The Sun.
London, England, 1850-03-15 00:00:00

IRIS ti MAGISTRACY.

Mr. F. O'CONNOR wished to ask the Noble Lord,
the Prime Minister, if he had any objection to submit to
the House copies of the correspondence which had
passed between him and Dr. Grattan, who bad lately
been deprived of the commission of the peace in Ireland
for presiding over a public meeting.
Lord J. RUSSELL had no objection.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR gave notice, thee, that on an early
day he should move for its production.
CHURCHYARDS OF THE METROPOLIS.

Mr. e. LUSHINGTON wished to put a question to
the Noble Lord the Member for Bath, a question of
which he had given him only a momentary notice belause
the cause which gave rise to it had only come under his
notice within the last half hour. When he came to the
House this evening he passed through St. Margaret's
Ourchg ard, and under the tower of that church, and
within a few yards of that House, he saw an open
grave ready for the interment of a corpse. Now it being
in evidence that interment in St. Margaret's churchyard
was injurious to the health of the Members of that House,
and also to society in general, he begged to ask the
Noble Lord whether he had any power to check or put
an end to a nuisance which was not only injurious to
Hon. Members and to society in London, but also con-
demned by the general voice of the community at large?
Lord ASHLEY hoped that Hon. Members would
give their attention to the report which had 'bee❑
laid on the table of the House, in order that they might
see in its length and breadth the enormous mischiefs
that arise from the system of intramural interment.
Under the Nuisance Act he and others attempted to
close some of the graveyards in the metropolis ; but
the magistrates thought they had exceeded their
powers, and that they had no means of
interfering with graveyards, beyond ordering now and
then that certain disinfecting substances should be scat-
tered over them.
Mr. GOULBURN said that when he was Chancellor
of the Exchequer he was informed by the churchwar-
dens of St, Margaret's that they were then about to buy
a piece of land for a burial-ground away from the church.
G. GREY said, with regard to the question of
the Hon. Member for Westminster, the report had not
been long in the hands of the Government. That re-
port was now under their consideration; a Bill had been
prepared on the subject, and very soon after Easter the
Government expected to bring in a Bill founded on the
report.—(llear, hear.)
THE CENSUS.
In reply to a question from Sir JOHN WALSH,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that although it was
desirable that a Bill for regulstirg tho taking of the
census should be introduced this session, yet that so
many objections stood in the way that it seemed to be
better to delay it for another year.
RUSSIA.

Mr. ANSTEY wished to ask the Noble Lord at the
head of tho Foreign Department a question with re-
spect to the withdrawal of the excess of the Russian
troops which at present occupied the Danubian provinces.
The Noble Lord had stated that, in accordance with the
convention, that excess of number would be withdrawn.
Would such be the.case? If so, would any portion of
Sir W. Parker's squadron be withdrawn?
Lord PALMERSTON had already declared that h•
had received the most positive assurances of the Russian
Government that the troops would be withdrawn. With
respect to the latter part of the question, the conduct of
the squadron would depend upon circumstances.
Mr. ANSTEY wished to know whether it was the
intention of the, Noble Lord to withdraw the squadron,
or any part of it from the Greek waters?
Lord PALMEgSTON—The service on which they
were engaged would prevent that.
BLOCKADE OF ATHENS.

Mr. G. BANKES wished to ask the Noble Lord
whether the blockade of Athens had actually ceased?
Lord PALMERSTON said that a blockade, properly
interpreted, meant the prevention of any vessels going
into or coming out of a port. The squadron before Athens
bad only prevented the passing of Greek vessels from the
Piraaus. Sir W. Paiker, on the Ist of the present month,
had withdrawn a portion of the squadron, on receiving
instructions from her Majesty's Government, and an in-
timation that they had accepted the good offices of the
French Government.
Mr. HUME wished to know who it was that would
have to pay the value of the ships which had been de-
tained by the British squadron.
Lord PALMERSTON said that the ships had been
detained in pledge for certain sums duo to English sub-
jects, and would be detained until those claims were
satisfied, but no longer.
TEN HOURS' BILL—RELAY SYSTEM IN
FACTORIES.
Mr. AGLIONBY presented a petition is favour of
this Bill.
Mr. T. M. GIBSON presented a petition signed by a
number of manufacturers and musters of Manchester as-
sembled in a public meeting. The petitioners stated that it
was understood that it was the intention of the House
to pass an Act to restrai❑ them from working their
hands by relays. The petitioner stated that the system
of relays enabled them to give more employment to
young children and females, and that a suspension of it
would interfere with the proper employment of capital.
They prayed that the House would not sanction any al-
teration in the existing law, but that if they did make
any alteration, they would also extend the limits of the
time now allowed to 11 hours a day, or 63 hours a week.
Lord J. RUSSELL presented a petition in favour of
the Bill.
Mr. BRIGHT had a similar petition from the hands
employed by Mr. Mayne, of Dewsbury, but an infor-
mality in it prevented him from presenting it.
FACTORY ACTS. _ _

Lord ASHLEY rose to move for leave to bring in a
Bill to declare the intentions of the Legislature in re-
spect of the hours and mode of working under the
Factory Acts. The circumstances which led him to
do so, he said, were very simple, and he would be
brief in stating them. In 1847 a Bill for regu-
lating the time of labour in factories was introduced.
By the Act of 1845 it was enacted that labour in factories
should be confined between the hours of half-Fast five
in the morning and eight in the evening—a period of
fifteen hours; but by a clause it was provided that the
labour of all young persons should be calculated
from the time when they first commenced in the
morning, and that none should work for more than
ten hours. The result was, that under the interpretation
of that Act, the system of relays and shifts were alto-
gether impossible. After the passing of the Act of
1847, it was discovered that the section limiting
the labour of young persons was not so stringent
as to entirely exclude the system of relays.
Great discontent was consequently produced among
factory operatives, cross and contradictory decisions
were given by magistrates on the clause, and no one
knew exactly what the clause was. To prevent further
litigation, a case was referred to the Court of Exchequer
for its decision, and the result was, a decision ad-
verse to the interpretation put upon the Act by
the factory inspectors ; and Mr. Baron Parke
declared that the words of the Act were not
sufficiently strong to carry into effect what the Court
strongly suspected was the intention of the Legislature.
—(Hear, hear.) Believing himself that the object o tL e
Legislature in passing the Act was to interdict
shifts and relays, he now asked for leave to bring
in a Bill to more effectively carry out that object.
Mr. Baron Parke gave it as his opinion that the in-
tention of the Legislature was that relays and shifts
should not be allowed, but the words of the Act were not
sufficiently stringent to prohibit them. But that was
not all, for Mr. Inspector Horner, in his report of
own knowledge
statedledlgBe49,thatita
that atthe
framers of the Bill of 1844, that the
working by shifts, as had been practised in 1833, should
be prohibited. In 1844 the inspectors were citagcl pon
e intention
coff the