The Sun. — London, England, 1837-12-02 00:00:00

eL it ' e ntreated the attention of their Lordships, he solicited 1 1,s attention of the country to the subject; he anxiously 4: r the support of the country, and for the support, ' able all, of those who had been the steady, the indoe i lkd and all the zealous friends of education for all classes lure of se cts. That there s h ou ld be any clause in a mea 1/ilsober"is sort excluding religious instruction to no msn in t-er e senses would e v er f ur a mome nt dream ot. That acd should b e a cleuse providing for religious instruction, of th_laying it down as an absolute rule that the whole pl aces : branch o f e d ucat i on shou l d b e g i ven i n su ch there Would equally be a man out of his senses. That that, sho uld be no 'exclusion of religious instruction, but ti elt " (11 the cont rary , t h ere s h ou ld b e a direct recogni eettj)l, 1 „ 1 it, he was decidedly of opinion.—(Hear.) He shout my was one o f th ose w h o th ou ght that the Bill il l all contain, in positive and express terms, a provision that dtltheces:atzri es h p o t o u l t sfounded, extended, or improved under the Bill, should be read. He had accordingly intro the . 1 : 1 into the m easure a prov i s i on ma ki ng it imperative upon t en ,".ard t o give its sanction, whether for the foundation, ex as'.a.,,4n, Or i mprovement of schools, to none one o f t h e ru l es regulati ons of which was not that a part of the rea di ng o f sv.tehlars should be from the Bible, and that the whole cr !Ptur Paine, es cu.d be read. The clause was of course st,:com with this proviso that the children of any Jewish or t orn‘s ot a ll Catholic parents who might attend the schools should li n k' required to b e present when the Scriptures were read, was ss the pa d rents esired it. He ha no doubt that this eqe4 t andY of o proper to be added to th d e Bill ; and he was /lie n pinion that it would still all differences of opi the subject of a national system of education. He W ei ei _ sanguine hopes of the success of the measure. lf it ec ,," Istll administered—if education continued popular in the j nethinrs were done to raise the spirit either of erootical faction, or b , above all, of religious discord, in the p sa l , r „ s ,, e of the passing of the Bill—and if, after it had ti n ,"" and come iato operation, those feelings should con aecle, took their rise out of a common and universal st qu i a Y wise, as well as truly Christion regard for the right 1, Sefton„t, of the people—then he verily believed that the d e ,„" . ,'etore which had passed the measure would be acknow blei°!"' in all time to come as having bestowed the greatest th a C t i n g that el er law- giver conferred upon a nation. He feit 80 10 " e ought to apologise for having detained their Lordships hi s I ng. but he conceived that he should net have discharged c,,it.he i r ny if he kept back any one feeling that he entertained upon or in connection with this important subject. No table and Learned Lord then laid the Bills upon the - Th e e, elec, 'earl of WINCHEL SE A had no hesitation in de -1-9' 'te that th ere were many sentiments in the long and Learned speech that ad been delivered by the Noble and p:i n ii ed Lord which lie heartily coecurred ; and more es be had 'n great satisfaction in finding that from the e , - `e Lord's pro posedsystem religious instruction was not ex e e l i u u d d e l• Na,so was reading of the Scriptures enjoined. for L l : rd BROUGHAM.—The reading of the Scriptures is to Th Part of the system of education. se te Earl of WIN CHIL SE A—lt was to form part of the st:,, - n, of education•• and, therefore, instead of religious in re,"e,t'on being exelnlled from the Noble Lord's plan, it was tbe, , ,d. This was in accordance with the sentiments on s nuieet contained in the petition presented by a Noble Nl;cluis from Manchester, and ire the petition resented by a Noblee and Learned Lord. Ile peated that that . part of the f act ,and Learned Lord's proposition gave him great satis sit.nn ; for he had always held it to be the first and most po (LI" duty of a Christian legislator in this country, however (Zs i d he reight be to extend the education of the people ue was far from being indisposed to extend that educe " a s widely as it could with religious instruction should . form_ ch`,' fo undation. There was one point to which he certainly ti Peted, and that was the establishment of Boards of Corn 0/184ieners for life, armed with powers to counteract the wishes ported majority of those by whom the schools were to be sup for, if h e un d er stood the Noble and Learned Lord f:e . o-eeu rtoflY, where the majority of a parish or district was in the establishment of a school on such or such prin :. 1 . 131 e5, the Commissioners might overrule their decision and " Iv i e effect to the opinion of the minority. Lor d BROUGHAM: All that the • Commissioners could a ?: under such circumstances, would be to decide that there be no school. t • tie Earl of WINCHILSEA : Then the minority would r ph. fiord BROUGHAM : There would be no school at all. r , be Earl of WINCHIL SE A should be sorry to see a t l e -a ' r d of Commissioners armed with such power as to ren t.:the decision of the rre.jority ineffective. He would not t i 3 eto any consideration ot other opinions which in the course / do n 's speech had been maintained by the Noble and Learned o dd ; especially as they were not connected with the subject t re their Lordships. If it should be proposed to te nd th e the suffisge under the Reform Bill, or to introduce et eta.ll by Ballot on those questions he should be prepared to their his opinion whenever they might be brought before Lordships; but he could not help expressing his great ' v egret t h at t h e grea t question of Parliamentary Reform, . 4 agitation connected with which had begun to subside, W as to be again thrown open ; and he could not avoid a nticipating the most prejudicial consequences from the pro teeding. Lord BROUGHAM wished to explain with respect to the r e vision of the Bill to which the Noble Earl had adverted. t ii . Was only to prevent a majority from levying a rate for a sl ic r Pese in which the minority was uninterested, and to which ain Y et ; ° „ er ,e opposed. The majority might still subscribe money 25 01%7 , 14 ,ernselves for the purpose of having the description of iority of ch they preferred. For instance, suppose the ma want the inhabitants of a parish were Dissenters, and they the e C o t ° have a description of school which . would include ar , e- "dreti of the Church of England persuasion, and to levy s e ;' l , - 1 1 , 1e ral rate for that purpose, " Oh, no," the Commissioners oft B aY, "we will hold the balance between th e members Church of England and the Dissenters , and we will o l otti the Dissenters to levy a general rate for their par prar purpose." The same would take ;place if a majority Richpar of he inhabit ants , b ( i ng mem b e rs of the Church of England, e d to include the children of Dissenters. T he Bill was then read a first time. Adjourned at half-past eight. _ 1 ,, HOUSE OF COMMONS.—DEC. I. Mr. SPE AKER too k t h e c h a i r a t the usual hour. I,„_'"r• Campbell, from the East India House, appeared at the t 7 i and p resente d reso l ut i ons re l at i ve t o p ens i ons granted by " Company. olalr• BANNERMAN presented a petition from the mer la.,:dlits and ship owners of Edinburgh in favour of Mr. Row • Hill's plan for equalising the rates of postage. NEGRO EMANCIPATION. th,, Mr ; W. GLADSTONE moved for returns connected with io- t he Nest of the 20,000,0001. granted to the Slave owners West Indies. 'Afi! r • WAKLEY believed an Hon. and Learned Membe r t o O'Connell) had already placed a notice upon the paper ' - ue same effec` T hec motion was then withdrawn. bpa '"r. • WAKLEY then presented a petition from Finsbury, for the establishment of a Court of Requests in that ro ugh. BRIDGEWATER ELECTION. r • W A RD presented a petition iromthe borough of Bridge tk_ler, signed by 156 out of 580 who were registered voters of at borough. The petitioners were some of the most nential and respectable inhabitants of the place, and y analysis of the names showed that they comprised te,. o j"len, 13 Gentlemen and Esquires, 6,Merchants, 2 Dis / ir.)g Ministers, 3 Surgeons, 1 Solicitor, 1 Conveyancer, 7 riok e epers, 1 Lieutenant, 1 Ship-broker, and 119 Shop th e P e ra• The petitioners regretted to be compelled to state ,„ a f gross, open, notorious, and profligate bribery and i r rution hvd for some time prevailed and was piactised tor t s hz v b e orough of Bridgewater, at the election of Members in Parliament ; and that a considerable portion c ',, e the electors, amounting at least to one-half, had been brib es to demand and receive, directly or indirectly, Cue& for their votes at such elections ; and that it had b een usual to sell their votes to the highest bidder.—( Hear.) buta certa i n number o f voters did not receive bribes , altt the number of persons who were in the habit of selling leir votes was sufficient to turn the scale at any contested election, and they had acquired the name of balance-men.for t the. Th e Petitioners further stated that at the election ` ) ,,tall of Bridgewater, Richard Brinsley Sheridan and n o e to - Broadvvood, Esqrs., were candidates, and that gross, that a e lls', and general bribery was practised on t hat oc c asi o n ; h rib House was opened for the purpose of d istributing the es t° the vo t ers , p at which a person, well acquainted with fif, e el ectors, tendered ' them, and furnished to ea ch voter a t h e et, on `in was inscrib hi ed s name ; that the voter was a sent to a room a little darkened, in v‘hich he found anaPereou who was a total stranger to the boroug h T h from hi m they received a paper parcel containing 10/. tri6.l T p et itioners alleged that 153 voters at the late election ad been so bribed, besides others who had received bribes HHoother way . Th e pe titi one rs th o ught they had made ou a case for enquiry at all events, and they prayed that the Z think ld ne g e r e a s n s t ar) sh an enquiry as in their wisdom they Mr Riv e ; MILES begged to ask whether the Hon. Member ha d I li on : notice of hi s i n t en ti on to present such a petition to the Membe r w h ose con d uct h a d b een impugned ? th e m 1. • WARD had not done so because he had only received tliiePetition that afternoon, and also because according to the Memberof the House, it was impossible for the Honourable for to make any remarks in reply. He intended to af 41:iv:nether opportunity for such a purpose, as he meant to Peti t . f cr a Committee to inquire into the allegs of the kti,!eners, immediately after the recess. lie had another A ' A l on to the same effect front Sir Thomas Lethbridge. avo-iu Mr. GLAD sT ON E hoped that the Honourable Member th e ` l , ace the unfairness of making such exparte statements in Mrßence of parties whose conduct was called in question. WA RD had not us ,- . , d one word cf statement; he had he h il ,! t i himself to th e wor d s use d by the petitioners , which ti lat e 'Tved was th e usua l custom i n presenting petitions to "°use• It was necessary for the House to know what emllrir,e.quAL iiriedEosf them by the petitioners. m hoped that the good feeling of the Hon. so d e e " would induce him to abstain from making statements Iv are 'PlY implicating the character of individuals until they mrPresent. HUME—The Hon. Member was perfectly in o rder. 4 :,9.n1y doing hi s d u t y . in reading the prayer of th e p ett- Nl4, which it was n e c essar y t o d o , in order to inform the what , Aas wanted of them. As the other party had on to reply, it wo.s evidently unnecessary that the N ir • ember should have given notice of his intention. t ake A RD—The Hon Members opposite had a little mis t, hi_ ma tor nothing was more foreign from his character and conduct than to make any charge against any gentleman in that House, without giving him the fullest opportunity of answering all the allegations made against him. He had not made a single observation of his own—he had confined himself entirely to the allegation of the petitioners, in which he be lieved he was following the rules of the House. He had another petition to present from Sir Thomas Lethbridge, and it contained allegations of a similar nature. Mr. MILES hoped that the petition would be presented without any observation until the Hon. Member whose conduct was called in question was in his place. Mr. WA RD—lf the House were against him,he would pre sent the petition without any statement at all.—( Hear.) The petition of Sir Thomas Lethbridge goes on to allege that similar facts had taken place in the Borough of Bridgewater, and prayed that the truth' or falsehood of the statements in the petition might be proved by an inquiry being instituted on the subject. For the purpose of affording that opportunity, he should at a subsequent period move for the appointment of a Select Committee upon the subject. The third petition he had to present was one from Sir Thomas Lethbridge against the return for the Borough of Bridgewater. The SPEAKER doubted very much the propriety of pre senting a petition to the House in which a party was peti tioner, who complained against the return for the place from which the petition came; he must put it to the House whether the adoption of such a course was not against the spirit of the resolutions that had been adopted by the House. Mr. WARD said the first was not signed by any individual who had an interest in the election petition ; the second peti tion undoubtedly had ; but if it were against the feeling of the House that the petition should be,presented, he would with- craw re The SPEAKER did not wish to take upon himself the de cision of such a question, but it was one, in his mind, of great doubt. It occurred, however, to him that the presenting of the petition was against the spirit of the resolution of the House. It was a very different case to where there was no election petition, or where the time for petitioning against the return had expired. Mr. HUME thought that all the petitions might be re ceived consistently with the resolutions adopted by the House. The SPEAKER said that the objection was to the presen tation of the petition complaining of the general facts, from persons who also signed the petition against the return of the sitting Member. But there could be no objection to the pe tition which complained of the same facts, but did not come from those who petitioned against the return. Mr. WARD then withdrew the petition from Sir Thomas Lethbridge alone, and laid on the table the petition from the inhabitants of Bridgewater, complaining of the corrupt prac tices that prevailed at the late election for that borough ; and also the petition from Sir Thomas Lethbridge, and three other electors, against the return of the sitting Member. The SPEAKER asked the Hon. Member what day did he fix for taking the election petition into consideration ? Mr. WA RD then gave notice that he would move that the petition be taken into consideration on the 19th of December. Mr. HUME said that as the reading of the first petition had been interrupted by the Gentlemen opposite, who had in correctly called the Hon. Member for Sheffield to order, he should move that it be now read by the Clerk at the table.— ( A laugh.) The petition was accordingly read by the Clerk ; and the reading occasioned a good deal of quiet laughter, which seemed to be e , peeiolly enjoyed by Mr. Hume. Mr. CO URTENA Y said he understood the petition to be in the nature of an election petition. Now, there was already a petition against the return of his Colleague and himself. He did not know if this petition alleged bribery against them ; for the sake of the argument, he would assume that it did ; arid he would affirm, that if such were the case, this petition was one of the most scandalous and dishonest ever presented. On a controverted election petition should any man bring to bear the conduct of former elections ? If the state of the repre sentation of Bridgewater were such, and such abuses had been continued for centuries--at least beyond living me mory—there might be ground for the House to interfere for the protection of purity of election.—( Hear, hear.) But it wasemost unjust that this petition should be brought forward at this time for no other purpose than to prejudice the minds of the Committee and the public against the parties concerned in this particular controverted election petition. Those who complained of the insufficiency of the constituency of Bridgwater should have had the common honesty, the common decency, to have waited for the result of the last petition. If it should turn out that in this libelled and calumniated borough, though formerly abuses had prevailed, no proof could be brought of any bribery or corruption at the last election, was it jus tice to punish the existing constituency for crimes committed long since, and which had not been continued at the last election? This petition had for its object to produce the effects which notoriety and report bad, it was well knonn, upon the minds of juries, and Election Committees werejuries. —(Hear, hear, hear.) And he (Mr. C.) could not help suspecting that it was also intended to supply the de ficiency of proof against the return at the last election, by going back to certain proceedings to which he was no party, not having himself put up before for the borough. But he should not be doing his duty to his colleague ( Mr. Broad wood) if lie did riot say that the charges against him respect ing a former election had not been pro% ed. It was said, indeed, that the petition was not prosecuted on account of certain cases not affecting the persons petitioning, which, as we understood, was not the case. It was mist dishonest to wards his Hon. Colleague, for the purpose of prejudicing the question to be tried to have this ancillary petition pre sented, apparently on public grounds ; but, in fact, in order to destroy the chance of having justice done him en the pre.. sent occasion. With these remarks he would sit down, trusting to the justice of the House. He had thought it his duty to his Honourable Colleague and himself to meet the statements that had been made, and to point out to the House the impropriety of receiving this peti tition. He would throw himself on the sense of the House and the Hon. Member—he did not know whether he ought to do so or not—but he would ask the Hon. Member, as a mid of conscience, and as a man of honour, which he preseumed the Hon. Gentleman to be, to delay the printing of the petition, until the merits of the petition could properly be gone into. Mr. WARD had only discharged a public duty in pre senting the two petitions, which had been sent up to him by post from Bridgewater. He was not responsible for the accu racy of the statements contained in the petition, and conceiving there was not time to make an application to any Member, he presented the petition. If the , Hon. Member opposite pre ferred it, he would most willingly defer the motion for print ing the petition until the time should arrive when the election petition could be investigated. Mr. COU RTE NAY was perfectly satisfied with the state ment of the Honourable Gentleman, and trusted that he had said nothing that could be offensive to him, as he only intended to express the indignation which he felt at the contents of the petition. Sir W. FOLLETT was not present during the first part of this discussion, but he would appeal to the Speaker, and to lion. Members whether the House ought to receive the petition. Since he had been in the House he collected from the lion. Member that he had had three petitions, one a common election petition against the sitting Members, upon the ground of bribery and corruption; be also undei stood that the Hon. Gentleman bad a petition from a gentleman who was a candidate at the late election, not only complaining of the state of the borough at former elections, but also referring to the late eleetion ; and the Honourable Member for Sheffield thought it right to withdraw that petition. Now the petition before the House was from certain electors of the borough, not those who signed the election petition, but others; and they had gone not only into matters connected with former elections, but the very last election. They have stated that bribery and corruption prevailed at former elections, and they asked the House to inquire into the state of the borough as regarded these and the very last election which affected the seats of the sitting Members. He would submit to the House, that when an election petition was presented against the sitting Members it was not fair or right that that House should receive another petition from the same bo rough making charges of the same sort, and asking a Commit tee of Inquiry of a different nature. It was not fair to the sitting Members to have such statements made and printed, and cir culated among those Members who were to form the tribunal before whom the case would ultimately come. At least in decency and propriety, in fairness and candour, the peti tioners ought to wait until the election petition had been dis posed of. After that, it might be quite competent and right of them to present it. Such was the course observed upon all occasions—the election petition was first heard, and after its merits had been investigated, then the present might be enter tained. 116 would suggest to the Hon. Member, in fairness, to withdraw the petition—if not, he hoped the House would reject it.—( Opposition cheers.) Mr. HUME said the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had confounded two things which were quite distinct. The alle gations in the petition now before them referred to many years past, while the election petition referred to a particular case and particular facts. The Hon. and Learned Member must be further aware that the Members of an Election Committee were sworn to decide upon the evidence before them, and it was evident that the allegation of general cor ruption could not affect the sitting Members, because it could not come judicially before them. Mr. WARD had no wish to press hard upon any one, but he considered that when a -petition was presented, signed by so large a proportion of any constituency, the House was i bound to recei ve the p etition, and allow t to lay on the table ,or t'ne i n f orma tion of Members. He felt bound , the r e f ore , to move that the p etition do lay on the table. As to that one from Sir Thomas Lethbridge, after what had fallen from the Speaker, he would take upon himself to withdraw it. Lord JOHN RUSSELL enquired whether that motion was objected to. Sir W. FOLLETT'S.—e Lord J. RUSSELL said, such being the case he would state, that in general, when butn there wa fo sa r n th e e le H e o t n io g n e t p o et in it s i t e i. n before the House, it woul d be improper , og h b e t tnu,atse not ty di b t e o fo g r o e stohaftarpaetsitoonsa wy-a, disposedthat the o l House not to receive the petition, and let it lie on the Mr. COURTEN A Y agreed with the Noble Lord, _ that in a case where only vague and genera l complaints were m ade such as he proposed would be proper, but if he referred to the pet tion he would find that it made specific charg es, continued up even to the last election. which, we i e Mr. LE AD ER had no intention, he could assure the House, to defend the electors of Bridgewater—they. could do that themselves.—( Laughter.) The presentation of that petition, however, showed that there was some honesty existing in the borough. He had risen, however, to state that Bridgewater did not stand alone in its infamy ; it was notorious that there were fifty other boroughs where practices were as open as those complained of in the I.7:;..sent petition. If the C,f.nic,:tee core appoilil.,:ti to enquire into these practices, he should move that the inquiry be extended into other boroughs ; for he thought it unfair that Bridgewater should he held up to infamy, while it was notorious that such places as Harwich, St. Albans, Sud bury, Norwich, and many other places were equally bad. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that after reading the pe tition, he felt bound to say that it alluded to circumstances regarding the late election, which, subject to the opinion of the Chair, in his opinion gave it very much the character of an election petition.---( Cheers from the Tories.) Sir W. FOLLETT could assure the Noble Lord and the House, that it was only on the ground of the petition referring directly to the last election, that he had thought it right to detain the House upon it. Mr. HUME rose amid loud cries of " Spoke." He sub mitted to the Chair whether where parties made statements upon a petition who had not entered into recognizances, any statement could be considered in the nature of an election petition. The SPEAKER said, if the question were distinctly put to him, be should be bound -to say that it was not an election petition, as it had nothing really to do with the seat. In his opinion, the question was one for the House to decide. Mr. PEASE, as one of the Members who were present when the petition was brought forward, would put it to the House to say whether the Hon. Member, in bringing it forward, did not state that it had no relation to the election.— ( Cheers.) He bad been deceived by that statement, and the House must have been so likewise, such being the case he conceived that the petition ought to be withdrawn, if the election petition were presented. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the House ought to be careful in guarding against the adoption of a course which would lead to prejudice.—( Hear, bear.) In his opinion the election petition ought not to be received. Mr. WAKLEY was surprised at the statements of the Hon. and Learned Member below him. If the course he had re commended was to be pursued, nothing but corruption would take place, and petitions would find no remedy in that House. It was very possible that if such a rule were to be acted upon, petitioners would come before the House by way of stratagem _collusion would take place. Election petitions would be pre sented for the purpose of concealing the corruption and exclud ing the proofs of bribery; whilst those who took no part in the illegal practices would be shut out from the attention of the House. He thought that the course which ought to be pursued was easily practised. Tho Hon. Member for Bridgewater (Mr. Courtenay) had assured the House that the statements of the petition so far as he was concerned, were to tally false. Why then should there not be a Select Committee to enquire into those allegations, and to show the innocence of the Hon. Member and his colleague? He (Mr. W.) wished that the petition would be received. Looking to what had been done with respect to the election petitions from the sister country he was rather surprised at the exceeding delicacy which was exhibited by Honourable Members on the other side of the House.—(Hear, and cheers.) Mr. GORING thought that the delicacy of which the Hen. Msmber for Finsbury had spoken was by no means out of place, and he thought that the gentlemen who supported the proposition of the Hon. Member for Sheffield, did not act con sistently when they pressed upon the House such a petition as this, affecting a gentleman whose return was pe-. titioned agsinst at the same time. —( Hear, from the Opposition. ) Mr. WARD then consented to withdraw a petition, which complained generally of illegal and corrupt practices in the borough of Bridgewater at the last election ; and the petition against the return was laid on the table, and (as we under stood), was ordered to be taken into consideration on the 12th of December. The Honourable Member said that he felt himself bound, for the satisfaction of those who had entrusted him with the petition, to give the House notice that he would take another opportunity of presenting the petition from Bridgewater, when the same objection would not apply to its reception, and. that he would found thereupon a motion for a Committee of Inquiry. . ELECTION PETITIONS. The SPEAKER informed the House that he had received through the Hanaper-office a petition against the return for the Borough of Newry. Mr. HARVEY presented a petition from the Borough of Berwick-upon-Tweed, also against the late return. LIMITATION OF THE FRANCHISE. Mr. WA RD presented a petition signed by 628 Inhabi tants of Sheffield, for whose respectability and intelligence he could vouch, complaining that under certain clauses of the Reform Bill, they were deprived of their suffrage in right of particular kinds of landed and household property, such as Mills, Mill Yards, Engine Houses, &c. The peti tioners prayed for an alteration of the Bill in this respect. MR. BLAKE. Mr. WAKLEY gave notice, that after the recess he would move an humble • address to her Majesty, that she would be graciously pleased to reinstate Richard Blake, Esq., in the office of Stipendiary Magistrate for some past of Ireland ; or that if not to that, her Majesty would he pleased to appoint him to some office of equal value. ELECTION PETITIONz. 2 . The SPEAKER announced that petitions had been re ceived against the returns for the boroughs of Bridgewater, Poole, Tamworth—(greatlaughter)—Berwlek- on- Tweed, and Kinsale. They were all fixed for the 12th of December. LOWER CANADA. Mr. LEADER wished to put a question to the Noble Lord near him (Lord John Russell). He wished to know if within the last six months any increase of troops had taken place in Lawer Canada. He wished also to know if Lord Gosford had made any application for addi tional troops, and, if so, what the cause of that appli cation was. He wished to know if there had been any in crease in the amount of desertions amongst the British troops in Lower Canada within that period, and lastly, when the Noble Lord intended to bring forward his conciliatory mea sures for Lower Canada. Lord JOHN RUSSELL was afraid his answers would hardly prove satisfactory to the Hon. Member. With respect to the first question, namely, whether troops had, within the last six months, been sent into Lower Canada, he could answer that a regiment had been sent from New Brunswick to Lower Canada, which Lord Gosford had been authorised to borrow. With respect to the question of whether there was any application for an increased force to be sent to Lower Canada, he must at present decline answering that question. With respect to the desertion of soldiers belonging to her Ma jesty's troops in that country, he was not aware of any having taken place, although he believed the utmost pains had been taken by seditious persons in that Colony to induce them to do so.—( Opposition cheers.) With respect to the last question as to the time when any measures would be brought forward by the Government, his only answer was, that upon that subject he could not state any positive determination. H e could state what the present opinion of Government was, but it was liable to be varied by the information which was to be received from Canada. Whatever they might feel bound i n justice to do, her Majesty's Government were deeply per suaded that it was their duty to support in Canada the cause of those who were well affected to the Crown of this country. —( Renewed Opposition cheers.) MALTA. Mr. HUME said the House was aware that a Commission had been sent out to Malta, and that reports had been sent home--(Hear)—he begged to ask the Noble Lord whether he had any objection to lay -on the table of the House any reports which bad been sent from that Commission, and whether any measures were likely to be adopted in consequence of these reports? Sir GEO. GREY said that the subject of these reports would very shortly be laid before the House, as well as cer tain despatches which would show the steps that had been taken by the Government. Mr. HUME wished to know if these reports referred to the liberty of the press. Sir GEORGE GREY replied in the affirmative. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. Mr. WALLACE said he wished to draw the attention of the House for a few moments to a matter of considerable im portance. Last night, in one or more of the public papers, appeared allegations derogatory to his character as a gentle man, and also as a Member of that House. By the interven tion of a friend lie had discovered that the allegations were not intended to apply to his personal character, but to some statements made by him publicly in that House. Therefore he begged permission briefly to state the circumstances to the House. It was endeavoured to be insinuated that he had, about two years ago, received a petition accompanied with a letter which he had refused to acknowledge the receipt of. The facts were these. Information was sent to him that a pi tition had been sent to him from a village in Scotland. which he had never received. A second letter from the Postmaster- General informed him that the petition and letter had been re. gularly posted, and expressed sm prise that neither one cr other had reached him. To that letter he (Mr. Wallace) had paid no attention, being convinced that he had not received either ; but removing his residence shortly afterwards he dicovercd a leter among his papers, and acting entirely on his own feelings asi a gentleman, he communicated to the Postmaster-General the tact of that discovery. The petition he had not seen since—he meant he had not see n it at all, The second point regarded his having alleged a customary violation of seals at the Post-office. He had often sent letters late at night (per haps Members are not aware that the General Post-office seven and twelve o'clock at night , whe n the other receiving was open, for the reception of letter s, between the hours of houses were closed), and on one of these occasions' e had sent four letters-to the General Post-office. Next day he received a letter from Colonel Maberly, which he held in his hand, stat ing that of the seals to the four letters one was broken, and the other three were in a very insecure state. Now he ( Mr. W.) always wrote on the outside of the letters which lie sent after 7 in th e evening to the receiver,—please exam i ne the seal of this letter, and return the cover if it should appear to have been violated;" and he held in his hand the franks of letters which he had requested to be returned to him, ranging over a period of three weeks ; and he affirmed that they were as well sealed as gentlemen were in the habit of scaling their letters. f, therefore, it was ieteeded to be insinuated that he (Mr• W.) could be guilty of putting letters into the Post-office carelessly p pp sealed, for the urpose of supporting such .an allega tion as he alluded to, he threw back the charge with the ut most disdain. He distinctly d"clarcd that he had nev, r stated any thing with regard to the Post-office which was not sub stantially true. Ile would, at a more fitting opportunity, show to the House the manner in which the correspondence of the country was treateO, according to Return No. 495, which he had moved for last Session. Mr. BA RING said as to the latter part of the Hon. Mem ber's statement, he did not think that the House had anything to do with it; but with respect to the former part he (Mr. B.) did not wish to make any allusions or observations which might tend to create more feeling upon the subject than that which already existed. But he might be allowed to remark, that as his Hon. Friend, ii 'making charges against the Post office, did not use very guarded expressions or soft words, he must allow parties, in repelling those charges, to use ex prcs siees whVt nu. 7,1 create in his feeling Gi inorf , : , - tar} unpleasantne ss. But he ( Mr. B. ) w as q uite sure that the words use d, and of which his Han. Friend com p lained, were used in discharging the duty of defending that Depart. THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1837. meet over which the Noble Lord presided, and were used with reference to the letter that had been read, and to that letter only. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE. Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved that the House at its ri ing do adjourn till Monday.—Agreed to. SOUTH AUSTRALIA. Mr. LEADER wished to ask the Hon. Member for De vonport (Sir George Grey), if the second Annual Report of the South Australian Commissioners had yet been made to the Secretary of State, because it ought to have been made in June or July last ? Siy GEORGE GREY would make inquiryon the subject. CUSTODY OF INSANE PERSONS. The Custody of Insane Persons Bill was read a second time. POOR LAWS—(IRELAND.) Lord JOHN RUSSELL—Sir, I rise to bring under the notice of the House a subject of so much itnportance that I would not conceive that I was fulfilling my duty if I did not again state to the House the general p; upon which we bring forward a Bill, making provision for the esta blishment of a system of Poor laws for Ireland.—( Hear, hear, bear.) I do not propose to go into the question in detail, nor to refer particularly to any of those parts of the measure, which may be better dealt with in the Committee; but as it is a measure which, if carried, must have great in fluence on the future destinies of Ireland, I think it my duty that I should state my reasons for the propriety and policy of now introducing it. Sir, with respect to measures that have been adopted with regard to the poor, I think that there has been generally a very great and very unfortunate distinction with respect to the tendency of their policy. It has been generally considered that there was some way—some royal road, by which the pros perity of the country would be established by means of legis lation. Sir, the view I take of a Poor-law rests upon entirely different principles. I maintain that the general comfort of the poor, their general prosperity, the maintenance of due wages upon which they are to live, depends upon ge neral legislation, but rot upon particular laws framed for that purpose alone. For instance, Sir, the general principle upon which the prosperity of a country, and particularly of the poorer classes, depends, is their being perfect security for life and property—freedom of choice of occupation or profession, that the road to distinction should be open to all, and finally that there should be no monopoly of sect or class, or race, which should lead any one to despair of due reward for meritorious services. These are the principles upon which the main prosperity of the country must depend ; but they arc not the principles upon which we have founded our law. lam not now, Sir, speaking solely in reference to Ireland ; for by some law specially directed to that end, you must make the con lition of the labouring classes so advantageous that • sufficient wages should be given to them for their due main tenance before you can ameliorate their condition.--( Hear.) I wish, therefore, to state at the commencement, that the mea sure I shall have the honour to propose, has no such object in view, and when I state, that I know I may disappoint the view of many who considering the condition of Ireland, and considering the numerous classes—the hundreds of thousands that are insufficiently maintained, have supposed that by some law of the nature of a poor lay, that that evil might be remedied, and the nation placed in a pros perous condition. If we followed the example of England I should by no means maintain that it is to the Poor Laws, how ever well-governed or directed, that the prosperity of this ' country was to be attributed. It is owing to the feelings and independence of its inhabitants, and to those national provi sions of the Government—to the security of life and property, and for those provisions which the Government affords to that freedom which enables everyone to look fora due reward of his exertions, and to the absence of religious and political monopoly —(Cheers)—it is to these, I say, and to causes such as these, that we are to look for the main support and prosperity of this country. Admitting all this, and stating all this as lam disposed to do, there remains another question, a question af fecting deeply the prosperity of the country and the condition of the labouring classes, but affecting them in a different de gree from many questions of government and constitution. In - every country moved from a state of misery, or from a state of comparative social want, to one of interest and pros perity, there must always be a number of persons in a state of utter destitution. Now, the question, Sir, is what provision shall be made for those persons. If you make no provision at all for them, if the State says we hold it to be irreconcileable with principle to make such a provision, I think you cannot in justice say that such per sons shall not enjoy that right which seems to belong to them from nature, that of obtaining by some legal enactment from their richer neighbours the means of .existence. If you do not deny them that right, but if you say that you will make no State measures for their subsistence —if you will say that, you cannot but be well aware that you will increase mendicancy, and they will exercise their rights of subsistence by asking alms. It is true, however, that there arc many in the community who, under the pretence of asking alms commit pilfering and theft, and by that means put to great confusion the order of the community. I come now, Sir, having made these preliminary observations with respect to the general principles by which any law' of this sort must be governed, to state what I conceive ought to be its application with respect to Ireland. Ido not wish, as far as I can avoid it, to enter upon disputed or controverted points; still it cannot be denied that until a late period, I may say the end of the last century, the Irish people did not enjoy the benefits of a free Constitution, or the same rights and liberties which we possessed.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") It is stated that in consequence of this Ireland has always been misgoverned. Ido not wish to enter into that question now, one way or another, further than to state, from what I conceive to be the best testimony, what has been the condition of the poorer classes in that country, and to say how far that condition has not improved, like that of England, from the reign of Eli zabeth down to the present time ; and to show that there now exists in Ireland a large class whom we are to consider not with respect to their rights and liberties, but as to their physi cal condition, and to see her that condition may be ameliorated. The first authority to which I shall refer you as to the state of Ireland is Sir William Petty. In 1677 he states that the population amounted to one million one hundred thousand, of whom three hundred thousand were composed of English Pro testants and Scotch Presbyterians, seventy-five thousand of whom were of a rank which placed them above the necessity of work—of the entire population nearly one million lived in 100,000 families and houses, and the re maining portion lived in hovels without windows or doors. Such was the miserable condition, which Sir William Petty described of a population exceeding one million. We have not any very accurate accounts of the increase of the po pulation, for a long time after that. There was an ac count published in 1712 ; and as regarded the number i,f houses in Ireland, in 1725 and 1126. In 1712 the population was 2,099,000, and, in 1726, 2,309,106. At that time, it will be observed, the population being little more than two millions, was not above one-fourth of what it is at the present moment ; but it was at that time generally a grazing country ; there was very little arable land, and it was thought necessary to make by law provision for the cultivation of the land. The increase of the population does not seem to have been very great during the reign of the two first Princes of the House of Hanover. The population was calculated— In 1754 1767 1777 1785 Now, Sir, such being the condition of the people, if we could have conceived that at time efficient laws had been introduced, and that the people could have been united as one commu nity, and the causes of dissension which subsist unhap pily to-day, perhaps necessarily to-day, could have been avoided, there was no reason why the increase of population from 2,840,000 should not have taken place corn- mensuratc with an increase in the comforts of the people and a general improvement in their social condition; so that popu lation and improvement should have gone hand in hand. But there were several causes, of which I shall enumerate only a few, which seem at that time to have produced a very considerable and very rapid increase in popu lation, without any similar increase in the comforts of the people, or the nature of their condition. One cause of this particularly was the encouragement given by the Parliament of Ireland to the cultivation of arable land. An exhort duty was made of 3s. 4d. perbushel on the exportation of wheat and other grain, Atm th e a r n c d a t u h s i e s , w a a s s e i n t a a c p t e e e d a i r n s 1784, b y a t s h elr ish practice which grew up, after the conversion of pasture into arable land, which took place generally throughout the country, of greatly divid ing properties, and of both landowners and farmers subletting their properties and holdings, and thus giving opportunity, by furnishing cabins and small portions of land, for great increase of population without a like increase of comfort and civiliza tion. Another cause was the measure which passed in 1793, giving the right of voting for Members of Parlia ment to the forty shilling freeholders ; and I think that if one had calmly considered the state of Ireland under the Go vernment of this country, during the last century, and wished to take measures by means of which that state might be changed to one of equal rights and privileges, I think that if any one had looked impartially to that state, he would have said that the best way of effecting that amelioration would be, that the higher classes should first be admitted to the privileges of voting for representatives in Parliament, and that then the right of voting should have descended to the poorer members of the Roman Catholic body.—( Hear.) The course which the Legislature followed, however, on that occasion was of a different description, and went to confer the right of voting for Members of Parliament on the Roman Catholic freeholders generally. This egift of the right of voting did not however change the relations formerly subsist ing between the Roman Catholic and Protestant popula tion. The consequence therefore was, as was stated to this House about the year 1795, as I think, that it became a custom for the great7pro, , rietors to have a great number of voters of the poorer class upon their prope tics Whom they brou g ht u p to the poll, and us e d their frarchise for the accomplish ment of their own purposes, and not for the advancement of the interests of the community at large. This was one cause which, ;n hi; opinion, tended to produce an increase of the population in Ireland ; and a cause which did net tend to produce a cor responding increase of comfort and civilization in that country. Sir, the increase has been from 2,845,932 in 1785, to 7,767,401 in 1831, li t tl e more than fifty years, without its being p oss ibl e to say that, as in England, the in crease was owing to an increase in commercial, manu facturing, and agricultural occupations, increased the prospe rity of every kind and, generally, increased the well-being of the people. • Sir, I conceive this to be the state of Ireland, upon which, without going into the details of the Poor Law Commisioners' Report, we have now to deal. Those Com missioners went with very great labour and attentioit into the wh o l e su bject of Poor-laws in Irela nd ; but I_ ,ort,inly d o t hi n k that in their Report, they confound many subject s w hi c h they ought to have kept separate; d that they to o muc h co nsidered it was their busin ess to examinend_ how you could improve, by means of state measures, the general condition of the community—(Cries. of " Hear") — and have not confined themselves to the question of the des titute classes, which was more especially committed to their care. As to the improvement of the general condition of the people, I certainly still think, that it must result in the main, fronran improvement in the general Government and legisla tion: and that one cannot expect by any special laws declaring that the state shall set up public works in one place, or drain a bog in another, &c., interfere with the general progress of the community with any great or decided be nefit.—( Hear, hear.) You may remove obstacles—you may grant facilities.— ( Hear.) Some Hon. Friends of mine have introduced Bills for these purposes with the object of pro moting the application of capital; but I think that we, as a Go vernment, should have undertaken a perilous task if we had held forth any hopes that by immediate and direct measures of ours we could improve the state of the Irish population.--( Hear.) Sir, I am convinced for my part—knowing the industry of the Irish people, knowing their many high qualities, with a full participation in the enjoyment of freedom and the security of property—that they will make prospe rity for themselves. —( Cheers.) But, Sir, I must take leave to call the attention of the House to some particulars in which I think the Commissioners are mistaken. They have thought it expedient to tax mortgagees who have established a kind of property which they have come to under the belief that it was to be olcarly income, and not cur lened with taxes. Yet the Poor-law Commistions, contrary, as I think, to all just prin. ciples, have thought it advisable that the mortgagee's should be taxed. Sir, with respect to other parts of their reconlmenda tions, and which belong more immediately to the subject, there is, I think, insuperable difficulty in adopting their recom mendations. They have stated that great evils would flow from the adaption of the workhouse system. They have stated that vast numbers in Ireland (the numbers I will afterwards revert to) are in a state ef great distress; that the workhouses would overflow with the numbers; that restraint would be possible; and they propose, therefore, that only the sick and the blind, and persons totally unable to work, should he re ceived into the workhouses. With respect to this division of the subject, had Ireland been in the condition of Scotland I think we might have said, as was said by those who framed the Scotch law, that the able-bodied should not receive relief in the workhouses ; because the population of Scotland falling rather short of what was needed, there was security in the disposition of the able-bodied that they would not become a burden upon the community. But when such a claim is likely to be made, when we have a superfluity of labour, I do not see how, having a workhouse, you can shut the door of the workhouse to the able-bodied.—(llear, hear.) One comes and. says, " I am old and a crippl., and unable longer to work; I have nothing to sustain me; admit me to this house, where I understand you give raiment, and food, • and shelter; and let me pass the rest of my days protected against entire destitution." That person is admitted. Well, another comes and says, " It is impossible for me to obtain work; I have looked everywhere to find employment; I can. not obtain land—there is riot any one who will let it to me; I cannot obtain hire for my labour; I am therefore in a state of complete destitution, and I ask you to receive me into the workhouse." Now, is it an answer to that man to say, "It is very true that you must starve if you are not received into the workhouse, but you have strength of limb, you are able bodied, and we cannot receive you ?"—( Hear.) Is not the one man who is able to work, but who cannot obtain labour— who cannot obtain a single twopence for his labour—is he not in a state of as great distress as the man who is prevented from obtaining work by infirmiiics and age ?—( Hear. hear.) But there is another proposition of the Poor-law Commissioners which requires consideration. I allude to their recommenda tion to establish a system of emigration, and have depots where certain persons are to be received, whether able-bodied or not, for the purpose of emigrating. ( Hear, hear.) Now, I must say generally, with regard to emigration, ; that though it is a wholesome resource in some respects, those who propose it ought not to look.only to the wants and convenience of this country—( Hear) —they ought not ' altogether to overlook the wants and convenience of the place the emigrants are to be sent to.—(Hear, hear.) If you say " These men are not needed in this country, and therefore are to goabroad," you must, at the same timeeudmit that those persons who are resi dent in your colonies have a right to say, " We are very much in want of persons who shall occupy themselves either as labourers or as artisans in this colony, but if you tell us that you will send none but persons of bad moral character—persons who are physi cally unable to work—persons who are unfit to be members of your community, we say, on the other hand, do not let them be members of ours." I think that this claim on the part of the colony is a fair claim, and that, in considering the advantage to the mother country, you must at the same time consider the dis position and wants of the colony. But what would have been the effect, such a view being taken •by the colonies, of amassing in these depots, in these workhouses, without reg ulation (for such, in fact, they would have been), a number of persons with no other title to admission than that they were candidates for emigration t_ ( Hear, hear.) They would not have been subject to regular rules—none could be laid down to them ; and when the ship for which they had been waiting was ready to take them, a number of them might say that they were not willing to embark, and the agents for emigration might protest against receiving the scum of our population for their colonies. So that, while the Poor-law Commissioners have put a negative on workhouses, in proposing these depots, they propose a worse kind of the same establishment, and one which I think would lead to great evil. Such were the reasons which induced us to think that a further inquiry must be made ; that further deliberation must take place before any scheme or plan of Poor-laws could be introduced under the authority of Government. I must now advert to the calcula tions made by the Poor-law Commissioners, in so far as they will assist the scheme which I had the honour to propose to the last Parliament, and which lam about to propose to-night. I do think certainly that the Commission has overlooked many cir cumstances in the calculation they have made. I have already stated that I think it is the business of the Government, with re spect to a Poor-law, thus to frame a provision for the destitute ; and in framing a provision for the destitute, let it not be thought that we accomplish a trifling or unimportant advantage. In furnishing relief for the destitute, you do in the first place afford to all coming under that denomination the security of food, rai ment, and shelter, which, considering the misery which must ex ist in any country deprived of Poor-laws, must by every humane person be deemed a very high advantage. In the second place, you thereby obtain the power of preventing and punishing mendi cancy. You are enabled to provide a better police, you have the means of establishing a greater security for property, you can esta blish better order in society, and you thus promote civilization and a general improvement throughout the country.—(Cheers.) In the third place, you connect the interest of the landed proprietors with the state of the labouring classes.—(Cheers.) The effect of there being at any moment a great number of persons out of em ployment leads to the consideration on the part of the landowners as to whether it is better for them to have those persons employed at wages, and doing some profitable work, or is it more advanta geous to have them in workhouses where their labour is of no avail? With respect to the number for whom the Poor-law Commissioners think that provision ought to be made, I find they say in their report, " We cannot estimate the number of persons out of work and in distress during thirty 'weeks of the year at less than 585,000, nor the number of persons de pendent upon them at less than 1,800,000, making in the whole 2,385,000." That is the general estimate of the Commissioners, and if it be analysed with care, it seems not to rest upon any suffi cient data. With respect to the particular towns or villages to which their refer, their estimate does not seem to be bsrne oat. They do not state that those persons are in a state of destitution far flirty weeks in the year, In a pamphlet written in opposition to the Report of Mr. George Nicholls, and the plan proposed by the Government, it is stated that the meaning of those persons be ing in distress was that during the thirty weeks in the year they had not more than one meal in the day. I ask, could that fact be known to any individual even by the most careful investigation ? There may be individuals in Ireland who for a certain time have only one meal in the day, but without the most searching of inves tigaions from day to day, from hour to hour, and even from per son to person, I don't think it can be said that there is any precise number of individuals in that particular state.—( Hear, hear.) I imagine what was meant was that this number of persons, though not in a state of destitution, are in a state of comparative distress, andhave insufficient means of subsistence. A gentleman of Dublin, Mr. Stanley, has taken great pains to analyse the population re turns, and other statistical documents respecting the condition of Ireland, and from him, and on his authority 1 will state one or two very important deductions which must be made from the Commissioners estimate. One is as to the number of persons who are employed partly in manufactures. There are statements made in the population returns with respect to the landowners, which would appear to show that there are very few persons employed in trade, and that great numbers are employed in agriculture. Now this refers to the calculations that have been made with respect to the number of persons dependent on agricultural employment. In the census returns for Ulster it appears that the number employed in the linen trade was only 8,859; but when the British Linen Company made their return respecting the value of the unbleached linen sold in 1821, they stated if to be 2,109,3091. In the county of Armagh 1,683 adult males appear to have' been employed in every branch of manufacture, but the return states the quan tity of linen sold to have been 563,799/. In 1831 there were in Ulster 189,037 landholders not employing labourers, and. only 29,301 employers of labourers.—(Hear, hoer.) Now I think it is obvious that there are a considerable number employed in manufacture in Ulster, besides those employed in the cultivation of the land, and that the population de rives profit partly from the one and partly from the other. There is another point which appears to me to have been overlooked, and it is one of no little importance, as it affects the income enjoyed by the labourers of Ireland as the produce of their labour. The labourers come over here every year in great numbers, and are en gaged in gathering in the harvest.. alone 20,000 come over to this country annually, and carry back with them to Si. to 151. each. The amount of the earnings of the Irish labourers in Great Britain was to be. inferred from the fact that a bank in Lincolnshire (Messrs. Handley and Sleaford) pays about 8,0001. annually to the labourers employed in that district. When we take into our calculation the whole produce of the la bourers of Ire:and and the whole of their income, we ought not to forget the sum obtained by their labours in England, because whether engaged in any preliminary occupation, or whether in as sisting.at our harvest, their occupation equally tends to the increase of their income ; and whether the money is earned in Ireland or from English employment, it is clear their carrying over this 10/. or 151. each is an income for the benefit of themselves, and for the general advantage of the labourers of Ireland. I think it cannot be calculated that less than 500,000/. is earned by the Irish labourers in this country every ye.a!* And . e observe with respect to the habits of the Irzenortheir people, foresight, make thatt n do e think it speaks very much for their industry,tbs long journey every f and for their prudence, that they Nava year, and carry back the mo ne y they Av i s earned in order to pay their landlords their rent .—( Cheers.) know that in instances in which Englishmen are engaged in the army, the navy, and as casual labourers, or as manufacturers, it often happens that if the)i Si.r 10/. at once, they spend it in three or four ys, ant profitably waste it in dissipation.—( Hear. ) receive Wh knste e a i d of lavit , it ent th;sse men from Ireland, coming over in great numbers carrying back with them what they have received everY ea yea_r , through the b unks of England, and placing it in the banks of Ire land, is great proof that they are not that improvident, or careless, or indolent people that some persons suppose.—(Cheers.) 1 say, then, that if many omissions have been made by the Poor-law Cornraissionyrs, it is neceseary that we should endeavour to come to some more correct conclusions, though we cannot come to any that are perfectly free from doubt with respect to the num ber of the destitute poor in Ireland. It has been calculated by Mr. Stanley, upon various data, with respect to Dublin, on information supplied to him from every accessible source, that the total number of destitute poor in Dublin, throughout the year, is precisely two per cent, on the population, or 5,646. Taking one per cent. for vvhic the rest of Ireland, wesshoald have 82,806 ; or, were we to take one and a half per cent. for the rest of the population, we shoeld have 121.386. Without placing faith in this calculation as entirely correct, I think we may safely consider that it is founded on better • data than those given by the Poor-law Commissioners.—( Hear. ) It should be remembered, with regard to the number of persons to be provided for by a Poor-law of this kind, that though there are ra great many in a very bad condition in life—though their csb.ns are - very miserable, and their food is of a very mean kind, yet there are 'persons who would rather remain in that condition than receive alms or go into a workhouse. There is certainly a remaritable difference with regard to the statistics of Great Britain and Ireland with respect to this subject. It is stated by the Poor-law Commissioners that in Ireland there are 884,000 (in round numbers) for 15,000,000 of acres, while in Great Britain there were 901,000 faeeiliee for • 34.010,000 of acres. The difference is to be found chiefly emocer the landowners not employing labourers, the employers of labourers in Ireland being as 95,000 to 187,000, or nearly as 1 to 2—a pro portion not differing very greatly from tl.c proportion of 15 to 34 ; but the landholders not employing labourers are as 564,000 to 163,000, or more than 3to 1. In like manner, the families wholly dependent on hire are in Ireland 224,(00, and in Great Britain 605,000—n0t more than Ito upwards of 21- The landholders not employing labourers may, I think, be reckoned es persons in a law condition of life, but still not among the destitute persons for whom the Poor-law ought to be provided. I said at the commencement that I did not intend to most the various points whit!) may be matter of discussion in• the progress of the Bill which I have the honour to propose. In the first place, I wish to state the general principles upon which the Bill is framed, and then the general nature of the evils against which' it is intended to . provide. The Bill is founded, as I stated last year, on what in England is called the workhouse principle; it does not propose to provide out-door relief.—(Cheers. ) I think I should not be justi fied in proposing out-door relief.—( Hear, hear.) With respect to the workho ise system, there is the testimony of various persoas— of the Governor and Deputy-Governor of St. Peter's Hospital, Bristol ;of Mr. Weale, the assistant Poor-law Commissioner ;of the Vestry Clerk of Birmingham ; of the Clerk of the Liverpool workhouse ; cf the Governors of ie Birmingham workhouse ; and of others employed districts to which the Irish resort ; and those persons declare that the repugnance of the Irish to enter into a workhouse is as great, if not greater than that of the English. This, then, will form an answer to the opinion that there will be shoals of those persons, who could obtain labour if they pleased, ready to enter into the workhouses in Ireland. But while we prove the existence of the repugnance on the one hand, on the other we establish the fact that greater means will be at cur disposal for the relief of the needy ; and when we afford wholesome and good food and raiment and shelter to the necessite us—when it cannat be said that the means of existence are denied, no man will have a right to become a common begger, or to prey on the property of the communitv.,-(Cheers. ) lam well aware, that with respect to a part of this evil, the relief of the destitute, there arc other resources that must he looked to : but, as I said before, I should not think it expedient to place on them any great reliance. As regards certain parts of the country, no doubt there exist evils which cannot be cured unless the means of emigration are pro vided. Taking that view, we have thought it proper to introduce into this Bill a clause nearly the same as that in the English Poor law Bill, which allows means to be taken, with the consent of the Commissioners, to provide for emigration. Though, however, this power is given, I do not hesitate to say that it must be exercised with caution—it must be used with great care ; those to whom it is con fided must never think of exporting to the colonies the dregs of the population—(Hear, hear)—or persons who are unfit to remain in this kingdom ; it must be considered rather as a drain by which a certain portion of the population may be taken off.—( Hear, hear.) We are in justice bound not to excite the jealousy of the colonies by gieing them reason to suppose that we are about to export to them those whom we think unfit to live among ourselves.—(Hear.) With respect to public works, no doubt they may be useful, but it is not in instances where the work begins and ends in the work itself ; it is only whert it leads to increased means of communica tion ; it is only by opening fresh channels for the profitable employ ment of capital that public works can be rendered permanently use ful. I will not now enter into the various disputed questions, and • that most justly disputed of all, the question of settlement, which must be raised in the course of the further discussion on this Bill ; my .object is to state the general principles, namely, that the Act is intended to provide relief by means of the workhouse, and, further, to provide for the relief of the destitute only.—( Hear, hear.) Sir, I would net lend myself to the belief, I would not en courage the persuasion that by means of this we are about to raise half a notion from a state of distress to a state of affluence and prosperity—( Wear, hear)—but I think it one of many improve ments, by which the security of property may be increased—by which order may be maintained—by which poverty may be re- . lieved—and by wheh the various clashes in Ireland may be better united—the landlord with the peasant, the man of capital with the man who depends wholly on his labour.—(Much cheering.). Sir, it is for this Parliament to endeavour to devise means by which the condition of Ireland may be improved. It would be absurd to think that evi)s which are of long continuance—some of which may be said to be centuries old, ethers being of a more recent date—it would be ridiculous to suppose that such evils will be cured in three, four, or ten years by means of legislation ; but this I do believe, that Ireland being now in possession of' nearly all those political and civil rights which she ought to have —(A cry of " No, no !")—I say, in possession of nearly all those political and civil rights which she ought to have; because I think that those which still remain will—nay, must soon be granted— (Great cheering)—lreland being in that condition, it appears to me she has a career before her in which the genius, the talent, and the industry of her native population will raise her to that degree of prosperity for which her soil and her country are fitting.—(Much cheering.) Let us endeavour that all our measures shall aid and promote that tendency.—( Hear, hear.) Let us endeavour to act in a fair, impartial, .and benevolent spirit towards that part of the people whom we represent as fully as we represent any other por ion, thus aiding by our measures the promotion of that prosperity from themselves must have its chief source.—(Cheers.) I maintain thatif we act thus we shall perform our duty to that coun try, and we may look forward, not in a short time, but as the ulti mate result of our labours, to the period when we shall have no reason to be ashamed of the condition of Ireland.—(Cheering.) I beg - to move for leave to bring in a Bill to provide relief for the des titute poor of Ireland. Mr. SHAW said there was one sentiment expressed by the No ble Lord in which he fully concurred, namely, that whets the peo ple of Ireland were in the enjoyment of rational freedo.n and secu rity of property, they would work out their own prosperity. The Noble Lord had expressed a desire to avoid all disputed questions, and he was most anxious to pursue a similar course. The Noble I.ord had alluded not to the moral or political state of Ireland, but to that state of destitution which all deplored, and expressed a de sire to put an end to. Re did not state that there was any mate rial difference between the present measure and thatof last iession. He supposed it was intended to adopt the system of workhouse re lief to the exclusion of out-door relief. Any attempt to give out door relief would prove a serious obstacle to the working of the Bill. It would amount to a virtual confiscation of the landed pro perty of the country. He was of opinion that the Commissioners had over-estimated the number os the poor in Ireland, but he also thought that Mr. Nicholls hadsomewhat under-stated it.—(Heao ) The Noble Lord had asked how were they to refuse relief to the able-bodied ? Now, he had to observe, that when/relief was, by a Poor Law, afforded to the sick, they removed some portion of the pressure from the able-bodied.—( Hear, bear.). He suggested, that they ought to commence by only holding out a hope of afford ing relief to those who were disabled.—( Hear, hear.) He under stood it was the intention of the Noble Lord to introduce a clause providing for emigration. The carrying such a plan into effect he should regard as a matter of the greatest importance; because it would be an effective means of relieving the able-bodied, and at the same time drawing off from the country the surplus population. He hoped, too, to find public works resorted to. He did not collect from the speech of the Noble Lord that it was his intention to intro duce Poor-laws generally throughout the country at- the same mo ment. Now, it was his opinion that the opening of the workhouses ought to be simultaneous, and it appeared to him, from the brief time he had given to the perusal of Ar. Nicholls's Report, that he also recommended that the establishment of the workhouses should be simultaneous. This was a point of great importance in facili tating the working of the plan, in promoting the utility of the law, and for securing its final success. It would, too, he thought, take away a great many difficulties that lay on the way on account of a Law ofSettlement.—( Hear, hear.) On the whole he was per suaded that every Member of that House, and he was sure that every Irish Member, would, upon this question, lay aside every po litical feeling and unite with the Government in endeavouriug to overcome its intrinsic difficulties. Sir CHARLES STYLES—Looking, he said, to the expences of the Poor-law in this country, where the number of poor was comparatively few, calculated that when a Poor-law was brought into operation in Ireland, the expenditure would not be less than 2,000,0001. a year. In order to limit the expense, a discretion ought, he thought e to be given to the Poor-law Guardians. It was his opinion that if it were only intended to give relief to the aged and the sick, the machinery proposed must be more expensive than the necessity of the case would require ; but if on the other hand it was intended to relieve the whole mass of destitution now in ex istence in Ireland, then the landed proprietors should be prepared to raise 2,000,0001. a year ; but whicherer was intended, it was absolutely necessary that reief should be insured. Mr. F. FRENCH begged to observe that the calculations of Mr. Stanley, es to the earnings of Irish labourers in England, and the p r ofits they brought home with them , upon whic h c al c ulations the Noble Lord appeared to rest, were wholly fallacious. lie had himself inquired froar poor men who thus employed themselves, and lie found that the annual amount of what they brought home did not on the average exceed 31., and in bad seasons it often heppened where a man left home with 10s. he frequently returned having but 7s. 6d., thus losing 2s. 6d., his time, and having travelled per haps 600 miles to procure work. The Hon. Member next re ferred to an Act passed in the last session, by which the Board of Works were in certain eases empowered to lend 50,0001. in the pro motion of public works in Ireland. He knew of an application for a loan being made under the terms of that Act, and it was re fused, the Treasury stating that the Act was only temporary, and tsar not then to be put in force. Mr. LUCAS heard with great satisfaction the statement of the Noble Lord. He begged, however, to observe to the Noble Lord that aey statement which could be made es to the linen trade in 1824, was not at all applicable to the same trade in 1337, as the linen trade had greatly diminished since 1824. He hoped that this uestion would never degenerate into a party one.—( Hear. ) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in reference to %vhat • had been said by the Hon. Menober for Roscommon, ex plained that an Act had passed last year to enable the Government to advance, in cases of emergence, the public money, under the superintendence of the Board of . Works. It would, he thought, be a most unfortunate lesson to teach to the people of Ireland ; it would be most unfortunate for themselves, if they were to expect that in every case of distress they were to calculate upon receiving money from the Government. A case of very great and extraor dinary emergency could alone justify such an application. The Act of last year was intended to apply to such a case, and for the pur pose of doing so, it actually passed over the functions of the Grand Jury. The application to which the Hon. Member for Roscommon had referred, was considered by the Treasury not to come within the objects of that Bill, and therefore it was refused. After a few words from Mr. SMITH O'BU.IEN and Mr. LYNCH, in reference to the Act of last year, Lord CLEMENTS thought that a Poor-law never could be efficient sinless the people had the means of taxing themselves for the purpose of carrying on public works. The rate-pavers ought to have a direct control over their own money, and to be afforded tile means of opening the resources of their eounrry.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. SLANEY said . that the state of destitution which existed in Ireland was such as ought not to exist in a Christian country. It was matter of great congratulation to him that on one Irish ques tion there was not any difference of opinion, arid he entertained strong hopes that this would greatly contribute to the success of the experiment.—( Hear, hear. ) Sir E. SUGDEN was glad to be able to concur in the propo sition of the Noble Lord. With r espect to the subject of out-door relief, he thought it was utterly impossible to think of extending it to Ireland. He was not in favour of the workhouse system if they could find a better ; but in Ireland he thought they must be content with this system, and ne the da s only troe o g b j o ei i t n e n s stgoaiseeset thetha t it a was w of a yell et. applied. He enter element. lie thought that, if ossib e, ought to be avoided, and he was not certain that it could not be avoided. He would give