-
fect state. Instead of being founded on the obviously
rational and just principle of rendering the property
of the debtor available to the payment of his debts—
which in other couhtries is principally aimed at by
their laws on this' subjeet—personal, restraint, aptly
described as a " power which exposes the liberty of
one man to the passions of another," was the remedy
provided by.the Legislature for securing the payment
of debts. The unfortunate and the fraudulent were
treated alike. The dishonest debtor was no more
subjected.. to imprisonment than the honest one.
The man who bad long struggled with misfor-
tunes—who had daily submitted to privations of or-
dinary- comforts, that his means of meeting the pecu-
mary claims upon him might be increased, and who had
distributed every pound he could acquire and save to
avert the calamitieS: that eventually overtook him, was
regarded 'with equal eye by the law with the reckless
spendthrift, the headlong speculator, and the fraudulent
practitioner ! An alteration in this cruel and im-
politic system was contemplated with reluctance.
Partial ameliorations of its rigour were made at dis-
tant interi'als, by the Legislature, which thus showed
the confidence that was felt in the efficiency of imprison-
ment to'coerce payment of pecuniary claims, not merely
from the fraudulent, but from the unfortunate and impo-
verished, On moving last night in the House of Lords
the second reading of the .Bill for assimilating the ex-
isting laws of creditor and debtor, Lord Cottenham
entered largely into the legislative history of the sub-
ject. To the Noble Lord's masterly exposition of the
imperfect 'principlesand defective operation of the
successive changes which were made by Parliament,
we refer those who desire .to become acquainted with
the pasts • They will there tee how unwilling the Legis-
lature showed itself to interfere with the system of in-
discriminate. imprisonment ; and, when it did interfere,
what inexplicable distinctions were recognised and ap-
plied to differenCelass of debtors. The poorest, and
most unfriended—alike destitute of 'resources and of
help—were doomed to a prison. Persons who
could not meet their obligations to their creditors, if
their debts were of large amount, were relieved,
partially' or wholly, from the degradation and misery
of incarceration. The law only reserved its un-
mitigated vengeance for the poorer classes—those
whose debts were small, and whose destitution was
absolute! Lord Cottenham, by the Bill which he' has in-
troduced, seeks to remove those distinctions, and to
place the law of creditor and debtor on principles more
consonant With sound policy. Its object is to assimilate
the law relating to bankrupts and insolvents, by abolish-
ing altogether imprisonment for debt, and giving to the
creditor. greater facilities for obtaining cessio bonorum.
Debts contracted without prospect of being ahle to pay
them are to be treated as fraudulent transactions; and
the delinquents may be tried before a jury, and punished
according to the flagrancy of the case. The future pro-
perty of insolvents, like that of bankrupts, is to be ex-
empted front the power of former creditors; and all pro-
ceedings in bankruptcy and insolvency are to be assimi-
lated, and ..carried on in one court, before one set of
judges. Such is the outline of this greatly beneficial mea-
sure, which will, we trust, shortly receive the sanction of
the Legislature. The honest and unfortunate debtor will
be releived by it from imprisonment. Thus punishment
will be reserved wholly for the fraudulent debtor ; whose
case will be regarded, as it ought to be, in the light of
a crime against society ; subject to be dealt with, as
other offences against socieiy are, by a court of crimi-
nal Jurisdiction, and be no longer left to the partial
and freqUently malevolent -passions of individuals.
Speaking of imprisonment for debt, Mr. Burke long
since said, ",Every process of judicial order is subverted
by this proceeding. If the insolvency be no crime, why
is it punished with arbitrary imprisonment ? If it be a
crime, why is it delivered into private hands to
pardon without discretion, or to punish with-
out mercy and without measure ?" The credi-
tors 'of an insolvent will, by this measure,
obtain prompt possession and early and equal distribu-
tion of,'the assets of his estate, comprehending every de-
scription of his property.: This principle of cessio bonorum
has been long found to work most advantageously
in Scotland, and has been frequently urged on the con-
sideration
.and adoption of the Legislature, as well
calCulated in this country to secure the property of insol-
vent trailers from waste, by delay and mal-appropriation.
STANDARD.—Lorticettenham last night introduced
a Bill for the abolition, in all cases, of imprisonment for
debt-leaviug the fraudulently incurring of debt, or the
fraudulently withholding payment of a just debt which
the party is.ableao pay, to be dealt with criminally, as
a substantive offence. The Bill met the unanimous ap-
probation of the House; and 'we trust will soon be the
law of the land. The power of imprisonment for debt is
the most unjust, and, in a country where ninety-nine men
out of's hundred have no estate but in their time and
their;Character, the Most cruel tyranny that it is pos-
sible to imagine. Of the injustice of leaving with one
subject the power of depriving another of liberty, charac-
ter, and occupation—if the latter happens to be his
debtor—whether by misfortune, venial imprudence, or
the arts of the creditor himself—of the injustice of in-
vesting the richer class with this tyranny, to be ex-
exercised at their caprice, it is unnecessary to say
anything after all that has been said and written upon
the subject during the last 200 years. The injustice of
the tyranny is acknowledged universally ; but the
degree of its cruelty is not so generally appreciated.
The injury inflicted upon a debtor by imprison-
ment, is frequently measured merely by the amount
of the pain of three months' confinement and by
three months loss of time ; but this is a ridiculously
inadequate measure ; in the vast majority of ewes—
, we should say, that in every case where the debtor is
`really an honest and industrious man—imprisonment is
ruin. They are only the knaves and the dissolute who
make light of it The poor labourer, the artisan, the clerk,
the professional man, who has no prospect in life but the
fruit 'of patient labour and of a fair character, finds impri-
• sonment for three months a very dreadful matter ; turn-
ed loose at the three months' end, he finds the place
that'he formerly occupied filled up, and has to begin the
world anew, and work out a new place for himself
with worse than no reputation—with a damaged reputa-
tion. So dreadful are these consequences of impri-
sonment to industrious men of proper feeling,
that they will sLbmit to any terms of em-
ployers' to avoid it, or make any bargain with
usurers.- Pei', who know the real lives of the
struggling Millions can have escaped seeing many
examples of men who might have adorned and served
their country in the highest stations creeping in obscure
employments to mean graves, in terror of the horrid
'phantom of 'ignominious improvement. But,it will be
said, creditors are not generally so hard-hearted in
o a
this Christian country. We do not know what to say to
this ; the love of money y
has a great tendency to
the • heart ; and with the example of
.lr. Oastler's
three years' suffering, and the knowledge of the fact
that that gentleman s wealth} creditor, after wringing
two or three thousand pounds from the compassion
and sympathy of the people, still
mainttha such
ins his
t • position in society, we can hardlysay
hard-he2rtedness is either rare or unpopular in Eng-
land. The truth is, however, that the creditor
is not always the party to blame. He, a poor man,
perhaps, watts his money ; a ready solicitor sug-
gests that it can be had on a peremptory demand ;
the demand is made, costs accumulate ; these
costs, must be paid by the creditor himself, if he
cannot extract them from the debtor or the deb-
tor's friends ; so that he (the creditor) having once
begun, is forced to push matters to extremity,
if he would evade greater loss. This is not
hard-heartedness—it is merely' folly at first and
necessity afterwards. Abolish imprisonment for
• . debt, bewsver, and what do you effect ?
' You take fr m creditors the temptation to commit this
- folly, and you destroy at a stroke the trade of the worst
• deseripq in of usurers—the men who lend money at high
interest up al bills of exchange, in contemplation of
actions upon those bills, the lenders upon cognovits
and warrant to confess judgment. In nearly
every case these loans are contracted in order to
per `delfts, because debts unpaid drag a man to
prisdn and to ruin ; but abolish imprisonment,
„amiss men will have no motive for changing cre-
. Aiwa
.the exorbitant cost of flying to usurers. In
. • this way a pestilent trade will be extinguished, and a
considerable amount of capital let lob-se for fair -com-
mercial purposes; while the metal effect must be to en-

Nance the value of character by making character the
only safe ground for giving credit.

STATE OF TRADE.
(From the Manchester Guardian of this day.)
There has been, upon the whole, a fair and steady
business in the yarn market this week, especially for
mule yarn, which is in rather better demand than for
two or three weeks past. For goods, too, the market is
rather firmer, especially for light fabrics above thirty
inches wide, which are in general demand at full prices.
Printing cloths and domestics, however, continue dull ;
and the prices are still rather tending downwards.
ROCHDALE FLANNEL MARKET, MONDAY, APRIL 29.
—There have been rather more inquiries after prices
to-day, and some merchants have purchased more freely,
but, upon the whole, there has not been much more
business transacted than on the preceding Moßday. A
spirit of speculation has been excited among the buyers,
as many are inclined to think that ere long there will be
a further advance in wool, notwithstanding the new clip
will soon be in the market. In wool prices remain firm,
and the demand steady.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
Colonel CONOLLY presented a petition from a place
in Ireland against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
Mr. M. BELL presented a petition from Yorkshire
against any alteration in the corn-laws.
Captain LAYARD presented a petition in favour of
a Ten Hours' Bill.
Sir B. HALL presented a petition from the parish of
St. Pancras against the Masters and Servants' Bill; also
petitions from the same parish against the New Poor-
law.
Mr. WILLIAMS presented a petition from a place in
Yorkshire in favour of a Ten Hours' Bill.
Mr. WILSON PATTEN presented a petition from
Chorley, praying for the abolition of the duty on cotton

wool. - - -
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD presented petitions
from Carrickfergus, Donaghadee, Glascar, Baloo, and
Winterton, in Ireland, praying that a law might be passed
to render valid all marriages solemnised, or hereafter to
be; solemnised, by Dissenting ministers between persons
of proper age and not within the prohibited degrees of
affinity.
Mr. GISBORNE presented a petition against the
Masters and Servants' Bill.
Mr. GLADSTONE moved that Sir John Young be
added to the Committee on the Hull Docks Bill.
Mr. KEMBLE presented a petition from the inhabi-
tants of Wandsworth, Battersea, and the adjoining dis-
tricts, against the Common Lands Enclosure Bill.
Mr. W. 0. STANLEY presented a petition from se-
veral ministers and inhabitants of North Wales, praying
that the 10th clause might be expunged from the New
Poor-law Amendment Bill ; and that the poor might
be buried in consonance with the wishes of their relatives.
Mr. ALDAM presented petitions against the Mas-
ters and Servants' Bill.
ARCHES BILL.
The Court of Arches Bill was postponed to this day
month.
On the motion for going into Committee on the Mas-

ters and Servants' Bill.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented twenty-nine petitions
against the Bill.
On the motion that the SPEAKER do leave the chair,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE rose for the purpose of giving
effect, as far as it laid in his poa er, to the petitions that
he had just presented to the House, and he must say,
that as far as it was in his power to adopt it, there was
no form of the House he would not use as a weapon to
defend an enactment which had been truly designated in
some of these petitions as one of the most insiduous, op-
pressive, arbitrary, and tyrannical attempts to oppress
the working classes that was ever made.—(A laugh.) It
might suit Hon. Gentleman to laugh at an attempt to
oppress the working classes—("No, no")—but if the
House would give him its attention, he would prove to
it, and would satisfy the public, that this was the object—
and the sole object—of the Bill. He had reason to
complain that the Bill had arrived at this stage at all.
To the original Bill no one could object ; it
had a humane object in view, and though it
increased the power of the justices, yet it was for
the purpose of facilitating the recovery of wages. Under
that belief, the House passed the Bill through its first
stages, but it was under false colours and false pretences.
It was then proposed to go into Committee to make cer-
tain alterations ; those alterations were made, and the Bill
came out of Committee without a single word, from the
first line of the preamble to the last line in it, referring
to that object. Therefore, it could not be said that the
Bill had been read either a first or second time.
The Bill had been brought to its present stage under
false colours and false pretences. Now, what we; the
reason assigned for this measure ? When his Hon.
Frienri, the Member ft.!. Lambeth, asked for some ex-
planation the other night, the Secretary of State for the
Home Department said he did not approve of the man-
ner in which the Bill was drawn, and he referred him

to the Hon. Member for Somersetshire. The Hon.,,
Member for Somersetshire said that the Bill in as drawn
up by the desire of the Government.
Sir J. GRAHAM—The form of the Bill was ap-
proved by me, not the substance.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said it was the substance of the
Bill which he had to deal with—he cared nothing about
the sbadow.—(Laughter.) Now, if he went to the
lion. Member fur Somersetshire, and complained of the
provisions of the Bill, he said they were forced upon him
by the Government ; whereas the Right Hon. Gentle-
man said he was not responsible for them. The Hon.
Member for Berkshire said it was a totally different Bill
from what he approved, and the Hon. Member for Not-
tinghamshire expressed tt,iimilar opinion. Now he repeated
that this Bill had not been properly read a second time.

Now what were the provisions of this Bill which were
so objectionable? A new principle was introduced by
the Bill unknown to the Legislature of the country.—
(Hear, hear.) The only legislation in reference to
labour which had heretofore taken place bad been in re-
spect to persons hired for a certain term, and the Ma-
gistrates had power to fine or imprison persons who
had not fulfilled their contract. But this power was
never given in cases of piece or job work.—(Hear,
hear.) They were now going to confer a power of
this kind on the Magistrates. By this Bill a person
would he liable to be sent to the House of
Correction for two months on the single oath of a fore-
man.—(Hear, hear.) If this were the case, could they
be surprised that they had petitions on the subject from
every species of trade in the kingdom. This Bill
would affect every species of labour. The Right
Hon. Gentleman intended that the Bill should only
affect labourers employed in husbandry. But as it
stood now it would affect those employed in factories.
They might be imprisoned for two months upon the
oath of the foreman or overseer if they were only five
minutes too late.—(Hear.) In order to carry out this Bill
they proposed to repeal six Acts, and it would be well
before this iniquitous Bill received the support of the
House, that Hon. Gentlemen should know what those
Acts were. The first Act which was proposed to he
repealed was the sth of Elizabeth, c. 4 ; but
on referring to that Bill it would be found in the
preamble that the object of the Statute was to protect
the labourer, and to secure to artizans wages of a
higher rate than was paid at the time, which both
Houses of Parliament affirmed to be too small. He wished
to call the attention of those who were in favour of a

ran Hours' Bill to the provisions of this Act, which was
now sought to be repealed. The Act of Elizabeth re-
gulated the hours of labour as fourteen hours,
from March to September, in thirty-two trades,
and ten hours froth September to March. Be-
tween the months of September and March the time
was still more limited; they were allowed the same pe.
riod of time for their meals, and they were only to labour
from sunrise to sunset, and no one was compelled to
work longer. Having limited the hours of labour
and settled the wages of the labourers by law,
it was but right that the magistrates should have
the power of compelling parties to work, but
this Act was repealed, and nothing for the satisfac-
tion or security of the working classes enacted in its place.
The 20th George 11. was also to be repealed by that
Act, which was considered nearly obsolete. Any ser-
vants convicted:of misconduct were liable to be corrected
and imprisoned. There was nothing in that Act relating
to piece or job work. The 27th George 11. merely
repealed a proviso of the last-mentioned Act ; and
the 31st George 11., which was passed in 1757, made
the law applicable to husbandry servants hired for a less
period than one year. The Act of 4th Geo. IV., passed
in 1823, said nothing of job work, but related to the
violation of contracts for service, and enacted either that
such contracts must be in writing, or else that the ser-
vant must have entered upon his hiring, which was to be
taken as evidence of the existence of a contract, in either
of which cases, if the servant violated his contract by
neglecting his work, he was liable to imprisonment. These
where the Acts which it was now proposed to repeal.
In this Bill it did not matter how much the master mis•
behaved himself, the punishment only related to the
servant.—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. Fernand.) This
was nothing but a law for the rich and one for the poor
—one for the employer and one for the employed. He
called upon the House not to sanction the principle which
was contained in this Bill. What had Sir Augustus
Henniker said at the Suffblk Quarter Sessions lately?—
That if they sent down the whole body of police from
London they would not keep the people quiet, unless
they materially altered in their treatment of them.
Such was that gentleman's opinion—so great was the
discontent;; and he (Mr. Dnncombe) would advise them
to take care that this feeling did not spread, that it did
not work its way into the manufacturing districts. The
other day when discussing the subject of the limitation
of the hours of labour, Sir James Graham had said
to those in the House favourable to limitation
that the working classes did not agree in
opinion with them—that they had forwarded no petition
in its favour.—(Hear, hear.) Well, they would see r o.v
what was the effect of' petitioning, for against this Bill
nearly two hundred petitions had been presented.—
(Cheers.) He (Mr. Duncombe) asked him (Sir
James Graham) where were his petitions in
favour of it.—(Hear, hear.) Those petitions
against the Bill represented nearly two millions
of people asking the House not to pass this Bill. If the
• House went into Committee upon it, he should feel it his
I duty to read several extracts from these petitions ; but
he did hope he had made out such a case as would in-
' duce the House to reject a Bill which would createmore
discontent than any Act that, or any former House had
ever been guilty of. Therefore, he trusted they would
at once reject it, and so place thousands, and hundreds
of thousands, who were not there to protect them-
irlves.
Mr. P. HOWARD was understood to second the motion.
Mr. HUME, in the hope to put a stop -at once
to this Bill, would appeal to the Bight Honourable

Baronet (Sir James Graham) to allow the order for
Committee to be discharged, and either introduce
a new Bill, or send the matter to a Committee
up stairs, where it could be thoroughly examined, and
then reported upon. The present Bill was not the Bill
originally introduced—it was altogether a new Bill.
The only proper principle in such a Bill was to make its
provisions alike applicable to all, so that it might
equally protect the master against the servant, as the
servant against the master. This Bill did no
such thing; and he could assure the Right
Honourable Baronet that it had created the
greatest excitement amongst the labouring classes.
He hoped the Right Hon. Baronet would give them his
support, and not allow this Bill to go further. He did
not think that the House was in a condition to legislate
anew upon the subject.
Sir J. GRAHAM had not the least difficulty in as-
suring the House, that he had no desire to do anything
which which would interfere with the interests of the
working-classes. His impression of the existing law
was, that it operated injuriously to the workman,
and too favourable to the employer. Under
the present law a labourer might be commit-
ted to prison for three months, with hard labour
at the discretion of a single magistrate upon the com-
plaint of the master. On the other hand, if the servant
had a good ground of complaint against the master, the
magistrate had now power to adjudicate. But this Bill
gives to the magistrate the power of giving damages
against the master, and allows the arrest of the
servant only upon warrant, issued in cases where
the servant was about to abscond, or bad ab-
sconded. The power of imprisonment was limited,
and confined within the limits of the Bill introduced by
the Hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), 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 bad 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 can 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 againstthe 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
previa Bill. But, in his opinion, this was a Bill of
such vast importance in its provisions and in its conse-
quences that it ought 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 ouht 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 worse Bills had been passed in
snore barbarous ttmea.
Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND opposed the Bill.
It would affect the relations between employers and the
employed in every bramh of industry. It could 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 an hours' notice, and there
was no reason why his power would be increased. He
felt, therefore, bound to vote against the motion.
Mr. GAILY KNIGHT was convinced from what
had been said by both sides of the House—both
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 name 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 would press as hardly as ever upon the colliers. The
Hon. 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 concluded by saying that he
would support the Bill.
[LEFT SITTING.I