The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-26 00:00:00

RAILWAY.

Mr. LAWSON moved the second reading of this
Bill.
Mr. BECKETT DENNISON having moved, as
an amendment, that it be read again that day six
months,
The Hon. Mr. CAVENDISH seconded the motion.

Mr. FERRAND supported the original motion,
because he thought such a line would be of much
benefit and convenience to the inhabitants of the lo-
cality.
Dr. BOWRING thought it would be well if the
Bill were now to be read a second time, in order that
the House might have an opportunity of considering
it in Committee.

Mr. JAMES denounced the whole matter as a
job, and trusted the House would reject the Bill.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, when
the numbers were—
For the second reading 4B
For the amendment
Majority in favour of the second reading —7
The Bill was then read a second time.
SEVERN NAVIGATION BILL.

On the motion of General LYGON, the Severn
Navigation Bill was read a third time and passed.
On the motion of Mr. AINSWORTH, the Bolton
and Preston Railway Bill was read a second time.
UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE.
Lord DUNCAN presented a petition from Bath,
signed by 1,400 persons, in favour of universal suf-
frage.
Captain ROUS presented a petition from the
churchwardens and other inhabitants of St. James's
parish, against the contemplated amendments in the
Poor-law Act.

Mr. STRUTT presented a petition from the Dis-
senters of Derby, praying that the chaplains of union
workhouses might not be paid out of the rates, and
that nonconformists might be at liberty to appoint
their own chaplains in workhouses.
Sir J. Y. BULLER presented a petition from
workmen employed in the silk throwing business,
praying that manufactures in silk might not be sub-
jected to the operation of the Factories Bill.
Mr. O'CONNELL presented several petitions from
places in Ireland, praying for (as we understood) the
repeal of the legislative union.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from the Scottish
Central Board, for securing. the rights of professors,
praying that all the restrictions on the professors of
the Scottish Universities might be removed.
Colonel RUSHBROOKE presented a petition from
Bury St. Edmunds, and twenty-six parishes in Suf-
folk, in favour of the protection of agriculture.
NOTICES OF MOTION—GWALIOR.
Mr. MACAULAY gave notice that he should,
soon after Easter, submit to the House resolutions
touching the late transactions in the State of Gwilior.
The Right Hon. Gentleman said he gave the notice
thus early in order that her Majesty's Ministers
might, if they thought it desirable, lay on the table
before that time any documents which might appear
to them likely to elucidate the subject. It was not
his own intention to move for any such documents, as
he conceived that he had already, from authentic
sources, the means of judging of the transactions
which had occurred. _

On the motion of Mr. WYSE, the petition from
the members of the Repeal Association, praying in-
quiry into the late State prosecutions in Ireland, was
ordered to be printed with the Votes.
Dr. BOWRING gave notice of his intention to
put a question to the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir J.
Graham), whether it was his intention to propose,
during the present session, any measure for the re-
dress of Welsh grievances ?
Mr. HUME gave notice that, before the House
went into Committee on the Commons Inclosure Bill,
he should move that the Bill be read that day six
months ; also, that on going into Committee on the
Coroners' Bill, he would move to continue the charge
at 9d. per mile as before.
POOR-LAW AMENDMENT ACT.

Mr. FERR AND, seeing the Right Hon. Baronet,
the Secretary for the Home Department, in his place,
begged leave to ask whether it was the intention of
the Right Hon. Gentleman to proceed that evening
with the Committee on the Poor-law Amendment
Act, or not ?
Sir J. GRAHAM said that the Committee stood
upon the Orders of the Day for that evening, but it
was his intention to move that the order should be
postponed till after Easter.
SLAVE TRADE.

Sir R. PEEL, seeing the Noble Lord, the Member
for Tiverton, in his place, begged to ask him whe-
ther he intended to bring on his motion on that sub-
ject on Thursday next?
Lord PALMEItSTON said, if he could not get
precedence on an early day after Easter, he would
bring it on on the day for which it was fixed.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.

Sir R. PEEL gave notice that, on Wednesday
week, he should move that the House, at its rising
do adjourn for the usual period, till Monday week
following, for the Easter holidays.
Lord J. MANNERS asked at what period after
Easter the Government would proceed with the Poor-
law Bill.

Sir J. GRAHAM said he would, after Easter, give
notice of the day.
FACTORIES BILL.

Sir J. GRAHAM in moving the Order of the
Day for going into Committee on the Factories Bill,
said—lt now becomes my duty to refer to the Order
of the Day respecting the Factories Bill. In moving
that Order of the Day, I shall, under the present
circumstances, trespass on the indulgence of the
House for a short time. In the observations
which I feel it is my duty to address
to the House, I beg leave most emphatically, on the
part of myself and my colleagues, to express that de-
ference which, as a constitutional principle, we owe
to the decision of this representative assembly. That
deference I beg to express for the decision of the House
of Commons, on the part of the servants of the Crown.
I only know one duty which is on their part paramount
to it; it is this —that no Minister of the Crown, even
in obedience to the declared wish of the House of
Commons, should make himself responsible for any
act, or adopt any policy which in his conscience and
sober judgment, and after mature deliberation, he be-
lieves to be inconsistent with the well-being and
prosperity of the country.—(Cheers.) I know no
other limit than this to the deference due to the
decision of this House, but that limit must
be religiously adhered to.—(Hear, hear.) Now, in
the interval that has passed since we last met and
discussed this question, I and my colleagues have
maturely deliberated on the position in which this
question is placed. It is right that I should shortly
recal the recollection of the House to what has occurred.
On Monday last, in concert with me, the Noble Lord,
the Member for Dorsetshire, took a discussion in an
early stage of the Bill, the interpretation clause,
on which he distinctly raised the question,
whether the hours of labour of young persons and
women should be restricted to ten hours or twelve ?
This was virtually the question submitted to the de-
cision of the House. I, on the part of the Govern-
ment, stated the importance of maintaining the exist-
ing law, which imposed no restriction beyond twelve
hours. The Noble Lord, with perfect consistency,
and in accordance with the course which he has pur-
sued for the last twelve years, raised the question that
ten hours should be substituted for twelve. The
division on that occasion, in the first instance,
was on the question which had been virtually
raised if twelve hours should be retained.
The Noble Lord proceeded to a division
and carried his point, which was, that instead of
twelve hours, the time of labour should be restricted
to ten hours, by a majority of eight. Unwilling that
any surprise should take place, I immediately gave
notice, on the part of the Government, of our inten-
tion again to appeal to the Committee on this impor-
tant matter, on the Bth clause being proposed, when
the matter would come in a more substantive
form before them. That question was deli-
berated on on Friday last. I proposed that
twelve hours should be the limit on that occasion, and
her Majesty's Government were defeated by a ma-
jority of three. My Noble Friend then proposed
that the blank should be filled up with the words
" ten hours." Her Majesty's Government resisted
that proposition, and succeeded by a majority of eight.
The effect of these various divisions, as the Bill now
stands; has been to involve the measure in inextricable
confusion. It has been recorded in the interpretation
clause as the opinion of this House that ten hours
should be the limit of the labour of young persons—
Mr. HINDLEY—Ten hours and a half.—(Loud
cries of " Order" from all parts of the House.)
Sir J. GRAHAM—I trust the Hon. Gentleman
will let me proceed without interruption—(Cheers)—
if I mistake anything he will have an opportunity
when I sit down of rising to correct me, but I hope he
will permit me to proceed with my statement without
interruption—(Cheers)—I stated that the effect of the
amendment on the interpretation clause is virtually
aayndththee whole
proposition was more
Com-
mittee negatived the resolution which they had to record the opinion of a Committee of this House
that ten hours should be the limit of the period of
labour for young persons. On
ba
OdenFteildd,
for-
merly affirmed. These are circumstances which demand,
and which have received, the most attentive considera-
tion, of myself and of my colleagues. In a matter of this
kind it is of the utmost importance that we should