The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-04 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, June 3.
Their Lordships met at Five o'clock.
The Earl of CAWDOR presented a petition against
the union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.
The Duke of BUCCLEUCH presented a petition
praying for the legalisation of Presbyterian marriages.
Messengers from the Commons brought up several
Bills.
The Marquis of NORMANBY presented several peti-
tions from different parts of Ireland, praying their Lord-
ships to legalise Presbyterian marriages.

WOOL DUTIES.

Lord KINNAIRD wished to ask the Noble Duke on

the cross bench (the Duke of Richmond), whether, now
that he had got the return relating to the wool duty,
and considering a late appointment which had been
made in the Government, he intended to make any
motion on the subject of the duties on wool? He wished
also to move for a return of the imports of salmon since
the alteration in the duty. He moved for this return to
show that the reduction which had taken place in the
produce of the Noble Duke's salmon fisheries in Scot-
land was not owing to the importation which had taken
place under the tariff.
The Duke of RICHMOND expressed his great sur-
prise at the course which the Noble Lord had taken. He
rose to put a question, and in doing so, he indulged in
insinuations against him (the Duke of Richmond). If the
Noble Lord had any charge to make against him, let him
make it like a man. It was contrary to the practice of
that House, and contrary to the practice of society, in
which gentlemen were supposed to move, to make such
insinuations as the Noble Lord had indulged in. s What
did the Noble Lord mean by alluding to a recent appoint-
ment, if he did not allude to the appointment
of one of his (the Duke of Richmond's) brothers to the
office of a Lord of the Treasury? Did the Noble Lord
suppose, that because that appointment had been made
he (the Duke of Richmond) was thereby " gagged?"—
(Hear, hear.) He had known nothing of the appoint-
ment of his brother until after it had taken place. His
brother certainly came to him and informed him that the
appointment had, been offered to him, and wished to
have his advice upon it. His answer was, " I think
you had better remain in the command of your re-
giment ; but you are the best judge. I would not
take office under the Government, beeause I cannot
agree with all their measures." His brother, however,
accepted the office. He (the Duke of Richmond) would
remind their Lordships that he had given up his place
as a Cabinet Minister because he could not agree with
his colleagues. He would say nothing now about the
wool duties, as he intended to speak upon the subject on
the third reading of the Wool Duties Bill.
Lord KINNAIRD disclaimed any intention of insi-
nuating that the Noble Duke would be " gagged" by
the appointment of his brother.
After a few words from the Duke of RICHMOND,
the subject dropped.
FACTORIES BILL.

Lord WHARNCLIFi'i-iiTovedih; third reading 01
this Bill.

The Earl of RADNOR did not think that legislation
was required upon the subject of female labour in
factories.

The Duke of SUTHERLAND would not oppose the
Bill. He would, however, have supported a measure
limiting the hours of labour to a smaller number than
twelve hours.

Lord BROUGHAM thought legislation on this sub-
ject did a great deal more harm than it did good
Legislation upon this subject must necessarily be
ignorant legislation, and therefore it must be bad. This
Bill could be nothing else than a Bill to cramp the in-
dustry of the working classes, and to cramp the powers
of the manufacturers. The working classes had already
the.power in their own hands of working as long or as
short as they pleased. He was afraid this Bill would
not be the last, upon the subject ; but he trusted that
the Government would not again lend itself to any fur-
ther attempt to cramp the energies of our manufacturers,
and to curb the industry of the working classes. Should
they do so, they would only be arming foreign manufac-
turers with fresh powers to compete with this counfry.
The Marquis of NORMANBY would give his vote
in favour of this Bill, in the hope that it would lead to
further legislation on the subject. The Noble and
Learned Lord said they were legalising in ignorance
upon this snbject. Why, what did Mr. Baker, the fac-
tory inspectors say upon this matter? He said that the
manufacturers employed women while men were stand-
ing idle. With this fact before their eyes,
could any man for a moment say that they
were legislating in ignorance on this subject ?
Their Lordships must recollect that in the
manufacturing districts human labour was made a por-
tion of a power which never tired. The hours of labour
of the agricultural labourers were limited by the length
of day, but the working classes in the manufacturing
towns worked by a light which was never extinguished.
He was glad to hear that his Noble Friend behind him
(the Duke of Sutherland), entertained a similar opinion
to him upon this Subject ; but had he stood alone he'
would have advanced the strong opinion with respect to
factory labour which he had just expressed to their
Lordships.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE admitted thA a great por-
tion of the wealth of this country from her
manufactures, but he also knew that we had paid a ter-
rible price for that wealth. He was old enough to re-
member, that instead of high mills studding the country
in the West Riding of Yorkshire, every cottager worked-
his own loom by means of his wife and children, and the

wife had sufficient time to attend to her domestic duties.
Now,.however, the large mills were filled with women,
and these women knew absolutely nothing but how to
tie the knots and attend to the machinery in the mills..
This kind of labour was demoralising to these women.
In many mills in the country men were entirely ex-
drank, and
eluded, and the consequence of this was, that the women
heThhuesybands home,
home. Was such
t without any at-
, alai
sseqtt u4ehtiauredes.
odbofaftnhttdhhe husbands ens same
de habitst. wivesob having
a fetchv inagt
allowedlt tiohe etfeo wivesrceehxni
st.
,tempt being made to remedy it ?
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
On the motion of Lord DENMAN, Wilson's Estate'
Bill was ordered to be postponed from to-morrow until
the report of the judges, to whom the Bill had been re-
ferred, had been presented to their Lordships.
NIGHT POACHING BILL.
The Earl of STRADBROKE moved the third reading
of this Bill. .
The Earl, of RADNOR opposed the Bill, on the
ground that the law at present in existence with respect
to poaching was quite strong enough. He
was owing to' the distress
believed that
cocliftuDlNGE denied that the persons who
poachingtry
et hx eEi
stingl continuancep inTtzh ea cA
were in the habit of poaching were driven to the com-
mission of that offence by distress. Those persons were
generally idle and dissolute persons, and men who
passed the principal part of their time in the ale-house.
He must
to
tproteste being put forth that the
majority of
with poaching had been
driven
distressed circumstances
thathprsagainsto offencensb charged
itsth e
under which they were labouring.
Lord BROUGHAM complained of the slovenly
manner in which the Bill had been drawn up, inasmuch as
the preamble differed from the enacting parts of the Bill.
Lord CAMPBELL supported the Bill, which was to
meet cases of persons being found in a public road with
instruments for, and in the act of destroying game.
The LORD CHANCELLOR thought the Bill was
very defective in its construction, and contended that if
passed in its then state, it would be inoperative.
Lord BROUGHAM suggested that the further con-
sideration 'of the Bill had better be postponed for a
few days.
The Earl of STRADBROKE then postponed the Bill
till Monday next.

CUSTOMS BILL.
The Earl of DALHOUSIE moved the third reading
of this Bill.

The Duke of RICHMOND objected to the abolition
of the duty on the article of wool, and contended that
it would have the effect of ruining many of the flock-
masters of the country. The object, it was stated,
of the reduction of the wool duty was to
benefit. the manufacturing interest of the country.
Now, if this were the case, the foreigner would,'
of course, in self defence, increase the duty on our ma-
nufactures. He believed, and in this opinion he was
borne out by the short-wool growers of the country,
that this measure was inexpedient and ought not to
pass. He opposed the measure because he believed it to
be a step in the road to free trade, and he believed that
if free-trade principles were to be adopted by the Go-
vernment, it would ultimately lead; to the ruin of
this country.. Ite also objected to the reduction in the
duty on vinegar as being much too large. At present
the duty on vinegar was IS guineas a ton, and it was
proposed to reduce it to four guineas per ton.- He did
not think that was just to the vinegar manufacturer in
this.conntry: Why did not the Government now try
their hands at taking off some of the burdens on agri-
'Culture ? He thought it'vva' but fair' o turn and turn
about. He could not give the measure his support.
Lord WHARICCLIPFE; defended the measure, "und
contended that its effect would be to increase the demand
forhome, grown wool.
Lord BEAUMONT defended the measure.

The Earl of RADNOR expressed his regret that the
reduction in the duty on glass had not extended further.
The,Earl of DALHOUSIE replied; and
The Bill was rend a third time and passed.
The Stamp Duties Bill was read a second time, and
their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUS.E OF COMMONS, June 3.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at a few minutes to Four.

NEW MEMBER.
Mr. ENTWISLE was introduced by Mr. Blackburn
and Mr. W. Patten, and took the oaths and his scat for
South Lancashire.
The further consideration of the Reports on the Ash-
ton and Staleybridge Railway Bills was postponed till
to-morrow (this day.
The Slammannan Junction Railway Bill was read a
third time and passed.
The Eastern Counties (Newport Deviations) Bill was
read a third time and pa.ssed.
The Report upon the Wick Tree Roads Bill was
brought up and received; as was also the Report upon
Edward's Estate Bill.

EDUCATION IN IRELAND.
' Mr. HAMILTON presented a petitiou from Bandon,
signed by. Lord .Bandon on: behalf of the meeting at
which it was agreed to, against the present system of
National Education in Ireland. The Hon. Member pre-
sented petitioai from Carlow and other places to the
same effect.

"DISSENTERS' 'CHAPELS BILL.
Mr. WORGAN'piesented several petitions,pgainst the
`th-e-ireligtialtons of'the petitions were ligkligard
in the gallery.
Lord BARRINGTON presented petitions in favour
of the Bill.—(Hear, hear.)
Captain PECHELL presented petitions from New