The Sun. — London, England, 1837-02-25 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, FABIWARY 24. The Lord Chancellor, Earl Shaftesbury, and the Archbi shop of Canterbury, took their seats at a quarter before five o'clock, as Commissioners, and gave the Royal assent by'com mission to the Grand Juries (Ireland) Bill, awl the Registra tion of Births, Deaths, and Marriages Suspension Act Bill. The House having adjourned during pleasure, the LORD CHANCELLOR in a few minutes afterwards took his scat on the Woolsack. Lord BA N DON presented a petition from the medical superintendents of the Dispensary of Donegal, praying for the repeal of a clause in the Grand Jules (Ireland) Bill, that was passed last year. Ile believed that the prayer of the petition bad been complied with by the pasFing of the Bill, which had just received the Royal assent. Earl SIIAFT E S BUR Y presented petitions from St. Pe ter's ( Dorchester), Stow, and other places, against the aboli tion of Church-rates. TO Marquis of SALISBURY presented a petition from the parish of St. Mary, Ahlerrnanbury, praying that the operation of the Poor-law Bill might not be extended to the City. Also a petition from Wolverhampton, against the abolition of Church-rates. The Marquis of LAN SD OWNE presented a petition, signed by upwards of 3,000 of the inhabitiants of Pontypool and its neighbourhood, praying the Ho devise some means for the total abolition of Church-rates. Lord POLTIMORE presented petitions from several places in the county of Devon to the same effect. Earl SEFTON presented a petition signed by upwards of 8,000 of the moat respectable inhabitants of Liverpool, praying for the total and immediate abolition of Church-rates. The Post Office Contract Bill and an Enclosure Bill, on the :notion of Earl S HA FTE SBURY, were read a third time and passed. Lord BROUGHAM presented petitions for the total abo lition of Church-rates from a great many different places, the names of many of which were not distinctly beard in the gal lery, but amongst which were parishes in the counties of So merset, York, and Cumberland ; from Bradford, Tooley street, Borough, several Dissenting places of worship in Birmingham, Peckham, Pembroke, and Pembroke Dock Union, and Oldham-street Chapel, Ashton-under-Lice ; also from Hcadcorn, in Kent ; from the Protestant Dissenters, and others favourable to religious liberty—inhabitants of Whitby, in Yorkshire ; from the inhabitants of Newport, in the Isle of Wight; from the congregation of St. George's Chapel, Middlesex ; from the inhabitants of Framlingham ; and from the congregation of Trevor Chapel, parish of St. Margaret, Pimlico. All those petitions (said the Noble Lord) were against the continuance of Church-rates, and especially against them as a general fund, to which all-classes of his Majesty's subjects should contribute.—(Hear, hear.) Lord FING AL presented a petition from Cove, in the county Cork, in favour of Irish Corporate Reform. The Earl of BURLINGTON presented a petition from the inhabitants of Bedford, praying for the total abolition of Church-rates. , The Bishop of DURHAM presented petitions from Ottory and another place is Devonshire, against the extinction of Church-rates: RELIGIOUS WORSHIP. Lord GODOLPHIN said, that he had given notice last session that he would, early in the present Session, bring in a Bill to prevent all parochial notices being read during the time of service In Churches. He considered the custom im proper, and would now move the first reading of that measure. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY concurred entirely in the principle of the Bill of the Noble Lord, and he could not express himself more strongly in that respect than in mentioning that he had a Bill of the same nature which it had been his ........ intention to propose ; he however, was happy to concur now in that proposed by the Noble Lord. Lord GODOLPHIN did not know that the Right Rev. Prelate entertained this purpose, or he would have left the measure in his hands. The Bill was read a first time. DIVORCE ACT. Lord GODOLPHIN said, that he had given another notice last Session ; it was to call the attention of their Lord ships to the mode in which Divorces were carried through their Lordships' House. He thought tho whole Anode of proceeding was irregular, and hoped their Lordships would take the subjeet into their serious consideration. Lord BROUGHAM certainly could vouch for the fact, that his Noble Friend had on many occasions, in that House and elsewhere, stated his objections not only to the Bill in question, but to all such Bills, his (Lord Godolphin's) opinion being, that the remedy proposed to be given by such Bills ought not to extend to one of the parties interested. Indeed, he himself (Lord Brougham) knew that there were many objections to all such Bills. One of these objections certainly was, that if they afforded a remedy to one party, they did also under the circumstances, in a degree favour (as we understood the Noble and Learned Lord) binding that party, which under the circumstances, could not be regarded as entitled to legislative relief. The remedy was, besides, not satisfactory, and, perhaps, less satisfactory in one House of Parliament than the other. There had been an at- tempt made to remove those objections when the Bill re specting the Ecclesiastical Courts was under consideration., It was then proposed that those Courts should be allowed a concurrent jurisdiction with Parliament in those cases, wherein those Bill were applied for. Some of the Noble Lord's friends had conferred with him on the propriety of transferring to the Ecclesiastical Courts the jurisdiction at present exercised by Parliament in those cases ; and he hoped that before long, an alteration so desirable would be ef fected—at least, to the extent that those Courts should have a concurrent jurisdiction with their Lordships' House.—( Hear.) —His Noble Friend ( Lord Godolphin) had only given his view of one side of the question ; but he did not seem to hare considered what the state of the law would be if the remedy, such as it was, that was at present given by Divorce Bills, wore entirely done away with. The person injured would remain a married person, and the other party would retrain in tho same state, notwithstanding the offence committed. He hoped his Noble Friend would give the other view of the subject his grave consideration, and would point out the means of removing the objections which he had so clearly pointed out. Lord GODOLPHIN explained in a few words, which were wholly inaulible in the Gallery. Lord BURLINGTON presented a petition from Wake field, Yorkshire, praying for the total abolition of tithes. Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF comma.vs, FRBRUARY 24. The- SPEAKER took the chair shortly before four o'clock. Mr. FARRAND, the new Member for Stafford, was intro duced by Mr. Hawkes and Mr. J. F. Lees, and took the oaths and his seat. Mr. MILLER presented Returns from the Court of Re view in Bankruptcy. GREENWICH PIER BILL. On the motion of Mr. ANGERSTEIN, this Bill was read a second time, and ordered tol)e committed. SOUTH UNION RAILWAY. Mr. BROT 11 E RTON presented petitions from Salford in favour of the South Union Railway Bill. Similar petitions were also prosonted by Nit.. Potter, from Wigan ; by Mr. Walker, from Bury ; by Mr. Mark Philips, from Manches ter; and by Mr. Marsland, Mr. Strutt, Mr. Wilbraham, and Mr. Copeland, from several other places. Sir R. FERGUSON presented two petitions in favour of the Bill—ono from thu Corporation of Nottingham, and the other from the merchants, traders, and inhabitants of the same town. Mr. SCIIOLE FIELD presented a petition from Birming ham, 119 we understood, against the Bill. Mr. Sergeant G 0 ULB URN presented a petition to the same effect from certain landholders in the county of Leicester. An iloN. MENtnna, whose name we could not learn, pre sented a petition in favour of the Bill, from certain landholders in the County of Oxford. MANCHESTER AND CHESHIRE RAILWAY. Mr. FORT presented a petition in favour of the Manchester and Cheshire Railnay from Clitheroe. SOUTH MIDLAND COUNTIES RAILWAY. Mr. S‘ageant GOULBURN presented a petition from cer tain landholders in the county of Leicester, complaining that the Stan hog Orders had not been complied with, with respect to this Bill. He moved that the petition be referred to the Corn initteeon the Standing Orders. Mr. VERNON SMITH said that the Committee on the Standing Orders had already drawn up their Report. would be very hard upon the supporters of the Bill if that Committee were now to be revived, after the great ex pence that had already been gone into, for the mere purpose of considering the petition. The SPEAKER made a few observations, which were in audible in the Gallery ; and the petition, as we understood, was ordered to be taken into consideration on Monday next. SOUTH UNION RAILWAY. Mr. TURNER presented a petition from Blackburnc, in favour of this Railway. LEEDS AND DERBY RAILWAY. On the motion of Mr. S FRUTT, the Leeds and Derby Railway Bill was read a second time. MIDLAND COUNTIES RAILWAY. Mr. STRUTT had a most important petition to present relating to the Standing Orders of the House. The petition was from the North Midland Railway Company, and it stated that in the course of last Session a petition had been presented to the House from the Midland Counties Railway Company, praying that a branch of their railway might be joined to the North Midland Railway. Tim North Midland Company com plained that the Standing Orders had not been complied with in the case of that petition, and the matter was referred to the Standing Orders Committee, who were of opinion that the Standing Orders had not been complied with, and that they ought not to be dispensed with. Mr. GIS BORN E would give no opposition to the recep tion of the petition, or say anything at present on the subject, provided his Hon. Friend would fix a day for bringing it tinder the consideration of the House. Mr. STRUTT was understood to fix Monday next for taking the matter of the petition under consideration. DEPTFORD AND DOVER RAILWAY. Mr. FINN wished to take that opportunity of correcting an error of the Press, which affected him in some degree. It was stated in the public papers, that the Hon. Member for 4d mentioned his (Mr. Finn's) name as ono of Abp. r s of the Deptford and Dover Rail.vay, when blepelvas lately brought un d er th e no tice of the /• - . ICrOVI he wished to stat e th at h e h a d no t the : belong to any Railway Company, and he •:. - ,:_ - _,L4i4,-*.riteA; connected with that which was i n t en d e d ij? - IS-bi t yilts, *run through the county of Kilkenny which he I.ooc - he had absolutely refused to have any thing to order that he might he more free in his conduct A lititt,tinee to it in that House. He wished the Hon. Mena . THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1837. ber for Bridport to say if he had alluded to him on the occa sion referred to. Mr. WARBURTON was understood to say he had not mentioned the name of the Hon. Member for Kilkenny, in connection with the Deptford and Dover Railway. WHITBY AND PICKERING RAILWAY. On the motion of Mr. W. DUNCOMBE, the Whitby and Pickering Railway was read a second time and ordered to be committed. Mr. E. DENISON brought up the report of the Commit tee on the Birmingham Plate and Crown Glass Company, and some other reports. The Hon. Member then presented a pe tition from the North Midland Railway Company against the South Union Railway. Sir OSWALD MOSLEY presented three petitions in favour of the South Union Railway. Mr. FOSTER presented a petition from Walsall to the same effect. MANCHESTER AND CHESHIRE RAILWAY BILL. On the motion of Mr. B. WILBRAHAM, this Bill was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time to morrow. Mr. HINDLEY presented a petition from Newcastle-under- Line, in favour of the South Union Railway Bill. Mr. THORNELY presented a petition from a place in Staffordshire in favour of the Manchester, Cheshire, and Staf ford Railway Bill. On the motion of Mr. TENNYSON D'EYNCOURT, the Licensed Victuallers' Assurance Company Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed. SOUTH UNION RAILWAY. Mr. I. J. BLACKBURN presented a petition from War rington in favour of the South Union Railway. SOUTH MIDLAND COUNTIES RAILWAY BILL. Sir R. FERGUSON presented a petition from the Corpo ration of Nottingham, in favour of this Bill. LANCASTER AND PRESTON RAILWAY. On the motion of Lord STANLEY, this' Bill was read a second time. The same NOBLE LORD presented two petitions against the South Union Railway Bill. SOUTH UNION RAILWAY. Lord F.. EGERTON moved the second reading of this Bill; upon which Lord STANLEY said he was unwilling to take up the time of the House, and it was extremely desirable that those ques tions which were capable of being discussed and decided before a Committee, should be so determined upon, rather than before the House itself. The House was aware that not only had it been his anxious desire, but the de#ire of the two great Companies who opposed this Bill, to abstain from of fering any opposition on the second reading, had they not found that according to the rules and practice of the House it was absolutely impossible for them in any other wad to insist on that principle which they felt it necessary to do for the protection of their own right'. As this was a matter of great importance, he would ask for a short time the patience of the House, while he stated plainly the reasons on which he asked them to post pone the second reading of this Bill. The House was aware, that after the great and successful experiment in railways between Manchester and Liverpool, a plan was formed of un paralleled importance, and of great risk and difficulty, to communicate those two great towns with Birmingham and the Metropolis, by means of one contined line of railroad. He thought he did not state too much when he ventured to say, that if the Company had not proposed to carry their line through Birmingham, that the project would have been thrown aside by the House and the public, as unworthy of general support. The House was pleased to sanction the line from Birmingham to London, and from Birmingham to Liverpool, as the great connecting communication between the North and South of England. In the course of last year objections were taken to it, and it was contended that Manchester should have a shorter communication than that afforded by the line adopted. The Liverpool and Manchester Railway, about half its distance, was met at right angles by the line of communication between Birmingham and Liverpool. It would be observed that that was not the most direct route to Manchester, but there were natural obstacles in the way which rendered the junction at the angle described absolutely necessary, as far as Liverpool was concerned . but it was not so with regard to Manchester, and the people of Manchester asked why they should bo obliged to go a round of fifteen or twenty miles, on their way to London, when by cutting it off they could save a considerable distance in the journey. There was no thing in his opinion more reasonable than such a proposition, and in the course of last year two Companies were formed having the same object in view, and their relative merits were discussed before Committees of the House of Com mons and of the Lords, at an expense exceeding .50,0001. They were, however, both unsuccessful—one of them, the South Union, proposed to run their line through Stockport, Burton, Derby, &c., thus affording means of improvement to those important towns. In the course of the year both Com panies found that their respective lines were not the best, and both agreed upon a line nearly similar, which would have almost the same termini, and for a great distance run parallel with the Grand Junction and the London and Bir mingham Railway. If they were confined to such objects there would be no objection to the second reading of the Bill before the House. These two lines fell into the Liverpool and Birmingham line. [The Noble Lord was hero interrupted by Sir Augustus Clifford, the Usher of the Black Rod, who appeared at the table, and summoned the House to the House of Lords, to hear the Royal Assent given by Commission to certain Tho Speaker, attended by several Members, immediately quitted the House for that purpose.) The SPE AKE R upon his return informed the House that he had been to the House of Lords to hear the Royal Assent given to certain Bills, for which see our Lords' report. Lord STANLEY then resumed. He had been inter rupted in the observations he had been making to the House, at a time when it was as convenient as possible that he should be ; for he had just arrived at what he might call a sort of half-way house.—( Hear.) He had just got to that point with regard to so much of the line as shortened the distance between Stone and Stafford, to which no objection was taken by the parties whose cause he appeared to advocate. He now came to that part to which they did object, and which he thought the House was called upon in justice to object to also. It was true that between Stone and Stafford, and from thence to Rugely, as the great leading line between Liverpool and London did not take the most direct course, it was in the power of the promoters of the Bill to take another, and by which a distance of seven miles out of nine would have been saved—namely, that of taking it through the towns of Wolverhampton, Birmingham, and Coventry ; but if the line as now proposed had been brought forward before the Act passed, the sanction of Parliament would not have been obtained to the Bill.—( Hear.) He did not state this from supposition, but from facts; for \at the time these railroads were in contemplation, meetings were held in Birmingham and the neighbouring country, at which they called upon the Liverpool Railroad Company, who at that time had it in their intention to carry this line through, in the manner now proposed—they called upon them that the line ' should pass through Wolverhampton, Birmingham, and Co ventry. and that it should not take the line now proposed to be taken. That was the course which it was stated these Companies promised to pursue when the matter was before Parliament, before it would give its sanction to the measure.—(Hear.) Now what had these Companies done in fulfilment of that promise ? In the first place, he would call the attention of the House to the great outlay of money that had taken place for the communication between London, Man chester, and Liverpool. There had been already an outlay amounting to nearly eight millions pounds of money. From these eight millions, with the exception of 1,200,000/. sunk in the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, not a single farthing of profit had been derived up to the present moment. This money had been advanced on the faith of the British Parliament, that this should be the main line between London and Liverpool. The estimate has been much exceeded. ( Hear, hear.) In the London and Birmingham Railway, the original estimate was 2,500,0001.—the actual expenditure up to the time he spoke was 2,400,000/., and the present estimate was 2,000,000/. more. The estimate for the Grand Junction, independently of the portion between Warrington and Newton, and the million and a half already expended be tween Liverpool and Manchester—the original estimate was 1,0-10,0001.—the estimate now exceeded 1,500,000/. Conse quently the whole of these estimates amounted already to the sum of 8,000,000/., which had been incurred on the faith of a British Parliament—that this lino should be the great track between London, Birmingham, and Liverpool. Not only is as the faith of Parliament pledged, but the passing of the Act justified this expenditure on the part of the public, because they refused to pass the Act until it was proved that a certain amount of passengers and traffic might be expected to pass along the line for a certain distance. They refused to sanction the Bill till this was proved—they made it a condition on which the scheme should go forth, in order to prove it was not a bubble scheme, but one in which people might fairly invest their property, because it was in vested upon the faith of Parliament. If, after this 'enormous outlay, for the mere saving of nine miles in a distance of 200, it was proposed to incur an additional expense amounting to 2,000,000/. more, another Act were allowed to be introduced which might possibly take away a traffic from the original Company of a line of sixty miles out of two hundred, or rather out of one hundred and fifty, he did say that it would be a gross injustice to the parties interested in the original Bill. If, after sanctioning this longer line, and having compelled the parties to undertake it at a great expense, they were to allow another party to step in, and making a line at a little expense, from the long distance, to cut off a short angle, and which line would never have been thought of but for the original line, from which, however, it must cut off a great part of the profit and price of their exertions and capital and outlay, he must say it really was ludicrous—it was one of the strongest cases that could come before Parliament.—( Hear, bear.) But did this new line pass through a very populous district, and through very important towns? It passed through districts which were entirely agricultural—it passed, certainly, near some large towns—( Sir Robert Peel—lt passes through Tamworth.) He would come to Tamworth presently—( A laugh)—he was now dealing with the case between Stone and Rugely ; and in the first place, it passed through the valley of the Trent, where there was no town of any importance. He had the very greatest respect for the constituency of Tamworth.—( A laugh. ) They had done themselves very great honour by returning his Right Hon. Friend, but he did not think they ought to satisfy themselves with that honour merely—( Laughter)— and not seek to derive a due share of profit. He was much mis taken if Tarnworth had been represented by a person of less influ ence, of less importance, and of less high station in that House, whether the South Union would have seen so strong a rea son for passing the line through Tamworth.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) The object, it was said, was to save nine miles. amworth was now to supersede Birmingham. Formerly it was stated that Birmingham was the centre of the great communications with t h e M etropol i s ; b ut now t h e communication was not to pass through Birmingham, but Tamworth was to be the centre through which all the Railroads were to pass.—(hear, hear, and laughter. ) Fortunately for the Company, a part of the line by which they were to cut off an angle was to go through the important towns of Wolverhampton, Birmingham, and Coventry; part of the line consisted in a continuation from their terminus at Tamworth ; and if they were compelled to stop at Tamworth, and the other Company should not succeed in going farther, the saving a distance of nine miles would he reduced to the satin;; of only one. It was for the saving of one mile therefore, if the line from Tamworth to Rugely did not take place, that an expenditure of eight million pounds hart already been sanctioned, and they were now called upon to sanction the expenditure of 1,200,001)1. mare. The matter had already been before the Standing Orders rommittcc, and he had been told there were forty-five objections taken in point of form to the Standing Orders. The Tamworth and hugely Bill was out of Parliament, and therefore must be treated as a Bill not in existence. By allowing the present measure to pass, the I louse would be sanctioning the committal of an outrage to the great prejudice of parties who had not received a farthing . , and would force them to incur the obligation of expending a Liege sum more unnecessarily, as he contended, and prejudicial to the interests of those who had been parties to the undertaking. What did he ask ? Did he ask the House to pronounce that at no time should a line be sanctioned between Stone and Rudely, which should make a shorter line than the present? Ho did no such thing; on the contrary, what he said was that if it should hereafter be proved the profit on the original great undertaking had been such as to warrant the intro duction of another line,—( Hear, hear,)—that other line ought to be made, and no opposition on his part should be given to its being made. But what he objected to was, that before a single farthing of profit had been repaid—before the original grand undertaking had been completed—before the parties could see whether it had been profitable or not, that another Company should be . permitted to step in and to take that course which in all human probability would ruin the one line and the other. Under these circumstances, the Bill being divided into two Parte, he did not think he asked too much that the parties should not during the present year go further than Stone, and that they should be called upon to postpone the consideration of the remainder. Upon the part of the two great Companies which he had mentioned, hip would be ready to withdraw all opposition to the present Bill, provided a pledge was given that they should not attempt to extend their line during the present session farther than Stone. He did not think it fair towards those who had, on the faith of that House, laid out a large capital, that they would not have time to finish their line and see if it would pay them for the sums expended on the un dertaking. He would be ready, as regarded the two compet ing companies, to go into the Committee, in order to ascer tain the relative merits of each, and which would be attended with more advantage to the public. It so happened that the only Railway in which be was personally interested was that which went through Macclesfield, and that was the one he now opposed. He had no objection that a line should run between Stafford and Stone, but he wished the House to do justice to 'its own principles, and to the parties who had, relying on the faith of the report to the House, laid out a very large capital ; and to him it appeared but fair that time should be allowed to ascertain if the undertaking was a profitable specu lation. All he wished the House to do was to separate the two questions. If there was any other course of proceeding by which he could attain his object, he could assure Hon. Gen tlemen he would be very unwilling to take the sense of the House on the second reading, and he should be unwillingly , obliged to conclude by proposing that the Bill be read a se cond time that day six months. Sir R. PEEL was very sorry that he was under the neces sity of offering a competing line of argument to the line of his Noble Friend—( A Laugh)—but if he did not succeed in show ing that the plans and surveys of his Noble Friend's line were inadequate, he should never attempt to compete with him again. He would show the House that the termini of the line his Noble Friend had taken, were the prevention of inquiry, and the protection of monopoly.—( Hear, and laughter.) He (Sir R. Peel) had no more to do with the suggestion of the line of railway to Tamworth, than any gentleman that heard him ; and his interest in the promotion of the line was con fined to the presentation of a petition in its favour. But as to taking any part in the selection of that line to Tamworth, he had never, directly or indirectly, any connexion with it. ( Hear.) Let Hon. Members look to the map—let them go into Committee, and if they thought the line taken through Tamworth was eligible, merely because it might command a certain influence, let them reject it altogether. Nothing would be more unfair than to select any town in the hope that any particular interest might be favourable, or any particular support conceded. All he hoped for was, that the Committee would be granted, and the allegations on both sides submitted to the test of investigation. He did not appeal to gentlemen connected with the Birmingham and Derby, the Tamworth, or any other competing line; but he appealed to that part of the House which had no interest in the matter ; and if, after a severe scrutiny and inquiry, he did not convince them that the line which he advocated was the best, let them reject it alto gether; but he was satisfied that his case was so strong that no ingenuity, not even the talent of his Noble. Friend, could fur an instant stand up against it. The House had ap pointed a Committee last year, for the purpose of laying down certain rules to which parties seeking Railways should adhere. It was required that certain notices should be giver, ; and the regulassions were altogether exceedingly strict. That Committee had considered whether Government should not interfere in these undertakings, and employ engineers to survey those lines which might be selected as , the best ; and they had laid down in their report this principle—the only prin ciple upon which that country could ever speculate in matters of public improvement—and they had observed that upon the whole it appeared best to leave railways in Great Britain like all other railways, to be decided upon by the judgment and interest of those willing to embark their capital in them, subject to the scrutiny and control of Parliament, and they had also proposed that the time taken by these Railway Bills in passing through the House should be prolonged. The South Union Railway Company had gone to an immense expense, and had complied with all those regulations ; and the Noble Lord now asked the House, in consequence of the expense that another Company had been put to, to prevent inquiry, and put an extinguisher upon them, and if so, the Manchester Company would be reimbursed for their expendi ture. The Noble Lord further stated that they bad done all that upon the faith of Parliament; but it was no such thing. Parliament had merely said that if they made surveys and submitted their plan to it, they would investigate and scrutinize it—and if it seemed likely to promote the interests of the public and the shareholders, they would pass it. Were these Companies so careful of the property of the Canals when they were instituted ? No. Did they think of the interests of the Turnpike Trusts? No ; Those that em barked capital in such undertakings did it at a risk, and by that risk they must abide. Now, what were the facts? Why, his friend said " have pity on the whole line of Companies between London and Liverpool." Why, on the Manchester and Liverpool Railway alone there had been a profit of no less than 1241. on every share, the original price being 100/., and the present 224/. per share. Was a man who had gained 1241. by every share in a speculation into which he had entered, and who by that speculation had destroyed the capital and the interests of road contractors, stage coach proprietors and stage coachmen—was he to ask for protection from competition ?—(Hear and cheers.) He would take the London and Birmingham Company, and the direct line, and ho would state this, that some time after the Act was passed for the formation of that Company, its shares were sold at no less a premium than 701. or 801. ; so that, not withstanding all the expenses that had been incurred, those gentlemen who had paid down 51. for every 100.. share were enabled to receive 851. by putting them up to sale in the market.--( Hear, hear.) He ( Sir R. Peel) had a friend who had no less than 1,100 shares in the Bir mingham Company, and if he had only selected the proper time for their sale, he might have realised no less a sum than 70,0001.—(Cheers.) At the present time shares were at a great premium, he believed as much as 401. or 50/. but at all events some short time since, tho premium was as high as 701. Was it fair then, he would ask, that a Company which had been selling their shares at such enormous pre miums, should have a right to ask the House for protection from fair competition ?—( Hear, hear.) The question was, was this Manchester and 'Tamworth Railway a bone fide Company, and if it was not, he should say discountenance it at once. He believed that it required the greatest caution in the formation of schemes that partook at all of the character of speculation. If this was a speculation let it be discountenanced. But what were the facts with respect to it? There were 20,090 shares in the Company, and what was required as evidence of its being a bona fide one? Why, first of all, that persons of pro perty should hold its shares ; and next, that the consent of the landholders should be obtained. The price of the shares was 1001., and out of the 20,000 no less than 14 , 500 shares had been sub scribed for by persons of the greatest respectability in Manchester. Twenty -four thousand shares had been asked for, and they had kept in reserve a cert tin number of shares. Three fourths of the landholders on the line had consented. There were 72 miles of railroad, and for 55 miles of that line the assent of the pro prietors of the land had been given. Was it possible, then, for the House of Commons, without hearing one word of the evidence in detail by which the Bill would be supported —was it possible he would ask to reject the Bill? (An Hon. Mem ber here reminded the Right Hon. Baronet of the Grand Junction Railway Bill.) With respect to the Grand Junction Railway Bill he knew a gentleman who had 100 shares, and who gold them, realizing a profit of eel. upon every share; and yet this gentleman and others realizing Such a profit had the modesty to'come and ask the House to protect them from all competition.—( Cheers.) The House might depend upon it that fair competition was the best by which such things as these were to be determined.—(Hear, hear.) A scrutiny before a Committee of the House of Commons, and fair competition, was the only way to arrive at a beneficial result. His Noble Friend said that the measure should be postponed for another year, He (Sir Robert Peel) said, decide it, one way or other, at the present moment. If it was_right that the railway should beis strong mad ground ine, make it at once ; if it should be re j e cted, reject it at once ; but let not the landowner be kept in suspense. His favour of the Bill was this, that the Manchester Company had adhered to the resolutions prescribed, and that the faith of Parliament had not been given to one line in particular, but had left it open to fair competition, He trusted gentlemen of Scotland and Ireland would permit fair competition, He trusted that they would permit the people of England to make what railways they pleased at their owe expence. If the House precluded inquiry, in his opinion they would be establishing a precedent which would be attended by the worst results, as it would prevent parties from having that full and fair examination which they were entitled to. He trusted, therefore, that the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time. Sir J. WROTTESLEY said, that in the few observa tions he felt bound to make, if he mentioned any personal interests, the speeches they had just heard would afford a high authority. The truth, however, was that be had no per. sonal interest in thi3 Railway. Of those la how he represented Sir U. one party was in favour of the Bill, and the other was as dc, not make cidedly opposed to it. Therefore, under these circumstances, their pat. he had felt it his duty to attend to the merits of the for whole case, and after forming his own opinion, he would take the liberty very shortly to state it to the House. With - egani to the respectability of the claimants for ' the seer - , . of the Bill, he had nothing to say. Ho toe" id ;ceding that they were bone fide subscriptions it for granted and coming* as they did from the opulent town of Maul , : ester, he had little doubt but that these subscriptions w . - ould be paid. lle did not for a mo ment suspect that . the par t i es conce rned in this Bill were at all of the same dese!..lption as that complained of. his Right Hon. Friend (sir R. Peel) had influenced the lloube, not to depart, from the usual practice of allowing the Bill to be read a second time, and then the merits might be discussed in Committee. His Noble Friend ( Lord Stanley) in his very perspicuous and able speech had met the question on its proper grounds. From what he knew of the rules of the House he thought it was this—that if persons came with petitions against the principle of a Bill, it was in the stage of the second reading-, and that only then the question of merits could be discussed. It was, therefore, to that particular point—with all respect to the House—that he would address himself exclusively. There was one particular argument to which, in his opinion, the House was bound to attend. This railroad, which was called the South Union Railway, was only part of a plan. The original plan was for a railway from Manchester to Tamworth ; and, as far as the Company was concerned, these two places were to be the termini. Part of the plan was from Tamworth ' to Rugely, but the Standing Orders Committee determined that the Tamworth and Rugely line could not be approved of. They therefore passed by that part, and adopted the line from Manchester to Tamworth, by which, as the Noble Lord ( Stan ley) said, only one mile would be saved. They had sanctioned the Act for a Railway from London to Birmingham ; they had sanctioned another line from Birmingham to Liverpool; and they were now called upon to permit another competing Company to come forward after the original one had spent mil lions of money without reaping the advantage of a single shilling. lie did not think it would be fair to hold that those who had been in receipt of large incomes from the profits on their shares should be in the same situation as others. It was said that these shares had been at 80, and that now they were at 40 per cent. He did not know whether they were now worth only 40 or not ; but if they were, why was it ? Simply because it was a very well known fact that the Birmingham and London Railway would not be completed for less than double of what it was stated at first it would cost. He did not think that those who had made the poorer speculations should be taken as the criterion by which to judge of the subject. It had been said that those who had sold their shares and put large sums into their pockets should be the parties to look to ; but the fact was, those individuals had left the concern, and the present holders were persons who had laid out large sums, without having received one shilling of return. It had also been said that Parliament, in sanctioning one line of Railway, ought not to sanction a com peting line. Parliament had refused to agree to that, and what took place when the London and Birmingham Rail way Bill passed ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) Why the projectors were called upon to show such a reasonable probability of traffic as would yield a fair share of profit to the shareholders. They did produce proof to that effect, and no sooner had that Bill passed than the House sanctioned a competing line. He felt exceedingly obliged for the attention with which the House had heard him, and he should not trouble the House further.—( Cries of " Divide, divide.") Mr. JAMES said the Right Hon. Baronet had addressed the House with his usual ability and with his usual plausi bility—( Great laughter)—and had stated the people of Tare worth had nothing to do with the Bill ; but the Right Hon. Baronet had not told the House he might not have some bene ficial interest in the matter. It appeared to him (Mr. James) that every principle of justice and fair dealing demanded the measure should be rejected at once by the House, as one not worthy to be considered in detail by a com mittee of the House.—( Cries of " Divide, divide.") — He had no interest whatever in the concern, and was no advo cate of a monopoly.--(Renewed cries of " Divide.") Lord SAND ON addressed the House, but from the noise which prevailed, he was altogether inaudible in the gallery. We understood him to support the Bill, and to say that he had presented a petition from 167 landholders in its favour. Mr. G I SBO RNE rose amidst loud criesof " Divide 1" He said that if the House would permit him, he would only say a very few words as to the position in which the Noble Lord who had moved that this Bill be read again this day six months was placed. The Noble Lord said, naturally and properly, that this line divided itself into two parts, and that he approved of one of them and disapproved of the other ; but he could not have that portion of which he disapproved rejected, unless the other portion also was rejected. Now he (Mr. Gisborne) proposed that the Bill should go to a Com mittee, and the Noble Lord could then gain his object ; for a Committee could sanction the adoption of that part of the rail way which he desired, and throw out that portion to which he objected.—( Hear.) He almost agreed with the Noble Lord as to the point at which the railway should stop ; but it was monstrous to throw out what he approved of, in order to have thrown out that to which he objected. The Hon. Gentleman then read a passage from the report of the Committee on the question, but was inaudible from the noise which prevailed : we could only collect that the Committee recommended the investigation of the whole case. He then concluded by asking if the House, after that recommendation, would stop the mea sure at its present stage ?—( Hear.) Mr. MAR K PHIL LIPS then rose, and the loud cries of " divide, divide," prevented the Honourable Member from addressing the House for some time. He would ask Hon. Members whether the constituents whom he represented should have a fair hearing through him, before the House came to a decision upon the second reading of the Bill 7—( Hear, hear.) He was unconnected in any private capacity whatever with either of the lines. He would vote for the second read. ing of the Bill, as he considered it was a simple act of justice to allow the Bill to go through that stage. The Noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, had not adverted to the quantity of carriage anticipated on this line from Notting ham and Derby. This was an additional reason why the Bill should be allowed to go through a second reading. He had but one word to state with respect to the Grand Junction Railway. The town of Manchester was not consulted as to whether the line that was adopted was or was not the best. He did not see any reason why the town of Manchester should be compelled to pass through a longer and highly inconve nient line, because the railway projectors could not look into futurity, and because they had not made that line which they ought to have adopted, had they taken into consideration the interests of the important town of Manchester. Lord F. EG E RTON rose to reply. He was not authorised to make" any compromise for the purpose of obtaining support to this Bill. The time to enter into or justify such a compro mise was when the Bill was in Committee. He hoped the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time, and when it was in Committee the subject of a compromise might be very properly taken into consideration. Mr. P. THOMSON disagreed with the Right Hon. Mem ber for Tamworth in the opinion expressed by him, that the House was bound to give to all Bills of this kind a second reading, in consequence of the resolution of last year. Where there was a general objection he thought the second reading the fit time for opposing its further progress. He did not, however, suppose, that because there were already two competing lines that the House was bound to reject the Bill, and he did not think the reasons advanced by, the Noble Lord were sufficient to induce the House to reject it. He should therefore vote against the proposition of the Noble Lord. Lord STANLEY did not think he would be justified in troubling the House by calling for a division, after the indica tion of opinion by several Members who agreed in the gene ral principles contended for by him. He was afraid, however, that the result of the decision of the House, after great expense and great loss of time, would have the same effect as if the parties had compromised the matter. The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed. RAILWAYS.—STANDING ORDERS. Mr. WARBURTON asked a question respecting the Standing Orders, which The SPEAKER declined to answer. POOR LAWS AMENDMENT BILL. Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the Order of the Day for the purpose of giving the Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) an opportunity of bringing forward this subject. Sir ROBERT PEEL had a petition to present from a great number of medical practitioners in Berkshire. One por tion of the petition prayed for an inquiry into the medical treatment. Upon the subject of the Poor-law Amendment Act, he begged to say that he was not hostile to the principle of that Bill. On the contrary, he had given it his support.— ( Hear, hear.) He could neither support a motion for the repeal of that Act, nor would he give his support any motion for an inquiry, that would have a tendency to prejudice that measure. He distinctly avowed that ; but still he thought that there were several parts of the system that might be made the subject of inquiry, and this with a view to prevent abuses in the general system. He was quite confident that the prin ciple of the Bill would be promoted by an improvement in its details. There were none of those details that, he believed, called so much for inquiry as those connected with medical treatment under the Act. He wished to ask the Noble Lord whether, in any amendment he might move, he would be against any such inquiry as had for its object an improvement in the general operations of the Act, and particularly with re spect to medical treatment ? Lord JOHN RUSSELL was against any proposition that would tend to repeal the Poor Law Amendment Act, or affect in any way the principle of that Act. He was ready to assent to an inquiry into the manner in which the Act had been car ried into operation. He certainly was not prepared to say that the Commissioners had in any instance acted but with a sound and wise discretion on the subject of the law ; at the same time, he thought that this was a fit subject for inquiry, and more particularly as regarded medical relief. It was the opi nion of those whose opinions were entitled to great weight, and whose opposition was conscientiously entertained as to the plan adopted by the Poor Law Commissioners with respect to medical relief ; and the Committee which he would have the honour to propose as an amendment to the motion of the Hon. Member for Berkshire, would inquire into all the various measures adopted by the Commissioners, so far as the work ing of the plan was concerned, and, amongst others, the plan adopted by them with respect to medical relief. He thought that the best way of considering the question would be by a Select Committee. Sir R. PE EL said that his petition was not against the principle of the Act; but it was from medical practitioners who expressed an opinion against remuneration for their treatment being by contract or tender. ' Persons the most friendly to the operation of the Act were for an inquiry into that branch of the subject. If he understood the Noble Lord, there would not be the least4itficulty thrown in the way of an inquiry into that particular branch. Lord J, RUSSELL replied there would not.—(liear.) L aped that those medical gentlemen would ante mistake in their recipes that they had in ..cion ; for what they had s'nt to him was a petition ate Lords Spiritual and Temporal.--( Laughter.) After a few words from Mr. ROBINSON, Coload SIBTHORI requested of the Noble Lord to name which would be convenient for the Noble Lord, in order that he might proceed with his motion, which stood first amongst the notices for that day. • Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied that if he proceeded with the Orders of the Day, the lion. and Gallant Gentleman's motion could not be proceeded with until they had been dis posed of. When the Orders of the Day were not proceeded with, in order that a particular motion might be discussed, it was the general understanding, that others would give the precedency to that motion. Ile could not name any parti cular day, nor did he see any reason why the motion of the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman could not be made without op position. In answer to ?Ir. lleathcote, ?4r. HUME said that he hoped the County-rates Bill would be in the hands of Mem bers to-morrow, and that he might be able to proceed with it on Wednesday. _ _ Mr. C. 13 OLL ER wished to give notice. He held in his hand a pamphlet said to be his Majesty's Commissioners' Re port on Public Records, as we understood the Hon. Gentle man. The Commissioners, be observed, very seriously im pugned the conduct of the Committees appointed last session. These charges appeared to him wholly false. He would take the opportunity of asking a question, in order that from the answer he might know who and what Commissioners sent the Report to the Treasury. Lord JOHN RUSSELL, in reply to an Hon. Gentleman, as to the application of the Poor-law Amendment Act to the manufacturing districts, replied, that the inquiry he meant to propose would extend to the manner in which the Poor-law Commissioners had carried the Act into effect. Mr. HARDY wished to know from the Noble Lord whe ther the alterations made in the provisions of the, Act, for in stance, as to th e b as t ar d y c l auses, were to be excepted from the inquiry as to the manner in which the Act had been car ried into effect ? Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought it much better to allow the debate to proceed. Mr. W A L'i'E R then rose to address the house on the motion of which he had given notice, for a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the Poor-law Amendment Act, and to report their opinion to the House. We under stood him to say that he had originally given to the Poor-law Amendment Act every opposition in his power; yet, continued the Hon. Member, it having passed into a law, lie was ready of course to bow to the decision of the majority. What he did now on the matarest consideration was nothing more than he must be obliged to do, in consequence of the call made on him. He had to convey the sense of his fellow-subjects to the people's House of Parliament, and" he hoped the House would prove itself to be what it was called. He was doing nothing more than the complaints of all sanctioned him in doing—from men of high rank, from men of in formation, and particularly from the clergy, from many members of the magistracy—and they had joined together the cries of the suffering and the voice of reason and reflec tion, It was on these gr'sands he called the attention of the House to this subject. He meant briefly to renal the recollec tion of Hon. Gentlemen to the changes that had taken place in the Poor-laws. The magistrates of the southern counties in 1793, instead of obeying the law for regulating wages, thought proper to introduce a practice of their own. The demoralizing effect of this was soon obvious. The impru dent and harsh conduct of the managers of the poor drove them into premature wedlock, in the hope of increasing their wages. The proper remedy for this would have been to remove the causes that gave rise to it. It would save much trouble in characterising these scenes if the House would allow him to read the confessions made respectively by two gentlemen who were the advocates and panegyrists of the Poor-laws in the other House of Parliament. The Right Reverend Prelate who presided over the Commis sion, on the question of an additional clause relating to the establishment of provident institutions, spoke thus of the whole measure :—His Lordship said that he was anxious for the introduction of that clause, because, said he, " It is about the only one in the Bill that bears a kindly feeling towards the poor on the face of it." The Lord Chancellor said " That the chief point involved in this Bill was, whether their Lord ships should retain their properties or not. It was the opinion of the Commissioners—and in that opinion he concurred_ that if this measure, or a measure similar to it, were not speedily adopted, the property of this country would shortly change hands." The Government organs of the press made use also of similar language—" We require a Dictatorship for a time." From these three sources any one might clearly come to the result what kind of a Bill it would be. This was the sort of argument that influenced them in their conduct to wards the poor. He said nothing of introducing the Bill out of kindly feelings towards the poor, who were the object of it ; and it appeared that the necessity for that measure was founded on the false assumption that unless it were passed the whole property‘of the country would go into other hands. An other object of the establishment was to introduce a unifor mity of system throughout the country. Had this been the case, or had it failed? The squabbles that had so frequently taken place between the Poor-law Commissioners and the dif ferent parishes would best answer the question.—( Hear, hear. ) The evils of the system were of two kinds, as in every tyran nical operation there were% two extremes. It confined relief to the workhouse. The Poor-law Commissioners used every means to induce people to emigrate. He was well aware that they did not attempt compulsory emigration ; but they did that secretly which they dared not attempt openly. People were not carried away by force but fraud; deception and un founded representation constituted the very worst kind of coer cion. General Stewart, in sceaking of compulsory emigra tion, said—" I have been told by intelligent officers who served in Canada during the last war, that they found in the Highland emigrants more fierce in their animosity against England than even the native Americans." The motives to induce people to emigrate were obvious ; but how stood the c ase w i t h t h e Poor law Commissioners. He would read a passage from their own report upon this head. "In the case of any real surplus of population being found to exist, we have already announced our intention of endeavouring to provide for it, either by emi gration to some of our colonies, or by migration to some home district, in which an effective demand for labour might be found to prevail.—( Hear.) In conformity with the intention thus expressed, we have thought it necessary to enable many pa rishes in the south-eastern districts of England—particularly in Norfolk, Suffolk, Sussex, and parts of' Wiltshire, where a redundancy of labour was most complained of—to rsise the necessary funds for the conveyance of numerous emigrants, who have proceeded chiefly to Toronto, in Upper Canada." The whole number of the persons thus sent out was 5,140 ; of whom 3,000 had been sent from Norfolk alone. A friend of his saw 217 conveyed in a single waggon.—( A laugh.) The number had been calculated according to the weight of the waggon, which was seven tons. Some idea might be formed on the subject from the statement of the persons sent from Downton, in Wiltshire. Out of 200 persons, 70 were able-bodied men, and the remaining 130 either women or children. What would become of the latter on the death of their husbands or fathers ? Nor did it appear upon the assist ant Commissioner's own showing, that this emigration was ne cessary; for he adds, " it is a matter of very great difficulty to ascertain even with an approximation to truth the actual exist ence of a superabundance of labourers. I can instance scarcely a single parish in which there is not ample employment in the summer season. In winter, men are too frequently discharged, not because there is not profitable labour for them, but be cause their services can be spared, and the small occupiers of land are too distressed to incur expenses not absolutely indis pensable." He would read a few of the cases that had been sent to him by a highly respectable gentleman, who was a clergy man and a magistrate of the county of Sussex. The Hon. Member then proceeded to read the following : —" The Poor-law Report says much on the beauties and benefits of migration to Manchester. I will mention the case of a family belonging to the adjoining parish. The man is aged 47 and his wife 38. They have seven children ; the eldest a girl of 15, in place, the remaining six are to maintain. Being out of work five weeks before last Christmas, the man applied to the board for work or relief. They told him they could give him neither: he must seek out and get work. At last the as sistant poor-law Commissioners said, Why don't you take all your family, and go to Manchester; you will there earn a 1/. a week ?' probably thinking that the man would object to this. But not so ; the man replied,' lam an old soldier. I care not where I go, so as I can get a living ; I am ready to go to Man chester or any where else." Very well (says the Commissioner), you shall go.' So fine formal papers were procured, duly filled up, signed and countersigned by ministers, officers, &c., and the parish promised to pay his expenses. The man, in the interim, is put on the roads at 9s. per week, whereon for himself and family to luxuriate till the order should arrive from a person called the migration officer, for him and his family to start for this promised El Dorado. But weeks passed away, and no answer from the said functionary arrives. The assistant Commissioner writes in vain. At length, towards the close of January, he desires the clerk of the union to write also. The reply is, there is no work for the man now ; possibly there may be in the sprin g I Thus has this poor f e ll ow b een k ept on t h e teeter-hooks ever since November at 9s. a week, though sometimes, by special favour, he is permitted to go to the stone-quarry and earn 10s., but he must not earn more ; and thus bursts this migration bubble." My informant calculates that " if the man's wages are 10s. a week, after providing flour and rent for his family, he has Is. 14. a week for clothes, shoes, and fuel for eight persons, and only Id. a week for the same purposes if he has only 9.3.-a week. But when the assistant-commissioner discovers that the Manchester humbug will not go down, he says, Well,, but you can go to the railroads—they arc at a stand for the want of men l' The answer to this is, the railroad work is such 'as stiff-limbed men of between forty-five and sixty cannot undertake, being quite new to them, and if they couid, the wages that can be carried are not such as will enable a man to live out at quarters, and send home enough to sustain a wif e an d s i x c hild ren. ' W ell, then, (says the Commissioner), let the , young men go to the railroads; they can earn there great wages I' So the young men are refused either work or "relief, or assistance to emi grate, and are told to go to the `railroads. To the railroads they go; they come back. What do you want?' Work.' Work 1 why I thought you had gone to get work on the rail road ? 'So I did.' Well?" I could not get any.' Ido not believe a word you say; you are 'idle, so you may starve.' Such is the kind of dialogue that takes place. Now let us look to the facts. This circumstance of young men hairing gone to the railroads for work, and having come back again, saying they could get none, having been several times brought to the notice of the Petworth Board of Guardians, they sent their relieving officer to Winchester for the express purpose of ascertaining the real truth. Ho returned and reported that there was no work to be bad. The leading principle and practice of the new law seems to be to harass the poor man, and to make him run about from place to place, from one functionary to another, wkether he wants medical aid, relief, or work, until at last, utterly worn out, he sits down in hope • less despondency." My informant next to the Report of the Poor-law Commissioners, adverted to the notorious fact, that they bring forward no evidence but that of their dependents ; that they did not mention the season, or even the month of the year, at which the evidence on which they rely was given ; that they made an assertion which was perhaps applicable to harvest time, " that the poor are now all employed," appli cable to the whole year ; and that they garbled or suppressed the evidence they received just as suited their own purpose( Of this his informant mentioned one instance so extreme. (finery, that he could not refrain from mentioning it to the House. The clerk to the Petworth union wrote a letter to the Commissioners, stating, as might be seen in their report, that " the people were much more orderly, &c., than they had been heretofore in the town of Pet worth." All:this was true, as far as it weet; but the C o m m i ss i one rs had most dextrously availed themselves of the beginning of that letter, thereby to prove that all this amelioration has been pro(.luced by the oreration of the new law ; but they found it convenient to stop short at that precise point of the clerk's let ter where lie goes on to observe that this state of tranquil lity was owing to the parish having been recently placed under the provisions of the Police Act, to a regular system of po lice having been established, and to the town being lighted. The disorders which attack the poor come on suddenly, are rapid in their progress, and fatal in their consequences, unless attended to early. The forms necessary to obtain relief are se tedious and so difficult,"that the patient incurs a serious risk of dying before they are complied with. The Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to mention an instance in point. A most creel practice is followed under the new system, which is to deny to the pauper what frequently is the only solace to his depart ing moments—the hope that his dust will be gathered to the dust of his forefathers—that his remains will he placed by the side of a father, a mother, a wife, or a child, who have gone before him. But no ; this is a luxury of feeling, an overflow ing of hope, not to be permitted to approach the workhouse bed side. Where the pauper dies, there he is to be buried. And in perpetrating this cruelty to the pauper a great injustice is super added not only to the officiating clergyman, but also to the rate-payers of the parish which has been so unfortunate as to have an united poorhouse established within its precincts. The clergyman is called (and attempts have been made to compel him) to bury all who may die in the said house ; and the parish, be it small or large, is to be taxed to find burial room. Another piece of injustice is also committed. These unhappy people are brought to an union workhouse, elderly persons, who from their time of life and increasing infirmities may think their end approaching. Persons broken down by king illness, or who have met with some alarming accident, may much wish for the attendance of a clergyman ; mothers, anxious by the doubtful state of their new-born offspring, are desirous that they should be baptized without delay. Some or other of such persons are constantly sending to the minister of the parish where this union-house is situate, to entreat him to attend them. If he is a man of humane and Christian feel ings, he will not hesitate to go to these afflicted people; and in doing so will feel within his own breast a reward far beyond all that the Poor-law Commissioners can give or refuse ; but looking at the matter in another and secular point of view, what right have any set of men thus to act ?---(Hear, hear.) Do these Poor-law Commissioners work for nothing ? ( Hear.) No; upon what principle, then, of common honesty, or common practice in the ordinary affairs of life, do they ex pect of the clergy generally that they should graciously attend to calls thus unjustly made upon them ?"—(Cries of " Read, read," accompanied by some noise and murmurs.) He begged to observe, that if the interruptions within the wills of that House amounted to the howlings that had lately been heard in the neighbourhood, they should not prevent him from making what observations he thought proper. Mr. CURTEIS wished to know whether an Hon. Member had a right to read his speech.---( Cries of " Order.") The Hon. Gentleman had stated that he received his information from a clergyman, who was a magistrate of Sussex • he begged to inform the Hon. G en tl eman t h at t h ere was no clergyman in the Commission-4 Hear, hear.) Mr. WALTER believed that his informant was a clergy man, and his impression was that he was in the Commission. Captain DUNDA S begged to know what the Hon. Mem ber meant by the term " howlings ?"—( Order, and hear.) The SPEAKER said that the Hon. Member could not read his speech, but he was at liberty to read documents. Mr. WALTER was reading merely an extract from a let ter.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman than proceeded with the letter :—" Ten days ago I was suffering from an attack of cold, and thought that tho prevailing epidemic was coming upon me. I had just been sent for to a house where the mother was dead, and the daughter-in-law dying of the disorder. In my return from thence in the damp of the evening I was met by a messenger, saying that a child of a woman who had been brought into our united workhouse, from a parish eleven miles distant, was dying, and she wished it to be baptized. I conceived that I had nothing whatever to do, rigidly speaking, with this poor infant: it belonged not to my parish ; it had been obtruded into our workhouse with out any act or consent of mine ; and I was not bound to be chaplain to all who might thus be sent thither. A chaplain ought to have been provided by those who made these ar rangements. But, on the other hand, I reflected that a child was not to die unbaptized, that a mother was not to be made wretched, because a se t o f b ru t a l, or , to use a mild term, thoughtless man, had, in the language of the Poor-law Commissioners, made an order,' and with the right liberal spirit of the day left all the rest to chance, the god of their fondest worship; so I went, at much risk to my own health. and baptised the child, and on the same principle I have buried their dead ; but I strongly protest against being called upon to do either, and maintain that, where masses are brought together undeK this new law, neither Commissioners nor Guardians have any right to lay any additional burden upon the minister of a parish, or to call upon the parishioners to find burial room for as many as they may be pleased to send thither to look for their last earthly location." A clergyman furnishes me with the following :--" The union to which my parish is annexed is the Paulersbury and Stony Stratford Union, consisting of fifteen parishes, a population of about 8,000, and the Guardians all renting farmers and tradesmen." Hear.) He had another set of cases from another Cler gyman, of which he begged to read a few. The Honour able Member was proceeding to read, when he was inter rupted by Mr. CURTEIS, who rose again to. order. The Hon. Member was reading a printed Book—(Cries, of " Order, order !") _ _ Mr. WALTER was actually reading a letter, and this lee had a right to do in the form that was most convenient. Mr. CURTE IS said it was a printed letter.—( Order.) Mr. WALTER said that this was most unhandsome treat ment. The letter was from a clergyman who was well known to many Hon. Members of that House. The Hon. Member then proceeded to read the following :—" The Board is held now once a fortnight at Stony Stratford, the extreme point Of the Union, which extends nearly nine miles. There was only one relieving officer and one medical man till the spring of 1836 (when another surgeon was appointed to the Union); consequently many of the paupers had to send eight miles for relief. In 1836 I made several representations to the Poor law Commissioners of repeated instances of cruel and oppres sive cases. One man had to send nearly 20 miles before he could obtain any medical assistance. No distinction is made between the honest, industrious lobourer, the old and infirm pauper, the idle and dissolute. The allowances to the poor aro by no means equal to their absolute wants. One instance will suffice for all. An industrious, sober, and hard-working la bourer, with a wife and three young children, had no work for seven weeks; he went for relief or work to the Board, but could find none ; he asked my advice ; I told him to go to the Board of guardians; for several weeks they would neither give lines relief nor work ; at last they allowed him four small loaves for himself, his wife, and three young children, and they told hint to walk every morning for bread from Pury to Stratford (sit miles), then to Yarely Gobion, nearly five miles, and the dis tance to his house was four more ; this he did for many weeks. Another man of good character complained to me that he had no work, and no adequate means of supporting himself and family : I sent him to the Board, and the following conversa tion took place between the pauper and the Chairman, a tenant of the Duke of Grafton's, and a parishioner of mine :—= What is your name, and what do you want ?—work, or relief. Who sent you here ? Mr. —,' Why did not Mr. _ come himself, or employ you, or lower his tithes ?' This wise remark was made at the time when there were weekly rob beries and fires in the neighbourhoOd. I went up to London immediately, and named to one of the Central Board myself the conduct of the Chairman ; he merely observed, If this be true, it is very bad.' Ilie poor were living, from 1835 to the spring of 1836, in a poorhouse not weather-proof, the rain pouring in on the wretched inmates as they lay in their beds ; no means of religious instruction, no classification, or employ' meat for the paupers. The sick poor of Ashton and Hart' well have been grossly neglected by the relieving officer. A poor sick pauper of Hartwell (I speak on the best authority) died in consequence of the carelessness of the relieving officer and Board of Guardians." Another clergyman write, thus from Stoke Ash, in Suffolk :—" I shall lay a simple statemen t of a case before you, which, occurring as it did in my ovf4 parish, and verifi e d as i t h as b een upon oath before me, voi serve to show the cruel, tyrannical, and merciless o p e retion of that Act w hi c h pro f esses to h ave b een instituted for the benefit of the truly distressed poor. An able-bodied 0 bourer in th e ,p ar i s h o f S to k e Ash, in the county . . Suffolk, having a f am ily o f ten children (two at servic e ' eight were living at home with their father and I n ° ' ther), without employment and without victuals, are plied on Tuesday, th e 15th o f N ovem b er l ast, to the Boar d c; Guardians at Eye, to r eques t some re li e f , an d was refuse.;. ' On Thursday, the 17th, h e was compe ll e d to l eave hi s and family to seek for work. On Tuesday, the 22d, his wtof informed the relieving officer she was going to the B o ard_ o Guardians to apply f o r re li e f, as h er h us b an d was gone fro home after work, a n d s h e h a d no v i ctua l s ; he said, 010 might return home, the G uar di ans wou ld not relieve he and she did return hom e without money or food. Subjo i i ri ic o are a number of affidavits, which s h ow the severe pri cato t h e r which the woman h a d f ort i tu d e enough to endure ra ng than be immured with h er f am il y i n t h e workhouse E°ih H o the seven weeks and a half her husband was absent. returned home, it appears, on the Bth of Januury, 1831 onlying been ab s ent seven wee k s .and three days. He cou ld 1_ re get ten day s an d a h a lf wor k the time lie was gone ; of c e- y, he brought no money h ome. H i s wife and family had little els e t o eat b ut dry bread the tim e h e was a bsent, a t ' r some d a y s on l y turnips. When he cam e h om e he b Guar employment, and could get no relief from the Board of our diens until T ues d a y, th e 24th ; he w as ill, an d his wi7 fou r plied. They had no money o r victuals, and waited until oto o'clock before she got any allowance. She bad then to 6 .. 1,0 flour ° , tue the relieving officer for the order of four stone of would not give it to her that night, but forced her to Te . 4ici . o next morning to Mendlesham for it (about seven masV a k e , and back again). When she returned home she ha . d t and could not get it ready for her children before. -six o'c'