The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-23 00:00:00

„„,,,,,.
(\q• trtitiit IA --.- Am
. -
,

LONDON, SATURDAY, MARCH 23, 1844.

In the House of Lords the Royal Assent was given
to the Three-and-a-Half per Cent. Annuities Reduc-
tion Bills. No other business was transacted, and
the House adjourned at an early hour.
In the Commons Mr. O'CorrNELL presented several
petitions from Ireland, complaining of the malad-
ministration of justice in that country, and praying
for a repeal of the union.
In answer to a question from Dr. BOWRING, Sir
ROBERT PEEL said, according to accounts received
from British authorities in China, many sailors and
passengers had been put to death on the Island of
Formosa. Sir H. POTTINGER had made a repre-
sentation to the Court of Pekin on this subject, and
the EMPEROR had exhibited as great a desire to do
justice as had ever been exhibited by a civilised State.
He had disgraced all the parties concerned, and had
also sent them to be tried, in order that condign
punishment might be inflicted on them for such a
breach of national intercourse. This, he thought,
was all that could be required.
Several petitions were presented against the amend-
ment in the Factories Bill made by Lord ASHLEY.
A brief discussion took place between Colonel
Fox, Sir J. GRAHAM, and Lord HENNIKER, relative
to the incendiary fires in Suffolk, and it was dis-
tressing to learn from all the speakers that the crime
of arson in that county is committed every day and
bight, and not one of the incendiaries had been dis-
covered. Lord HENNIKER, who represents the county,
acid it was matter of wonder when there were no fires
in that district.
In answer to a question from Mr. GILL relative to
the detention of Capt. BREWSTER, of the 76th Regi-
ment, under arrest for eight months, without any
charge being made against him, Sir H. HARDINGE
said Captain BREWSTER had violated military disci-
pline by accepting a challenge from a young and in •
Sliperienced officer. He objected to produce any
papers on the subject, but at the same time stated that,
with this exception, there was no imputation against
that officer.

The House then went into Committee on the Fac-
tories Bill, and on the 2d clause being read, Lord
Ammer said he would postpone the amendment of
which he bad given notice on this clause, and take
the opinion of the Committee on the Bth clause;
Mr. EGERTON moved that the persons employed in
silk manufactories should be exempted from the ope-
ration of the Bill.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM objected to the amendment,
coal pointed out the modification which he intended in
retkenca to that portion of the manufacturing trade of
the country.
Mr. LABOUCHERE and Mr. GRIMSDITCH COB..
curred in the measures proposed by Sir JAMFS
GRAHAM, and believed they would be satisfactory.
The first seven clauses having been agreed to, Lord
ASHLEY, on the Bth clause being read, moved that
from the Ist of October next until the Ist of October,
1846, the hours of labour for females and children
...shall be eleven. The Noble Lord, in a long speech,
ttjed the necessity and humanity of such a measure,
&d trusted that the Committee would not reverse a

--•---- •
clecish In which had been made on a previous evening.
"Sir JAmEs GRAHAM opposed the amendment, and,
after a leogthened discussion, the Committee divided,
when the amendment was carried by a majority 01
three. A division then took place on the question
that " ten hours" be inserted in the clause instead
of "twelve," which was rejected by a majority of
seven.

The House then resumed, and adjourned at a
Quarter to Two o'Clock.

The discussion on the Factories Bill was resumed
iast• night in the House of Commons. On the Bth
clause'
being proposed, Lord ASHLEY rose to
be
substituted
etedas
an amen
went "that the word ten'
for the wo. "d
' twelve ;' and in the event of this amend-
Inent being oanied, to add a proviso to the effect
that the restriction of the hours of labour to ten in the
day shall only take et"ect on the Ist of October, 1846;
and that from the Ist ot'Oatober next until the Ist of
October, 1846, the hours of labour for females and
young persons shall be elev.e.n." To this just and
humane amendment Sir JAMES* GRAHAM, speaking
the sense of Government, offered tile most strenuous
opposition. "He was so deeply impressed," observed
the Right Hon. Baronet, " with the magnitude of
the interests involved in the principle then under
discussion, that he felt he could not yield one point
,on the present occasion. All was dust in the balance
•to him, compared with the sense of duty which
'controlled him. • He was quite satisfied our manu.
:facturing and commercial prosperity was at stake, and
-with this prosperity ele House might depend that the
•peetce, happiness, and ±:uture Ivelfare of the country
were connected." These.' are ),/)ig words, but they
were evidently put forth for the pu.epose of frighten-
ing Hon. Members into an acquieseekve in the views
of Ministers. Does Sir JAMES GRAHAM. really believe
-that our " commercial prosperity is at stale, 9" because
two poor sorry hours out of the twelve are proposed
to be deducted from the labour of helpless Iv, men and
children ? That our national interests deman dtha' we
turn a deaf ear tothe sacred interests ofhunubvith "4 I )