The Sun. — London, England, 1841-09-29 00:00:00

MORN ING SUN POOR-LAWS. . Sir J. GRAHAM moved the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Poor-law Commission Con tinuance Bill. Mr. S. CRAWFORD rose to move the following reso lution of which he had given notice—" That it be an instruction to the Committee on the Poor-law Com mission BM, to insert clauses to the following effect : " 1. That it shall not be lawful for the Commissioners, from the date of the passing of this Bill, to declare the formation of any new Unions in districts which are not already placed under the operation of the Act 4 and 5 William IV., c. 76. " 2. That it shall not be lawful for the Commissioners to disallow, by any general or other order, any pay ments which shall b e ma d e by the authority of a Board of Guardians for the relief of any poor persons or their families out of the workhouse, notwithstanding any powers '' elven to them (by the said recited Act of 4 th and sth Will. IV.) to the contrary." If he failed in his advocacy of a question of such great importance, it was not his fault; but that of the constitu ency which had sent him to that House, and who were worthy of a better advocate. He was aware of the impor tance of avoiding all party recrimination, and should only call upon Hon. Members to consider whether the opera tion of the Bill should not be in some degree suspended during the continuance of the present great distress. The Right Hon. Baronet and his Government had asked for time to consider the provisions of a proper Poor-law Bill. By the Poor-law Bill the Commissioners were entrusted with, he might say, absolute powers over the Board of Guardians, except in one instance, that of not interfering with the relief to be given to individuals. The 13th section of the Act gave them an absolute power in giving orders, and the 52d gave them the power to order out-door relief. He begged leave to refer to that section. The Hon. Gentleman then read the sectionlwhich gave the Commis sioners power to admipister relief out of the workhouse, to whatever extent they might think fit, either by re payment of money or giving provisions, or both, and 'to what persons, at what time, on what con ditions, and in what manner such out-door re lief ought to be given. Such were the words of the Act, and he maintained that out-door relief was to be given, and was conveyed by those words. But the order of the Commissioners was not consistent with that Act. Their order was, that every able-bodied person, male or female, requiring relief should be relieved in the workhouse, together with the families of such persons, and also the wives of such persons as were married men. He maintained that it was the duty of the House to limit that power which, during the present distresses of the country, might be exercised with such grievous oppression to the poor. The principle upon which the order was issued was, that poverty arose from protligacy.—(llcar, hear.) He contended that in the present circumstances of the country there were a great many of the industrious and honest portion of the community who were distressed from other causes than profligacy; and he hoped, therefore, that Parliament would interpose to prevent a violent exercise of power. On the assumption that po verty arose from profligacy, the workhouse had been surrounded with terrors. First, there was the separa tion of families ; _idly, arbitrary punishment and disci pline; 3dly, harshness to old age; 4thly, bad living; sthly, the difficulties of getting admission into the workhouse ; and sixthly, and greatest of all, the mixture of the virtuous and profligate. Such terrors must prevent the honest and industrious members of the community from applying for relief. As he did not wish to rest his claim to the consideration of the House simply on his own euthority, he would refer the House to some statements which had been obtained from different union, in which all these hardships were displayed. First, with respect to the separation of families. Ile was willing to admit that if great bodies of the people were to be collected under one roof, it might be very difficult in all cases to avoid the separation of families. But the kind of separation which was most oppressive was the separation of the mother and the child. In some cases that principle had been extended even to the mother and the sucking child. The first case which he would refer to was one which had occurred at Bath ; and it was stated in a letter from the Chaplain of that Union. The Hon. Member then read an - extract from a letter pub lished in the Times of September 14, stating that whilst a woman had gone into the yard of the worhouse, the parties went into the ward, snatched up her baby, and carried it away. In the Uxbridge Union two old men, one of them labouring under sciatica, were splashed with buckets of water, and washed with mops, until their lives were endangered. Thus, by carrying into effect the orders of eh:Commissioners, disease the most dread ful prevailed in that Union. Notwithstanding the pre valence of disease, then, the orders of the Commission ers prohibiting out-door relief were 'carried into effect, and new inmates were admitted into the diseased Union. Under such circumstances, was it not right that the at tention of the House should be called to the necessity of restrainin g in some degree the power of the Commis sioners? He would next refer to instances of the diffi culty of getting into workhouses. Hannah Robinson was affected with paralysis ; her husband applied to have her admitted into the workhouse of St. George's, Hanover-square. The answer given the husband- was. " No, you must also yourself come into the workhouse." The man was able to work, and refused to enter. The woman was, in consequence, left alone in the absence of her husband, and she was burnt to -death. At the in quest held on the occasion, the jury said that they could nut separate without expressing, in the strongest manner, their sense of the oppression of the poor in that case. There was another subject to which he wished to refer ; the mixture of the vicious with the virtuous. An instance of that was mentioned in a letter of the Rev. Mr. Watts, dated 20th August, 1840, formerly Chap lain of the Bath Union. Two improper females were admitted, according the Reverend Gentleman, into the union workhouse among a consider able number of virtuous and proper females. The cases of repugnance of paupers to enter the workhouses were numerous. There was one, a remarkable one, that of William Leech, who had occasionally received outdoor relief at the Kensington Union. On being pressed to enter the workhouse he refused to do so. Soon afterwards his death took place, and on the in quest the Jury returned a verdict of " Died of want." Another instance was that of Elizabeth East, who died of a slow process of starvation. On being urged to en ter the workhouse, she refused while she could get food by selling Congreve matches. The poor creature died, and a verdict of " Died by starvation " was returned by the Jury. Such was the case which he had to lay be fore the House, as the result of this system of terror. Respectable people had rather submit to the extreme degree of starvation than enter a workhouse ; those not so respectable committed crime for the purpose of bring committed to prison ; and suicide and fever from want of food were the necessary consequences of the law. The most glorious trait in the character of Englishmen had been broken down. How could they expect Englishmen would retain their spirit if they were forced to submit to such laws ? Outrages and disturbances had taken place, and they had consequently been obliged to make a law for a rural police, which was a degradation to Englishmen. It was a disgrace that the ptece of England could not be kept as it had been in the days of Alfred, and that they were obliged to have recourse to the miserable measure of a hired police for that purpose. It was not denied that great distress ex isted, and therefore, as the Government asked time to consider a new law, they ought to take care that no cases of oppression took place under the old laws. They asked time to consider the Corn-law, which he was disposed to grant them, but that was arother reason why the dis tress of the poor should be looked to, and that while they refused to reduce the price of food they should take means to prevent the people from suffering from the high prices. The Commissioners in their last Report, stated their satisfaction that the prohibitory order had been extended, so that there was no chance of their allowing the guardians to act with more liberality in the ensuing winter, unless it was caused by theprompt in terference of that H ouse. He had a few words to say respecting Ireland. A few nights o he. Lord of the Treasury express heard t h e Fi rst 6 ag reasury express his satisfaction ats right the working of the Bill in that country. It w Government sh ou ld f orm a faithful a opinionih her Majest y's Government with i respect ests It was impossible yet to state whether to that country. the uer e l or not that Nit would be efficacious relief of the Poor. However, he was of opinion for t could be carried into effect according to its present provisions— they were still worse —still morestr in English Bill — it gave no pow eitherer gent than th e to Co • MlMS sioners, to Guardians, or other officers, to give relief under ar , s• circumstanc es . A person might live o-door w il es " from the union -ho use ; he might be il ten m i g ht die if he could not b e taken. there. Whnitle•t he s tood as it did now, it never cou ld h e b eneficial for thel relief of the poor. The Hon. Gentleman then quoted several cases of maltreatment in the North Lublin •acid also in the Cork Union, inwhich Union, stated, that not only were children ill-treated, but that attempts had been made to deprave their morals. He hoped the House would pardon him f•or bringing these distressing cases before it—(Hear, hear)—but it was better to make out a case by facts than by declama_ 'ion,—Hear, hear .) He would not call on Hon. Gentle men for any abandonment of principle, but lie would ask them to look at the facts he adduced of the condition of the people of the country, and not allow the power of the Commissioners the extension which it had, but would restrain it, from humanity to the. suffering poor. lie trusted he had made out a case which would ensure the support of Hon. Gentlemen who had heretofore re sisted the Poor-law. He did not think that it was con sulting the respectability of the House that Members should confine themselves to mere talk, but they should bring all questions to the test of a vote. That was the proper mode of acting in that House. That was his epioirm ; and it was his firm determination never to in trude in bringing any question before the House unless lie intended to take tile sense of the House upon it. He thanked the House for the indulgence extended to him, and Would conclude by moving the first instruction of which he had given notice, presuming that it would be more convenient to the House to take the instructions separately. Mr. . FIsRRAND seconded the instruction. lie could assure Hon• Memb • ers that it was unnecessary for them to ra . • • the any excitement, f • it them. The Hon came open-handed to meet ember hail said that there was no excitement in the • that when the s Nl borough of Halifax, but was he aware it was obliged to v Poor-law workhouse was 'building, be guarded day and night, and that a • troop of cavalry aware that the were stationed in the t own ? W as h e cavalrytrampl e d t h e peop l e o f Bradford when they met to consider the operation of that law? OVas 'he aware that the Commissioners T he Keightly Poor I and Magistrates sees •j• - to save th • aW Union were obliged to fly e-e their lives? He recollected that when the ,ord Milton was brought out to represent th e :uoss • - t the head o ' s ire, a requ i s i t i on was a dd ressed t which was t h e name of the Hon. •',SNstec /*•*.n. e; for Halifax. He had sn'S for HaFfax had even heard that the Hon. assisted him to draw up his 5 ~~ THE SUN, LONIJON, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1841. • address to his constituents, and he would give the House his opinion upon the Poor-law. He said if the Poor-laiv Bill required any amendments, he would be ready to consider them. He was decidedly of opinion that every security should be given that it should be administered with tenderness to the poor. If such security did not exist, he was desirous that it should be provided. — (Hear, hear.) There was one thing which struck him in the taunt cast out by Hon. Members on the other side, namely, that the discussion would show the country what the opinion of Hon. Members was. Now, when the division was approaching last night, he saw several Hon Members who left the House without voting; and he would give a list of them, in order that their consti tuents might know what their sentiments were.— (Cheers and laughter.) There were the two Hon. Mem bers for Manchester, who departed previously to the division. The Hon. Member for Leeds and the Hon. Member for Salford did the same. The Hon. Member for Stockport also did it.—(" No, - no," from Mr. Cobden.) Although they charged his side of the House with having made use of this question for the purpose of exciting the people to carrying their election, he would ask the Hon. Member for Halifax if his party had never brought for ward subjects to excite the passions of the people ? He (Mr. Ferrand) had seen a chimney-sweeper with chains about his legs representing a negro slave.—(Laughter.) He had seen a scavenger dressed up as a Bishop— (Laughter)—and during the excitement of the Reform Bill, when some extra steam was required to make the people of this country believe the assertions of ,t he Whigs, it was asserted in the City of Westminster, "that a fairer head than Adelaide's had fallen on the block." In the borough of Leeds, during the excitement of the 'Reform Bill, there was carried in a procession, (and he begged to call the attention of the Hon. Member for Manchester to this) a flag, on which was painted, the King wearing petticoats an the Queen in breeches—(Loud laughter)—and an axe was stuck in the King's neck ; moreover, he had heard that the son of the late Member for Leeds, who sat on his side of the House during the late Session, proposed three groans for the Queen, and if so. he was the worthy son of a worthy sire. His (Mr. Ferrand's) opinion of this New Poor-law was, that it was unconstitutional in the highest degree, and that it did not afford adequate relief to the poor to which they were entitled by the constitution of the country.—(Hear, hear.) It also to a great extent dried up the sources of private charity, and gave an ex cuse to Hon. Members of that House as well as the people of the country, not to relieve the poor in the manner in which they were called on to do. He had received that day a letter from Captain Morris, R.N., who was a stranger to him, but who had communicated his feelings to him on the subject, which he (Mr. Fer rand) would communicate to the House. Ile (Captain Morris) suggested the necessity of having a clause introduced into the Bill, giving a right to a pauper for some years resident in a parish ,not his own, to receive the relief that would be afforded by his own parish. Captain Morris instanced several cases to prove the necessity for such a clause, one of which was that of a man in the Brid port Union, who had brought up eight children without parochial assistance, except one instance fourteen years ago, when he had broken his leg, but when he appeared before the Board of Guardians at Bridport he was refused relief, and was obliged to travel sixty-six miles to his parish, although he had formerly received assistance at Charmouth, where he lived. In another Union he mentioned that it was a usual thing for persons from sixty to eighty years of age, to have to travel in winter a distance of seven, eight, or nine miles to the Board of Guardians, and then to stand out of doors in the wet and cold until their turn came, for they were let in one by one ; after all not receiving more than sixpence or a shilling, and that from a Board of Guardians frequently composed entirely of manufacturers. He (Mr. Ferrand) himself identified the New Poor-law with the factory system. He belieied that the labourers in Yorkshire, being so reduced by death and disease, the cotton spinners in Lancashire found it impossible to carry on their con cerns with those they possessed, and that this Poor-law originated in a deep-laid scheme between the cotton spinners of Lancashire and the Poor-law Commissioners themselves.—(Oh, oh.) He would give his evidence di rectly, for he had asserted nothing that he could not prove. When the Member for Manchester, in language that must have struck deep into the hearts of every man of feeling within those walls, described the misery and dis tress of his constituents, he had called to his recol lection the description of the " rich man," possessed of the world's goods, clothed in purple and fine linen, and faring sumptuously every day. He refused to the poor the crumbs that fell from his table, and came to the House and charged the landed proprietors of England with being the cause of the distress of these poor wretches. Only two years ago a public dinner was given at Manchester by the cotton spinners, and to give cclat to it they invited the Honourable Member for Cork (Mr. O'Connell), who told them that " the rich man's venison was sweetened by the widow's tear, and his claret dyed with the orphan's blood." At that meeting they said their possessions were sufficient to purchase all the landed estates in England. If so, he (Mr. F.) thought that "property had its duties as well as its rights." Had their (the manufacturers') property performed its duties ? Had they, while sending through the country those agitators and lecturers who were paid their salaries by the amount of their foul calumny against the land lords of England—bad they, instead of setting the land lords and farmers and tenants against each other, desired these men to inquire into every district where a no bleman or landed proprietor had estates what was their conduct to their distressed poor —it would have been found to hold out an example which if they were honest and wise they would have fol lowed.—(Hear, hear) But they excited the people to no effect throughout the country, and then came back and charged the landed proprietors with being the cause of the distress. The manufacturers had made their im mense fortunes by the sweat of the poor man's brow. The Member for Stockport stated that the Corn-laws were baptized in blood ; he (Mr. F.) told him that every farthing he possessed was baptized in the sweat of the factory slave. And when they had glutted the market they cast the poor wretches off to die, " unpitied and forlorn;" and when they petitioned the men who had ac quired their wealth in a few years through their exer tions to hold out the hand of charity to them, they were refused, while those who refused them came down to that House to deceive them by throwing the blame on the landed proprietors of Eng land. The Hon. Member then quoted the authority of Mr. Marshall, Dr. Kay, and Mr. Oastler, on the desti tute condition of the poor in manufacturing towns, and its effect upon the health of the population, and pro ceeded :—He must again repeat that the Hon. Members for Manchester and Salford, and especially for Bolton. had expressed the kindest feelings of sympathy for the poor, but he (Mr. F.) did not want their sympathy, nor did the working classes ; but if the Hon. Members had subscribed 1,000/. for their relief, their sympathy would have been of some use. But they did not attempt this. Gentlemen conneeted with the factories would allow their labourers to pawn their day clothes to get their night clothes, and their night clothes to get again their day clothes, and told them of their distress without telling them that they had done any thing to relieve it.—(Hear, hear.) He should have thought them honest if they had shown that they had subscribed until they would be ruined if they subscribed more ; but they did not say this, nor did he tell them what he believed to be true, that they had not subscribed a farthing.—(Oh, oh.) The Hon. Member for Stockport asserted that the land lords had compelled their surplus population to go into the manufacturing districts. He (Mr. F.) found in the Report of the Poor-law Commissioners for 1835 a letter on the subject, written by E. Ashton, Esq., near Bol ton, a gentleman who belonged to a class that made great professions of philanthropy—(Oh, oh)—in _which he said, that of the leading features of the new Poor law Bill he most cordially approved, while in some of its details he feared it would be found practically de fective. Full employment in every department was never more easily found than then, since all the mills were in the most active employment. Mr. Ashworth went on to state that there was at the time a scarcity of labour in the district, and he ex pressed a wish that labourers should be removed from one district to another in order to equalize the demand for employment, and in order to put and end to the pos sibility of the men turning out when there was any grievance of which they complained. Again, Mr. R. H. Gregg, in a letter to the Poor-law Commissioners, complained of the difficulty of obtaining labourers in the north of England unless at extravagant prices, and he also recommended the removal of labourers from dis trict to district, so that the object of these men was to drive the poor from their homes in order to pin them down in factory-mills. The fact was that the unhappy labourers were bought and sold by the Poor-law Com missioners and the cotton spinners of Lancashire. It would be the duty of the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, who had shown such a sym pathy N , ith the poor in a recent case of destitution and of death, to extend his care during the next six months from the dead to the living. Responsibility would be withdrawn during the next six months from the Com missioners to the Right Hon. Baronet—(Hear, hear, and laughter) —and he hoped the Right Honourable Gen tleman would duly discharge his trust. The Right Honourable n,te:dlolht teeaoouha smrrsf ß sietes veahael a cdeines r pieod, o ur n :uispoaptnet e umhpdc. t, in a speech he had recently se apHpto d whnrur e hooedo l r delivered, v duty operativeaehheueeGra prosperity er d ttoeng , i r ,t e joe, euta t: e r ip t iut t u u : hsmuae s n e . :b o t oa e yi r twur s io d t .eli h s d, ht f ) e m recommended.lbi eer wished those Let words,tmhaen if they could, remove the present distress with their own al the tbi;feaeeymor ll:haaltesakhsrsi asenflmgrwi ondhmdoooou:nn ewott ourselves ho‘yua, owe their oshetfi thosehltovtehueii the enormous wealth; and if one of them could lay down his head upon his pillow without saying he had done his duty he envied him not.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) He would vote for the instruction then before the House, as he had voted for the instruction of last night, although he did not think they had been opportunely brought forward. The existing system was d ec id e dl y objection able ; and the landed proprietors were alone bearing those burdens to which the manufacturers should contri bute tneir share. Sir JAMES GRAHAM rose and said, that he:could assure the House that before he had been informed by the Hon. Member for Knaresborough, who had just sat down, he was painfully aware of the responsibility which attached itself to him upon the present occasion; but he could assure that Hon. Member that no eagerness of manner and no warmth of declamation could scare him from endeavouring faithfully to discharge his public duty ; and in the consciousness of that duty he should not be lead to abandon a measure, the import ance of which he felt so deeply ; and' although the sub ject might require due consideration, and although the law might he susceptible of amendment, yet to the prin ciple of the, measure he for one felt that he was conscien tiously pledged—(Hear)—and from that principle he could not recede.—(Hear.) Having stated this much, he hoped that the House would permit him to add, that by the measure whit!' he had that night brought under dis- I cussion, .he did not ask any Member of that House to pledge hiinself to the maintenance of the Poor-law Act in its integrity.—(Hear, hear.) As lie had said last night, he would carefully reserve ,the discussion of all the details of the measure, nay, even the decision of, its principle, urftil the next Session of Parlia ment ; and all that he now asked the House to do was to pass a measure for the continuance of the Commission without whose superintendence during the next six months the management of the law would be involved in inextricable diffi culty. He only asked for the interval, in order to enable the Government to consider the shape in which they would pre sent the Bill to Parliament, with such amendments as they might consider necessary early in the next Session..—(Hear. ) Now, in the first place, he should observe, in reference to what had fallen from the Honourable Member for Knares. borough,/ that what they were that night discussing, whether the Poor-law Commission should be continued for the next six months, the statement which he had brought under the consi deration of the House afforded a proof if they had been accu. rately detailed—and he was sure the Right Hon. Gentleman believed them to be well-founded—of great mismanagement among the local authorities. They did not tend to show the necessity of abolishing the Commission ; on, the contrary, they went very far to show the danger of leaving the local manage ment uncontrolled, and they appeared to him ( Sir J. Graham) to furnish a strong and striking argument in favour of the ne cessity of some such superintending authority as that of the Commissioners, whose econtinuance in office he proposed by the Bill then before the House. Passing from . the Hon. Member for Knaresborough, he would next turn to the Honourable Gentleman who had brought forward the motion then under discussion. He should observe, that it was quite unnecessary upon the part of the Hon. Gen tleman to vindicate the purity of his motives, or the kindness and the generosity which prompted him to bring forward his amendment. He ( Sir J. Graham) had always thought the the characteristics of the Hon. Gentleman's conduct, both here and in his native country, were sincerity of purpose and honesty of intention. The Hon. Gentleman need not, therefore, have offered any vindication of the course he was pursuing. But without any offence to the Hon. Member, he (Sir J. Graham) would call the attention of the House to this remarkable fact, that the Hon. Mover of an instruction which would bear more immediately upon England and Wales, was a gentleman not a resident in this country, who could have no adequate experience of the working of the system he sought to interrupt, and who also, by an odd coincidence, was not practically conversant with the English system of Poor-laws. It so happened that the Hon. Member represented one of the few places in Eng land, namely, Rochdale, to which the presemt system had not been extended. The Hon. Member had said that to prove a case there was nothing like resting upon facts, and the state ment of particular cases. Now he (Sir J. Graham) ad mitted that when any one rested upon facts, there was nothing like adducing particular instances. But the Hon. Gentleman, from the very circumstance of his having no personal knowledge of the matter, and his consti tuents having no experience upon the subject, did bring for ward a string of cases, presented, as it appeared to him ( Sir J. Graham), in a most suspicious form, not resting _upon his personal authority, or coming from parties who, he could be assured as their representative in the House of Commons, were well informed. They were ex parte statements, and being ex parte statements they could not be tested by inquiry, and until a facility of inquiry had been given, such statements were more likely to mislead a popular assembly upon ,a ques tion of that kind than any other course which could be devised. The instruction was moved last night upon a secondary portion of that great question, and in an accidental manner; but the instruction moved that evening went to the very essence of the measure itself. What were the two questions which these instructions dcalt with? The power of extending Unions, which was a preliminary step to bringing the Act into operation ; and the second instruction touched upon the power vested in the Commissioners, of refusing relief out of the workhouse, which was the very essence of the Bill. If last night he had been unwilling to follow the Hon. Member for York in his instruction, because he wished to leave the main question untouched till a future discussion, he was sure the House would at once see that it would that night be impossible fot him, without a dereliction of his duty, and without a depar ture from that reserve which his position imposed upon him— it would be impossible for him to follow the Honourable Member in the discussion with which.he had entered. But he might be allowed to observe, that without giving any pledge whatever on the part of the Executive Government as to the course which they might hereafter deem it their duty to take, he only asked upon that occasion for the con tinuance of the controlling power vested in the Commission. He would also point out to the House, that under the law as it now stood, no power whatever was placed in the hands of the Commissioners to touch the Gilbert Union Acts, without the consent of the Guardians of the district. Then, again, with respect to the Local Acts ; there was no direct power vested in the Commissioners of superceding these Acts. He admitted that indirectly some interference (lid take place. But he should add, that he would give no pledge whatever upon the part of the Executive Government, which would go to demonstrate a want of confidence in the Commissioners, or which eouldraise aprejudice against the principle of the measure which it would be their duty to consider, and to bring under the notice of the House next Session. He did conceive that such a pledge, extracted under the pressure of present opposition, would seriously prejudice the ,due consideration of the measure. He would give no such pledge ; and he did say, that the question at the present time, and under the present circumstances, was a question of confidence. If they believed that the Commis sioners, controlled by the Executive, would act so imprudently as not to merit their confidence for the very short time which would intervene before the measure would be reconsidered upon the responsibility of the Executive, then, he said, let them not deal with the law in the shape of an instruction, but let them refuse the passing of the Bill. But, if they placed that limited confidence in the Government andathe Commissioners, then, he said, let them deal with the law itself, but let them re ject all instructions, and pass the measure before the House.—( Hear, hear, hear.) He knew not whether it would not be inexpedient that he should call the attention of the House, and through the House that of the country, to one or two re markable circumstances which ought not to be overlooked. First of all, with regard to the Commissioners; the Commis sioners had yielded to public opinion, and had yielded, as he ( Sir J. Graham) thought, most judiciously, and quite in ac cordance with the spirit of the original enactment, as he under stood it, in its capability of being adapted to peculiar circum stances. He said that tha Commissioners had within the I,st six weeks marked their sense of the pressure of public opinion, and had taken a step which he most highly approved of. Com plaints had been made that the Commissioners had been evad ing the original enactments of the law, by multiplying special orders to an immense extent, and thus evading the provisions of the Act, which required that general orders should be sub mitted to the Secretary of State. Now within the last six weeks the Commissioners had collected all their special orders relating to out-door relief into one general order, which had been submitted to the consideration of the Secretary of State, and which had, therefore, been brought under the consideration of the Executive.—(-Hear, hear.) In that order they had yielded to public opinion by relaxing the regulation, prohibiting out of door i elle' in several moat im portant particulars. Out of door relief might now be given, first, in all cases of sudden and urgent necessity. Second, in cases of illness or of accident. '1 hird, in cases in which it might be required to pay the expenses attending the burial of any member of the family of the applicant. Fourth, to widows with legitimate children, who were incapable of earning a live • lihood ; so that widows with legitimate children could receive relief without limit as to the period of their widowhood. Fifth, to the families of persons confined in gaols or other places of sale custody. And sixth, to the wives and children of soldiers and sailors in her Majesty's service. These were most im portant relaxations, and the whole subject of out-door relief was thus brought under the control of the Executive, as by the 16th clause of the Act any general rule of the Commissioners might be altered by an Order in Council. He thought that this was ample security to the public against the law being administered with harshness.—(Hear, hear.) Without meaning at all to reflect on the Hon. Member for Knaresborough, he could not but express his regret at hearing language used which would have the effect, although it had not the intention, of exciting angry feelings in the manufacturing in terest against the agricultural.—(Hear.) Ile would frankly admit that one of the main sources of the prosperity of the country was the manufacturing interest.—((sheers.) As an instance of the manner in which the Commissioners exercised their powers, he would mention the case of the Irish hand-loom weavers who had no settlement. The law empowei ed the Commissioners to send them back to Ireland, if they received a single farthing of rel ef. Now, what had they done ? They had actually sent down an assistant Commissioner to Manches ter, with directions to use his authority with the Board of Guardians to have relief given to the Irish hand loom weavers, not in the workhouse, but out of doors, and that no attempt should be made to remove them. He felt it his duty to remove.any false impressions which might have gone abroad as to these matters, and he hoped that would plead his excuse for having slightly deviated from the line which he laid down last night not to enter into discussion on the subject. He did not, however, think it his duty to go further. As he had resisted the amendment of the Hon. Member for York last evening, so he should on the present occasion resist the amendment of the Hon. Member for Rochdale, and he trusted the House would not refuse to give him the limited confidence he asked.—( Hear, hear. ) Mr. M. PHILIPS would not have troubled the House had it not been for the personal nature of the speech of the Hon. Member for Knaresborough. If bold declamation constituted argument, then had the Hon. Member made a very argumen tative speech. He would not allude to what had fallen from that Hon. Gentleman with respect to the manufacturers with any angry feelings. He (Mr. M. P.) had never exhibited any angry feeling in that House, and he ti usted he never should be tempted to follow the example of the Hon. Gentle. man in that respect, but he felt it his duty to reply briefly to the charges which he telt the Hon. Member had most unjusti fiably brought against the manufacturing interest.—(Cheers.) Ile Hon. Member seemed to think that a manufacturer must be a man without feeling, one who sought his own aggrandize ment, regardless of every consideration. If those were the opinions of the Hon Gentleman he (Mr. Farrand) had lived in the neighbourhood of manufacturers for a number of years without estimating them truly. Ide did nob mean to contend that the manufacturers had no defects, but when h e h ear d them charged with a derelictio n of duty to their la bourers, when he heard it stated they had no sympathy for the poor, he must characterise such assertions as a libel upon their characters, which was riot borne out by facts. He did not know what the amount ex pended for the relief of the poor in Manchester was at present, but he knew that the rate levied for the year ending March 9 5, 1841, was double the amount of the rate levied for the year ending 25th March, 1840. Now, that did not look as if the manufacturers were anxious to escape from their share of the charge for the relief of the poor. He would also, as a proof of the disposition of the manufacturers, relate what he per. sonally knew to be a fact. He knew one manufacturer who never worked short time, until his losses had exceeded the amount of 10,0001. a year. Many other manufacturers adopted the same system, some of them placing the scale at 7,C001. a year, and that before they began even to work short time ; and he could assure the House that none of them turned their labourers out' of emplyment, until their losses were so great that bankruptcy must be the inevitable consequence of their continuing to work at a loss. The manufacturers were not backward in relieving the distresses of the labouring population last year. A sum amounting to between 3,0001. and 4,0001. had been subscribed in an incredibly short space of time, and had been expended in a manner reflecting the highest credit (Ai those who had the management of the subscription, sod pro ductive of the greatest benefit to the objects for whose use it had been collected, and who, but for such timely assist ance, must have disposed of their bedding, their furniture, and, in many instances, of their clothes. The Honourable Member had alluded personally to him ( Mr. Mark Phillips) He had been advisedly absent from the division last evening on the motions relating to the separation of man and wife, because as that system had been adopted in Manchester, before the union had been framed, he did not wish to condemn the practice ; and also because, having serious doubts as to the practicability of carrying out the clause, he did not wish hastily to commit himself on the subject. With respect to the general measure, he had never shrunk from avowing his opinion that in its general operation, the Poor-law Bill had been pro ductive of great benefit—(Cheers)—more particularly in the agricultural districts, where he had greater opportunities of studying its operation. He would not offer the Right Hon. Bart. the slightest opposition. He felt that this ought not to be made a party question ; he bad himself been attacked on the subject at the last election. He then stood up to bear his testimony to the good effects of the law, and he was not to be driven from his purpose by idle declamation. From his knowledge of the workings of the law,he thought it might require some alterations. fhe 'Right Hon. Baronet hid pointed out soveral most important relaxations, and which would, no doubt, meet with general approval. He thought it important that these modifications should be introduced into the new law, because the law, as it vs as now administered, was not, in tact, the law of 1834, but that law modified by the orders of the Commissioners. Now, he was desirous of seeing those modifications introduced into the new law, in order that persons might see what the law really was, arid he thought the time of the House could not be more profitably , employed than in reconsidering the Bill. . _ Mr. WAKLEY understood that the Executive Government adhered to the principle of the existing law.—( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet, with a candour which did him credit, admitted that, such was the fact ; and it therefore appeared that the Whig aristocracy and the Tory aristocracy were pledged to the existing law. The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, when, on the 16th of the month, he had made a statement to the House that it was his intention to propose a "sill for continuing the Commission for six months, had given no indication of his intention of maintaining the existing law. He (Mr. Wakley) had put a construction on that conduct which circumstances had not justified. He had been deceived, and the causes were simple and clear. Although the Right Honourable Baronet had ac ceded to the principle of the Bill in the last Session, yet he had then proposed to continue the Commission for five years instead of ten, as proposed by the Noble Lord; he natu rally thought that as the Right Hon. Baronet had not proposed this Session to continue the Commission for five years, he had yielded to the expression of public opiniois against the law, and when he saw that the Right Hen. Baronet the Member for Kent and the Noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lan • caster, both of whom were opposed to several most important provisions of that law, were Members of the Cabinet, he thought such a supposition not unnatural, notwithstanding the presence in the Cabinet of the Right Hon. Baronet the Alem- Der for Dorchester and the Noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire, both of whom were Members of the Goverment which had originally introduced th 3 measure. The Attorney and Solicitor-General had neither of them ever uttered one word in favour of the present law ; therefore he felt that he was justified in forming the opinion he had done. lie had ex pecttd that a different course of conduct would have been pursued ; he had been deceived, but the deception he had laboured under would be useful to him because it would enable him to understand th e p os iti on which he, as an inde -I,endent Member, occupied, and the course which the people ought to pursue. If the Hon. Member for Rochdale pressed his motiontoadivision, he should divide with hint. He had felt that the motion of the Hon. Member for York last evening was so imperfect, that he could not vote for it, for he doubted if it could be carried into effect. He, however, entirely differed with the Hon. Member for Rochdale as to the propriety of pressing every motion to a division, and thus forcing Members to express an opinion, for he really thought that Members ought to have an opportunity of investigating before they were called on to decide. He had frequently left the House with out voting, because he really had not known on which side he ought to decide.—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. Hawes.) The Hon. Member for Lambeth said " Hear, hear." Now, if he (Mr. Wakley) possessed the sagacity of the lion. Member foi Lambeth—the acuteness of conception of that Hon. Member— he might, perhaps, without difficulty he able to determine at once upoii the most abstruse subjects.—( Hear, hear. ) He (Mr. Wakley), however, was not so highly gifted, and he was sorry for it.—( Loud cheering and laughter. ) He understood the principles of the law to be this—that it took from the rate-payers of England the power to administer their own funds, and placed it in the Commissioners of Somer set-house.—( Hear, hear.) That was the principle of the law, and he did not think that human ingenuity could devise a worse one. But the Member for Bath hit on something worse. He (Mr. W.) .regretted he was not present, though he could not regret he had not submitted his proposition to the House.—( Hear, hear.) He (Mr. W.) could not conceive anything worse than that the interests of the people should be placed at the mercy of a Secretary of State.—( Hear, hear. ) The Right Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) would understand that he was not referring to him.—( Hear, hear.) He was only referring to the principle of such a proposition ; and of all men in the world who could make such a proposition, he thought the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath would be the last, because when he advocated the case of the Canadians, he told them what he experienced from the Secretary of State, and the Noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire must bear the fact in recollection. He (Mr. Roebuck) said he cou:d get nothing butinjustice—nothing but insult from the Secretary of State, and that he had been spurned from the door. Could the Hon. and Learned Ger.t. suppose that more courtesy would be shown by the Secretary for the Home Department than by the Secretary for the Colonies ? or that lie would be more humane or more ready to lend his ear to the complaints which would be made to him? However cruel the decision of a Home Secretary may be, he would be sure to find a majority of his colleagues to agree with him. He now came to the discretionary power of the Commissioners—to the leading principle of the law. There were two subsidiary accompaniments to the law, by the first of which the poor were deprived of the application for re lief, and by the next were tortured while in receipt of that re lief. These were the principles that were carried into effect by the Commissioners. He should like the House to understand the question. The nobility and the middle classes had a law for their protection. They had the Judges of the land to ad minister the law. But what was done with regard to the poor ? Did they receive protection? They had by this law outlawed the poor. He defied any Member to say the poor had any law for their protection, as under the law of Elizabeth.— ( Hear, hear.) That law gave the poor a right to relief.—( Cheers.) The House ought not to forget the origin of that law. They should not forget that the poor before that law had religious houses and monasteries to sup port them ; and that the monks were ever ready to extend the hand of charity and benevolence to the suffering poor.-- ( Hear, hear.) But when the change in ecclesiastical pro. perty took place, then that noble Act of Elizabeth, the brightest of her reign, came into operation—( Hear, hear) —and it gave the poor the same right to relief as the Noble had to his property under the law.—(Cheers.) What was the case now ? The poor were placed under the tyranny of Somerset-house, and had not the power to administer their own funds. Thank God ! he was not in the House when that law was enacted. He would ask Hon. Gentlemen who supported this law how they would like to be placed in a similar position with regard to their own property.-- ( Hear, hear.) How would they like to be obliged o go to a Government authority, and be in doubt as to how they would be received—whether with kindness or otherwise ? ' He (Mr. W.l said the poor had a right to the protection of the law, though the two aristocratic parties said the poor should be deprived of that protection. Was that Conservatism? Was that the way to maintain the institu. tions of the country? Was that the way to uphold the mo narchy and render more secure the property of the country?— (Hear, hear.) He said such was an unwise course—that it was pregnant with danger, and could not be persevered in with impunity. He declared, if it was resolved to abide by that law, that in his opinion the face of the country would he stained with blood. He was intimate with the feeling of the poor on the subject, and he knew their sentiments, and that they considered it an impious law—an Anti-Christian law— ( Hear)—and had its origin in selfishness—the vilest feeling of the human mind. The Right Hon. Baronet said the Commis sioners had relaxed several rules *w ith regard to out-door reli e f ; but may not the local guardians of the poor find many other rules which may be relaxed, if they had the power of doing it? Why should the discretionary power be taken away from those who lived in the locality of the poor?—(Hear, hear.) He was, therefore, against the continuance of the ct, though at the same time of such importance did he consider the interests of the poor, and so wound up were those interests with the welfare of the nation, that he thought a Court of Appeal ought to be established for the benefit of the poor. He considered that a Court of Appeal ought to be established, and a man of character appointed its Judge, and, having done this, that a poor man's Advocate ought to be appointed. The Queen had her Advocate, and her Attorney and Solicitor-General, and he did not see why the poor should not also have their Advocates. —(Hear, hear.) He hoped the Right Hon. the Home Secre tary would consider the subject. The poor at present were under no law but that of the Commissioners, and he would show they were unfit to be entrusted with that law. In page 29 of their Report for December, they say, " They consider the receipt of public relief as the due of the poor man." But surely if a law had been passed which entitled the poor to re lief, the Commissioners had no right to use such language. Could men using such language be fit to execute the powers entrusted to them?—(Hear, hear.) They must have misunderstood the feeling of the House on the matter. He now came to the subject of medical relief, and h found that to the old times such relief was administerod to the poor in his own parish. His neighbours, who knew his worth and wit - nessed his deserts, administered to the unfortunate without ap plying tot the Commissioners—(Cheers)—and if they wished for the happy days of Old England again, theywould resort to the old mode of administering medical relief. ( The Hon. Gen tleman here read a letter from a gentleman regarding the Baseworth Union, stating that the medical practitioner of that union had to attend two districts, consisting of twelve different parishes, and including a population of 12,410 persons, and that in visiting his districts he had to pass through a parish of 3,000 persons, which had a medical gentleman of the highest respectability.) Was it a fit state of things that the medical attendant should have to go a distance of eight or nine miles in cases of inflammation and fracture, where life or death was consequent, on delay ? Could it be pretended that a suitable remedy was not to be found for such a state of things ? The Act produced the evil, and was no remedy to be found? There were abuses, it Ilvas true, in the firmer system, but they could be put an end to. The Right Hon. Baronet was aware that the subject had been frequently investigated, and in the Second Report of a Committee that inquired into the matter, Sir Astley Cooper gave evidence (and whoever knewihim must be aware of the value of his opinion) against the system of tenders, and told him (Mr. Wakley), in private, that it was nothing less than murder. He said a m.,re disastrous state of things could not exist for the poor: The Right Hon. Baronet was aware of the calculations that were made of the expense per head. The Commissioners, in their Seventh Report, partly agreed with what he (Mr. Wakley) thought would be the proper remedy. He considered that all the re• cipients of relief should be entered in a list, and so much per case paid to the medical attendant. What he took the liberty of proposing to the Government was, that the medical orders should be made out, and placed in the hands of certain persons in every parish—in the hands of the clergyman, the churchwarden, the overseer, and the relieving officer—and that a person, who was admitted by the authorities to be entitled to medical relief, on making application for an order, and receiving it, should be allowed to take it to any practitioner whom he might desire to attend him. He would thus have an opportunity of taking it to the practitioner who lived nearest to his home, and in whom he could place the most confidence, and that without the addition of a single farthing of expense to the parish. Under the present system it frequently happened that a poor person, who was afflicted with sickness, had to send some miles before he could obtain medical assistance. Such a system involved a sacrifice of human suffer ing, and tended to ao- g ravate the sufferings of the poor; and he was convinced t h at i f t he House would only attend to the evil it would not long be suffered to continue. A case had occusred last week, where a medical man, not one attached to the union, was sent for to visit the father of seven children. When he arrived he found him suffering from a disease of the lungs, with but faint hopes of recovery. On being asked why he specimen e seven miles, or Wakley)thousands. had sent fo r the medical man in question and not the union doctor, the p a ti ent rep lid th a t the former lived at a distance , of H and wt H that t heco convinced N a . i d dn cd n e r d ) h m otph o ei n s e t yh instanceatto p t h a e y a Right, a e s s s o e n r a .. I : Baronet would t a k e th e su bject into his serious considera.ion. He calculated that under his proposed alteration the expense would be from 6s. 6d. to 93. a-head. Now, with respect to , the size of the unions. It had been stated by many Ho- , nourahle Members that where the unions were small the law , worked much better than where they were large—that the poor man could make application for relief more easily, and that the circumstances of each case were better known. 'I hen, with respect to the Guardians, did Hon. Gentlemen who called themselves Reformers —for instance, did the Hon. Member fur Lambeth—approve of the mode of election? How were they elected? In the first place, there was no public meeting. There was a quelling of popular spirit at once. What was the system of voting? The poor occupant , of premises who paid the rates gave one vote, whilst the absent owner of the same property gave six. In one election one man had put in 1,600 proxies. Under the old :aw every rate payer had a vole—he was speaking of the practice under the Act of Elizabeth before the modern innovations.—(Laughter.) It was an innovation when Sturges Bourne's Act passed that House ; still the power of voting was restricted to the occu pant. This law, however, was a more scandalous innovation— , it was a greater infringement of the rights of the rate-payers. Ii had been said that the medical arrangements were not per fected. What, he would ask, had been perfected? They had an authority established for the purpose of securing uniformity, it having been stated that the ancient practice was one of ex treme diversity; but he looked in vain for uniformity. He had otters heard it stated that the first object of the Bill was to increase the independence and raise the wages of the labourer; because it was said that if they could not get good wages, the poor would fall 'back upon the workhouse. Of course the first inference from such language was, that these workhouses would be very excellent places, containing every thing to gratify the heart and soul of the poor labouring man, and if the .Commissioners had really provided good accommodation for the able 'bodied man, who did not obtain fair remunerating wages, he would have acknowledged that to be a benefit. He admitted that in a locality where wages were high, the workhouse ought to have no (harm for the labourer. By belonging to a club, ar i by saving his money, he wo u ld a v o id th e necess ity o f ever ala i plying for relief. But the case was very different in a locality where wages did not ext.( ed 6s. or 7s. a week. In such cases it was most unjust not to provide satisfactory relief. On this point he thought very grave charges might be brought against the Commissioners. He begged the House to attend for a moment to what was contained in two dietary tables in refe rence to the weekly allowance of fool. In the London Union the weekly allowance of bread was 1120 z., in the Cirencester 98tiz. ; in the Landon Uni,,n each man had 21oz. of beef or mutton ; in the Cirencester Union each man had soz. of bacon. In London the vegetables for each man were 2ilbs. ; in Cirencester bibs. of potatoes. In London soup four pints a week ; in Cirencester two pints. In London 14oz. of cheese; in Cirencester 7oz. In London 10i pints of milk porridge ; in Cirencester seven pints of gruel. In London 16oz. of suet pudding ; in Cirencester none. In London eleven pints of beer; in Cirencester not a drop. Was that uniformity ?—( Hear, hear.) If it were, give him London.—( A laugh.) Such a state of things was di-graceful to those who administered the law. What did he find ap pended to the two dietary tables? At the bottom of the Ci ' reneester table he found that infirm persons, and those above 70 years of age, were to be allowed one ounce of tea with milk, seven ounces of sugar, and three and a half ounces of meat in stead of gruel, and twice a-week the men fourteen ounces, and the women twelve ounces of pudding. Children under twelve years of age were to be dieted at discretion; the sick at the discretion of the medical man; the refractory were to be allowed sixteen tiunces of bread arid water per diem. In the London Union for supper one pint of gruel might he allowed. instead of two ounces of cheese; to the women, one-half pound of sugar ; to the s-issia arid infirm such wine as the medical man should direct. Then followed an instruction that roast beef or veal should bu allowed at Easter and on Whitsunday--one would imagine that provision was being made for an alderman —(laughter)—and roast-beef and plum-pudding on Christmas Day. In Kensington, the Guardians had been obliged to pay 56/.out of their own pockets. The Commissioners would not allow the item. It was also stated that weights and measures should be provided, and to it the paupers should have access at all times, in order to satisfy themselves that they were sup plied with the proper allowance. Now, what was the effect of such an unequal system ? The effect was to prevent the honest labourer who was really distressed from applying for relief. Why should not the House take upon itself the r;sponsi • bility of settling the dietary table ? Let them determine for themselves how the poor should be fed, and not sanction a system so full of injustices There was another point to which he begged to call the attention of the House. A practice existed which he might as well notice, for the information of the younger Members, of introducing, at the end of the session, little Bills, merely for powdering or shaving a mouse, or some thing of that kind.—( Laughter.) Some discussion arose on the subject, and if there were any objectionable point, it was struck out, and sent tip to the Lords. When it returned from the Lords, that very thing had been restored, and it passed in its original shape. Now, there was a Bill of this kind passed as the end of the Session of 1835 ; it did not receive the Royal Assent until the 9th of September. It was a Bill au thorising the Commissioners to sell parish property. He re collected perfectly well that he understood it to relate to parish workhouses, and to the ground on which they stood. What had been done under that Bill? Why, all the small tene ments belonging to parishes, as well as the workhouses, had been brought under the operation of the hammer. It appeared to be the intention of the Commissioners that the poor should have no place of dwelling except the workhouse, and these tenements were to be razed from the grown I. The transfers of property, ac cording to their own acknowledgment, already amount to 3,900. He thought it would turn out that a very large portion of the property sold would be found to be of the latter description. He believed that a vast amount of property consisting of tene ments, belonged to the poor. He would not say that there was any trust—any written trust—but he had no doubt that custom had created a trust, and that the property belonged to the poor. Now, what had the Commissioners said on the subject in their Report of 1839? Why, that a large amount of property, consisting for the most part of small cottages and tenements, had been dis posed of, the greater part of which had been represented as being dilapidated and ruinous. It appeared to him to be the object of the Commissioners, that parishes should have the property to be called parish property, that there should be no tenements belonging to the parish, because, if there was, the poor would make application to dwell in them, they being anxious that all the paupers should be sent to the workhouse. Supposing these tenements had been retained, and not sacri ficed, under the present law it appeared to him that they might have been appropriated to useful purposes. They were trying by their law to force the labourer into the practice of virtue—toe Bill was, in fact, a measure of coercion against the poor. Now, he would ask, did they not think that they might, without inconvenience to themselves, bring another principle in' o operation ? Did they not think that there was ansither mode than coercion to improve the human mind ? —( Hear, hear.) He would have Hon. Members weigh the subject well, because he thought a little reflection would in duce them to adopt another line of policy.—( Hear, hear.) He was of opinion that much of the profligacy and vice of the people was owing to no rewards being given for good conduct. —( Hear, hear.) Would it be costly for the parishes to ape propriate those tenements that had been sold to deserving men in their old age ? Would it not be more eratifying to see them so placed there than to send them to gaols miles distant? —( Hear, hear.) He was convinced, if they were to hold out rewards to the labourer, they.would soon see a new race of men in the different parishes of the country. He regretted that the Executive Government had determined to adhere to the principles of the existing law, principles which, he would venture to say, were obnoxious to the best feelings of human nature, and dangerous to the institutions of the country. In his opinion there was no portion of the law that deserved commen dation, and if Hon. Members would only visit the cottages of the poor instead of sitting at Boards of Guardians, in a very shot period they would enter that House with widely-different views with respect to the Poor-laws—( Hear, hear.) He was satis fied that Hon. Members were not aware of what was passing in the minds of the labourers with regard to this odious statute. He apologised to the House for having detained it so long. He had thrown out statements which he trusted the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester would take into his set ious consideration, as he was convinced the feelings of the poor were growing more violent every day on the subject of the Poore laws. When he stated that he did not speak as a visionary, but from what he had actually seen, no Administration would stand in this country who supported the Poor-laws, be cause the millions would not endure it.—(Hear, hear.) Look ing at the whole subject, he believed the difficulties connected with them would be overcome if the House would go back and legislate upon the just principles of the statute of Eliza beth. They ought to approach the subject in a kindly and Christian spirit, and ought not to be governed by a dogmatic spirit.—( Hear, hear, hear.) The 'law had been intro duced by utilitarians, who, he had no doubt, would, if allowed to grind the bones of the poor, and make them manure if they thought it would enrich the land of the country.— (Cries of " No, no.") Let them legislate in a proper spirit, and he would venture to say that the greatest good would he effected. Mr. WARD would make no apology for addressing the House after the extraordinary speech that had been addressed to the House by the Hon. Member who had just sat down. He was not one of those who was disposed to sit quietly under the imputation of giving a vote from selfish motives, neither was he disposed to abandon a measure which he thought a good one, merely because the Hun. Me m b er h a d c h osen to state that it originated in wickedness and fraud ; still less was he inclined to adoptthe principles laid down by the Hon. Member, who was as audacious in his statements as he was cowai dly in his 'political acts.—( Hear, hear.) The speech of the Hon. Member surprised him the more, because upon the former oc casion he told the House that he had arrived at the conclusion that the measure was one of the deepest importance, and ought to be discussed with calmness—(Hear, hear)—and yet he had come down that night and accused those who tuppor. ed the measure of doing so from selfish motives. He had als s told them that they were prepared to grind the bones of the poor if they thought that would enrich the land. Now what, he would ask, were the accusations against the Bill which the Hon. Member had substantiated? What was the first ground of attack ? Why, the Hon. Member had told them, in the first place, that the law was for the purpose of taking from the rate payers the managem,nt of their funds. It was for no such pur pose; it was to restore the true principles of the noble Act of Elizabeth.---( Hear.) Had the Hon. Member never heard under the old law of men and women dragging carts and violating every human law, and indulging themselves in every species of idleness, without a single motive to goad.conduct ? The Hon. Member then said that the law put the poor out of the pale of con , titutional rights. It did no such thing; but it established a direct responsibility from the Poor-law Commissioners to the Government, and from the Government to that House—there was not a single violation of the law that could not, under its provisions, be immediately brought before that House. The Bill was admitted to be the best Bill that had passed since the time of the Reform Bill, and he believed that its provisions had been productive of great good in the country. One of the guardians said, if the boards of guardians had more power, all the evils of the old system would instantly fol low. He said they would have a Mr. Wakley at every boird, and they would soon have the union-house burned over their heads. It was within his own knowledge, that in some parishes the new law had acted most beneficially upon the habits, and feelings, and situation of the working classes. Then as to medical relief, he felt bound to believe the Hon. Member had not read the Bill, for the 11 clause provided for every case of sudden emergency that could possibly happen. Then as to the dietary tables of the union. He would not defend the tables of the London Unions. He wished they could afford to give their poor beer and plum-pusldings, but so long as . the lab ourer could not afford to feed himself upon such diet, it was impos sible that they should do so. It would be the worst principle that could be laid down, that the rate-payers should maintain the paupers in the workhouses in a greater deg ree o f comfort, and in a superior situation, than that of the labourer. He had heard with much pleasure the manly statement made by the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Deparment. It did him much honour, and he had gone as far as a person in his situation could. He highly approved of the course pro posed to be pursued by the Government, an d wou l d give them tiis cordial support. Considering the manner in which the Right Hon. Baronet had spoken out, and the manner in which he had been attacked, he would have considered himself as un worthy of his seat in that House had he not come forward and taken his share of the odium attempted to be thrown upon the supporters of the law. Then with respect to what had fallen from the Hon. Member for Knaresborough, he did not like to say much, for the Hon. Gentleman was but a young Member, but he would say that he ad m i re d an d respected a man who , backed his opinions by his votes, and did not meanly skulk out of the House when th e quest i on was about to be tested by a division. He would only say, further, that he disbelieved the t all the humanity was confined to one elass, and the Honourable Member would find as much distress 'and misery among the underpaid agricultural labourers of Bucks and Wilts as a men s, any of the manufacturing districts in the country. He trusted when the measure was brought forward in the next Session of Parliament, both for the dignity of the House and the welfare of the poor, the whole question would meet with that calm de liberation and good -temper that was due to one of such im mense magnitude and importance. Mr. S. WORTLEY was most anxious t o a pp roac h that important subject with th e u t most ca l mnness, f or a c l ear an d calm examination into the whole question was absolutely ne cessary. The instruction which was moved last night, he thought, opened up a great principle, and his opinion was that it was more, for the dignity of the House, as well as for the benefit of the question, that it should not be discussed by piecemeal but as a aihole. But the instruction moved now, that no more unions should be formed, at least until they knew what the new system was to be, was in his opinion one that could not in any way impede the proceedings of the Coin missioners, and to that he saw no objection, and if pressed to a I division, he would have vo' ed for it had it stood alone. But to that part of the instruction which went to forbid the Com missioners interfering to prevent out-door relief throughout the winter, that would be an interference with the law which he could not approve of, nor could he vote for it. He had heard with much pleasure the speech of the Secretary for the Honie.Department ; it proved to him that he would watch over the working of the law in a spirit of humanity—( Hear, hear) — and it was evident that he would give way to the fully ex pressed wishes of the country that the law should be amelio rated. He thought it was necessary in order that he should not be misrepresented on either side, to state very shortly what his opi nions on that important subject were. He had at all times scrupu lously abstained from party topics when discussing that subject. The Hon. Member for Halifax last night talked of the war cry made of the Poor-laws during the late election, but he would ask, was there not another was-cry of "No Corn-laws," and " Cheap Bread ?" He believed the war-cry of "No Corn laws " and " Untaxed food'' was made by parties to support a Government which had proposed a tax of Bs. on corn, and which had brought forward measures, after having done nothing for five yeas, which were calculated to produce the most bane ful effects upon the trade and commerce of the country.— ( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Liskeard had last night, in a speech which he meant to be facetious, charged him ( Mr. S. Wortley) with having out of doors denounced the Poor laws, and when he had come into the House, sitting down quietly, without offering any objections to the measure, lest he should embarrass the present Government. He trusted he might be allowed to state that he had never said anything rut of that 1-louse which he was not ready to maintain in his place in Par liament. He had not denounced the Three Devil 'Kings of So merset-house--he had said nothing of bastiles, but he had pointed out certain defects in the law, which he concluded should be altered, and which he would use his best efforts to have amended.—( Hear, hear.) He could not say less upon the matter, and he hoped the House would pardon him fur hav ing said so much. He would now say a word with regard to the power of the Commissioners, and without going the length of finding fault with the constitution of the board, he must be allowed to say, that, notwithsundirig the control exercised over it by the Secretary of State, the power entrusted to the Commissioners was too extensive and almost unconstitutional. It was a power which should not be entrusted to them one mo ment longer than could be avoided, and nothing would give him greater gratification than to see them recurring to that great principle of local self-government which was so intimately bound up with the Constitution of the country.—(Hear, hear. ) That principle had been recognised in various States on the Continent, and America, and no one could deny its importance and value.—( Loud cheers.) Under these circumstances he did not think they were bound to confer these unconstitutional powers upon the Corn missionsrs one moment longer than was necessary. One word now with regard to the manner in which the law was administered by these gentlemen ; and one of the great ob jections that struck him was the great extent of the unions.— ( Loud cheers.) He would take the case of the parish of Marylebone, which Lord Althorp, in that House, had sad was'of such - an extent that it would be quite absurd to form it into a union with any other parishes.—( Hear, hear:) The Lord Chancellor, in the House of Lords, had also observed, that unless the Commissioners were deranged, they would never think of forming these large and populous parishes into unions. Hon. Members knew that at the present moment they were forming unions in the North; of England of vast extent. There was Manchester, which in the last Report of the Commissioners it was stated, was about to be formed into a union. It contained a population of 140,000, and one would suppose that it was so large as to be almost unmanage able if not divided. Instead of doing that, however, they had added eleven townships, containing a imputation of '22,000, to that of Manchester —(Loud cheers. ) He thought that in taking such a step they were entirely mistaking the spirit and intent of the Act of Parliament. The next point he should refer to was the workhouse system, and he would merely repeat what he had stated in his address, namely, that he did not think the workhouse should be made an ingredient in relief in all cases, but only in cases where persons were unwilling to work, and who were thrown upon the charity of the public. He must say, that when the suuject was first discussed in that House, he understood that it was not intended that,the Actahould be compulsatorily introduced in every part of the country.—(Hear, hear.) Lord Abhorp had said that it would nut be a past of the duty of the Commis sioners to include all the parishes of a county in unions—they should have the power of forming unions where they deemed it proper, but there was nothing in the Act which made the formation of unions imperative.—( Hear, hear.) Now, in the part of the country with which he was connected, there was no single class of the population which desired the introduction of the hill ; and, he thought, under such circumstances, they were entitled to exemption. The only argument he had heard in favour of the introduction of the measure was uniformity, but although that might be a good plea in some cases, he thought it extremely injudicious to effect so great a change, and one so repulsive to the great bulk of a population, upon such a pretence.—(Hear, hear.) There was another subject on which he wished to offer a few remarks. He meant the bastardy clause. If they looked to the argument of the Commission of Inquiry, on which was founded that part of the law, they would see it was wholly de void of meaning. The Commission stated that the bastardy cases were a great source of hardship ; but that the object of the law was not to punish but to prevent bastardy. Now, that sounded a very plausible sentence ; but it they considered it, they would find that when this Commission said the law was not to punish, but to prevent that crime, it was saying what had in fact no meaning at all. The argument of the Commissioners on this head fell to the ground, and was no support whatever to the provisions which they recom mended to be introduced into the Bill. His conviction was, that the operation of that clause—not, perhaps, in the agri cultural districts with which he was not acquainted, and could not, therefore, speak of them—but in the manufacturing dis tricts the operation of that clause was in the highest degree pernicious. It was, in fact, considered to be a free charter for the crime, which had greatly increased in consequence of that clause. When the Legislature were dealing with that part of the subject, it was but fair that they should consider the dif ference that existed between the states of society in the manufacturing and agricultural districts. In the latter, the young female was, in .some degree, fortified against temptation, by reason of the secluded part of the coun try in which she resided. In the manufacturing districts, she was thrown upon her own, conduct at a very early age. Those were a few of the principal points on which he wished to make known his opinions. In the course they were likely to adopt respecting this Bill, he thought they ought, as had been well expressed by an Hon. Member, take as their guide anxiety and tenderness for the poor. As to the accusation of some Hon. Gentlemen respecting himself and others, of their taking up that question to serve ant occasional purpose, it was an imputa • tion that nothing they had done could justify. Mr. I'ORKE rose amidst cries of " Question, question," " Divide, divide." He said he rose not for the purpose of answering the Hon. Member for Yorkshire. He did not mean to trespass on the House. He should wish to say, however, that, touching the speech of the Hon. Member fur Yorkshire, he had heard a portion of it to which he readily acceded. There was a second portion of it to which he would say nothing. and a third portion he had not exactly a facility of understanding. But what he (fir. Yorke) wished to call attention to was this, that since the meeting of Parliament statements had been made to the House which were either true or false. If the statements were true, they should be instantly attended to ; if false, they should be instanly exposed as such. He alluded to the statements concerning the vast distress said to exist in the country—not that sort of distress which was incidental, and he feared inevitable in every state, but that sort of distress that in a peculiar degree formed en epoch in human misery. If the statement were true, they ought to relax those laws which under happier circumstances might have a happier effect. So thinking he should give his support to that clause which gave to Guardians on the Board an opportunity of assisting the immediately pressing cases of misery. Colonel SIBTHORP begged to state, in answe to the Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Ward), that he was happy to in form him that in the very parish in which he (Colonel Sib thorp) resided, and in several other parts of the county of Lincoln, the independent labourer had such wages given him-- namely, from 12s. to Ifs. per week—that he could afford to have meat oftener than on Christmas Day. If the Hon. Gen tleman would do hint (Colonel Sibtherp), though he differed from hint in politics, the honour to visit him—( Laughter)— he would show him the truth of what he had stated. With respect to the immediate question before the House, though he gave credit to the Right Honourable Gen • tlaman the Secretary fur the Ho.s.e Department for the course he adopted since the Govern went meant to adhere to the principle of the 1611, yet he (Colonel Sibthorp) had ever opposed the Bill, and would con tinue to do so. lie was ever opposed to Commissions, and he would continue his hostility to this. The House then divided, when the numbers were— For Mr. Crass ford's motion 49 Against it Majority —62 On the re•atimission of strangers we found fir. SHARMAN CRAWFORD moving that it be an in struction to the Committee to inert a clause to the effect that the Commissioners should not have the power of disallowing out-door relief when granted by Boards of Guardians. Mr. WAKLEY, who rose amidst loud cries of " Divide," said that the Hun. Member for Sheffield had attributed words to hint which he did not use. The Hon. Member had also ' used language which might perhaps be allowed in the latitude of debate, which he was by no means desirous to restrict, but the lion. Member for Sheffield was the last person who had a right to read hire a lecture upon cowardice in not voting as boldly as he spoke—( Hear, hear)—for, at the commence ment of the Session, on the motion of the Honourable Mem ber for Rochdale, the Member for Sheffield was the first to take a cowardly flight—( Hear, hear, and great. laughter.) If the conversation which that honourable Member stated as having taken place between him and a member of the Board of Wiartitaris did actually take place—( Hear, hear, and laughter) —it was incumbent on him (Mr. Ward) to give the name of the guardian —( A laugh.) The Hon. Member reported the guardian to have expressed the wish of the board to be that they should have no responsibility, but should have the Com missioners to fall hack upon. What a valiant crew !—(Great laughter.) For his own part he was willing to leave the mat ter as it was.—( Hear, hear.) But he would say, that if the House wished the guardian' to do their duty, it would make them responsible in penalties for the discharge of their duties to the poor.—( Hear.) Mr. WARD had not intended to use the words " political cowardice" in an offensive or unparliamentary sense, and if he was supposed to have done so, he could only express his deep regret.—( Hear, hear.) He did not think he should be jus tified in giving the name of the guardian with whom he had had the conversation alluded to by the Hon. Member opposite. After a few words from fir. DARBY, the House divided, when the numbers were— For Mr. Crawford's m0ti0n....... Against it ............................................... 146 114 Majority.... The Bill then went through Committee. On the motion that the Bill be reported, putportl, Mi. FIEL DEN, who was inaudible, a question, in an swer to which, Clerk. the Exchequer Bills Bill, e S o ir n J I . ,r G id R ay A . HAM sa id that he wou l d move the third read ing On the motion of Sir G. Cl• Funded Exchequer Bills Bill, were severally read a firstan h d t time.el4 The House then adjourned at Half-past Eleven o'Clock. H OOD , EsQ.—The October Numb er o f E D ITED BY THOMAS C OLBU RN'S NEW MONT HLY MAGAZI NE. — E contains the following interes , ing articl es : Thomas Hood, , •, Colbarn's New M onthl y Magazine and Runioria, edited b y —M e moir of the late Theodore Hook, Esq., with a s t r iki ng likeness —A fete-a- e e with the New Editor—A Sk e t c h o ff R by Thomas H ood, Es q .—Grad uates and Under- Graduatestt e i te The Proctor's Note- ook, by the auth or o f No. I.—Phineas Quiddy ; or , Sheer erp o.a or, in s. In dustry, by fotin Poole, Esq., author of " Paul Pry." Chapter VII. Sheer Industry prospers. A Digression for the Benefit o f Younger Sons. very Confi,'ential Communication. Chapter VIII. Ingenuousness versus Cunning. Chapter IX. A Touching Incident. Our Hero's disinterested Concern for a " Maiden all Forlorn." A Magnificent Proposal Rejected. Chapter X. The Reading of the Will. A Job's Comforter— Fathers and Sons, Chapter XX., by Theodore Hook, Esq.— A Tale of a Trumpet, by Thomas Hood, Esq. (concluded) — A Visit to Gerbe, by the Ilon and Rev. Charles Bathurst— The Country Town, by Mrs. Gore—A Reminiscence of an Irish Squire—Foreign Sporting, by Nimrod—Memuirs of Ma dame Laffarge, written by Herself —Charles Chesterfield, the Youth of Genius, by Mrs. Trollope—The Suicide's Burial. MORNING- SUN THE CORN LAWS AN]) COMMERCIAL REFORM. St. LUKE'S. of St. Luke was held on Monday evening in the chapel of tof A public meeting of the inhabitant householders of the parihsb workhouse, City-road, to take into consideration the propriety t ., pi esenting a memorial to her Majesty, praying that het-Mak s i t t will take measures to continue the deliberations of Pailiamen without intermission, until the laws which regulate the trade in corn shall be so settled as to secure to the supply of food at the cheapest rate. The requisition was sig . et: by a great number of the most respectable and infloentiali n n% Litants of the parish. The room was densely crowded, an". great number, we were informed, went away unable toeft, admittance. Mr. t hurel.vvarden Jay was unanimously' ean to the Chair ; when 1110 Mr. WALKER read the reply that had been reeeived, ~. Mr. Wakley in answer to an invitation to be present it tr, meeting, in which he stated his ability to be present-Wer. people a plentiful depend on the proceedings of the House. He expressed, b w i _ .: ever, his sincere hopts that the efforts of Reformers wettlnli 11 speedily successful in establishing in this country, not e 117 free trade in corn, but a wholly untaxed food for the ro, Mr. Walker, in moving the first resolution, said that theT portance of the question they were met todiscuss, was indica ted .lo by this greatness of the assemblage he saw around him: 11 ,.. en further indicated by the number of petitions which had:e,, presented to the Legislature on the subject. The numb eret ' l 5 u natures to those petitions during the year 18.11,, --„ 1,t;00,000, being an increase of more than halt a mill ion the tures, when compared with the number of petitions sgatstltbst Corn-law in 1815, the year it was enacted; that.shtM- ~- 4 the people had become feelingly alive to the evil resh ro , from the measure.—( Cheers.) The resolution he h ad to Poi pose was to the following effect:—" Tbas this meetipg4l,ioo with feelings of apprehension and alarm the recent kleclara',o of the present Government, that no material:alleviation 9fure', distresses of the country can be effected by the LCgthers• and that it is their intention to adjourn all further' d e tion tions for several months." A few months, was long t '; s ibel with a starving family to wait for relief.—( Hear, hear) (1,1 had no tax N upon bread previous to the year 177 °4tros was then first imposed by a selfish aristocracy for. Tt l i •''' re' purposes. The tenor of the speeches of the 31erribers etjg sent Ministry at the hustings at the recent electiensM,... , want of practical sympathy with the miseries of the r' , .. rio 0 (Hear, hear.) Would they tolerate such a Ministry e;-„ in . of " No.") They would unite reason and effort t0e,F. 11. ...• great national movement, and make known the nationii . O: 4 4 - of (Loud cheers,) They would endeavour to make tbe ' P' f i 0, Commons a counterpart of the national will, and if it e r the Corn-law would soon be abolished.—(Cheers.) ' te a to ALEXANDER ROBERT SHAW, Esq., had been reqtteS--,Gte second the resolution. He, and every man, had a great 1 .4 0 rest in the question of the Corn-laws, and he would -POLO by reference to his baker's bill he now paid 30/. pe r get for bread. If the tax on bread were . taken off he wel*.Uhh o at least for ninety per cent. les., and that would Oa,' , e - duct to save 12/. or 14/. a year, which he might apply 'NM wed tion of his children, or in any other way that,he , Vg - 'sr desirable.—(Cheers.) The distress in the countrYiliPtere palling. Commerce was languishing, and mantifacturfs.i the standing still. What was the cause ? Sir R. Peel said : t,_ l l e s tg ek Corn-laws were not the cause. He ascribed it to Joi nt ': i 1/1 Banks, over-trading, and machinery. That it could IA ) t eat from Joint-Stock Banks was evident . from the ftet {Tb of late years they had not transacted' near so u ° ae• i business as before. Without machinery they c o . 01 0 $ have supplied the foreign .market. Dlachinery Her.) blessing to the country when fully employed• --( ti ise t o Ile had been speaking of their enemies, he would nen t i i ilel, , their friends. One of their Representatives, Air• ' l 3O l had said that au Bs. duty would not conduce to the hethei• the people—( Loud cries of " He does not say so," and-argued yes," followed by great confusion)—and therefore he . - 1 1„ 0 ---' that he (Mr. Wakley) was in favour of the presen t s " - ; o ulii (Great confusion.) He trusted that he (Mr. have an opportunity of denying this statemeet, if he e 0 lO; (Great confusion, and cries of " Give it him," " ll''' . I .' o lo quest on him," and great laughter.) He cordially,sef co. the resolution. It was of no rise to petition the House ° I no ef. mons. They had no confidence in the House of C ur°- Wakley I ode constituted Great cheering ) e ifor w Mr. WEST, a venerable old gentleman, here came -er i tbs and requested to say a few words in corroboration °gpli, previous speaker, as to the comparative cheapness 9 4, 0 tbe i sions and co.nfort of the agricultural labourer previc uls ar enactment of the Corn-law.—(The speaker's g reat 00 . ' 0 1 venerable demeanor commanded great respect, and-) 50P loudly cheered.) He was a farmer's son at 13eecles , II s , $ folk. When he was a boy the very finest wheat :old at cheap coomb, or 28s. a quarter. Every necessary of life wa s t psi in proportion. As fine pork as ever was seen was SOW a tot; 3d. to aid. per lb. Butter, a pint of 23 ounces, at 6ci•li s 0 good fat geese, at 2s. 4d. a pair ; and a couple of good f t less r id 10d. Every labourer then kept a keg of nice beer --t he then no duty on malt—(Hear)—he had a pig in the st3 .6 e ilisi possessed other comforts not to be seen now ; for in trav tops through the same part of the country now, there was ° obis cottager in ten who had a pig in his stye or a keg a beer low house.—( Hear, hear.) He was a collector of rents in al 1 00 lily in tlu.t district. A great number of the tenants ha ° et tb , out of employment for some months', and he could not beol rent. He saw so much of the misery of the poor that his olb° bled for them.—(Cheers.) He hoped Mr. Wakley lv i .„° b erfs called to account, for he saw that he was ratting. —( ' and roars of laughter, with cries of " Where is he r) ' fa ir to A CHARTIST here stepped forward 'and said, it wa s utatell condemn Mr. Wakley before he was heard. He bel iev to be an honest man.—(Cries of " Question.") . ' i ,j o o The resolution was then put and carried amidst trein c r.: cheering, about half a dozen Chartists only opposing it. is i fi . the Mr. PaLuseit moved the next resolution—" That ; cor opinion of this meeting, the Legislature has the powe r " s liiis terially alleviating e the distresses of the countr, bY.vePeoittS the preeent Corn-laws, and lowering high pryotective on all articles of general consumption." Mr. STAFFORD ALLEN seconded the motion. I AiCII Several gentlemen spoke in support of the .motion.._,,, was carried (with two dissentients) amidst great cheer'steeth Mr. HALL moved the adoption of a memorial to th Ilse praying her Majesty not to prorogue Parliament un' TT, Corn-laws were taken into consideration. ',AA Mr. DE LA RUE seconded the adoption of the melti—„Giree a s n u d .oe se x co f ri o d r ed pr t e h s a e t rn t a h t e ion m . eni T or h i i a s l be p It was then put and carried unanimously, and neat ;Ice . 01 unanimously. eon Ras meeting of the District Anti-Corn-law Assoeia,4oper announced for that day week at the Hope Taveret m oi a de street, to take measures to commence a more strenuo us proposition ned wastothoe : termined opposition to the Corn-laws than heretofore. SOMERS—TOWN. .tivici •031 " A meeting of the inhabitant s o f S omers -town and 1 oge e took place on Monday night at the Beehive Taver n : l , to•w o street, for the purpose of taking measures with a vie ~ Maje g i, adoption of the necessary steps for memorialising h er a tten d on the distresses of the country. A very considerable sseh. ante, principally consisting of the middle and workiltiol. was present, and after several able speeches, a me read and act:opted, and the meeting separated.t° KENWN. ao' r A public meeting of the inhabit ISH—TO ants of Kentish- tog ) fo 0 , the vicinity has been convened at the A s semblY 3 r ere to-morrow. The general address to the Queen is dally ing a great number of signatures. HULME TOWN'S MEETING In complian ce w ith a requ i s i t i on , s i gne d by o o vel i m respectable rate —payers i n th e t owns hi p , th e o verseers 5 in v, a public meeting o f th e i n h a bit ants , w hi c h was be l oollt ill large room of the Giobe Inn, George-street, Several 1, evening last. The room w a s crow d e d t o exce ss. : s elef A s lotions were passed, and a m em o r i a l t o h e r Alaiesi.l elr and transmitted to Mark Philips, Esq., p ., f or the P.,. of presentation. BURY. f etiri po i A public meeting was convened of the township % je ep,: to the authorities, on Wednesday last, to petitiOn the ;led rp To to prorogue Parliament until an inquiry has been inst . ' the causes of the present distress. J. Walker, Esq . ' Chair. The first resolution, declaratory of th e o bject of the 1 % -e was moved by the Rev. F. Howarth, and s econq d t oy"; Woodcock, solicitor, and, on the motion of 20r. J. itr p u c orcOlie conded by Mr. Fletcher, surgeon, a petition,, a lso in % re d l o p with the object of the meeting, was adopted, and or' vvi edet:,,,r for signature at various places in the town, and to be for t' ¢ to Frilay to the Member for the borough, for presenlat' °- Alajesty. FALMOUTH. reqe ctsPv In compliance with a requ i s iti on numerous ly and as vio l th be signed by the inhabitants of Falmouth and - t i n g S. Blight, Esq., the Mayor, convened a public lue e of 50 held on Friday evening, "to consider the propril it i tioning both Houses of Parliament not to s eP ar : t ri 10 4 1: 0 address the Queen not to prorogue Parliament , u 0309 has teen instituted into the causes of the distress Pr e orig ios t p This requisition was signed by 83 names, and t h A e n oreo i ,ill of it had prepated the resolutions, petitions, and haSoto submit to the meeting. It seems, however, fol n is ed,S . :, of issued yesterday afternoon, that some persons cut er ' fir eso,„" o l4 apprehensions as to the expediency of a public e l r n h S P - t , sympathy in favour of the suffering classes, les t ; % c i t e e i joie operate prejudicially to the interests of Falmoul h : n n g on , ment of the Packet station, and the Mayor, a ct apprehensions, postponed the meeting. THE POTTERIES. . a bucl' pad Near 300 of the friends of Ref orm me t a t the P pfter iir , sembl)-room, on Monday evening, the 20th 13t laws, for eloquent lecture on the present injurious Cor"„ re parE"..tir P Hargreaves moved that a petition be immediately .. nt PPr r e, signature, praying her M a jesty to eontinuelier Pres`ediateiii, ment until suitable measures b e devised for the lief of the distresses of the country, which was secon ..;; S. Prince, jun., and received unanimously. tb° S' CORN-LAWS AND THE IRON Tn it' The follow l e tt er is from Sir J. J. Guest, Bart., on e. , o c greatest iron masters in Wales : core' vitt Sir—With respect to the action of the present . o ialt h i. upon the iron trade, there can be no doubt of their I A !j j e effect. A Very large portion of the iron manufacturesilitlo country is exported to the United States of America, tie d present very distressed state of the trade is mainif, ca r or the diminished export to that country, not only of t" A e terial, but of the articles of hardware and cutlery and Re 0 of depression would have been very much obviated have taken from the Unit e d S tates the corn and butt-0104'd' they have much to spar e , i n return for our iron and 7-0160" I should think that the iron trade of this district (°' 0 0, 4- de gan and Monmouth), employs at least 50,00 P ers r ef ‘ Pj ar gives subsistenc e t o 100 ,000 in addition to that n urnbe o t r ? ra ives. Their wages range from 12s. per week ( ibr d forT e o6, ers), to 18s., an d to 2.55. for collier s and miners, er,..10.00 sons employed in the processes of iron making from 11 3 10 per week. Boys and women proportionately lessi be distr. ter think tha: the amount paid in the iron trade of .101.15 falls little short of one-and-a-half million to two • tt eti c ling per annum. " 1 am sorry to say that at this moment we havo c a or P o r g oo ifi r f example of the fallacy of the argument of of ne igh?, of high wages, and the reverse. wages hoo have, within the last three months, been redur(2B9;si. cent., whilst flour has advanced from 4s. 6d.,Y e G tO 6s. 6d. JOl l, -` . of the ,ed Ott " Dowlais, Aug. 14, 1841." 'OO- e t 401 taken it. Edinburgl)li, some NB URGH. It is matter of some surprise that no moveraf n Itl ll9 ' ii O 4' the Town Council, to t o Parliament till it has inquired into the existing. (Ji s " f ir o_, e eixnutnitahleisevhereyr vieaideistatyblneart:oribii: country. We can hardly believe that this arises fro ri ~.t n 0 Chartists Edinburgh is as much called on to spe a" ..tc r,P it was during the llefoirn Bid agitatior. Its clia''''' 0 . , 0 , stake. Scottish Pilot. ate se° i• A O h ' 00° d t On Tuesday evening a meeting of the United g,egation, Lothian-road, took place. Petitions t9ebtQfilrei,A's-01 of Parliament, for the immediate and total repeal ° i t hi lie"" Corn-laws, were agreed to. •.t the same tilr-c , •• ' the congregation agreed to address her .111,jesty& ,: tale AB e it, - de A requisition is in the course of ltl/EP; signature, reg oo r4 r Lord Provost to calla public meeting, for the PIT morialising the Queen, &c. a ~H re ev th th, an CI je< pr of NV bl SE