The Sun. — London, England, 1835-07-09 00:00:00

~'.!: ~L% THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, JULY 9, 1835. Gentleman would read them. If they did read them, how ever, they would thrill with horror at the scenes of distress which they described. He trusted, therefore, that Parlia ment would not be deterred by the representations of the landlords, but that they would see the indispensable necessity of some legislative interference on the subject. They had been told that the poor laws had proved destructive in Eng land, but he denied that such was the case. In some of the States of America„poor laws were in full force ; and where they were not, charitable institutions supplied their places. They existed also in Holland and France, on the same prin ciple upon which, for a century and a half, they had existed in this country; aid if they had existed in Ireland from the pe riod of the Union, legislative measures for the relief of dis tress in that country would not now be necessary. If the Irish poor were relieved at home, they would not come to England-at all. The Hon. Gentleman bore testimony to the accuracy of the statement of the late Mr. Inglis as to the con dition of the Irish peasantry, and which corresponded with the statement of the Commissioner to whose pamphlet he had al ready referred. The Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland must well know that he would be affording great consolation to the resident gentry in Ireland, if he were to take a measure of this kind into contemplation. He would suggest to the Noble Lord to let the second reading of the Bill take place, and then take it to a committee up stairs, so that they might have the benefit of all the Reports and papers that have been made on the subject ; and if the Committee did not ultimately approve of the plan which he now held in his hand, he had no doubt they would devise something analagous to it for the relief of the poor of Ireland. With respect to the promotion of public works in Ireland, he could assure the Noble Lord that if be would advance two or three millions for that pur pose, they would find ample use for it ; and the Noble Lord would find, in the course of a few years, that great benefits would accrue from the application of such a sum—not to Ire land: alone, but to the empire at large; and that, under his auspices, Ireland would be peaceable, prosperous and happy. The question having been put, Lord MORPETH begged briefly to explain the course which he felt himself compelled to take with respect to the present motion. When his Hon. Friend the Member for the county of Waterford was about to bring forward this motion on a former occasion, he (Lord Morpeth) then asked him to defer it until the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of the poor in Ireland, and into the propriety of adopting a measure for remedying the existing distress, had made their Report, and until he had had an opportunity to submit a portion. at least, of the evidence obtained by them to the House, which he hoped to be able to do within a month from that time. He had so far redeemed the assurance he then gave to his Hon. Friend, as he believed it was this very day month that he gave it, and he had this day brought up a rather voluminous Report on the subject. But, though it was manifest that the House could not be at all the better prepared, within the hour since which he had produced this Report, to enter into the discussion that would ensue upon the motion of his Hon. Friend, yet he was not disposed to ask his Hon. Friend again to postpone that discussion, because he could not do so bona fide, inasmuch as hese:mkt not hold out any hope of his being able to renew the tootionahis session with a view to any practical measure resulting from it. Though a large mass of evidence was now before them, yet it was by no means the whole of the evidence which the Commissioners were prepared to lay before the Hottse; nor did it contain the opinions of the Com missioners on this complicated and most important subject. He had reason to hope that the whole of the evidence and the opinions of the Commissioners upon it would be completed and laid before Parliament and the country early next session. He conceived he should show how very ill he understood the duty of that most important office which he had the honour to fill, if he did not at once state his conviction that no subject connected with Ireland approached (he might almost say) in importance the question of the propriety of introducing a sys tem of poor laws into that country.—( Hear, hear.) But at the same time he took no shame to himself for the avowal (whatever handle for reproach it might be converted to against him) that a legislative measure on a subject so wide in its reach, so complicated in its bearings, and so important, whe ther for good or for evil, in its results, could not be beneficially struck out at a heat by a Government newly formed, at the very end of a session, and during the progress and before the com pletion of an inquiry by Commissioners to whom the Govern ment and Parliament had specially delegated the task or pro viding them with grounds for legislation ?—( Hear, hear.) De pend upon it that whatever the evils—and lie was the last man not to feel them, or to attempt to palliate them—but whatever the evils of Ireland might be, whatever might be the present state of the destitute classes in' Ireland, any ill-conceived or partial and premature attempts to remedy them would in all probability increase those very evils ten-fold.—( Cheers.) His Hon. Friend who bad seconded the motion had alluded to the Committee now sitting on the subject of public works in Ire land, with a view to inquire into the practicability and facility of carrying on those works on a more extended scale. He sincerely hoped that the result of the labours of that Com mittee might be to admit of something being practically done in the course of the present session.—( Hear, hear.) And with respect to the large question of Poor Laws in general, Le had no hesitation in repeating w hat he said in reply to the Hon. and Learned Member for Tipperary the other evening, that he felt convinced that the subject—the whole subject— was one to which both the Government and Parliament would be called upon to address themselves in sober earnest—( Hear, bear)—in the course of the ensuing session. But then with a view even to do that successfully and efficiently, until all the information were before them, which they themselves had ap pointed Commissioners to collect—until all the means which were thought proper to he obtained, preliminary to legis lation, should be at their disposal, he thought it better, wiser, safer, and fairer, to reserve and suspend the expres sion of all opinion upon the subject. He bad every reason to believe that the same Government which had not shrunk from encountering the difficulties of the question respecting the reformation of the English Poor Laws, would also be in no way inclined to shrink from taking that part with respect to the introduction of Poor Laws in Ireland to which a proper sense of their duty might lead them. Under these circumstances he would not pretend, for he did not wish, to offer any opinion upon the measure which his Hon. Friend the Member for the county of Waterford had this night brought before the House. He only wished to ex press his gratitude to his Hon. Friend for having put the House in possession of the results of his benevolent labours. He was sure that a sense of gratitude would be felt at every step that could be taken to facilitate the course of Govern ment and of Parliament in the attainment of their ultimate ob ject. But as he did feel that no good, but rather harm, would result from any partial views, or merely experimental efforts being made on this great subject, which ought to be well di gested before being introduced at all, and, in his opinion, ought then only to be brought forward upon the serious re sponsibility of the Government intrusted with the executive powers of the country, on whom the onus of so important a measure ought to rest—he hoped that his Hon. Friend would would not press the House to g ive any formal or any prema ture opinion on the subject. If he did, then he (Lord Mor peth) should be under the necessity (painful as it would be to him, as he did not wish to do anything personally unpleasant to his Hon. Friend) of moving that this Bill be read a second time this day three months. He would say the same with re spect to the motion of the Hon. Member for Stroud. On the whole he was inclined to look upon the circumstance of two Hon. Members--one a Member for an English town, and the other a Member for an Irish county—having brought forward two distinct measures on this subject, as a happy omen of tho ultimate course the Legislature would take. He hoped, whenever a well-digested measure should be intro duced, that neighbours as well as natives, both Jew and Sa maritan-L( Cheers)—would be actuated by one feeling, namely, to do whatever might be suggested by a wise, humane, and enlightened benevolence, to relieve the distress, both moral and physical, that now pressed so heavily on the great bulk of the Irish population.—( Cheers. ) Mr. RICHA RDS next addressed the House; but it was some time before the import of his observations could be heard in the Reporters' Gallery. He should feel ashamed, he said, to treat this as a party question : still he thought Government might have given the House some assurance that they approved of the principle of the Bill, and that they would, in the next session of Parliament, be prepared to bring forward some defi nite measure on the subject. It was quite enough to contrast the condition of the people of England, Scotland, and Wales, with that of the people of Ireland, to enable the Noble Lord to see that some legal provision was imperiously required for the poor of that country. He attributed the existing evils of Ireland chiefly to the want of poor laws. The Scotch, at the time of the introduction of poor laws into Scotland, expressed the same disinclination to such a step as was now manifested by many persons in Ireland ; and it was not till after repeated Acts of Parliament were passed, that the Scotch suffered poor laws to be introduced at all. But they had the testimony of Dr. Chalmers, who was opposed to the principle of the poor laws, that in the course of only 17 years Scotland had, as if per saltum, become changed from a state of disorganization and misery, to one of peace, order, and prosperity.---(A laugh from Mr. O'Connell.) I cannot help noticing, Sir, the indecency of the laugh of the Honourable and Learned Member for Dublin. I came down to the House, expecting to see that Honourable and Learned Member bring his vast abilities to bear upon this important question. I thought he would have come forward, if :not to support the pro position before the House, at least to exert his eloquence and power in the same manner he had hitherto done, and by doing which he has acquired the high distinction he now enjoys in the country—l mean by advocating the cause of his poorer countrymen. I thought he would have been still their ardent advocate. Sorry am I to see, that instead of doing so, he is disposed to heal their sufferings as it seems to me with a sort of indecent laugh.—( Hear, hear, from Mr. O'Connell, and laughter.) I mentioned Wales, and I will relate to the House an anecdote.—( Cries of " Oh, oh I" and much laughter.) I beg to tell the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, that if he has anything to say to me let him say it openly and pub licly, and not by a sneer and a laugh.--( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman proceeded to say, that during his occasional visits to Wales he was never asked for alms but once, and that was by a Frenchman. He mentioned this to show the advan tages derived from a system of poor-laws duly administered ; and yet on his own estate the poor-rates amounted to not more than 13d. or 14d. an acre. Another advantage which arose from poor-laws was the security they afforded to life and pro perty. In this country that security was enjoyed, while in Ireland it confessedly did not exist. How could a country wanting security for life and property, ever advance in the arts of industry or even enjoy peace; or how could wealth ever be expected to flow into it ? If, t h en, Honourable Gentlemen were not prepared to give Ireland a system of poor:laws oil the ground of justice or humanity, yet he hoped they would do so on the ground of policy, and for th e sake of their awn interest and safety. He was not one of those who would filly prevent the importation of labour into this country, yet he would say, that if Ireland was to remain the officina operum it now was, in course of time the competition of Irish with English labour would be such as to reduce the price of the labour of the two countries to a common level, and that level would be the state in which we now found it in Ireland. Therefore, for the sake of their own interests, for the sake of the tenure of their estates, and from a regard to their wives and families, and everything that was dear to them, he called upon Hon. Members to support the proposition of the Hon. Baronet ; a proposition which did him infinite ho nour, and he was sorry to see it so coldly received in this House, and almost by empty benches.—[This allusion caused loud laughter from the Ministerialists, from the circumstance, no doubt, of the Opposition benches being almost deserted, while there was a very fair attendance on the Ministerial side of the House.] He did not mean to address himself particu larly to either side of the House. This was not a party ques tion, but one in which all parties were alike deeply interested. It was a question, however, upon which the House was not called upon to affirm a new principle. The Mendicity So ciety in Dublin, and other institutions throughout Ireland, attested that the people of that country already supported their poor. But this support was voluntary, and therefore contributed to very unequally. Out of 11,500 houses in Dub lin, only 2,000 contributed anything towards the support of the Mendicity Society. Now, what this Bill called upon the House to do was, to legalize the principle, and to compel all persons to contribute their due proportion. He hoped before this debate came to a close, the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin would come forward and employ his mighty powers and transcendant eloquence in support of so just and humane a principle. If he did not, then he (Mr. Richards) would say, "non equidenz invideo, minor magis."—( Laughter.) He would not envy him his future character with his country men if he did not come forward as their advocate this night. He bad heard the Hon. and Learned Gentleman express him self a convert once more—he ( Mr. Richards) would not say renegade, though that was the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's own expression on another occasion—but he had declared he was a convert once more to the necessity of making some pro vision for the poor of Ireland. If so, he would again call upon that Hon. and Learned Gentleman to come forward and ex ert those powers which natur3 had given him—(Laughter) —and support the motion of the Hon. Baronet, or give them some good, substantial, and valid reason why he did not at this time give it that support.—(" Hear" from Mr. O'Connell.) Mr. CRESSET PELHAM observed that this was a most momentous question, and one most dangerous for Ire land to undertake, unless they had good grounds for speedily carrying it into effect. _ Mr. II U ME observed that he was as much alive to the mi sery and distress of the people of Ireland as any Hon. Member from that country. The question, however, which was then under discussion, was not merely an Irish question, but one deeply involving English interests. The welfare f Ireland must necessarily contribute to the welfare of this country, as the distress of that portion of the empire must affect our well-being. He had therefore, voted for every inquiry into the state of that country, as well as for every measure which he thought likely to extend the plans proposed to promote the well-being of Ireland. If, therefore, he could make up his mind that the want of poor-laws in that country had led to the misery and distress which prevailed there, and that adopting a system of the kind would alter the present state of things, he would vote for them ; looking, however. to the evils which must have arisen in Ireland from the misrule and mismanagement that have hitherto existed there, and to the oppressions that the p6ople had undergone, as well as to the misapplication of capital in that portion of the empire, he could not help feeling that the views taken by some Hon. Gentlemen on this subject were by no means conclusive as to the efficacy of the remedy now proposed ; and, above all, when he recollected the mischief which had arisen in this country from the mal-administration of poor laws. Hon. Gentlemen, however, differed as to the nature of the poor laws to be adopted in Ireland, and this was the case on the present occasion with regard to the speeches of both the mover and seconder. The Hon. Baronet ( Sir R. Musgrave) suggested that no person under the age of sixty years should be entitled to relief. His Hon. Friend the Member for Wick low, who seconded the motion, called on the House to remove the misery of the Irish people by giving them work. Un doubtedly the remedy. proposed by his Hon. Friend would be satisfactory, if Ireland was in a state to allow the application of capital, by inducing capitalists to remove their property from this country with a view of giving employ to the people of Ireland.—( Hear.) In some cases persons had embarked their capital in manufactures there, but had been induced to withdraw it in consequence of the state of the country. The question, then, was, whether they were about to adopt a mea sure calculated to remove the root of the evils which existed in Ireland ? He believed that the Government as well as the House were at length determined to adopt such measures as would get rid of those grounds of complaint which had for such a long period existed in Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) They might not do all that Wee necessary, but he believed that in the first instance they should do all - that was necessary to let the people of Ireland know that thej were to be fairly go verned for the future. He would only refer to the speeches made on the Irish Coercion Bill to prove what was the present state of the people of that country, and to point out the evils that had arisen from misgovernment.—(Hear.) His Majesty's Ministers were then about to endeavour to get rid of some of the abuses of the Church Establishment ; and until the effect of this measure was known, was it right to try an experiment, the result of which—to say the very best of it—isas very doubtful, and which, is hen once adopted, could not be re-' scindcd ?—( Hear.) He had alwas contended that no man should be allowed to starve in a country where there was the means of existence ; but they should see whether they could not get rid of much of the distress which prevailed in Ireland by removing the abuses so justly complained of in the government of that country, before they adopted a system of poor-laws. He objected to impose a tax on the industry and capital of that country for the maintenance, in many instances, of the dissolute and the idle, until they had tried the effect of the measures proposed by the Government. He implored Hon. Members to consider well the result of measures before they sanctioned them, or passed them into laws. He had no hesi tation in saying that he, for one, would be for having an as sessment for the maintenance of the helpless and infirm Irish poor, if he did not firmly believe that he saw other means of providing for it, namely, by getting rid of the evils of mis government in Ireland. He thought that they were pressing too heavily on the Government in urging them to carry into effect a measure of such importance as this at the present mo ment, when they were exerting themselves in other ways to promote the well-being of the Irish people by getting rid of the misrule which had hitherto existed there; He would also suggest to the House that they should not anticipate the Government in the course which it had taken. He would ask also those Irish Members who had so strongly recommended the adoption of poor-laws, whether they thought that they would open the country to the influx and employment of ca pital ?—(Hear, hear.) He, for one, denied that it would be case. Certainly it was not the case in this country. He urged, therefore, Hon. Members, who wished to see Ireland improved, to wait until they saw what was the result of the measure which had been brought in with respect to the Irish Church, and also to look to the results which would flow from the ad s option of improvements in the administration of justice, and also from selecting magistrates from a different class of persons from those who at present presided in her courts. He thought that the adoption of the change now in progress, would be attended with the most beneficial results; and they ought, in his opinion, to see what would be the effect of them before they came to a decision on a measure of such vital im portance as the present. Mr. PO UL ETT SCR OPE then addressed the House, but in such an indistinct tone of voice, that the greater portion of his observations were inaudible in the gallery. He stated that he felt satisfied that the maintenance of the impotent and the infirm Irish poor was not sufficient, but that one of the main principles in any system that was adopted was, that employment should be furnished to those who were destitute of at. The latter he considered a principle of almost as much importance as the former. It was not sufficient to state that they would give food to that portion of the poorer classes that were infirm, but they ought to prevent those who otherwise would be able-bodied from becoming so. There were societies in several parts of Ireland—and he would mention Reffart as an instance similar to the Mendicity Society in London— which supplied certain classes of the poor with food, but they were wholly inadequate to supply the wants of the people. He was satisfied that the first principle to adopt towards improving the condition of the Irish people was to give employment to the able-bodied poor. Capital would not be safely invested in that country, 'nor would manufac tures be extensively established there until they adopted this principle. The chief thing to improve the people was to give them employment, and until this was done on an extensive scale but little good could be done. Could anything be more distressing than the present state of the Irish poor ? They had evidence on their table to show that crimes had been committed by many .persons with a view of getting into gaol that they might obtain food. In the greater portion of France, as well as in most of the continen tal States, some system or other of poor-laws existed. The condition of the people of France was far superior to that of the Irish people. In the former country, out of a population of 34,000,000, there were several hundred thousand landed proprietors, while in Ireland the number was comparatively small. He had no hesitation in saying that four-fifths of the Irish population were the slaves of the landed proprietors. If they offended the landlords they were turned out of their miserable habitations to starve, as they could not get resi dences in other places. He would ask them was their condi tion superior to that of the slaves, when they could be deprived of the means of existence at the caprice of the landlords ? As long as the Irish landlords possessed the power they now did,- it was not at all surprising that they exerted themselves to prevent the adoption of any system of poor-laws in Ireland. He contended that the property of any landowner in Ireland should be made liable to the charge of providing for the main tenance of the poor as well as that of the owners and occu piers of the land in England. Similar powers should be given to Commissioners in Ireland for the establishment of a system of poor-laws that had been conferred on the English Com missioners. A great deal of misapprehension had prevailed as to the state of the people in Ireland, and this had been in creased in consequence of the statements made in that House. In the debate on the Union last year, the Right Hon. Gen tleman who was now Chancellor of the Excheqner contended that there had been recently great improvements manifested in the Irish manufactures, and among other places he referred to the state of Kilkenny as a proof of his assertion. On refer ring, however, to Mr. Inglis's work on Ireland, he found that the statement that had been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not borne out by the authority of that gentle man ; on the contrary, he gave a very different account of the state of things in that place.—(The Hon. Gentleman then read a long extract from " Inglis's Tour in Ireland," de scriptive of the distress of the people of Kilkenny, and the falling off that had taken place 'in the manufactures of that city.) One of the most powerful arguments that had been urged in favour of the repeal of the Union, was the igno rance of the Legislature, with respect to the condition and the wants of the people of Ireland—( Hear, hear)—and yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer had quoted the improved state of Kilkenny to show there was no necessity for the Re peal of the Union. He was convinced that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he would look to the state of Ireland, would find that the feeling in favour of a system of Poor Laws in that country was daily increasing —(hear, bear)—and if some mea sure of the kind was not granted, the feeling in favour of Re peal would increase. The Hon. Member for Middlesex had contended that the English Poor Laws were founded on a bad principle, and led to the infliction of much misery ; but the Commissioners appointed to inquire into their operation enter tained a very different feeling on the subject ; for they declared that the principle on which they were framed was good, and that all the mischief which had arisen from their operation had resulted from the principle on which they were founded being departed from. The mal-administration of the Poor Laws dated from 1796, and until that time the original measure, passed in the reign of Elizabeth, had been acted upon, and no evil whatever had resulted from it. He had given notice of a measure on this subject ; but he did not intend to persist in it, but should give his support to the Bill on the table. It was very well for the Hon. Member for Middlesex to ask the House to wait to see the result of the measure respecting the Irish Church before they adopted the system of Poor Laws ; but arguments like that had repeatedly been urged on former oc casions : they had been asked to wait to see what the Govern ment would do, and in the meantime the interests of the poor bad been neglected. Whatever, therefore, might be the fate of the measure for affecting a change in the present system of tithes, he should persist in supporting this Bill ; and he trusted that the majority of the House would also do so. He admitted that great advantages would result from the Bill introduced by the Noble Lord; but they would not be of such a nature as would justify the House in refusing to pass a measure for relieving . the present condition and promoting the permanent welfare of the destitute Irish poor.—( Hear, hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER never re collected, during the long period he had been in that House, arguments assumed of a more extraordinary nature than those urged by the Hon. Gentleman. He would be perfectly war ranted, adopting the tone of argument of the Hon. Gentle man, in making the assertion, that the Hon. Member, as well as others who supported the motion, were rather influenced by English than by Jrish feelings. He only mentioned this to point out the impropriety of adopting this style of argument, and at once to reject and repudiate it. In considering ques tions like that before the House, they should be swayed and actuated by only one feeling—namely, how they best could improve the condition of the great bulk of the Irish people— ( Hear, hear.) As he had been addressed almost personally, he could not help observing, that the Hon. Member, in appear ing to think that an individual connected by birth with Ireland, and residing there many years of his life, and also connected with it by property, and having been for many years the Re presentative of a place of great commercial importance in it, knew nothing of the state of the country, and of the matters most deeply touching its welfare, did not exhibit peculiar decency of address, but rather assumed a tone of dogmatism than of courtesy, by no means common in that House. Let the House inquire into the subject with reference alone to the interests of the Irish poor themselves. He would put it on no other ground ; he would not mention the interests of the land lords. He would assume that the exigencies of the case were such, that even if the whole race of landlords were to perish by one stroke of inadvertent Legislation, yet if it were possible to restore the great mass of the population of Ireland from the depressed condition in which they all admitted they were placed, by one experiment, that experiment should be tried. Let them now inquire whether the present measure was likely to produce the desired effect ? The inquiry which had been instituted into the subject had been a long time in progress ; he had hoped some general Report would have been made before; for that Report he was most anxious; and not withstanding the attack of the Hon. Gentleman, he should wait until he had ascertained from its contents that the course he proposed was justified by circumstances, or likely to suc ceed. The House had not even ventured to amend the Eng lish poor laws—a system which had been established since the reign of Elizabeth—until they had laid before them all the in formation that could possibly be collected ; and yet now, with out any information or evidence whatever, they were called upon to take a much greater and far bolder step—the affirmance of a system of poor laws in a country where they had not pre viously existed.—( Hear, hear.) Hon. Gentlemen had asked what the Government had intended to do upon this subject in the course of the next year? Again be said that to enter into any detailed account of what they intended to do, would be to anticipate the result of the pending inquiry; but he would tell the House what he for one was perfectly prepared to do. Upon this point he wished to be clearly understood. Hon. Gentlemen advocated poor laws in general terms, and yet there were no two individuals who, if they were called upon to define what they meant by that expression, would agree in their definition of it. Ile could not have a better example than that of the two Hon. Gentlemen who were charged with these two Bills. One of them advocated the compulsory support of the able-bodied : the other rejected the principle altogether. This in itself was sufficient to show that untii they arrived at sonic precise definition of what was meant by the expression poor laws, they did not know the very elements on which they were about to operate. Now, be cause he resisted the general principle, he was supposed by the Hon. Member for Stroud, and others both in and out 131' that House, to be indifferent to the well-being and good ofire land. What was the definition in the present Bill of the classes of poor deserving and requiring relief? It enumerated the helpless poor, paupers above the age of sixty, orphans under the age of fourteen, the maimed, the diseased, the idiot, the lunatic, the blind, and the deaf and dumb. With respect to the maimed, the diseased, the idiot, the lunatic, the blind, and the deaf and dumb, he was prepared to go the full length of providing, to any extent that could be required, for the re lief of all such persons. Tax his property; tax the rental of the country to any extent they pleased ; so far from remon strating against, so far from opposing such a proceeding, there wis no in,lividual in that House who would be more disposed to act upon the principle to the fullest extent than he was him self. Take another great element in the improvement of the social condition of a people—he meant the education of the young. There was no extent of taxation to which the landed property of Ireland could be subjected with this view, to which he, as a landed proprietor himself, was not prepared to render hearty assent; believing, as he did, that it was a species of taxation which could only be administered for the public good. Where, then, it might be asked, was he prepared to draw the line? The line was a plain and intelligible one. He would afford relief in every possible case of distress, where the relief given was calculated to remove distress, without creating more distress than it was intended to remove—(hear, hear)—he would consent to any legislative engagement the State could perform ; he would be a party to any legislative pledge the Legislature had the means of redeeming ; but he would show just now to the Hon. Gentleman, that he pro posed a fraudulent and swindling obligation upon the part of the Legislature—quite unconsciously, he was certain—for he knew no man in the House more unlikely to lend himself wilfully to any such proceeding. The Hon. Gentleman pro posed to bind the Legislature to a promise it could never re deem—he meant the interminable power of giving relief to all classes of persons. With respect to the orphan, that might be an exceptive case. If it could be shown to him that an orphan had no immediate relative to take care of and educate him as a useful member of society, then he admitted that the State stood in loco parentis, and was bound to provide for his necessities.—(Hear, hear.) To apply his principle, no per son would,die the more if provision were made for the relief of orphans ; but did not the House think that many persons would work the less, if the State, by undertaking to provide for the orphans with whom they were connected, relieved them from the moral responsibility which would otherwise at tach to them ?—( Hear, hear.) The condition of the Irish poor deserved, he admitted, the most serious and searching consideration. He did not mean to deny that the in troduction of cheap labour into this country had a tendency to reduce the wages of labour; but he wished to invite the attention of the House to the discussion—whether the intro duction of Poor Laws into Ireland would be likely to diminish the periodical emigration of Irish labourers to this country. First let him consider the provisions of the measure under con sideration. It contained a provision for the relief of the poor, not being able-bodied, of every class. Now, if they under took to provide for the family of the Irish labourer, for every young person, for every sick person, for every diseased person of every class, by a compulsory assessment, as the Bill pro posed, he put it to the common sense of the House whether it was likely that there would be a less disposition, on the part of the Irish labourer, to come over to this country, and seize upon the advantages held out to him by the English market? —( Hear, hear.) On the contrary, was it not to all intents and purposes certain, that if the i State contracted th e obliga tion of providing for his family n his absence, lie would be much freer than he ever was before to come over to England, for the specific purpose of obtaining the highest reward he could in return for his labour ?—( Cheers.) It might be said that his was not A fair mode of meeting the questio n ; h e might be referred to the alternative of providing for the Irish poor, and teaching them to work at home. What effect had the existence of a provision for the able-bodied poor on the wages of labour in England ? Let the House compare the state of things in the north of England, where that prin ciple was not known, with the state of things in the south, where it was in full operation. In what part of England were the wages of labour highest ? It was matter of perfect noto riety that they were higher in the north, where the able-bodied poor had not been supported at the public expense, than in the south, where the principle had been acted upon to the utmost extent.—(Here some Hon. Gentleman on the Op position side of the House uttered the word "manufactures.") Manufactures I Now his Hon. and Learned Friend should not take that ground. Let the House compare the agricul tural parts of Northumberland in which manufactures did not prevail, with any part of England in which the wages of labour had been partly paid out of the poor-rates, as had been the case in many parts of England, and especially in one which was at no great distance from the manufacturing districts—he meant the county of Wilts. They would find that in precise proportion as a part of the wages of labour had been paid out of the poor. rates, the rate of wages had fallen. If the system had produced this effect in England, must it not produce a similar result in Ireland ?—( Hear.) Let them take either case. If they provided for the non effective labourers, did they not hold out a great inducement for the effective labourers to repair to this country ; and if they provided for the relief of the effectives, would they not hold out an increased temptation to the non-effectives to glut the English market? The objection might be removed by merely raising the wages of labour in Ireland ; but if a Poor law Bill for that country passed to-morrow, would the amount of capital in it be greater, or would the rate of wages be in creased ? The Hon. Gentleman had said that he would em ploy the fund to be raised by the Bill in labour. Did he mean profitable or unprofitable labour ? Mr. P. SCROPE—Public works. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Very well; but to judge of the profitable nature of public works, they must be discussed on their own merits—not considered generally as an auxiliary on the question of poor laws ; and it any such offered that would command a profitable return, if stood to reason that a capital would be employed in it, without any poor laws at all. —( Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman had said it was impossible to introduce any effectual system of poor laws without accompanying it with an alteration in the law of settle ment and the law of removal. To both there were the strongest objections. The law of removal was open to this inconvenience and hardship—if a man went to the north of Ireland from any other ?art of the country, and behaved himself ever so well for many years, immediately on his requiring parochial relief through sickness or old age, the hard taskmaster—the overseer—would be on the alert, and he would be at once carted in some parish waggon to the place he had left years and years before, to drag out the remainder of his existence in a place where he had no ties, to which he was bound by no associa tions, and in which he could only regret the scenes he had left. The law of settlement was open to the objection that it con fined labour within a certain and defined locality—a system productive of evils, which he believed no one would be in clined to dispute. The Hon. Gentleman had announced three points as the objects he sought to attain. The first was, the suppression of mendicancy and vagrancy. To attain this end, the Hon. Gentleman must enact the old penal code against vagrants, and render it compulsory on them to leave their abodes and repair to the parish workhouse. He then proposed, by a compulsory assessment, to afford relief in cases of sickness and helplessness. Let the Hon. Gentleman define the cases in which this relief was to be afforded, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would readily concede the principle. The other object was the relief of the poor able-bodied ; and to it he had already adverted. One provi sion of the Bill was, that in periods of general distress, there should be a power vested in the Government to advance, for the relief of the people, whatever sums they pleased from the Consolidated Fund, to be afterwards recovered from the rates and assessments to be levied by the Bill. This was the first case in which it had ever been proposed to recognize, on the face of an Act of Parliament, the principle, that in case of a general distress, under any circumstances, or arising from any cause, Parliament should have the power of taking frown the public purse an unlimited supply for the relief of those who might stand in need. A more fertile source of abuse' a more formida ble source of evil—a more fruitful and abundant source of job bing and corruption, even as it affected the poor themselves, could not be conceived. Let them take the case of two landlords—the one a grinding, hard, mercenary man; the other kind, and le nient to his tenants. The first, after grinding his dependants to the very last penny, refusing to relieve their distress, would be enabled to borrow of the Consolidated Fund to what amount he pleased ; the other would be actually taxed to re pay the amount of the loan in exact proportion to the extent of his endeavours to improve his estate and render his tenants happy and contented. He wished, before he sat down, again to call the attention of the House to the practical proposition before it. If they were of opinion that cases of distress, sick ness, and all classes of infirmity were not likely to be in creased by providing the relief afforded by the poor-laws, he was for them. He was willing, ready, and anxious to give legislative force to the affirmance of that principle; but he was not willing, prematurely anticipating information which was not now before the House, to rush into hasty legislation upon a subject from which he knew retreat to be impossible. Attempts had been made for more than forty years to remedy the abuses of the poor-laws in England. Mr. Pitt had shrunk from the task ; Mr. Whitbread had failed to give effect to it ; the benevolence of Mr. Sturges Bourne had proved of no avail ; and they had existed and increased until the passing of the Bill of last Session. If he could have produced the effect desired, he would have been as ready to second it as the Hon. Member for 'Wicklow ; but not being able to arrive at such a conclusion, he completely and entirely acquiesced in the amendment adverted to by his Noble Friend. Mr. POULETT SCROPE explained. Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN said that the Right Hon. Gentle , man allowed that the aged and the infirm should obtain relief and he begged to say that that was the exact extent to which this Bill was meant to go. All that was asked by those who wished for the introduction of the poor-laws into Ireland was that the principle of the right of the aged and infirm to relief should be admitted. The lion. Member then called the attention of the House to the petition presented upon the present distressed state of the poor in the county of Mayo. That petition stated that out of a rental of 7,0001. a-year, 3,0001. a year went out of the country, which he contended would not be the ease if there was a good system of poor-laws. And he declared, as a landlord, that he did not consider that he would be entitled to sit down to more than the common necessaries of life as long as his tenanixy were in such distress as now existed in Mayo. He declared that the present state of the peasantry of Ireland was most disgraceful to this country.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. S. CR AWFORD entirely approved of the principle of parishes being allowed to assess themselves for the relief of the poor : but, at the same time, contended that a more exten sive and permanent system was wanted. Though he thought that a more extensive system should be adopted, he thought that no reason why the present Bill should be rejected. . Sir EDMOND HAYES hoped even that the Bill would not be referred to a select committee, as the House in that case would not hear again of the Bill for a long time. Ifs F thought that the discussion of the subject should not be deferred. Mr. G. F. YOUNG supported the I3ill. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the difficulty was to say what would be considered a proper system of poor-laws. If the Hon. Member thought that the principle of giving relief to the aged and infirm was a proper system of poor-laws, to that he (the Chancellor of the Exche quer) was pledged, and he would be most eager in support of such a measure. Mr. G. F. YOUNG said that what he considered a good sytem was a measure upon the principle of the statute of Eli zabeth, but without its abuses.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. O'CONNELL said, that it was clear that the Hon. Member did not understand the statute of Elizabeth. The abuses of which he spoke flowed necessarily out of that statute; for the principle of the statute of Elizabeth was, that the la bourer who had employment should contribute a portion of his labour to the person who had no employment. The necessary consequences of such a principle was, that abuses grew out of it. He had come down to the House with the intention of voting that the Bill be referred to a Committee, and he had been determined in that intention not by the speeches which he heard in favour of the Bill, but by those which he had heard against it. The Hon. Member for Knaresborough had amused him not a little. He had called upon him (Mr. O'Connell) to give good arguments in favour of the introduction of poor laws in Ireland. Now the only reason which he (Mr. O'Con nell) would give for their introduction was this, that although the system of poor-laws was a bad one, still they were driven by necessity, not by choice, to do something for the relief of the indigent poor of Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) They were driven to it even at the expense of the property of the country. The Hon. Member for Knaresborough by his speech drove them to this. Mr. RICHARDS did not know what the Hon. and Learned Gentleman meant.—( Order, order.) Mr. O'CONNELL said that no one had less right to in terrupt him than the Hon. Member for Knaresborough, for the lion. Member had addressed almost all his remarks to him (Mr. O'Connell.) The Hon. Member had addressed him half with flattery and half vituperation. —( Hear, hear, and a laugh.) For his (Mr. O'Connell's) part, he freely admitted that he preferred the vituperation to the flattery. The Hon. Member had spoken of him ( Mr. O'Connell) as a renegadoe. Renegadoe, indeed! He (Mr. O'Connell) threw back the insinuation upon the Hon. Member for Knaresbo rough.—( Cheers and laughter.) He talked, too, of Scotland which he said had obtained tranquillity by means of the intro duction of poor-laws, and in supporting that view he even made Latin quotations. The Hon. Member was as classi cal as he was consistent. lie said that Scotland had arrived at her tranquillity per saltunz. Now the fact was that Scot land had arrived at tranquillity in spite of the poor-laws, for it was proved that in some parishes in Glasgow, where the poor-laws were in full force, that tranquillity was annihilated, while in those parishes where they were not introduced, the people were flourishing. Ireland was in a miserable condi tion, and it would seem that nothing was done to relieve her but the application of the paltry quack remedies of the Hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Hon. Member for Knaresborough having dispos'd of his Welsh tenantry, proceeded with his French mendicant to Dublin, and complained that he did not find him among the supporters of the Mendicity Society in that city, and that society cost him more than any system of poor laws could; he was a subscriber to that society though he did not approve of the application of the funds, because the pau pers were employed at a rate of wages which deprived the healthy and efficient labourers of employment. That Ireland was in a wretched state no man could doubt who had read the petition from Borrishull, and he would defy any set of political economists to say the time had not arrived when something must be done to alleviate the sufferings of the Irish people. The fact was Ireland was now suffering from misgovernment, and from the misgovernment of that party to whom the Hon. Mem ber for Knaresborough had recently attached himself. He wished that party joy in having such a political economist as the Hon. Member for Knaresborough at their back. The people of Ireland had been misruled for the last 700 years ; they had been misruled by the Tory party : and had the late Government remained in office nine months longer, there could be no doubt that their mode of governing Ireland would have produced a sanguinary insurrection in that country. The Hon. Member for Knaresborough would give to the peaple of Ire land a system of poor-laws, while he denied them justice—they asked for bread and he would give them a stone. The people of Ireland were by no means anxious to join with the Hon. Member for Knaresborough in this experiment of poor-laws. What they would have was the experiment of fair and regular government in Ireland. At present the condition of Ireland was terrific. There were to be seen persons desolating the land by decimating the country of the tenantry. Landlords were recommended by the Orange party in that country to get rid of their tenants, and the result was, that the miseries described in this Borrishull petition could speedily extend all over Ire land, if something were not done to arrest them. In consi dering this question he must confess that he had been obliged to give up logic and resort to feeling. He therefore should concur in voting to-night for going into Committee on this Bill, but he would not do so if something worse even than poor-laws did not exist. He wished them to go into Com mittee on the Bill in order that this subject might undergo in quiry by a Select Committee during the remainder of this ses sion, and entertaining a hope that they would arrive at so me proper course to be pursued. Looking at the history of poor-laws throughout Europe, it was well known that misery had increased wherever they were adopted. This must be apparent to any one who read the book of that intel ligent but wrong-headed man, Mr. N. Senior. Before they ' proceeded to lay down any system of poor-laws for Ireland, they should look at the example of foreign countries. If there existed any system by which the tranquillity of Ireland could be restored, how was it that it could not be discovered ? —( Hear, hear.) He did not think that the Hon. Member for Knaresborough understood anything of the circumstances which led to Whiteboyism ; if he had, he would not have made the observations he did on that part of the subject. Whiteboy acts were for the most part perpetrated by sturdy, lazy, fellows who were unwilling to work, and if poor-laws were introduced into Ireland, and they were refused relief when they applied for it, their next step would be to burn the work house. —(No, no.) No ! He asked whether such acts had not been committed in this country, and whether, in-many places, the poor population were not almost in a state of re bellion against the new Poor-Law Act ?—( Hear, hear.) He asked whether they wanted to add to the other incentives of Whiteboy acts that which would be given to them by a system of Poor-Laws? Though averse to Poor-Laws, he still felt that something must be done. But he would not proceed blindly, or do more than he felt was inevitable. The state of society in Ireland was such, that he did not think there could be found there the materials for forming local societies. In three of the provinces—in Leinster, Munster, and Connaught, the chief part of the population were Roman Catholics ; and the consequence would be that the funds would go into the hands in which the landlords would not confide, and they would be applied to purposes of which the landlords would not ap prove. This, he contended, would have the effect of throw ing an additional fire-brand between landlord and tenant, and rendering them more hostile than they were now towards each other. Talking of the North of Ireland—there were in the province of Ulster, 781,000 more Catholics than there were Protestant inhabitants, and even there all the objections he had stated would apply, so that the result of the introduction of such a system, would be to involve that country in one scene of trouble and discord.—( Hear, hear, hear.) It was said, however, that, though Poor-Laws might be inju rious to Ireland, they would be beneficial to England. He would take his own parish for the purpose of illustration. If a man had a wife and seven children, the course that would be taken was this : The man would' have ten shillings given to him to carry him to England, and they would tell him that he should work for whatever he could get here, and in that way endeavour to lighten the burden at home, while he pressed on the labourers of this country. Thus, instead of diminishing, they would increase the influx of Irish labourers into this country. The petition from Borrishull proved the country to be in a dreadful state. It was a shocking thing that people should bd famishing, when the fields around them were teeming with produce : but all this he attributed to bad government. Ire concluded by saying, that if something-was not done to ameliorate the political condition of Ireland, cer tainly something ought to be done to relieve the people of that country from the starvation with which they were threatened. Mr. BENNETT thought that one great source of the misery of Ireland was the refusal to extend to that country the advantages of poor laws—in short, the refusal to assimilate the laws of both countries. This was, a very pressing ques tion, and he would put it on higher ground than even the be nefit that would result to either England or Ireland. He would regard it as a question of justice, and say that those born on the soil ought to live upon it by their labour. This was the principle by which the question should be tried. He did not altogether approve of the Bill, yet as it went to establish the principle for which he contended, he would give it his support. Mr. A. LE FRO Y did not think that this Bill was likely to accomplish the objects which it was skid to have in view. Mr. SH EI L said, that by the admission of all parties they ought to be allowed to go to the second reading of this Bill. The Bill would not impose any obligation upon any party, nor did it render it necessary that money should be raised ; it merely gave a discretion to parishes to provide money for the relief of the helpless poor. Though a Commission had been appointed to make inquiries on this subject in Ireland, the Commissioners were divided in opinion as to whether poor laws would be beneficial or not to Ireland, and he believed it would be impossible to get them to concur in any general Report. All that was before the House now was a mass of evidence which left the matter precisely as it bad been. As it was admitted on all hands that something should be done for Ireland, and nobody suggested any thing better than this Bill, he hoped the House would try the effect of it. Mr. AG LIONBY was willing to support any proposition that went,to provide for the relief of the poor in Ireland; but he doubted whether this Bill would accomplish the objects which its promoter had in view. One of the clauses would bring; the Government into collision with the people of Ireland. He would support a general measure, but not one affecting a particular parish ; he was most anxious to mitigate the general distress, but a partial measure he thought very objectionable. It one or two parishes adopted this Bill, what a state that would place the whole of Ireland in ! The other parishes would flock into these two, and there would exist no power of removal. He must give his vote against the motion of the Hon. Gentleman behind him. He hoped it would not go forth to the country that those who felt it to be their duty to oppose 'this Bill, were opposed to a general system of poor laws in Ireland. He believed it was the intention of his Ma jesty's Government to introduce some measure on the subject as soon as they could, after they had received the Report of the Commissioners. He trusted that the Hon. Gentleman would not press his motion to a division. After a few words from Mr. MAXWELL, Mr. BARRON protested against the principle of the Bill, and should vote against his lion. Friend, but he hoped he would withd - raw it. Sir R. MUSUR AVE having risen to The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHE - QUER said he sl:ould not obstruct the measure if the object of the Hon. Member was merely to have it read a second time, and passed through a Committee, in order that he might place it before the country in as perfect a form as possible. Sir R. MUSGIZ AVE would admit that he could not hope to carry the Bill through during the present Session ; he would, therefore, adopt the suggestion of the Right lion. Gentleman. _ _ _ Mr. ATT WO OD wished the Hon. Gentleman had turned his Bill into a resolution, stating that it was necessary to in troduce Poor Laws into Ireland, because then he would have found a majority of the House in his favour. If a system of Poor Laws were introduced into Ireland, this country would be much benefited. The Irish peasants were not an idle body ; they only wanted an opportunity of using their labour.—( Cries of " Question.") He hoped the Hon. Member would with draw his motion, and substitute for it some such resolution as he had described. An Hon. MEMBER said the Irish landlords did not exact higher rents then the English landlords ; if they adopted the English scale they would be better off than they were at pre sent. He wished the treatment of the tenantry in Ireland were once brought before the House; if it were, it would be found that the Irish landlords were as just, as kind, and, perhaps, as judicious as the landlords in England. He would be always ready to meet that question when the opportunity offered. The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed this day fortnight, ASSIZES REMOVAL (IRELAND) BILL. On the motion of Mr. O'LOGHLEN, this Bill went through a Committee. ENTAILED ESTATES (SCOTLAND) BILL. Captain G. FE RG U SON moved the Order of the Day for the further consideration of the Report of this Bill. The LORD ADVOCATE said that the Bill could not pass in its present shape, and that there was not time to consi der it during the present Session. He, therefore, moved as an amendment, that the further consideration of the Report be postponed till that day three months. Captain GORD 0 N regretted that the Noble Lord had not had time to become fully acquainted with the measure. The circumstance was rather strange, as the Bill had been before the House for three years. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the motion Against it Majority for the Amendment • SEAMEN'S ENLISTMENT BILL. The House went into Committee on the further considera tion of the Report on this Bill. Mr. C. WOOD, who moved the Order of the Day, said that he did not expect any opposition would be made to the Bill. Its object was to improve the condition of the service, and render it more agreeable to the seamen. By its provi sions the seamen's pay would be made equal to that in the merchant service. A provision also would be made for the return of seamen to visit their families after a service of five years • and if they were detained six months beyond that period in a foreign station they should receive one-half additional pay. In conclusion, it left the question of impressment pre cisely where it was, dependent, in a great measure, upon the discretion and prerogative of the Crown. Mr. BUCKINGHAM said he still maintained his opinion en the subject of impressment, that it was neither legal, nor just, nor necessary, and, moreover, that it was not successful in forming an efficient force. Strong, however, as his senti ments on this subject were, he would not oppose the measure, because he believed that the Government who had prepared it were anxious to meet the wishes of himself and those who agreed with him on this subject, as far as possible. Mr. HUTT approved of the measure. Mr. CHAPMAN spoke in favour of the Bill, and said it would be hailed with delight and gratitude by all the wives and families of sailors throughout the country. Dr. BOWRING approved of the Bill. • Mr. G. F. YOUNG also spoke in favour of it ; but declared that he considered impressment both unjust and unnecessary. After a few remarks from some Hon. Members the Bill went through Committee. STAFFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL. On the motion that the Stafford Disfranchisement Bill be read a second time, An HON. MEMBER moved that the further consideration of the Bill be postponed. This Bill was a very important one, involving serious consequences to a considerable body of per sons, and one likely to lead to discussion in which it would be desirable that there should be a full attendance. It was then too late to discuss such a Bill. The House at that moment was very thin, and there was notice of two very important amendments to be proposed; one was to give to a county in Ireland the Members heretofore returned by the borough of Stafford. From these considerations it was highly desirable that the Bill should be postponed for a short time. It was accordingly agreed that the consideration of the Bill should be postponed till Wednesday next. INNS AND ALEHOUSES BILL. On the motion that the House go into Committee on this Bill, Mr. BROTHERTON moved, as an amendment, that the House adjourn. It was then too late an hour, and the House was too thin, as there was scarcely a sufficient number of members to constitute a House to go into a Committee on a Bill containing so many clauses, on which it was likely so many amendmqnts would be put, and likely to lead to a pro— tracted debate. It should be recollected by Hon. Members, that by a late regulation, the House was to assemble again at 12 o'clock that day. It was then morning, and the Speaker, if delayed to a late hour, would be physically unable to attend. Besides, several Members then present could not, if so im portant a measure were to be now considered, attend the sittings, in'the proceedings of which some of them would feel an interest.—( Hear.) There was another important consideration, too, that several Members, who felt an intereo, and would take part in the discussion, had gone away, in the expectation that it would not be brought on.—(Hear.) Mr. TREVOR opposed the motion. Matters of import ance should not be postponed on the ground that Hon. Mem bers did not please to attend. If they considered the subject of value, why not be in their places? These postponements were injurious to the public service.—( Hear.) Mr. BROTHERTON said it was clearly the wish of the House that an adjournment should take place.—(Hear, hear, and No, no.) Mr. RUTHVEN and other Hon. Members supported the mo tion, on the ground that the hour was too late ; the House too thin for the discussion of such a measure ; .and that neither the Speaker, nor many Hon. Members could attend the early sittings the next day at twelve o'clock. Mr. PEASE said the public business would he better done by one hundred determined men who attended in their places than by a full House, when much time was wasted 513 idle dis cussion. That night, for instance, in a full House, the Irish Poor Law Bill hung fire for hours. Mr. WALLACE said if this system of adjournm Ont were persevered in, public matters of great consequence would be indefinitely postponed, and they would have to enforce a call of the House in September next. Mr. HAWE S opposed the motion, and said Members should not be subjected to the tyranny of any one Member. After some further remarks from Hon. Members on both sides, the House divided, when there appeared— . .. For the Adjournment 22 Against it Majority The House then resumed, and went into Committee. Se veral clauses having been passed, The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and the consid eration of the other clauses was postponed. The other Orders of the Day were then gone througl, nd the House adjourned at Half-past One o'clock. SPORTING INTELLIGENCE. NEWMARKET JULY MEETING. _ Tuesday Night. JULY STAKES.-FURTHER PARTICULAJitS. After three or four false starts the lot got off in good order, Co• runny having a slight lead, with Alumnus and The - Professor at her side, brother to Glaueus and the others in a ruck, and all well laid on, Corunna supported the running (the phrase is 3.ssociated with painful reminiscences to an Englishman) for about half the distance, when she declined and retired from the front to the revs. Alumnus and The Professor carried on the running, the others still lying up, brother to Glaueus so hemmed in that it appeared neat to impos sible for Robinson to extricate himself. In descending the hill Alumnus looked so much like a winner that the " Duke of Grafton" was the cry in all parts of the course ; at this point there was a movement amongst the horses at his heels, in which El Pastor wag thrown on his knees, fortunately without injury to himself or jockey. A slight opening presenting itself at this mom en t, R o bi ns on seized it, shot through his horses like an arrow, passed the red jacket two or three strides from the post, and won cleverly by a length. The General's colt was beaten about two lengths from the second, and ran in quite clear of the rest ; at the head of the second rank were Dahlia and the Humphrey Clinker filly, and at its tail Waverer and Corunna. The pace was moderate. Value of the stakes 1,0701., subject to the usual deductions. BETTING IN THE EVENING. GOODWOOD STAKES, P.P. S to 1 agst Mr. J. Day's Diana—taken GOODWOOD CUP, P. P. 900 to 200 agst Mr. Kirby's St. Giles—taken 5 to 1 agst Colonel Peel's Sylvan 8 to 1 agst Lord Jersey's Glencoe—taken 10 to 1 agst Lord Exeter's Beiram 400 even between St. Giles and Sylvan DONCASTER ST. LEGER. 12 to 1 agst Lord Orford's Ascot—taken 12 to 1 agst Lord Derby's Verbena 20 to 1 agst Mr. Watt's Mamsel Otz—taken 2000 to 50 betted on 20 agst the field THE DERBY: Previous to the race 35 to 1 was taken that brother to Glaucus won thii race and the July Stakes. WEDNESDAY. Renewal of the SweepstalieSOlTOso;;. each ; for three yrs old, 6st. 91b ; four, Bst. lib ; five, 6st. 101 b ; six and aged, 9st. T.M.M. 5 subs. Sir M. Wood's Amesbury, 6 yrs Robinson 1 Mr. Pettit's Observatory, 3 yrs Mr. Ridsdale's Veronica, 3 yrs :, ..... ... ' 3 Mr. Bloss's Matilda, 3 yrs • Mr. Goodwin's Florin, 3 yrs . 5 Betting-5 to 4 agst Veronica, sto 2 agst Observatory, 4to 1 agst Amesbury, sto 1 agst Florin, 7to 1 agst Matilda. Amesbury won by two lengths. .. 501. for three yrs old, 6st. 111 b ; four, Bst. 21b; five, Bst. 101 b; six and aged, 9st. D. I. Mr. Pettit's Chantilly, 5 yrs Duke of Grafton's Clarionet, 3 yrs Sir M. Wood's Becassine, 3 yrs . 3 Mr. Hunter's f. by Tramp Ridotto, 3 yrs 4 Mr. Turner's Lady Albert, 3 yrs Lord Berner's c. by Oscar—Schiedam, 3 yrs 6 Lord Exeter's Bodice, 4 vrs 7 Betting-7 to 4 agst Lord Berner's c., sto 2 agst Clarionet, sto 1 agst Bodice,k6 to 1 agst Chantilly, sto 1 ast Becassine. Won in a canter by two lengths. THE MARKETS. COAL MAR. Per Ton. s d Adair 's Chester 11. in l6 11 Holy well lB 3 Ditto Reins l6 9 Ord s Redhugh l6 6 Pontop Windsor l7 6 Russell's High Main 'Canfield West Hartley Wylam Hallbeath Llangelinech Coal Neville's Llanelly Ships arrived since cErn—July 8 Per Ton. s. d. Walls End Bewicke stnd Co 20 :2 Walls End c lark and 17 Walls End Hotspur lO 3 Walls End Newmarch... \Valls End Northumberland lB 1 5 Walls End 2 0 9 Walls End Hetton ' Walls End Lambton tiO P Walls End Stewart a ..... Walls End Adelaide Wags End Gordon 20 0 Walls End South Durham._ 19 9 Walls End Tees last market-day, 38 COUNTRY CORN MARKETS DURINI THE WEEK. Wheat. I Barley. I Oats. Beans. Pease. Per Quarter. s. to s. s. to s. Is.to s. a. to s. s. Abingdon.—..... 54 60 30 34 22 30 38 Andover 35 49 28 34 28 33 irmingham— 56 58 30 40 16 22 -- 33 Br:dport . 33 50 32 36 '26 30 39 . Cirencester 34 48 24 32 23 27 40 Faringdon, • 54 66 36 40 26 34 40 -- Guikitord . 38 54 '2B 35 20 30 46 Henley. , 42 58 26 32 23 26 43 -- Hereford „ 50 56 20 32 24 27 46 Highwortb 42 60 32 42 23 34 sfi Maidenhead 56 68 34 44 22 30 36 37 ••••• M0nm0uth......... 33 42 29 31 22 30 31 Reading „ 3O 59 22 36 28 32 40 Salisbury, ~ 36 50 30 33 Z 3 28 36 4.9 Southampton 54 58 33 40 28 32 —. 42 Stroud _ 35 44 28 36 20 24 46 Tewkesbury 36 26 22 32 40 Uxbridge 40 48 28 32 17 28 40 42 30 57 '24 30 19 32 34 42 "'— Warminster 32 52 - '2B 36 24 27 34 40 Windsor. 59 21 22 35 W.ireester„ 33 49 30 32 24 29 40 J. HULL MA R KET —July 7. Wheat, Old 36s 335. 4.1 s New 341. 335. 42. i. -- Foreign „ s In bond... —s. --s. —a. Oats, Poland . 2'2:. 245. 25s Old 2ls. 225. 255. --- Small or Feed.... —s. 18s. 20$ —s. —s. 20a. Foreign Barley, Norf. & Suf. Foreign _ . Beans 345. 38s, 40s. Pease, White 335. 3%. 40s. Tares Rapeseed. in bond none . Foreign -S. Grey —8.305. Foreign --s. Free, i+er last POI. 3.5/. CHELTENHA Per Bushel, s. d. to s. d. Wheat Barley Oats Beans Pease llay ➢i MARKETS _ Pet lb. Beef -- Mutton Veal Pork Limb t 41. 10.. 1 . 4.1„ ywr ton. d. to 6 7 61 7 7 8 6 7 0 0 BIRTHS. On the 6th inst., the lady of Henry Perronet Briggs, Esq.* 8.A., of Chat les-street, of a son. On the 6th inst., Mrs. Joseph Anderson, of Compton-terraner Islington, of a son, still-born. On the 3d inst., at North Court Lodge, near Brandon, the lady of Henry Collins, Esq., of a daughter. On the 7th inst., in Gloucester-place, Portman-square, Mrs. Twyford, of a son. On the Bth inst., in Sloane-street, Mrs. Wm. Lee, of a daughter. On the sth inst., at Grappenhall Lodge, Cheshire, the lady of James 11. Leigh, Esq., of a son. R R IE D. On the Bth inst., at St. Marylebone Church, George Dobson. Esq., Commander Royal Navy, eldest son of J. Dobson, Esq., of Mortimer, Berks, to Eliza, eldest daughter of Joseph Bond, Egl' , of Edward-street, Portman-square. On the 6th inst., at St. Thomas's Church, Winchester, Captain W. Keats, R.N., to Augusta Maria, youngest daughter of Giles King Lyford, Esq., of that city. At All Saints Church, Northampton, Mr. Durst, of Lower Tooting, Surrey, to Miss Strong, of Hardingstone, near Nor" thampton. At - Paddington Church, William Richardson, A.M., surge)° , Bayswater, son of the late Patrick Richardson, Esq., of Flatfield , N. 8., to Louisa, daughter of William Capps, Esq., Porehester• terrace, Bayswater. On the 7th inst., at St. Mary's, Islington, Robert Johnston , Esq., of Aberdeen, to Mary, third daughter of George Haddon , Esq., of Highbury-terrace. DIED. On the 9th inst., at Peoyer Hall, Cheshire, Sophia, eldest daugh' ter of Sir Henry Mainwaring, Bart., and niece to Viscount Com" bermere. On the 7th inst., Mr. Charles Sharp, of Albany-street, Regent's" park, aged On the sth inst., at Dorking, Surrey, Elizabeth, the wife of Mr. Berrey, of Pentonville, and the Six Clerks'-office. On the 6th inst., at Matson Cottages, Kingsland-road, aged 34, Susan, wife of John Matson, Esq., formerly of Bridlington-quoit Yorkshire. _ On the 6th inst., in Charterhouse-square, Mr. William Thorer son, solicitor, late of King's Arms-yard, Coleman-street, Londo l2 - On the 4th inst., at Hammersmith, Mrs. Keane, aged 46. On the 6th inst., in his 4th year, Arthur, the second son of 11fr. John Harris, Clapham-common. On the 6th ult., at the Achada, Madeira, William Penfold, On the Ist inst., in John's-terrace, Hackney-road, Mr. William Simpson, in his 71st year. On the 7th ult., at Besthorpe, Newark, Mr. Thomas Co ok ! aged 87 ; Hitching, aged 97. They were two of the oldest inhabitants in the place. London : Printed and Published by MURDO 'DUNG, of N• 112, Strand, at The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand, in the county of Middlesex, ROYAL DIS] pp.EsIDE) 0N SU SERI George, Planoi of Bath and W Since the ( 9,030 patients, ear, have been and dumb. A Port, it may bi ceived advice hefto he at Dispens Divine Sery Royal Dispe ,___ NEV THE I PING did, and Pom pointed to Sail lows : And Sati With passenge all the North ( Shippers of from For further market ; or tk Gentlemen deen, Kincard August, will surest conveys ROYA THE • Admissi BEST most which never s wholesale anc FRANKS an City. PATE: and SC respectfully tc supply them Very best Bea Second Quali Very beet Second Quali Ladies' Ha other Cape. Situate 13y Me! At the Star THE' Fun rood sheds, 1 acres of very The Est ate and under th James Brow' annum. vi, upon the pre office of Mr. Messrs Ms ; street, Cevei triNTRI VAL E S esi intimate to t rebuilding t intend re -op, a ssemblag e entirely new, excelled, if e rnent, they a at a very gra at their Mar attends dail excellent val rinos, Duna ta r Th USSELe3 terns, and c, deseripticn eireunista.nc, reduction fro pity of cord this great INCORRO OUT WI TEETH MOIN AL De and 32, C Who FIX I OUT Will CAVED grateful for distinguishe British Met the Public i CAVED ' DANEUN and Paris. SECOND: the most es FASTEN gleet, or Di! and NATI are ineacab tneumbranc. Purpose of E 2, (ARE 9, - N.B. Ju, TEETH • of the Anti ER' C AL SOLVEN valuable pr fourteen y( pain or inc ton, its be following " various ren received gi and, to my Plications, tirely disai " Mile Prepare in bottles, by Sang er Strand ; Green, 42 Ask' for see tha J tempts ha apurioui a tINDER TH LAi greatest ii inventor editors of restorativ from cata 'aces of tl ..eft off of to co n t ag most who common toes. T 1 tnonial bt NONE' m road-qt London.