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

IMPEItIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 4.
The SPES KER. took the Chair shortly before Four o'Clock.
HARWICH AND WORCESTER ELECTIONS.
The SPEAKER made similar announcements relati , e to
the petitions respectively against the returns for those boroughs.
CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLA.NDI BILL.
(Continued from our Third Edition of Last Night.)
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 measin e
whenever he judged it expedient—(Hear, hear, front 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 had
been for three vears in an office connected with the Church of
Scotland, and he never attempted his hand at legislation on the
subject.—(Loud cheersr. ) 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 lor a period of six weeks—
( Laughter)—but, contrary to the wishes of the Hen. 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.—(!fear, hear.) Why, then, was not a mea-
sure brought in on the subjoct.
Mr. P. Al. STEWART—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. STEWART—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. Gentlemantold 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 influence
of those whom they ought to support, namely, the Ministers of
Scotland. They had eason to believe that a fruitless and in-
effectual attempt would oniy 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 reasonable 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, and
they thought it would be for the public interest not to jut a
stop to the Bill but to ask, for its postponement. They did not
ask the Ilonourable Member to abandon his Bill, but
to defer the consideration of it for a period of six weeks.
He never had spoken bq 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, preseri. ing alike the just
rights of the people, and the' just t ights 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 pl .ce confi-
dence in her Majesty s•Government as not to compel an Hon.
Member 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 asrerity 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 Doer be found offering
any unnecessary opposition to any such measures.—( Hear. )
He thought the postponement-of the measure instead of assisting
the settlement of the question would, on the contrary, greatly
embarrass it. If the Right lion. Baronet had expressed 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 he postponed, but they know
who were the organs of the opinions of the people and Church
of Scotland on this question, and that no negotiation with
those parties could prove satisfactory to the people or Church
of Scotland. It was a mere fallacy to suppose that. it could.
He could assure the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, that they
would never settle the question if they shoul i legislate upon it
according to the principle upon which Lord Aberdeen's Bill
was founded. They would but slake the establish-
ment of the Church of Scotland to its very Lundation.
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
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 lion. 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 o. 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; ho was
able to bear testimony to the anxiety of the people, in
reference to this t!uestion. 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-
merit of the question.
Captain Nil, EMYSS 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 lion. Ger.tle-
man's Government, with regard to any Bill that might be
brought in to ameloriate the Stcotch Church.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when there appeared--
For Mr. Fox Maule's amendment
A gainst it
Majority...
The Salmon Fisheries' Bill went through Committee.
PUBLIC-HOUSES BILL.

Captain ROUS move:l 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 re4tive to
the steam -boats on the river Names. He hoped the Hon.
Member would strike it out in Committee. It the Hon. Gen-
tleman would not strike it out, he (Captain Pcchell) would give
every opposition to the Bill.
Captain ROUS 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 luid....cumposed 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 why 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 nut 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 sug-
gested that the names eflh'e Hon. Member for Stockport
(Mr. Cobden), and the Hon. Member for Stamford (Sir G.
Clerk), be added to the Crimtilittee.
Mr. MUNTZ was satisfikl• that no good would result either
to the House or the cottony; 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 roas-
ters. Being of this opinion he ehould decline acting upon the
Committee at all.
Dr. BOWRING thought that the stringeney of the Act was
the cause of its violation.
Mr. FERRAND said his desire was to have the Committee
as impartial as possible. To guard against the pcsssibility of a
charge of rartiality, he bad mentioned to several Hon. Mem-
bers 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 note from the writer to him (Mr. Ferrand)
the public Press and the Corn-law League had assailed him
in the newspapers and 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 Air. BROTHERTON, which were
inaudible in the gallery,
Mr. FERRAND 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 destntory conversation, the debate was again
adjourned.
The Report on the Punishment of Death Bill, and on the

Victoria Park Bill, were brought up, and the Bills were ordered
to be rcaJ a third time to-morrow. _ . _

The Report on the Knightsbridge and Kiinsington.Openincrs
Bill wits brought up, and the Lill ordered to be read a third'
time to-morrow. _

The House then adjourned at a Quarter to Eight o'Clock.

COFFEE AND EAT /NG- OUSB

KEEPERS' ASSOCIATION.

This Institution celebrated its fifth anniversary at the
London Tavern, yesterday, Sir John Easthope in the
chair. About one hundred and fifty persons sat down.
to an excellent dinner. The wines were excellent, and
the entertainment, altogether, was creditable to the So-
ciety. After the usual loyal toasts the Chairman pro-
posed the health of the Duke of Sussex, the Patron of the
Association, and spoke in high terms of the generous
disposition and liberal principles of that illustrious mem-
ber of the Royal Family. He then gave " Health and pro-
sperity to the Institution," which was responded to
with loud cheers. The Treasurer then read the list of
subscriptions, from which it appeared that the amount
this year exceeded that of the preceding year by 50L,
and that the Society was in a prosperous condition.
The following are the principal subscriptions an-
nounced in the course of the evening :
The Chairman, 20 guineas ; the Proprietors of the
Morning Chronicle, 10 guineas ; the Proprietors of the
Morning Advertiser, 10 guineas ; Sir John Pirie, 10
guineas; the Proprietors of the London Tavern, 10
guineas ; Mr. Masterrnan, M.P., 10 guineas ; and a great
number of other subscribers, averaging from three guineas
to one guinea.
Several professional singers were present, who de-
lighted the company with seine excellent songs ; and the
entertainment went off altogether with the best effect.