The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-10 00:00:00

'SUGAR DUTIES.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that, in answer to a question from the Noble Lord op-,
posite, on a preceding day, he begged to state that on
looking at the state of public business, the 24th instant
would be the day on which the Sugar Duties Bill
would be brought before the House.
Mr. ELLIS inquired whether it was intended to make
any difference in the duties on raw, arid on clayed or
partially refined sugar, imported from the, British co-

lonies.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he
must give the non. Gentleman the same answer that he
had already given to other similar inquiries on the sub-
ject—that it was better to reserve any question of detail
till the whole subject was before the House.
PRISONS' (SCOTLAND) BILL.

On the motion that the Order of the Day for the third
reading of the Factories Bill be read,
Mr. HUMe: said that the Priszais' (Scotland) Bill
stood on the paper for this evening; but as it was im-
possible that it could come on that evening he wished
to suggest that it be referred to a Committee upstairs.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he would postpone the Bill till
Monday, and he would then state the course to be taken
respecting it.
IRISH REGISTRATION BILL.

Mr. SHEIL asked the Right Hon. the Secretary of
State for the ,Home Department whether he intended to
bring on the Irish Registration Bill, or
...whether it was
abandoned or not ?

GRAHAM said the Bill was not abandoned,
and that he would move its second reading on an early
day, but that the day was not yet fixed.—(Laughter.)

FACTORIES BILL.

The Order of the Day for the third reading of this
Bill was then read.
Mr. M. PHILIPS presented a petition from Staley-
bridge (as we understood) against a Ten Hours' Bill,
and on the motion of the Hon. Member the petition was
read at length by the clerk at the table.
Lord HOWICK presented a petition from the in-
habitants of:: Dewsbury, praying that ten hours be the
time of labour or five days of the week and eight hours
on the other. He did not move that the petition be read
at the table.—(Laughter.)
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition, signed by
6,020 inhabitants of the borough of Stockport, in favour of
a Ten Hours' Bill.
On the question that the Bill be read a third time,
Lord ASHLEY rose. He said, after the three dis-
tinct declarations that had- been made by the House, he
need not make any further attempt, by argument or per-
suasion, to influence the feeling and understanding of
the House. It had, by three distinct declarations, de-
cided actually in three cases, that the period of labour
should not amount to twelve hours, and in two cases
virtually that the period of labour should not exceed ten
hours. On those decisions the world at large expected
that a middle term would have been taken, but her Ma-
jesty's Ministers had refused to consent to that term.
They had invited a revival of the debate, by calling on
the House to reverse these decisions, and therefore they
who stood by the whole of these decisions, and who
protested against this novel and somewhat questionable
course, were not to be charged with wearying the atten-
tion of the House, or wasting its valuable time, if they
did endeavour to urge every argument and move every
consideration that the countervail this proaigious exer-
cise of ministerial influence and official authority. With
respect to the moral and physical condition
'of the people, one way or other, the minds of all were
made up; it was even admitted by many of their antnonists
that if a reduction of the hours of labour could be effected
without injury to the workman or the master manufac-
turer, it would be desirable to effect it. But they said a
danger would arise to the workmens' interests, and he,
who proposed the plan, was actually charged with
being more inhuman than those who resisted it.
But he wished to reject altogether the use of such epi-
thets, and he would not in any way retort the imputa-
tion cast upon him of malignity and of cant.—(Hear.)
In the whole of those debates there was not one
taing that he regretted ; he did most deeply regret
that he should have been charged with calumniating
the whole body of master manufacturers.—(Hear, hear.)
He totally disclaimed that charge.—(Hear, hear.) He
should be ashamed of himselt if he presumed, either
there or elsewhere, to use such language of a class
of men who could boast of as many munificent
and worthy individuals, and could be pre-
sented by any class which had ever supported
or adorned the institutions of this country.—(Cheers.)
Neither because he addressed himself to a particular
evil, was he to be considered as an enemy to the fac-
tory system. He firmly believed—for he had labori-

ously examined many of the mills—that if they re-
moved some of the imperfections of factories they
would become a blessing, if not absolutely, certainly
.and relatively to the labourin; classes..—(Hear, hear.)
Now, when he first introduced this question, he did not
touch upon the commercial article, because he did not
consider it necessary in the view which he took of
the question, nor did he consider, it necessary now.
But he owed it to those whose interests
he represented, to show that he had not left any part of
the question unconsidered; that he had not rushed, like
an enthusiast, into this career, not caring what conse-
quences might ensue from the attainment of this
end. He said at that time, what he now said,
that which was morally wrong could not be politically
right ; he had then, and he had still, the deepest
conviction that that which was morally right could not
be politically wrong. All that he had read, all the con-
sideration which he had been able to give to the subject,
all the intercourse which he had had with persons who,
from their practical experience, were the best able
to' instruct him, confirmed him in this conclu-
sion. And now he must entreat of the House
with very much respect, and with very much earnestness,
that they would be good enough to give him thetr atten-
tion while he went through a statement which was at all
times dry, and which would he feared be much drier when
coming from him, and whichwas moreover somewhat trite.
Now, after much inquiry he could discover no more
than from leading arguments against this measure, and
those arguments were comprised in the petition from
Manchester, which had been laid on the table of the House.
Those four arguments were that the passing of the Ten
Hours' Bill would cause additional employment—that
there would be in the same proportion a reduction in
the value of the fixed capital employed in trade ; that
there would be a great diminution of wages to.
the great injury of the workmen ; and lastly, tha
there would be a rise in prices, and con-equent danger •
from foreign competition. Now, upon these four
points the commercial argument rested. With re-
spect to the first, he would observe that hitherto
it had been urged that the reduction of the hours
of labour by one-sixth would involve a reduction
in the same proportion of the goods manufactnred.
Was the case so ? Was the reduction in the amount of
produce in -proportion to the reduction in the amount of
the hours of labour ?—(Hear, hear.) He could produce
evidence to disprove that position.—(Hear, hear.) In
the first place he would read an extract from a letter
written 'to him by a gentleman who employed 1,200
hands in his mills. (The Noble Lord here read an extract
from the letter alluded to, in which the writer stated that
a-reduction in the hours of labours to ten hours would only
cause a decrease of 1-12th in the amount of production.
as the increased energy of the work would make up the
difference in this the writer stated to be the result of his
own experience.) Another rnillowner in a very exten-
sive way of business had stated to him that the mill-
owners would lose very little by the reduction of
the hours of labour to ten hours.—(Hear, hear.)
k LEFT SPEAKING.)

EGLINTON PARE MEETING.—The races at Bog-
side commenced to-day under the most favourable
circumstances. The gay company, with whom the
castle of the noble patron of the sports has been
filled for the last few days were early on the
ground ; and the crowd was much greater than
usual on the first day of the meeting. Upwards of
fifty horses have arrived, as competitors for the
various prizes ; and though eight of the races are
not yet closed, there were, last night, not less than
ninety-seven entries, so that unprecedented running
may be expected. The steeple chases, on Friday, will,
as usual, be of absorbing interest. Lord Eglinton,
the Marquis of Waterford, Lord Glenlyon, Lord
Drumlanrig, Sir William Scott, A. Moore, Esq.,
John Campbell, Esq., J. 0. Fairlie, Esq., and other
crack riders, take part in the competition. The
course is in capital order ; somewhat too hard, perhaps,
in consequence of the continued dry weather, 'though the
shower of last night moistened it a little.—Ayr Observer
of Tuesday.
FIRE AT THE LIVERPOOL THEATRE ROYAL.—
While the World of Dreams was being performed at the
Theatre Royal last night (Monday), part of the light-
coloured hangings used in the piece, and which were sus-
pended contiguous to one of the side lights, accidentally
caught fire, and burned with great rapidity. The audience,
supposing the bkze to have been necessary to give due effect
to the representation, and not any means the result of
accident, fortunately sat still, and manifested little, if any,
symptoms of alarm ; and the fire having been speedily ex-
tinguished, the performances proceeded as if nothing had
occurred.—Manchester Guardian. _ _

At the late battue among the gaming►rhouses, se-
veral sprigs of nobility were captured, and are now in
durance vile ; two or three sporting characters were also
secured.

During the sojourn of her Majesty in the Isle- of
Wight, Sir Robert Peel will occupy the seat of Hughes
Hughes, Esq., at Ryde.
Mr. Dean, Chairman of the Customs, had an inter-
view with the Chancelloi of the Exchequer yesterday.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, May 9.
DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE moved the third reading of
the Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
The Bishop of EXETER opposed the third reading of
the Bill.

Lord MONTEAGLE contended that the gentleman
who had been so frequently alluded to at dif-
ferent periods by the Right Reverend Prelate—namely,
the Reverend Mr. }links—had been a person who
was a minister for upwards of thirty years, having
been ordained in 1790, and during that time had
merited the highest respect, and although the gentle-
man still continued attached to his original opinions, yet
his two sons were now clergymen of the Established
Church.

The Bishop of EXETER said that in the year
1790 the ministers of . the Presbytery of Munster
refused to ordain him, and he was compelled to apply
to•his brethren in Dublin to gain his ordination.
The Earl of WINCHILSEA wished to record his
decided hostility to. this •measure, and he could assure
their Lordships that nothing but a conscientious con-
viction that this measure was not founded in justice,. but
was at direct variance, both in a religious and civil point
of view, to the interests of the country induced him to do
so: Ho contended that the great body of these Dissenting
meeting-hous►s were originally intended to be used for
the observance of religious worship by Trinitarian Dis-
senters. The ground upon which he founded this
opinion was, that the endowments took place long before
Socinianism, or Unitarianism, had a legal existence in
this count►'y. It was with deep regret that he felt him-
self compelled on that occasion to differ in opinion from
the ' Noble and Learned Lord on the woolsack ; but he
held that Unitarians and Sociniatis were not to be con-
sidered true Christians, for whomsoever denied the
divinity of Christ denied both the Father and the Son,
and, therefore, such persons could not be looked upon as
Christians.

Earl FITZWILLIADI said he wished to express his
gratitude to the Right Rev. Prelate for what he had
done on that occasion. He also wished to express his
gratitude to the Noble and Learned Lard on the wool-
sack for having brought this Bill before Porliament, in-
asmuch as thereby he had done a great public service.
He felt gratitude to the Right Rev. Ft-elate (Exeter) for
his having taken upon himself the office of chatechist.
He could not understand that the usage of the congre •
gation was to be interpreted as the doctrine of the
preacher. He thought that their Lordships would do
well to leave to the congregations the power of disposing
of their property according to their own wishes and their
own consciences. He believed that all that posterity
would ever know of the Bill would be that the !louse of
Lords had agreed to a Bill of which the object was to
enable persons of particular religious opinions to endow
chapels for the performance of their own worship. Such
a Bill would be no interference with property—it would
be no violation of God's law. It would leave the reli-
gious part of the people in the possession of their right
to worship as they pleased.
®Lord KENYON, as a Christian, thought it was his
duty to oppose the Bill, and he-would take the opinion
of the House. _ _

Lord MINTO defended the Unitarian body from the
aspersions which had been cast upon it by the other
side, and especially by the bench of Bishops.
The Bishop of EXETER denied that he had ever
said anything to justify the attacks which had been
made upon him. In the remarks which he had made
upon the conduct of Dr. Hincks he never intended to as-
perse the character of the present Dr. Hincks.
Lord MOUNTCASHEL opposed the Bill as one of
spoliation.
After some observations from Lord TEYNIIAM, the
House divided, when there appeared—
For the third reading of the Bill
Against it
Majority for the third reading
The Duke of RICHMOND postponed his noiice with
respect to Wool till to-morrow (this day).
POACHING BILL.

The Earl of STRADBROJiE moved the second read-
ing of this Bill.
The Duke of RICHMOND said that there ought to
be some delay befoie the Bill was read a second time.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
be committed to-morrow (this day).
The other Bills on the table were forwarded a stage,
and the House adjourned at Half-past Seven o'Clock till
to-morrow (this day).

HOUSE OF COMMONS', May 9.
THE LORD-LIEUTENANTCY OF IRELAND.
Captain BERN AL seconded the motion. The House
could not but remember that in a recent debate, Ireland
was described as a country with a starving popu-
lation, an absentee aristocracy, an alien Church,
and the • weakest Executhe in the whole
world—but he believed he should be able to convince
the House that it was the most mischievous as
well as the weakest. By a sort of fiction,
Ireland was called an integral portion of the empire,
but was governed in all respects like a colony, the
Executive being quite overrul.ed by the Cabinet
in London. In fact the policy of Pitt had never been
completed, and the union had never been perfected.
By means of steam and railroads Dublin was now
brought nearer to London than Edinburgh, yet at
Dublin there was a quasi-King, a Court, and a Privy
Council—all the outward and visible signs of a different
kingdom, without the inward and spiritual grace of a
separate Parliament. Then look at the appointment of
the Lord-Lieutenant. He was always chosen from party
motives. When a Whig nobleman was appointed, and
showed any favour to the Catholics, the Tories said the
peace of the country was in danger; when a Tory noble-
man was nominated, the Orange Tories were in ecstacies.
The office of Lord-Lieutenant was the cause of violent
party spirit being carried into private society; and the
Lord. Lieutenant was merely regarded as the bead