The Sun. — London, England, 1834-07-29 00:00:00

% k -~ 11. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MANSION-HO USE. Robert Johnson, the driver of the hackney-coach No. 1,064, was summoned before Aldermen COPELAND and COWAN for the following rufilanlike conduct : A gentleman ( Mr. George Manning) stated that he went with an Italian Prince in the defendant's coach from the top of the Haymarket to the Custom-house. The Prince was going to Belgium in one of the steam-vessels which lay at that sta tion. Witness offered the coachman, who was accompanied by another person, the sum of 4s. as his fare ; but the coachman refused, and in the grossest terms, to take less than 7s. 6d. At last he reduced his demand to 6s. 6d. and to ss. 6d. ; but witness, disgusted at the behaviour of the man, would not give more than he first offered. The language used upon the occa sion was as follows :—The moment the 4s. were offered, the coachman said, " No, n 6; by you won't rob me that way, you set of French thieves." When the witness offered his address, and said that he was not going abroad, " Oh, dear," said the coachman, " I know all about that ; but you'll not go aboard ; you shall go into the water first." The coachman, not satisfied with using this language, seized the witness and pushed him against the railing, seemingly dis posed to suit the action to the word. At length, when it was seen ,that witness was resolute in his refusal, and that he held out in his band half a sovereign and 3s. 6d. in silver, the coachman took the 3s. 6d., and went away cursing and d—g. The person who accompanied the coachman, too, was not idle on the occasion. " I thought," said that worthy, " that you were gentlemen ; but you are no such thing ; you are a pack of dirty, filthy blackguards, pickpockets, and thieves." Alderman COPELAND—For God's sake, were there no offi cers present ? Mr. Manning—l saw none. It is impossible to form an opinion without being present of the horrible conduct of drivers on occasions of this kind. I saw cases there very little short of highway robberies. A French gentleman, of rather small size, was seized and held by the throat by a ruffianly coachman until he paid Bs. 6d. for a drive from Charing-cross to the Custom House ; and some ladies were plundered in a similar manner. It is a great inconvenience to me to be here, but I was determined that nothing should interfere with my attendance on an occasion so strongly affect ing the public. Mr. Alderman COPELAND—What have you to say, coach man ? Coachman—Me, Sir Upon my honour, Sir, I didn't say nothing to offend the gemman. I corned a long way with him and the tother gentleman, and he only offered me 3s. 6d. So says I, " Sir if ; you please, I hope you'll give me 4s. 6d. ?" " No," says he, " I'll see you first." " Why, you see, Sir," says I, " upon my honour, I can't take so little ;" and that's all; as happened, upon my honour. Mr. Alderman COPELAND said the case was an extremely flagrant one, and he and Mr. Alderman Cowan agreed to fine the defendant the sum of 31. and costs. The coachman pulled out several sovereigns, and paid the penalty without hesitation. He then turned off with a sneer. Mr. Alderman COPELAND said that if the fellow had sneered before the judgment had been pronounced the utmost penalty should have been inflicted. MYSTERIOUS DEATH OF A FEMALE Yesterday afternoon an inquisition, which had been adjourned from Thursday last, was held at the sign of the Black Ilorse, Kingsland-road, before Mr. Baker, Coroner, touching the death of an aged woman named Elizabeth Edhouse, who was found dead in Shepherd and Shepherdess-fields, Hoxton, at an early period on Sunday morning week last. It appeared by the evidence, that about two o'clock on the morning above specified a gentleman, named Gilbert Smith, residing at Hoxton, was passing along the fields in question, between the Bricklayers' Arms and the Blockmakers' Arms public-houses, when he observed the deceased lying on the foothpath with her attire turned up as high as her knees, and a man named Humphrey Bishop, living in Old street, who has ever since been retained in custody on sus picion of having caused the death of the deceased, stand ing by her side. On Mr. Smith closely inspecting the deceased he discovered her to be dead, and on informing Bishop he exclaimed, " Oh, I'd rather give 201. than she should be dead." By the assistance of the police she was taken to the Bricklayers' Arms, that being the nearest public-house, where she was also declared to be dead, and her body was afterwards conveyed to the workhouse in the Kingsland-road, where it underwent a post mortem examination by Mr. Baker and other medical gentlemen The lower part of her body, back and front, was covered with mud. There was also a dreadful la ceration of the extremities, from which there had evidently been a recent discharge of. blood. On Bishop being ques tioned he prevaricated greatly, and said that the deceased, who was a widow; was an old ac4uaintance, but he had not seen her before for upwards of two years. The Jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict —" That the deceased was found dead in a public thorough fare ; but how death was occasioned the Jurors could not determine." The CORONER directed that Bishop should be taken be fore the Magistrate, at Worship-street Police-office, for his discharge. IRISH ASSIZES. KING'S COUNTY—PuiLirsrowN, JULY 21. THE KING AT THE PROSECUTION OF THE REV. MR. KENNEDY, 2. THE REV. MESSRS. CROTTY. This case excited considerable interest, not only in the im mediate neighbourhood where the parties are personally known, but throughout the whole diocese where the Rev. Messrs. Crotty, and the Rev. Mr. Kennedy, who are all Roman Ca tholic priests, reside. When the case was about to be called on, the younger Mr. Crotty, who is also a Catholic priest, and assistant to the elder Mr. Crotty, and who was included in the indictment, put in an affidavit that he was not ready for his trial. Mr. Crotty's counsel said that the elder Crotty was ready for his trial, and that the other gentleman would enter into the necessary securities. This Proposal was agreed to, and a jury - was sworn. In swearing the jury, there were twelve set aside on the part of the crown—the traverser had no power to challenge. The indictment contained several counts; it charged the traverser with conspiracy, riot, and disturbance of public wor ship. He pleaded not guilty. Mr. MARTLEY addressed the jury. The present unhappy differences commenced so far back as the latter end of 1826 or beginning of 1827. At that period Mr. Crotty was convicted for a similar offence, and was bound to keep the peace for seven years: He would do him the justice to say that for that period he most religiously kept the compact he had entered into, but the moment he was released from that obligation he commenced an attack upon the chapel of Birr. Mr. Crotty had been cu rate at Birr some time previous to the year 1826. He had committed an assault for which he was to stand his trial at quarter sessions. In the mean time he was removed to Too mavara, and afterwards to Killaloe, and did not appear at the quarter sessions—his recognizances were estreated and a green wax fine levied against him. In order to collect the amount of this fine he came back to the parish of I3irr, and that as I understand, with the sanction of his bishop. Shortly after, however; a letter from his superior arrived, calling him back to his curacy at Killaloe, but he continued in the parish, in despite of these orders, and exercised his functions as a Ro man Catholic minister, and frequently celebrated mass in the parish chapel, of which Mr. Kennedy had then the care, as administrator of the parish. Soon after, Mr. Kennedy was appointed parish priest, and Crotty still continuing to assert his right to go into the chapel, his disobedience was such that he• was excommunicated by his bishop according to the forms of his church. He then took an old malt-house and converted it into a chapel, where he continued to officiate until the term of seven years was expired; he never during that period gave the slightest disturbance to Mr. Kennedy or his flock. On the 13th of last April Mr. Crotty commenced his attack; on that morning he appeared in the chapel, surrounded by his fol lowers, and were it not for the interference of the magistrates, the peace would have been broken and the most fatal conse quences might have resulted from a conflict between the two parties, and such would undoubtedly have been the case were it not for the timely interference of the authorities. Mr. Crotty's counsel here read a proposal to this effect, — That as a great number of the inhabitants of the parish of Birr had subscribed to the building of the new chapel, and that they wished to elect or choose their own minister, and as they had already chosen Mr, Crotty, they would be satisfied if he were allowed to celebrate mass in the new chapel, at stated hours that would not interfere with Mr. Kennedy, and thus live in amity and Christian peace. The Rev. Patrick- Kennedy, P. P. of Birr, examined by Mr. CLARKE, K. C.—flas been a parish priest for twenty years. Has been upwards of seven years parish priest of Birr. Has been in the quiet possession of the parish chapel for the last seven years, until the 13th of April last, when Crotty com menced a fresh attack. In the year 1827, Mr. Crotty made an attempt to keep possession of the chapel, but was put out of it by Lord Posse. 11y the COURT—When Crotty was put out by Lord Rosse his Lordship put witness again in possession. The Rev. Patrick O'Mealy, Roman Catholic curate of Birr, examined.—Crotty's followers are of the very lowest class in society. The women who are his adherents are generally bad characters, hut Mr. Crotty thinks there is not a virtuous wo man in the world. Has heard that he swore on the mass book that there was not a virtuous woman from the rising of the sun to the P•oing down th ereo f. The Hon. Justice BURTON then briefly explained the law of the case. He called their attention to the two counts ap plicable to the case, namely the fourth and seventh, which charged the traverser with riot, and an obstruction of public worship. On those heads the evidence was conclusive, and if the jury was of his opinion they should find him guilty on those two counts. The Jury retired, and in a few minutes returned with a ver dict of Guilty. On the following morning Mr. Crotty appeared in Court, and his . Lordship, in very feeling language, sentenced him to two months' imprisonment in the gaol of Tullamore , an d di rected that he should enter into proper security to keep the peace. Mr. Crotty acknowledged his error, and promised that he would never again interfere with Mr. Kennedy or the new chapel of Birr. Peace has been thus restored once more to the people of that parish and its vicinity. REVERSE OR FORTUNE.—George Legh, the prescpt..okeimmit of Stoneleigh Abbey,. in Warwickshir e, whichrwasafeNy year 4 s i n c e the subject of investigation before the How Peers, applied to the Bolton. Magistrates on malci a y fast for relief. The overseer objected, on the ground that the applicant's wife possessed some cottages, which yielded a revenue of 14/. 15s. per annum. Mr. Kearsley the Magistrate, said he should make no order, the applicant must live out of his property I —Liverpool Chronicle. ::bN‘ SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. The Duke of Wellington has given notice of a motion to replace the political clauses in the Irish Coercion Bill. We suspect that this is - only a military ruse of his Grace to pro voke a debate and cannonade Ministers. Unquestionably the Duke of Wellington may march the rank and file of his Tory majority of Peers and proxies against the Government in this covert way, but his real object cannot be to strengthen the Bill. His Grace must know, that if he were to succeed in the re storation of the offensive powers, the Commons would throw out the Bill altogether. Indeed such a result of this unfortu nate measure would not be very injurious. Lord Melbourne, some days since, placed the matter on its proper footing, when he stated, that if Ireland were to be factiously agitated, he would of course call Parliament together to obtain a prompt and legislative remedy. We regard, therefore, the Duke of Wellington's notice as a mere party manoeuvre, for the pur pose of harassing an enemy. Much powder will probably be wasted in the discussion. But next session we think that this system of political threat and annoyance will terminate. Every body begins to see that the House of Lords will risk a collision.—Morniny Chronicle. Though the feeling of the Government, and indeed of the two Houses of Parliament, respecting Poor Laws, has been pretty clearly announced in the favour which the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill has received at their hands, another Session cannot be permitted to pass without coming to a decision one way or another upon the question of Poor Laws for Ireland. Mr. Poulett Scrope, who has, much to his credit, devoted a good deal of time to the consideration of this subject, has just published a pamphlet addressed to Ministers, and couched in the important interrogatory—" How is Ireland to be governed?" The pamphlet suggests the adoption of Poor Laws as an es sential ingredient in any practicable plan of relief. To this proposition we assent. We believe that not only the report and evidence of the Parliamentary Inquiry, as quoted by Mr. Scrope, but the opinions of most, if not all, the intelligent men who have looked into the causes of Whitefootism, and other illegal combinations, will bear him out in the assertion, that, instead of springing from political agitation, " they are but the struggles of an oppressed and starving people for existence." If this be the case, the conclusion to which he comes is irresistible, namely—that some provi sion must be made for the poor, in order to prevent those acts of violence and outrage by which they endea vour to provide for themselves. It may be remembered that our own correspondent, who, in a visit to that country, touched upon this very subject some time ago, traced White footism to the same cause—starvation. He instanced the process of clearing estates, too, that is, driving the surplus population out of their wretched cabins, to perish in ditches and by the road side, as one of the operations by which the Irish peasantry have been goaded to revenge. In the pamphlet to which we are referring, Mr. Scrope takes the same view ; he selects the same instance of estate clearing for reprobation, and founds his position, as to the connection between starvation and outrage, on the concurrent testimony of unimpeachable witnesses, who have deposed to the fact. Let political economy say what it will, nature has no law of extermination. The attempt to clothe such a law in the lan guage and attributes of philosophy is a species of the grossest imposture. Nature's office is to preserve, and not to destroy. Justly, therefore, does Mr. Scrope conclude, that a system of poor laws is essential to the good government of Ireland, which never will, and never can, be at peace so long as fa mine continues in commission, and the people have no se curity against a death of hunger, but what the accidents of charity may supply. To use the strong language of the pamphlet : " ln Ireland, where there are few manufactures—where there is no poor law—no legal provision against starvation—the only means of existence for a people, whose numbers are large and rapidly in creasing, is the occupation of land, or employment upon land at such wages as will support life. When these are wanting ; when the cottier is turned oat of his holding (from inability to pay the exorbitant rent which the desperate competition for land, as the only means of existence, enables a landlord to demand, or through any other cause), and he cannot obtain work and wages, what al ternative is open to him ? The law refuses him any. The law of Ireland says he shall starve. But nature and the instinct of self preservation revolt against such a mandate. Laws may be made to tell a strong man to lie down quietly in a ditch and die ; but they will not be obeyed. He w ill struggle against such a fate • and others, who are not yet in the same extremity, but who feel that they are daily liable to be exposed to it, will struggle with him to resist and put down such a law, and to substitute a rude but more just legislation of their own." To conclude, as we commenced, the subject of poor laws for Ireland must come before Parliament in the course of the en suing session, and we trust, notwithstanding the known dispo sition of the Government and the Legislature, the claims of justice and humanity will finally prevail.—Morning Herald. Some apprehension appears to prevail among the inhabi tants of Wandsworth, Battersea, and other large villages ad joining the metropolis, that the provisions of a Bill, entitled the "Common. Field Land Enclosure Bill," introduced into the House of Lords by Lord Ellenborough, and which has just passed that branch of the Legislature, may operate injuriously to them, by leading to the enclosure of those open spaces on which the salubrity of those situations materially de pends. By this Bill the enclosure is made to depend, not on any special further act of the Legislature, but on the decision of a majority of the owners of common field lands. At a cur sory glance this would seem to be a sufficient protection to the inhabitants generally, but it has been shown in a letter we have received on the subject that the combination of a few builders and large landed proprietors of the neighbourhood, who would have motives of their own for turning these open spaces to account, would easily counteract any such protec tion, if really intended by the Bill in question. They wish, therefore, before it passes into a law, that the attention of the House of Commons should be drawn to some of the consequences that may follow it, and in particular that a clause should be introduced into it similar to one in Lord Kenyon's Agricultural Labourers' Bill in 1831, which was, in fact, a species of Enclosure Bill, enacting that its provisions should not extend to any lands within ten miles of London, or to within three miles of any town possessing more than 6,000 inhabitants. Without going at present into any lengthened discussion on the other parts of Lord Ellenbo rough's Bill, we must be permitted to caution Hon. Members to weigh well its enactments, for, according to our impression, it is a general Inclosure Act—a measure which will enable large proprietors to enclose lands without the intervention of the Legislature. If this be the meaning of the Bill, its opera tion may be as oppressive and prejudicial to the agricultural poor as to the inhabitants of the metropolis and of other large towns.— Times. INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, JULY 28. Emily Phipps, whose case was before the Court on a former day, was now again brought up. The insolvent is a married woman, but has not lived with her.husband for some time. She had passed as a widow, and the case had been adjourned at the original hearing until this day, that her description might be amended. The opposing creditors were a Mrs. Smith, a widow, and two other persons. A question was raised, whether the insolvent, being protected by her coverture, could be remanded to prison by this Court, for fraudulently contracting the debts due to her opposing cre ditors, and whether, as she could not legally contract a debt. she would come within the clause of the statute. The Learned CHIEF COMMISSIONER, after saying that he did not consider the insolvent amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court, as to a remand, inasmuch as she could not in law con tract a debt; but that his Learned brother Commissioners were of a different opinion, adjudged that she should not be entitled to the benefit of the Act until she should have been in prison eight months from the date of her petition, at the suits of Mrs. Smith, Mr. Ford, and Mr. Almond, for fraudulently con tracting the debts due to those creditors. Thomas Henry Richards, whose case was adjourned from a former day, in order that the evidence of the Sheriff's Officer by whom he was arrested might be taken, was now again brought before the Court ; he was supported by Mr. COOKE. Mr. WOODROFFK appeared to oppose his discharge, on the ground that the arrest at the suit of a person of the name of Lawes had been collusive. The evidence of the Sheriff's Officer was completely at variance as to the circumstances of the arrest, from that which had been given by Lawes on the former hearing. _ _ The Learned CHIEF COMMISSIONER, after designating the case as a most profligate attempt to trump up a debt which had never existed, ordered the petition to be dismissed, and it was dismissed accordingly. The pilcliard..fisliery has been commenced by the driving boats at various points of the coast of Cornwall, and in some cases they have been tolerably successful. The fish taken are of good size, but as yet are deficient in flavour. THE CROPS.—The crops in this neighbourhood, particularly those in any rich or deep soil, have been seriously injured by the late rain ; they have almost generally lodged, and smut prevails to an extent indeed seldom before known in this quarter, not only among the wheat crops, but also those of the barley. The farmers seem to be still unacquainted with the cause from whence this disease proceeds, and there are very many reasons assigned for its appearance. Thunder-- rain—sowing at an unpropitious season—sowing at a certain quarter of the moon—heavy dew—fog, &c. ; but we are in clined to think, and experience confirms our opinion, that if the seed, a day or two previous to its being sown, was steeped in pickle, made strong enough to support an egg floating on its surface, and afterwards sprinkled with lime, it would alto gether prevent smut. The meadows along the Shannon are flooded, upwards of two feet of water lying on them, and as there are few of these callows yet mown, there is but a slight chance of their being of any use to the proprietor. We are, however, glad to say, the potato crop in general looks well. Athlone Paper. THE BRISTOL COAL FIELDS.—At length these inexhaustable stores of riches are about to be worked with vigour. Since the Avon branch of the Coalpit-heath railroad has been open, the Coalpit-heath coal has found its way to within a a few miles of the metropolis ; and the demand has so increased that the coal-owners on the line are using every ex ertion to enlarge their works and augment the supply. The contractor on the Bristol branch (now within three miles of the city) urges on the work both by night and day. As yet only two collieries have got their branches laid into the main road; but others are in progress and will soon be completed. Notwithstanding all the disadvantages of new works, and in adequate supply, upwards of 40,000 :tons of coal have been carried down the road by the Coalpit-heath Company alone. It will be cheering to our fellow-citizens to be looking for ward (and not very far forward) to see Bristol a great coal shipping port; nor can we close our eyes to the fact, of the vast importance which, in a commercial point of view, an ex tensive coal trade will be to us. We hail the change, as re gards our native city, as the precursor of lasting and substan tial benefits. —Bristol Mercury. THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, JULY 29, 1834. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. ROUSE OF LORDS, July 28. (Continued from our First Edition of yesterday.) POOR LAWS AMENDMENT BILL. A long conversation here took place between several Noble Lords. The Duke of WELLINGTON said they had been there nearly two hours debating, without getting through a single clause.—( Hear, hear.) Clause 53. was agreed to. Upon Clause 54 being read, which considered the relief given to any poor person for a child under the age of twelve as given to the husband and wife, The Earl of RADNOR suggested that the age of the child should be changed from twelve to sixteen. The Bishop of LONDON hoped this amendment would be adopted, because when children were separated from their parents at such an early age, it was productive of great im morality. This was agreed to. On the suggestion of the Bishop of Exeter, Clause 55. was postponed. Clauses 56. and 57. were then agreed to, with verbal amendments. Clause 58, which repealed so much of the Act of 43 Geo. 111., chap. 47, as required relief to be given to the wives and families of substitutes or volunteers of the militia was post poned, and agreed to be taken into consideration upon the bringing up of the report. Clause 59, respecting:the allowances to discharged prisoners, was agreed to. Clause 60, relating to the binding of apprentices, and the power reserved to the Justices, during the term of apprentice ship, over the master and apprentice, with a few verbal altera tions, proposed by the Lord Chancellor and the Bishop of London, was agreed to. Clause 61 was struck out. COERCION BILL. The Duke of WELLINGTON here suggested that it would be better to adjourn (it being 4 o'clock) till 5 o'clock. The LORD CHANCELLOR thought that would be the best course, and that they should resume the consideration of the Poor Law Bill in the evening. With respect to the Coer cion Bill, he thought that they had better allow it to be read a second time this evening, reserving the debate until the third reading, which should take place to-morrow, so that it might receive the Royal assent on Wednesday. The Duke of WELLINGTON thought there could be no objection to such a course, and this arrangement was agreed to. The House then adjourned during pleasure. FIVE O'CLOCK SITTING. The LORD CLIANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at five o'clock. ESTABLISHED CHURCH Petitions were presented in favour of the Established Church and the union of Church and State, by Lord Dynevor, from parishes in Carmarthen ; by Lord Beresford, from different pa rishes in Ireland ; by the Duke of Wellington from Man chester and Salford; by the Duke of Cumberland fromCloync, and several other parishes in Ireland. TITHES The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a petition from the Rev. Dr. Brown, of Sligo, praying compensation for the loss of his tithes. COERCION BILL. On the motion of the Marquis of LANSDOWNE this Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed to-morrow, upon the understanding that the discussion was to be taken upon that stage of the Bill. The Duke of WELLINGTON gave notice, that he should to-morrow move the rejection of the limitation clause. THE DISSENTERS. The Duke of SU SSE X presented a petition from the Dissenters worshipping in Craven-street Chapel, Regent street, praying for redress from the grievances under which they laboured, and for the separation of Church and State. As far as the petition sought the redress of grievances, he con curred with the prayer of the petition ; but that part of the petition wbch prayed for a separation of Church and State he could not agree with. The union of Church and State had existed since the time of the Reformation, and lie was not prepared to recommend their Lordships to disturb that Union. He was fully aware that there might have crept in abuses which required alteration, and no man would be more willing than himself to support any amend ment that might be required ; but as to pulling down a fabric' without showing what was to be placed in its stead, that was an alteration he was not prepared to accede to. BRIBERY BILL. The Marquis of LAN DOWNE was sorry to delay the proceedings of their Lordships on the Poor Law Bill, but he thought he should not be doing his duty to the House as Chair man of the Committee to which their Lordships referred the Bribery Bill, in laying the report upon the table without entering shortly into the amendments the Committee had thought it tight- to recommend to the House to adopt. In making those amendments, the Committee were only actuated by a desire to further the great object the House of Commons had in view in the introduction of the measure. Their Lordships' Committee had not interfered with the first proceedings in alleged cases of bribery—they thought the House of Commons was the proper House to take all pre liminary measures upon such a subject ; they, however, proposed that when that house found, upon such prelimi nary inquiry, that further inquiry was necessary, they should communicate it to that House by message, and address his Majesty upon the subject, praying him to issue his commission to inquire into the matter—they also fur. ther proposed that a Judge should preside over the Commis sion, and that further it should be formed of Members of both Houses of Parliament. The Committee proposed, that at the commencement of every session the Chancellor should name above one hundred members of that House, and that the other House should also name a number of their Members not to be less than one hundred, from whom the tribunal was to be selected ; they also proposed that be sides the Judge, it should consist of seven Members of the Commons, and five of that House—which should constitute a Court of Inquiry for all the purposes of that Act. That Court was to call before it all witnesses they thought necessary, who were to be free from all consequences that might attach to such evidence as they there gave. The finding of that Court was to be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and it was to be the foundation of any Legislative enactment that might be thought necessary upon the case. Ile trusted that these amendments would be agreed to, and that thoy would be found to work so as to relieve the House of examining wit nesses at the bar, of which they had had a tedious example of late. The report was then laid on the table, and ordered to be committed to-morrow. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY sa id the Noble Viscount (Melbourne) had l a id certa i n papers , from the Foreign Office, on the table. He wished merely to remark that they were not either in form or substance what he moved for. What he wanted was an account of the money expended by the Foreign Office last year, in the nature of secret service money. Lord MELBOURNE said a few words in reply, but in so low a tone, as to be inaudible in the gallery. On the motion of Lord EL L ENBOR OUG H, an account was ordered of all sums of money paid to the Church Commis sioners in Ireland under the Irish Church Temporalities Act, and the manner in which the same was expended. POOR LAWS AMENDMENT BILL. The House then again went into Committee upon the Poor Laws Amendment Bill. The House then proceeded to consider, the 62nd clause, which related to emigration and the union of parishes. The Marquis of SALISBURY and the Earl of F'ALMOUTII objected to the clause. The LORD CHANCELLOR supported it. The clause would be perfectly harmless. The natural disposition of the people was opposed to emigration, and they must be very un comfortable in this country when they surmounted their habi tual slothfulness, and determined on going abroad in the hope of bettering their condition. Man was naturally, from a variety of circumstances, attached to the place of his birth, and a writer of high authority had said that "the experience of all ages proved that man was the most difficult of all animals to be transported." He thought it only right that those who wished to emigrate should have the option of doing so. The Earl of CHICHESTER was favourable to the clause. He did not think that emigration would operate so as to be any check on the increase of population. It was quite light to allow able-bodied men, when no employment could be pro vided, the option of emigrating or being maintained in the workhouse. The Duke of WELLINGTON said he concurred in some of the observations of the Noble Earl who had just sat down. He could not help thinking that there were a great many per sons in this country who wished emigration to be encouraged and facilitated, and it was in consequence of this impression that he should support the clause as now amended. The Duke of CUMBERLAND —If power is to be given to the Commissioners to raise such amount of rate as they think proper, is it not to be assumed that emigration is to be encouraged ? The Earl of CHICHESTER—The power extends no far ther than to facilitate emigration. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that what he wished simply was, to give the Commissioners power to raise such an amount of rate as would enable them, not to encourage emi gration, but, if possible, to induce the people to stay at home. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE could assure their Lord ships that such a thing as forcing emigration never ent ere d into the contemplation of the framers o the Bill.—(Hear.) The clause only went to facilitate emigration, and when the law was to be administered with such strictness, he thought it only reasonable to allow parties the option of going abroad or remaining at home. It was his opinion that the effect of this provision would render emigration wholly unnecessary. The clause was then amended as proposed. Lord EL LENBOR 0 UG H suggested whether they ought not to provide that any person who emigrated and returned should be liable to the whole charge which he had occasioned to his parish. • After a desultory conversation across the table, which we could not hear, the clause was agreed to. Clause 63 was also, as verbally amended, agreed to. On Clause 64 being put, Lord WHARNCLIFFE said that he could not allow part of the Bill at which they had now arrived to pass unno ticed. It went the length of totally altering the law of settle ment, and he must say that he could not help regarding such a proposition with extreme regret. Supposing a labourer from the south of England went into one of the northern counties and settled, and after the lapse of many years became charge able to the parish, he might be removed back to the parish from which he originally came, and in which he was born. An industrious man might, from a thousand fortuitous circum stances, require temporary relief in the decline of his days, and it would be a matter of the greatest cruelty to separate him from his family and friends, and convey him back to a county of which he then knew nothing. At present no hiring took place from year to year in the south of England, for the farmers, with the view of preventing settlements being made, would only hire for fifty-one weeks, or a few days short of the year. In the north of England it was common to hire servants for twelve months, and thus settlements were formed, and the best feelings existed between the farmers and their labourers. He thought that it would be an act of great cruelty to remove a man in his old age from a place where he had resided many years to a parish in which he was a perfect stranger. He was sure if this part of the Bill were carried into execution it would excite the minds of the people, and produce a general feelipg of dissatisfaction against the Government and the local autho rities. He had no doubt but that there would be a universal feeling throughout the country against such a change as that now proposed. If any other Noble Lord in the House agreed with him in the view he took of the case, be should feel it to be his duty to take the sense of the Committee as to striking out those clauses. The Bishop of LONDON did not think that it was neces sary to offer many observations in reply to what had fallen from the Noble Lord. He (the Bishop of London) had thought that if any opinion put forward by the Poor Law Commissioners was more strongly supported by evidence than another, it was that relative to the chance in the law of set tlement. He thought if the proposed change was effected it would be conferring one of the greatest boons on the lower classes th a t cou ld be bestowed upon them. He wassatisfied that if the lower orders applied for relief, they would have it bestowed upon them in that shape least detrimental to the other classes, provided it was not inconsistent with the principles of humanity. He did not despair of seeing the time when the labouring classes would be extremely loth to apply to the parish for relief, and that, in point of fact, that species of aid might almost be dispensed with. He trusted that ere long a poor man would consider it to be degrading to apply to a parish for relief. When he acted as a Magistrate in a county in which the maladminis tration of the Poor Laws was carried as far as possible, he found that constant attempts were made by the farmers to evade the law by hiring labourers only for the term of fifty one weeks. This was a constant source of litigation, and gave rise to the most bitter feelings of animosity between the farmers and their labourers. The greatest difficulties arose in proving the settlement, and there was constant dis putes as to whether the parties were hired for fifty-one weeks or fifty-two weeks ; and hardly any question of this nature came before the Sessions which was not accompanied with great perjury. By making the proposed change in the law of settlement they would hold out inducements to farmers to give constant employment to their labourers, and thus strengthen the ties of friendship, if he might so express him self, existing between the employers and the employed. The Commissioners, after the most mature deliberation, were in duced to propose this alteration in the law of settlement as a boon to the poor. He admitted that in carrying the change into effect there might be some few cases of suffering, but the ultimate result must be productive of good to them, and must better their condition. In conclusion, he contended that, for the lasting comfort and well-being of the labouring classes, they must put an end to the system by which the poor acquired settlement by hiring. Lord WYNFORD was satisfied that the adoption of the principle involved in this clause would be productive of much mischief, and would be attended with considerable danger. He admitted that giving facilities to gain settlements was any thing but desirable ; but if those clauses passed in their pre seat shape they would throw great burthens on the agricul turists. He did not intend to cast any censure on the Commissioners, but he felt bound to declare that that part of the Report relating to the law of settlement was most unsa tisfactory. It appeared to him that the Assistant Commis sioners, whose duty it was to collect the evidence, had pre viously made up their minds against the present system, and took care to scrape together anything which they thought was calculated to advance the views they had adopted. Instead of the plan now proposed, he thought that it would be better to adopt the Scotch rule of settlement, namely, a residence often years in a parish. He never could consent to such a change as that now proposed, and he should therefore vote with his Noble Friend to strike out the clause altogether. If, however, their Lordships should not coincide in this view of the subject, he should propose as an amendment that altoge ther hiring should not constitute a ground of settlement, but apprenticeship should. The LORD CHANCELLOR admitted that it might ap pear hard that where a man had worked all his life in a place, that he should be removed to the place of his birth if he be came chargeable to the parish ; but still, as a general rule, he thought that it was advisable to adopt the principle. He had stated on the second reading of the Bill that he thought that every body was agreed as to the evils of the present law of settlement, and was prepared to give it up ; but, to his great surprise, his eyes had been opened, and he found that many were opposed to the abolition of it. The present law was con ;tantly evaded, and gave rise to the most violent ani mosities. It not only did not answer its purpose in conse quence of being evaded, but it occasioned many abuses, and produced the worst possible feelings between the farmers and their servants. It made the masters and parish officers sup pose that the labourers were always anxious to get settlements, and it made them regard their masters as their oppressors, and as being always endeavouring to evade the law, with a view to injure them. The existing law respecting the hiring of servants tended to lower both the character of the master and the servant. Nothing could be more injurious to the character of servants than their being obliged to live a part of their time idle, which time they generally spent at fairs, or in cock fighting, bull-baiting, and other demoralizing sports of that nature. The consequence also of the present system was that farmers in the north had become more cautious in hiring ser vants by the year for fear of their obtaining a settlement. Much had been said of the cruelty of removing servants from the parishes in which they had worked ; but every body must see that even now a labourer might work forty years in a parish without acquiring a settlement. The present laws would not augment the difficulties of obtaining a settlement ; but, on the contrary, it would tend to do away with them, and would certainly remove the mischief that re sulted from the facility with which the present law was evaded. He was borne out by the evidence of persons well acquainted with these matters that non-settled labourers were better than settled ones ; the latter were not half so good and discreet workmen as the former. He agreed with his Noble Friend on some points. There were certainly objections to settlement by hiring and service. Settlement by apprenticeship was good, but if it were adopted some alterations should be made ui the niceties of the law on this subject. Lord WYNFORD said his intention was to make the law similar to what it was in Scotland. He wished that settle ment by hiring and service should remain, but that settlement by apprenticeship should be abandoned. He preferred settle ment by birth to that acquired by parentage. He should pro pose, therefore, that the words "or by apprenticeship" be omitted. The Marquis of SALISBURY was understood to suggest the omission of the clause. He agreed with the remarks of the Noble and Learned Lord respecting settlement by hiring and service, that. it tended to demoralize the inhabitants of the rural districts. He should like to propose the abolition of that sort of settlement, and would be glad to see greater facility of settlement given to large towns. The Earl of FALMOUTH considered that it would be better to postpone the bastardy clauses, in order to introduce them in the shape of a separate Bill. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he had no objec tion to abolishing settlement by office, but with respect to settlement: by birth, there were so many guards with which it ought to be fenced, that at present he could not see his way clearly on the subject. Lord WHARNCLIFFE made a few observations in reply. After a few words from the Bishop of LONDON, the Marquis of SALISBURY, and the Bishop of EXETER, the verbal amend ment of Lord Wynford was agreed to. On the motion of the Marquis of SALISBURY, the words " or by serving in office" were added to the clause. The clause, as amendment, was then ordered to stand part of the Bill. The 65th clause having been put, Lord WYNFORD moved the insertion of a new clause to the effect that all children born from and after the passing of this Act acquire a settlement in the parishes in which they are born. The LORD CHANCELLOR opposed the amendment, on the ground that it would interfere with several other parts of the Bill. Such an amendment or clause could not be in troduced immediately after the passing of the present Bill, as it would be productive of great harshness to women now in the family way, since it would cause them to be removed from the farmhouses, parishes, or places in which they might now happen to be resident. Lord WYNFORD said that all he wanted was to get rid of settlement by parentage, and to prevent paupers from being removed to the places where their parents happened to be born. He hoped their Lordships would consent to introduce into the present Bill settlement by birth, and, as he said be fore, he would abandon his objections to settlement by hiring and service. He should not object to the following alteration i n his amendnient, that instead of " children born from and after the passing of this Act," the words " hereafter born " should be substituted. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the Noble and Learned Lord was just in his objections to settlement by pa rentage, and that the same objections might be opposed to set tlement by birth if the law were left as it was. Lord WYNFORD had no objection that, up to a certain age, the settlement of the child should follow the parent. Lord EL LENBORO UGH said he should prefer if settle ment was made to depend more upon residence. The LORD CHANCELLOR said he considered this part of the subject as only postponed for the present. Lord WYNFORD was certain that if postponed now it would not be taken up next session. Lord WHARNCI: IFFE was of opinion that settlement by residence might beAnade a good substitute. The Marquis of BUTE was glad that the Noble and Learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) seemed favourably dis posed to the settlement by residence. The Duke of WELLINGTON preferred the clause of his Noble and Learned Friend (Wynford) to the present provi sion of the Bill. He did not see why some plan of settlement by residence should not be adopted. The LORD CHANCELLOR said something should be done, and would be done. He should be disposed to say a residence for two years ; but it would be difficult at the mo ment to draw up a set clause upon this point which would adapt itself to the whole Bill. It would be better, perhaps, to bring in a distinct measure next Session, with provisions in the direction of residence. If, however, he should see his way clearly, and be able to approve of his own handywork, he would prepare some clause. Lord WYNFORD said he had no objection to residence for three years. The clause was negatived without a division. Clause 66 was agreed to, with an amendment proposed by the Marquis of SALISBURY, requiring that the person should not be merely assessed to the poor rates for one year, but have paid them up. BASTARDY. —-- - - Clause 67, that relating to bastardy, having been put from the Chair, The Bishop of EXETER said he was not quite certain whether or not the time had now arrived for entering upon the discussion of that part of the Bill which related to bastardy. The LORD CHANCELLOR expressed a hope that Noble Lords would avoid entering again into discussion of the principle of the measure, which hitherto was too often done in the Committee. The BiShop of Exeter proceeded. He felt that that part of the Bill was by far the most important of the whole. All the other clauses he considered as embracing only matters of ex pediency ; but this involved a most important question of principle—one of the gravest nature. He felt assured that the excellent persons who drew up this report were not disposed to do, or to recommend, anything that they did not consider humane and kind towards the poor unfortunate women on whom, however, the provisions of this Bill would press most harshly and most unjustly. He had no doubt that the provi sions were recommended by the Commissioners in a spirit of kindness. He hoped, however, it would not appear incon sistent with this admission to say that there appeared at least a harshness of judgment towards this unhappy class of women which, in the perusal of the Report, gave him much pain. It was now with some become the fashion to speak of the fathers of illegitimate children as unfortunate young men, while the attributes of vice was given to the females. This spirit per vaded the whole of the -Report. Before he could be induced to come to such a conclusion he required much better authority than could be found in the Report. The animus must be quite evident to any one who would look over the Report of the Sub- Commissioners. To show this he would read an extract, not mentioning the name of the person on whose authority it was written.—(The Right Rev. Prelate read an extract in which it was stated generally that among the lower classes of females in this country the virtue of female chastity does not exist, with the exception of domestic servants, and that all the inquiries made by the Commissioners proved that in those classes female chastity was a nonentity. )--This was a very melancholy and a very severe statement of the present condition of female morals in this country. A few years back a French officer, who resided for some time here, published his travels on re turning to France. He put forth in his publication the very same opinions, and nearly in the same words. He would not say they were copied into the Report of the commissioners, but the language was so much alike in both as sufficiently to warrant the idea. When the travels of this person were read here, his statements were universally spoken of as audacious calumnies, and excited one sentiment of indignation through out the country. If the traveller should revisit this country, such was the feeling his falsehoods had excited that it was much to be doubted whether he would be permitted to return home to publish such another statement. These being the opinions entertained by the Commissioners, they recommended a new code of legislation upon the subject, and spoke thus_of the justice of repealing the existing laws :_. " What we propose in their room is intended to restore things, as far as it is possible, to the state in which they would have been if no such laws had ever existed; to trust to those checks, and to those only, which Providence has imposed on licentiousness, under the conviction that all attempts of the Legislature to increase their force, or to substitute for them artificial sanctions, have tended only to weaken or pervert them." He trusted as much as the Commissioners to the checks which Providence, imposed on licentiousness, but not in the same way. The checks which suggested themselves to his mind were three. The first was the sinfulness of bringing a child into the world under such circumstances. The second was the appre hension of that responsibility which the parents must feel they were liable to in consequence of their guilt. This apprehen sion was calculated to have a very strong effect on the mind. He did not know whether the Commissioners were followers of Mr. Malthus, but this was one of the moral restraints re ferred to by that writer as checks upon improvident mar riages. If it operated as a check against improvident mar riages, it must also exert some influence as a restraint against becoming the parents of illegitimate children. His third check was, those artificial sanctions which, as the Commission ers thought, only weakened the check which Providence had imposed on licentiousness. He considered the laws of the land to be among the checks imposed by Providence in the case of bastardy, as much as in the case of any other species of guilt, that of theft for instance. He did not mean by this to imply that all human laws were wise ; some were bad, and ought to be repealed or amended ; but he could not approve of the alterations proposed. ' " In the natural state of things (said the Commissioners) a child, until emancipated, depends on its parents." This was the case with respect to legitimate children ; they depended on their parents. Then why in the case of illegitimate children should they not depend, not upon one parent, not upon the mother alone, but upon both the parents ? " But," said the Commissioner, " only one of the parents of an illegitimate child can be ascertained." Now, was it so according to this Bill ? Was this idea followed out through the whole of the enactments ? By their own ad mission, liabilities would attach to both parents, and, surely, it would be most unjust that the mother alone should be liable, both parents being ascertained. He would I not attempt to answer the argument of expediency on which alone the Commissioners rested their proposal. It might be expediency, but no one would say it was justice. It might be said that it was for the interest of good morals and of fe male chastity, that the law should bear hard upon the mother. He would not admit the force of this observation, for he was not one of those who thought that evil might be done that good might come of it. But were they so sure that the effects anticipated would follow ? He was very far from being san guine upon this point. He felt confident that the existing law if properly administered, would be sufficiently powerful as a preventive, more so than the legislation now proposed. In this he was borne out by the statement of Mr. Russell, who said that, in cases of bastardy, it was found to operate as an efficient check if the mother got no more of the father's allow ance than was barely sufficient to support the child. Why should not this principle ba generally acted upon? It could not fail to produce a beneficial effect. The Right Rev. Pre late went into an examination of the Marriage Law, with a view to proving that the promise of a man, when a woman had yielded to him in consequence of that promise, had in all early and simple states of society held him bound in conscience to marry her. From this he contended that in like manner the father ought to be compelled to maintain the offspring of any such connection, and concluded by moving as an amendment —" That the father and mother of such child, and the sur vivor of them, shall be compelled to maintain such child, and that no parish or union shall be bound to maintain such child so long as the father or mother are able to do so ; and that if any relief be granted for that purpose, such relief shall be deemed relief to them or to the survivor of them." The Bishop of LONDON was aware that the side of this question which had been taken by his Right Rev. Friend was the most popular one. But although he was aware he should incur much obloquy by the course he felt it his duty to take, yet he should not shrink from it, but would stand forward and defend the report of the Commissioners as being consistent with the beg interests of the country, and not opposed to any of the principles, either of morals or religion, which a Chris tian State was bound to observe. As he understood his Right Rev. Friend had imputed to the report generally that in cases of bastardy it treated the men as the unfortunate parties, and the women as the greatest or the only offenders. He was not aware that there was any thing in the report justly open to such a charge, but he would state that, even in cases where the man was the seducer, and he was far from being ready to admit that he always stood in that character, the Commis sioners were not bound to look at the question in its moral, and much less in a religious, sense ; but their duty was to de cide upon what would be the best means of diminishing the evil in its civil consequences, and of protecting society against it. He denied that in discharging this duty they had done any thing inconsistent which the claims of morality and reli gion imposed upon them. One of the Commissioners was in the habit of using a style which from its strength of expres sion might sometimes, perhaps, make his conclusions appear stronger than the premises warranted; but there was nothing in the report which was substantially obnoxious to the cen sures which had been passed upon it, or which was not fully justified by the evidence. The Right Rev. Prelate then re ferred to several parts of the evidence showing the great fre quency of later marriages, where the woman was pregnant or had had bastard children before, and contended that the state of the law had sadly deteriorates the morals of the lower classes in respect to the sin of incontinency. The argument of his Right Rev. Friend went to maintain that the whole evil was to be obviated by compelling the father to marry the mother, and to maintain the child. Now in a religious point of view he could not understand any thing so calculated to desecrate the holy ceremony of matrimony as thus to make it the punish ment, as it were, of the crimes of the lower classes. His Right Rev. Friend had said, with that happy and peculiar force of expression which always characterised his language, that the laws of man ought to follow and imitate the laws of God in their character. He admitted that this was a prin ciple always to be observed where it was practicable; but he might ask his Right Rev. Friend to point out where there was anything in the law of God which placed the support of the child upon the father and not the mother. He contended that the Legislature would have done its duty in this sense when it had done all in its power to impose a preventive check upon the sin of incontinency, and he believed that that would have been done when they should have passed the law recom mended by the Commissioners. His Right Rev. Friend had asked upon what principle of equity the mother could be pu nished, and not the father. To enter into the discussion of such points as these would involve very abstruse considera tions, and he thought that that was not the place or the occa sion for them ; but he might observe, that if they looked no farther than the natural laws of the case, it was evident that the mother was made to suffer most. But he contended that it was no part of the law as it stood, and never had been from the time of James I. downward, to punish the man. The woman was punished, but the man was only made to pay a sum of money. This, however, went beyond the question before their Lordships, for the object of the present Bill was not to punish, but to prevent the mother from the commission of crime. And this principle had been acted upon by the sound feeling and strong sense of the lower classes themselves. In the evidence of Mr. Tidd Pratt with respect to the practice of the parish of Bingham, in Nottinghamshire, it was stated that the benefit societies included it in their rules that no be nefit was to be extended in the cases of bastard children. In the female society it was a. circumstance which utterly de prived a woman of all claim to relief from the fund to which she had subscribed if she were to have a bastard child. So in the male societies, if subscribers had children born out of marriage, they forfeited all claim upOri the funds. , c these feelings th en ex i ste d amongst t h e poor themselves 1 1 thought it a littl e t oo muc h t h at t h e en f orcemen t of the rul which they voluntarily established among themselves should be denounced as a cru e l an d h ear tl ess i n f ract i on o f their rig hts. He had certai n ly no t i nten d e d to go i nto t h ese observation , , but after what had f a ll en f rom his Right Rev. Friend he feu, it due to his fellow-Commissioners, not only in their eha rac r as Legislators and as a c ti ng i n t h e discharge of those duties which had been imposed u p on th em b y t h e C rown , but as m en ' as Gentlemen, and as Christians, to say that if they had Ilres believed that they were inti ma t e ly consu l t i ng th e real-bene and cornforts ) of the poor generally, and especially of the' iuoisat interesting portion of the human race, he was sure they we sib , not have recommended the measure which he now earu e s hoped their Lordships would adopt. There might be case ,in which the law would press severely upon women who sere the victims of seduction, but these cases did not form the err . against which they were called upon to legislate. The el l 3o dence to which he had relucta n tly referred as showing dreadfully degraded state.of the morals of the lower clas s — a under the existing laws, showed that after the first error b il e ' e been committed, and a woman had b een b roug ht under t operation of the law, having then ceas e d t o blush, neither re morse nor shame would prevent her from adding to her sa b l e quent crimes that of falsely fixing up on an innocent man the quent crimes that of falsely fixing upon an innocent '°jch parentage of her offspring, because she expected from it a r l e „ harvest. Nothing, he contended, c ou ld more tend to tlet ii, riorate the morality and the religion and the general we ti being of those classes, who were, and always must be' that sinews and strength of the country, than such a system as which now existed. He therefore tru s t e d th a t their Lord, ships would reject the amendment o f hi s Ri g ht Rev. Fri end, and pass the measure. The Earl of FALMOUTH said th a t th e ca ses in ' ai n ' t. the protection of the law was required for the woman wa s re in cases of repeated offences, but where young girls " w made the victims of systematic sed uc ti on , as , h e was s orry., know, was so much practised in rura l di s t r i cts . It continualll3 happened that servants coming f rom L on d on es tablishin g , into the country spread ruin i n th e co tt ages o f t h e rural Pl u e t lation, and the proposed law would i n suc h cases b e most c i t i and injurious. As far as his experie nce wen t a s a coo tr a magistrate, in almost all cases the man was the seducer, a li en ought to bear the punishment. H e h a d never i n hi s life gis r , e his support to any prop os iti on w ith greater sat i s f act i o n than m y, should have in voting for the a men d men t o f t h e Right g e Prelate. The Earl of RADNOR supported the clause as it a t°oat and contended that it was mo re merc if u l t o t h e young and au „,, paratively innocent victim to gi ve h er a c h ance o f conce; her shame than bringing her up at the Petty Sessions and b dening her in sin, as was now done. About two monthataeo one hundred and twenty-seven basta r d c hild ren were t ' - of into the parish of St. George, Hanover-square, and 0u ...4 that number only .eight of the m o th ers a ppli e d f o r relic`ho fact which fully proved that th e grea t ma j or i ty o f f e males ;,, a 1 had bastard children made a regu l ar -t ra d e o f t h e b us iness' 1 , - ,(1 were not in want themselves of parochial aid, while theY , -,., no hesitation in burdening the p oor -h ouses w i t h th e ir ille,l I mate offspring. bt Lord WYNFORD said that, whatever respect lie —1 to entertain for the framers of the Bill, h e cou ld never consen,i, the present clause. He denied that the 43d of Elizabeth • rected that any payment should be m a d e by th e putative el'', ther of a child to its mother, for such mone y was always g ic j e r to the parish to pay for the support of the child, a nd 10 e c o to pay the expenses of the lying in of th e woman . San 9 11 the law at present acted upon by magist r at es i n p e tty ae sste ,. ; and he did not think that the present cla use wou ld introdu c h e better system ; neither would it have the e ff ec t o f a bating , as evil of bastardy. But, if he could persuade himself that it ; , o le likely to effect that good, still he would never admit the pri nc i ,' • of punishing the unfortunate woman w hil e th e more guiltY reora son, the father, was to go unpunish e d. A s t h e c l a use s t° it at present, instead of checking immorality and vice, nai! an would give rise to a crime of th e wors t d escr i pt i on ; fer a nd unfortunate woman who ga ve bi r th t o a b astar d c hild f 0 to herself cut off from all assistance, she would have recou rse to infanticide sooner than bear the disgrace and i gn oiniuY p , which she would be subjected under th e p rov i s i ons o f the .Il e; sent Bill. The clause was not only contrary to the priu c L to of justice as regarded the parishes, but it was con trary aj?, o o every principle of reason and humanity. Th e grea t ohie c tila e which he entertained against it was, th a t w h a t ever inisf °r iief might overtake the unhappy - woman she must expect no re from the parish, and no relief from the man , by wile ° I :tea haps she was basely and cruelly sed u c e d. The Magist r " before whom she came would not be at liberty to order he r t he lief, and, thus situated, cut off from society, abandoned to tie wide world, and sent, as it were, adrift from every soe is it, and every protecting roof, what would be her fate ? • prostitution, disease, and death. The man in the zneal'"i 0 would be held harmless, at least so said the Act, tunb.; fl r. months' arrears were due. Thus he would h ave am ple °r „ „r a trf tunity of evading the law altogether, by qu itti ng the e°" - to before the money became due. He mi g ht go un molested le another country to seek for other objects of seduction; ! ro d the unhappy object of his lust and villany might roam 11 "v e ct through the world degraded and undone. The g reat lot of all Bastardy Laws was to give protection to parishes, h ut r e , object was completely lost sight of by the framers of the sent Bill. detain The LORD CHANCELLOR promised. not to s. ale the Lordships long while he endea v o ure d t o a nswer a' e fie the objections which had been urged against the c lause. bet e had hoped indeed that aft er a ll th a t h a d b een d one elsew,Thlf to make it less objectionable, no m i sconcept i on cou ld pons the have arisen in the minds of Noble Lords with respect to motives of those by whom the clause was fra me d. I n Ju st or , however, to those who took so much pains to render that Pi to tion of the Bill as little liable to objection as they coulrb to . was bound to say that the charge of bei ng h ar dh e arted , to kind, and cruel to the female sex, because they th o ught fi t t il d act upon facts which came before them, a n d on which ho t founded their report, was, he would not say uncharitabl e, certainly it could only arise from one of the g r ossest dela s s tu e % that man ever attempted to practise towards others or hilliopt The simple question was, how was the Legislature to a be t means by which bastardy would be prevented, and in ,'`i n g way were they to prevent illegitimate children from bee o 'Poll chargeable to the parishes? The object of the presen t ,. 0 was to reform the Poor Laws, and God forbid that in d° ll : r ee the female character should suffer from any unmerited deopill either of odium or of punishment. But the object of the end was not to make women more virtuous or men m ore con i t , irl ie d The Bill had nothing to do with that subject. It was Ira 0 5 to accomplish other objects ; and he believed that there, h e no legislative enactment ever fram e d, or ever coal ° ro ls framed, that could effect so great an alteration in Ili t ` i heir as to make either men or women virtuous agains t f , a o inclinations. The Bill was framed to amend the Poor; of and not to protect either mal e or f ema l e v i rtue . ' 0 the that all the penalties of the mea sure were t h rown uPe gag - ~ women in order to shield and exempt t h e men , was tioit' that which was not warranted by fact. He contended' 85 io ever, that to punish the woman for a breach of morality s f , at it accordance, first, with the law of th e l an d ; s e con dly, r' ibe, was in conformity with all moral law ; thi r dly, t h a t it Waf et course purs c ued by the Legislature in alm os t ev ery Poe td Parliament they framed ; and lastly, that it was a greea the laws of society. But to show that, in adopting the P, ple of punishing females for a breach of female moral din) l ;jeJ Commissioners on whose report the present Bill was f eil e tilig were not introducing any novelty in legislation, or ? ile solely on their own views with regard to the Laws Or e t heir tardy, there was an instance recorded on the Journals 01 gr• Lordships' House so late as the year 1830, w herein e t gpd Simeon, a gentleman of great talents and experience, p re' of Sir John Simeon, the Master in Chancery, laid doss r ot cisely the same doctrine which the Commissioners on th e te te' Laws had acted upon. Their Lordships wou ld find the s t ment of Mr. Simeon in the 161st page of one of the I n°5 C0 11 ; luable Reports that any Committee, he would not saY, mission, ever put forth. Mr. Sime o n was as k e d if th e '; any other alteration he would suggest in the Poor Laws,: pl' reply was, " I would sugge s t an a lt era ti on i n t h e Law °f eta' tardy." He was then a s k e d w h at was t h e nature o f the 8 1 , fee', tion he would propose ? H e answere d i n t h ese wor ds, " very strongly that until the law of this country with reg - hot P bastardy is assimilated to the law of nature, by whioh,4o,oll the onus and the sham e o f a b r each of ch as tity s h a ll be t ll O . on the woman, the present system unde r which the I' ro' Bastardy was administered would never be altered." lo b .° this, be it observed, was not put forward by him as 0 11 c •ni° evidence upon the subject. It was given only as the ° l l:ei!' of a Gentleman practically acquainted with the p o or o ir e and as such it was entitled to respect ; but when the 0 %0 1 4 sioners were attacked and torn to pieces, and held up t1;01 1 ' , 0 execration as men devoid of all generous, humane, anti as 0 11 ,1 feelings, it was something to say, that here at least sties bad gentleman who fully concurred in the view which w„ taken. Mr. Simeon was a country gentleman, actipo; Magistrate in the county to which he was attached. b no Poor Law Commissioner, and yet the opinion ol te re, held was, that the law of bastardy would never he!,ysteli would never be effectually improved, unless the presen'';l o ov a underwent an alteration, and unless, in short, the onte,s.„,, Pr_ be thrown upon the woman. But why talk of puniso l l'or t woman, as if it were some new-fan led law by w hich the • 0 4 5 • missione rs p ro p ose d t o f o ll ow u p their own views and o P Fr Why the law was old as James 1., in whose reign basta r a - ' f l c an offence for which the woman, and not the man , w a il, Il i; nished ; for, be it observed, it was no offence in the 11 . 1 ., 0 a1i.; though it was in the woman. The principle of the r l i fi , st '' law, from time immemorial, was, that if a man paid for,b legitimate offspring, he was held to be legally, althott lt tP , , morally, free ,from the consequences of the offence ; see t;il woman, what was her punishment? Why, she wa s a, g e , r prison as a lewd woman. Such was the law of Engl3 0 such was the law at present acted upon in this c ounti: lo a d o his own part, he was quite ready to bear all the otn' o f obloquy that might be heaped upon him on accouinv opinion he avowed, with Mr. Simeon and the Poor 1.4 35 e missioners, that women were liable, not only to l e hot i ll ' o t guilt, but the legal punishment attached to a breach te tl r io s and he openly declared this opinion, although he tra h s iva le , l4 he entertained towards the softer sex a feeling as e t he l ' l l , as any Noble Lord who heard him--( Hear, hear)--Y e d iuni quite ready to risk all the unpopularity and all the 0 to tip, tached to his opinions. He did not, however, mea l !. he , that the want of chastity in man was an offence, h°"„ e'vt tinctly maintained that the want of chastity in a wen be O f f o r greater offence than the want of chastity in a man. 00 0)00 of chastity in woman struck at the root of morality at ro an 4 it sapped the very foundation of virtue itself. But n` t t hit h a case was different.—(A Noble Lord shook his head 8 01 0 D ic if he dissented. )—But suppose the case of a w 0 ° 12 1 6 1 brought a spurious offspring to her husband's bed, bol te d Lords tell him that that was no offence? He wetun t a da put the crime of adaltery out of the question, althottg.,..icitra,,,,, in a woman was a greater offence than in a man, their Lordships' proceedings in cases of divorce- ace be posing a case in which a young unmarried woman g Th e Wa s • thhot wi ekthc Their tile term Nil. / the acid _, Th e th , 4 / %Ain Thr i It I;eii e A m oad ,°' ) t (, `' 1 •( e , at B a l lot i e . r • fr l , kll, th e rh sPiri liotForde th e th Si r -.. v t , Aoned 413111ECt° oily t ; r ef i