The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-24 00:00:00

FACTORIES BILL.

Lord HATHERTON presented a petition, signed by
the heads of eight firms in the iron trade, in Stafford-
shire, in which upwards of 5,000 men were employed,
praying that no limitation in the hours of labour should
be enacted by their Lordships, but that the work people
might be allowed to exercise their own discretion. He
concurred in the prayer of the petition.
Lord BROUGHAM, after a few remarks upon the
truck system, again deprecated any restriction of the
hours of labour ; for, he said, if legislative interference
was necessary, he should rather exert it against the ca-
pital of the large manufacturer than against the labour
of the artisan.

Lord BROWNLOW thought it would be much better
if they were to defer any discussion upon the subject of
the Factories Bill until it came regularly before their
Lordships.
The Bishop of LONDON presented several petitions
from Presbyterian ministers and congregations in the
north of Ireland, in connection with the General As-
sembly, against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a number of
petitions from places in the county of Ross, against any
alteration in the corn-laws.
BHURTPORE.

The Marquis of NORMANBY, after presenting a
petition from a Presbyterian congregation in the north
of Ireland in favour of the Dissenters' Chapels Bill, gave
notice, that on Monday he should ask the Noble Lord at
the head of the Board of Control if any further extracts
or communications had been received from the Gover-
nor-General of India respecting the treaty of Bhurtpore.
THE IRISH POOR-LAW.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE wished to ask the
Noble Duke opposite whether it was the intention of her
Majesty's Government to propose any alteration in the
Irish Poor•law Act ?

The Duke of WELLINGTON, who spoke very indis-
tinctly, said a report had been received from the Com-
missioners appointed to inquire into this subject, and
that, after consideration, it had been sent back to them
to make certain emendations. The report would soon
be laid upon the table of their Lordships' House, and
until such information was before them he thought it
would be better to defer framing any legislative measure.
If they thought it would be better to appoint a Com-
mission, he, for one, had no objection to such a course.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE, from what had
fallen from the Noble Duke, supposed that there was
no intention to make any alteration.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said, what he stated
was that ho thought it best to defer any measure until
they should have hag time to consider the report.
The Marquis of NORMANBY said he wished to call
the attention of their Lordships to one point, which, in
the present state of Ireland was one of vast importance.
He alluded to the manner in which the juries empannelled
at the last assizes of the county Monaghan had been con-
stituted in the Queen v. Hanlon, and others. In
that part of Ireland this matter had excited
the greatest dissatisfaction, because a feeling
prevailed there that many of the jurors had
been struck off because they were Roman Catholics,
and certainly he thought that there were certain circum-
stances which were calculated to excite those suspicions.
Many of the jurors whose names had been struck off the
panel were most respectable, and not the slightest impu-
tation could be cast upon their character which justified
their names in being removed.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE said he held in his hand a
letter from the Crown solicitor, in which this matter was
fully explained, and which completely proved that no
man was removed on account of his politics or religion,
but the fact was, that all those names which had been
struck off the panel were either relations, near neigh-
bours of the traverser., or were in some way
or another unfitted for acting as jurors. The
first name which had be©n set aside by the
Crown solicitor was the son of a person whose
father had been tried at Armagh for Ribbonisin
—the very crime of which the traversers were accused ;
another was a near relation of one of the prisoners, and
a third was a neighbour of another.
Lord CAMPBELL gave the Government credit for
every good intention, but still he was not at all satisfied
with the explanation rendered by the Noble Lord the
President of the Council. He thought the slightest
suspicion of partiality, on account of religion, should not
be allowed to remain upon the public mind.
After a few words from the Earl of Wicklow, Lord
Wharncliffe, and the Marquis of Clanricarde, the House
adjourned at Seven o'Clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 23.
Th. SPEAXER took the chair at the usual hour.
NEW MEMBER.

Mr. T. BARING took the oaths and his seat for
Huntingdon.
COLCHESTER AND HARWICH RAILWAY

BILL.

Mr. C. ROUND moved, " That it be an instruction
to the Committee on the Colchester and Harwich Rail-
way Bill (No. 2) and the Harwich Railway and Pier
Bill, that it be at liberty to deem the line of railway
from Colchester to Harwich, projected by Mr. Hosking
(as mentioned in the petition of Sir Henry Webb, Bart.,
and William Adams Smith, Esq., presented to the House
on the 19th day of this instant April), a competing line
in contemplation, and to hear the said petitioners, as
prayed by their petition, in support thereof."
Sir A. L. HAY thought that, as the petitioners prayed
to be heard in support of their petition, it would be only
just to them to grant their request.
After a few words from Lord G. Somerset, Mr. Beres-
ford, and Mr. Smith,
Sir GEO. STRICKLAND thought that the Standing
Orders on the subject of railways were much too
stringent. Parties were now enabled to get up a railway
line without any due notice, and so suddenly were those
projects brought before the House that they had no op-
portunity of fairly considering the respective interests of
the several parties. Thinking it to be the duty of Par-
liament to protect tho public against those wild schemes,
he should be glad to see those rules in some degree
modifiKl.

Mr. JERVIS supported the motion.
Sir GEORGE SMYTH said that he did not think

the Committee was the proper tribunal to investigate
the claims of competing lines. He would oppose the
motion.

The House then divided, when the numbers were—
For the motion
Against it • 9B
➢lajority against the motion —7l
Mr. MACKINNON presented a petition against the
Leeds and Bradford Railway.
Col. WOOD presented a petition from a parish in
Cardiganshire, praying that if the County Courts Bill
should pass into a law, the judges to be appointed under
it should be gentlemen well versed in the Welsh lan-
guage.—(Laughter.)

gr. BATES'ON presented a petition praying that all
marriages celebrated by Presbyterian ministers in Ire-
land might be at once legalised.
Mr. ROSS presented a petition from Belfast praying
for a measure to legalise Presbyterian mixed marriages;
also, a petition from the same place praying for a reduc-
tion of the duties on raw cotton.
Mr. WYNN ELLIS presented a petition against the
County Courts Bill, praying that it might not pass into
a law.

Captain PEOBELL prosamad s petitint from the