The Express. — London, England, 1847-03-03 00:00:00

meat ; and on the second, when • bill was brought in by his right boo. friend (Mr. F. Haute), while objecting to the legislative remedy so proposed—and be (Sir G. Grey) did cot mesa to soy the ohjictions then urged wens insufficient —the right h in. baronet added, that whatever might have been the case in the early dap of the secession, now, when all hope of reunion between the Free Church and the Established Church had passed away the continued refusal of the proprietors to grant sites was deeply to be lamented, sad directly oppose-A to the true principles of Christian toleration. (" Hear, and cheers ) He believed that time and the influence of public opinion had produced their effect in in my inst,nors, and that the number of refusa!s was very few at the present moment; he wished he could add that they had altogether ceased in cases where the allegation of gees aneea was well founded; but from the statements which 64 been made in print, and repeated by his hon. friend that evening, and which hitherto remained uncoatradicted, he feared there were still cases in which members of the Free Church (though all hope of reunion must long since have been abandoned, and hundreds and thousands were now ir revo übly attached to that church), were, owing to the will of indi.idual proprietors, debarred from a place in which to wor ship Clod. Under these circumstances, his hon. friend hadcome forward with a proposition, not with a direct logislativercmedy, but for • committee of inquiry to ascertain if the allegation. which WI been made in that house and elsewhere were true, and to overlain the extent of the grievance. It had been stated that there were, in many instances, strong rea sons to justify the refusal of sites. Tha: was a que.tion, too, which the committee might fairly inquire into, and the result, he belived, would be to show that, in the great ma jority of Ms" as in that of Lord Aberdeen and others, proprietor,' examples of toleration had been shown which could not be too highly commended—/ hear, hear), and who, seeitg that permanent secession was inevitable, granted • reedy compliance to the applications for sites. This he believed would be one beneficial result of the proposed in quiry, while some of those who now laboured under the im. putation of having intolerantly refused, might be able to show that the charge was not justifiable. Ile, therefore, for one, was perfectly prepared to accede to the motion. (Hear, hear.) lie • o old txpres. no opinion as to the ulterior legisla tion suggested. He would not consider the question of principle upon which the free church had separated from the establishment, nor whether the points of difference were audicient tar Judie the step they tsok. The secession was a most remarkable event, and one that must enlist our sym pathiee, if it failed to obtain our admission of its necessity. What bad been their conduct since the accession ? (Rear.) It had recently pleased G scl to of the western districts of Scotland with severe destitution and want, and as soon es the extent of that evil was ascertained, the free church pare were the most forward in proffering their assistance; and at the meeting at Edinburgh the members of that church placed the money they had collected amongst their own body into the common relief fend, and they had at this mo ment, in Scotland, two religious bodies who, though they differed bitterly on other matters, acted together in har mony and unison in feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, ant arresting the preemie of famine and disease. (Hear, hear.) Surely, then, this was not • body to which the house would refuse to lend its assistance in removing, what he hoped was, the last cause of bitternews and animosity be tween the two c-mmunious of the Church of Scotland. (Hear, hoar.) He hoped the year would not pass away with out the right Mend of fallow.hip being stretched out from each to the other, and that for the future, while differing on dectrinal pointa, they would be united in the practice of good will and charity towards each other, as well as to their fel. to w-eountrymeugenerally. (Hear, hear.) Sir It. INGLIS thought that some regard should be paid to the feelings of those who did not think it consistent with their duty as members of the established church to promote the worship of the fres church. He had not the honour of being sufficiently acquainted with the Duke of Buceleuch and the other noble persons whose name* had been dragged before the public in connexion with the subject, to spesk of their acts, though he was quite sure they had not been influ enced by other than conscientious motives, but as to Sir J. Riddell, he was convinced that he had at all times evinced the utewst readiness to extend every indulgence to his tenantry consistent with what ho considered to be his duty as • Christian. The few landowners who still refused to grant site., were not much encouraged to change their determination by the conduct of the Free Church party, who, in several cases in which these applications had been succeisful, had built their place of worship directly op posite to, or in such juxta position with the churches of the establishment, as almost to make the mime bells and the demo clock answer for both. (" No.") He had been in formed that this had been done at Cramond, Broughton, Kinross, Libberton, Kirkliston, and Costorphine. Though the proposition was less objectionable than that brought for ward lost year by his right hon. friend (Mr. F. Mauls), still, as he had suffieiltit experience to know that a com mittee was never moved without a foregone conclusion that legislative interference was necessary, he should oppose the motion. _ Sir J. GRAHAM commence' by stating that it had been his painful duty to address the house more than once on this subject, and that he had now but little to add to, and nothing to retract from what be had before stated in refer ence to it. (Hear.) Ile deg ply regritted that the refusal of the applications for sites should have been continued in the few instances alluded to. But this, after all, was as the boa. mernher for Oxford had said, very much a question of oonecienee on the part of the proprietors. Ile differed, how ever, from that hon. baronet in preferring the present motion to that of last year. If say interference was necessary this was not a case requiring previous investigation by a com mittee, but one which should be met by direct legislation. The facts wero not disputed. It was admitted that the pro prietors had in some parts of Scotland from a conscientious sense of duty refused to grant sites for the free church. The boa. mover had certainly treated the subject with gr. at calmness and perspicuity, but he had not brought under their notice any new facts. Reliance was placed upon four cases, those of the Duke of Buccleuch, Sir J. Riddell, Lord Macdonald, and Lord Seafleld, the two latter being the only additional cases cited. On the other hood, the Secretary of State for the Home Department announced, that by the lapse of time, and the influence of public opinion, the refu sals to grant sites had diminished in numbers, and were likely still farther to diminish from the came causes. It was not annouaced by the bon. mover, but had been frankly avowed by the hon. seconder of th e motion, that exposure was his object. In the sentiments so eloquently expressed by the Secretary of State for the Rome Department at the close of hie speech, he (Sir J. Graham) fully concurred. He felt that the present was not a fitting occasion for the discus tion of the subject, when they were in the midst of a great national calamity, and when so severe a dispensation of Providence ought to humble the pride of man. He also coacarral in the eloquent language which he had that morning read as having been ad dressed by Mr. Jones Lloyd to the community of this country, who said that this was an occasion upon which all the angry melons of party ought to be silenced, and when all the bitterness of religious animosity ought to be assuaged. (Hear, hear.) Such being the sentiments of the British public, and he hoped of that house, surely it was net a legitimate object to hold out, the obtaining of facts not being the thing desired, that the exposure of certain in dividuals in the exercise of their conscientious scruples, should sway the decision of the house towards instituting a committee, which so far from having the effect of allaying animosity, would tend in the strongest manner to excite and exasperate it. (Hear, hear.) Upon that ground, if upon no other, be was prepared to resist the motion. The Secre tary of State for the Home Department had told them that the frequency of refusals had diminished. He (Sir J. Gra ham) wished that the exceptions did not exist; but he maintained that that formed no fide ground for an inquiry. The strong objection be expressed to the bill of the hon. member for Perth lost year he still entertained, conceiving it to be a dangerous course of legislation. Indeed he considered that refusals to grant sites for places of worship did not require such legislative interference. lie did not deny that it was competent for the legislature to in terfere if a necessity for doing so existed, but he denied the existence of the necessity. Besides, if they did interfere they must do so upon the principle of general toleration. Their legislation could not be confined to Scotland, or to the free church, it must be extended to religions of every description. (Hear, hear.) Let them, if necessary, bring in a bill with any modification of rules they might think lit, to compel proprietors throughout the United Kingdom to grant sites for the building of places of religious worship, not for the benefit of particular sects but the community at large. (Hear, hear.) Lord G. BENTINCK entirely concurred in every word that had fallen from the right hon. gentleman, but could not help observing that the principle adopted by the hon. mo ver was to make the voluntary principle compulsory, for he called upon them to give to the free church of Scotland a power to take by forms the land of those who differed from that church. This was a dangerous principle, and one which the house ought not to sanction, even by the prelimi nary step of an inquiry. Every hon. gentleman who spoke bad borne his testimony to the moderation with which the hon. mover had introduced the question ; but although ha had shown much svaviter in mode, he (Lord G. Bernina) thought he had evinced also somewhat of the fortiter in re Giving credit to the Duke of Buocleuch for his high and distinguished virtuel,both domestic and public, he nevertheless observed that that noble duke was not tua. willing to indulge in a little persecution of his own. Now, every one who !mew the Duke of Buocleuch, knew that • more generous man did not exist, and that persecution was a feeling altogether remote from his nature. (Hear, hear.) Therefore did he think they might assume that his refusal to grant sites had arisen out of great provocation. Indeed, he (Lord 0. Bentinek) bad been given to understand that nothing could be more violent than the denunciations which had been made against his public conduct and private cha racter by the preachers to whom such refusal had been made. Lord Macdonald had also been men tioned, and yet he had forestalled his entire income, in order to meet the existing calamity, and thereb; attracted the admiration of that house. LOoking• indeed, to the general character of the fo ur gentlemen l ate whose conduct it was proposed to inquire, he thought it might be taken for granted that their refusal of sites arose out of cir cumstances of provocation. He would therefore oppose this motion. If they were to compel landlords to grant sites to the Free Church of Scotland, upon what ground could they refuse the Roman Catholics of Ireland and of this country a similar right of building their churches wherever they might think fit to erect them ? (Hear, hear.) He had bem in formed, too, that in Scotland a desire had been evinced, on the part of the Free Church, to build their places of worship where they were mart likely to be offensive to the members (gibe Established Church. He held property in Scotland, and, as ter es he was individually concerned, he felt moat desirous of mosornoodating both churches with sites ; but the ionostien beim them wog ens to which he moat give a rk lamas thought he could establish upon the quashin albs noble lord and the right hon. gentleman who boa asidossesd the bows, their claim to inquiry. The right boo. geneses mid they had adduced no new feels, while the noble lord made assertion alter assertion, believing them to be true, but every one of which he (Mr. F. Maul.), had undertaken to show, before a committee of that house, were Capable of easy contradictioo. They did not ask for an in quiry into the acts and motives of individuals, but into an Kong grievance affecting nearly one half of the whole corn runnity of an integral portion of the nation. It was al grievance which had been already on three several occasions laid before the house. On each of those occasions the state meats with which it had been introduced were doubted, and he conceived that the time was now come when the hone° was bound to take official cognisance of the facts, which were to be arrived at only by a committee of Military. If the accusations which were mule against ministers by the Free Church be true, let them be proved before that com mittee, as well as the cases of refusals of which they complained. He asked for no exposure in the sense in which the right hon. gentleman the member for Dorsetabire had made use of the term, but for investiga- Goes The four eases cited had been brought forward, not with reference to the individuals hut to the large districts of which they were the sole proprietors, end in which there was therefore no opportunity of getting sites without applying to them. How stood the case with regard to the Isle of Skye ? The famine had been so severe as to drive many to the verge of desperation, and threats were at one time held out that they would use for their suefenanee the sheep oa the moun tainside. The doctrine of obedience to the law was preached, and snecerefully, to 4,000 men, who bad no place of worship but under the canopy of heaven, and who, owing to the infi ence of their clergy, hal abstained under such circumstances from committing one single act of aggression. Were such men to be denied the privilege of an humble place of worship? If the house so decided, it would drive them to despair, nod I possibly to the alternative of not attending peaic worship at all. It was in vain to say that the parish churches have ac commodation for them, since they conscientiously differed. (Nos, no.) He said it advisedly, since they conscientiously differed from the doctrines that were taught in those churches. With regard to the Oleg( d denunciations against the Duke of Buceleuch, he could at once destroy the noble lord's argument oa that head, by stating that the Duke of Bucclench had himself admitted that the information on which he had made that complaint had not been well founded. The right hon. gentleman the member for Dor chester would remedy the grievance by the weight of public opinion and not by "exposure." But how was public opinion to be guided but by a knowledge of facts, and what was a knowledge of facts bee exposure ? No great political change bad ever taken place that was not preceded by inquiry, so as to bring public opinion to bear on it. The right hon. gentleman said that the refusals were rapidlT decreasing. True, they had decreased since he (Mr. F. Maude) had brought the question forward—(hear, hear) — but there still remained thirty cases of refusal, which fully justified a demand for inquiry. He had heard no Scotch man argue against the motion, and he sincerely hoped he should not. . Mr J. WORTLEY opposed the motion. Ho thought it ill-timed and unfortunate—(bear, hear)—and conceived moreover that the government were already in possession of all the information which a committee could develope and were bound to bring forward a legislative measure if they considered the case to require it. He regretted that they should give their consent to the motion, net that he dissented from the principle of toleration, but because he believed time the appeintment of a committee would only create great irritation on a question which was in course of set tlement. and have the effect of delaying instead at facilitating the object they all had in view. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gent. the Secretary at War spoke of one half of the people of Scotland having to complain of this religious grievance. Now the petition of the Genet al Assembly stated that only one-third of the population were affected by it ; that there were 1,100 parishes in the country, 831 congrega tions exercising all the rights of freedom and religious woe ship, 610 churches actually built, and 27 in progress of building. Now according to the right hon. gentleman him self, there were hut 30 cases in which there was any reason for complaint--(bear, hear)--end that wee a diminished number contrasted with last year. Why ? Not because of legislative interference. ; but 'because they had allowed the expression of the public feeling in that house to have had its influence upon the proprietors In Scotland ; and unless they now interfered, he ventured to predict,—indeed, he foresaw —that in the 30 excepted cases sites would eventually be granted. Lord J. RUSSELL.—If I was anxious to address the house before my right hon. friend the member for Perth, and if I take a part favourable to this motion, it is from no partiality for those in whose behalf the motion is made. I am one of those who strongly resisted their dtims to be heard before this house, and was opposed to any legislative decision in their favour before the unfortunate secession which took plane In the Snatch church. I was one of those who could are nothing which should have induced a large body of ministers and of the people to secede from the church. But that secession having taken place, and • large nuns bee of the Teeple hoeing followed their minister,, who abandoned their homes and their means of liveli hood, in order to pursue the dictates of their con ecience, fans no less persuaded that everything should be done by this house to enable them to preach the doctrines which they believe, and to listen to which they are followed by crowds. The right hon. gentleman the member for orchester put the came in so smooth and round a manner, that if nothing had followed In the debate it would almost have concluded the argument. He said that the facts were ascertained ; that there wag nothing about which to inquire ; either we should legislate at once, or abstain altogether, but that no inquiry was necessary. The right hon. gentleman however, had no sooner concluded, than up rose my noble friend the member fer Lynn, and said, with regard to the facts, that he took ter granted this, he assumed that, and he presumed the other, all of which were contradicted by my right hon. friend the member for Perth. My noble friend summed that the ministers were wrong ; he took for granted that they had been violent in their attacks on those who had refused sites, and he presumed that 'they bad so acted as to make it impossible for the proprietors to de otherwise than refuse. All three facts are assumed ; and, in order to know what they really are, it will be but fair that there should be a committee, and to see if the pretences which are put forward for refusal of rites are to be justified. Here is what must be confessed to be a considerable griev ance. (Hear, hear.) We have congregations meeting on the moors and on the mote, exposed to the winds, drenched by the rain, listening to divine worship, without any sheher, reminding us of the times of the Covenantees, when religion was persecuted by law. In other pintoes the people have to leave the mainland, and go in boats to tho ministers who alone can give them religious and spiritual doctrine, and whom alone they can fellow; and these things are justified on the ground of the rights of property. (Hear, hear.) With regard to a legislative remedy, while on the one hand I am unwilling to legislate on a subject so difficult, and one which touches the couecientious opinions of a particular class of men, on the other, if it is proved by facts, and on inquiry, that grievances are suffered,—that it is not in special or peculiar cases in which the charastere of proprietors are attacked, or in which they could not grant sites without creating divisions among their tenantry, that sites are refused,—but that the refusals are mode on religious grounds against a sect of which they disapprove, and that in thirty cases the congregations gill listen to divine service without theater, or under the cover of a roof, I moat say that if, after patient inquiry these facts are established I shall not be indisposed to agree to s legislative remedy. (Hear, hear.) Although we ought not, except in extreme eases, to . agree to a legislative remedy on such questions, yet as there is nothing more sacred than that every one should be allowed to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience, in cases where any obstacle is opposed to it, we should not permit it to remain. I will not touch upon the character of individuals who have been alluded to as having refused to grant sites, with many of whom I am acquainted, and who are possessed of the kindest dispositions and the highest character. But in cases of this kind we well know how far very kind and benevolent per sons will go. Even to-night my hon. frieud the member for the University of Oxford, than whom there can be no kinder or more benevolent man--(hear, hear, hear)—has shown, on the subject of religious liberty, that he does not experience any very strong feeling for others, or appre ciate their sufferings. He very calmly says, in speaking of one of these parishes, that there was the c hurch of the esta blishment for the people to go to. Ile thinks it enough that a church was open, and he does not consider what may be the doctrines and opinions of the men whom he desires to go there. What would he think if, in a &until Catholic town, he asked for a Protestant place of worship, he was told there was a place for him in the Roman Catholic church ? (" Hear, hear," and laughter.) And it was said to him " Don't ask for a place of worship of your own when you and 160 others can go to • Ronan Catholic church, and you will always be well received ? (" Hear, hoar," and laughter.) So little then does the kindest and most benevolent person enter into the feelings of others in religious disputes. Though it may be a dangerous principle for the legislature to appropriate sites for places of religious worship, yet considering that by acts of the legislature we violate the rights of property, when it is a question of health ; or in the case of a railway, or where the beauty of • square or a street is concerned, and when to ornament a town we do not hesitate to say to pro- prietors your house must come down, we will give you only the full value of the site, I think this might be a ease for the interference of the legislature. I am glad to find that in this discussion all who have spoken lamented the refusal to grant these sites. The hon. gentleman who has just sat down, says that in voting against the inquiry he believes he is acting in furtherance of that object. lam glad to see that opinion is general, and I hope that whatever may be our de cision, those who, from a conviction they are right, have hitherto refused these sites, seeing that the general feeling is in favour of those who they must be convinced, also think they are right, will change their opinions; and I hope the members of the free church of Scotland may be allowed to worship God according to their consciences. (Cheers.) Mr. F. SCOTT thought that if he wished to consult the feelings of those proprietors who had refused sites, he should vote for this inquiry. The Duke of Buoclauch and Lord Macdonald would be glad to have an opportunity of stating the reasons for which they refused to ggrraannt the land for the sites, and would be able to show atrflldent cause for with. holding them. Celenel KURE said that although he did not concur in the hopes whisk had been expressed that the result of this begralry would be to produce • practicable result, still as be thought that • can of grievance, owing to the obstruction et** hie church by the refusal of sites had been made out, it ems fit that the house should deal with it, and therefore he sbeeld vote for the motion. The house then divided—For the motion , 89 Against it LAW OF SETTLEMENT. Xt. BANZIB then " 3,6 to bring forward the motions of whisk be had glees neeiso—wis. to call the attention of the Maim le the need et the Select Committee on Settlement and Peer Illemovel, and for a copy of the case submitted by the eaminimioners to the law of fi cers of the crown for = w eeds' with reference to the construction of a clause in the peer Itesseval Aet. He thought it best to bring on the twesendems tessissr. With regard to the report of the cemmit ese as the Pear Reseeral, its substance was contained in one ernteuro—" that it appeared to the committee that the pm- THE EXPRESS, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 3, 1847. mioent difficu!ty arising out of the act of last scesi.m was limited to doubts on the construction of the provisios; e of the Ist section ; but whatever m ight be the extent of the mils attri butable to those doubts, the committee did notthink they were of such urgency ss to r. quire that they should be removed by immediate legislation of a temporary nature." This, bow. ever, was not the uoanimous opinion of the committee. At the commenoement o:the session he (Mr.Bankeshed pointed . . . . . . both to the oat how that bill had worked injtiriously, .0 to to.: poor and to the rate-payer. The part which he considered im portant was that which related to the poor. He had ob toioett a c immittee to inquire into the law of settle ment, and it was moved as an instruction to them that they should direct their attention to the working of that act. He had also endeavoured to direct the delibera tions of the committee to the state, condition, and comforts of the poor. The committee, however, aftLr hearing evidence on that point, resolved that it was expedient to include that bill in the general inquiry rather than to keep it separate, by which course alone he thought they would be able to come to each a conclusion as would enable the house to legislate on the subject this session. He thought it impossible that any act cou.d be possed thia session. He contended that the law as it stood was mischievous in its effects on the poor, and there seemed to ba hut one opinion on the hill, including that of the hon. gentleman the mem her for Dorchester, who, although he differed as to its effects on the poor, admitted it to be injuri ous to the rate-payers. If the committee did not make greater progress before the Easter recess, he should after that propose a measure either to repeal or amend the act of last session. He would not say now which course ke should take, for to-night he believed something would be said on the subject le another place, and it would be convenient that both houses should act in unieon. His feeling, however, was that it was better to repeal the bill, until, in some future session, there was a general amendment of the poor-law. The right hon. gentleman the Secretary for the Home D - partment, or the noble lord at the head of the government, had stated that in this session a measure to amend the poor law would be introduced, and would be submitted to a com mittee. If that was done, he might hope that a measure would pass in the present simian. But as only a small portion of the poor-law was confided to a committee, with out any intimation of the plan, intentions, or wishes of the government, looking to the constitution of that com mittee, the progress they had made, and their diversities of opinion, there appeared to be no chance of carrying any such measure this session. There was a feeling abroad fur doing away with settlement altogether, and having a national rate. This feeling was increasing, and petitions in its favour were being presented. It was a principle which ought not to be adopted without mature deliberation, for it would lead to consequencoi which those who were in favour of it had not considered. It was owing to the act of last 'mien that persons were desirous of doing away with settlement altogether. He thought this would be injurious to the poor. The great differ.nce between the English and Irish poor-law was that in Ireland that syrtem did not prevail; and be hoped the house would pause before they placed England on the same footing in this respect with Ireland. It was because this feeling was gaining ground that he wished this session not to pus without in some degree putting • cheek on it. The cue he had to submit with reference to the oppressive operation of the act as it regarded the poor, he would alm rest upon the evidence of Mr. Colston, who (by the way) had been examined after the committee had considered their re port. Mr. Ouiston stated that be had been appointed an assistant poor-law commissioner in 1831, and that since August last,—that was to say since the parsing of the Poor Removal Act,—he bad the superintendence of the poor-law administration in fifteen or sixteen different counties, in cluding Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Berkshire, War wickshire, Worcestershire, Monmouthshire, part of Glamor ganshire, Dorsetehire, Wiltshire. Devonshire, and Cornwall. This gentleman informed the committee that, from his expe rience of the working of the act, be had no hesitation in saying that it operated most harshly upon that clam of the poor which was most entitled to commiseration, viz., the aged and infirm. He was then asked whether the mere prospect of being removed to the workhouse, instead of receiving non-residen: relief, did not act most injuriously upon the feelings of the poor? His answer was, " Decidedly so," and he added, " the commit. tee must be aware that those who received non-resident relief, before the operation of the act, were for the most part the meet deserving class of the poor—the old, the infirm, end those of good character. I have no hesitation in saying that the universal opinion is, that the act must be altered; and it wan in consequence of that opinion the people are now more quiescent on the subject than they otherwise would be." He was next asked, in what raipect the act had operated differently from what wan suppneed to have been the inten tion of the framers of the act ? Mr. Guidon replied, " I cannot believe it was intended to act harshly and cruelly towards the poor; but it has so acted. This was his case ; and he could conceive no better evidence than that of a gentleman well acquainted with the practical ope ration of the law, and who had no interest in the question. It was true that this evidence contradicted that of Mr. Lewis, the chief commissioner of the poor-laws ; but then it should be remembered that Mr. Lewis had but little prac tical knowledge except such as was supplied by reports ; therefore he was not to blame if he was ignorant on the subject. As to the evils which the act of last session in flicted upon rate-payers, they were too well known to require comment. The right hon. baronet behind him (Sir .1. Graham) admitted that it woul I be unjust to the rate-payers to allow the law to continue in its present state. He (Mr, Henke') regretted that the noble lord at the head of the government had allowed the session to pass so far without affording the house • definite notion as to what he pro posed the new commiseioo, ands which the working of the poor-law was to be carried out hereafter, should consist of—it would have been a great satisfaction to have heard from the noble lord, not the details, but the general principle of the measure which he intended to submit to the house. If, then, he had shown that the law, intended for benevolent purposes, had pro duced oppressive results, and if an important clause had been construed in an opposite way by the law effacers of the crown to that which bed been intended by the legislature, sorely the VW upon which that construction bad been made ought to be produced. He hoped its production would not now be refused. Ax How. MEmnart.—Who took the opinion of the law officers of the crown? Mr. BANKES replied, the Poor.law"Commissionen ; and Mr. Lewis, in hie evidence, stated that six questions had been propounded to the Attorney and Solicitor Generals. So that the commissioners themselves had no less than six doubts upon the construction of the statute. The house was the guardian over that legally constituted body and had, be submitted, a right to have the case produced. He was not aware on what grounds the government could refuse it. Tr he should obtain a return of tile case, he should then eon sider whether or not he should renew the motion for the production of the opinions given by the law officers in the ease submitted to them. With respect to the act itself, he thought that a short declaratory bill ought to be introduced, which would pat an end to all doubts, and save the expense of an appeal to the highest tribunals of the law for a solution of those doubts. If the matter was allowed to remain in its present state, it was much to be feared it would lead to eels siderable excitement in the event of a general election, and, therefore, he believed the best courts to pursue would be to pas a short declaratory act far the purpose he had stated and then leave the general question of the law of settlement to be discussed in the new parliament. The hon. member concluded by moving for the production of the case submitted to the law effictrs of the crown. Mr. C. BULLER thought it was not the rule of the house to call for the production of such documents, and this cer tainly was the last case in which the house ought to interfere, inasmuch as both the cue and opinion were to be found already in the letters of the Poor-law Commissioners and the evidence of Mr. Lewis, which in this respect ought to satisfy any reasonable or unreasonable man's curiosity. (Cheers and laughter.) Ile (Mr. C. Buller) must try to say a few words in defence of the select committee of which be had the honor to be the chairman. Undoubtedly the committee had not strictly complied with the refer ence made to them by the house:—the reference, in the first place, was the whole law of settlement, and the committee was further instructed to inquire into the ' operation of the Poor Removal Act, and to report thereon to the house. Now, if the committee took these words literally, it would appear that the hog's had recommended rather a strange course of proceeding, because surely the general effect of the Poor Removal Act of lost session was part of the whole question of the law of settlement. It was pro poeed by some members that the law should remain u it was, making only such alterations se would maintain the principle of parochial settlement ; others proposed the prin ciple of union settlements, while other members went as far as to urge co settlement at all, but that the poor should be supported by a national contribution. All these questions or propositions had been referred to the committee to deter mine what in their opinion should in figure be the Law of settlement, and the committee was further asked to report on the separate question, whether persons who had been resident five years in a parish should be irremovable or not. Now he left it to the good seams of the house to say whether it was not impossible to decide what should constitute irre movability, without determining also the whole question of the law of settlement. (Hear, hear.) The particular matter was involved in the general question, and to ask the com mittee to make up their minds upon any one part, and not upon the whole, was neither Seasonable nor just. , But the question as to the operation of the act of Wt session had been fully discussed in the committee ; evidence bad been taken, and though the committee all 'greed that probably the act had been interpreted in a sense contrary to the intention of the framers of the act, still they were not at all generally of opinion that the wider operation which had been given to it by the law officers of the crown was at all prejudicial to the people of this country. (" Meer, hear," from Sir James Graham.) Looking to the real bearing of the interpretation put on the act, on the comfort and well being of the people, he (Mr. C. Boller) was not prepared to alter the act which had been in operation sir months, and under which persons had already been re moved, and were settled elsewhere. On the whole, he thought that the committee having had referred to them the whole question of the law of settlement, together with the act of last session incidentally has acted wisely in resolving net to look at the two things separably, but to wait until a general opinion could be formed on the whole law. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Dorsetahire (Mr. Banker) complained that the commit tee had decided without hearing Mr. Guidon's evidence. Bat when was that evidence tendered ? Why, after the hon. member bad brought forward him own resolutions, and those resolutions had been rejected by the committee. Their ex cuse was, that Mr. Gulston's evidence was tendered toe late, and only for dilatory purposes. However, it had been taken, and the hon. member had made the beet use he could of it. But Mr. Gideon specifieagy and distinctly stated that he would remove the evils of the act of tan session by an alteration, not of that act, but of the ge neral law of settlement ; wi that his evidence, on the whole, did not shake the decision of the com mittee with reforms, to the point on which they had reported to the house. Bach, however, had been the opinii:o of the majority of the committee. He did not wish to be to', sanguine or to excite holm but at the same time he thought the evidence which had been taken had reduced the subject of the inquiry to something like a manageable campus. lie could not say whether the careful labours of the committee would be prolonged until the summer, or when he could promise a general report on all the limiters referred to. He I trusted, however, before the end of the session, the decision of the committee would be obtained upon this very difficult and complicated subject. Of this he was perfectly sure d.at I the worst plan the cosamlte , ••• I ! ire ••• take the law of sett! , me:A bit by kt. ft 11, g:..at glut-Atoll , materially the modal condition of tic^ country • it mu st be le . .; • 4 n whole, and the ionic and sowstry must have pat ,tee rad feelrerreace wIA th Yet deo .asstsl called upon to and &are.u- a filet, r. CH... mately it would a,. .t• ginti of Lie . •.ara:tt-e to pros. 1:t report, and until then d the h•eies wev.l , l Tr'etlift any impatience that may have :.r..1.11 tl,e e e,!.i.t..; et I the great experiment mad* ! rd sesden. "..e.!..1;,111;4) could not be gratifi dtiii ..e.etunL- • .i , e •.,• their 1 minds as to the general ...ip!. under 'l'..*: of • settlement was to be regulated i•i • Mr. W. MILES corroborated tLe ge • by the hon. and learned gentleman (hi. . same time be must remark that though the m , • committee had been of opinion not to report specie., • act of last session, yet sarong feeling existed in the comma that the act should either be amended or entirely rescinded. Speaking from the petitions that had been presented, and from the general expression of opinion throughout the mid land and southern dietrieta, it might safely be said that the only thing in which all reons agreed was in condemning the act of last session. He had a statement from Mr. Rouse, with reference to Fromm, which showed that great hardship hadbeen inflicted on that parish, the retrospective operation at the act having thrown upon it the maintenance of 300 beads of families. He (Mr. Miles) had been most anxious that a man of Mr. Gulston's experience should be examined before the committee ; and from the account which he had since given of the operation of the act, how could any one stand up in the house and say that it had acted beneficially ? On the other band, it had been moat prejudicial to a large clans of paupersets well as tothe rate-payers. Mr.G ulston's testimony was that he had heard every one speak against the act, and not a single person in its favour. lie (Mr. Miles) wee favourably diapcsed to a settlement by industrial residence— say for five years; and, if coupled with payment of rates, for two or three years, it would be the better. He was con fident that when it became Vnown that his hon. friend (Mr. Minims) intended to bring in a bill after Easter for repealing the act of last session, the table of the house would be covered with petitions against that act, and there would be a general expression of condemnation throughout the country. Sir G. GREY said he had been much at a loss to under stand the object of the motion of the hon. member for Dorset/Mire. It appeared he objected to the state of the law and to the doubts' which existed as to its construction ,• and, with a view to clear up those doubts , he bad moved for a copy of the case submitted by the Poor-law Commissioners to the law officers of the crown. But that case contained nothing more than a statement of those doubts ; and how could the hen. gentleman suppose that its production could remove those doubts which it barely pointed out? He hoped the motion would not be pressed, as the subject was the discussion of the committee. The bon. gentleman said he wished to call the attention of the house to the report of the committee; but with what practicable object? The committee had not yet had an opportunity to consider the evidence—perhaps some of them had not even read it; and how could any practical result arise from this motion? The better course would have been to submit at once a definite motion for bringing in a bill to repeal the act of last session; but it had transpired, from the speech of another hon. mem ber, that this preliminary discussion had been initiated as a feeler—whether it wduld be best to propose the repeal of the whole act, or only of the retrospective clauses. But he (Sir 0. Ore;) would abstain from entering into a discussion of that art, until the hon. gentleman brought in the bill which he nroposed to introduce. Mr. FINCH, said, if the committee could hold out any hopes of their labours being concluded at an early period, it might be advisable not to bring in any bill for altering or repealing the Poor Removal Act. Ile believed that that act had operated beneficially to some parishesand injuriously to others ; and in the same way with regard to paupers. Still there was a general feeling against the act, and some alteration was desirable. Should the committee, from the complicated nature of the law of settlement, be unable to report at an early period, he hoped that hie hon. friend (Mr. Bankes) would bring on the motion of which he had given notice, leaving the general question of settlement to be dealt with by a new parliament. Mr. RICE contended that the act of last session might properly he considered apart from the general law of settle ment ; he hoped the hon. member for Dorsetakire would bring on the motion of which he had given notice. (Hear.) There was a general feeling in the country in opposition to the act; and, though Mr. Lewis had stated to the committee that he had received no complaint of the operation of the act from Brighton, no place in the kingdom had com plained more loudly.. Whether upon a consideration of the general law, it was thought be st to have parochial settle ment. union settlement, or no settlement at all, the first and most natural step would be to repeal the act of lout session. This done, the committee would proceed to the unem harassed examination of the general question. Mr. WODEHOUSE expressed his gratification at the notice given by the hon. member for Dorsetshire. Nothing could be more objectionable, as regarded the paupers espe cially, than the operation of the present law. In many in stances it had been most demoralizing, and had led to all kind, of trickery. Mr. V. SMITH, while concurring in the remark of the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department that this mo tionbad not been brought forward in the most direct way, was grateful to the hon. member for Dorsetehire for having brought it forward in any shape. He was particularly anxious that the country should not imagine that the report of the com mittee was a final one; and this might have been supposed, had not the hon. member fur Dorsetshire originated this discussion. From one statement in the report that there was no necessity for immediate or partial legislation, he decidedly differed; for the evils inflicted by the measure of last session were of the most serious character. Some re markable instances were given, in the evidence taken be fore the committee; it was shown that certain parishes had erected buildings in other parishes for the purpose of locating their paupers there. However -hard might be the operation of this act on the rate-payers, it was not less so towards the 1 recipients of relief. (Hear.) He hoped the hon. member for Dorset:shire would not wait till after Easter to bring in his measure, whether for the repeal of the whole act, or of its retrospective clauses. The sooner some measure was in troduced the batter; for the repeal of this act was essential to a consideration of the general law of settlement. Sir J. °HAMM% said he would not attempt to discuss the report of a committee, founded on evidence which was not in the bands of members generally, but only in those of the committee • much leas would he discuss the question of the repeal or alteration of the act of last session, which was not now the question before the house. He did not deny that ' tho interpretation given to that act by the law officers of the crown was correct and sound, and had given to it a more extensive operation than was originally contemplated, either by those who framed it, or by the house in passing it; but he satisfied himself from the evidence that that more exten sive operation now given, though not originally intended, was, on the balance, greatly and deeidedly beneficial to the poor. (Hear, hear.) As this incidental discussion had been raised to direct public attention to the question, be felt it his duty to take this opportunity, though lie was not quite regular in doing no, of pointing out the signal advan tages which had resulted from the operations of the law. He admitted that, upon one class, the act had operated with I some severity,—those resident in one union, when their set tlement was in another, who had heretofore received r. lief at the place of their residence from the place of theirsettlement. He would call the attention of the house to large classes in this country on whom this net hod conferred great benefit . Their attention he would first direct to the provision in it which provided that those who were sick should not be re coved. There was another class who derived benefit from this act, namely, those who resided at a distance from their pl ices of settlement, and who had conferred on their places of residence the advantages of many years of labour, and who, even though reduced to the extremity of destitution, from the fear of being removed bad not hitherto ventured to apply for relief, but who, under the act as it now stood, could not hesitate to de so. There was another dm, namely, those *to were resident, but without a ratlement. They bad now a title to relief after a residence of five years. This act had given great relief in Ireland and Scotland, from which the poor were previously debarred. If this act were rightly understood, it would be perfectly clear that its benefits were decidedly in favour of the poor, and that it was a most humane and just act. He would not et the present moment discuss whether it was or was not the opinion of the Law officers of the crown that these benefits should be extended. With regard to the effect of the act of last session on the rate payers, he had never dissembled his opinion that that act, taken in conjunction with the law of settlement, with some exceptions, in which close parishes were considered in con tradistinction to open parches, must operate most harshly on the rater', erg, and he was, therefore, most anxious that in conjunction with the first question the committee should consider the whole law of settlement. Though he felt that he was not at liberty to enter into a discussion on this oques ' thin, he could not, as a member of the committee, avoid ' making mention of he evidence f they only al of Mr. Gubtn and 1 stating that his evidence proved that ite ' red or modified the law of settlement, the act of last session would I not only confer great benefits on the poor, but would be carried into operation without the least Injustice whatever to the ratepayer, and as that evidence was now being printed and would be in the hands of every member in a few days, he would entreat them to give their most serious attention, not to garbled extracts from it, but to is general tenor. That evidence was sup ported by two gentlemen of great respectability and ex perience ; one was the auditor of the Norfolk, Suffolk, and Cambridge Union, and the other was the chairman of a board of guardians in the north of England, who was examined by 1 them that day. He would intreet them to examine closely that evidence, and he would assure them that it was by no means in favour of the proposition of the hon. member for Doreetahire, but was in favour of his opinion, that the law passed last IC4/1011 should be held in is integrity; but that they should alter the law of settlement so u to remove all the injustice which the ratepayers now complained of. Mr. W. 0. STANLEY was of opinion that this act premed harshly on that class of ratepayers who were but a step re moved from paupers. He only took the proceedings of this evening as a preliminary to what was to be brought before them after Easter. The right honourable baronet the member for Dorchester mated that it would be in convenient for him to express his opinion on the ques tion brought forward by the honourable member for Dormtabire, inasmuch as it was at present under the consi deration of the committee. But the object of the house was that this question should be considered by them and re. Iported upon. But they prefered going oa with the settlement question, leaving the other in abeyance until they shall have reported on the general law of settlement , and until the house shall have determined on that matter. His opinion s ,-u, that it was never too anon to remedy an inju-tire, and tu, t, if posaible, they should at once relieve the ratepayers of a:l the town parishes of this country from what he cons je ß ee .' to be a most ietolerable burden. si r ',W. CLAY said that his right hon. friend, the mem ber f or Liskeard, was in error when he stated that the I,,,,, w tet je ,- had come to the determination that this point j, ~.hi ,-,,e be mottled until they should have made up their ~ ;,,,,. es ,- 1 16 old law of settlement. He, u a member of i L .. ,„ .. a . . never understood that to be the ease. What i t , i mo rr ,. we! I vas, that the elmmittee came to the under -kiwi/1.01,a if ;the inquiry should he protracted for some time. ty at it tell .nearly the end of the session, and if it '• is :re th o yr/Ashler that parliament should be obliged to eepart...-- . i:!.ut any act being pasted in the courts of the Ir. - ! , 1, 0-et then the majority of the committer who voted II tit:- ionprsition of the member for Donetshire, could I -.• ..: •li culyea of the opportunity of reconsidering the . -, .. -• . .•. • ' -thee that proposition should be made to the I.- ! ,' Boght that it should not be allowed to go i • ' - s ..• id, that the opinion of the committee was • - ' i.-• or definite. The right hon. hart., the member ter had declared to the house the strong effect :ac evidence of Mr. Gulston had on his mind, but he • say that as far as that evidence went, it had not had I toe same effect on hi, mind, namely, to induce hint to be lieve that the law in all respects had been advantageous to the poor. It was quite impossible that any law, which pressed hardly on the rate-payer, could work favourably with regard to the poor. He would sit down without ex pressing any decided opinion on the question, or the course which he ma think it his duty to pursue when the matter should come before them. .. . . Sir W. JAMES said that he rose to express his opinion that either the government or the poor-law commis sioners ought to state to the poor-law guardians what was the proper interpretation to be put on the act of last erasion At present one auditor might act onone principle and another on another principle. He was anxious to hear from the Secre tary of State. whether it was his opinion that such a course would be advisable. Mr. NEWDZOATE haring said a few 110140 in favour of a remedy to be applied to the exiting law of settlement, Sir G. GREY, in reply to the question put by the right hen. bast. the member for Hull, said that the poor-law oommiraioners had instructed the auditors how to act. ..... Mr. WAK LET was of opinion that, in the main, the bill of last session was an excellent one, and that none buttyranni. cal boards of guardians found any fault with it. Since this bill had been in onerstion, the Irish metropolitan poor had not been sent beck to Ireland, because it was known that they would be doomed h starvation. lie trusted, however, that the poor-laws of England, Ireland, and Scotland, would be assimilated not only in principle but detail. He should be delighted to see two millions of Irish peuperf come over to this country, it would bring the people and the parliament to their senses, and force the adoption of an efficient poor-law for Ireland. (lies:, hear.) In the parish in which he resided, out of 27,0001. collecte3 last year for poor's-rate, upwards of 20,0001. were appropriated to the relief of Irish paupers. After a few words from Capt. HARRIS, Mr. BROTHERTON said that, holing at the measure of last year as a whole, he was sure the good counterbalanced ' the evil. — Mr. B. ESCOTT thought the system of rating would never be fair until the great mass of property in this country, which was independent of the land, was taxed equally with it. The act of last session was only part of a great system which required thorough revision and re formation. Mr. J. B. WORTLEY having addressed a few obserra tions to the house which were inaudible in the gallery, Mr. BLNICES withdrew his motions. RAILWAYS. Lord G. BENTINCK, in moving for certain returns showing the amount of money expended in the construction of railways, expressed his regret that the right hon. gentleman the member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goul burn) should have thought he was wanting in courtesy to him by calling his attention to the fact that in moving for then returns he should make some observations on what he considered a marvellous statement, which had emanated from the right hon. gentleman. The right hon. gentleman named seven railways—the London and Birmingham, Grand Junc tion, Great Western, Brighton, South Western, South Eastern and Midland, upon which he said—with a I view to the discouragement of railways in Ireland —37,729,0001. had been expended previous to 1841. What were the real facts as to the railways in qucetion ? These : the whole cost of the construction of the London and Birmingham line was 5,991,3361. ; of the Grand Junction, up to the autumn of 1810, 1,921,4961., ;sou isad of 4,638,0001. las stated by the right hon. gentleman the Great Wept ern, up to the same period, 4,508,1601., instead of 8,282,0001. as stated by the right hon. gentleman ; of the Brighton, 1,166,5101., instead of 2,867,0001.; of the South-Western, 2,510,286/., instead of 2,600,0001. Here the discrepancy was inconsiderable, but when he came to the facts as to the Eastern Counties Railway, he found that the right hon. gentleman had absolutely run rampant, for whereas the expenditure upon that line up to the same period had only been 644,405/., the right hon. gentleman had v.n. hesitatingly set it down at 3,857,0001. Upon the Midland Counties, the expenditure, instead of having been 7,23.5,0001., as stated by the right hon. gentleman, was only 1,257,0001., and even giving the right hon. gentleman credit —as much as it was worth—for supwaing that he was deal ing with the amalgamated Midlands of a later period. com. prehending, with the Midland Counties, the North Midland and the Birmingham, still the right hon. gentleman was wholly preposterous in hie statement, seeing that the entire original expenditure upon these three railways altogether bad only been 4,7231531. The entire expenditure upon seven railways from 1836 up to the period in question, was, in all, 20,437,1151, whereas the right bon. gentleman had actually sent forth a statement to the country that the ex penditure on these lines in the two years of greatest deficiency had been no less than 37,729,0001. ; so that here was an es-Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a public statement about seven railways, wrong to the extent of no less than 17,292,0001. If this was not a most marvel lous statement for a gentleman who had acted the part of Chancellor of the Exchequer, he could not understand what statement could be considered marvellous. The right hon. gentleman further stated that the expenditure had taken place in the year of greatest deficiency. Now the year of greatest deficiency having been 1839.40, the impression sought to be made by the right hon. gentleman was, that the expenditure he deecribted had taken place in these two years, whereas, in point of fact, the entire amount expended in those two years by the whole of the seven railways, was only 9,718,9371., or an average for each year of 4,859,000/. for seven railways ; so that upon this calculation, the right hon. the late Chan cellor of the Exchequer had been wrong, not to the extent of seventeen millions only, but to the extent of twenty.eight millions. When it was recollected that it was by the pressure from the right hon. gentleman that the govern-at, pre viously wavering as to whether they would accept his (Lord G. Bentinek's) plan on the subject of Irish railways, had been induced decidedly to reject that plan, the country would reflect with sadness upon the conduct of a govern ment which allowed itself to be led by ouch a blind guide as the right hon. gentleman. What had been the expenditure of the seven railways in 1841 and 2 ? That of the London and Birmingham but 255,6251.; of the Grand Junction, nothing ; of the Great Western, 2,430,8111 ; of the Amal gamated Midlands, 1,518,5141., or an aggregate expenditure on each year of four millions. Let the house compare these facts with the statements of the right hon. gentleman, and decide whether the right hon. gentleman's statements were not something utterly marvellous. Mr. GOULBURN regretted that he had been the inno cent cause of inflicting upon the house the somewhat lengthy speech of the noble lord, in calling for a return which be be tiered no one in the house had the slightest idea of opposing. He thought he could satisfy the house that neither he nor any statement of his had really given occasion far the inflic tion. The noble lord, had he thought fit, had full opportunity, on the occasion when the statements to which he objected were delivered, of at once correct ing them, if wrong, or of calling for an ex planation upon any point connected with them, but for reasons of his own he had preferred the present course. The noble lord kad denounced any one who had been Chan oellor of the Exchequer, and who should make any erroneous calculation, as unworthy eves to have held the office. He (Mr. Goulburn) considered that any one who expected to be • Chancellor of the Exchequer, and who made gross mis statements of what gentlemen had said in the house, who unhesitatingly imputed falsehood and error to those to whom he was opposed—he considered, he would say, that such a person was not fit for the office to which he aspired. (Hear.) He would now, with the permission of the house, state what it was he had said on the occasion referred to. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in opening the Budget, had adverted to therevenue of 1842, 3,4, 5, and 6, and had shown that there had been a progressive increase in the con sumption of a variety of articles, which increase the right boa. gentleman had attributed, and justly, to the changes which had been made in the commercial policy of the country. The noble lord, on the other hand, attributed this increase to the labour which had been employed upon railways ; and contended that free trade had nothing what ever to do with the matter. Upon this he (Mr. Goulburn) took the liberty of animadverting upon what bad fallen from the noble lord—a great liberty, in the opinion of the noble lord, who seemed to regard as a personal offence any objection that might be made to his arguments. He had meant nothing like offence to the noble lord, nothing certainly like the expressions which the noble lord himself had used on that evening —used, he (Mr. Goulburn) was willing to believe, under the influence of irritated feelings. (Hear, hear.) He had merely sought to show that, if we had railways going on while the revenue was flourishing, we had also had them in programs of expenditure during years of deficiency. He had adduced in support of this assertion documents taken from the report of the railway committee. The noble lord scented him of having confined his observations to the years 1839 and 1840, and afterwards said these were the only years in which there was any great deficiency, whereas afterwards the noble lord said that in 1842 there were two millions, and in 1843 three millions de ficiency. He (Mr. Goulburn) had made no statement as to what the railways had actually e xp ended, what he had stated was that the rums raised for railways then in progress (in 1839 and 1840) was about 7,700,0001. The noble lord attempted to fix on him that he had spoken of the sums ex pended in 1840. He had done no ouch thing; he had ' woken merely of the sums raised for the purpose of cons- plating the railways in question. He had spoken of one com pany having -.died 8,250,0001. ,• hot it must have been gaiter clear to the house that he did not mean that that sum was expended in one year. But there were two ways of address. hag that house. One was, to address it as an educated and informed assembly that could understand your topics ; and the other was to weary it by going into every minute detail which every mind of oomtnon intelligence would suggest to itself. (Hoar, hear.) Ho had never supposed that when he spoke of the Birmingham company raising millions, the. house would understand him as meav that they were to expend it in one year. (Hear, hear. Ilia arguments had not applied to two years, bat to the whole term, from 1837 to 1843, which were all years of de ficiency, and during that time the two great lines of the country were opened. There mutt, therefore, have been a considerable proportion of the whole sum raised, expended. Returns, published in 1839, stated that the railways had ex pended then 67,700,000/., and that was two years after the commencement of the deficiency. In 1814 Mr. Laing was asked what was the whole amount expended up to that time, and his answer was, 64,000,0001. If they deducted from that the cost of railways completed previous to 1837 they would arrive at an amount of payment on account of real. ways fully bearing out his statement, that ce-existent with a deficiency is the revenue there was a large expenditure en those speculations. (Hear, hear.) This was what he s.eily had eel, the rxpressious quoted by the noble lord had wholly different meaning, but a reference to the usual chan nels of information would fully bear out his statement. He had no objection to offer to the production of the returns. Mr. DISRAELI sad that his noble friend would have brought the subject before the house at an earlier period, but that he had supposed the right hon. member for the University of Cambridge was dawn at the election. It was quite a mistake to suppose that the noble lord MU moved by any personal feeling. The question was one of public im. portance, as the opinion of so high a financial authority as the right honourable member must always have a great effect on the spirit of investment. (Hear.) Whst was the general opinion out of doors ? That a gates man of great experience entertained the impression that a large expenditure of money in railway enterpri, e was not beneficial to the revenue of the country. ("No, no," teem Mr. Ouulburn.) If that was not the meaning of the right hon. gentleman, what was his meaning? On that side of the house they were anxious to enforce tar affirmative of the proposinon, end if the right lion. gentleman did not intend to controvert it, why did lie ri,e at all ? (Hear, hear.) Mr. CARDWELL said the question divided itself into two features ; first, was the statement made by the right hon. gentleman literally correct and true ? and, secondly, was the argumeuthe based upon it sound and fair ? He (Mr. Cardwell) was prepared to contend for tho affirmative in both instances. His right hon. friend's argument was that it was a sound state of trade, and a favourable state of the money market, whether arising from good harvests or good legislation, that had oc casioned the extent of railway enterprise which had been so beneficial to the country, and that argument was fully home out by the returns. After a few words from Mr. 0. Hutotos, confirmatory of the view taken by Lord G. Bentinck and Mr. Disraeli, the motion was agreed to. THE SEIZURE OF THE BLACK CAT. Mr. MUNTZ, in reference to his notice of motion on thin subjiet, said that he understood circumstances had occurred which might render it unnecessary for him to bring the motion forward. He would for the present, however, merely postpone it till Friday. TEE EIGHT MILLION LOAN. The report of the committee of ways and means upsn the subject of this loan woo brought up, and the resolutions were confirmed.—Tho house rose at 12 o'clock. . xft Orprego. MAILS. The mails foe the Brasile, the Bice, Plate, Monte Video, Fermat. boon, Bahia, Madeira, and Buenos Ayres, will be made up on tr.ei evening attic 4th March. The mails for Vigo, Oporto, Lisbon, Madeira, (*Bs, and Gibraltar, will be made up on the morning of the 7th March. The overland doted 111411. vio Marseilles, to the Mediterranean, Egypt, Aden, GeVlon, India, Hong Emig, Ste., will be made up on the evening of the nth March. Tbs overland mails for Gibraltar. Malta, Greece, the lonian Islands, :Tt, Aden, Ceylon, India, liong-Kong, and China, via Soutanza2tao. he made op on the morning of the 20th of March. The OWIII for New South Wale+, Van Diemen's Ladd, and New Zealand will be made up on the evening of the 31.1 March. The treat India mils, excluding those fur Mexico, Honduras, sad the thorannsh, will he made up on the morning of the Slat March. The Mode for British North America, Bermuda, and the Ended Mates, will be made op on the evening of the 3rd April. TO CORIRESPONDEN TS. The Advertising Offices of tbe " DAILY NEWS" end " EXPRE3S" have been REMOVED from 90, FLEET -STREET, to No. 19, BOUVERIE-STREET, PLEET-STREET, contiguous to the Printing and Publishing Offices. We 11121100 t notioc, in my to ) , any owninunication that is sent to we anonymosely ; thew whochoose to sddress no in confidence fad tbetraonfidence respected. NEITHER CAN WE UNDERTAKE TI RETURN ANY MANUSCRIPTS WLIATEVER. • Advertiennente 'Molded for Th. lirpress, Landon evenbse .per, most b. at the (Mice Al Two o'clock an the day of pubittol....n. IROII WATER AT LONDON-BRIDOE, Tens Mr -=s,Orninsi,j min. paK 3 ; Afternoon, 1$ min. past R. To-Monnow-31orning, 82 dn. pant 3; Afternoon, 46 min. past ;;. LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3. In the House of Lords yesterday the Duke of Itteitsto);D, on moving for a select committee on the Law of Settlement, expressed his regret that paths meat should have been induced to peas a measure which defied the possibility of any persons putting a satisfactory interpretation upon. Lord BROUGHAM was of opinion that acts of parliament would never be properly drawn until a board was specially appointed to assist the lwislature in preparing them. Lord CAMPBELL urged their lordship not to condemn the act because it was badly drawn, its object being to assimilate the law of England to that of Scotland, which had been found to work so well. Lord BEAUMONT contended that the defect of the act was that it gave no settlement at all. The committee was then appointed. The presentation of a petition by Earl FITZWILLIAM from the grand jury of Athlone, in favour of measures for stimulating the employment of labour in Ireland by the construction of railways, led to a discussion on the measures already in progress, and the suggestion of others for affording permanent relief to that country. In the Roues of Commons, Mr. BOUVERIE, in an I introductory speech, moved for a select committee to inquire whether, and in what part of Scotland, and under what circumstances, large numbers of her Majesty's subjects had been deprived of the means of religious worship by the refusal of certain proprietors to grant them sites for the erection of churches. Sir GEORGE Garr, after referring to what had passed in the last session of parliament in reference to the subject, ob served, that now, when all hope of reunion between the free and established church had passed away, the continued refusal of proprietors to grant sites was deeply to be lathented, and directly opposed to the true principle of christian toleration. Sir It. Isnus, on the ground that a committee was never moved for without a foregone conclusion that legislative inter ference was necessary, opposed the motion ; as did also Sir J. GRAHAM, Lord G. BENTINCK, and Mr. WORTLEY,it being strongly supported by Mr. F. MAULE and Lord Joie RussEi.T.. On a division, the motion fur a committee was carried by a majority of twenty eight. Mr. BANICES, in a speech referring generally to the operation of the measure, called the attention of the house to the report of the select committee on settlement and poor removal, and moved for a copy of the case submitted by the poor law commissioners to the law _ officers of the crown for their opinion with reference to the construction of a clause in the Poor Removal Act. A discussion of some continuance, on the prin ciple and operation of the act, ensiled; alter which the motion was withdrawn. Lord G. BENTINCK, in moving for certain returns relative to the amount of capital expended by various railway companies in the construction of their lines and in accumulating working stock, originated a discussion which occupied ' the remainder of the sitting, the motion being agreed to. SOME malicious and comical demon has been busy for the last month, thrusting grave and great person ages out of their sphere, and prompting them to make themselves supremely ridiculous. We could begin by examples at home, but prefer passing the channel at once. Of all persons, the very last whom we should expect to see quarrelling about etiquette. making a matter of import of a ball invitation, was M. GUIZOT. There is a simple professorial gravity about him, so very much of the dignity of the mat of letters, and so very little of the dignity of rank and birth, that the idea of M. GVIZOT, or the ladies of his family, entering into a competition with Lord and Lady NORMAN BY, in the brilliancy of a rout, is something so exceedingly preposterous, as to make RABELAIB cry out his eyes with laughter. There did exist a serious cause of difference be- tween M. GUIZOT and Lord NORMANBT, in the cir cumstance of the minister having asserted positively one thing to the envoy, whilst his agent was doing the direct contrary. On this, however, they do not quarrel, but upon a subsequent assertion of M. GOIZOT'S, that he could have told his own story better, than Lord Noe- MANDY made hint do. M. GUIZOT in this, at least, spoke truth, and we regret that Lord Noa- MANBY should have quarrelled with anything so simple. Then comes the absurdit' of the bal4 the invitation, and its recal, and the rival receptions. and the sarcasms, and the quolibete. The fact is, that the ladies on both sides must have taken the business into their own hands, and fought it out d Coup d'erentail. A ladies quarrel of this kind has been fitly terminated by one old lady and chronicled by another. The Horning Herald, with its usual solemnity, in forms us that Count D'Arroxv was much chagrined at these bickering, of his friends, and that Laving