The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-17 00:00:00

PATENT BILL.

An HON. MEMBER presented a petition from Bradford
complaining of certain clauses in this Bill.
LAW OF SETTLEMENT.

Mr. FARNHAM presented a petition from the guardians
of the poor of Leicester and Nottingham praying for the
abolishment of the law of settlement, and that the support of
the poor might be made a national charge.
DUTY ON TEA.

An ion. Mzmunt presented a petition praying for the
abolition of the duty on tea.
IMPORTATION OF GRAIN INTO IRELAND.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE presented a petition from the
Drogheda Union, praying the House to cause an immediate
importation of grain into Ireland.
ELECTORAL DISTRICTS.

The Mx. BARONET also presented a petition from one of
the parishes in that union, complaining of the present mode
of rating electoral districts.
THE IRISH MEASURES.

Mr. PROTHEROE presented a petition from several in-
fluencial householders in Halifax, expressing alarm lest the
measures proposed for the relief of Ireland would increase the
taxation on the people of this country; and praying for the
abolition of the duty on tea.
Mr. B. B. CABBELL moved for a return of the number
of persons who had received relief in the union workhouses
in England and Wales from 1844 to 1846, together with the
quantity and amount of out-door relief afforded by them
during that period.
EJECTMENTS IN IRELAND.

Lord DUNCAN said during the ten years he had occupied
a seat in that House he had often had to thank the House for
the indulgence which it had extended to him on various
occasions, and he trusted that that kindness and indulgence
would be extended to him whilst he called the attention of
the House to a subject of a personal nature.
He was anxious to take the earliest opportunity of vindi-
cating his character, as a statement had gone abroad that
some statements which he made in that House a few evenings
ago were brought forward by him for the purpose of casting
aspersions on the conduct of a Noble Lord, a Member of the
other House of Parliament (Lord Lucan). It had been
stated he had acted with discourtesy in not having intimated
to that Noble Lord that he intended to bring forward the
statements he did. He trusted that he knew his duty to
that House toe well to act with discourtesy to any indi-
vidual in that House or elsewhere. It had been stated
that he had made charges against an individual. Now he
begged to call to the recollection of the House, that when
his Hon. and Gallant Friend the Member for Marylebone
(Sir C. Napier) referred to some statements in a blue book,
with respect to certain union workhouses in Ireland, he (Lord
Duncan) rose after he sat down, and read the charges con-
tained in a blue book, which appeared to him (Lord Duncan)
to be of a most appalling character. He stated—and he
thought it would lie in the recollection of the House that
he did so—that he trusted those charges would be speedily
denied; but it would be equally within the recolleetion of
the House that he made no charge against any individual.
He merely read an extract from the blue book, the state-
ments in which were sanctioned by the Poor-law Corn-
znissioners, by whose assistants they were collected,
and were published upon the authority of the Government.
He disclaimed having made any charges like those imputed
to him. He said this, and he repeated it, that the constitu-
ency which he represented (Bath) would not be satisfied if
they were taxed to pay poor-rates for the relief of Ireland,
whilst no such tax was levied on those in Ireland who were
in a fit condition to pay it. He trusted the statement would
yet be denied, that wealthy parties in Ireland refused to pay
that tax, which the English people were called upon to pay
in lien of them. No reflections which might be made in that
House or elsewhere on his conduct would prevent him from
doing what he considered his duty to his constituents and
the people of this county.
POLICE.

On the motion of Mr. FRE WEN the following return
was ordered :—" Return showing the number of police con.
stables in each county, or divisionof a county, in England and
Wales, under the Act 2 and 3 Vic., c. 93, distinguishing each
class or denomination; including, also, a return of the name
and population of every petty sessions district, in the
said counties, the number ofpolice-constables stationed in each
district, and the amount paid to the county police rate by
each district; together with an account, in detail, of the se-
veral items of expenditure for the year 1846.
SUPPLY.
The House, on the motion of Mr. PARKER (in the ab-
sence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer), resolved itself
into a Committee of Supply, and a vote of 18,310,7001. was
agreed to for the purpose of meeting outstanding Exchequer-
bills.

The House then resumed, and the report was brought up.
Mr. T. S. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from the
West Riding of Yorkshire in favour of the Ten Hours' Bill,
and also a petition from the members of the United Trades'
Association for the Protection of Industry, signed by 10,860
names, in favour of the same measure.
Mr. DUNCANesented a petition from the Chamber of
Commerce of Dundee against the principle of any interference
with factory labour.
ADJOURNED DEBATE ON TIIE FACTORIES' BILL.
On the order of the day being read,
Sir ANDREW LEITH HAY said, that during the course
of a considerable Parliamentary experience his feelings had
invariably been the same on the subject of any interference
with the manufacturing interests of this country, and he con-
sidered it his duty on that occasion to state his opinion, not
that he had the presumption to consider that his opinion
would have any weight in the House, but having it in his
power to bring forward the opinions of others which had most
probably escaped the attention of this House. The other
evening he heard the Noble Lord, the Member for the city
of London, state that he considered that the question now
had become, not a question of principle, but a question of
degree. He did not consider that such was the case ; it was
still a question of principle, and he thowybr .7
.y, z,ond
all doubt, that the otea took place in 1833
cuusiaered by the House as an interference which
at all established that the principle was conceded, and that
hereafter it must only be a question of degree. What were
the circumstances under which the Act of 1833 was passed ?
It was well known to many Members of that House that a
serious struggle took place in that Paitament, and in that
year, between the adverse parties as to whether a Commission
of Inquiry on the state of the factories should or should not
be established. By the votes of the House the Commission
was issued, and upon investigation it was found that in all
the factories of Great Britain and Ireland—at least the
cotton factories—the average time of labour was twelve
hours. Some of them worked sixteen,- or perhaps seventeen
hours, and others a lesser number. But they considered that
twelve hours was not only the average time for labour in
those factories, but also a judicious settlement ; and they
gave it as their opinion that twelve hours should be the
amount of labour sanctioned by Parliament. It appeared to
him that it was only an adjustment to generalise the prin-
ciple, without interfering, or seeing the right to interfere to
any extent to diminish the hour. of labour. lie had heard
with great regret the declaration of the Noble Lord that he
considered it merely a question of degree. It was the ques-
tion of degree which they had settled before interfering with
the principle, and that in his opinion, and in the opinion of
others better informed, would interfere with the manufac-
turing interests of this country. The first authority he should
quote on the subject of the inexpediency of this interference
was a name well known in that House—it was Mr. Leonard
Horner, one of the principal Commissioners, who gave the in-
formation on which the Act- of 1833 was passed. Mr.
Leonard Horner was, in 1837, appointed a Commissioner for
the express purpose of giving such information as
might settle the question, and an Act of Parliament
was passed in the same year which established
twelve hours as the proper term for labour in the
cotton factories in the United Kingdom. Mr. Leonard Homer
was appointed an inspector under this Act, having under his
charge Scotland, Belfast, and other parts of the north of Ire-
land, and also three counties in England. He was subse-
quently removed from that district to another district in
England ; and after he had been the inspector for some time,
he wrote from Leeds to the effect that any interference on the
part of the Legislature was uncalled for to limit the labour of
persona over the age of childhood, as they were free agents,
and stating that the reduction of the period of
labour in cotton factories to ten hours would be at-
tended with the most fatal consequences, which
would be first felt by the working classes. That was
the opinion of that very eminent person, who was practically
conversant with all the details of the case, and all the circum-
stances connected with it. He might be told that since then
that gentleman had altered his opinion. He could show that
mono not a very rapid alteration, for he would give a
bad L °eendum from his report in 1845—twelve years after he
L. /14, made an inspector of the factories. He (Sir
A. y) had
got his opinion in his favour for twelve
years, a* he would charge those twelve years against their
opinion. 'ln his report of the 16th of May, 1845, he
gave an accounthoureannf experiment made at Preston
by reducing the I
labour to eleven, and the re-
restrictionsult of that experiment clid no justify any further legislative
of the hours of labot the plea that if the
hours were shortened the amouurirt—°o'fi produce was lessened,
and that in a large proportion of the manufacturing towns,
if the hours of labour were reduced, the wages would also be
t would certainly
reduced. He thought that the experi
be fraught with danger to the manufacturing interests of the
country, and danger not only to the manufacturers,
hacttuaretrs4ioburntetnott,hine
agriculturists also. The manufacturersa
the part of Scotland to which he belonged—and where th
manufacture of cotton was carried on to e
a great
extent, were only working ten hours a day—
but why ? it was from the depression of trade,
and not having markets for the greater quantity of produce.
That such a state of depression existed was well known to
all, and it was a fact that these manufacturers had for years
together carried on their business, and kept their machinery
bmug, for the purpose, not of emolument, but in the hope of
etter times for their trade. That was the present state of
things, and he felt convinced, that if they did pass this mea-
sure as proposed by the Hon. Member for Oldham, they