The Sun. — London, England, 1842-06-28 00:00:00

terms as the former one, requiring Mr. Walter's attend ance; but on the meeting of the Committee on the follow- , ing day, they received a second letter from Mr. Walter, still declining; to attend, and stating that he had no other answe;• to give than that which was communicated in his former letter. This letter was read in the Committee at their meeting on the 25th inst., and they accordingly re solved that the two letters should be reported to the House, that the House might take such steps thereon as to it might seem fitting. Mr. ROEBUCK then moved that Mr. Walter be called to the bar to-morrow. Mr. WALLACE, as we understood, seconded the mo tion.—Agreed to. Mr. BLACKSTONE would suggest to the Hon. and Learned Member that his motion should be that Mr. Walter should be called to the bar forthwith, as he be lieved he was in attendant?. CASE OF MR. ST. GEORGE. Mr. SHELL gave notice that on going into Committee of Supply he should move for the papers in Mr. St. George's case. SYRIA. Pr. BOW RING deferred the question of which he had given notice, with respect to Syria, to a future day. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. 1,-,rd J. RUBSELL gave notice of his intention, next session, to -move for leave to bring in a Bill to alter the law with respect to Municipal Corporations. BRIBERY BILL. Mr. M....MILNES gave notice of his intention, in Committee on the Bribery No. 2 Bill, to move the omis sion of the clause which disfranchised a voter for life •- who had •• taken a bribe, and to substitute in its place a clause disfranchising the voter for ten years. MR. ROEBUCK'S COMMITTEE—RIGHT OF MEMBERS TO BE PRESENT. Mr. COCHRANE rose and said, on presenting him self at the door of the room of the Committee, of which the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath was Chairman, he was informed that, though a Member of the House, he could not be admitted ; he begged to ask whether the Committee were justified in issuing that order, and whe ther it was not a breach of the privileges of that House ? Mr. ROEBUCK said the Hon. Member might have saved himself some trouble, if he had asked whether such an order had been issued or not. No person attending on that Committee had received any such instructions ; it was a misc;nception on the part of the person to whom the Hon. Member applied. Mr. COCHRANE said, on applying for admission, he was told that no person was allowed to enter unless he was a member of the Commit er. He certainly aided, that if he (Mr. Clchrane) would send in his name, he might be admitted. He did not do that, as he did not want to ask any personal favour of the Hon. and Learned Member. Mr.- ROEBUCK said, in order to set himself right, he might state that one Hon. Member had come into the Committee that very day, asking if Members of the • House were to be admitted. He was informed that the Committee was at that moment under deliberation, and that the Committee had come to the unanimous conclusion that it was for the interest of the inquiry that it should be conducted, if possible, with only the witness under examination present. That resolution was read to the Hon. Member when he applied for ad mission. _ _ _ _ Major BERESFORD said he had sent in a special mesa; e, requesting to know if he might be present at the inquiry ; the Committee deliberated on the subject, and be was told that he could not be present. —(Hear, hear.) He then stated that he had applied for admittance as a Member of Parliament, but chiefly as a person interested in the inquiry. About twenty mi nutes afterwards the Committee sent for him again, and he was then told that it was the unanimous con clusion of the Committee that the person under examination thoutd alone be present. He entered into an argument to the efibct that he claimed admittance chiefly a 5 a matter of right, as a per son accused, who had a right to hear the evidence adduced against him. This Was the right of the greatest critninal, even of one who might be pronounced a felon On the next day.—(Hear, hear.) He claimed to be pre sent on the ground that evidence might be adduced whieh he might be enabled to refute, while, if he was absent, it was brought against him in the dark, and his character might be calumniated behind his back, without the power of reinstating it ;: he might be stabbed behind his back by anonymous . enemies.— (Hear, hear.) Ire was bohnd to state that the manner of the Honourable Member and of the CoMMittee was kind and courteous in a great degree, but they decidedly stated the principle by which persons were excluded. If . he insisted on his right, as a Member of Parliament, he was told he might be present. He (Major Beresford) then stated that having laid his reasons •belbre that Committee, and having been refused as a principle, he would not avail himself of his right as a Member, as if he did so he considered he should be entering the room under false pretences—(Cheers)--- and under those circumstances he should decline enter ing the room. At the same time he felt bound to state, as far as his own examination went, that although it was most stringent and searching, yet it had been conducted in a most gentlemanlike manner. Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE thought the House would agree with him in opinion that some explanation was necessary, as from what had occurred there had been great room for misconception. Mr. YORKE could confirm the statement of the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath. It was not the intention of the Committee to conduct the inquiry as though a charge had been made against any individual ; and the Com mittee had come to the determination unanimously that, •out of delicacy to all the parties concerned, it would be hest that the inquiry should be conducted with closed door. The application of the Hon. Member for admission had been met precisely in the manner in which the Hon. Member had stated, and the Hon. Member having been refused lulmitt.ance as a party concerned; but having had admit tance granted to horn as a Member of the House, said that he considered it useless to assert his right as a Member of the House, and retired. The question of refusing ad mittance to a Member of the House had never evenbeen raised before the Committee. Mr. ROEBUCK moved that the documents which he bud presented should be printed for the use of Members 4only.—Agreed to. AMERICAN SLAVES IN CANADA. .On the motion for the reading of the Order of the Da .) • being put. M r ; HA WES wished to ask the Secretary of the c o l on ios, if it was true that on the 17th January last, the authorities of the United States of America had de manded ot' the authorities of Upper Canada that they should deli ver up a person of colour, named Nelson Haggett, as a fugitive from justice, it being well understood that a fugitive from justice meant uothing more than a runaway slave. No charge was made against the man except • that he was a fugitive from justice. The demand was acceded to, and Nelson Haggett was taken t.) Arkansas, and lodged in gaol. He (Mr. Hawes) wished to know, whether this statement was correct, and what was the policy intended to be pursued by her Majesty's Govern ment in similar cases ? Lord. STANLEY said the Hon. Gentleman was not c -irrect in his statement. It was perfectly true that an ap t •dieation bad been made to the Canadian authorities to da L ;ver up the individual in question as a fugitive from jo.ltice. Ile was charged generally with highway ro bb er y., There was an act of the Province of Upper Canada, authorising the Governor to deliver up to the ,American authorities fugitives from justice, charged - Nith certain specified crimes, on being furnished with the warrant for the committal of such parson, and also on being furnished with a copy of the depositions, provided it should appear from those depositions that the person so de m:tided had been guilty of what would have been an fierce against the law of Canada. On the first appli ceation made for the delivery of this man Haggett, these documents were wanting, and the Governor refused to deliver him up. A second application was made, accom panied by the proper documents, and from the de positions it appeared that the man had actually committed a robbery on a person not his master, and he was accordingly delivered up and imprisoned in Arkansas. 'Vie question as to the propriety of delivering him up. Iwa been submitted by the Governor to the Executive . CouNil, and, by their advice, the man had been delivered up. POOR-LAWS. Mr. GILL begged to remind the Right Honourable Gentleman, dal` Secretary of State for the Home Department, that a deputation from Plymouth on the subject of the Poor-laws, had requested an inter view with him, which ho (Sir James Graham) had declined to receive. lie (Mr. Gill) had understood that since that the Right Hon. Baronet had received deputa tions from Bristol and Canterbury on the subject of the Poor-law Amendment Act. He wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet if this statement was correct, and if so, on what grounds he had refused to, see the depu tation from Plymouth ? Sir J. GRAHAM said that it was perfectly true that he had received the deputations from Bristol and Canter bury. It appeared that a misconception existed in the . minds of parties living in those places as to the operation of the law on t he local Acts. He had received those ,deputations for the purpose of removing that Toisconception. With respect to the Plymouth Board 01' Guardians, he had some time before received a• -memorial from those gentlemen, setting forth their views of the Poo r-law Amendment Act, so that no mis apprehension could exist in that case. One part of the memorial of the Plymouth Guardians, related to the relief given by them to the inhabitants of the Channel Islands, and on tlisA point he had referred them to the Poor-law Corn inissiowss as being more likely to aftbrd them the proper explanation. He must exercise some discretion with regard to receiving deputations from the Boards of Guardians, and he could assure the Hon. Gentleman that it was the necessities of the public set vice alone which had prevented Lim from receiving the Plymouth depu lation, towards which he had not meant the slightest tlisrespEct. IRISH STAMP ACT. Tir• JOIIN O'CONNELL asked the Right Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he :n -tended to introduce the Irish Stamp Act ? 'lllO CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER st.id that on tits first vacant day he would introduce the mea sure. POOR-LAWS. Captain YECHELL asked the Right Hon. Baronet, the Secretirry of State for the Home Department, if he had declined to raceive a deputation from Brighton on the subject ofthe Poor-laws ? Sir JAMES GRAOAM said he did not know exactly what took place as to We deputation to which the Hon. Gentleman referred. He (Sir J. Graham) had had the honour of seeing the Hon. .and Gallant Member at the head of a deputation on the subject of the Gilbert Unions, which rendered him rather cautious in future as to such interviews.—(Loud laughter.) Captain PECHELL wished to know if the Right Hon. Baronet..had declined the interview with the deputation f r °o3 the Brigiliva Board of Guardians Sir JAMES GRAHAM said-he would refer to what took place, and give an answer to-morrow. Hisbelief was that lie did decline the interview. THE CASE OF NELSON lIAGGETT. Mr. lIAWES said that, with reference to the case of Nelson Haggett, respecting whom 'he had addressed the Noble Lord, he wished to know. if the Noble Lord had any objection to lay the correspondence on the subject be fore the House, together with a copy of the Colonial Act upon which the surrender of Nelson Haggett took place ? Lord STANLEY said he did not apprehend that there could be any objection. CUSTOMS ACT—THE TARIFF. Mr. LABOUCHERE wished to know whether the Right Hon. Baronet could state to the House when the Tariff Bill and the Report of the Customs Acts would be brought up. Sir H. PEEL said he should very much like to bring them in at once, but he could not say when, owing to the Poor-law Bill. It was of importance that the Bill should be sent to the House of Lords. The House generallyssat till an advanced period of the night, and he thought that full attention could be given at that time ; and he thought it would be better to proceed with the consideration of the subject after twelve o'clock than at any other time. Con sidering the state of the public business, he hoped the lion. Member (Mr. Brotherton) would forbear from his usual custom, and throw , no difficulty.in the way. of the proceedings. After a few words from Mr. BROTHERTON, which did not reach us, • Mr. MILNER GIBSON submitted to the Right Hon. Baronet, whether it would not be the better course to take the Customs Bill first, as he would thus ensure the Tariff passing without delay. Besides, it was most dis agreeable for Hon. Members, when discussing the Poor law Bill, to be told that by giving a dispassionate and full discussion to that Bill, they were impeding the progress of another Bill. Their arguments were thus in a manner kept in duresse—under a sort of pressure. He would, therefore, ask, whether it was not desirable to take the Customs Bill first. He did not make this suggestion from hostility to the New Poor-law. He was by no means opposed to that measure ; at the same time, he thought it ' right to allow every facility for a full and dispassionate discussion of it. Sir R. PEEL said that when he had spoken of the arrangement on Friday night, he was under an engage ment to the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) to bring on the Bribery Bill to-morrow in preference to any other business. He had understood from the Noble Lord that they should go on with the Bribery Bill to-morrow pro forma, and take the discussion at some future day—either on Friday or Monday next. Under those cir cumstances, he would propose, whatever might be the progress of the Poor-law Bill, that they should begin with the completed Tariff to-morrow, and then go on with the Poor-law Bill afterwards. If there was no objection to this course, they would begin with the Tariff to-morrow at half-past four o'clock. After a few words from Air. T. DUNCOMBE and Mr. LABOUCHERE, the conversation dropped. PRESENCE OF PARTIES BEFORE THE COM- PROMISE COMMITTEE. that speech had ever been delivered, for he did not believe that the aristocracy could remain in possession of their estates, and the people remain destitute and without bread. It was alleged that the present law was identical with that of Elizabeth ; he contended that it was not, as _ . tho poor man had not the same appeal, if he were refused relief, as he had under the old law. Then he applied to the churchwardens and overseers for relief, and, it refused, appealed to a, Magistrate, who gave an order for relie.4 which the officers were bound to obey. But now he was told' to appear before the Board of Guardians on the following Wednesday or Friday, and . having stated his case was ordered to withdraw. Both the public and the press were excluded from the Board, and the poor man was afterwards told that his case had been decided against him. Let them look at the diffe rent position of the poor in this country under the two laws. Unde,the one the poor man had a ready means of obtaining relief. If there was a refusal in the first in stance he had a means of referring immediately to a dis interested authority ; but under the other the poor man must in the first instance apply to the relieving officer ; he must, in the second place, have often to travel many miles before he could make his destitution known.. The parties appealed to were rate-payers, and might, there fore, be interested in the decision they might come to, but against that decision there was no appeal. Ile could not consider that a just system, or one calculated to make the millions of this - country contented wih the con duct of that House. They denied the poor the be nefit of the law, but they gave them a Commission. Nothing was more gratifying to him than to see pro vision made for the education of the children of the poor. Why did he say this ? Because he believed the edu cation of the working classes would very soon over throw the, present state of things.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Why should he deny that such were his opinions ? The course taken with respect to the poor was calculated to engender nothing but strife. He ad mitted that the alterations 41 the present Bill with regard to the right of voting were good, as well as the education of children, but there . was much in the measure he felt bound 'to condemn. In stead of legislating for the poor as they would for their own estates, they delegated an authority to three Commissioners, hitherto unknown to the Constitution of England. To them was delegated the power of making rules, which were to have all the force of Acts made by the three branches of the Constitution. Such an autho- rity was never conferred since the time of Henry VIII., when, " to the eternal disgrace of Parliament, to use the v. ords of Blackstone, his proclamations were made to have the force of law. And it was to the eternal disgrace of the Parliament of 1834, that they delegated a similar authority to the Commissioners of Somerset House—the power of making such rules and regulations as they might think proper. Ile believed that the original promoters of the New Poor-law Bill never foresaw the extent of the powers they were about to confer on the Poor-law Commissioners, or that they would have been placed so completely above the law. The plea held out in support of the law was, that it would improve the con dition of the poor, and raise the wages of labour. Now, had it so raised the wages oflabour?—(An Hon. Member here said it had raised wages.) He (Mr. W.) respectfully denied - it. it had not raised wages, as was proved by the present state of the manufacturing districts ; and further. he believed that the law never could raise wages. The object of the measure was to drive the people from ever seeking relief in the workhouses. And he a ould ask the gentlemen of England whether such a system was likely to give contentment to the working classes ? He was persuaded that it was not ; and he deeply regretted that such a law had ever received the sanction of the Legislature.. Before he sat down he should wish to say a few words as to the orders which the Commissioners had issued respecting medical relief. —(Oh; No.) Well, if it were disagreeable to go into:that part of the subject, he would postpone it for the present —(Hear, ;hear) —and content himself with moving the postponement of clause 1. .. Sir JAMES GRAHAM had listened to the lion. Gentleman with great attention, as he assays did, and with some amusement ; but he had not been able to com prehend what were the Hon. Gentleman's opinions on some topics which were of primary importance.—(Hear, hear.) ., Ile agreed with the. Hon. Member in the just eulogy which he passed upon the English people ; but he coJd not reconcile the Honourable Gentleman's de claration of his admiration of the institutions of this country, with the approbation which he ex pressed of the education clauses of the Bill. which he admired (he said) most of all, because they would have a tendency to overthrow the existing order of things. How could the lion. Member reconcile that avowal with his other declaration of contentment with a mixed government, and a love of the monarchy?— (Hear.) The lion. Gentleman had spoken of the " tru culent supporters of the present Government." But did he not include in that accusation the Right Hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Hon. Member for Lambeth„ and many Radicals of the of the first water. The Hon. Gentleman said he would . throw every impediment in the way of the measure, if he saw a disposition on the part of the Government to carry only the first five clauses, and so continue the Commission without any modification . for six years. Now he could assure the Hon. Gentleman and the House that it was the sincere wish of the Government to carry if possible the whole Bill unimpaired—(Hear, hear)—and he could further assure them that with the siu-4.1e exception of the clause interfering with the Gil bert unions, every one of the clauses in this Bill was a mitigation of the former Act.—(Hear, hear, hear.) But what would VS the state of the poor, if the Hon. Gentle man succeeded in putting an end to the Commission Throughout the winter there would be no appeal against the stringent order against out-door relief. That was at present as much the law of the land, though only a general order of the Commission, as it' passed by Parlia ment ; the forty days were passed which were necessary to give the Secretary of State a rescinding power, and the only dispensing power now was with the Queen in Council. With regard to what had been said about the speech of Lord Brougham, he had not adopted the whole of that speech, he had selected particu'ar passages ; he believed that Lord Brougham had committed the usual error of political economists, and had pushed some prin ciples too far, indeed to an unsafe extent. He (Sir J. Graham) did not object to compulsory relief to the poor, in the shape of a rate ; he contended for all the great principles of the Act of Elizabeth. He said more, he would contend that by right, the able-bodied man was, if destitute, entitled to relief ; but then his claim was con ditional, and the test was a task of work. The aged, the sick, and the infirm, were entitled to unconditional relief, but to the able-bodied man relief was conditional. That principle was recognized by the Act of Elizabeth. The Hon. Member was wrong in saying, that by the Act of Elizabeth an appeal was given to the person refused relief. An appeal to the Magistrates was given. but it wa-A to the rate-payer who might believe that a rate was improperly levied. The appeal for relief to the Magistrate was first given by a statute of William HI, more than 140 years after the date of Elizabeth. The workhouse test, which was supposed to be first introduced by the Act of 1834, was equally to be found on the statute book of the 9th Geo. 1., where it stood as plainly as any declaration of the Legislature could stand. The 9th of Geo. I. continued the law of the land till 1796, which was a period of great distress, when some relaxa— tion took place, and a provision was made, no longer confining the administration of relief to the inmates of the workhouse. The Poor-law Act of 1832 repealed ' the Act of 1796, but not the Act of George - the First, and if they now succeeded in putting an end to the Commission, the 9th of George the First, which forbad out-door relief, would still stand on the statute book, and the prohibition of out-door relief would remain the statute law of the land. He therefore con tended that in the present state of the law it was most ' expedient they should begin with that which was the key:stone of the Poor-law, namely, whether the adminis tration of the law in workhouses should come under the revision and control of some central authority. The Hon. Gentleman had said that the strongest feelings prevailed in large communities against the operation of this measure. The Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government had, however, stated to the House a remarkable fact, that only 100 petitions had been presented, signed by 13,000 persons, against the Bill. lie (Sir J. Graham) would draw the attention of the House to a communication which he had had on this matter. A short time since a vestry meeting of St. George's Southwark was called to consider the Poor law Bill now before the House. That parish con tained 40,000 -inhabitants, and yet how many were present on this exciting topic? Two churchwardens, two overseers, one vestry-clerk, one. sexton, one parish clerk, two poor-rate collectors. One beadle, two reporters, Mr. Boxer, and another gentleman, who came there to speak, and seven other persons (including the writer of the communication), making in all 21 persons, and that in a parish having a population of 40,000 ! A few pa rishioners dropped in afterwards ; but Mr. Boxer ad dressed the assembly on the enormities o 1 the present 'system, and concluded by moving the adoption of a red tion against it to both Houses of Parliament—the one to the House of Lords to be entrusted to Earl Stanhope. and that to the House of Commons to the Members for the borough. The writer moved as an amendment that as the population of the parish amounted to 40,000, and there were present less than 30, persons, it appeared evi dent that. the parishioners were satisfied to leave the measure in the hands of the Legislature. Thirteen hands were held up for the original motion, and that number forming the majority; the motion was carried. On one of the overseers asking out of what fund the ex pense of engrossing the petition, &e. would be defrayed, it was resolved that it should lcle taken from the church rate, because the auditor of the poor -rate would not pass such a charge upon the poor -rate.—(Hear, hear.) The lion, Gentleman said the wages of labour had not been raised in consequence of the Poor-law. He per ceived that declaration excited the zeal of the Hon. Member for Montrose, who very justly said that the law was one which would promote the interests of the work ing classes. The continuance of the Commission was the key-stone of the entire measure, and he had no hesi tation in stating, that if the first five clauses were struck out, the Bill would be rendered less than useless, and would throw the measure - for the relief of the poor into a mass of confusion, which would be an extreme cruelty to the labouring classes. He would not make any pro fessions, but having given deep consideration to the de plorable condition of the poor, he would say that he was never more convinced of the necessity . of passing this measure on account of the distress which prevailed.— (Hear, hear.) He was desirous that they should pro ceed in the order of the clauses in the Bill ; because if the' first one were passed, the others were only modi fications of the existing law, to which, if the House would fairly and dispassionately apply itself, he was sa flailed that it would come to the conviction that they would tend to promote the relief of the poor, and to mi tigate the distress of the working classes, who ought now more particularly to be the objects of their care. Mr. E. BULLER said that he would not have risen, were it not that - certain points had not been alluded to during the debtite on this question. It was usual to look upon the statute of the 43d of Elizabeth, as the first upon Mr. ESCOTT wished to know from the Hon. Member for Bath, whether in the future proceedings before the Committee of which he was Chairman, all persons, whether Members of that House or not, would have a right of being present during the examination of wit nesses who made charges against them ? Mr. ROEBUCK said that the mode of proceeding adopted by the Committee was that if anything fell from a witness touching another party, communication was made .to him of what had been said, and he was asked if he wished to make any statement in explana tion. That was considered by the Committee to be the best mode of conducting a very invidious inquiry. And the House, having entrusted them with such in quiry, he hoped that it would also trust to their dis cretion us to the presence of parties. BRIBERY BILL. Lord J. RUSSELL gave notice that he would move the Bribery Bill, pro forma, to-morrow. Mr. SHEIL gave notice that he would abandon the instruction to the Committee upon the Bribery Bill, of which he had given notice. TRIAL OF ELECTION PETITIONS. In answer to a question from Lord MAIION, Sir R. PEEL said that he would move on Thursday, the 14th of July, for leave to bring in a Bill to continue the Bill for the regulation of the trial of election petitions. POOR-LAW AMENDMENT BILL. Sir JAMES GRAHAM moved the resumption of the debate on the Poor-law Amendment Bill. 1 Mr. FIELDEN then rose to oppose the committal of the Bill, but, in consequence of the noise oc casioued by Members leaving the House, and the low tone in which the Hon. Member spoke, it was almost impossible to catch a single sentence. We, how ever, understood him to say, - that he gave the measure his determined opposition, because he was convinced the people had become disgusted with the Bill. He entered into various details, showing the harsh working of the workhouse test, and other provisions of the Poor-law Act. The Right Hon. Baronet had said, that if the country was generally opposed to the Poor-law Bill, there would have been more than a few petitions pre sented against it ; that there had been petitions with signatures only amounting to 25,000 presented against the measure. Now he (Mi:lFielden) must say that there had been more than a few petitions presented against the Bill. The Hon. Gentleman here entered into a detail of the number of petitions, with their signa tures, which were presented to the Ilouse this session against the Poor-law Bill, but he spoke in such a low tone as to be quite inaudible in the gallery. He did not think the Right Hon. Baronet had fairly re presented what was the object of the statute of Elizabeth. but if that law were so similar to the present one, it should be recollected its provisions were carried out without the aid of a Commission. He did not see any reason why the great powers confided to the Commis sioners should be entrusted to them. Why should they delegate that control to them which ought not to be pos sessed by any but those who had immediate superintend ence over them ? The Hon. Member concluded by sup porting the amendment. Mr. LAWSON rose amid loud cries of " Divide," and was scarcely heard from the impatience of the House for the division. He said he had felt some surprise that the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath should have called the opposition to the Poor-law mere vulgar prejudice and declamation.—(Divide, divide.) He contended that local guardians were the best authorities to have the disposal of local funds for the management of the poor. The House then divided, and the numbers were— For the amendment Against it 156 Majority -119 The House then went into Committee, Mr GREENE,iII the Chair. On clause 1 being proposed, Mr. WAKLEY said his object in rising was to obtain a postponement of this clause until they had determined what the provisions of the Bill should be ; and he could not conceive a more rational proposition, or one which ought more readily to receive the sanction of the House. This clause proposed the continuation of the Commission till 1847, and the end of the then next Session of Parlia ment. Many of the Members of that House had ob jected to the powers already exercised. by the Commis sioners as being incompatible with the Constitution, dangerous to their institutions, and pregnant with mis chief to the poor. But the Bill which he held in his hand proposed to confer on them still greater powers, and he conceived nothing more preposterous than to de terminine the continuing the Commission for six years, without previously determining what those powers were whirls they had to execute. lie-was net desirous of offering any factious opposition to the Bill, but he was desirous of giving it a strenuous, determined, and un flinching opposition, consistently with the obligations he owed to society, and with his duty as a Member of that House. He, therefore, thought the Government was acting most unreasonably by the House, unjustly by the poor, and most irrationally by the public, in making a proposition of this kind. There wire thirty-seven no tices of amendments on the Paper, many of them involv ing considerations of the highest character, and striking at the root of those powers whicbt the Commissioners now exercised, and which, if carped, would leave it a matter of indifference whether the Commission NV ere continued or not. But if those! amendments were rejected, he saw that nothing could be more disastrous than that the power of an unnecessary Commission should be continued for six years longer. After, the determination the House had just come to, his hopes were slight indeed that it would adopt his propo • sition ; but notwithstanding that, he felt compelled to bring it forward, because he thought the House was doing that which would injure itself. It was treating the people with hostility, and setting at defiance all their I wishes. lie believed the object of the measure was to perptnate the Poor-law Commission. They never could uphold the interests of the aristocracy so effec tually as when they upheld the rights of the masses. Property could not be secured while the millions were discontented, and while they were under the influence of feelings bordering on a desire for revenge. The law did not permit the poor to exercise their talents and in dustry in the best manner ; when they became destitute they were immured in gaol on account of their poverty, and yet it was expected that they should be content, and should respect the aristocracy. The Go vernment was periling every institution of the kingdom by the course it was pursuing towards the poor. The lion. and Learned Member for Bath was a Radical Reformer, a supporter of Universal Suffrage, and yet, he supported this law when he well knew that this very law was the first that would be repealed by a Universal Suf . - frageyarliament. He (Mr. Wakley) was astonished at such Inconsistency. He would ask the Right Hon. Baronet if it was his intention to get the House to consent to • the continuance of the Commission, and to four or five other clauses, and then to abandon the rest of the Bill? He protested against such a proceeding. If they con sented to the continuance of the Commission, it was their duty to go fully into the subject, if they sat there until the 31st of Dece m b er . I t woul d be a breach of the tacit understanding whi c h h a d b een come to the other evening. ye objected to the destruction of the Gilbert Unions. The old system had been destroyed because it was too bad, and the Gilbert Unions were to be destroyed because they were too good. Th e p r i nc i p l e o f t h e A ct of Elizabeth wasa beneficial one, n o t w ith s t an di ng i t h a d been designated in a speech in 1834, delivered in another place, as an accursed one. In that s . peech hospitals, infirm aries, dispensaries, charitable institutions of all sor t s , h a d been denounced as injurious to society. A s th e Ri g h t Hon. Gentleman ha d, to a certain extent, ad o pt e d one o f t oughtt is an c e es, the principles of that s p e e ch, he wished t o as k w h et h er he adopted the remainder ? Did he consider hospitals, dispensaries, and charitable institutions verriraen a s o speak arid was it the object of the Government to get rid of a Poor-law altogether ? The G 9 out manfully and boldly on the subject. They o ug h t to speak out, and declare openly what their opinions were, and let the people openly enter into strife with them. If they would remain in possession of their estates, an d give the poor relief in time of necessity , let themmendtheari , stand what poeition tbey occupied. lie regretted THE SUN,, LONDON, TUESDAY MORNING, TUNE 28, 1842. she snhject, but it was founded on a previous s t a t u tepat ted in the same reign—the l4th of Elizabeth, chap. 5; which was passed for the pnuishment of vagabonds and sturdy beggars, who were to be previously whipped till they were bloody, and to have the gristle of the right ear bored with a red- hot iron, an inch round. It was upon that statute that the 43d of Elizabeth was founded. L they were to refuse all out-door relief, and to compel every one applying for relief to reside in the wrolthouse, such a course of proceeding would be perfectly consistent with the provisions of the 43d Elizabeth. The statute authorising the giving of out-door relief was not passed until the 3d of William and Mary, and that statute gave no appeal to the Justices. In the - 7th of George I. was passed the stringent statute, refusing out-door ralief; that was modified by the 22d George 111, and still further by the 55th Geo. 111., which gave the Magistrates the power of ordering out-door relief to the extent of 3s. per week for each person, and which had done all the mischief that the Poor-law Amendment Act was required to re medy. He agreed in all that had been said in praise of the working classes ; but if ever there was a law calcu lated to ruin their character, and to break down their habits of industry, it was the Act of the 55th Geo, 111. If he were asked if every one had an inherent and inde feasable right to be maintained on the spot where lie was born, he (Mr. E. Buller) would reply, that he knew of no grounds on which such a right _could be sustained ; but if he were asked if the poor of this country had a , right to be relieved, he would say yes ; because, by law, they had been deprived of a natural right. Every poor person had a natural right to ask alms of his neighbour ; of that right the law had deprived him, and, therefore, the law was bound to afford him relief. All the ancient sta- totes bore out this view of the subject ; they all con. tained enactments for the suppression of mendicancy coupled with a provision for the relief of the poor ; bu that claim was quite satisfied by the tender of residence and relief in the workhouse, and any other mode of re lief was not a matter of right but of indulgence. He should be very glad to see that indulgence extended to the old, the infirm, and the sick, but to the able-bodied some test must be applied ; and, on the whole, he thought the workhouse test better than the labour test. Mr. BENETT considered that the poor had an inde feasible right to relief, and that right rested on the same authority as the common law of the land—namely, im memorial usage. No man denied the right of the poor man to relief. The 43d of Elizabeth did not give the poor man relief, unless he worked for it. But they also could give him money relief, if it were necessary, out of doors. He opposed this Bill, because he thought it was necessary to take the power of relieving the poor out of the hands of the Board of Guardians. The Commissioners in London only acted upon certain gene ral rules, and he had seen those rules inflict great hard ship on the poor. When the poor matt, with a large family, got into the workhouSe, how was it possible foi him to get out again ? Here was a case of hardship. llc had seen such cases himself. With respect to raising wages by this law, it was absurd ; wages were regulated according to the price of food. He wanted to see those who were willing to work have some means to fall back upon.—(Hear, hear.) He was anxious that the law should be in some way fixed, that the guardians should have the power of Judging of the amount of relief to be afforded.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The guar dians, in certain districts, were certainly severe; but that was no rule. He was in doubt as to whether there should be a Commission in London or not, but certainly he had no hesitation in saying it ought not te be maintained for five years ; for if maintained, it ought to be only for a short time. With this feeling, but with an anxious desire to do his duty to the country, he would not give his assent to the Commission being continued for five years. Mr. RICE said the old Poor-law was grossly abused, and the only - remedy was the new Poor-law. With respect to the continuance of the Commission it was a question as to whether they should revert back to the abuses of the old system, or have itt remedy continued. He believed that nothing had mon benefited the poor than the Central Board of Control He hoped the time was now come when they should consider the details of this measure, and he should be glad in removing any provisions which were considered harsh. When they came to the third clause he should ask the Right Hon. Baronet whether it would have the same effect as a similar clause they agreed to in the last Parliament. Mr. STUART WORTLEY said that in the course of this debate, they had heard more discursive matter than the subject warranted. The main question was whether the Commission should be" continued or not. Withoutany disposition to be captious or troublesome to the Government, he conceived that nothing could be more reasonable than the proposition of the Hon. Mem ber for Finsbury. He thought the question of the con tinuance of the Commission for five years ought to be postponed. The Right Hon. Baronet said that it went to limit the powers of the Commission. He (Mr. S. Wortley) did not think se. His objection was to the as sertion of the principle that it was necessary to continue this Commission for the term of five years. With all his dissatisfaction at the principle of legislation upon this subject, he could not help expressing his satisfaction at the altered tone of those who supported the provisions of this Bill.—(Hear, hear, head.) He did not mean to say that they had changed their opinions, but they had found that there was a strong public feeling on the subject, and therefore they had moderated their tone. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by stating that he would vote for the continuance of the Commission for the whole period. Capt. PECHELL thought he had no other course to pursue but to aid in putting, an end to the Commission altogether, and he should therefore vote for the motion of the lion. Mumber forFinsbury. If the Local Acts in towns and the Gilbert Unions were to be continue 1, he might be inclined to allow the Commission to continue for an other year, but no longer. After a few words from Sir J. GRAHAM, . Mr. CARI)WELL opposed the motion of the Hot . Member for Finsbury. Mr. DARBY sate that there was nothing he objected to more than continuing the Bill from year to year. The wisest plan, in his opinion, was, that the Government should bring forward a measure of a permanent character which would give the House an opportunity of consider ing the whole question in Committee. lie thought it was comparatively unimportant whether the Commission were continued for three years or five years ; but the Commission should be continued for some definite period, so that the entire subject might come from time to time under the revision of Parliament. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE was astonished to find that the Government had opposed the motion of his Hon. Colleague (Mr. Wakley). The proposal of his Hon. Colleague was merely that the consideration of the clause continuing the powers of the Commissioners should be postponed until the other provisions of the Act had been discussed, and until it had been ascertained what were the duties which the Commissioners would have to exercise. There was at least one member of the Cabinet .who should not oppose the motion then before the House—he - meant the Right Hon. Baronet the Pay master of the Forces (Sir C. Knatchbull), who, when a Bill similar to the present, had been introduced last year by the late Government, expressed his dissent from many of its main provisions. (The Hon. Gentleman here read some extracts from the speech of Sir E. Knatchbull, in proof of this statement.) It would seem, however, that the Right Hon. Baronet had since changed his opinions, for lie (Mr. Duneombe) found his name, with that of the Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, on the back of the Bill.—(A laugh.) The Right Hon. Baronet had, no doubt, the best and most conscientious reasons for the opinions which lei now entertained ; but it would still be satisfactory to the House, to the country, and to the county of Kent, to be made acquainted with the grounds upon which the Right Hon. Gentleman had altered his sentiments.—(A laugh.) Sir E. KNATCHBULL was sorry that he must dis appoint the Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Finsbury, in his expectations that he (Sir E. Knatchbull) wount vote for the amendment. The Hon. Gentleman com menced by saying that he would only occupy the House by an explanation, for the purpose of setting himself right, but he departed from that intention, for the purpose of making a personal attack upon him, very much it seemed to the Hon. Gentleman's own satisfaction, and with some amusement to the House. He (Sir E. Knatchbull) did last year move a similar amendment to the one now before the House ; but he then found the sense of the House so much against him, that he with drew the motion. He had not the same reasons now that actuated hiM oh that occasion. The present Bill was completely mitigated in all that was objectionable in the former measure ; and the Commissioners, who had (to use the mildest term) acted in a very indiscreet min tier at first, had recently taken a more judicious course ; and the powers given in this Bill were sufficiently limited.—(Hear, and a laugh.) Besides, the object of those who supported the amendment now, was to defeat the Bill altogether, and that alone would be sufficient to justify him in voting against it. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE. said, that if the first clause were altogether rejected it would nut defeat the Bill, for the law could be better carried into effect by guardians properly elected than by the Commissioners.—(Hear.) Sir E. KNATCHIIULL repeated that his proposition of lust year was made under very different circum stances, which warranted him in supporting the present' measure. Mr. P. HOWARD (who rose amidst laughter and cries of " Divide") said that the explanation of the Right s H a o ti n sf . y Ge h i i i m tlem aa an to opp theosite(Sir E. Kaatcl i bull) did no t co nsistency of the course which the Right Hon. Gentleman was taking. The Right Hon. Gentleman had voted last year against the con tinuance of the Commission, and no subsequent altera tion of the measure could remove that objection. if he (Mr. he Baronet would n t h o e t laugh and loud cries of Member for Kent.—(A t H e o twhaimitaer d course s o o f v o thet ed Right h i t a u laug h)— on " Divide.") He believed that the control ex ercised by the "Commissioaers, and their inter ference with the local managers of the poor, operated much more often in favour of the poor than against them.—(Divide, divide.) It was well renown that to the time of Henry the Eighth there were no Poor-laws, and the poor were maintained out of the Patrimony of the Church. lint when the property of the Church was seized upon the poor were deprived of that one-third which the canon law appropriated for their relief.—(Great impatience, and cries of " Divide.") The Poor-law of Elizabeth was passed to provide fur the,. poor wh o h a d been deprived of their former source of subsistence, and in their distress had become too strong ' f,,r the law. Ile had supported the present measure,. and he was satisfied that a mangled discussion of it from year to ?-ear would only serve to g ive contin ual theans of aottation to the fiteious.—(flear, hear.) Ile would only conclude by saying that he could not see any force in the argument of the Hon. Member for Brigh ton. The clause did not attack the Gilberts' Unions; when it came to the clause affecting those unions the Hon. Gentleman might state his arguments against it.—(Loud cries of " Divide.") Mr. WAKLEY replied.- After a debate of four hutirs lqe had net hestsl a single reason against has pro- ?coition. His motion was a bona fide one, made upon ?rinciple ; was the House prepared to sanction the en furanee of the Commission for five years, before they had defined the powers that were to be entrusted to it ?—(Hear.) The House might decide against him, but the country would be with him. There were forty amendments before the House, and there might be forty more ; and was it acting fairly to the country to give so long a period to the Commission, in the most perfect ignorance as to the powers that might ue bestowed on it ? Had there been a reason shown against his proposal ? Had any intimation been given that the Government intended to support a single amend :nent of which notice had been given ? All, therefore, .vho had given notice of amendments, or intended to do so, should support him.—(Hear, hear.) If they did not they would stultify themselves ; the Government could turn round on them and say that they ought not co have voted for the continuance of the Commission if they disapproved of it, and in ignorance of what its func ions ought to be. He felt confident that if the people had more power in that House, they would use it to pro cure a repeal of the Poor-law. Under these circum 'Lances he was under the necessity of troubling the House to go to a division. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the Souse divided. The numbers were— For Mr. Wakley's motion 74 Against it 206 =ll.lajority against the motion -132 The clause was then agreed to. On the second clause being read, Mr. B. WOOD rose to move an amendment. It ap leared to him that the Assistant Commissioners were ironical cheers) —but if the Right Hon. Baronet would give. the ple lge he had asked, he (Mr. Ferrand) would move for a Committee. Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, that although the Hon. Gentleman was Chairman of a Board of Guardians, he did not appear to be very conversant with the law, or he would have known that the Secretary of State possessed no power of dismissing an Assistant Poor-law Commis sioner. The Commissioners were the only parties who possessed that power. He knew nothing of Mr. Mott personally, but there could be no doubt how the Com missioners would act, if the Hon. Gentleman could prove his allegations. He (Sir James Graham) would, however state, with regard to one portion of Mr. Mott's Report, that he (Sir James Graham) had himself the original order issued by the Keightley Board of Guardians, for enforcing the payment of 2i poor-rates from a pauper. Mr. FERRAND—I do not deny that.—(Load cries of " Oh, oh." and ironical cheers.) Mr. B. WOOD suggested that it was not right to mix up these personal questions with the matters under dis cumin. Mr. WAKLEY wished to know how long the Keightley Union had been formed. He understood it had been formed for four years. Now, if these abuses had continued, and the Poor-law Commis sioner knew it, of what use were they, costing the country, tts they did, 20,0001. a year? Was the Hon. Baronet aware that such things. as had been al leged to have taken place at Keightley, had actually oc curred in this metropolis? Within the last six weeks, he had held an inquest on the body of a child, that had been in the same room with its parents five weeks after it was dead. This took place in London, in one of the unions. The father of the child had made application for a coffin, but it was said that he could not get a coffin, in consequence of circumstances which had taken place in his family previously. From other sources he suc ceeded in getting a coffin; he then applied to the guar dians to have it buried, and he was asked if there were any ornaments on the coffin, and his answer was yes ? and they replied that the clergyman would not bury without the usual fee. It could not, they said be buried as a pauper, because there were ornaments on the coffin. Ta'k of 'the Keightley union, things far more detestable and odious took place in this metropolis under his own observation. What happened after the Poor-law Bill passed. Did they not refuse the tolling of the bell, and further, did they not deny the use of a pall? These things were altogether too detestable to comment upon. With regard to that, he believed the Honourable Member was justified in his charges, and he hoped he would 'move for the Committee. Mr. R. YORKI thought that the whole circum• stances of the case ought to be investigated, and the result laid before the House. He thought it most im portant to the integrity of that discussion that those charges should be investigated, These statements were made by a Member of Parliament fairly and upon his own integrity, and therefore they ought in justice to be investigated. Colonel SIBTHORP made some observations which were inaudible in the gallery. Strangers'were then ordered to withdraw, and the Com mittee divided, when the numbers were— For the amendment 45 Against the amendment 228 Majority against the amendment —.183 Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD then suggested that the further discussion on the Bill should be adjourned. Captain PEC HELL thought that it was then so late that it would be unreasonable to continue the discussion. He should, therefore, move that the Chairman should re port progress. Mr. FERRAND wished to take that opportunity of again alluding to the discussion between himself and the Right Hon. Baronet. He again asserted that the charges of Mr. Mott were a scandalous falsehood. He believed that he should be able to prove that assertion if a Com mittee were granted him to inquire into the matter. He should, first, however, require that a pledge should be given, that Mr. Mott would be discharged from his situa tion if his statements were shown to be unfounded. Sir J. GRAHAM said that he had no objection to a Committee of Inquiry ; but he could not pledge himself as to the course which it might be thought necessary to pursue with respect to Mr. Mott. The question having then been put that the Chairman should report progress, strangers were ordered to with draw, but no division took place, the motion for report ng progress being agreed to without a division. CUSTOMS BILL. not necessary ; besides, the expense incurred by them vas very considerable, amounting to 20,0001. a-year. Mar services, he thought, might be dispensed with. There was another subject to which he would advert— the subject of auditors. He considered there was a great detect in the appointment of auditors, and in asking the House to abolish the Assistant Commissioners he wished to point out what he believed would be an improvement, namely, the appointing those Assistant Commissioners to act as auditors instead of Commissioners. Much benefit would be derived from converting the Assistant Commissioners into auditors, and to obtain that object ho would move in lines 19 and 20 that the words "Assistant Commissioners" be omitted, and that in line 21 the words "other than Assistant Commisioners" be added. Sir J. GRAHAM said he was justified in assuming, after the division, by which a large majority had decided in favour of the existence of the Commission, that the question to be urged was whether the Central Commission having been established, there should' be Assistant Commis- sioners for the purpoSe of visiting the unions. It appeare to him (Sir J. Graham) that it' they were to enter into letails of different provisions, it would be better to adhere to the subject under consideration. The Hon. Gentleman .who had just sat down, had deviated from the question, whe ther there should be Assistant'Commissioners, into one of :till more importance, if possible ---the constitution of an efficient system of auditing. He agreed with the Hon. Member, that the system of auditing, as at present con stituted, was imperfect and deficient, but he thought the Hon. Member ought to wait till they arrived at that part of the Bill which referred to the appointment of officers, when it would be open to him to make his proposal. With respect to the necessity for Assistant Commis sioners, even the Hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. S. Crawford), who had opposed the second reading of the dill, though adverse to the Central Commission, had yet proposed that there should be itinerant Commissioners. de (Sir J. Graham) hoped the inspection of the As sistant Commissioners would be more frequent ; and of this he was certain, that if the Assistant Commissioners were done away with, the Central Commission would be of no use. Colonel SIBTHORP said that it would be desirable if all Commissions were done away with, and one great :nducement with him to vote against the continuance of the Assistant Commissioners was, that the Central Com mission would be cramped in consequence. He was sur prised to .hear the Hon. Member say that the present 13111 could be made in any degree palatable to the people of this country. There was not a single line or word in the Bill, from the preamble to the last clause, of which be could approve. But the Right Hon. Baronet knew, that with the support of the party opposite, which at me time he tvould have spurned, he could carry the Bill, and therefore he persevered in his Bill. He was opposed to all Commissioners root and branch— (Laughter,—And would propose that they should all be done away with. Mr. FERItA.NI) said, that as there was a motion re specting the Assistant Poor-law Commissioners before the House, he hoped the House would allow him to allude o two Reports laid on the table of that House, bearing lirectly on the union to which he belonged, and which .were quoted by the Right Hon. Baronet in making a direct and personal attack upon himself. Be had no he sitation in saying that the Report of Mr. Mott, respect ing the Keightley Union, was malicious and false, and therefore whatever was done respecting the Assistant- Commissioners he hoped Mr. Mott would not be con tinued in that office. Was the House aware who Mr. Mott, who got up the scandalous and false report, was ? —(Question, question.) He made charges against him (Mr. Ferrand) and others connected with the Keightley Union, and he had a right to inquire who he was. He was formerly a contractor for maintaining the poor of Lambeth, whom he farmed out in different parts of the country. He stated in his evidence before the Poor-law Commissioners that he contracted at 3s. 11d. per head, and that by scouring the scales he saved half an ounce in the weight for the rate-payers, which made a difference it the (Old of the year of 300 stone. He stated "that the man before him had contracted . for 4s. Bd. a head and was ruined.' - How ruined ? By giving over-we4_ht to be sure. lie gave half an ounce too much.—(Oh, oh.) rhis was the Mr. Molt who had gone down to get up the case against the Keightley Guardians, and he had a right to inquire who this Mr. Mott was. (The Hon. Gentles man then went on to quote further passages from Mr. Niott's evidence before the Poor-law Commissioners, from which it appeared that Mr. Mott had recommended the allowance system, and relief in kind, in order that the condition of the pauper might be reduced to that of the ndependent labourer, in order to prevent the independ ent labourer degenerating into pauperism. Several parts of this evidence were.received with - loud ironical cheers.) He knew that the Report of Mr. Mott, with regard to the Keightley Union, was false, and he knew that the Report of SirJohnWalsham was false, and he should have letters proving it to-morrow. Sir J. Walsh= had been sent down to Keightley merely to get up a statement to meet him (Mr. Ferrand). He asked if it was right, when it was known that a Member of that House would make statements relating to a point under discussion that As sistant Commissioners should be sent down to get up statements to meet him in this way ? He asked the Right Hon. Baronet if he did not know that Sir John Walsham was about to proceed to the Keightley Union for the purpose of getting up these statements? One of the charges brought against the rate-payers of Bingley he believed was false; he meant the charge that, in that workhouse, persons had been placed to sleep in the same bed with a corpse. He denied the charges brought against the Magistrates by Mr. Mott, and he called upon the Right Hon. Baronet to state if he had been cogni zant of Sir John Walsham having been sent down to the Keightley Union to get up a statement in contradiction to him (Mr. Ferrand). Sir J. GRAHAM thought that he was called upon at once to meet the statement of the Hon. Gentleman, who had asked if he (Sir James Graham) was aware that Sir Walsham had been sent down to the Keightley Union. Lle (Sir J. Graham) had already stated to the House Mr. Mott's reports as to the state of the Keightly work house. The Hon. Gentleman had made a great mistake in what he had stated to the House the other evening. The Hon. Gentleman, who was Chairman of the Keightley Board of Guardians, had distinctly stated to the House that an order had been issued by the Poor-law Commis sioners, prohibiting the giving out-door relief in that union. In order that there might be no mistake about it he would remind the Committee that the Honourable Gentleman had attributed the crowded state of • the Keightley workhouse to that circumstance. .-Now he (Sir James Graham) unequivocally denied that any such prohibitory order had been issued.—(Loud cheers.) He did not wish to be personal, and he was about to make an observation which perhaps the Hon. Gentleman might not understand, but which would be very well understood by any one of the six attorneys who had made such a comfortable living out of the Keightley Union. The Hon:Gentleman had shifted the issue. The real ques . don was not what was the character of Mr. Mott, but what was the nature of the administration of relief in the Keightley Union. Mr. Mott had made a Report, and the lion. Gentleman had asserted that certain portions of that Report were positively untrue. Now, as he (Sir James Graham) could mot speak of his own personal knowledge, he had suggested, seeing these different statements, that Sir John Walsham, who was super intending the distribution of relief at 'Birmingham, should be sent to Keightley to investigate and report. He had made on a former occasion an offer to the Hon. Gentleman, from which he would not now recede, and that was, that if the llon Gentleman would move for a Committee to inquire into the manner in which relief had been administered in the Keightley Union, he (Sir J. Graham) would second the motion. In order that there might be no mistake as to the matters to be investigated, he (Sir James Graham) would recapitulate the charges, which were, that there were found in the occupation of one small bedroom three married couples ; that one woman had been confined in child-birth in a room in which there were twenty individuals ; that a miserable hovel was used as a school, and left in the management of an old pauper ; that the intermixture of sexes was permitted in the workhouse, males and females sleeping in rooms opening into the same passage, and adjoining each other ; the doors of the young women's bed-rooms opening into the bed-rooms of the young men; that the gaol and the workhouse were under the same roof, the former being in the better repair of the two ; and lastly, and on that point the Hon. Gentleman had joined issue, (,nd that charge was the gravest and most horrible charge of the whole, the master of the poor , house had told Sir John Walsham, when he had re marked on the crowded state of the house, that it was not so much crowded as it was sometimes, for that owing to the crowded state of the house he (the master of the workhouse) had sometimes been obliged to let the dead remain by the living until the burial took place. (A general thrill of horror seemed to pervade the blouse on hearing this unparalleled an nouncement.) On being questioned on the subject the ria.ster admitted that a similar occurrence had taken place at another workhouse in the neighbourhood. Now the Hon. Gentleman joined issue on that fact ; • there could be no mistake about the allegation, and if the Hon. Gentleman chose to move for a Committee of In qffiry he (Sir J. Graham) would second it.—(Cheers.) Mr. FERRAN') had denied Mr. Mott's charges, and the Right Hon Baronet had not said one word about those charges.—(Cries of" Oh, oh," and ironical cheers.) He denied Mr. Mott's charges, and if the Right Hon. Baronet would pledge himself to dismiss,Mr. Mott if his Report should turn out untrue, he (Mr. Ferrand) would move for a Committee. He had not denied what Sir John Walshain had said—(Cries of Oh ! oh ! and loud The House having resumed, the Report of the Cus. toms Bill Was brought up, and the Bill ordered to be en. grossed. BRITISH POSSESSIONS ABROAD BILL. The Report of the British Possessions Abroad Bill was received, and the Bill ordered to be engrosssd. The third reading of the Colonial Passengers Bill was postponed till Friday next. NEW SOUTH WALES BILL. The House then went into Committee on the New South Wales Bill. The different clauses were agreed to, the Chairman reported progress,•and the . House resumed. RIVERS (IRELAND) BILL. On the order of the day for the further consideration of the Report on the Rivers (Ireland) Bill being moved, Lord ELIOT, cn the suggestion of Mr. Reddington, consented to postpone it until the Bill should be in the hands of Members. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS BILT2 On the order of the day for the CommitteJ on this Bil being read, Lord EI d IOT moved that it be an instruction to the Committee that this Bill be extended to Irelan]. Agreed to. The Bill went through Committee, and several verbal amendments were made in it. The House resumed, and the Rei:ort was ordered to he brought up on Friday. STOCK IN TRADE BILL. The St3clc in Trade Bill was read a second time. The other Orders of the Day were then dispoSed of and the House adjourned at a Quarter past One O'Clock, POLICE IN TEL LibENCE. BOW-STREET. A sturdy big beggarman, named sometimes Sullivan, and sometimes Leary, well known about the neighbourhood of St. Giles's and the Rookery as a most desperate character, was charged with begging, and assaulting the officer in the execution of his duty. Police constable P 47 stated that he found the prisoner on Saturday night drunk and begging in the Strand. He pro ceeded to take him into custody, when he struck witness seve ral times violently in the face, and kicked him so severely on the legs that he had not been on duty since. Prisoner was very violent, and it required four or five policemen to take him to the station-house. Policeman F 65 knew the prisoner to have been a street beggar for several years. He went home drunk almost every night, and was well known to the police. Tyrrel, the gaoler, said that the prisoner had been at that Court a great number of times, and had been frequently con victed for fighting. Prisoner declared, so help him God, that he " never hashed no harms of nobody." Alr. HALL said it was very evident that the prisoner was an old beggar, and a very violent one. This course of things must be put a stop to. He should commit him for three months to the House of Correction. Mrs. Sullivan, alias Mrs. Leary, the loving consort of the above-mentioned gentleman, was shortly afterwards brought up in custody of police-constable F 34, charged with walking off with about 51b. of bacon from the shop of a respectable tradesman in Drury-lane. Three other pieces of bacon, weigh ing about 21b. each, were also found upon her. The case was fully proved against her, and Tyrrell stated that she was well known, and had been previously convicted for the same offence. Thompson, F 39, added that he had frequently had the prisoner in custody, and always on the charge of stealing bacon, for which article she appeared to have a most decided penchant. The prisoner said, "upon her cowl, she didn't mane to stale the bacon at all, at all. She was very partial to bacon, and sure wasn't she just going to pay for it when the gintleman cotched hold of her, and gave her into custody?" Mr. HALL was not to be gammoned by any such blarney, and the prisoner was fully committed to take her trial. A Row IN THE WORICUS AGAIN.—Our red-faced little friend, the governor of St. Giles's workhouse, whom we have been in the habit of calling Buckstone, but who did us the honour some time ago to call at our office and leave a card informing us that he is " Mr. R. Buxey, Governor of St. Giles' and Bloomsbury workhouse," made his appearance at this Court again to-day, to prefer a charge against a young man named Daniel Byrne, for riot and assault, &c., in the workhouse. It was very evident from the dignified air of pomposity about the worthy Governor, who was followed by a train of pauper gentry in pauper attire, that he considered the charge to be a very grave one, and one which would redound much to his credit. Into the witness box he marched, with the dignity which the Governor of a workhouse only can assume. "This morning," said the Governor, "I deskivered that the prisoner had been a cuttin a hole in the partition to get at the gals, which I tuk him afore the hoverseer. In consekevence o' that he sea he'll have my b y life, and then he goes and. breaks 44 panes o' glass, wally 4/. lOs." Then in an authori tative tone-..." Come here, Mayo." Up walked poor Mayo, a pauper, who swore that he saw the prisoner break two panes of glass. Police-constable F 119, was sent fur t.,the workhouse, and, on going across the yard, he heard the prisoner call out to the Governor, " Boliy, thee'st better get out o' the way, or I'll punch thy head." . Another witness heard the prisoner say he would do for the Governor, if it was twenty years to come. The prisoner, who was evidently labouring under consider able excitement, denied the charge of cutting a hole in the partition. "As for the vinders," said he, " 1 done that ; and I am sorry I didn't have my revenge on him, and I will have it too. You persecutes me toe much, Mr. Bucksey. You can get plenty witnesses to come and speak for you, but , yon won't let one come for me; and your witness 'll get somebeer too, won't he, for false swearing?" The prisoner's father said that he understood Mr. Buxey persecuted his son very much. He wanted him once to speak a falsity against some one els, in the house, and because he would not do it he had been very much persecuted ever since. Mr. HALL sentenced the prisoner to pay 4/. 10s. or be im prisoned two calendar months; also to find surety, himself in 101. and two sureties in 5/. each, to keep the peace towards Mr. Buxey for three months. As the prisoner was being removed he gently remarked to Buxey, by way of a comforter, " I'm neither hanged nor transported; but when I do come back—that's all." MARLROROUGH-STREET VAGRANCY IN HYDE-PARlC.—James Lewis, a lad about 16 years of age, clothed in rags and tatter s, scarcely sufficient to cover him with ordinary decency, was charged by William Creepin, Park- constable, No. 5, with having been found sleep ing in a hollow tree in Hyde-park, at halt-past seven o'clock on Sunday morning. The prisoner had been convicted of a similar ollence a short time ago, and his term of imprisonment only expired on Thursday last. Mr. MALTBY said the Magistrates would lend every assist ance in their power to aid the police-curhr shies in clearing those places of public resort and recreation from the very offen sive, and indeed revolting, nuisance created by their being at present the nightly haunt of idle and dissolute persons. He should therefore commit the prisoner for fourteen days, and ever afterwards it would be a month. • - UNION-HALL. William Howell was charged with threatening the life of Thomas Hines, the prOprietor of the Park Coffee-house, Wor cester-street. The defendant went into the house of the complainant armed with a gun on the preceding day, and on being observed with such a weapon, he was ordered out of the place. die, however, refused to go, and uttered a threat that he would " the complainant for his conduct to him. It was further s tated that the prisoner bad on a former occasion used threats of vi olence towards the niece of the complainant, a young female w ho acted as his barmaid; a n d that it was in consequence of her r efusal to admit him as a suitor. The prisoner said that he had no intention to shoot any.p er " son. He was held t o b a il hi mse lf in 1001. and two sureti es of 501. to keep the peace. TILE MARKETS.-(YESTERDAY .) CORN EXCHANGE. Last week's arrivals of English Grain were moderate, of Iri sh Oats good, and considerable of Foreign Wheat. The inest English Wheat obtained Is. per quarter advance, but all other qualities were a dull sale at former prices. Barley, B°' and Peas unaltered. Oats heavy in sale, and hardly tained their former prices. There was no improvemen t ''' . the home trade. ARRIVALS OF GRAIN IN LONDON DURINO LAST WE" Wheat. I Barley. 'at .. F l our, I English Irish 13,1`..4 I :t,r.20 Foreign - 1 insj , PRICES 0.14 BOARD OF WIT. Whest,Red (old) ........M• White (Old) -a. ..-8. •-•••••••.......--...-.... (01.4) -- ltedle,lL) .sos. Ms. - Tick (new) ......... :a 31 41' ...-- Fine r.... 73. COi -- Superfine Us. (4g. - lhrrow new ...... 2 1 ., ---White(lB4l) 5 s. 545. -- Fine fias 63a. Brack ... ........• Superfine .6135. 70s. Oats,Feed o. --...-Foreignfree 5•25. 72a. .... 11yr 296. 40s. - Poland 1 •• flarlvy • 2ts Us . New ........ .. • 3 " ‘15. 1. ~_ ........• Grinding •)6s. 90s. - Potatoe 6,- -,- Malting :30s. Us. '6 Malt 56a. 60s, - Scotch O. 1 8,.g4i. .-- Fine New C2s. 64s - Irish lss ...., es, Pease, Grey, New Ws. 3:25. Flout Town (per 5ack).... 0 7,' 5 4 5 . --. Maple New. %Is. :345. - Seconds ............... b." A . ........... White 345. 365. ---- N.,rth Country.... 4g ' gs ' .......- Boilers 36a .396 Bran ga SMITHFIELD. n „ The supply of Cattle and Pigs was but moderato ; ii",,, 4 1 7 , 1 g lities were more in demand, and prices firmer ; the Illiu'''; e and ordinary sorts a heavy sale. Of Sheep and Lio bs .„ r , , had a plentiful supply, the demand but middling for the'O r ' - ~ the latter a good trade, but no alteration from last trotati" ni, ' Beef, 2s. 4d. to 4s. 6d. • Mutton, 3s. 2d. to 4s. 4d.; ~ti, 3s. to 4s. Bd. ; Pork, 2s. 4d. to 4s. 6d. ; Lamb, 59, to Beasts, 2,313 ; Sheep and Lambs, 23,920; Pig' , l " - Calves, 202. TEA MARKET. t the There were many orders, and prices still look up, 1 1 small quantity en the market operated against business. Co" pany's Congou Is. 9id. per lb., cash. TALLOW MARKET. ii• Prices were sustained, but the market was dull at 4 8 °' on the spot. The accounts being HOP favourable MARKET from the plantaticns, the (laTao. has advanced to 125,0001. The market was quiet, ani` r bad a downward tendency. PROVISION MARKET. f otiper In Butter a good businen was transacted, at fully j o lt quotations. Of fine Dutch the supply was small. Bse`,Tater of sale at 465. to 50s. per cwt. Lard so ld s l ow ly ; prime " o, ford bladilered , 60s. to 625. per cwt. H ams i n go od WV . PRI OF . 'the highest !Arise of , te CE o I hBREADe .ii..ticplis Is 9d. for O il Loaf. (loud Brea may be had at 7f i. PRICES O 1 SEEDS. Per Cwt. . Pct Quarter 5 i ,6, 1 0 , Sew English Rea, Clover...6os Sos ) St. Foin ...... ...... "" ift ' a ...s ...- Old Ditto Ditto ......... — s —s —s Rye Gass s ..." 30 New Foreign Ditto.... ..—s 56s '7Ss Pacey Grass ........... --, bos 011 Ditto Ditto —5 —s —s Linseed, for fettling ...-- pri, - , New White ( fiver 54s Oils 6.sB'Ditro, I'm sowing .......... 01, Old Ditto Ditto —s s—s Ditto, for crushiog ....--' 0 '.,. •ew Trefoil —s 25s 40s1-1.. m,. . 4 0 , X' Old Ditto —s 2.0 s 34v -A Canary Ol Jr folium s —s —si Per B.ashel. to m English Carraway ......—s 43s 50s White Must,rd.... "illtols'o Foreign Ditto —s 46s 50s!Brown Ditto .. 12 , — to M Coriander —s 13s 20sXares .......... ........ 4s Co PRICE OF OIL o .s 6 Rape Oil, brown, per ton x Ditto, re fi ned .... c 1 " „ Linseed Oil " 0 1 Linseed Oil Cake at the Mill (per IOW) 1V 0 11.ai.e sake, per ton 0 PRICE OF TALLOW, SOAP, &c. per 112 1 b• x i 11 0 fown Tallow £2 ti 6'Melting 5tuff..........*" 1 1 . J Yellow Russia White 0 0 0 Graves ....... .. 0 0 Soap Ditto 0 0 0 Good Dregs ...... ......... ... PRICE OF RAW FAT, per stone of Sibs ~0 , il. Pike of Tallow (as stated by the Tallow Meltors).... ........... COAL MARKET. Ships arrived since last maraet.day, 13. 1 9 Walls End Wharncliffe. .... Walls Endßelmont ....... Walls End ...... Walls End Helton. ......... Walls End Morrison .. ... Walls End Russell's He . 9/ Walls End Stew ar t '8 ..... Walls End Ileugh Il 4 h•• . Walla End Kelloe ............ jg Walls End Brown's ...... Walls End Coundon. .... ............ Walls End Richardson Walls End South Duels. - 15 WaUs End Tees Hettnn Walls El, d lees 131‘ , the ........ ....... Hartley ....... . • M. CLAUDET'S DAGUERREOTYPE.—An ne tt° been lately tried in the Queen's Bench, brought 01 . Beard against M. Claudet, who has obtained s ° o bie° celebrity for the instantaneous manner in s e he produces exact likenesses, for the Pnrip°,l bi restraining him from using the patent obtainei se' the inventor of the process. The groun d _, l9 from tion was that Mr. Beard, having purchaseuiej tr the inventor the original patent, was en tit d h the sole profit therefrom. M. Claudet pleaded „ ob had purchased a subsequent patent, which had hereerert tamed for a process by which the likenesses w e Ito" dered more perfect. Upon this issue was join e." M. Claudet obtained a verdict. O; c e" ROTTERDAM, JUNE 23.—The Captain J. C. Host, has just arrived from London, I ll g v t - rite r an excellent sun of only twenty hours. The Marquis 0, dale and several families of distinction, were on board. .;011 1 ANTWERP, JUNE 24.--The British steal': fry Soho landed about seventy passengers and six carriag:l 7 ,o London, yesterday ; and the Rainbow, this morning , "how sengers and eight carriages, after a passage of Eise n anda half, notwithstanding a strong wind. goo, The General Steam N avigation Company' t I ship Rainbow, CaptaiH Fife arrived yesterday morni n g , Brunswick-wharf, Blackwall, from Antwerp. or , BLACKWALL FLOATING PIER.-61ituroaN te l) 0 , floating steam-boat pier was opened by the Blackwalwaoili at their ancient plying place, Blackwall-stairs, whichrthe t oes, only be a very great convenience to the inhabitants 0 gra o f and neighbourhood, but an accommodation to the I) , "''' - hoi l ' ally. The Blackwall wateriness are a very industrious 01: men, whose occupation has been superseded by eel, tV e ft tion, which they have now turned to useful accountl ,l° ) ing out a pier where there is sixteen feet water a t jet t or tides, enabling the largest steam-vessels to land im" passengers at all times. MR. O'CONNELL AT COURT.—Amongst t lt N itb h o f bers of the Commons who went up to her MaratY a t id Address of Congratulation on her escape from the a iil t r o rii Francis was Mr. O'Connell. He was remarkable an ' 0 P ar e all, from wearing on the occasion, his o ffi cial rob e ' p lek t it Mayor of Dublin. Not only did the Queen expr e° ,f tbs o li in seeing Mr. O'Connell, but actually had it intima te v oi ° ,lit had gratified her that Mr. O'Connell had appear e d ( but el in his individual capacity as Member of Parham° ; s tio" as the Representative of the Metropolitan Corp ° v Ireland.—Monitor. 11 a t V The Hon. Mrs. Charles Fox is seriously 1 1l t o pOt villa, called St. Ann's Hill, near Chertsey, and, ( I° o o advanced age and in fi rmities, her medical attend3fthe expect her to rally. Airs. Fox, who is the widow 01 ese at Hon. Charles James Fox, great uncle to the Holland, is nearly ninety years of age. 4 it i' . llo THE HORSE ATTlLA.—Colonel Anson p gs won by the Derby, 22,0001; Lord Chesterfield, 12,voc10„'0 horse Attitla , the winner, was taken by Col. AnsoviU „Jog . t ile for a doubtful c'ebt of 220/. or 1401. His first l o ro iti r 3,0001., his second 8,000/. ; so that in all he has r e f a r lucky possessor 33,000!., a profitable enough ex chi n g el' picious bad debt.—British Queen. ~r t o o e , STATE OF TRADE.—We are very 1 5 -- 1 7 1 ,.. 00 - ' l ,eer, that the trade of Paisley has become this week 10° , ic ia , e OI very considerable number of our test weavera,“ - c ha ° , turned out of employment, in consequence of w e t tha t :o l ' the season ; however, there is also a distant prosr e ot e of them may Le employed in a few weeks.-610.0 lel' o f day Post. 00 1 0 GRousr.—The reports from our Corretotro, ar t g bi t in Scotland and in the vicinity of the Yorkshire tatingvel, the most cheering character. They all concur 110 0 tV grouse will be found this season in more plenty ol bo te the case for several years past. This they e t ; 0 1 01 er favourableness of the weather during the period ° f which was neither too hot nor too wet ; either ! ) ,) ,,,,g L' a cremes generally proves fatal to two-thirds of the Y„g, at erg that process. Poults are getting strong oa the "aver)' of danger from heavy rain, by which numbers, w bea . e r i/r and weak, perish. Partridges and pheasants likevibt'sl.,.. ward, and promise more than an . average n un ' . ott er' Journal. Dr. Kay, one of the Govornment C on and Sttfoar states, that in the agricultural counties of Norfolk!, t a, o°, o / there had been, amongst a population of 100,9""oo" than sixty-three deaths Irons starvation in 0 neat' Leeds Times pa zs -- )fr ; of " 0 , ELABORATE ASTRONOMICAL CLOCI-- • „ m ot) , . t ro 9 ,, of 82, Strand, having had the distinguished " t o strutting, by commandot the Emperor of Rast a' or' mical clocks, invites a public inspection of th e m ' their departure. A (lair's Can's Hartley 2O 0 Chester Main Lea Ced Main l4 0 New Tantield Moor l3 6 Old Tan field l3 6 Original Windsor's Pontop 15 6 Ord's liedheugh l5 0 South Pontop antield Moor West Wylam Wylam Walls E d hewie.e and Co l9 6 Wails End Hilda ... 17 9 Walls End Killingworth 18 0 Walls End Newmarch l7 2 Walls End Perkins l7 3 On the 22d inst., the Blaldßy , .-..:-- Wakehui st-place, Sussex, of a s To o f n H . WSilk n Pt' R ice, On the 22d inst., the wife of the Rev. Hora ce 1, e • 9 4' 8 t 1100, On the rtthh the ee 2 2 2K 2 d d i iong i n s,ts s . t, Regiment,. t , h a e t l a D d u y b o l i f o n jf . aa t m he e s daug hter, l apd of Southhill-with-Callington, Cornwall, of a tlaug - i t o r ,let , ehurst Ye e ' ve to ( •ii , court, Highgate, of a son. n n Lea On the 24th inst., at Clapham-rise, Mrs. - we ce' daughter. oton 94° • than'. ,e, On the 24th inst., at Spencer-street, ISor On the 25th inst„ at ' Portland-place, Van de ``,eat' DI Richard Mullens of a son. of a daughter. m a dame "DP ~,c OA On the 26th inst., at Woburn-park, Serra , `" eyli eth A et o i l l f r l f ri-ebed'rt:c.sq.,l 0 ° f r , Locke King, of a daughter. 0 0 1, MARRIED. usre , ° t +B On the 23d inst., at St. George's, Hanover-sqt, a, V!ileri' Barnard, Esq., to Helen Georgina 4 must: 2.Artile,e; daughter of the late Captain G. Couse, of the B,L erg e, I , th On the 25th inst., at St. Pancras Church , d t e " , 0 ;kW cond son of William Ilogg, Esq., of 13iggies" .3 qn ettc s ( daughter of Captain Harness, R. N. On the 25th inst., at St. Ann's, t litt a 0 ° Wynn Werninck, of the Halt, Berks. EN.' }h to t' ll the late Rev J. Werninck, D.D., of Camberwerl.street• foli eldest daughter of George Huggins, Esq. , g Ed I .o Y i r, ''' f daughter of Oiia rtll e'el o . $ 0. 4 of Jan' D I ED. i 13 0 o f' f o 3 r t. ddh _eipn ila s a t tee . es ,Ea tdCahri K e nnington, sdw c i e h k u r C te h D u ,:ri3ocoirlfaig,ceokopi:afi,:::j e g ge ::: : b e- ill On the 13th of May last, at I ucia,_in the '' i iliSb' David Grant, aq., of South- lace, Finsburyity...s4.,ol On the 15th inst., at Bath, John Robert Wi I n . for pe rlf field House, Devon. of BOlntibthegeg2iel:tpienrstth.,sialitrße.ayswater, William L:e7iii,' corgt Aig : On the 22d inst., at Worthing, Sussex , _..oo °9 oiebi j of Alfred Joshua Wood, Esq., of-Gloucester,Ml2. ~fr. On the 24th inst., in Acre-lane, BrixtiMs.P._;loo ' re, Jolo On the 24th inst., at Peckham, Ann Nte l6 !,,k-syd a On the 24th inst., at Hunter-street, Bruno . d.''' ...,,. Margetts, Esq., of Wistow, Hunti n g donshire. _ ~ ige a On the 24th inst., at Reading , John 13214 " 0 .3 i s vitpo lr sip- ' Loudon : Printed and Published by , ,„_. ! 1.. 0 , No. 112, Strand, at The Suit Office 1 ; 4 it og. the County ef Middlesex, T ue sday, Ja e 11.4, dill 3 Pan of t 'r est aa,