The Sun. — London, England, 1837-04-29 00:00:00

,S e it a, asm- He had h appened to serve the office in 1829, and Was not usual to appoint one who had been sheriff; the third ley =Nlr. Brabazon, a very young man, and he applied to be y 'eft because he considered himself unfit on account of his Muth. Thus it appeared that the Lord-Lieutenant was blam e d dad because the first gentleman declined service, the second of ,served before, and the third was unfit to serve on account Loa youth.--( Hear, hear.) He asked, was property grow hegeniore insecure in Ireland? It was rather remarkable that e at pgst all the complaints in which they,abounded any inti s:l_tan _ion of this kind was studiously avoided_( Hear, hear)— nattttootthioeuraftoroemtiosssiounp,ply what was doubtlessly e. casual and un he would trouble the. I-louse with the the of a few results taken from 4 2ne official items of tl number of offences and outrages of all kinds reported to thelnenteirstabulary in the - years 1836 and 1837. In the five teports up to February in the last 'year the number of outrages the ed was 1,794; during. the five months up to February in fitti),..iiiprr,esbecuatry)Lartutliciie intrnber of offences so reported was 765 this at the vermoment when the Noble and p ro W " P r eellti%ning to the country that the security for life selves',Perty Ireland was diminishing, and busying them- Jtet o f l4 ,. u !P.lving up their resolutions and petitions on the sub this . tur Jir alarms and grievances. These, facts spoke vo 'Mid blew to atoms petitions and resolutions got up in gisy. 4 4 . lP - 1111 er.—(H ear. ) The returns of outrages for 1830-31 It „. (6 ,108 cases ; w hil st t h ose for 1836-7 were only 9,628. t • ar ezt• l .o uld thus a p pear that a comparison between the present es and th ose times of " glorious and immortal memory"— 'such) —before the Catholic Emancipation Act was granted, g av e a clear diminution of no less than 7,000 on the latter pe tfied•---(Cries of " Hear, hear.") With respect to the ;1401,11.ers of these resolutions, he perfectly agreed with his was Friend bear him that a great deal of allowance po t s fai rlY to be made for men who, finding their sor _,Y lelPeriority impaired by the Catholic relief mea oxe r and finding themselves deprived in some moasure of that sl e llBi Ye Possession of offices to which they had so long consi 4.siti;tthernselves ent i t l e d , were induced to make complaints the management of affairs under which they expo ttal:ced th ese reverses. But when he found such ground and extravagant statements put forward as those con itb ne tt, in the se resolutions—when he read it gravely stated at toe Protestant s o f I re l an d were labouring under the ercest persecution" that was the term used—the fiercest d o e ,.7,e ; e ut,,ion ever levelled at any set of men—that they were yo,l s ` t 'ett of all their rights and privileges as subjects, he paths .: allowed to say that such statements excited no sym ot only in his breast, but he hardly thought that they 4 a uld meet with much from any considerable body of men in Ject "un trY• He could not help calling to mind on this sub es, atill,.aneedote related of Charles IL, who, conversing .. one der with • - 11 eminent Prelate, and also a great wit of those Wu ich did not render him the less eligible as his Ma the Yt's adviser in matters of religion—( A laug)—inquired of ter „ eec .ts of the various religious sects in the world ; and af vi.,,4sieg several in review, as the Presbyterians, the Cal do and so forth, asked of the Armenians, " And what sit-eY hold?" To which the Bishop (Morley) replied,. t itine t i e o ' r t a h . eY bold all the best bishoprics and deaneries in the a A laugh.) Now, this was the case of the Pro soe•st-ertts- Of Ireland, and he was quite willing that it should be ,of offi " o could, if he chose, go into the details of the number . w o Ob i e a filled up by the present Government, from which it th 4t I ,'aPpear that what he asserted generally was quite true, tly e rotestants had been appointed instead of Catholics at cas•s slte of two or three to one. This being the state of the the 'ee Said that the Protestants of Ireland had no ground for th erusation comprised in the petition and resolutions before th e If those who framed them were sincerely persuaded of of. t i e t the opi n i ons which they conveyed, and of the justness of •; le charges which they comprised, why, then, in the name 1 p 4,, ltsti c,ey and of that constitution which they pretended to re ( R e ..." t eeY ought not to have stopped where they had done.—. -es,";' l _!ear, hear.) These charges were either char es of a m e re serious and important character, deeply impeaching the oter of one of the highest officers of the State, or they nothing, g or rather, as he (the Marquis of Lansdowne) ( "r i eld be inclined to say, something worse than nothing.— trial e ar, hear, hear.) Let them put Lord Mulgrave on his God for defeating the ends of justice, and then he would say, Ilir send him a good deliverance, which he was sure he would e- --( Warm and general cheering.) b ee Duke of WELLINGTON - said that it had always n his anxious wish to see the Protestants of Ireland upon ittued bes t Possibl e terms w i t h t h e G over ninent of this country, and th e Government giving them in return that fair protection no; ?uPPort to which they were entitled. It was his firm to -I , e ll that the safety and honour of the country, and the ilpaelo_t,e,nanee of the union between the two countries depended t ot , 'Re good understanding between the Government of the teconrtistyy and of the Protestants of Ireland. In like manner the penil e , the property and persons of the Protestants de- Ye ro open there being a good understanding with the Go thio'hlcet, and things could not go on well until this state of an t i Was returned to. That opinion he had always held, to •le sho u ld b e sorry to say one word which should tend ti q il terease any existing irritation between those two par ley Bear hear.) The Protestants of Ireland were not tir tha n tw o millions in number ; they were, generally tsi et ating, the best educated and the best conducted part of ~, co rnmunity, and they possessed about nine-tenths of the . 1 1 ) ole property of the country. He must say that he thought e Protestants of Ireland, looking at the events of the last 4 w e o years, had good grounds for apprehending iondco of their, property, as well as the destructi of the C hurch to which they belonged, and the substitution of so, . teglething like the voluntary system in its stead.--( Hear, to He would ask the Noble Viscount, who had referred tr_l-lavraerie.us periods of our history, to look at the times of to neon, and see whether the Protestants had not grounds stat,P.l.nd that thiv.s, were now progressing towards the d ee ; z wn . ch they reachcci at that per.., • leenr.ption of power was being exercised . over - ti;eaeFil= tl, aS those days. After referring to the conduct of wi - i i"' e rd. Lieutenant in liberating prisoners from the gaols po'"ont making any inquiry of the Magistrates or Judges alio , it. 'alem there, the Noble Duke proceeded to observe 4 t the Protestants of Ireland had a very deep personal Interest in the administration of the law, on account of the 1 0 4" .ttY which they posse i ssed, and that they had A right to L or ,:eto such proceedings as those he referred to by the th„' Lieutenant with the greatest scrutiny, and that le -° were no other ground of charge against his Exce - 44, t e cY than this, it would be sufficient to justify their remon -I:lethei There Avis another consideration also connected bo m att e r. Several of the prisoners liberated had been 4:ll.victed flony • and if he knew anything of the subject, diedtheh7hev that pardons without proper documents to certify to i not exempt from certain pains and forfeitures the not was previously amenable. The whole o of ol irk Pthis roceeding, therefore, appeared to him to be extremely upon my shegear, and likely to produce the most pernicious e to , 111 , in ds of the Protestants of Ireland. The Noble V! o s-_ clu ti o „ -- and the Noble Marquis opposite 'said that the con oo t : e c.,,:of the Catholic Emancipation Act should be carried .as never 'et he (the Duke of Wellington) thought that it w ro_ Per t intended as a consequence of that measure that the p He thojier privilege of any individual should be invaded. to ; b eet it fit that Roman Catholics should be admissible d Pis sed C orporations of Ireland ; with this view he had g c -a ctl the Catholic Emancipation . Act, and he only re openetted that those Corporations had not acted so often a men t hat Act as ho had hoped, by admitting Catholics t o "tlgat their bodies. But it was a very different thing desire adit Roman Catholics to the old Corporations, and to ea,, those Corporations and erect new ones in their aod ', Making over the whole of their property entirely Netusively to otherparties in the State.—(Cheers.) The 'pa Marquis had read to the House a statement of the com thie'-e number of offences reported in different years since P a ssing of th e C at h o li c E manc ipation Act, but he (the e of W e lli ngton) should like to know, with a view fairly o f 4 t.preei ate the value of those returns, what number of clases th e nces were included in each ,• he was inclined to believe in s7 et ee numb er o f c l asses of offences ha d not b een included •ge hater as the former years.--(" More, more," from Vis th,u,et 14elbourne and the Marquis of Lansdowne.) However ali ght be, he held in his hand a document which he thought Qteatvagreat light upon this point. It was the charge to the sprig J erY, made by Baron Foster at Tipperary, at the last th`f.-111 A ssizes. The Noble Duke then read the extract from in - th e earge in question, which alluded to the increase of crime the et ee elltY. There was another topic to which he woul . d ca of orn,eettention of their Lordships—he meant the selectio o n tod ta N and Particularly of judicial officers—officers connected the prosecution of offenders, and with the administration of Prosecution from the General or National Association.—( Hear.) whi'letLksaociation was pledged to the overthrow of the laws tith es " had for their object the security of the property in Parliament, Hear.) In that House, and in the other Hotise o titament, they had agreed to put down Orange Societies. te a V ie ,.°"•) Before they put down those Societies, the sys ysi;' ex Government was to make no selection of men for office • Were connected with Orange Societies. If he recollected correc tly, eected the High Sheriffs were set aside, and others coi t i : etil with the Government of the country, and most par i • t b e a; Y with the administration of ustice and the execution of_ w it . law, because they were Orangemen; and nobody . com fa va llte d of gentlemen done. Was this rule to be set aside in N1;111..01' who pledged themselves to resist the ad ,istrasioo of the law regarding the property of the country, of Particularly a description of property belonging to a set seePei?ons which every rule of honesty, and everything he !_y bound them to protect as far as was in their power. this s s- nbi e ee ers.) He would not trouble the House further . on this he' He hoped that the result of this discussion would tti that the conduct of his Majesty's Government in future, 4 11 42 1 I t becom e so changed towards the Protestants of l-lg,e sop" aa to give th em t h e full protection o f t h e i r power and Cheers.) Marquis.underesto of WESTMEATH wished it to be distinctly of 'A, as the opinion of the general body of the people e,lreland, it never entered into the minds of the people of t ...tand to ask for Corporate Reform. It was entirely the was cnile n ot his Majesty' s Mi n i sters, for their own purposes , an d Ck o t requir e d i n that country, and was only calculated to a l) up a state of disturbance, and not to produce any remedy (Hear It Y of the grievances that affected and afflicted Ireland.— natto oo lear.) It reminded him of the story of the friend of of , the needy knife-grinder.—( A laugh.) The feelings C0 ' , . 1 , friend of humanity were chiefly excited by a hole in Penc e ?r a nether garment, but when he was asked for six lands 'le gave a stone. Let them give the people of Ire bee,lnPloYment, and not a Municipal Reform Bill. It %V as Sha re _t,9eY wanted. He would not shrink from bearing his l utd the responsibility of pressing this petition. He that B.lgened the petition because he was perfectly satisfied scour!: Protestants of Ireland were in a state of great in tents _Y, as to life and property.—(Hear.) The Proteg es t i ut„, Ireland were not n6w in as good a condition Bill Korean Catholics were in before the Emancipation stain iinjra.ssed. Tho Noble Marquis referred to the fact of cer 'Boners having been discharged from the gaol of Mul -64r while the gaoler was in a state of transition.--( Laughter on the Ministerial benches.) It might be a matter of mirth with the Noble Lords opposite, but to him, and those who, like him, resided in Ireland, it was matter of serious reflection. It might be a very good joke to the Noble Lords opposite, but he would repeat, that on the recommendation of this gaoler, while in a state of transition from sanity to insanity, nineteen persons were set at liberty, and those very persons were imme diately afterwards imprisoned for new offences.—( Hear, hear.) This was the state of Ireland under his Majesty's present Go vernment. The abuses of the Reform Bill in Ireland had made it almost impossible for Protestants who had honest opi nions to venture to express them. If any man ventured to give an honest opinion, he was denounced as a Tory ; and if he were willing to surrender the representation of the country and its institutions they were called Liberals.—(A laugh.) The Earl of FING ALL said, when the protest was first spoken of he was applied to as a Peer and a landed proprietor in Ireland to sign it. He replied to the _Noble Friend who made the application, that he would not sign the protest, that as his religious opinions were a matter of notoriety it would ap pear rather extraordinary if he signed the protest. The an swer was, that there was nothing exclusive in the protest ; and upon this statement he signed it. The protest stated that those who signed it considered that the country was in a state of tranquillity, and he for one felt bound to sanction that opi nion. Those Noble Lords who were not connected with Ire land must consider it very strange to hear statements so totally contradictory with respect to the state of that country. In his heart he believed that there was at that moment in Ireland a comparative degree of tranquillity. When he used the word " comparative" he meant to imply the absence of dangerous crimes arising out of combination and attended with violence. He regretted that the state of Ireland was not still more tranquil. He had never lent himself, nor had he ever endeavoured in any manner to kindle the flame of agitation in Ireland.—( Loud cheers.) There were two accusations brought against his Majesty's Government. 'The first was the exer cise of their patronage in an improper manner ; and the next chiefly related to the conduct of the Lord-Lieutenant. As far as related to the abuses of patronage, he did not sae that any fair objection could be made. Several papers had been read to show that the present Administration had disposed of its patronage more in favour of Roman Catholics than of Pro testants. He had endeavoured to ascertain what places the present Administration of the Earl of Mulgrave had disposed of, and he found that out of three Judges two were Protest ants, and one, the Master of the Rolls, was a Catholic. Of the seven Assistant-barristers appointed, four were Protest ants, and three Catholics. Of other law-officers, there were six; four of whom were Protestants, and two Catholics. Of the stipendiary magistrates—which was the largest branch of patronage—there were twenty-five appointed ; and of these thirteen were Protestants, and twelve Catholics. Of the Commissioners of the Dublin police there were two ap pointed—a Protestant aid a Catholic. 'Of Inspectors of Police there were four; three Protestants, and one Ca tholic. This made a total o f f or ty- seven officers connected with the administration of police who were appointed by the' present Administration ; and of these twenty-seven were Protestants, and twenty Catholics.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Earl (Earl Roden) stated a gentleman of the name of Smith had been recently appointed a stipendiary Magis trate. He knew Mr. Smith, and knew him to have acted as a Magistrate many years. That Mr. Smith was a member of the National Association he had no doubt, but he saw no reason why this should be made a ground of complaint against his appointment. With respect to the complaint about the remission of sentences by the Lord-Lieutenant, he begged to say, that when the Lord-Lieutenant was in the county of Meath he (the Earl of Fingal') attended upon him. It was certainly true that the Lord-Lieutenant did not call upon any country gentleman in the county, but he was bound also to say that there were not a great many of those gen tlemen that had waited on his Excellency. The Lord-Lieu tenant was attended by all the officers connected with the gaol, and by the Magistrates of the towns ; he remained in the gaol two hours, and he (the Earl of Fingal') could safely say that the Lord-Lieutenant took great pains to investigate all the cases. The Earl of COURT° WN made a few observations which were wholly inaudible in the gallery. Lord CL ONC UR RY begged to observe that with respect to the persons who had been liberated, there was not, he be lieved, one who had been guilty of felony. The great ma jority of those liberated consisted of persons who were con fined under what was called the green-wax process, namely, poor persons who had become bail, and were unable to pay the penalty. During the whole period of the present admi nistration being in office, they had not liberated more than one third of those for whom application was made without full in vestigation. Ile h a d hi mse lf once ma d e app li cat i on f or t h e discharge of a prisoner, but he was refused, as the charge against the prisoner was one of combination, and those were offences which the Lord Lieutenant had resolved not to par don. As to the appointment of sheriffs, there were only 7 out of the 32 whose names were not in the returns of the judges, and these were accounted for. The Roman Catholics had now for 7 years past been eligible to this office, and yet, out of the 436 appointed, only 43 were Roman Catholics. If the proportion of the population were taken, it would be a sufficient excuse to the Government if they had thought proper to make the difference the other way. There was hardly any thing So constantly harassing to the feelings of the Roman Catholics, and so offensive to them, as the exclusion from corporate offices. The corporations of the towns in Ire land were in the hands of some great men in the neighbour hood, who became the patrons, and who filled all the offices with connections of their own family. These officers made away with the property of the Corporations to the patrons, and thus the Corporations were left without funds. To re claim this property was more the object of the Protestants than the Catholic., g i maidamletion„Arhilit theji2p.ulatioAi 2f,„.tullir c 'o` c m the Marquis of DOWNS HIRE, in reply, the petition was laid on the table. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (ENGLAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL. On the motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR, the Com mittee on this Bill was deferred till the Bth of May. The other. Bills on the table were forwarded a stage, and their Lordships at a quarter to twelve o'clock adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, APRIL 29. The SPEAKER took the Chair At Four o'Clock. Mr. Haines appeared at .the bar and presented papers from the Court of Chancery. The Manchester and Oldham Roads' Bill was read a third time and passed. LONDON AND BRIGHTON RAILWAY. Mr. P. STEWART said he had been requested by several Gentlemen belonging to the Brighton Committee to state the dilemma in which they found themselves. He was reluctant to appear there for that purpose, having no interest either local or personal in the Sussex list; but he believed it was for that very reason he had been selected to make this statement to the House. The Brighton Committee had sat six weeks hearing evidence on the four Bills before it.—(Hear, hear.) On the 22d of April the Committee adjourned till the 25th, having refused to hear Counsel with regard to the summing up on the merits of the respective Bills. On the 26th Counsel were or dered to appear before the Committee, to argue the case of the land-holders. On the 25th, it having previously been understood that the only labours of the Committee on that day would be to make their selection from among the Bills, a division was come to in the Com mittee, when 17 voted for Stephenson's line, but the con joined forces of Sir John Rennie and the South Eastern Line amounted to 26. It was then proposed that the Committee should proceed to determine upon Rennie's line ; but an Hon. Friend of his, with more zeal than judgment, proposed an adjournment, stating that, as the Committee had rejected Stephenson's line, there were only two lines before the Committee, and the Committee was adjourned till Friday. If the votes had been taken simultaneously the decision would have been in favourof Stephenson's line. Having stated this case to the House, and knowing how the House was influenced by the proceedings of its Com mittees, he thought it was their duty to make some regulations retrospective on the Brighton Committee, and prospective on any Committee who might be called upon to sit hereafter. He would conclude by moving that it be an instruction to the Committee on the Brighton Railway line, notwithstanding the vote come to on Tuesday last on Stephenson's line, to proceed to ascertain the opinions of the Committee on all the lines submitted to them simulta neously. Sir SAMUEL WHALLEY could assure the Hon. Member that he had committed two singular mistakes. The Committee did not refuse to hear Counsel, but the Counsel had refused to address them. He denied that there was any combination of the other three lines against Stephen son's line. There were two eastern and two western lines, and the question was, after the rejection of Stephenson's line, whether the public ' interests would have been best pro moted by the adoption of an eastern or a western line ? (Hear, hear.) There never had been a Committee of that House, in his opinion, more fairly conducted, nor one in which there was less necessity for the interference of that House. So far as he (Sir Samuel Walley) was concerned, his only anxiety was, that the public should, after the expenditure of at least half a million of money, have some line between London and Brighton. Mr.-WYNN said the Committee had power to take a vote upon each line separately, and then determine which line had the greatest number of votes. After a few words from Mr. C. BARCLAY, Mr. CURTEIS thought this was a most impudent (he spoke of the intentions of the promoters of the Bill) at tempt to force the Committee to come to a particular vote. He would vote against the proposition, as being very ill timed. Captain PEC HELL saw no ground for the motion, and hoped the Hon. Member would withdraw the proposal. Sir C. BURRELL thought the proceedings of the Com mittee were very much to be deprecated, and that the effect of the decision would be merely to place Stephenson's Line on the shelf for a short time. Mr. P. THOMPSON thought the question was improperly brought before the House. He hoped the House would not decide the question upon any particular objection, for the decision of the House would regulate the proceedings in Committee in future. But the proposition of his Hon. Friend would give an undue power to the minority in a Committee. To that he strongly objected. The Com mittee were bound to give their specific objections to any measure which they objected to. If the case adverted to by his Honourable Friend should occur, it would THE SUN be for the House to 4 decide upon each of those lines of railroad. He di d not mean to say that the adoption of that tour st would not be inconvenient. He did not see how that it convenience could be avoided. Mr. WIG NEY trtu led that the House would be favoured with the opinion of tF e Chair on the subject. Lord G. SOMER SET trusted that the Hon. Member for Lancashire would . withdraw his motion. Mr. PRYME the iught the better course to adopt would be for votes to be . taken upon each plan among all the Members of the Corn tmittee ; and if in the result one plan bad not a majority of the whole body, the votes should be struck off until one p lan had a majority of the whole. Mr. P. STE WAR :T seeing the feeling of the House, was willing to withdra r& his motion, but he was afraid thrlt by so doing the Comn tittee would be placed in a dilemma. Mr. CRAWFORI ) thought the Committee would not be placed in any diffict thy, and that the motion was entirely uncalled for. The motion was the n withdrawn. On the motion of Si 0. MOSLEY, the Ashburn and Leith Roads Bill was rel cd a third time, and passed. OVER (CAMB] IIDGE) INCLOSURE. Mr. BARROW movt .d the second reading of the Over (Cambridge) Inclosure E Mr. POTTER presented a petition against the Bill. Col. THOMPSON Mad been requested to oppose the second reading of the Bill, and he_ did so on behalf of a number of poor proprietors who would be utterly ruined if this Bill were allowed to pass. The Hon. and Gallant Member cone! , uded by moving that the Bill be read a second time t hisdaysix months. Dr. BOWRING sec ondedthe amendment. The House of Commons had twice expressed its opinion on this Bill, and it ought to view sue; 2 Bills with peculiar jealousy. He trusted the House of Commons would interfere on the pre sent occasion, and protect the poor from the injustice which the rich thought to inflict'. upon them. Mr. \VAKLEY said g►•eat injustice would be done to all parties, unless the Bill was read a second time, and allowed to go into Committee. He did not stand there as the exclusive champion of the poor—no doubt all parties in that House desimd to do good for the poor, only they adopted different modes of doing so. The Hon. Member who had just sat down had stated that he had been informed, by a number of poor proprietors, that they were hostile to the Bill. He believed the Hon. Member had received his information from a paper which had just been put into his hand. He believed that in almost every case the rights of the poor had been overwhelmed by the influential proprietors, and he hoped the Bill would be submitted to a Committee for the purpose of undergoing a proper investigation. An HoN. MEMBER on the Opposition side, whose name we could not learn, supported the Bill. Mr. PEASE had voted against the Bill last year. He now understood the matter better, and would vote for it now, in order to make amends for that vote, which was er roneous. Mr. C. BULLER could not vote for the Bill, because the parties were poor, and .a Committee was a tribunal be fore which no poor man could possibly go. Mr. GOULBURN thought that reason for opposing the Bill before the House would be good against any pri vate Bill which came before the House. The parties might combine, and so reduce the expense to a nominal sum. Mr. HUME thought the• House had already done im mense injury to the country by proceeding with such In closure Bills. Why did not the proprietors proceed on the General Inclosure Bill of last year? The Bill be fore the House would inclose 1,700 acres of open arable fields, which were all to be taken from the poor. He would certainly vote against the second reading of the Bill. After some observations from Mr. Hodges, Sir Edward Knatchbull, Mr. Potter, Mr. H. Hughes, and Mr. Ben nett, strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when there appeared-- For the second reading ... lB3 Against it 5l Majority for the second reading -132 On our entering the gallery we found Mr. HUME stating, that if poor people were compelled to appear before the Committee to protect their rights, they ought to be allowed to appear there without paying the fees ; but in consequence of the loud cries of " Order, order," and " Chair, chair," from the Opposition, the Hon. Member was obliged to resume his seat. The SPEAKER said the better way would be for the Hon. Gentleman to give notice of a motion on the subject. Mr. HU M - E said he was afraid he had too many notices on the book already. NEW WRIT. Mr. W. DUNCOM BE moved that anew writ be issued for the borough of Huddersfield, in the room of John Black burne, Esq., deceased. On the motion of Mr. HODGES, the Sun Fire Office Bill was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on the sth May. On the motion of Lord W. BENTINCK, the Glasgow Police Bill was read a third time, and passed. Mr. G. F. YOUNG presented a petition from a person named Stevens, a shareholder in the London and Brighton difel,L;Nti4Matjumillat he hart examined the share-list, and sons in humble circumstances'ollacrn.subrrib , d,by ner- inquiry. Mr. WILSON PATTEN suggested that the petition should be at once referred to the London and Brighton Railway Committee, instead of to a Select Committee. Mr. YOUNG would move that the petition be referred to the Deptford and Dover Committee. Mr. HUME begged to second the motion of the Hon. Member opposite (Mr. W. Patten); there would other wise be no end to petitions of that sort. The petition was then referred to the Committee on the Deptford and Dover Subscription List. A message from the Lords brought up several Bills. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said as there was now a great number of Members in the House, it might be convenient for him to move the motion of which he had given notice, namely, that from the 15th of June until the Ist of Jul), Orders of the Day should take precedence of Notices on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The reason that he made the present motion was, that upon his moving the Orders of the Day, in many instances it was objected by some Hon. Members that they had placed notices on the books, and that they, ought to be first disposed of. That might be all very well ; but it could nut be denied that it was desirable before a late period of the Session, that Bills under consideration should be sent to the other House of Par liament. That was the only object of the motion. The Noble Lord concluded by moving that from the 15th of June to the Ist of July, Orders of the Day should have precedence of notices on Tuesdays and Fridays. Agreed to. The Order of the Day having been read for bringing up the Report on the Canada Resolutions, Sir JAMES GRAHAM said the first Order of the Day in the paper related to the Church-rate question, and he wished to ask the Noble Lord whether he meant to pro ceed with that question after the discussion on the affairs of Canada—and if not, when ? Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the consideration of that question could not be proceeded with to-night. He believed the statement his Noble Friend near him (Lord Morpeth) would have to make upon the subject of Irish tithes on Monday, would not give rise to any discussion, and he therefore wished to bring on the question relating to Irish Poor-laws after that state ment had been made on Monday. If possible, he would proceed with the Church-rate question on the 22d of May. Sir JAMES GRAHAM—Then, at all events, it will not come on next week ? Lord JOHN RUSSELL—No ; not before the 22d of May. Mr. TREVOR begged to know whether the Church rates question was definitively fixed for the 22d of May. Lord JOHN RUSSELL could not state positively that it would be then brought forward. , LONDON, SATURDAY, APRIL 29, 1837. resolutions, was fearful that the object intended would not be effected by them. Th e amen d ment was th en negatived without a division, and the Resolutions were agreed I`O. On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL, it was ordered that the Resolutions should be comm unicated to the Cords at a Conference. COURT OF SESSION (SCOn. AND) BILL. On the motion of the LORD AVVOCATE, the House went into Committee for the furtfa.'r consideration of the Report in the Court of Session (Scotia ad) Bill. Sir WILLIAM RAE and Sir GEORGI:E CLERK complained that while the Government professe,i a desire to reduce all unnecessary offices, and to carry ecomliny to the utmost, an individual had recently been appointed to the office of principal clerk of session, which expense might hinvo been saved by having the duties performed by one of the cre. rks of the Jury Court. Lord JOHN RUSSELL supported the appointment. Sir JAMES GRAHAM had no hesitation in saying that the explanation of the Noble Lord was not satisfactory, and ' that the whole transaction had the appearance of being a Scotch job..—(A laugh.) The clauses were then severally put and agreed to. The House resumed, and the report was ordered to be received on Monday. The 'Small Debts( Scotland) Bill went through a Committee IRISH POOR-LAW BILL. Upon the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, the order of the day for the second reading of the Irish Poor-law Bill was read. Mr. W. J. O'Brien was first called on by the Speaker, but he gave way immediately to Mr. O'CONNELL, who proceeded to say—l confess that it has been my most anxious wish to address the House upon this subject at the earliest possible period of the discussion. The regulations of the French Chamber would be more suited to my object than the rules and orders that prevail in this House. There the speakers are divided into those who speak for a measure, against a measure, and upon a measure.— ( Hear.) My intention was not to speak upon this measure. lam not for it. Ido not think that it is likely to succeed. My, own deliberate judgment is, that not only it will not suc ceed in mitigating the evils to be found in the present state of the poor of Ireland, but that its tendency will be to ag gravate them much.--(Hear, hear, and cheers.) There fore I cannot advocate the measure. Ido not mean to vote against it. I think it has now become inevitable that we must have some measure of a. poor-law for Ireland ; I yield to the necessity, while I regret it. There has been for some time an opinion prevailing in England that a poor-law in Ireland will prevent the evils arising from the emigration of the Irish labourer, and mitigate the misery of the English poor. Many men, too, in Ireland have taken up strong opi nions lately in favour of a poor-law whose opinions formerly were in opposition to them. Several of the Catholic clergy, too, are anxious for the measure. There are also many in fluential persons who heretofore imagined that political ame liorations would produce. improvements in the state of the pea santry generally who are now disposed to make the experiment. confess that lam decidedly not opposed to it. It is, I know, an untried experiment. lam deeply convinced that Ireland never can obtain prosperity until she has a Legislature of her own. That is my thorough, that is my decided convic tion.—( Hear.) The people are disposed to try whether that is a mistaken conviction : so am I. I find it is impossible to have the people of England consider that the experiment has been fairly worked out as long as that portion of the experiment which relates to Poor-laws is untried.—( Hear, bear, hear.) For these reasons I yielded to this Bill. I do not mean to vote against it at any stage. I will not rote against it—if necessary I shall vote for it. I repeat it, I yield to the necessity without being at all convinced.— ( Hear, hear.) In looking to a measure of relief for the poor of Ireland the first course for the House to pursue is to under stand the nature and extent of the distress that prevails there. The Noble Lord who introduced this subject to the House omitted that topic altogether. He made a speech which was an extremely perspicuous one in all its details, and having the very best quality of a speech, it being impos sible for any - one who attended to it not to understand the subject from one end to the other. But then he rather took for granted the distress than described it. It was not diffi- cult - for him to assume that great distress prevails in Ireland. —( Hear.) He entered into none of t4e details. He stated that there was overwhelming distress ; but he did not at all trace out any of the causes that have produced the distress in that country. And yet it is impossible to find out the pro per means for putting an end to the prevailing distress unless the causes of that distress are first ascertained.—( Hear, hear.) I know how wearisome it must be to the House to enter into a subject of this description ; but we are now making a new experiment in the administration of Irish affairs, and before we do so we are bound deliberately to look to the causes— to trace them to higher sources than any that are imme diately before our eyes. Ido distinctly say that this ought to be done, because I am convinced that it is my duty to trace the evil to its source. The poverty and distress that have pre vailed in Ireland for ages, in my opinion, are owing to political causes. If any one remembers the nature of the Government in Ireland, this must be admitted. I need not go far back. It is unnecessary for me to go farther back that elle last cen tury and a half; and, looking at that, no one can be surprised ;o find Ireland in the state tlatshe is in. —(Hear, hear.) I allude merely to two heads of those which are called the penal laws. By two distinct branches of those laws ignorance was enforced by Aet,of Parliament, and poverty was enacted.— (Cheers.) Such were the effects of the penal laws.--(Hear, hear.) I will mention the statutes. By the 7th Will. 111., chap. 4, sec. 9, and Bth Anne, chap. 3, - it was enacted that no Roman Catholic should teach or have a school in Ireland. inArnetion of youth was nrohibited No Roman Catholic punishable by conunement, . Catholic child, was a felony punishable by death. The Ca tholics were prohibited from being educated. For any child receiving instruction there was a penalty of 101. a day, and when the penalty was two or three times incurred, then the parties were subjected to a prconunire—the forfeiture of goods and chattels. To send a child out of Ireland to be edu cated was a similar offence, to send it subsistence from Ireland was subjected to the same forfeiture ; and, what was still more violent and unjust, even the child incurred a forfeiture. By these laws there was encouragement given to ignorance, and a prohibition imposed upon knowledge. lam not now to be told that these laws were part of ancient history—they were in full force when I was born.—(Hear.) Another part of this code of laws prohibited the acquisition of property. No Roman Catho lic could acquire property. He might, indeed, acquire it but if he did so, any Protestant had a right to come into a Cou.t of Equity and say, " Such a man has, I know, purchased an estate—such a man is a Roman Catholic ; give me his estate ;" and it should be given to him. To take a lease beyond thirty one years was prohibited ; and even if within thirty-one years, and the tenant by his industry made the land one-third in value above the rent he paid for it, it could be transferred to a Pro testant. These were laws that were in force for a full century. —( Hear.) For a full century we had laws requiring the people to be ignorant, and punishing them for being industrious— laws that declared the acquisition of property criminal, and subjected it to forfeiture. For one century, ignorance and poverty were enacted by law as only fit for the Irish people. The consequences of a system of that kind arc still felt. No body can say that this is exaggeration. It has been said, you have to address yourself to the poverty and ignorance of Ire land ; and we know that no ingredient can be so fatal in the history of a country—no greater impediment can be discovered to its improvement. When 'you see that, you are at once shown the source from which such misery has flown. There are suf ficient political,causes for the present state of Ireland. I now wish to bring the attention of the House to the effect of some statistical facts with respect to Ireland. They may not at first appear to bear directly upon the question ; but they afford the materials for thinking, and are likely to lead you to a just con clusion. These documents show you accurately the political economy of that country. First, then, as to the contrast be tween England and Ireland. In England there were 24,250,000 cultivated acres. In Ireland the quantity of acres under cultivation is 14,600,000. The proportion is not more than two to one of cultivated acres. The agricultural labourers in Ireland are 1,131,715 : the number of agricultural la. bourers in England is 1,055,982. This gives an excess to Ireland of 75,733 agricultural labourers. The value of the agricultural produce of England is 150,000,000/. ; the value of the agricultural produce of Ireland is 36,000,0001. The quantity of hands in Irelands is two to one as compared to England ; the quantity of produce by England is four to ene as compared with Ireland. England produces four times as much as Ireland, although she ought only, considering the fertility of the soil of Ireland, to produce twice as much. Ag ricultural produce is the source of wages to the labourer. In England, the wages paid to the labourer is from Bs. to 10s. ; in Ireland, the wages paid is from 2s. to 2s. 6d. This shows that agricultural produce is the source of wages. Let it be recollected that this is the state of Ireland—this is the state of her agricultural produce, when she ought naturally to pro duce comparatively more than England, because the soil of Ireland is more fertile comparatively than that of England. If there was an equality of cultivation, Ireland would produce much more, according to its extent, than it now produces less. Tho diminution of its produce, that by which it is so much less than it ought to be, is to be attributed to the want of ca pital to be expended in cultivation—it is to be attributed to the poverty of the proprietors of the soil ; it shows that there is a diminution where there ought to be an increase in the quan tity. You are not to be surprised that there is not that capi tal. You perceive that there is not a sufficiency of capital to have that produce what it ought to be. It was not to be wondered at that such a country as this should be in such a state of destitution. In Ireland it appears that there arc 585,000 heads of families in a state of destitution—per sons who, for more than seven months in the year, are without employment.—( Hear, hear.) This is the number of the heads of families, and comprising, on au average to each family not less than 2,300,000 individuals. It has been said that des titution has been created by the undue bidding for land. The competition for land has been declared to be one of the great causes of the present destitution, and it has been said that if you could diminish that competition you would diminish the destitution. Accordingly, the Secretary to the Poor-law Commissioners has been publishing pamphlets and declaring that he has found ont the secret of Irish destitution. All, he says, that is to be done is to take away the demand for land, and that the moment you do so you will give relief—that by putting an end to the exorbitant rents now demanded, you will afford relief to the destitute. See how little foundation there is for such an assertion. Because there are 585,000 heads of families in a state of destitution, he would thus relieve them. Now, there are not less than 567,441 of these per sons who have not an inch of land. They, then, were not poor by reason of the competition for land; and be would give relief only to seventeen thousand heads of families that have land. ( See Appendix H, Second Report of the Poor law Commissioners.) Without then referring to a Poor- CANADA. The Report on the Canada Resolutions having been brought up, a ♦erbal amendment was made on the sugges tion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL. _ . Mr. GROTE did not intend to renew the discussion upon the subject of Canada, and regretted being again obliged to trouble the House upon the subject, which he should not have done, had it not been for ett% absence of the Hon. Member for Bath, who was labouring under severe indisposition. The Hon. Member then moved a series of resolutions condemnatory of the policy pursued by the pre sent Ministry towards the people of Canada. Mr. HUME could not allow the Resolutions to pass without protesting against the proceedings of the House as being most tyrannical, and tending to no good. He was quite satisfied that the House, after wasting five nights, in the discussion of these resolutions would, before a year was out, be convinced that the whole of that time had been thrown away, and that harm had been done instead of good.—( Hear, hear, hear.) He agreed with his Hon. Friend the Member for the City of Lon don, in placing the Resolutions of the Hon. Member for Bath on the table of the House as their protest against the present proceedings, which would be viewed with the same abhorrence as were the proceedin g s in 1774 and 1775 with respect to America. Only 56 Members had been formed to protect the interests of Canada against the systew proposed by his Majesty's Government, the only object of which was to uphold the Colonial Office. It was his (Mr. Flume's) intention, an Monday, to present a petition from Newfoundland, making the same complaints as the Canadians. Mr ROBINSON asserted that the opinions of the Hon. Members for Bath and Middlesex were at direct va riance with those of the House of Assembly of Upper Canada. Mr. C. PELHAM, though he acquiesced in many of the law, there were 567,000 who had no land : these persons were to be swept away before they could come to the panacea to prevent the competiton for land, and which could only affect 17,000 persons. I state these facts because they can be no longer disputed. I wish to show the state of society in Ire land. There is - this overwhelming excess of agricultural la bourers in this miserable state—there is this inferiority of agri cultural produce—there is this attributable to the poverty of the landlord and the tenant equally. Let it be recollected (although I have not the document here to prove it) that it has been calculated that the landlord receives 50s. in England for every 20s. that the Irish landlord gets.—( Hear.) I have now presented facts to you to show the situation of the pea santry, and to prove to you that they are in the most extra ordinary state of destitution. I have the evidence of this fact from every county in Ireland. I begin with the— COUNTY ANTRIM.--" Doctor Forsyth observing a poor man's cabin blocked up on Sunday, he was induced to make inquiry, and found that he had not risen from his bed during the day, having nothing to cat." " The Rev. Mr. Brennan states it would make your blood run cold to bear the tales of woe and misery that are told me in my confessional—the hardships of the poor are beyond endurance, "-Ist Report, p. 401. COUNTY WESTMEATH.—" Instances have been known of persons having committed trifling offences for the purpose of being sent to prison in order that they might obtain food and shelter."-Ist Report, p. 408. COUNTY CLARE.-- , " At all times of the year a large body of able-bodied men are out of work, but in summer there is the greatest scarcity of employment.. The poor are then re duced to the greatest extremity, and are obliged to put up with just as much food as will keep Life and soul together. Many is the man Who thinks himself w e.ll off at that time with one meal a day." " The following case gives an idea of ,the distress to which these poor women are reduced, when the cluplera hospital was established. Notwithstanding the dread wine h was entertained of the disease, three poor widows feigned sickness to get ad mittance."-Ist Report. COUNTY LONDONDERRY.—" The widows are frequently re duced, with their children, to six pounds of potatoes a day. Spinning is the only employment to which they call have re course. "-Ist Report. " The habits are as follow :—" Two or three families occupy one room. We have found four families in a room ; in one corner a woman, who had just been delivered, lying on a little straw ; no other straw in thezoom."—lst Report. COUNTY ANTRISI.—" Many cases of death arise from star vation." COUNTY CORK.—" Dr. Fitzgibbon is disposed to attribute much of the disease, which is at all times prevalent, to the use of bad food, and to the miserable state of the poor as to bed ding and bed clothes. He has often found sick persons lying with a little damp straw between them and the ground."-Ist Report, p. 323. " The huts that labouring people live in are often such that they have scarcely a place to lie on on account of the rain." " In point of clothing, the state of a great portion of the labouring class is very wretched. The clothes, or rather rags, of many labouring men are utterly insufficient to protect them from the cold ; many have no blankets, but make use of the clothes they wear during the day for the night covering." The Hon. Member next referred to a return from the county Carlow, showing the destitution of the small class of farmers, and observed that it was intended by an Act of Parliament to tax that class of persons, and make them pay poor-rates. He next referred to the— COUNTY MAYO.—" Numberless instances were known of families, being unable to procure straw, cutting rushes for beds ; still more, that for want of bed clothes they lie in the clothes they wear by day. Independent of rain from the roof, they cannot but be damp from their situation, as the most valueless (that is, swampy) piece of land is always selected to build them on, for fear of wasting any that might be profitable." —lst Report, page 292. " The Rev. Mr. Hughes mentions a case in which he was called on, about three months ago, to administer the rites of reli g ion. The family had been attacked by the fe ver : h e found the father and four out of the five children sick, and altogether on one bed of moist rotten straw: their only cover ing a single fold of what is called a poverty blanket, half wool and half tow."-Ist Report, page 292. " In the parish of Burrishoole, in a population 10,553, 3,931 were men and women destitute of necessary raiment; 9,553 of the total population were lying at the best on straw; and of those 7,070 were on the cabin floors."-Ist Report, p. 375. " In the parish of Kilmore Erris (Mr. Lyons says), accord ing to a census which I made, there were 751 men who had _ no shoes ; and out of a population of 9,000, 3,136 persons, male and female, vvho within five years had not purchased any article of clothing. According to the same census, of 1,648 families in the parish, 388 have two blankets each ; 1,011 have one blanket each ; and 299 have no blankets at all. You may well be surprised at this ; it surprised myself, although many years resident as parish rAiest."-Ist Report, p. 386. Now look to the effect of a Poor-law in one parish of the county of Mayo. the parish of Burrishoole : " Statement showing the Acreable Extent, the Population, distinguishing the number without employment, and those unable to work, and the Rental and Tithes of the Parish of Burrishoole, County of Mayo, deduced from the Evidence in the First Report of Commission of Poor Inquiry (Ireland), Session, 1835—(369) pages 375-6. ♦CREABLE EXTENT. Number of acres of arable and pasture land ... Number of acres of reclaimable mountain and pas- 16,000 ture land.. Number of acres of irreclaimable land . . 15,000 15,000 Total number of acres 46,000 POPULATION. Number .of persons capable of labour without employment `Pb'lTllt tibEleitic.mart ,7_,07 RENTAL AND TITHES. Rental.—Amount paid to absentees or mortgagees £4,796 Amount paid to resident landed proprietors 2,176 Amount of tithes as compounded Total amount of rental and tithes £7,322 Estimates and Inferences drawn from the foregoing State ment, assuming that relief was to be entirely drawn from the land, and that at the lowest possible calculation, without reference to the expense of workhouse or manage ment, &c. ESTIMATES " Of the amount it would annually take to provide support for the destitute unable to work, at' 2.1 d. per head per diem, 1,9531., or more than one-fourth of the rental and tithes. " Of the amount it would annually take to provide for the persons left without employment seven months in the year, at 3d. per head per diem, 18,5791. " Of the amount it would annually take to provide for both classes, those destitute and unable to work, and those seven months in the vear out of employment, 20,5231., or nearly treble the rental and tithes. INFERENCEN, " Proportion per acre on the cultivated land it would an- 1 nually take to provide for the destitute unable to work, 2s. sd. " Proportion per acre on the cultivated land and that re claimable it would annually take to relieve both classes, 13s. " Proportion per acre on the cultivated land it would annu ally take to relieve both classes, those unable to work, and those seven months in the year out of employment, 251. 7d. " I mean to read but one other statement. I assure the House I am confining myself to a few of the many extracts I have made upon this subject:— COUNTY LONOYORD.--" Those who have a plot of early po tatoes dig them before they are half grown ; they often have dug them out when they ought to be beginning to ripen ; eating these unripe potatoes causes sickness; many men arc put to their graves by this bad food; they arc pounded with salt and vegetables, to give them a substantial body, other wise they could not be eaten, they are so wet and tasteless; they are soft as mushrooms."—See Ist Report. COUNTY KILDARE.—" It is matter of frequent occurrence to find able-bodied persons committing offences for the purpose of being sent to gaol, and of getting food and shelter there." —See First Report, p. 400. " There are at least 200 families without straw to lie on, and without any potato-ground, and, as they get little employment, it is a miracle how they live." COUNTY TIPPERARY.—" The poor have been known to live on phrarragh (yellowweed), or on unripe cabbages or potatoes. Even in ordinary seasons, no small number of labouring men are compelled to allow their wives and children to have re course to begging."—See Report, p. 453. I suppose there is not a civilised country i❑ the world, except Ireland, where such details of misery are to be found.—( Hear. ) It is heart-rending. It is so extensive as to be almost incre dible.—( Hear.) But let it be recollected—let the House re. member—that this evidence has been collected by gentlemen of intelligence and humanity—( Hear)—that the Lord Archbishop of Dublin, that the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, that Mr. Blake, aided by a number of Assistant Commissioners, vouch for the accuracy of those statements, which underwent in vestigation on the spot. There was a report published in 1830— see what a description it gave—the report on the state of the poor of Ireland in 1830. Like the report of 1830, Mr. Nicholls, who paid a flying visit to Ireland, reported that there were great and encouraging prospects of the happiness and comfort of the Irish. The report of 1930 stated it was gratifying to them to notice the progress of improvement. Mr. Mahony declared that "the state of the peasantry was improving very rapidly," and that " the peasantry were now better clothed than formerly." Then there was Mr. Wayne, of the Woods and Forests, who said that every corner in Ireland was rapidly increasing in prosperity. There was, too, Mr. Wigans, an English land agent, stating that there was very great im provement in Ireland within the last 22 years. He stated that he conceived there was even an improvement in the morality of the people This was the evidence in 1830, but I have'been reading for you the evidence in 1835. There , you find that these prospects of improvement all end in this miserable dis play of wretchedness.—( Hear, hear.) I assure the Housa I have shrunk from half the selections I have made;—( Hear, hear.) The report says that the population is increasing ra pidly.) I know that it is generally believed that the in crease in the Irish population is greater than in that of the English. The fact is not so. The population in creases more rapidly in England than in Ireland. The ra tio of increase from 1821 to 1831 in England has been 16 per cent. ; in Ireland, in the same period, it has been 13 per cent. This ratio shows that it is totally false that the great increase in the population can be made 'fairly accountable for the distress that exists. You see the pictures of misery that Ireland presents—you behold it in its present condition—that condition is attributable to the most frightful code which a Satanic imagination could have invented. Did we govern ourselves? Who ard this? You. —( Cheers. ) Englishmen, I say you did it.—( Cheers.) I say that the domination of England did this.—( Hear, hear.) You, you cannot accuse us. This horrible poverty is all your doing. Agricultural produce has been comparatively decreasing the number of labourers comparatively increasing. There is a great debt due to Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) I have no hesitation in saying that the real remedy which the Irish people h ave t o look for is self-government. In the discussion of that question I had to encounter columns after columns of figures which were dis played against me. They were commented upon to show the increase of wealth in Ireland. What now becomes of the columns of figures contrasted with the evidence of the Poor-law Com missioners ? They remark at once—(Hear)—political causes have reduced the country to its present condition. I come not here to make a polemical or political speech. I wish only to state facts—to trace the causes of misery and destitution that are unequalled on the face of the globe.--(Hear, hear.) To be sure, it may be said that I am making a case for a Poor law. Certainly lam for a provision for the poor, and afford ing to them relief; but whether that is to be by a Poor-law, is another question. lam here making a case to interest your humanity; lam here making a case to excite your compas sion, and to afford every possible stimulant to assist me in _ taking Ireland from the situation in which you have placed it. You know now what is the condition of Ireland at present. It is crying out for a remedy. I ask you for the remedy. What remedy do you propose ?--( Hear, hear.) We require some remedy. e dly. wrh It i admitteds at d o y you upporno propose hand You gave e t 2 t o h , e oo c o a , o se % calls for a rem the negroes, or to their masters. Will you give 20,000,0001. to the Irish ? Twenty millions would do a great deal. Will you give a grant, or send money ov er t o Ireland—or will you give an annuity or the twenty millions ? Will you give 600,0001. a year, and apply it to the benefit of the Irish people ? No ; but you come out upon me, and say—if you have y ou r fiv e shil lings in one pocket, we will give a shilling out of one pocket and put it into the other, in order that, according to the pro verb, you may not say you are pooigr, e havingeiyou leave e"me to taxoney in both pockets." Y . ( u s.y to us, we null yourselves. This is the mode in which you will relieve our misery and distress. The Carlow farmer, who is dying from not being able to have a refreshing draught to wet his lips in fever—that man is to be taxed ; you will comp e l hi m to give g relief to support wretches who are not perhaps h a lf as miser ablev as he is himself. I believe, that you ought to bethink yourselves whether or not vou will give to Irelend some an nuity.—( Hear, hear.) Will you form a proper system of emi gration ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) Emigration is now going on. The Noble Lord has very properly remarked that the expense of emigration is now defrayed by emigrants themselfes, and that, if the system were altered, those persons would not go without assistance from Government. Why not take the waste lands of Canada ? Why not dispose of them in such a way as to promote an effectual emigration ? Why not take the colo nial waste l als as the American Government does? Why not make them a fund ? Nobody would miss them : such a step might perhaps put an end to a certain extent of the Land Com pany ; but it would enrich the Canadian people by sending out to them great numbers of healthy, able-bodied labourers. There would be something in that: but you do not talk of doing it. What is it that you propose to do? Do you mean 'to give us public works? I propose works of public utility. I propose the construction of roads and means of communication through mountains and bogs. I propose the drainage of lands where the capital required goes beyond the means of individuals to supply. My Hon. Friend near me suggests the opening of the Shannon.—( A laugh.) Perhaps that might come within the works I would propose. But you have nothing for me ex cept this Bill. I have already shown you that it is not compe tition for land that makes the misery of Ireland. Then what is it that causes the distress and wretchedness of the country, and of what value is this Bill to remove them? I will not now canvass any of its details, which. may be more suited for discussion in Committee. I take only its great prin. ciples. In the first place, it is . founded upon Mr. Nicholls's report. Ought any Act of Parliament to be founded on that man's report? I find it impossible to speak of that report in the terms one ought to use in this House. It is impossible, with due regard to the decorum of Parliament, to speak of it in the terms of execration in which it ought to be held. What did Mr. Nicholls do ? On the 22d of August, being in London, he fits himself out for his Irish expedition, delibe rately takes his way to Ireland, and by the 15th of November has prepared his report, and safely returned to London. This report is drawn up entirely from his own observation ; for, with contemptuous indifference, Mr. Nicholls cast aside altogether all the information that could have been afforded by the Poor law Commissioners who had been sitting upon the subject of Poor-laws in Ireland. Mr. Nicholls having spent rather more than two months in his survey of the state of Ireland, certainly begins his report in rather a comical manner; for, says he, remembering of course the weary period he had engrossed in the service, " it is only by personal inspection that the state of Ireland can possibly be known." After a personal inspec tion of six or eight weeks, Mr. Nicholls actually advances an opinion that Irish - women were chaste ! Of a truth, he must be a mighty keen observer: but I agree with him that it is by personal inspection only that Ireland ean be known ; though it would perhaps have been well if the personal inspection of Mr. Nicholls had been carried somewhat further before he cast aside from him as wholly unworthy of observation or regard the report of the Irish Poor-law Commissioners. I have inquired a little of Mr. Nicholl's mode of proceedings whilst he was in Ireland; and I understand that, although several of the Commis sioners were resident in Dublin during the time he was there, he only thought it worth while to seek out one of them, Mr: - Vignolles, upon whose experience arid under standing he might certainly have put implicit faith. Disre garding, however, any information he msght have received from that gentleman, Mr. Nicholls decides upon establishing in Ireland 100 poor-houses. That is the scheme to relieve Ireland from all her distress and all her misery-100 work houses ! I will canvass this scheme a little more particularly presently. Mr. Nicholls, with his 100 workhouses, talks of giving relief to 80,000 persons. Now, you will recollect that the Irish Poor Law Commissioners reported that there were mass of poverty by boxing up 80,000 poor persons in 100 poor-houses? Is not this preposterous? Is it not much worse than preposterous? I will not insult the good sense of the House by dwelling upon it ; I will not pursue Mr. Nicholls through all the absurdities of his scheme, but I will call the attention of the House to the charities that now exist in Ireland, and, comparing the number and extent of these charities with the misery that exists with them, and in spite of them, I will then ask the House how far the cenfine trent of 80,000 poor persons in a hundred workhouses is likely to alleviate the sufferings of my unhappy and destitute coun trymen ? In the city of Dublin alone the sums annually granted by this House towards the support of charitable institutions amount, to 44,45 e/. There arc besides a number of other charities supported by private subscriptions, of which the an nual amount is 29,360/. 19s. 10d. ; and beyond these there_ is another series of charities, the amount of which in pounds, shillings, and pence, has not been exactly ascertained ; bus, including all the sums distributed by the Sisters of Mercy and Sisters of Charity in Dublin, the annual amount cannot be less than 30,000/. So that in the city of Dublin alone the sums . given in charity by Parliament, by private subscription, by col lections at Protestant churches and Catholic chapels, by reli gious and chardable Societies, amounts in the aggregate to 103,800/. per annum. And with all this, is the destitution of the people relieved ?—( Hear, hear.) Is there no misery— no wretchedness in Dublin ? Is there a city in the world where there is so much wretchedness, or so much misery ? ( Hear, hear.) Then if 103.8001. a year be insufficient to relieve the distress of one city, how can it be supposed that 312,000/., the estimated expense of the 100 workhouses, will be sufficient to relieve the distress of the whole country ; recollecting, too, how many sources of private charity will be dried up the moment a general measure of this kind is passed. I will put this fact in another point of view. I have in my hand the statistics of the medical charities of Ire land. It seems that there are in the provinces 482 dispen saries, 67 fever hospitals, 36 county and cit y infirmaries, 11 district lunatic asylums, including that at Cork, and in Dublin 8 infirmaries and six hospitals, making a total of 610 estab lishments for the distribution of medical charity in Ireland, supported at an annual expense of 164,991/. This is equal to one-half of the sum calculated by Mr. Nicholls as the annual amount of the money to be distributed under the provisions of the Bill now before us. The average number of persons ad mitted into the infirmaries and fever hospitals in Ireland amounts to 40,000, and the expense, as I have already stated, amounts to 164,9941. a year. Do you suppose that by doubling the number of persons to be relieved, and the sums to be cm' /eyed r that purpose, that you will include all who stand in need of relief in Ireland, or that you will have suffi cient pecuniary means to remove all the distress of that country ? Stopping the sources of individual charity, do you suppose that by simply doubling the amount now e .pet ded in medical charities, you will be increasing to• the people of Ireland the aids they at present receive ? Have I not described to you the distress that exists every where in Ire land ? Have I not at the same time given you the amount of the charities that are maintained in that country ? Have I not shown that upwards of 250,000/. a year arc annually ex pended in charitable institutions and medical establishments? What then becomes of Me. Nicholls's calculation, that 312,0001. a-year is to do everything for Ireland? It is a dream—a wild dream-312 000/. a-year will do nothing. I tell you that this law must be confiscation or nothing. Make e s your minds up to that—make the experiment if you please ; but prepare to take the consequences. I should mention, that Mr. Nicholls put in in a postscript to his report. It is said that the material part of a lady's letter is generally to be be found in the postscript. Mr. Nicholls, being a man of gallantry, thinks this, I suppose, a proper mode of following the example of the ladies,. and accordingly he puts in his most important calculations by way of post script-. " The population of Ireland," says he, " being about eight millions, I assume that workhouse accommodation may occasionally be required for one per cent., or 80,000 persons," and then in a foot-note he remarks, by way of illustrating his proposition, that " In Kent, Sussex, Oxford, gull Berks, the amount of in-door pauperism, as returned on the 29th of September last, was just one per cent. on the population. These four counties were among the most highly pauperised, have been longest under the operation of the new law, and are provided with most effective work house accommodation." Yes, one of cent of the population are relieved in the workhouses ; but Mr. Nicholls forgets how many are relieved out of the workhouses —he omits that alto gether—he totally forgets it ; and it is upon this man's report that you are going to act—upon such a report you propose to legislate for the relief of a nation. Would it not be wise to pause ? Before you proceed would it not be wise and well to ascertain the correctness of the grounds on which you are re quired to act? I have in my hand a calculation of the amount of in door and out-door relief afforded in the four English counties mentioned by Mr. Nicholls. I have beard the amount of tliat relief rated much higher ; but I will confine myself to the statements contained in the document before me. It will be recollected that Kent, Sussex, Oxford, and Berks, are the counties which Mr. Nicholls .describes as having teen longest under the operation of the new law, and provided