The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-05 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY MORNING, MAY 5, 1842,

to push forward the present Bill, as in Committee what I de-
manded on behalf of the people can be got.
Mr. E. ELLICE, jun., believed that the postponement was
proposed for the purpose of delaying the measure until after the
sitting of the Assembly on the 15th of June next ; and at the
same time holding out fallacious hopes, which would prevent
that body from taking the measures which they would other-
wise take for restoring peace to the Church. Having that opi-
nion, he would support the motion that the Bill be now pro-
ceeded with.
Sir R. PEEL said that in his Parliamentary experience the
usual, he might say the universal course, was to permit a Mem-
ber who undertook legislation to put off his own measure
whenever he judged it expedient—(Hear, hear, from the Mi-
nisterial benches)—and when a Member not connected with
any department of the Government, having undertaken a mea-
sure for the public good, should see reason to postpone it, the
uniform course had been to defer to his judgment. He scarcely
knew why the present case justified a departure from that course.
He was surprised that the Right Hon. Gentleman should be
the person to make that proposition.—( Hear, hear.) He bad
been for three years in an office connected with the Church of
Scotland, and he never attempted his hand at legislation on the
subject.--( Loud cheers.) He could not understand how, con-
nected as he was with Scotland, and convulsed by division as
that country was, he never attempted to bring in a measure on
the subject.-- ( Hear, hear ) But an Hon. Gentlemen under-
took to make the attempt, and proposed a delay of six weeks,
and the Right Hon. Gentleman, who acquiesced in the delay
for three years, could not now wait for a period of six weeks—
(Laughter)—but, contrary to the wishes of the Han. Member
who brought in the Bill, insisted that his own Bill should be
read against his own wishes.—( Laughter.) The Hon. Gen-
tleman who acquiesced in the motion of the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman said, that the admirable measure ought not to be post-
poned for a day.—( (iear, hear.) Why, then, was not a mea-
sure brought in on the subject.
Mr. P. M. STEWA R 1 —A Bill was brought in in the
House of Lords.—( Hear, hear. )
Sir R. PEEL—Why did not the Hon Member bring in a
Bill?
Mr, RTEWART—I was not then in Parliament.—( Hear. )
Sir R. PEEL did not wish to introduce anything like party
feeling into so important a measure.--(Hear, hear.) It was a
question of a theological nature.—( Hear, hear.) It was a
question of a theological nature, and deeply affecting the peace
and tranquillity of the people of Scotland, and he regretted any
any kind of angry spirit had been introduced--( Hear, hear.)
The Right Hon. Gentleman told the simple truth. 'When out
of office a settlement of the question was attempted, but it met
with resistance from the then Government, from conscientious
motives, he had no doubt, from the belief that the measure
would not tend to a satisfactory settlement. On their
return to power, however, they directed their attention to
the subject, and with no other motive than to attempt a
termination of those differences which diminished the influense
of those whom they ought to support, namely, the Ministers of
Scotland. They had reason to believe that a fruitless and in-
effectual attempt would only aggravate the evil, and the unfor-
tunate differences which prevailed; and on that ground they
abandoned the attempt and the single motive for resum-
ing the question, was that they had received from Scotland
voluntary communications from men of both parties—( Hear,
hear)—stating that if the Government took up the subject there
was a rpoonable prospect of their being successful. It was
upon these communications that they had acted, and not be-
cause they were terrified or menaced.—( Hear, hear.) Those
communications had reached them at a very recent period, ane
they thought it would be for the public interest not to rut a
stop to the Bill but to ask for its postponement. They did not
esk the Honourable Member to abandon his Bill, but
to defer the consideration of it for a period of six weeks.
He never had spoken on the subject without feeling the deepest
interest in the state of the Church of Scotland, and without
the deepest regret at the differences which at present existed
in that Church and he should consider it one of the proudest
acts of the life of any man, if he could bring those differences,
by a just and equitable proposition, preserving alike the just
rights of the people, and the just rights of the Church, to a sa-
tisfactory termination,—( Cheers.) If those collisions between
spiritual and civil authority, those appeals from Court to Court
—that constant mixing up of questions of civil right with
questions of spiritual jurisdiction, could be put an end to with
the acquiescence of the people of Scotland,—if there
was even a hope that such might be the case, he
for one would never abandon that hope, would never close the
door against it. He should be guilty of a dereliction of duty
if he were to do so. He hoped the House would not, by now
forcing on the discussion, oblige the Government to give up all
hope of being able to bring these differences to a satisfactory
termination. He hoped the House would so far place confi-
dence in her Majesty's Government as not to compel an Hon,
IkLember whose purity was unquestioned—whose motives were
unquestioned—to bring on his Bill against his own conviction.
Mr. RUTHERFORD was as desirous as any Hon. Member
could be, that every feeling of acrimony or asperity should be
withdrawn from this discussion. He thought the highest credit
would be due to any Member, or to any Government, who
should be able to bring about a satisfactory settlement Of this
question. He for one would never be found offering
any unnecessary otpoeition to any such measures.—( Hear. )
He thought the postponement of the measure instead of assisting
the settlement of the question would, en the contrary, greatly
embarrass it. If the Right lion. Baronet had eepressed himself
clearly and distinctly with respect to the result to which nego-
tiations on the subject might lead, he certainly would not have
proposed that this Bill should not be postponed, but they know
who were the organs of the opinions of the people and Church
of Szotland on this question, and that no negotiation with
those parties could prove satisfactory to the people or Church
of Scotland. It was e mere fallacy to suppose that it could.
He could assure the Iberia Hen, Gentleman opposite, that they
would never settle the question if they shoul t legislate upon it
according to the principle upon which Lord A.berdeen's Bill
was founded. They would but shake the establish-
ment of the Church of Scotland to its very foundation,
He should observe that they were about to postpone the dis-
cussion of the question at a time when the General Assembly
were on the eve of meeting. The General Assembly would
meet in the course of three weeks; and it was certainly of
great importance that before their meeting the intentions of
the House of Commons upon the subject under the considera-
tion of the House should be made known. That was one of
the principal reasons urged in favour of an immediate discussion
of the measure. The explanation of the Right Hon. Baronet,
the Secretary of State for the Home Department was nothing
but a statement of the principle of Lord Aberdeen's Bill, and it
was impossible to get anything more out of him. Under those
circumstances he must vote for taking the sense of the House
on the principle of the Bill.
Mr. HUME said, having lately visited Scotland, he was
able to bear testimony to the anxiety of the people, in
reference to this question. But he did not recollect
during the last 25 years, a single instance in which a question
of this importance had been brought forward by any one but
the Government, and he believed that if ever the question was
settled satisfactorily to the community, it must be through the
Government. With these views, he must vote for the postpon-
ment of the question.
Captain WEMYSS entirely concurred in the opinion, that
if ever the question was satisfactorily settled, it must be through
the Government. He did not think that the people of Scot-
land could expect very much from the Right Hon. Gentle-
man's Government, with regard to any Bill that might be
brought in to ameloriate the Scotch Church.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when there appeared—
For Mr. Fox Maule's amendment
Against it
Majority. -83
The Salmon Fisheries' Bill went through Committee.
PUBLIC-HOUSES BILL.

Captain ROUS moved that this Bill be re•commited pro
forma. He intended to take the sense of the House on the
third reading.

Captain PECHELL said that this Bill had been before the
House for six weeks, and there were various provisions in it con-
trary to the title. He wanted to know what the Hon. Gentleman
proposed todo in Committee pro forma, because it frequently
happened that some of the greatest changes in a Bill took place
in Committee pro forma. He wished to know whether the
Hon. Gentleman intended to persist in the clause relative to
the steam-boats on the river Thames. He hoped the Hon.
Member would strike it wit in Committee. II the Hon. Gen-
tleman would not strike it out, he (Captain Pechell) wouldgive
every opposition to the Bill.
captain RODS only proposed that the Bill should now be
re-committed pro forma, and that the discussion should be
taken on the principle of the Bill on the third reading.
The Bill was then re-committed pro forma, ordered- to be
printed, and the Report taken into further consideration (as
we understood) on Wednesday week.
SELECT COMMITTEE ON PAYMENT OF WAGES.
ADJOURNED DEBATE.

Mr. C. BULLER said that he opposed the motion for a Se-
lect Committee last night, but he did not object to the mode
in which the Hon. Member for Knaresborough appointed the
Committee, though he had composed it of people of his own
way of thinking. He had dealt very fairly in taking almost
an equal number of persons from each side, but he made up
the Committee of persons of his own way of thinking.
He did not find any persons who were engaged in manufac-
tures, or any who could conduct the inquiry, with a view to
their interests. But the Government having acceded to the
appointment of the Members, he thought they were respon-
sible for the composition of the Committee. There could be
no greater mischief than to make a light appointment in this
way. The Committee would be attended by persons of only
one way of thinking, and they had got a quantity of ex parte
evidence which would not be properly sifted. It was not his
intention to propose any new names himself, but he considered
the Government were responsible for its composition.
Sir J. GRAHAM considered the subject to be one rather
for legislation than inquiry. It was notorious that the truck
system did prevail, and he was of opinion that any legislative
measure would prove an effectual interference. As the inquiry
was more limited now than in the form in which it was pro-
posed, he had thought it expedient to accede to it. He su,-
,
gested that the names of the Hon. Member for Stockport
(Mr. Cobden), and the Hon. Member for Stamford (Sir G.
Clerk), be added to the Committee.

Mr:..MUNTZ was satisfi, d that no good would result either
to the House or the country, from the inquiry. It should
simply be directed to whether the present laws were as strin-
gent as they could be made ; if they were so, where was the
the advantage, or the policy, of increasing their stringency
when they could not carry them into effect? He was convinced
that whatever law they brought forward, it would be evaded.
Mr. REDHEAD YORKE was of opinion that it would
he much better for the interests of the labourer, the manufac-
turer, and humanity, that the motion should have been carried
in its original form.
Mr. CHARLES BULLER thought that the Committee,
as framed by the Hon. Member, would not do justice between
the parties.
Mr. HARDY thought on a Committee like the present
there ought to be no manufacturers ; such a Committee
should be appointed as would satisfy the working classes that
the law was sufficiently strong to protect them against their mas-
ters. Being of this opinion he should decline acting upon the
Committee at all.

Dr. BOW RING thought that the stringeney of the Act was
the cause of its violation.
Mr. FER RA ND said his desire was to have the Committee
as impartial as possible. To guard against the possibility of a
charge of partiality, he had mentioned to several Hon. Alem-
hers his intention of making Lord Ashley the Chairman of the
Committee. He had received a letter, from which he would
read a passage, to prove the correctness of his statement as to
the ill-usage he had experienced at the hands of the Hon.
Member for Stockport.—The Hon. Member read an extract
from the letter, in which it was stated, that in consequence of
he publication of a notefrona the writer to him (Mr. Ferrand)
the public Press and the Corn-law League had assailed him
in the newspapersand at public meetings.
Mr. COBDEN denied that he had violated any confidence.
The Hon. Member for Knaresborough read an extract from a let-
ter reflecting on his (Mr. Cobden's) conduct to his work-
people ; and afterwards in the course of the evening wrote him
a note, simply stating the name of the writer. There was not
a word about confidence, nor anything to imply that he (Mr.
Cobden) was under an engagement to keep the name of the
writer a secret.—(Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Mr. BROTHERTON, which were
inaudible in the gallery,
Mr. FER RAND said he would not object to the placing of
Sir B. Hall on the Committee in lieu of Mr. G. W. Wood.
The SPEAKER read the names of the proposed list.
Mr. C. BULLER then said that he would oppose the first
name, which was that of Mr. Ferrand.

After a very desultory conversation, the debate was again
adjourned.
The Report on the Punishment of Death Bill, and on the