The Sun. — London, England, 1837-04-08 00:00:00

'4IPERIAL 7t ) ARLIAMEN T. HOUSE OF _LORDS, Aricr.r. 7. The House sat to-day at ten o'clock, to hear Scotch Appe4ls. The Lords pre: vnt were Lord BROUGHAM, the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, L ord BYRON, and the Bishop of RIPON. M'CItAW V . CUNNINGHAM. Dr. LUSHINGTON cone] acted his address un behalf of the City of Edinburgh ; Mr. SHAW followed on the sante side. The ATTORNEY-GENERA and Mr. FORBES were heard on behalf of the respond(' zits ; and Mr. Sergeant STEPHENS is to reply on Thursday meld, The LORD CHANC) iIf...LOR took his seat on the Woolsack at five o'clock. Lord KENYOYe presented petitions in favour of Church-rates from parishes in Berkshire. Earl MALM I ,LF.,BURY presented similar petitions from Newport and V.iVittingham. Lord APANGER presented similar petitions from Reading, i'.tiingdoa, Wooton, and several other places in Berkshire The earl of WESTMORELAND presented similar petitio.as from parishes in Yorkshire. Mr.: Earl of RADNOR presanted petitions against Church-rates from the Baptist Chapel, High-street, An d•aver. The Archbishop of _CANTERBURY presented peti tions in favour of Church-rates from parishes in North ampton, Sussex, trnd Somerset. The Duke of WELLINGTON presented similar pe titions from parishes in Cumberland and Staffordshire. The Marquis of CAMDEN presented similar petitions from paris'aes in the county of Kent, and one from Seven- Oaks, pr dying that no alteration might be made in the Poor Law. Thin Bishop of LINCOLN presented several petitions in savour of Church-rates. Lord SKELMERSDALE presented similar petitiorn. from Ormskirk and other places in Lancashire. Viscount MELBOURNE presented petitions against Church-rates from Selby in Yorkshire, from Preston, and other places. Lord RODEN presented petitions in favour of Church rates from Birmingham, and from several parishes in Herefordshire, and from parishes in th.l County Down. Lord. ABINGER presented similar petitions from pa rishes in Norfolk. TITHE COMMUTATION ACT. The Marquis of SALISBURY begged to ask the Noble Viscount opposite if any measures would be taken by Government to relieve parishes from the expenses of surveys under the Tithe Commutation Act. l'l3enunt MELBOURNE said that it would be very inexpedient to carry the Act into effect on surveys which were not accurate. In the ether House a Committee had been appointed, which was occupied in deliberating- on the subject, And he hoped the result would be that the parishes would he relieved from the burthen. Lord MALMESBURY hoped there would be as little delay as possible in proposing such a measure of relief ; for this delay would strengthen the idea which existed in the col!ntry, that it was the - intention of the Government to repeal the Act ; h rusted the result of the deliberations of the Conituit!ce of the other House would set the mat- ter tight. CHURCH-RATES. A NOBLE LORD presented petitions in favour of Church rates from Farningliam and other places. Lord WYN FORD presented similar petitions from several parishes in Suffolk and Kent, to the last of which statement was au:excd as to the respectability of the peti tioners. Lord HOLLAND said that it was ungsual and inex pedie-lt that ann2sed statements u that nature should In Ate shed to petit ions. After a short conversation, in which Lord Wynford Lord Kenyon, and Lord Holland, took tart, the petitioe was laid on the tittle. -Lord BP,OU GHAM presented a petition frail . Seuth Holdernesse, in Yorkshire, against Church-rates. He considered it to be his duty to present the peti tion, elthowe ' h he disagreed with the prayer of it. The Nohle Lord also presented a petition from the Deers of Cashel, comnleinicg of the statements set forth in a ?etition to their Ladvhiies, to the effect that this livings of Cashel produced 7,0001. a year, and that there were oril two cerates to per Form the duties who had sal tries of 1501. a-year each, whereas the fact was that the seven perish es i n Cashel only produced 1,3001. a-year. The Noble Lord eoneludel by presenting a large num!ver of petitions litist C'• el:-rates, and in favour of the plan for their .'posed by Government, from Cambrideesbire, kshire, Seath Hews. Sheffield, and Essex. ROYAL MINT BILL. On the neition of Viscount DU NC AN N ON, the Royal Mint Mil was real i'l third time, and passed. Lord STRANG FORD presented pstitions in Lsoar cf Church -rates, from several perishes in Kent. POOR LAWS. The Bishop of EXETER said he had a :umber o' petitions to present against the extension of the Poor- Ilw Act to the No:th of England. These pc do f. cane fro:n the northern part of the kingdom, where there 131.1 never been any great teal-adieinistratioo of the old law. 'nes petitioners complained that sonic of the provisiens were of an unneeessarily cruel ellaracter, and those who would not call them so, would nsvertheless egret that it would not have been necessary to make an d flege i n t h e o ld l a w, if it had been everywhere admi iisterc,l as it was in the north. Some of these prti• liens pr iyed for the total repeal- of the law. Will: this he did not concur. Others did not no so far, and he would allude to the effects of the Poor Law complained of by the petitioners. One of she petitiocs was iron: Bradfird, nod was signe I by two thrusand per sous, who complained cf the arbitrary power given' to the Commissioners as to the diet to be even tr those who obtained relief,. IN hich was of a nature which Christian men should not offer to Christians ; they also compla'ned of the separation of man and wife. Another of the petitions was from Kendal, in Westmoreland, which 4V.:3 also signed by two thouemd persons, cud was to the same effect ; and he hal another also to the sane effect from North Priory. The two last petitions went to e greater event than these, as thy prayed for a repeal cf the Pe:,r Law :V.t. Oae of these was from Bolton-le-Moor, and was signed by 8,400 persons, nmongst whom were many respecteble persons, at the head of whom was th, Reverend Mr. Stein, than whom there was not a more excellent Pastor.—(Hear.) He (the Bishop of Exeter` did not, however, agree with those petitions, for he thou g h: that the evils of the Act were capable of being remedied; but there were many portions of the Act to which he objected —for instance, the work-house system, which amounted to incarceret ion for life in many instances.—( Hear.) 'rho, classification of the inmates of the workhouses was else eery oppressive. The husband was not only separated from his wife, hut they were separated from their children, end had the consciousness that their mother could no! overlook their education at that period of their life when her care was most valuable ; far a mother could no; see her child in the workhouse whilst it was above seven and below sixteen years of age. The able-bodied women an.l girls below zixteen and above seven were kept separate, and were never permitted to be with each other. Ms was not all. He was quite sure, and he said so with en tire sincerity, that he had no doubt whatever as to the humane intentions of the Commissioners—he only com plained of their judgment, of what he considered as al most the necessary consequence of enormous power, namely, an abuse of that power. There was a class for whom he must say be did not look with the same anxiety to their protection, namely, the able-bodied workmen, at all times and under all circumstances. He admitted that in many districts, and particularly the agricultural districts, it was absolutely necessary to impose very strong restraints upon the temptation to idleness afforded by the facility of relief given to able-bodied men who might be temporarily out of employment. For these he would not say much ; but stir. he thought some consideration ought to be allowed. But he would conic to another class of persons, who seemed to he very hardly dealt with by this Act, a class upon whom he thought that the Act ought not to be suffered to ope rate—he meant the manufacturing classes of the people. He would say with confidence, that there were very few individuals of this class who would prefer to live upon parish relief rather than upon means obtained by their own industry.—( Hear.) It was not probable, nor even pos sible, for a parish to give to the manufacturing poor that extent of relief which would amount to a temptation to idleness on their part. This was a class that deserved par ticular consideration—a consideration which, he must say, they had not received. It might be said of the agricultural poor, that the able-bodied men could always find work. As a general proposition there was much truth in this, and for this reason, that even though the work might not be very profitable in itself, still the increase of agricultural produce was always a gain, and no danger could result from an ex cess of agricultural employment. But could they say the same with regard to manufacturing employment ? Was it desirable, if it were possible, to force the manufacturing labourer, who was thrown out of work for want of employ ment, to a still further production of labour? He appre hended that such a course would only aggravate the mis chief, and increase the misery it was intended to relieve. There was, however, one class of agricultural labourers who were hardly dealt with by this Act, he meant those persons ,-. who might by accident be in a great degr'e disabled from emiative\etat. The most industrious of all labourers might by sage **lint be deprived of a limb, and have thus cut off at once one-half of his wages. How would such a person be dealt with?' Suppose a man at the age of 33, with a m rous family, should lose hi s arm or hi s l eg, wifesind a nu i ..,,,..._ - ises-etelssk s esin • e o something, and possibly n o t a littl e , to --‘..- ftria -.; , O . tenance of his family ; but he could n o t do - < 4 4 4, - , ,zulgit pr, NOrra, ,or all so that much most be done by others, or else the family must starve. Under the old law such a man would receive, perhaps, sometimes an excessive allowance, but often no more than the feelings of every humane man would say was due from the charity of his country to a person under such circumstances. But what would be the case under the new Act ? This man, with his wife and children, must all go to the workhouse.---(" No, no," from Lord Hatherton.) He would rejoice to be shown that he was wrong in his concep tion of what were the provisions of the Act. His concep tion was, that no out-door relief would be given to any person who laboured for the maintenance of himself and family. If he were right, this would be the effect of it. The man thus sent to the workhouse would be separated from his wife and children, and would not be permitted to have any intercourse with them. He asked whether this was a correct statement or not ? He hoped it was not cor rect ; but if it were a correct statement, he asked those whom he saw around him, whether there was one among them, who, if he had foreseen such a result, would have con curred in passing this clause ? He did say, that if the law empowered these Commissioners to separate man and wife at such a period of life, parent and child, it was a law that was disgraceful to a Christian Legislature to have passed, and they ought to take the first opportunity to amend it. There was another subject of which the petitioners complained, namely, the diet. The Commissioners thought it their duty, and he concurred in thinking it their duty, to take care that the condition of persons in workhouses should not be better than that of able-bodied labourers who supported themselves by their own labour. But he thought that they carried their plans on this head a little farther than was ne cessary. He had received a letter from a Clergyman who spoke with great regret of the existence of a workhouse in his parish for the union in which it was placed. He stated the diet to be fourteen ounces of bread, a pint and a half of gruel—three pints of oatmeal being employed in the sup port of between thirty and forty persons—two ounces of cheese, and three-quarters of a pound of potatoes. This was an accurate copy from the diet-paper of the Commis sioners. He thought this a very hard allowance indeed. He had in his possession a piece of the cheese, two ounces, but he would not hurt the feelings of the House by exhi biting it ; but this was the oely solid food which an able bodied man received, exclusive of bread, in the course of 24 hours, and this twice a-week. He must make a few remarks on other points of the effects of the Poor-laws— he meant that part which prevented the inmates of the workhouse from attending divine worship in their parish Church. He knew that the Commissioners had given di rections for the appointment of chaplains to workhouses. As a conciliatory measure he thought a that wise and humane proceeding ; but they ought not to exclude the poor from partaking of their common worship in that Church to which they were attached and which they contemplated with re verence and affection. This country was, he believed, pre-eminent for its piety and for its religion. What were the advantages of that religion to the poor man who was under the operation of the amended Poor-law Act? Let them look at the poor man placed within the walls of the workhouse when he heard the church-bells upon the Sun day : did he hear them, as he was wont to hear them, summoning him to join in that which was the best secs ice in which he could be engaged? No ; the sounds of those bells came to him as the knell of that imprisonment to which he was condemned. The poor man went to hid cha pel, or to the room in the workhouse that might be appro priated for divine service ; and had he there any of those ennobling associations which he was wont to feel in his pa rish church ? Did he feel that which was a great and .a righteous, and, be (the Bishop of Exeter) would say, that proper pride which a Christian ought to feel, that in the Church at least he was on an equality with the highest and the proudest in the world ?—( Hear, hear.) No ; but the pa nun felt that he was excluded from the commu nity of prayer with all those classes in society that were above his own destitute condition. This was, in his opinion, a most iejerions plan to be pursued - both as regarded the rich and the poor. It was of adeantage that both should meet together to hear the word of truth ; and there was nowhere that, in his opinion, they could meet together with so much advantage to both as in the house of their com mon God. He was sure that it often must. have occurred to many whom he then addressed "that when they !melted down from their cushioaed and canopied galleries upon the poor below them, and that they saw there some wretched Lazarus kneeling to his God, he was quite sure that every one of them :Must have felt and thought thus to himself : —" There knels a m who, hew. ver are &red, and hoe ever fir below me, but who is with me an equal object of the tendcr mercies of God, it may be will hereafter stand in different relatien to that which we now both occupy." It was impossilde but that such 'affections as these must have had tl:e best eff-c:s hpon their Lordships'. minds. He_ implared or them, then, to put an end to that dang,rous system which weu:d excel de the paupers from the Church. Commissioners, he asserted, hiul no right to say to the poor man" you shall not go to Church on the Sunday." 11 , suspected that to lay down any such rule was opposite to the common lade of i:1,2 land. It certainly was opposed to 0:e statute which nude it penal upon every subject of this realm who did not go to Church on the Sunday. Enormous powers had undeebtedly been given to these Commisaieners ; but there was a limitation to Ca .se powers ; they were to do nothine; con•rary to the law of the land.—(Hear) ,Now what the Commissioners proposed to do in this respect was not in accordance with what the law required them to do, but it was in violation of the law. He should then sit down, expressing that which was his °an feelirg—his ar dent and his earnest wish—that large emendments should be made in the Poor-law Act. The repeal of the Act he did not wish for ; but still he desired to see Parliament de clare itself against those parts of the law which in practice were oppressive—a law, in his opinion, that in many por tions of it was unchristian. He concluded by moving Out the pethions be laid on the table. Viscotint MELBOURNE—The Right Rev. Prelate who has presented these petitions to the House has gone at length into the amended Poor-law Bill—he has gone into the details of the management and the administra tion of the Poor-law ; and, although I feel that such a discussion is income:limit, and although this may not be the proper occasion for that discussion, and that the discussion itself cannot lead to any certain c onc l us i on , vet considering the expressions which the Right 'veren.l Prela'e has used—ennside.ring also the re tlections he has mule on the Cormoissioners—con sideeh.g thetmanner in which he has described the operations . of the law—and considering the terms that he has applied to it, that it is " oppressive" and " unchris tian"--considering, ton, the situation which I have the honour to hold, I cannot, my Lords, permit the debate to conclude without a few observations.—( Hear, hear.) I am not here answerable for the opinions of any other Noble Lord ; I cannot here give expression to the feelings or opinions o f a ny ot h er N o bl e L or d ; b u t f or myse lf I b g to say, that I refuse my assent to the observations with which the Right Rev. Prelate introduced his speech, and in which he stated, that if your Lordships could have foreseen the situation to which the country would be reduced by the passing of this law, von would not. have given it your chn eurrence—that your Lordships never would have aided such an enactment. My feeling respecting that law is the very contrary to that expressed by the Right Rev. Prelate. I consider that the measure has been successful far beyond what could be at 'first anticipated from it.—(Hear, hear.) I consider, my Lords, that it has had the effect of raising the morals of the country ; and that it has been found ever most beneficial for the unemployed labourer. It has, my Lords, in my opinion, raised the condition of the labour ing classes of the people.—(lear, hear.) It has had an other, a higher and nobler, object, than that contemplated by the Right Rev. Prelate. It has, too, had a great effect in affording relief to the general taxation—it has lessened the payments made by the country. I say, then, that the success that has attended the measure is far beyond what was expected when it first passed into a law.—( Hear.) Your Lordships will recollect that it has happened with this as upon many other subjects, that there were topics connected with it which afforded room for eloquence ; that there were points which afforded room for an appeal to the feelings ; that these topics and points afford an opportunity for powerfully exciting the passions. The power and the opportunity the Right Rev. Prelate has taken advantage of on the present occasion, and he has used it with no very limited hand. Now, my Lords, it more often happen that such appeals to the feelings and the passions can be used againt reason, truth, and right than in support of them. The benefits derivable from a•law are of a general nature —these benefits are of a general character, they do not furnish very apt topics for speaking to the feelings, they do not afford so many opportunities for illustration, they cannot bear a comparison with a specific case of peculiar hard ship under which some one or two may be suffering in con sequence of a general law.—( Hear.) But let me observe, my Lords, that all the hardships we have now heard of belong to the old law ; such hardships existed before the statute now complained of ; they belong in no respect, nor are they to be attributed to the law which your Lordships passed in the late Session of Parliament. It is not for me,my Lords, now to do more than point out generally the objec tions which the Right Rev. Prelate has stated to some of the clauses of that Act. As to illegitimate children, he stated that he made the same objections at the time that the law passed ; and.the Right Rev. Prelate now states on the subject, that his opinion respecting those clauses is not only unaltered, but that it is confirmed. The Right Rev. Prelate did not press that part, nor will I. Unfortunately, I differ from the Right Rev. Prelate, and, with respect to that part o f th e l aw , I have to tell him that it has been at tended with a success so great and so extraordinary that it would have appeared to have been romantic—to have been mere enthusiasm—if any one had prophesied such a result when it was proposed. Then, next, as to the separation of the sexes, that is another part which the Right Rev. Pre late has particularly attacked. All experience has proved its advantages in all well-regulated workhouses; previous 'o the new Poor-law coming into operation such a regula tion was enforced.—( Hear, hear.) It was established in the best-regulated workhouses in the metropolis ; and it is obviously necessary for the right administration of a workhouse.—(Hear.) And let it be observed that there must have existed a power similar to the new in the ancient law ; there must have existed that power under which it was formerly done ; and all experience being for it, it was naturally to be supposed that a regulation of such absolute necessity should be continued for the well working of the new system.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Rev. Prelate has stated also that there are parts of the country—for instance, the manufacturing parts of the country —in which the provisions of the Act cannot be so applied as they are in the agricultural portions of the country. I apprehend that there can be no greater mistake than to sup poze that the Act is not capable of being adapted to cir cumstances. I do not see, however, why the Commis sioners should have been vested with the powers that they have,if they were not to make regulations suited to the pe culiar circumstances of particular parts of the country.— (Hear.) And then as to out-door relief. I apprehend that all the statements made by the Right Rev. Prelate are en tirely without foundation. The out-door relief is at the discretion of the Guardians. A power is given to the Com missioners to state in what manner out-door relief is not to be given. I apprehend there are only sixty unions throughout the country thus situated. The Right Rev. Prelate then stated that the paupers were prevented from attending divine service on the Sunday. I can only state what is my opinion upon this subject. As to the pro hibition to attend divine service in the parish Church—that only applied to those workhouses in which arrangements have been made for the performance of divine service within the walls of the wcrkhouses. Where there is not divine service within the walls of the workhouse, a regula tion is made for the inmates to attend at the parish Church. I can only etate what is my feeling as one of the framers of this Act. I only state at the same time what is the feel ing of the Commissioners, that they are anxious for every opportunity to facilitate the attendance upon divine ser vice, and to use every inducement and persuasion to the inmates of the workhouses to attend to the practices and holy ordinances of religion. But then the question is this, whether if you permit the inmates of the workhouse to at tend divine service in their parish Church, would they at tend it ?—(Hear.) Would it not be a pretext for indulg ing in other pursuit!, and if they leave the workhouse to at tend divine service, will they, instead of properly observ ing the Sabbath, not turn it rather to the purposes of de secration and pollution ?—( Hear.) This is a topic which undoubtedly admits of a great deal of declamation ; but I have no doubt of this, that the true interests of reli gion will, as far as they relate to persons so situated, be rather promoted by the system recommended by the Com missioners. I believe it will be found so, not only as re gards the better arrangement of the workhouse itself, but also to preserve order within the walls of the workhouse— that having Divine Service performed there will have these advantages even at the expense of what has been stated in such strong terms by the Right Reverend Prelate. The general importance of these considerations I do not deny ; but even considerations of sanctity may often be over weighed by considerations of a greater weight ; and seeing how men of practical experience have attached im portance to the system of having Divine Service per formed within the walls of the workhouse, as absolutely necessary to preserve order there, I believe that plan must be adhered to. I entirely concur in the senti ment expressed by the Right Reverend Prelate, that if your Lordships find this Bill to be one which it is right to maintain, if it be advantageous and beneficial in its effects, your Lordships will not be persuaded by clamour, nor influenced by any pressure from without, to alter it.—( Hear, hear.) I cannot, my Lords, but express the sorrow and regret I have felt—considering the com plete abieuce of political feeling and party animosity that prevailed when this subject was debated in your Lordships' I House—at the political, the party feeliegs which it has been endeavoured to excite on this subject in certain districts of the country. That it should have been so used at the hustings 1 exceedingly regret, because I think that t!]e Bill has been attended with the greatest advantage to the coun try.—( Hear, hear.) When, then, I say to your Lordships that you ought not to be induced to alter or emend this 13:11 by reason of any clamour that they be excited aeainst it, I agree with the Right Reverend Prelate in sayine, that if you find it ought to he altered or amended you will also do our duty in altering- and amending it, with the same frankness, the same fearlessness, and the same impartiality which is required from ou in the other point of view. As this Bill is now undergoing (and especially the clan ies re ferred to) an accurate inquiry in another place, I cannot a l:me-feel certain that tl'a resultawilbe, that the Bill will be found to hate operated advantageously to the conntry ; and where it can be impreved, previ,ions will be introiteeed , to insure that improyeinent.—f Hear, hear.) Tee Duke of W ELlei NGTON—My Lords, I sop ported the Bill when it was in this House, and having given that support to the Bill from being a witness to the evils and being apprehensive of the consequences likely to have attended the former system, I conceive it to be my duty to come forward on this occasion, and to state that this Bill has rurpaesed any expectation which I bed formed of the benefits likely to result from it.—(Cheers ) The my Lords, may require amendments in certain parts, and it appears that his Majesty's Government have taken measures to ascertain what points in the Bill require amendment. I for oee am ready to pay the greatest attention to the points which may be brought under the consideration of this House. But I must say that I ap prove of the measure so far as it has gone hitherto, and as I have witnessed its operation.—(Cheers.) I do not talk of what I have seen generally ; I talk of the details of the management of the Bill, front haling witnessed that management in different workhouses in different parts of the country in which I have resided ; and I must say that it has been practically beneficial, and particularly in cases such as these. First of all, it has put the workmen and the employer upon a true and friendly footing of con fidence.—(Chcers.) Then it has connected the man of property, the man of the highest rank in his country, with the lowest class, with the labouring class, by admitting them to the Board of Guardians.—(Haar.) I can mention some . Noble Lorde, who are ornaments to this House, and who constantl, attend at the weekly meeting of the Guardians, being elected Guardians by the parishes in the neighbour hood in which they reside,—( Hear, heer.) No Bill could be attended with better results. My Noble Friend near file is a member of the Board of Guardians in the county in which he-resides, and in which county he is an instru ment of the greatest possible benefit. I say, my Lords, that this Act of Parliament has produced those benefits, and being convinced that it will effect still greater benefits, and thinking so, I should be ashamed if I did not step for ward and avow at once my sentiments respecting it. I avow at once that I supported the Bill at the time that his M ,jeso Ministers proposed it—that I do not repent of what I did on that occasion in so supporting it—(Cheers) —but, on the contrary, that I rejoice in the pert I then took, and I now congratulate his Majesty's Ministers on its success.—( Loud cheers.) Lord BROUGHAM observed, that honourable testi mony had just been given to the merits of the Bill that had been attacked by the Right Rev. Prelate. The tes timony that had been given was indeed honourable, when they considered what had fallen from the Noble Duke op posite ; it was not less honourable to the measure itself' than it was creditable to the Noble Duke himself.— ( Hear, hear, hear.) He should not detain their Lord ships beyond a single moment—he should not make more than a single remark upon the statements delivered by the Right Rev. Prelate. He (Lord Brougham) admitted that lie was not amongst the least sanguine when this mea sure had been brought forward as to the consequences to be expected from it, and he, therefore, having entertained such an opinion regarding it, must naturally now feel plea sure in concurring in the sentiments expressed regarding it by the Noble Duke and his Noble Friend near hint. San guine, however, and large as his expectations had been con cerning the Bill, they had been supported by its results. They had been surpassed, not merely as to the eco nomy produced by the measure—not merely in the savings of the poors'-rates—not merely in the reduction of the amount of the poors'-rates—a consideration which, how ever important in itself, yet was one that, in his opinion, was the very last to be regarded ; but the measure had surpassed his expectations in the desirable change it had produced in the comforts, condition, and character o f th e working classes of the community.—(Hear, hear, hear.) As the Right Reverend Prelate had made a statement up on this subject, he (Lord Brougham) had a word or two to add to it. The Right Reverend Prelate had undoubtedly a right to express his opinion. On this or any other Act of Parliament no man could object to the vehemence of the language in which the Right Reverend Prelate might choose to clothe his opinions ; but that which he had no right to do, or if he at all assumed the right, then that against which lie (Lord Brougham) warned their Lordships, was the danger of supposing that, however the Right Rev. Prelate might have qualified his opinions, that however partially he disguised them—he did not say this offensively—but without intending to be offensive to the Right Rev. Prelate, he must observe, that in the dis tinction that he made, and in qualifying his disagreement from the whole of the Bill, he sought to give them to under stand that he did not wish the measure to be repealed, but was only hostile to portions of it. Now, notwithstanding a ll this, he must say that the bight Rev. Prelate had assumed that which he had no right to do, and he was to be treated as an enemy to the measure—to all parts of the measure— to the principle of the Bill—to all the details of the Bill— and to the working and effects of the Bill.—(Hear.) Per haps the Right Rev. Prelate was more an enemy of the Bill than he was himself aware of.—(Hear.) He had watched c refully the whole statenv:nt made by the Right Rev. Pre late, and he mast say that he had not heard any person, in Parliament or out of Parliament, who had made a more hostile attack upon this measure.—(Cheers.) The Right Reverend Prelate was against the power of the Commis sioners, and he was against the mode in which the power was exercised. As to the bastardy clauses, the Right Reverend Prelate retained his opinions respecting them. The Right Rev. Prelate said he had often disputed in that House upon this subject, and he was sorry to see the exaggeration in the expression of the sentiments of the Right Rev. Prolate was increased and strengthened. The Right Rev. Prelate was against the bastardy clauses ; and then he was against the workhouse system, and everything that had been done to carry into execution that part of the plan. And then the Right Rev. Prelate, by the way of leaving no doubt upon their minds as to his hostility to the new Poor-law Act, declared that it was " unjust," that it was "cruel," that it was "contrary to all principle," that it was " oppressive, uncharitable, and unchristian."—(Hear, hear.) He felt—as one of :the promoters of this mea sure whose sanguine expectations had been more than realised—he felt rejoiced on this account ; but he also felt great pleasure, under the grievous denunciation pronounced by the Right Rev. Prelate, from the reflection that persons holding the same rank and station with the Right Rev. Prelate no longer appeared there to sustain his sentiments. —(Hear, hear.) There were amongst them those who, having heard the language applied to the measure by the Right Rev. Prelate, quitted the House ; and, having taken no part in the discussion, it was to be supposed differed from the Right Rev. Prelate. Those Right Re verend Prelates had full and sufficient notice of the motion that was to be before the House, and they no doubt had heard the terms—the vehement, he would not say the ex asperating terms—applied to the measure ; but he might say, without offence, the very strong terms in which that measure was described. When he considered these things, he thought he might comfort himself with the hope that other Right Rev. Prelates did not entertain the same opi nions which one of their body had addressed to them that night ; because he was perfectly confident that if they en tertained such opinions they would not have left their places without joining in that which they would believe to be a just denunciation. Lord WYNFORD next addressed a few words to the House. He spoke in so low a tone of voice as to be scarcely intelligible in the gallery. He was understood to say that he had opposed the Bill, and that since he had had the op portunity of seeing its workings, be had reason to retract the opinions he had formerly expressed as to the powers conferred on the Commissioners. He was now of opi nion that such power should be conferred upon the Commissioners. He could not attribute to the new Poor Law all the benefits ascribed to it by his Noble Friend. It had no doubt produced great good, but he considered that the lowering of rates and other advan tages were promoted by the employment of the poor upon railroads and other improvements. If means of employment had not been found he did not think that the rate would have been so much reduced. Lord COLCHESTER, who spoke in a very low tone, was understood to say he approved of the measure gene rally, but thought that in some particulars in required amendment. Lord RADNOR was of opinion the measure had worked admirably. Lord H ATHERTON and the Bishop of Exeter rose at the same time, but the Right Rev. Prelate having given way, the Noble Lord proceeded to say that he would not have troubled the House with any observations on the pre sent occasion if he had not desired to explain the cause of his interruption of the Right Rev. Prelate in the course of his speech. He understood the Right Rev. Prelate to say that a man who had lost a limb having applied for re lief, it was insisted that he should go into the workhouse with his wife and family. Conceiving that the Right Rev. Prelate was stating a case which he believed had occurred, he could not help signifying the doubts he felt on the sub ject ; he afterwards, however, discovered that the Right R_•v. Prelate was putting only an imaginary case, rtn( that such a circumstance as he had referred to speculatively had really never happened. Indeed it would be extraordi nary to him if a case of the nature supposed by the Right Rev. Prelate had occurred ; because if the man wanted a limb he would come under the description of those who were not able-bodied, and relief out of the workhouse was denied to:rhe able-bodied only. As Chairman of a Board of Guard ans in a mining district in the north, where acci dents were happening not 'infrequently', he was qualified to speak as to the practice in this respect, and he begged to say that relief out of the workhouse was not refused to persons who were not able-bodied. The Bishop of EXETER observed that his objection was, that the Government seemed disposed, as formerly, to marshal their forces under the cry of " The Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but. the Bill." He was glad to find that the Nolile and Ciallunt Duke concurred with hint in think ing that there were parts of the measure which required amendment. Lord BROUGHAM said the Right Rev. Prelate had alluded to a period when the Government had marshalled their forces under the cry of " The Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill ;" but the Right Rev. Prelate appeared determined to exhibit the very converse of the proposition ; he would marshal his forces under the cry Gf " Not the Bill, none of the Bill, and anything but the —( A laugh.) The petitions presented by the Bishop of Exeter were then laid on the table.—Adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Anal, 7. The SnAKErt took the Chair at the usual hour. CORK AND PASSAGE RAILWAY. Colonel THOMAS presented a petition from the ship owners of Cm-k, and one from the inhabitants of Cork, against the Cork and Passage Railway Bill. The LORD ADVOCATE presented petitions from Leith against the Forth and Clyde Canal Bills. ONTROSE HARBOUR. On the motion of Mr. CHALMERS, the Montrose Harbour Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed. GLASGOW ROADS. On the motion of Lord J. STEW ART, the Glasgow Roads Bill was read a second time and ordered to be com mitted. ARDItOSSAN AND JOHNSTONE RAILWAY. On the motion of the same NOBLE Lout), the Ardrossin and Johnstone Railway Bill was read a second time and ordered to be committed. Lord BELFAST presented a petition from Belfast against the Belfast Harbour Bill, (No. •1..) Mr. BARLOW HOY presented a petition in favor of the Manchester and South Union Railway. CAMPSIE CANAL. On the motion of Mr. FOLKES the Campsie Canal Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed. SOUTHWARK AND HAMMERSMITH RAIL- WAY BELL. Mr. WIL KS moved that the petition which he had presented from the inhabitants and churchwardens of Christ. church, Surrey, against the Southwark and Hammersmith Railway Bill, be referred to the Committee.—Agreed to. Sir E. WILMOT presented a petition from the London and Birmingham Railway Company, against the Manchester and South Uniln Railway Bill. Mr. E. BULLER presented petitions in favour of the Cheshire Junction Railway and the South Union. Mr. HARDY presented a petition from George Raincock against the Leeds Waterworks Bill. Mr. BROTHERTON presented numerous petitions against the Manchester and South Union Railway. BELFAST HARBOUR BILL. Mr. E. TENNENT moved the second reading of the Belfast Harbour Bill. There were two Bills on this subject before the House ; one that had been introduced by the Noble Lord opposite (the Earl of Belfast), and one by himself. He was sorry to say that great differences existed among the inhabitants of Belfast with respect to this mea sure ; but from the letters he bad received that day, he was in hopes that those differences would be amicably settled. He trusted that the House would allow both Bills to go before a Committee, in order that the merits of both mea sures might be understood. The Earl of BELFAST trusted that the Hon. Member would postpone the second reading of the Bill till Tuesday next. Mr. E. TENNENT had no objection, if the Noble Earl could show any reason for it. — Captain PECHELL felt bound to ask that the Bill might be delayed for a much longer time than was requested by the Noble Lord. It was his intention to ask for a delay of no less than six months.--(Laughter.) He considered that the present Bill, if it became law, would have the effect of excluding altogether the bringing of water to the town of Belfast ; and on that ground, therefore, he would move that the Bill be read that day six months. Mr. DUNBAR hoped the Noble Lord in justice to the town of Belfast would allow the Bill to go before a Com• mittee, when the merits of both would be fully investif,ated. Sir R. BATESON thought that in a question of so much importance to one of the first commercial towns in Ireland, no party or political feelings should interfere. He thought, after what had passed in Committee about a fort night ago, that the Noble Lord was bound in honour not to oppose the commitment of the Bill, as it was then understood that both the plans should go before a Com mittee for its decision. The Gallant Captain (Pechell) had merely spoken from the brief put into his hand, and could not know as much about the feelings of the inhabi tants as he (Sir R. Bateson) did. He hoped the motion would not be persevered in. Mr. WILKS entirely agreed with the Honourable Baronet, the Member for Londonderry, that the present question should net be considered as a party . one. The Bill would make the harbour of Belfast, which was ac cessible every tide, one which could not be entered with out very great difficulty. He had strong objections to the Bill, and he understood that the merchants of Bel fast as well as those of London loading to that port, were decidedly opposed to it. If the matter was pressed to a division, he would most certainly vote for the rejection of the Bill. The Earl of BELFAST could assure the House that he had no party feeling on the subject whatever—the ob jection which the merchants of Belfast made was, that by their plan the harbour would be very much improved at an expense of only 70,0001., while by the Bill before the House, the harbour would be rendered worse at an expense of upwards of 150,000/. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when there appered— For the second reading Against it . _ 43 Majority in favour of the Hill ...... -23 The Bill was then read a second time and ordered to be committed. Mr. ROBINSON brought up the Report of the Com mittee on the Worcester Cattle Market Bill. Mr. ROBERT PARKER presented a petition against the Chester and Buckingham Railway. Mr. WALTER CAMPBELL presented a petition against the Glasgow and Ayr Railway. POOR LAW AMENDMENT ACT. Sir JAMES GRAHAM and Mr. FRESHFIELD presented petitions against the Poor-law Amendment Act. SHIPPING GAZETTE. Mr. P. HOWARD presented a petition from the mariners of Carlisle, complaining of the undue advantage given to the Commercial Shipping, and London List over the Shipping Gazette. CHURCH-RATES. The HoN. MEMBER presented a petition from the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of the borough of Carlisle, pray ing the House to take into consideration the propriety of altering the present system of Church-rates. Petitions against the abolition of Church-rates were pre sented by Sir C. B. Vere, Sir J. Beckett, Mr. Wilson Patten, Mr. Maclean, Colonel Lygon, Sir E. Knatchbull, and Sir R. Inglis. Petitions in favour of the abolition of Church-rates were presented by Mr. Tynte, Mr. Divett, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Wallace, and Mr. Wilks. Mr. HOPE and Mr. FOSTER presented petitions against the Ministerial plan. Mr. MACKINNON brought in a Bill for the regula tion of Turnpike Trusts. Mr: BROTHERTON had a singular petition to pre. sent, but it was respectfully worded. He thought it his duty to offer it to the House. It was from a Samuel Bamfield, who stated that he was a reporter for the public newspapers at Middletown in the county of Lancaster ; that he had for many years been zealous in promoting Parliamentary Reform ; and that he had fre quently been imprisoned on charges of treason—(A laugh) —that he had had occasion to see the evils of popular assemblies, especially at the time of general elections ; and he therefore prayed that the law might be made so that general elections might be abolished, except when the King or Queen ascended the Throne.—(Loud laughter.) Sir T. BARING presented a petition from Yarmouth, praying that the Shipping Gazette might be exempted from the payment of postage. Similar petitions were also presented by Mr. WALLACE, from Greenock, and the SOLICITOR-GENERAL, from Fal mouth. Lord F. EGERTON presented petitions from retailers of beer in South Lancashire, praying that their interests might be protected. Mr J. F. YOUNG presented a petition from North Shields, against the duty on marine insurances. Sir W. FOLLETT presented petitions from parishes in Devonshire, against the Government plan for the abolition of Church-rates. POST-OFFICE BILL. Mr. LABOUCHEItE said that he should postpone the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Post•oflice Acts Repeal Bill till this day week. PARLIAMENTARY AGENTS. Mr. FRESHFIELD wished to put a question to the Hon. Member for Truro. The public had been led to sup pose that the Hon. Member for Truro had stated, on mak ing his motion yesterday, that the resolution of 25th Feb. 1830, had been got rid of by an evasion. He wished to ask the Hon. Member whether he so stated it, and if he did, whether he applied the term evasion to him (Mr. Freshfield.) Mr TOOKE did not feel a momentary hesitation in answering the question just put to him, by stating then, as he did on a former occasion, that he gave credit to the Hon. Member for Falmouth for having acted on the full and fair contiction in his cw❑ mind that the arrangement entered into with his son was not within the letter or the spirit of the Resolution.—(Cries of ",Hear.") He hail, on the contrary, expressed the highest opinion of the Hon. Member's honour and integrity ; but at the same time he bad given an illustration of the manner in which, under colourable agreomerts of partnership, the regulation of the House might be evaded. Sir E. WILMOT begged to ask whether there was any intention on the part of his. Majesty's Government to make any alteration in the Post-office laws? Mr. L BOUC HE RE said his only object was to con solidate the p: csent laws, and he should strenuously object to the introduction of any new matter. RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION (SCOTLAND). Mr. GILLON begged to ask whether his Majesty's Government had authorised the publication of any portion of the etridence taken before the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of religious instruction in Scot land. He had just returned from Edinburgh, where he had seen a number of pamphlets, purporting to be the evi dence given by Dr. Lee ; and an impression was abroad that the two Commissioners before whom the evidence heel l:een taken had communicated it to certain individuals, while it had been withheld from others. Mr. M A ULE believed that access had been had to the evidence of Dr. Lee prematurely. An advantage had been taken of that to publish it in the shape of pamphlets in Edinburgh. The Secretary of State had written to the Commissioners, inquiring how that had occurred, as the evidence was confidential, and belonged to his MPjesty until it had been laid before Parliament. The Com missioners however stated that they had given it to a person to print,. under the strict charge of confidence, and in the absence of the printer the Rev. Mr. Biggs called at the office and saw the brother of the printer, to whom he communicated his wish to see his own evidence for the purpose of correcting it. He was allowed to see it, and it was supposed that on that day access had been had to the evidence of Dr. Lee. 'The Committees on the Bills relating to the Post-office were postponed till Friday next. WILLS BILL. Sir R. INGLIS wished to ask the Solicitor-General when he, or his Friend, the Attorney-General, intended to fix the second reading of the Wills Bill. It stood for that night, but there was no chance of its coming on in anything like time. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, in the absence of the Attorney-General, could not fix any day. All he could say upon the matter was, that his Learned Friend was most anxious to proceed with the Bill as early as possible. BENEFICES PLURALITIES BILL. Lord J. RUSSELL then moved the second reading of the above Bill. Lord ASHLEY begged to ask his - Noble Friend the Secretary for the Home Department, whether he was aware that notwithstanding the declared illegality of the orders of the Factory Inspectors, yet the same system was in full operation—and whether if he was not aware of it would he put a stop to it immediately? Lord JOHN RUSSELL would make instant inquiries on the subject. He had only yet received a letter from Mr. Sanders, in answer to his instructions, but he had no doubt the other inspectors were fully alive to the subject. THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF. Lord G. SOMERSET was very sorry to interpose him self between the House and the important Bill which now stood for discussion ; but he trusted that the House would bear with him for a very short time, in consequence of the strong—he might almost say, acrimonious—attack which an Honourable and Gallant Member had made upon persons for whom he felt much interested.—( Hear, hear, hear.) He would read what the Honourable and Gal lant Member was reported to have said, and if the Hon. and Gallant Member wished to retract any thing, he hoped he would interrupt him, in order that he (Lord G. Somer set) might have an opportunity of setting the question upon a proper basis. The Noble Lord then read an extract from the speech of Captain Berkeley of last night, rela tive to the patronage of the army. The accusations that had been made by the Honourable and Gallant Member were of such a character as not to justify the administration of the army remaining in the hands, either of the present Commander-in-Chief or his Secretary, if they were true. He (Lord G. Somerset) was not pre sent when the Hon. and Gallant Member made the accusation, but he thought the statements made by the paper which advocated his politics were to be relied upon. The Noble Lord then read the s t a t emen t s ma d e by the Gallant Member the previous night. Captain BERKELEY said the report which the Noble Lord had just read to the House was nearly correct in every particular, except as regarded Mr. Lovesay's father, whom he had stated was dead, which was not the fact ; but be did not consider that that bore on the ques tion at all.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to another fact, it might be very well supposed that in a plain state ment, such as he made last night, the least variation or alteration in words would give a totally different sense to what was intended. He said that with regard to that part of the report which made it appear that Mr. Lovesay stated to the Beaufort family that he would turn Tory if they got him the commission, that com munication was not to the Beaufort f imily, but was made to Lord Sea'riwe, and in that, and that only, was there any incorrect statement in the IllorningChro nicle. He was ready to repeat every word he said last night—he was ready to prove that the whole was true. Lord G. SOMERSET was very glad the Hon. and Gallant Member had corrected one part of his statement. —(No, no, and hear, hear.) He was extremely glad the Hon. and Gallant Member had corrected part of his state ment.—(Cries of " the report was incorrect.") It wag stated very much the same in all the morning piWers' He was prepared to state to the House the whole cumstances of the case, so far as it was in the power of Lord Fitzroy Somerset to afford any information. If he understood the gist of the accusation, it was that an application had been made for a commission on the part of Mr. Lovesay by the head of the Whig party in Gloucester, meaning thereby, Lord Seagrave—that he was not able to obtain the commission —(Hear)—but that the application being made to Lord Edward Somerset, the commission was immediately obtained. It had also been stated by the Hon. and Gallant Member that the gentleman was anxious to obtain a commission for the purpose 9f wear ing a smart coat abroad. He would make no comment whatever on the statement of the Hon. and Gallant Me:11- ber ; but he would just state to the House what the cit camstances were connected with that commission, as far as Lord Fitzroy Somerset was concerned.—(Hear.) It was impossible for him to have obtained access to Lord Edward Somerset since last night, as that Nobleman was in the country ; but that could not be of much importance, as the House would see when it heard the facts. The simple case was this—in June, 1830, Lord Fitzroy Sottiet. set r:ceived a letter from Sir H. Campbell, stating he had been requested to put a letter, which was inclosed, into hist hands, and adding a request that Lord Hill would have the goodness to put Mr. Lovesay's name down in the list. There was not one word about the young gentleman's going abroad in that letter ; and where the Hon. Member had his information he (Lord G. Somerset) could not tell. The answer t o that letter was dated June 4, 1830, and was to the effect that Mr. Lovesay's name had been placed on the list of candidates for Commissions ; but there were so many upon the list that he feared it would be impossible to ap point him for a considerable time. That was in the time of the Duke of Wellington and the Tories. The next application was to Captain Marshall, the Master of the Ceremonies at Cheltenham, and was dated the 4th April, 1832 ; but to that the reply was, that the number of can didates on the list was then so great that it was uselems to urge his Lordship (Lord Hill) upon the subject at present. He thought he Lad satisfied the House upon the matter. He had shown that the transaction had occurred when the Tories were in office, and that the commission had not been given in reference to Lord Edward Somerset's applies cation, but more likely in reference to that of Lord Sea grave.—( Hear, and a laugh.) The notion conveyed by the Hon. and Gallant Member was, that the Commander-in- Chief had given commissions without inquiring to whom ho was giving them.--(Hear, hear, hear.) The fact was that when this Gentleman got his commission on the 20th of April, 1832, he joined his regiment in May Of that year, and kept with it till he sold out in 183.5. He thought that he had clearly proved that the application had been made by the father of the young man, and that Lord Seagrave was one of the latest in making the application. The whole transaction he believed to be a regular one, not influenced by party politics.—(Cheers.) Lord Fitzroy Somerset, he believed, in all that he had done, had entirely thrown out of view all consideration of polities, and he defied any Hon. Member to bring forward a single instance in which that Nob!e Lord had misconducted himself. Captain BERKELEY thought that the Noble Lord had no reason to complain that he (Capt. B.) had not given him notice, that he meant to bring before the House the conduct pursued by his Noble relative. He still mail*. tamed that what he said was true in every word of it, Lord Seagrave made many applicatio► a for the ecmmission, but was met with every species of obstacle. The Noble Lord regretted that he had not had an opportunity of corn , municating with his relative in the country. So, also, did he regret that he had not had time to communicate with Lord Seagrave, for then he might have come down prepared with paper against paper, and would have been able to have stated how often Lord Seagrave renewed his applications, He had not thrown any stigma upon any of the relatives td the Noble Lord : his brother was at the head of one party in Gloucestershire, and Lord Seagrave headed another ; but he had thrown no stigma upon any one.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He did not blame the Duke of Beaufort or Lord G. gomerset for keeping their party together by all the means in their power—it was what he would do himself if placed in a similar situation—( Loud cheers and laughter)—and if he had a brother at the Horse-Guards, he would expect that more attention would be paid to his applications than to those of a violent political opponent. — (Loud Cheers.) It was the common talk of the whole county of Gloucester, that it was of no use for a Whig to make any application at the Horse Guards, so long as Lord F. Somerset remained there.—(Cheers.) Ho would never state anything in that House which he did not believe—so in this case he fully and conscientiously be lieved that Mr. Lovesay received his commission because it was applied for by the Beaufort family, and that it never Would have been granted to the applications of Lord Seagrave. There was a gentleman in the House who could better inform them what took place when the commission came down—he could tell them of the rejoicings which took place, and that the house was then opened to persons of a very dif ferent political character than had ever assembled there before. Mr. C. BERKELEY was rather surprised when the Noblc Lord came down, armed with all these letters, that he had neither produced the letter of Lord Seagrave, nor the successful letter of Lord E. Somerset.—(Hear, hear.) It was notorious as the sun at noon-day, that the moment a Tory applied for a commission it was given ; but the Whig party might apply for ever and in vain. —(Loud cheers.) Lord G. SOMERSET complained of the tone 111 which he had been replied to by the Hon. and Gallant Member. When that Hon. Member's brother made ap plications to Lord Fitzroy Somerset they were in a diffo rent tone, and in all their" communications good humour prevailed. It was a great misfortune that there was no let ter of Lord Seagrave's, because it would at once show that the statement of the Hon. and Gallant Member for Glou cester could not be borne out by the facts ; but from the circumstance of Lord Seagra‘e's name being in red ink, and the others in blank, it appeared conclusive that he was the successful applicant. THE MILITARY PREMIER. Mr. HOPE begged to call the attention of the House to a statement made by the Hen. Member for Ipswich, as iE appeared in the Times newspaper of that morning— (Hear)—referring to the conduct of the Duke of Wal lington when the Catholic Relief Bill was brought in• When Lord Berl sflrd was Master of the Ordnance, the Noble Lord intimated to the Duke of Wellington his un.. willingness to vote for the Bill, and the Duke of Wellington was stated to have replied that Lord Beresford might vote as he pleased, but the Master of the Ordnance must vote for the Bill. Mr. WASON—These were the very words I i ittnlect to use. Mr. HOPE, then, would contend that it was a reflection both upon the character of the Duke of Wellington and of the Noble Lord, who under a threat was compelled to vote for the Bill, 1 ecause he held an office under the Go vernment. The remark quoted by the Hon. Member Wat not founded in fact, nor did any thing pass that could have given any colour for such a report.—(Opposition cheers.) Mr. WASON said, the Hon. Members who were ill the House at th 3 time would do him the justice to say, that the statement alluded to was precisely in point with respect to the question then under discussion. If the report were without foundation, he felt, as every gen tleman must feel, sorry for having made a statement that was not perfectly correct. FLOGGING IN THE ARMY. On the Order of the Day being read for the House going into Committee on the Mutiny Bill, Major FANCOURT rose to move, that a Select Com mittee be appointed f or th e p urpose o f i nqu i r i ng into an reporting on the question of military punishmen ts : He thought that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into the subject, in order that the various opi: nions entertained up on th e su bj ec t m i g h t b e f u ll y un derstoo d The Commissioners had reported that a partial remission had been attended with the best effects, and he thong " be should be able to show the House, before a Select Committee, that military punishment might be safely ab n " lished altogether. In support of these statements, the 11' .. Member referred to th e o pi n i ons ex p resse d by Mr. GL II . rie in a lecture delivered by hi m on m ilit ar y punishm en t o f The Noble Lord opposite w a s e n titl e d to the than k ' . ° 0 the country for so limiting the power of general c if? li tea mai ti-1 as to the number o f l as h es to be n- -c as he had done—it w as th e fi rs t li m it placed on %I.:, and he could cle a rly p rove , by th e evidence Guthrie, that the limit m i g ht b e carr ied much forth .ar; Mr. Guthrie would st a t e b e f ore a C o mmittee, that ..e fifty lashes all sensation was so far gone, that the reT" .l l. der of the punishment was a mere spectacle. The . 1 1 °"_ and Gallant Gentleman then referred to the evn ie ti n ic c h ° of eminent officers, both native and foreign• was in favour of It's view of the case. He thought time had now arrived when the British soldiery t° be relieved from the stigma which now attac h e d _ tee of them.—( Hear, hear.) He asked only for a Comrni n t question,enquiry, and eo u those id no even t object whotooppinociseudirehis tion was not a party one—it was a national upon which he had made up his mind. .The. Ile asked only for a Committee of lequiry, and the Government would not refuse it to h any party views, nor with the intention of ernbarr hear.) He did not bring the question forwatig the intov vies "'le° fantehles. THE SUN, LON VON, SATURDAY. APRIL 8, 1837.