The Sun. — London, England, 1830-04-27 00:00:00

petition from an individual (whose name was not heard below the Bar) who had been educated a Roman Catholic priest, and had now become a Protestant, praying their Lordships to grant him a stipend, similar to what had been granted to parties situated in a similar manner. The Noble Earl spoke at some length, but wes very indistinctly heard below the Bar. He was understood to say, that by the law of the land the petitioner, who had been a Roman Catholic priest, and had now become a believer in the Protestant religion, was, ipso facto, a clergyman of . the Church of EnglaNd. The Earl of LIMERICK did not rise to oppose the presentation of the petition, but to deprecate the system of bribing parties to change their re ligion. He knew in several cases which had come under his own experience, and it was not very limited, that the parties who had abandoned the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church, and em braced those of the Protestant Church, were poi sons of bad character. The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL, from his own knowledge, could state that the Catholic Priests of many paiishus in Ireland received 2001. or 3001. a year : that they had a larger income than the Pro testent Clergymen ; it was not, therefore, very likely that the Priests would abandon that sum for the sake of 401. a year, which the Act of Anne pre vided, unless from conscientious motives. For his own part he disclaimed any intention or desire of bribing them to change their religion. • Lord HOLLAND considered the petition quite irregular; the prayer was to ask the House to vote a sum of money. If the Noble Lord, or other Noble Lords, wished to patronise this meritorious class of persons, they had it in their power to do so, by bestowing upon them the advowsons which they had in their gift.--(A laugh.)—At the suggestion of Lord Holland the petition was read at length After a few observations from the Earl of Ross- LYN, who spoke against its admission on account of its irregularity, The Earl of MOCNTCASHEL withdrew it. CHURCH ESTABLISHMENT. The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL gave notice that on Tuesday (this day week) he should present a pe tition from Cork, in favour of Church reform ; and on the same evening he should submit a motion to their Lordships to request his Majesty to appoint a Commission to inquire into the Church discipline. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY wished to know whether the motion was intended to include the English Church, or only the Irish Church Esta blishment. The Earl of MOUNTCA SHEL was understood to say the motion would embrace both. EAST RDTFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL. The Mar quis of SALISBURY moved the Order of the Day for calling in Counsel on the East Ret ford Disfranchisement Bill. After a few words from Lord DURHAM, the Mar quis of SALISBURY, and the Earl of ROSSLYN, Coun sel were called in. In support of the Bill the Hon. Mr. Law and Mr. Price appeared at the bar ; and for the petitioners against the Bill Mr. Adam, Mr. Alderson, and Mr. Stephenson. i•lr. Richard Hannam was then called in. After a few questions had been put to this witness relative to the practice adopted at East Ret ford at elections within his recollection, he was ordered to retire. Lord DURHAM having risen to propose that Counsel should be lost' ucted to proceed with the exarainatiou of witnesses in the first instance to acts of bribery at the last election at East Retford, The Marquis of SALISBURY, the Earl of MALMES BURY, and Lord HOLLAND opposed the motion, con ceiving that those who conducted the case had a r'ght to procsA to tile proof of bribery and corrup tion, either of a recent or more advanced period. The House then divided, when there appeared for the motion, Contents l2 Non-contents Majority —4l Their Lordships, at a Quarter to Seven, then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS-(LAST NIGHT.) --- The The House assembled this day, pursual.., to ad journment. The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four o'clock. Mr. CALLAGHAN, Mr. G. BANKES, Mr. HOPE, and other Members, took the oaths and their seats. The SPEAKER was summoned to the House of Lords to hear the Royal Assent given by Commis sion so several public and private Bills (for which see Lords.) Two petitions were presented against the return of Mr. Callaghan for Cork.—Laid on the table. NEW WRIT. On the motion of the Marquis of CHANDOS, a new writ was ordered to issue to return a Member to serve in Parliament, for the borough of St. Mawee, in the room of Sir S.B. Morland, deceased. In compliance with a Message from the Lords, a Copy of the Evidence taken before the Committee on the East Retford Election, was ordered to be laid before the House of Lords. Mr. A. CAMPBELL and Sir M. S. STEWART presented several petitions against the Glasgow Rovelty Bill.—Laid on the table. Mr. MUNDY presented a petition from Derby, against capital panishme:at for forgery ; also a peti tion from the licensed victualleta of a town in Der byshire, against throwing open the trade in beer. Mr. BROUGHAM, after expressing his regret that certain returns (which had been moved for) respecting causes heard in the Court of Chancery bad not been laid before the House, moved for a r,-turn of the number of causes heard before that Court from 1791 to 1826, distinguishing those causes which had been finally settled. Sir G. MURRAY presented a petition from Perth, against the monopoly of the East India Corn. piny ; also a petition of the merchants and traders at the Cape of Good Elope to the same effect. Mr. CRIPPS presented a petition from Ciren eetter against capital punishment for forgery. Mr. KING gave notice, as we understood, that he would submit a motion to the House to-morrow (this day) respecting the proposed increase of the stump duty on Irish aewspapers. Mr. O'BRIEN moved for a return of the number of persons that had emigrated from Great Britain to any of the colonies, distinguishing the colonies to which they had emigrated, and specifying the number of males, females, children, and adults. ;qr. IL DAMS presented a petition from Ax bridge, Somersetahire, against the punishment of death for forgery. Also a petition fa.al the Chain ber of Commerce of Bristol, praying the House not to sanction a Bill which had been introduced into that House, for am purpose of rasing the sum fur which insolvents could be arrested fear: 201. to 100/. Mr. O'CONNELL said a few words, as was un derstood, against the prayer of the petition. Mr. HART DAVIS presented a petition from the tobacco merchant; of Bristol, against a measure which they understood was in agitation, to admit the growth of tobacco is this country, on paying a duty of Is. Bd. the pound. Such a duty they cone ceived would not be eufficient, and they therefore prayed that the law should remain as it is, or that the duty be raised to 2s. 6d. the pound. Mr. H. GRATTAN trusted that the law would be restored to the state it was in 1779, and that gentlemen, who were devising measures to en courage emigration from Ireland, would not oppose a measure which would be effectual in gi vin g addi tional employm en t to a great number of the inha bitants of that country. Mr. LITTLETON presented a petition from the inhabitants of :stone-up o n-T re nt, for opening the trade to China; also a petition fr o m Leek Stafford shire, against c,,pital punish ment f or forgery. Mr. KENNEDY presented two petitions from the burgh of Ayr, in favour of free trade with India, FORGERY. Mr. N. CALVERT presented a petition from Royston, praying for the abolition of capital punish ment for forgery. Mr. BROUGHAM perfectly concurred in th e prayer of the petition, and WAS g lad to find that a change of feeling on that subject was beginning to prevail among certain classes who had all along been opposed to any alteration in the law. For some time certain classes, and particularly those who were chiefly interested in that branch to which the pre sent - law was applicable—he meant paper money — were averse to any mitigation of the punishment. lie had now the satisfaction of stating to the House that he had received communications and petitions from •arious bankers in different parts of the coun try, which showed that pretty generally this class had re-formed their opinion on the capital punish ment, and were willing to admit the error under which they had laboured. Within the last few days he had had a great deal of correspondence with persons connected with banking establishments. He had also a number of petitions to present—more particularly one to which he would call the atten tion of the House, as it was from a part of the country where the trade in paper was the chief trade carried on; and he found, from these bankers and merchants, that they were anxious to come for sward and entreat the Legislature to pause before . . , . they enacted anew the punishment of death for for gery, because they viewed this mode of punish ment not only as no security, but directly the con trary. They regard it rather as a means for pre venting prosecution and punishment, and as tending to the escape of persons who had been guilty o f a serious offence. They had not cane to this conclu sion from any abstract theories, or from any religious motives, nor from any views of humanity, or any impulse of feeling; but as practical men—as bankers and traders —they stated that they considered the present law as injurious to their interests. They could have urged their disapprobation of the state of the law on a variety of other grounds, but they rather chose to rest it on practical grounds. Such being the case, and as many petitions against this measure might be expeced from many parts of the country, he hoped the Right Hon Gentleman would postpone this Bill a stage, in order to give the public an opportunity of stating their sentiments to the House. Mr. PEEL did not anticipate any great discus sion at the second reading of the Bill, more parti cularly as any Member would have an opportunity, in the Committee, of moving for a reduction of the capital punishment in certain cases. In the Bill which he had brought in he had added no new ca pital punishment, but had merely consolidated the statute law of the land, omitt'ng those cases where the capital punishment latterly had not been carried into effect. From communications which he had received on the subject, he had already consented to postpone one stage of the Bill for a fortnight. The Bill, however, might be read a second that evening; and he saw no objection to delay going into a Committee for that time, if the Hon. Gentleman was convinced that it would be more con venient for those who were desirous to present peti tions against it, or to oppose it in the House. Si: J. MACINTOSH on the understanding that by assenting to the second reading Members should not he pledged to the capital punishment, and that they 'Mould have an opportunity of delivering their opinions on the subject afterwards, would not op pose it. Mr. BARING presented a petition from certain licenced victuallers in Hertfordshire, against throw ing open the trade in beer. Mr. C. PALLMER presented a petition from Kingston against capital punishment for forgery, Most persons, he said, engaged in trade, as well as the bankers in the place, expressed a strong feeling on the subject, and hoped that some measures would be adopted by Parliament for mitigating the present severity of the law. MADRAS REGISTRAR BILL. Mr. ASTELL presented a petition from the Di rectors of the East India Company against the se cond reading of this Bill. They prayed that the Bill might not pass into a law, and that they might be heard by Counsel against it. The Hon. Gen tleman then moved that the petitioners be heard by _ _ _ their Counsel at the bar against the Madras Regis trar Bill.—Agreed to. Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH was anxious that the second reading of the Bill should take place as early as possible, but he had no hope of being allowed to bring it in that evening, and he found that every day for some time was occupied lay fixed business. He wished to name the following Wed nesday, but he was well aware how reluctant the House was to enter on lengthened discussions on that day, and he was also aware that it was the day on which his Majesty's Ministers dined together. He would not name the following Wednesday, but he would fix that day week, with the hope that before that period an opportunity would offer for the second reading of the Bill. He would now move for the order of the day being read for the second reading of the Bill, in order that it might be postponed to Wednesday week. Mr. A STELL said that the same objection which was held against the next Wednesday would exist against every succeeding Wednesday, as the rule was general that business was not to be taken on that day. Mr.' MOORE (Dublin) presented a petition from Enniscorthy, in the county of Wexford, against the proposed duty of Is. Bd. a pound on Irish grown tobacco. The cultivation afforded employment to the poor, and for both women and children, and the duty would amount to a prohibition. Mr. O'CONNELL was also of opinion that the duty would annihilate the culture of that article. Sir BYAM MARTIN presented a petition from Plymouth, against the punishment of death for forgery; and another from the same place, against the Beer Bill. Mr. HUSKISSON presented a petition from the West India proprietors and merchants resident at Liverpool, for a reduction of the duties on sugar and rum. Lord STANLEY presented a petition from Bol ton, against the punishment of death for forgery. Lord GEO. SOMERSET presented a petition from Monmouth, against the East India monopoly. Mr. BUCK presented a petition from Exeter against the punishment of death for forgery. Mr. SL ANEY presented a petition from Waltham stow in favour of a revision of the poor laws, and from the residents on the Skinners' estate in at. Pancras parish against the General Lighting and Watching Bill. Mr. Alderman WOOD presented a petition from a chapel congregation at Walworth against the punishment of death for forgery. Mr. Alderman WA ITHMAN presented pe titions to the same effect from Uxbridge, St. Mary Newington, and a chapel at Lambeth. Mr. O'CONNELL presented petitions from three parishes in Ireland against the Vestry . Act. Mr. DENISON presented a petition from the merchants of Sunderland against the renewal of the East India Company's Charter ; and from the journeymen paper-makers of surre y against the use of machinery. Mr. S. RICE presented a petition from Galway, in favour of the Galway Franchise Bill. Lord A LT HOR P p resented a petition i from Ket tering, Northampto n s hire, a g ainst inflcting the punishment of death for forgery. Mr. WARD prese nted a similar petition from the Ward of Bishopagate. Lord JOHN RUSSELL presented a similar petition from a place in Huntingdonshire. He cordially concurred in the prayer of the petition. Mr. HJATHUOTE presented a similar per tido'', but also praying for the abolition of the punislment of death for other crimes, from Boston, Lincolnshire. The petitioners, the lion. Member stated, were not visionaries, but practical men. It was , ignesl by the bankers of the place. Lord F. L. GOWER presented a petition from the fish-curers of Wick, praying for the continuance of the bounty on catching and curing fish. answer to a question from Sir JOHN NEWPORT, who complained that the Stamp Duties' Consolida tion Bill would have the effect of raising the duties, not only in Ireland, but in England, The CHANCELLOR of the IXCIiEQUER ei!il the sehedule had been delayed in consequence of the difficulty of arranging it. It was, however, now ready to be delivered to Members. Mr. RUMBOLD presented a petition praying for the abolition of the punishment of death for forgery, from the inhabitants of Great Yarmouth. Colonel DAVIES presented a similar petition from Worcester. It was signed by almost all the bankers, and he cordially concurred with its prayer. Mr. Secretary PEEL brought up . some accounts of the extraordinary expences of certain Foreign Am bassadors. Lord MORPETH presented petitions from Ec- Bilton, Budsley, and other places in York• shire, all praying that the East India Company's Charter might not be renewed. Mr. PORTMAN moved the Order of the Dr: for the second reading of the General Watching and Lighting Bill. The lion. Member wished to refer the Bill to a Committee up stairs, in order to make the machinery of it perfect. He would also state, that it was his intention to exempt from the opera tion of the Act all the parishes of the metropolis, and all parishes that had local Bills. The fill was accordingly ordered to be referred to a Committee up stairs, and such a Committee was appointed. On the motion of Mr. SLANEY, the House re solved itself into a Committee on the Poor Laws Amendment Bill. Mr. R. COLBORNE in the Chair. Sir T. BARING objected to the clause taking, away the children from their parents, which he cha racterised as cruel and impolitic. Mr. R. GORDON thought such a clause so ab surd that it could not be maintained. Mr. CRiPPS thought the clause would he an inducement to early marriages, instead of checking them. He thought such a clause could not be al lowed to stand part of the Bill. Lord ALI:110RP explained that the clause was only intended to take the children from such parents as could not provide for them and educate them. le did not think this was either harsh or cruel. Mr. W. HORTON supported the clause. It in volved an important principle, which the House must at length acknowledge, and he hoped the House would then pass the Bill. Mr. F. LEWIS stated that a similar clause had passed through the House in 1816, but he could not give it his support at present. He knew that by the 43d Eliz. the overseers had the power to set an able-bodied pauper to work, hut they could not set his infant children to work ; and as they were bound to give the means of supporting the children, they gave it to the father, as they could not give it to the children, so that for the maintenance of his children, though not on his own account, he did in fact obtain the money. To obviate this, it was proposed to establish institutions where pauper children were to be fed and clothed; but he thought such a system could never be effected, because it broke through all those ties that nature imposed. He utterly despaired of the success of any such establishment. The re tardiag system was recommended, and he thought with much reason, as he especially believed that it could not be better put into operation than when the labouring classes were not overwhelmed with active and pressing distress. The other system — that of encouraging the increase of the population — had been the favourite scheme in Mr. Pitt's time, and it was only in late years that the population had been told that the procreation of children, without the means of supporting them, was a great evil. He thought the best thing to adopt in the administra tion of the poor laws would be to diminish the power of Magistrates in granting relief. The reason why the poor laws were not as overwhelming in Scotland as in England was, that their administra tion was in the hands of those who provided the rates. It was from the opposite system that the payment of wages out of the rates had arisen, The interference of Magistrates was of the latest introduction into the Poor Laws, and Magistrates were at first intended to act as a check upon the expenditure of the rates, but it tamed out that they were the worst means that could have been employed, for they confirmed and extended the evils. In his opinion the owners of small cottages ought to be charged with rates, for it was proved they obtained the value of these cottages from the rates. The fact was proved by a case mentioned before the Emigration Commit tee, from which it appeared that the owners of these cot tages were persons who, having the management of the rates, let out the cottages to paupers, and took the amount of the rent from the sums allotted for the support of their pauper tenants. The witness who stated this fact was asked what would happen if funds were provided to clear the parish of paupers, and he answered that the owners would pull down the cottages, as they would not suffer the paupers of other parishes to inhabit them. Large manufacturers, who had the management of the rates, and who possessed cottages of this description, filled their manufactories with apprentices, and they furnished the means of filling the cottages with paupers. He said that the remedy for this was to charge the landlord with rates fur these cottages. He recommended the Hon. Member to consider these various matters, and to revise his Bill. Mr. WODEHOUSE thought that the clause for sepa rating the children from their parents, never could be car ried into effect. Mr. BENETT, as one who had acted as a Magistrate in a large district for thirty years, begged to deny some of the statements that had just been made. With respect to the plan of bringing back the poor laws to the state in which they were in the reign of Elizabeth, he should ap prove of it, if he thought it practicable ; but he feared it was not, for the state of the country was much changed, since that time. We bad now surplus labourers to a great extent, and we were thus reduced to straits from which we knew not bow to escape, but under the administratka of the present system. An Hon. Member had called some of the payments now made an assignment of wages out of the pours' rates. Ile denied it. The value of labour was regulated by the proportion of the supply to the demand, and no law of this description could alter it. A pauper with several children could not support himself upon Be. per week, and if he received only that sum in wages, he required Bs. more from the parish to support him and his family. The Hon. Member charged the giving of that sum to a working labourer as a grievous fault committed by the Magistrates of the South and West of England, and said that the parish allowance was given in aid of wages. He denied it. Wages were fixed by the proportion be tween the demand and the supply of labour ; and no Ma gistrates could compel the farmer to give a higher rate of wages to his labourer. The parish then were obliged to give something for the maintenance of the paupers' children, which they must support in some way or other. He denied the superabundance of labour ; there was a want of demand for it, arising from circumstances to which he would not now further allude. But, as to the payment of money to a labourer whose wages were insufficient to maintain him, he believed that custom had so established that mode of relief, that we could not now depart from it. He did not approve of the plan of sending men abroad, for he believed Oa it would only produce a reaction en the po pulation. He did not think the present Bill practicable at this moment; but he believed that great good might be attained by giving a stimulus to agriculture, and by taking off those obstacles that now existed to the cultivation of waste lands. He did not agree to the plan of rating the owners instead of the occupiers of small tenements. There were several men of property—he bad six of them in his eye at that moment, and could name them if he pleased— who had received money from the poors' rates--( Hear, hear)--under a bad system of administration ; and they would have no check if poorer men had no interest in keeping down the amount of the rates. He therefore thought that the occupiers of these tenements ought to pay the rates, and then they would have an interest in keeping them down. Besides, he saw no reason why small pro prietors should be liable to pay rates for their property, when men of 2001. or 3001. a-year did not. Mr. COIJRTENAY was willing to assent to the Bill provided it were accompanied with the clause recom mended by the Hon. Member for Ashburton. The ob ject of the proposed law was to return as nearly as pos sible to the letter of the 43,1 of Elizabeth, and he ob - jected to the amendment now suggested, because it went to destroy the remedial part of the Bill. It was his opi nion that the measure never could come into operation without the amendment, and so qualified, he was willing that the experiment of thus raising the wages of the poor should be tried ; at the same time he was convinced that the Hon. Mover would be disappointed in his hopes on this part of . the subject. Although he supported the Bill, he heartily Joined with the Hon. Baronet in a determina tion to abandon the industrious poor and their families. Mr. W. HORTON was anxious to preserve a moral check upon t he poor man, in order t o p reven t his marry ing until he was i n a situation to m a i nta i n a f a mily. At present, if he married, he knew th a t hi s c hildren must be supported by gle parish, if he could no t su pport them himself. The principle of separating parents and chil dren had been adopted in a clause already approved by the Committee, so that, if it were now objected to success fully, the Bill must be recommitted in order to remedy the discrepancy. It did not at all deprive the pauper of relief; it only declared that the relief should be given en tirely by the parish, and net partly in wages and partly by the parish. He was anxious that the Bill should be made prospective, and if it were rendered so he should give it his decided support. Mr. BENETT observed that, as the law now stood, it allowed the separation of paupers and their children, fur the purpose of being apprenticed by the parish, but that was suite a different thing to separating them for the pur poses of board and education. Mr. SLANEY—If he thought the effect of his Bill would he to depress instead of elevating the character of the poor of rhie courtry, would abandon it at once and instantly. He had t..eu every report of every Committee, and every work of reputation on the subject, and found ing himself upon them he had brought forward this Bill, in the hope of remedying acknowledged and existing abuses of the system. After investigating all parts of the question, the Committee of which he had the honour to be Chairman, bad come to the almost unanimous deter mination that it was necessary to face the evil, and to point out a remedy. That remedy was the Bill before the House, and he had proceeded cautiously but steadily and firmly, in endeavouring to bring it into operation. The abuses of the poor laws were not as some supposed, gene ral: they were confined very much to the South of Eng land, for in the North they were in very beneficial opera tion. In the last Session an objection had been taken by the Right Hon. Member for Ashburton (Mr. S. Bourne), and in order to obviate that objection certain clauses were introduced not recommended by the Committee ; but on the authority of the Right Hon. Chairman of the Committee of 1517, who had published one of the most valuable reports ever laid upon the table. The object of the present Bill was to restore some parts of the South of England to the present condition of the North, as related to the mainte nance of the poor. The Magistrates of the South, in the teeth of the law, and acting upon a mistaken notion of humanity and benevolence, had apportioned the relief of the poor by the price of bread, and this principle had now been introduced into about 16 or 17 counties. The effect had been in all those situations to degrade the poor, and to render them indifferent and depending, while in the North of England, where so much practice prevailed, they were still independent, honest, and industrious. All that was asked was to pass this Bill, that a wholesome uni formity might, in this respect, be established. The Hon. Member for Radnor (Mr. F. Lewis) had contended, indeed, that the admitted evil was so extensive that no remedy could be applied to it ; but he (Mr. Slaney) hoped that this measure, if adopted, would accomplish the change without injury or violence. By its provisions, nothing was taken from the pauper. He had still his right to relief, but the form of that relief was changed. Instead of money, he was provided with work to earn it ; and his children, instead of being neglected, were fed, clothed, and eductted. He was happy to add, that he had received letters from various parts of the country, where attempts had been made to retrace steps hastily taken, stating that the system hel been abolished, and that a beneficial change was already apparent. The Hon. Member for Wilts (Mr. Benett) had said that the present was the worst time that could have le!n chosen for bringing in such a Bill; hut surely that Hon. Gentleman's experience must have taught him that no course could be worse calculated to do Lrmanena good than to resort to measures only when they r. ere rendered necessary by the urgency of temporary pressure. The Bill had already been two years under consideration, and if adopted it would gradually but effec tually draw a broad line of distinction between labourers who married, because they knew their children must be supported by the parish, and those who married with a fair prospect of being able to provide for their increasing families. Ile had not heard a single argument to weaken his confidence in the Bill ; and he trusted that the House would not hastily and inconsiderately reject what had been founded upon the mature deliberations of no less than five Committees. _ Mr. CRIPPS gave the Hon. Member credit for the ability and perseverance he Lad shown upon this subject, although he was convinced that it would be impossible to carry the Bill into effect, even if it were passed. Mr. Secretary PEEL was sorry that there had not been a preliminary discussion—that they had not discussed the principle of the Bill before they went into Committee upon it. At present, instead of paying all that attention to the clauses which it was the practice of the House to pay in Committees, they had occupied themselves chiefly with discussing the principle of the Bill; thus reversing the usual course of business, by leaving to the third reading the arrangement of the clauses, and occupying the time of the Committee with that which ought to be done at the third reading. He wished, therefore, that the Hon. Mover would endeavour, in the Committee, to render the Bill as perfect as possible according to his own conception, and then let it take its fate on the third reading. The Hon. Gentleman bad expr?.s ,, d his readine-s to do all in his power to meet the views of Members generally, and so to frame or alter the Bill as to obtain general support ; in do- ing so, he more indulged his good nature than did what was calculated to promote the success of the Bill. Ale (Mr. P.) really thought that the object of the Hon. Mem ber would be heat effected by making the Bill as perfect as possible, according to his own conception, rather than by endeavouring to accommodate it to the fancies of every Hon. Member. Though he (Mr. P.) saw much matter for serious consideration in the Bill before the Committee, yet he should be far from throwing any obstacle in the way of its passing through that stage; and he should be ex tremely sorry to say any thing that could prejudice it on the third reading ; but he must be allowed to say that lie doubted whether the Hon. Member could accomplish what he had in view—namely, making the condition of the South resemble that of the North, by the introduction for a time of an intermediate system not now in use in either. He had doubts, too, whether the clauses which went to separate children from parents could justly be considered expedient enactments. When once a house was erected for the purpose, it was im mediately to be expected that children would be taken into it indiscriminately : might be doubted whether the power was not too great to invest churchwardens and overseers with, and he confessed lie should he sorry to see exercised in all cases ; and under this Bill it might be exercised in the case of the most virtuous parents. He doubted, also, if it would not prove an expensive system, and he therefore entreated the Committee well to consider that before they proceeded further with the Bill. He un derstood it as conferring certain powers upon the parish officers, until the practice of the South should be assimi lated to that of the North—it gave them the power of founding a school, in which they could place all children on whose behalf parochial relief was demanded, from the age of seven to fourteen, and fixed such school entirely under the management of the parish officers. Whenever relief was asked for any child from the parish, he was perfectly ready to admit that from that moment the parish officers were entitled to interfere with its daily education, namely, with the education which they might receive at a day-school ; but beyond that, he much questioned the expediency of interference. He had had some experience on this subject in Ireland, in respect of an establishment which undertook not alone to provide for the education, but for the clothing and employment of the children com mitted to their care ; and lie must confess, that the result of that experience was by no means favourable to the prac tice. One of the difficulties 'Which it presented was thi,, ...„. _ that when the children attained the age of fourteen, their managers knew not what to do with them.— They might have 20, 30, 40 children at the age of 14, who had received a better education, perhaps, than might have qualified them for situations merely servile ; and from that and other causes, the conductors of charter schools—the establishments to which he particu larly alluded—had great difficulties to contend against._ Those conductors stood in the place of parents, and the parents and friends of the children had a right to say, you are responsible, and not we, and to you we look for putting forward in the world those young persons now at the age of fourteen or fifteen, of whom you have assumed the care. Then, again, another objection to the Bill was, that it con ferred upon churchwardens and overseers powers which they would be very likely to exceed. To establish such a school as was contemplated by the Bill, invested the churchwardens and overseers with the power of appoint ing masters and mistresses and attendants, and so con ferted upon them a certain amount of patronage ; for the persons employed must, of necessity, get some stipends, more or less. To such an enactment, he confessed, he could not help feeling considerebie objection. This Bill would confer upon churchwardens and overseers the power of taking leases, making purchases, building or fitting up houses—surely such powers were open to abuse. For these reasons, then, he thought that the Committee ought to pause before they agreed to all the clauses of the Bill. He begged not to be understood as urging these observations as objections to the Bill; he only aimed at suggesting topics which he thought were deerving of serious consideration. Mr. WILMOT HORTON thought that many of the objections •o the Bill would he obviated, if it were dis tinctly laid down, that no relief should be afforded to any, except, those who presented themselves in the true spirit of the Act of Elizabeth. _ - Sir THOMAS BARING differed from the Hon. Man' hers who thought thaNSe present measure-was calculated to raise the :charactere the people, and he way. altoge ther at a loss to discover how such a Bill could anninish the parochial rates. For his part, he r,••ild not doubt that the placing a crowd of children from the age of seven to fourteen, iu a large house, must have a demoralizing effect. Mr. C. WOOD gave his support to the clause, for in Lis opinion none of the objections to it were well-founded. Sir THOMAS FREEMANTLE contended that the Bill was no departure from the principle of previous legi slation upon this subject—it was merely declaratory of the law. Mr. ESTCOURT vindicated the present system: Mr. SLANEY observed that where the practice pre vaned against which the Bill was directed the poor were ill off, and where it was not found they were well off. Amongst the effects which he an'icipated from the Bill, one would be to discourage early and improvident mar riages. In the county of Sussex, young men of 18 or 20 made no scruple of marrying, and were applying for re lief for their first children. He rejoiced that the Right Hon. Gentleman (the Secretary of State for the Home Department) did not object to the principle of the Bill, but merely to a clause which had nut been originally in tended to form part of the Bill, but had been adopted from another Bill, rather in the expectation of receiving the support of coins Hon. Members than from any very strong predilection far the clause in question ; but it should be remembered that the clause could only be of temporary operation, applying only to those who might marry within four years from the passing of the Bill. He repeated, in answer to the Right Hon. Gentleman's ob jection, that this clause did no more than was done before by the Act of Mr. Sturges Bourne. By that Act the overseers had the power to take a child away from pauper parents, and put him to labour at nice years of age. This clause gave them a power to take a child away at seven years of age, and put him to school, se that it actually conferred a benefit on the pauper. He was happy, how ever, to perceive from the Right Hon. Gentleman's objec tion being made solely to this clause, that he was not hostile to the others, or to the principle of the Bill itself ; and although there were no hopes that the Bill would pass into a law at present, he rejoiced at the prospect of a mea sure of some kind like the one lie proposed being carried up for discussion to the other House of Parliament, be cause lie was confident it was the only means left to them for obtaining a better system. Mr. Secretary PEEL said the Hon. Member was too hasty in supposing that he agreed with him in all the clauses of the Bill, because he did not object to them at present. He was anxious, however, to reserve any expression of opinion until he saw how the Hon. Member proposed to carry hie plan into effect, and he therefore hoped the Bill would go to a third reading. Mr. BENETT thought that the Poor Rates were not an evil, and that the return of prosperity would replace them in the same condition as before. Some verbal amendments being then made on the clause empowering Overseers to take the children of paupers, Sir T. BARING expressed his determination to oppose it altogether. A conversation then took place between Mr. SLAxstr, Mr. Secretary PEEL, Mr. W. flowrox, Mr. CALVERT, Lord ALTHORP, and others, on the propriety of allowing the Bill to be printed with the Clause; but Mr. SLAM Y, having declared that he was not anxious about it, if the others were preserved ; and Sir T. BARING having perse vered in his opposition, the Committee divided— For the clause 9 Against it 9l Majority —B2 _ _ The other anises being then agreed to, the Report was brought up, and ordered to be taken into further conside ration on Monday next. GALWAY FRANCHISE BILL COMMITTEE. Mr. S. RICE moved the Order of the .Day for the House resolving itself into a Committee of the whole House on the above Bill. Mr. DALY opposed it upon the grounds that the House had agreed to bear Counsel against the Bill, and that he had that evening, at eight o'clock, received a letter from Mr. Adam, the Counsel, stating that he was unable to attend. _ _ Mr. S. RICE opposed the postponement. He thought in the first place that the inconvenience it might be to a Counsel to attend at the bar should not be held as a suffi cient reason for stopping the progress of a public Bill ; and secondly, he thought the case was not one in which Counsel should be heard at all, because there was only one petition opposed to the prayers of a great number. He far ther contended that when the whole bar of England was open to a man's choice, he had only himself to blame if he was left in any difficulty by the absence of a single person. He, for one, would move " that the Speaker leave the Chair." Mr. DALY produced the letter, and declared he was not to blame. He saw Mr. Adam after receiving that intimation, and he had repeated the contents of that com munication to him. Mr. S. RICE observed that Mr. Adam had been in the House of Lords that evening. Sir G. HILL observed it had been decided by the House, that Cour•sc;l should be heard. The question then to be considered was, it the absence of Mr. Adam was sufficient to authorize a postponement. Mr. S. RICE remarked that Counsel might equally well be heard on the Report on the third rending. He thought that since this postponement would give the Hon. Member a chines of checking the progress of the Bill for the entire Session, the House ought not to assent to it. For one he would not consent to the delay. He was cer tainly the introducer of the Bill, but, unlike the Hon. Member, he was not personally interested iu it. Mr. DALY asked if the Hon. Member for Limerick would say that Mr. Adam did speak in the House of Lords that night? Mr. W. WYNN thought they should not postpone the consideration of a public measure upon the simple asser tion that it would be inconvenient for a Counsel to attend. The principle would be highly injurious, as there was no public Bill which might not be stopped if such excuses were suffered to prevail. Mr. Secretary PEEL said be apprehended that the pe tition was not opposed to the principle, but to certain clauses of the Bill ; and he thought his Hon. Friend was not liable to the slightest blame. He had, at a late hour that very evening received a letter from his Counsel, stating that his state of health was such that he could not attend. And what was he then to do ? He could not get another :.t that time, although lie might certainly have previously chosen from the whole Bar of England. He considered that the Mon. Member for Limerick had a right to call upon the House to proceed with the Bill after such a manner as would prevent the possibility of any ob s►acles being thrown in its way that might have the effect of checking its progress for tke Session, and he accordingly believed it would be well if his Hon. Friend acquiesced in permitting the Bill to go through this stage, upon the understanding that Counsel should he heard upon the Re port; so that if a sufficiently strong case against any of the clauses were made out, his Hon. Friend might have the opportunity of moving the recommittal of the Bill, and thus be placed in the same situation in which he now stood. He would therefore submit that the Bill should now be suffered to go on, upon the understanding that Counsel should be heard at an early hour on Wednesday next, when the Report might be brought up. Mr. S. RICE observed, that the petition was against the principle; he did not, accordingly, see how the Bill could be re-committed. He, however, was willing to agree to the arrangement. Mr. DALY also expressed his satisfaction in the arrange ment. . The Bill was then passed through a Committee, and the Report was ordered to be received on Wednesday next, when Counsel was to be heard against it. DESERTED CHILDREN (IRELAND) BILL. Lord L. GOWER rose to move the second reading of this Bill. He explained that it was his intention to remodel the Bill, so as to confine it to the first of the two objects it proposed to embrace, namely—a provision for deserted children, and an abolition of the Foundling Hospital. The other point, which was a favourite one with himself, he proposed for the present to abandon ; and this he did the more readily, because there was a Committee then sitting above stairs, which would, in all probability, take the subject into consideration, and make some suggestion respecting it. He trusted, therefore, that as he bad divided this Bill under separate heads, he might have it now read a second time without opposition. He acknowledged that there would be great difficulties in the way of this second division of the Bill, which referred to illegitimate children, and therefore he had proposed it for further consideration. Mr. O'CONNELL observed great difficulties would arise in the details. Children might be transferred from one part of the country to another, and a species of pa rochial questions would arise as to whether they had been properly abandoned or no.—(A laugh.)—lle thought it might, perhaps, be better if the entire subject was to lie over for further consideration. He would not, however, oppose the second reading.—lt was then read a second time, FORGERIES' PUNISHMENT BILL. Mr. Secretary PEEL moved the postponement of the second reading of this Bill until that day fortnight. Mr. BUXTON assented to the proposition, and re marked, that before the day appointed, a motion would be made for the abolition of the punishment of death in all cases whatsoever. USURY LAWS' BILL. Mr. P. THOMSON wished to psstpone the discusi° 4 on the second reading of this Bill but the sense of 01 House was evidently against it. The Hon. Member O A proceeded to say that in the present Bill he had end e avoure d to meet the objections which had been made to the tne s ' sure he bad introduced last session. These objectio o were directed to two points—namely, that in borruvri 4 upon the security of real property, great inconveuicA ce arose from persons tying themselves to the payment of 3 rate of interest from which they were never afteie,var d ' able to relieve themselves ; and secondly, that )oung 10° of good expectations were in the danger of casting the° selves into difficulties fur their whole lives, to meet t l ' 6 exigencies of a moment. Now, in his Bill, he proposed t 1 meet both these evils ; for, in the first place, he propoe° to give all facilities for the discounting of hills, and loan' of money, while in the next place, lie wished th it notbia, except legal interest should be recoverable in a Court ° I Law. But as he did not anticipate any objrctien to the principle of the measure, lie would not trouble the 110 6° at greater length on th it occasion, but would merely moil the second readine of the Bill. Mr. HEATIICOTE declared, that nothing should duce him to relax in his exertions to prevent the l3'` from passing into e lew. Even the reservations in tb e i Bill were more injurious than would be the abolitios ° Usury Laws altogether. His Mori. Friend psoposed exempt mortgages from the operation of the Bill. money were lent on mortgage for more than five per east' the borrower might bring the case into a court of W' and the lender could not recover more than five per cen t ' But of what advantage would that be to the boreowet . For although the lender could not recover more than V e , per cent. he might ratd the mortgage. Was the pres o a proper moment at which to bring forward such s pr, position ? If any interest in the country were at tuil present moment in a prosperous state, it was the moneYs t interest. The low price of every article, the change O s had taken place in the currency, had all been favourstbl a to the capitalist, yet at such a time his Hon. Friers(' Pr rr posed to allow the capitalist to take what might be c° ° : sidered as unlimited interest. If it were true that t" e time for such a change was inexpedient as respected tb state of the moneyed interest, it was still 7.9'1 , ! true thst it was inexpedient as respected the state of >:.i. agrieul' tural interest ; oppressed as that interest was \nth wa' of confidence, and with other difficulties, which his HO: w Friend's Bill mus t t e nd to enhance. All Bills of th ° , and ouldhe share wou ld the fate e descriptio n h a d hi t h er t o b a d an un f or t una te t erm inatiom ent o u f re its to pr p v r i o e p ees he s c o y m tha A t sthhies wits pet'messo anaded that the sooner it was got rid of the better, 'should certainly divide the House upon the present motic't Mr. GORDON regretted that his Hon. Friend the Member for Wareham, under whose banner he (Mr. don) had so frequently fought, in opposition to the Bill' c d a similar nature, which had been proposed by an Hon. ° lf Learned Serjeant, and who had invariably shown hi oe , one of the most able and persevering opponents of 11, 7 - e• Bills, had not spoken on the present occlusion. „, the old objections which applied to the Bill under the c° ", sideration of the House, there was the additional one tl is , it sanctioned a little treachery—a little fraud. A I ° °r i . rower might deceive a lender by offering ten or fifteetil' s cent., while there was no legal obligation upon him to Pee more than five. This was an inducement to fraud. fly hoped his Hon. Friend. the Member for Wareham, 1 011 i ii state his sentiments on the Bill ; and trusted that it iv° eventually be thrown out Mr. CALCRAFT had not had any intention of troubl il4 the House on the present occasion, but, as his fl° 11 " Friend had called upon him, he had no hesitation in air ing, that he maintained the same opinions upon the su lY ject AS he had formerly done. Be had been induced S D believe that the Bill of the Hon. Member for Dover WO somewhat different in its provisions front the Bill of 0 6 Learned Serjeant. But his objections to it were of 3 r neral nature. The present was not the moment for 01 .1 1 an operation. There was a want of confidence it money transactions ; and if the laws respecting nuo r i were suddenly changed, a material addition woulc made to the difficulties of all classes bat that class w 1 . 41 laboured und er n o difficulty a t a ll. If hi s Hon. Friel, had not called upon him he should not have troubled is House upon the question ; but he should certainly Y °bl against the Bill. .01 Mr. ROBINSON maintained that the present *rit e ! ! operated most injuriously on large classes of comma ° , and trading men. At the time when the existing 10 were passed, there were reasons why money should 01 bear a higher interest than five per cent. Capital was $ that period less abundant than it was at present ; for it iv a great mistake to suppose that capital was not at pre abundant, not only in this country, but over the who world. Under such circumstances, was it not a gr e ' hardship that both lenders and borrower s s h ou ld ". limited in their transactions? It was a great mistake suppose that means were not at present resorted to, 85 as annuities and others, by 7, hich money was borrow' and lent at a rate greater than the law allowed. His 111 Friend's Bill would do away with all the evils into xvhig borrowers were driven by the absurd existing regulatiol Having said so much, however, in favour of the prille i P o ' of the Bill, he must add that he was decidedly adverse that clause in it which having allowed parties to bar ° , and lend at a greater rate than five per cent., held 0+,., temptation to the borrower to go into a Court of Las' the purpose of violating the contract. .(1 Lord ALTHORP was of opinion, that if the Vs ° Laws were to be changed, there could be no more coo' nient time for the alteration than the present. As tol fraud which it was said the Bill would sanction, it shol be remembered that the same means of fraud existed present, nay greater ; for if a pal ty borrowing money usurious interest brought the party lending into a Co' of Law, he could refuse not only the interest, but principal also. Me di4 not believe that the repeal of Usury Laws would be disadvantageous to the landed terest; as it would not subject them to pay more for naoi than they did at present. He should support the Bill, he had done all others of a similar description. Sir C. WETHERELL was not surprised that the . should be supported by the laity ; but should have been e;, ceedingly surprised, if any lawyer had supported a Illeaoel which contained so gross an inconsistency as a repeal the Usury Laws, and y e t a c l ause , w hil e it allows v, contract to be made for unlimited interest, permitted borrower to bring the contract into a Court of Law far, l , , , purpose of having it repudiated and disallow e d. The 9 _, 1 contained another clause, which wa s scarce ly l e ss ah , o o l, namely; that whenever more than five per cent. had l voluntarily paid, it could never be got back. What `./ voluntary payment ? Suppose money had been obtag, by action or a rres t, was th a t vo l un t ar y payment? P,' very rarely had any evil resulted from the present 1 31 ;, If an adequat e su b s tit u t e cou ld be found for them he e °o q not object to it ; but he had not yet met with any such elB`.stitute. The repeated discussions which had taken P l it on the subject had, in his mind, e stablished the utter possibility of looking at money as at other articles of troliu, and of letting its possessor do what he chose with it. 'f t , was a principle disclaimed both by the ancient and the modern world. It was a principl e which no writer, character had ever maintained. He was convinced if the Hon. Gentleman's Bill were agreed to, it 'W . ': render the landed interest an easy prey to the capita list Mr. O'CONNELL rose in answer to the assertio n o ; the Hon. and Learned Gentleman that no lawyer w ° l be found to support the Bill. His only objection to It dr that it did not go far enough. He wished to see the 'Pp Laws abolished entirely. All attempts to put a maxi?D ) price upon any commodity—and money was a commoditYle; were absurd. Laws of that description were inexecuta C J they had never been executed. He had known instan6 Ireland in which annuities of fourteen, fifteen, or eigp r j per cent. had been granted for money, when, if there been no violation of the law, eight or nine per cent. o' c iv have been the utmost that would have been given fold The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had stated that the of persons suffering from the law as it at present was extremely rare. He, however, could not agree in fry for he had known many cases of persons in Ireland 1 1 , by taking more than the legal rate of interest, had lost 4 l and in o ne p ar ti cu lar instance he knewvin by th e H on . M e mber for Dover, at g been rui ne d by such a circumstance. a lfpaam,principal,,ilayha proposed s secured the principal. The only loss that there c ool', would be in the additional b on us. But this was calle d absurdity of the proposition. Ile could see no absurd it. Its principle was to do away with the penalty of o f Usury Laws, and to give a legal sanction to five per ce d at least. Another mischief that arose from the present Pit of the Usury Laws was, that they tempted Juries to st l o their conscience, and, in a manner, gave an incitenienor perjury. The Bill now proposed would amend this! it would, at the same time, be the means of afford' t higher value to the characters of individuals, as the fa c ;it of borrowing money would greatly depend upon that. only fault that he had to find with the measure was! it did not go far enough. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—He had never b' e l advocate for the t o t a l re p ea l o f th e Usury Laws ; but ' 3 l on furthe r cons id e r a ti on , h e d ou bted whether they °'',l? to be altog e th e r repeal e d. At all events, however, 'O,l needed alteration ; and then the question was, wha t , 0 44 alteration ought to be. He agreed with the Noble that if. the pre on mor tion of and he they wi should that it could Laws, take to care, at parties beet; repeal lend er tion of ever ra money loan w The questic with that a might was to for the any re, fix NV/ or oth was, t of pre moue) now 8 Usury rest ; other great] . Th, Th, to mo this n jeotiot public oblige portio But t event( very looker matte Th 4 Mond shot he n Lion sup( state negt Geo Per Off the chil Peol the, Th fro Col Fe.] se❑ ret of pla pa th 4 thi eoi