The Sun. — London, England, 1851-04-09 00:00:00

~- in o ego h equ'7 t st, kilo" ours l oud by d b ee ; Ito 0-a no I ' l I ent er iB5 and Sri. th e 1 to . )on lII° SUN,_ LONDON, WEDNESDAY f London, such as Whitechapel and Shor fet a editch? This a said p ot hi n4 of the condition of a greet many ce' the residences of the working people, in which there was ;as I st one family in a room, but two, tutee, four, and, as himself had seen, five families in a single room, four „ ke „tlPYing a c orner eac h , an d one i n th e Piaysi 4"Y, nothing could be worse; but what was the moral effect? In these houses or rather of d'ffere!: t eing.le rooms , many I r tnen males and females and o f , the sure families, were crowded tegether, and all tee ih i c e Y . i and any ki n d o f e d uca tion were utterly mpos t° i for even supposing that that the desire existed im part education, it would he absolutely nugatory 41 account of the number of vicious examples which the children w, would have constantly before their ey tee es. eat wond er, then, that in these receptacles nine e a tuB of th e re at crimes, the burglaries and murders , a nd all those s g cenes of violence which desolated society, phculd b e fi rst conceived and hatched? L et any one 9 ere to himself the physical state of so many persons, ee l°, or even 20 or 25 living t o gether in one room. 4 'e r this also in mind, that there was no one principle whi, h dit. of so evil an effect upon the sanitary con dition °F the Population as overcrowding within a hmited I ' 4 °. Be laid stress on the sanitary condition of the People, because every person who had the least e x.. Perien c h e of the m a tt er mus t see its intimate connexion f their moral stare. He hel d i n hi s h an d a repor t , f eci the London Fever Hospital in 1845, which gave a w q f eir sampl e o f what he h a d s t ate d. I n this a room as described, 33 feet 9 inches long and 20 feet wide, in t0, 1 :4 4 1,_ 50, tand sometimes 90 or 100, people were crowded u With no more room for respiration than was al ed i n t h e hospital for three patients.—(Hear, hear.) fiftblerre the consequence. Considerably more than one- Part of th e num b er o f cases a d m itt e d into the fever h°api ia in that year were received from that room alone. C t e ar, hear.) Th ey h a d a b un d a nt proofs of the hs the of over-cro w di ng i n the investigations instituted Board of Health. Such was the condition of tb 4 B t t m ight be call e d the stationary population? But was the state of the migratory population? The o f% r t of one of the commissioners stated the case of oe ei gat r eceptacles for this class, in which there were ;10rei 113°faeliletalbyall let separately. In one of these, which 10, beds were arranged on each side, corn 27aed of straw, shavings, and rags, and in this room slept Oar ) " Males and females, 31 children, and two or j e dogs, I n another room there were 32 human hei e g e ti ' all bre a thi ng t h e same p es tilential air; the beds lat: 80 close t ogether that t h ere was no room to pass ts e r n them. This house was never cleaned or venti doubt and literally swarmed with vermin. This, no Fi e u ; was (sae of the worst instauces. He hoped the lea . 41 would forgive him for enterieg into thee() details, ma tt w as _ pa s 4 case which could not only be proved by ar ttliti:se,s' b at by fscts.—(Hear, hear.) This state of Part; ee "" not confined to London, but pervaded many pope the kingdom, particularly the great towns and ilitilli,sosuitshdistricts. Ono of the inspectors of the Board quoted a letter from a clergyman who described ere et am ' Maidstone, and Dover as being in a state of d Lipeeatidis, w d e e r m s o i r o alization; Birmingham, Manchester, and a similar state. Of Birmingham he coul eff ec t f rom his own personal knowledge. But mark the h ips " on the labouring man, who might be earning, per teee's 153 -, 205., o r e v en 255. a week. It wwas tp ar k aal 'Y that h e s h ou ld l o d g e somewhere near his eePta e t tuld he, was driven to some one of these re handreees. Wh at was the consequence? He had known eti r , l3 8 and hundreds of instances in which a man tt li ve i tl ik P in the prime o f life, capable of earning not only the - " ° °d, but something beyond, and soon came on eiiiicreish and sank into his grave, leav i ng h i s w if e an d tee ° re a Permanently chargeable. From Leeds he had perßants stating one instance in which no less than eight .a.,,,,ieubaatl,Were found sleeping in one bed, and another in /eel eirte. o -- e ue persons occupied three beds. At Brad so4leol7°,°tY Persons were found occupying one room, oat 4 .1° beds, and some on the floor, and it appeared that la B hi aPveards of 60,000 inhabitants, 15,000 were lodg!cl toki n s h w aY• Ile would mention one other instance in Wh e „ - ", to show the necessity of taking some steps. the y opened the great thoroughfare from Oxford he, " to Holborn it swept away a vast number of small agthugseseiss;rnedss w io r g etched dwellings; but while they were the beauty of the town, they were ex popuria,tmg the misery endured by a large part of the triet called There was a street in the Bloomsbury dis the ,"ed Church -lane, a wretched neighbourhood, and thi a "" u he of fever. In a room in one of the houses in ram s treet a f am il y was li v i ng , c onsisting of eight tad e e s above tw en ty,fi ve f ema l es a b ov e twenty, four males ta; r twen ty, and five females under twenty. On inquiry al %n ee ve crowding was found to be caused by the clear /3W° on the formation of New Oxford-street. He meintheir attention to this fact, in order to show .t that s a a t ket 'u_ great improvements were in progress was W et e r of grave consideration whether some precautions e not necessary to prevent the overcrowding of the Vcrer classes and the engendering of typhus. The a'ber of places examined and reported on by the in- IPectors I,9 lq was 161, with an aggregate population of Z - 1 09 , and he might venture to ray that hardly a ile instance could be found in which the dwelling 4°.usel of the working people approximated to decency. I B intenti on was to ma k e the Bill merely permissive. ' N Hilt was to a great extent, a transcript of the Baths f1, ,, : g / o V o a d sh h ho a u , se a s Act, which, if it had not affected all x ected, had worked extremely well— was coming ttwas s w e ly p into operation, and he thought he „,ht say that when it was more generally adopted it -able confer upon the country a benefit it was impos -,awle to estimate. It was first provided that the Act ''''Xht be adopted in towns and boroughs; next that the r°llticil might adopt it; third, that the church w ard en , 0o the requisition of ten ratepayers, might convene a t ea trY to determine whether the Act shouid be adopted, tZ:- t eirds of the vestry being in favour of it, and the overseers would be authorised to levy such a r a t e as would b e required to carry i t out. The v Le,tries of two or more parishes might combine for the ur Peee of erecting lodging-houses, and by-laws were to a o Tade, subject to the revision of the Secretary of State, no person receiving parish relief should be allowed ij m ue a ten ant . H av i ng ha d some exper i ence o f t h ese th„g, in g•houses he could state some of the good effects 4 "' had r esu l te d f rom t h e i r esta bli s h m e n t. N o thi ng th ald be more remarkable than the cheerfulness with which 4 0 r ent de man d e d was pa id , t h e regu l ar ity a nd correct leeleal w ith which it w as c o llected, and the system of al fe;„llg.,no arrears. Then, again, look at the freedom dis c disease, particularly all contagious and epidemic in these lodging-houses. That was a matter of eeiC" importanc e , because it showed that they met the sa u a a ad placed th e wor ki ng p eo pl e evidently iu a better tbarY condition. Dr. Duncan, of Liverpool, stated h Bj 'e 'Tn the registration of the existing lodging- Tbep's had that town had had a most desirable effects le ou ' a nad been 150 cases of fever during the preys ilistsB„eef the late epidemic, and since the re the - "° 11 only ninety cases had occurred, and de aths from cholera had been reduced one- St, In the model building that had been erected in With ; e° rges, Bloomsbury, for single men, and which is c ern a stone's throw of Church-lane, where the cholera 011 d 'bitted such ravages, not one death had occurred, sp o "IY one case of diarrhoea—(Hear, hear)—which had thelmedily Yielded to medical treatment. It the people Of tC ir ea were queationed, and were asked the history th e _ l l' Past life and present state, it would be found that souses'4rntage they enjoyed from the model lodging merew that the wages they earned they kept. They 0 Induced to remain at home, and it had been the p eee n s ? of reforming many. He had heard the same ex tol, k °ll fr ecriently repeated—" The wages we earn we gratitude a;'o r they were full of the liveliest expressions of th e ., f the accommodation, were afraid only that t hose b net a light lose these advantages, and were hopeful that blot a ts , mi g ht be extended over all parts of the the r° ? ° lte- Another advantage that had resulted from s,,,tawPtll,areogs f buildings in Stretton street was, that there enclosed court in which all the children were e th e e " to congr ega t e , by w hi c h th e y were kept from 6g ont atnination of the streets. One of the objections ey was that these p eo pl e w ere charged a rent that 0850 ere unable to bear. Assuming that to be the thi e ', l te Was convinced that the working man would be an d meet that increased rent by the superior health t b n e greater energy and diligence he could devote to fte r e ' lli ng• Be had seen many instences of that. On a eoe.eeletilation, the working man lost 30 days from ill ow° In the course of the year, and estimating that at ere 3 ' Is . 6i. per day, there was 21. 55., but which was a t u a! deal more than any increase of rent he now paid. th he denied that there was any increase of rent ; on th:..contrary, there was a positive diminution, with more adequate profit to the speculator. Now, in Snowe'a reeti_tia, Viestminater—a roost horrible place = the average w oe of each room was 2s. 4id. per week. Single men er e • cnaeged is. 6d. a week for half a bed, and often p l eral persons sleeping in the same room. The London e rlt labourers paid, it was ascertained, from 2s. to 45. Ann week, the,average being as, per week. Now, what ve,the It of these model lodging-houses? He -del Bloomsbury. There every e„ 111(1 first take St. George' it ch had a compartment to himself, and for that he paid b ud Per night, and yet there was a clear profit upon the they in g of 6} per cent. In the model lodging-houses , 5 gave every accommodation, a constant supply of e 4 Ante to each house, and for the Same ren t exac tl y e eo W as Paid for one in those wretched hovels. The 40 ' 4 were from 34. 6d. to 75. per week. It was then. that all these things should be left to private ho use s but that was generally directed to small houses th e 1f the cheapest description, as being -eV to leave tal l© gest profit. These parties did not like to under e building model lodging houses, because they feared eae e rea Ponsibility of the superintendence and super titien that was required. Now,. the reduction of the % e l on bricks had greatly facilitated the erection of we se o uses.—(Cheers.) The abolition of the duty had , eil eeted a reduction in the cost of erection of 15 per h o il' But wh en they b roug h t i n t o o peration the use of t reduction would 'w bricks, which were not generally come into use, gwould be equal to 25 per cent. Then a tae w . vs, had been derived from the reduction . of i„ ( „witid o d otret uty.—(Cheers.) Take the pile of buildings the ton-street. All the rooms being under one roof e on w in ow duty would amount to from GO/. to 70/. per e Bei t l lth, adding at least 255. per annum to the rent of enabi r e ° °T• The window duty being removed would e rno3 • them e to let these houses without that great in- Cs, c d ` / °` l'enf, and they would reduce the 7s. rooms to should', beand the 6s. rooms to ss. 61 These house, it "'lreet remembered, were not of an eleemosynary capit, but w ou ld a ff ord an adequate return for the see,,,cin `e lnvested. The object the association had in setting 14 041 8 f hg up these lodging-houses was to afford to or imitation, and to show that they were likely '4 s P u r t °re fu . Illy remunerative as investments for capital. th at I :e . nit had been established.—(Cheers.) The sum kat ,;'4,o,een expended on these buildings was 20,7501., *An gell in improving, adapting, and fitting up three ex oe ,, A ,Oi old d we ll ing -houses. That made an entire the"4tture of 23,0004 and the return, including all buiaji'cl'easea of mana gemen t, was 6 per cent.—the new le perrigB b rought 5i per cen t., an d th e o l d ones about and C ent One house they had kept as a cur i os i ty 1,441ki illustration of the exorbitant and intolerable ' 0 wag Wive. Olt VINO 1.0 Y? Some of them realised not less than 30 per eent., end most of them he wee convinced reape.] a very consider able profit. In many place.; esee the kuuckieg down of a house at the end of a cal de sac was the moans of letting in light and ventilation to a whole district. The House would be encouraging associations for that pur pose if it only reduced the cost of those charters, and gave the members limited liabilities. It should be remembered that to cerry out these saniotry results they must destroy as much as they built up. They would be doing little if they left those abominable nests of filth and disease—they must be swept away before the new lodging-houses could do all the good they were calculated to effect. Ile was extremely anxious that the House should take the matter up, becauss the question had excited the greatest sympathy and attention, and the association had received letters from all parts of the United States, asking them to forward plans and estimates. He believed there were few towns, either on the continent or in America, in which a similar state of things did not exist; and he trusted that that country would give an example to sur rounding nations, and show that it became a matter of consideration with the Government. Ile did not think that they could hope for any amelioration of the social or moral condition of the people until their domiciliary condition seas, if he might so term it, Christianised. (heir.) Until they put an end to a system which gene rated disease, which crippled the energies of the work ing classes, and filled their workhouses with widows and orphans--(Hear, hear)—it would be impossible to im prove the condition of the people. Ho was satisfied that if this system was more generally acted upon, a large proportion of the rates would be reduced. Look at what had occurred in the time of the cholera. In the model lodging-house of St. Pancras there were 500 persons living under tine roof. In a court called Peahen court, Bishopsgate-street, there were 150 persons re siding. The inspector of the association, Mr. Grainger, went over that court, and said he was satisfied if the cholera broke out, it would be sure to commit great, ra vages in that court. In three days afterwards it did break out. In the model building at St. Pancras, where there were 500 persons, there was not a single death, and in Peahen-court there were seven deaths, and two being heads of families, twelve orphans were thus thrown upon the rates.—(Cheers.) In 95 unions he had ascertained that there were 2,317 widows and orphans created by the cholera, all of whom became permanently chargeable upon the poor-rates. In Bradford, Leeds, Lambeth, West Bromwich, and Wolverhampton, the increase of the rates from that cause was very considerable. Now, the cholera had done its work openly, but fever was, in those low and ill-ventilated lodging-houses, doing its work slowly but surely. Cholera killed its thousands, but fever was killing its tens of thousands. His prayer to the House was for leave to bring in a Bill to remove some of the impediments to the energies of the working classes. They had never yet tested properly the capa city of the working man, because hitherto he had been placed in a disadvantageous position for the development of his energies. He saw no reason why the working men of that country should not surpass their bethren of the United States—their wages were enormous, but their expenditure, owing to the circumstances of their condi tion, was wild and ruinous in the extreme. Mr. Porter, in a remarkable paper, termed Self-imposed Taxation, had pointed out the expenditure of the working classes in three articles alone, all of which might be dispensed with, or at least much more moderately used—spirits, beer, and tobacco. The sum of money expended by the working classes in these three articles was no less than 57,000,000/. per annum, and he believed that estimate to be correct. Imagine that sum expended in clothing, education, and the improvement of their dwel- Begs, and would any one hesitate to say that by such means the moral, social, and religious condition of the people would be greatly elevated? and he felt assured that God would bless the efforts that would be directed to the advancement of the moral and intellectual well being of so large a portion of the human race.—(Loud cheers.) The Noble Lord concluded by moving for leave to bring in his Bill. Mr. SLANEY felt that he should weaken the force of the Noble Lord's statement by any lengthened remarks; but having been a visitor of the dwellings of the poor, as one of the Commissioners of the Board of Health, he could corroborate the testimony of the Noble Lord. He had heard a statement made respecting one court in Wolverhampton, that the party had seen all the residents in that court twice over transported.—(Hear, hear.) So much for the moral character of the persons living in these houses. He sincerely trusted the House would sanction the passing of the Noble Lord's Bill, as it was calculated to produce the most beneficial effects upon the condition of the working classes. One great difficulty arose from the law of partnership, which would require the interposition of Parliament, and he did not think they would hesitat eto give it their sanction. He would only observe that the health of the working man was his only property, and the Government was bound to give that all the protection in its power. Mr. HUME thought the statement of the Noble Lord ought to make them ashamed of themselves for alloWing such a state of things to exist as had been detailed in the course of his speech. That state of things was caused mainly by the bad legislation of that country. The masses were brought up in the greatest ignorance, and as a matter of course became vicious. The state f the labouring classes in the United States, where every man was educated, was a reproach to them. Were we taking any means to remove this great evil? Improvement in the physical condition of the people would lead to other improvements. Was it possible to believe that such scenes as those described by the Noble Lord could exist in England? Foreigners would hardly credit the statement, and yet it was too true. He feared that Leeds, Manchester, and other great towns would afford similar scenes. But where was the Government all this time? He was not to be told that Government could not interfere; he was quite aware Government did interfere sometimes, and that when they did interfere it was only to do injury. There must be a general move to abolish that system which long misrule had created. All par ties, including the leaders of the people, must join to give education to the masses, for without this it would be impossible to expect permanent good. Ile entreated her Majesty's Government to bestir themselves. He was aware of the difficulties of the question; but if some such plan as that recommended last session were acted upon, he could not doubt that much real good would be effected. The object of the Noble Lord was good, but it was superficial. It was necessary to look to the cause of the evil, and then to lay the axe to the root of it. He considered the diffusion of education was the best means of curing the evil. Sir G. GREY fully agreed with the Noble and Learned Lord that the system which produced such overcrowding was most destructive to the people—not only physically, but morally. As to the proposition for a measure framed on the model of the Baths and Wash houses Act, much good might no doubt be expected by such means; but this must not be depended on as a suf ficient cure for existing evils. Other means and mea sures for improving the condition of the people must be resorted to. A great deal of good had already been done by the construction of dwellings for the poor, and he thought if associations of individuals were formed for constructing such dwellings, more good would be done than by Government interference. If the principle of the Baths and Washhouses Act were adopted, he hoped means would be taken to prevent the scale of rents from being raised too high in the event of the establishment being placed in the hands of commissioners. Not only in towns but in the country, also, this subject was of great importance. The evils of the country, from the same causes, were quite as great as those in town, and he was glad to find the subject had already attracted so much attention that dwellings were being constructed in some country districts for the accommodation of the poor, without reference to the profits of those who con structed them. With respect to the education of the people, he approved of the exertions which were making to diffuse education; but he again considered that indi vidual efforts and combinations of individuals must be looked to as the main means of diffusing education rather than by the help of Government. He hoped what the Noble Lord had stated would induce every one in his own individual sphere to promote the great object that all had in view. Mr. STANFORD agreed with the principle laid down by the Right Hon. Gentleman, that Government was not the proper power to effect the objects contemplated by the Noble Lord; but if individuals or associations were to attempt the task, they would not succeed unless they were protected by an Act of Parliament. He begged to express his gratification to the Noble Lord for bringing the subject forward. He was certain that until the people were well housed and well clothed it was impossible to expect any high moral or intellectual standard—it was impossible to elevate the character of a people if they were subject to privation and to insufficient accomo dation. He again begged to thank the Noble Lord for bringing this important subject forward. Mr. W. J. FOX said persons coming to London to seek employment were compelled to house themselves in those filthy dens, the cheap lodging-houses. By this necessity the very minds of persons became debased, and the advantages of previous education were annihilated. One of the great sources of the evil was the conversion of old houses by speculators into ; these lodging-houses, which wus found to be one of the most profitable occu pations in the metropolis. So long as this and other similar evils existed, it would be impossible to grapple with the evils and the difficulties. The Noble Lord's proposition, therefore, would not effect entire good—it would only very gradually do away with the evil. He considered that the subject matter did:call for the powers of the Legislature, and it was not unworthy the attention. of the Legislature to see that they who speculated in low lodging -houses did not increase and perpetuate an evil of such magnitude. Lord C. HAMILTON considered that the Right Hon. Gentleman h a d l a id d o wn the strict and proper limit for Government to adopt in this important questio n. One, of the m • main difficulties of the case was the expense of commencing work. In one recent instance of a build ing co mpany he knew that it cost them 1,2001. to obtain a charter. If this - expense was lessened he e had ex n e Mr. LABOUCHERE, referring thdoubte expenses o much of th e present mischief would be remedied. f the charter to a buildi ng company, said it was pn s true . the expenses amounted t o a sum, 'length —and but that was owing of the charter—its great to the peculiar nature —and the legal mistake in its construction. But ordi nary charters were not eo expensive, though he ad mitted those expenses were higher t h an th e y ought to be. and he sh ould readil y tur n his attention to the best means of reducing them. He considered that a charter ought not to be encumbered with a heavy fine. If im. proper to be granted, that ought to be a consideration for Government. He titrAin said the expenses of charters were too high, and ought to be reduced. Leave was then given to bring in the Bill. STATE OF IRELAND. Sir W. BARRON hoped the House would bear with him while he attempted to describe the painful position in which the great majority of the people were placed at that moment. He would first describe the position of Ireland in 1845, and compare it with her position at this moment, lie took the period of 1845, because lime. tliately after 1845 the three great causes to which the present condition of Ireland Wag attributed took their rise ; the first cause was the famine in 1846. the change in the poor-laws, and the disastrous change in the corn laws inflicted immediately on that country. He would commence with the poor-law and the state of the poor. 1n1845 the poor-law taxation of Ireland amounted to 310 0001. He found in 1840, according to official returns, that the poor rate amounted to 1,500,710/., an increase of taxation on that head alone of more than 1,200,0001, Ha knew he should be told that 90,000 persons less were receiving relief, but he was in a condition to show this was the grossest delusion that had ever been practised on the people. In 1849 Government were urged to limit the out-door relief in. Ireland by forcing the workhouse test on every man on the books. When a Bill to that effect was passing through the House, he moved a clause to the effect that out-door relief should cease after January, 1851. Every Member agreed in the opinion that the principle of the Bill of 1837, where no out-door relief was given, should be returned to. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland pledged himself that the principle should be adhered to, and he withdrew his clause. The Right Hon. Gentleman bad kept his pro mise; and the boards of guardians had been impressed with the necessity of providing workhouse accommoda tion, and adopting the workhouse test in all cases. The boards of guardians had put the test to all the paupers on their lists, and the consequence was that 90,000 persons fewer received relief. But this was no proof that the poverty of the country had been reduced to that extent. He denied that poverty bad been reduced to that extent; for if out - do or relief was again introduced, there would not only be 90,000 on the books again, but 120,000 would be within the limit. There had been an increase of the in-door pauperism of Ireland, and the tax for the relief of pauperism had in creased upwards of 1,200,0001. since 1845. The county rates since the same year had increased 300,000/. Ac cording to Captain Lercom's report, the land under cul tivation was 1,139,000 acres less in 1840 than in 1847. There had, therefore, been a loss of the produce of those acres, which could not amount to a less sum than 6,600 000/. The importation of swine from Ireland to this country had decreased in value since 1845 at least 1,000,0001., and the decrease iu the importation of sheep imported was not less than 500,0001. What hope was there for a country in which such an increase bad taken place in the taxation, and such a decrease in its produc tion? The sales that had taken place under the En cumbered Estates Act showed that landed property had fallen from 24 years' purchase to 14 yearsert ' purchase en . In Waterford the value of household property had fall 60 per cent. In fact, its trade was vanishing, its shop keepers were all but bankrupt, and the farmers in the neighbourhood were in such distress as not to be able to employ one labourer in place of four they employed before 1845. In a letter of Dr. Murray, Catholic Arch bishop of Dublin, to one of his clezgymen on the subject of a collection for the Catholic university, he stated, that in the present impoverished condition of the city of Dublin, he could not bring himself to call on t poor labourer and struggling artizan for any contribu tion. In a free-trade newspaper—the only newspaper patronised in Ireland by the Government, the Dublin Evening Post—there was a paragraph in which it was admitted that the agricultural distress of the country was a formidable evil, and one for which there did not appear any hope of a remedy. Since 1845 there had been a great decrease in the number of coaches and other public conveyances in Ireland , In Waterford, previous to 1845, there used to be forty pairs of horses kept for coaching, and now there were but sixteen pairs. Of the two steamers that used to ply to and from Bris tol, one had been given up and the other was about to be given up for want of support. A correspondent of his, a Whig gentleman, who had made great sacrifices for the party, writing to biro on the 24th February, stated—" The report of the resignation of the Ministers has just reached this, and I regret to say t it has hat been received with unusu al satisfaction. —(Laughter.) The Whigs have been very unfortunate in the govern ment of Ireland.—(Hear, hear t .) Trade has been smashed.—(' Hear, hear' from the Irish Members.)tenant The landlords were ruined.—(Hear, hear.) The s were broken.—(' Hear' from the same quarter.) The labourers were in the poor-house, and such of . the people as had the means were flying out of the k ingdom by parishes." The Irish natio n, totally wrecked, was be devoured by its own paupers. The cities, towns, and villages were half deserted. The cottages of many of the peasants were levelled to the ground, and their former tenants were wandering about the country as beggars and thieves. The emigrati on that was going on proved the miserable condition of the country, and he was alarmed when be considered the class who wee leaving the country. Thep auper was left behind, r but the farmer, with capital, was taking his leave. He fully agreed with what Lord Stanley had said on this subject, when addressing his friends a few nights ago. He be lieved nothing but extreme misery, or the prospect of it, could drive an Irishman from the land of his birth. Another, and perhaps the strongest proof of the wretched state of Ireland, was the amount of offences against pro perty without violence. In 1845 the number was 5,686, bat in 1849 it wes 23,179.—(Hear, hear.) He perceived from the newspapers of that day that a deficiency had occurred in the Customs revenue of Ireland to the amount of 37,000/. In this country the Customs re venue had increased, but in Ireland it had diminished. In the last month there had been in Ireland a deficiency in the circulating medium of 120,000/. Did not such a state of things demand inquiry ?—(Hear.) He hoped Government were not unwilling to grapple with the subject. If they admitted what he had said, and should tell him that they had no remedy, they would confess their impotence to govern the country. He begged to mov e that a Select Committee be app ointed to in quire into the present condition of Ireland, with a view co suggest some remedy for the distress existing there. Sir L. O'BRIEN said it was little known to the House what was passing in some districts of Ireland. The case of Kilrush had been brought under notice the other night; and though he objected to the slur cast upon the chairman in that instance—as a more honourable man did not live—it was the truth that lla. in the pound had already been paid for poor-rates, and now another rate of 4s. 6d. further was added to it. But this was not all. In the Callan union 15s. was paid in the pound, leaving 4s. 61. only for the landlord. The consequence was that the farmers threw up the land and went to America, leaving the landlord to pay the rate. The estimate fur t he support of the poor was 16s. 10d. in the electoral division with which he was connected; and in the Kenmure union it was 11. 6s. He asked the Government how did they mean to deal with the question? They had got 68,0001. from the rate-in-aid this year. What would they do next year? The multiplication of erime was awful. One gaol built for 160 prisoners had now 600 within its walls, and its annual cost was increased from 1,000/. to 6,000/. The workhouses were equally crowded as t he g aols: in the city of Limerick alone there were 7,000 people in the union, living on the poor-rates. The landlords of Ire land were driven by the terrible pressure to demand the workhouse test. He called upon the Government to give more weight, in the administration of the law, to the local authorities; and he was satisfied the country gen tlemen would administer it better, and at less expense. Last year the poor-law staff cost 17,000/.—more than a third of all that was spent on the poor; all of which might be saved if his proposition were adopted. He supported the motion for a Committee. Sir W. SOMERVILLE said the Hon. Baronet who introduced the motion had introduced it in an ingenious manner. He said he attributed the distress of Ireland to the famine, the corn-law, and the poor-law; but he attacked the poor-law alone, and left the impression that it was to that law alone the present misery of Ire land was to be traced. Sir W. BARRON —No, no. Sir W. SOMERVILLE—The Hon. Gentleman seemed to refer to 1845 as a period of prosperity in Ireland; but be (Sir W. Somerville) referred to the Member for the University of Dublin, and also to the report of Lord Devon's Commission, to show that in this year the condi tion of the labouring population of Ireland was the most wretched and most miserable imaginable.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentlemen drew a comparison between the amount of rates in 1848 and 1851, omitting the interme diate periods; but the returns of all the years would show whether there was such an increase in the rates and in the number of paupers. There were the ex penses of the poor-law in three years, and the numbers relieved: -- Cost. Numbers relieved. 1848 ... .Z 425,000 ... 555,000 1849 ... 302,000 ... 290,000 1850 ... 247,000 ... 200,000 He (Sir W. Somerville) did not mean to say that Ireland was in a prosperous state, but he did assert that the com parison of the Hon. Gentleman was not accurate. The Hon. Gentleman said he had moved the omission of out door relief in the amended poor-law, but that he (Sir W. Somerville) had opposed it. But the Hon. Baronet was obliged to admit that the poor-law board had acted up to the spirit of the law in every respect, and he cen sured that board for doing that which he did himself. The Hon. Gentleman proved from Captain Larcom's re port, by some process he (Sir W. Somerville) did not comprehend, that there was a decreased quantity of land cultivated in Ireland; but as he (Sir W. Somerville) read that report, he came to a contrary conclusion. Captain Larcom's report did not exist in 1845—not until 1847. This was the return : TOTAL ACRES UNDER CULTIVATION. 1847 ... ... 5,238,575 1848 ... ... 5,108,062 1849 • ... 5,543,000 Sir W. BARRON said the Right lion. Gentleman had misapprehended him. What he said was, that in corn —including peas and wheat—Captain Larcom's returns, in 1847, gave 8,313,579 acres under cultivation, while, in 1849, 2,174,480 acres only were under such cultiva tion, leaving a deficit of 1,139,000 cures. Sir W. SONIERVILLE.—It did not signify what was the cultivation, so long as the land was cultivated; and he thought green crops were all the better. The mean result, however, was, that more land was under culti vation in 1849 than in 1847. There was the subject, too, of the export of cattle. In dealing with the statis tics of that question also, his Hon. Friend had only taken as much as suited hi; purpose. One useful description of animal might have fallen off; but there were documents on the table of the House to show that the exportation of horses and other cattle had increased since 1849. Now, he might urge from these that Ireland was in a state of prosperity, but, he did not want to do any such thing, although he wished he could avouch as much; all he wanted to say was, that which he thought—namely, that within the last two years, as compared with the two mi,erable preceding ones, there was some improvement and some amelioration in the condition of the country.— (ll,str.) The Hon. Baronet had then branched off to his own locality, and had told them that the county cess paid by the City of Waterford was less than it was years ago. Now he (Sir W. Somerville) did not mean to say from that that the city was in a flourishing condition; what he meant to say was, that picking out statements after that manner was not the mode of furnishing the real facts of the case, and argumento founded on ouch ought not to have any weight in that House. His Hon. Friend, who was at times somewhat fanciful in his vituperation of the Government, had on one occasion attacked the Ministry because a Bill which he (Sir W. Somerville) had introduced had contained, as his Hon. Friend supposed, some clauses which had been already inserted in a Bill of his Hon. Friend's. He could assure his Honourable Friend that not a single clau,o of this Bill had been used. His Hon. Friend had referred also to the emigration whic h had been going en, as a proof of the great misery at present existing in Ireland. He (Sir W. Somerville) was afraid it was not a very healthy system; but it was only a session or t wo ago, as they would all recollect, when they had motion after motion in that House, not for the purpose of check ing, but of encouraging emigration.—(Loud cheers from the Protectionists.) The Hon. Gentleman had also al luded to the amount of crime. There again he was at issue with the Hon. Baronet, for, by the constabulary returns on the table of the House he could notice a de crease. He was not going to compare the year 1845 with 1851; the Hon Baronet, if he pleased, might do so, and lay the result before the House. He would compare the years 1849 and 1850. The number of outrages stated up to the end of January, 1849, were 1,820; Febru ary, 1,017; March, 990; while in 1850 the numbers were, in January, 1,656; February, 1,124; and March, 960. — (Hear.) Having, then, referred to all that had been said by his Hon. Friend the Member for Waterford, he would next briefly advert to what the Honourable Baronet the Member for Clare (Sir L. O'Brien) had said. That Honourable Gentleman had found fault with the poor-law because he thought the power of the Commisssioners interfered too much with the local boards. He did not think the Hon. Member would get many in that House to agree with him on that point. With respect to the allusion made to the Kilrush union, and the statements made by the Rev. Mr. Os borne in reference to it, he would only say on that occa sion that the Poor-law Commissioners had called for full information on the subject of that Rev. Gentleman's let ters, and when they shall have made their report, he would lay it on the table of the House. The remarks of that Rev. Gentleman on other unions had not been disre garded by the Poor-law Commissioners, and when the answers to their inquiries from the various inspectors to w hom they had applied were duly made, he would lay them all befcre the House.—(Hear, hear.) There was one remark of his Hon. Friend to which he had not al luded. He had said that the affairs of Ireland were not cared for here. Now he had just taken the trouble of reading a list of the different commissions which had been appointed to inquire into matters relating to Irish affairs, and he found that since 1840 they had amounted in number to 13. He had also looked at the number of Committees of both Houses of Parliament which had sat from 1840 to 1851, whose inquiries embraced every , subject connected with the social and political condi tion of Ireland, and had found them no less than 63. (Hear.) But there was nothing tangible in the proposal of his lion. Friend; there was no intimation of what in quiry that Committee was to enter upon, supposing it formed and sitting. He hoped the House would nega tive the proposal of the Hon. Gentleman, which was only calculated to raise false hopes which never could be realised. He opposed the motion simply because he thought it would not do any good, but rather the re verse, and not from any indisposition to do anything to benefit his country in every possible way; and, in con clusion, he trusted the House would not sanction the proposition before it, because it was only calculated to mislead, and create expectations which could not be sa tisfied.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. REYNOLDS said the lion. Baronet had stated that there was nothing tangible in the speech of the Hon. Baronet the Member for Waterford; he could say he had listened to the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland with much attention, and had the very same fault to find with him.—(Hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet had told them about thirteen committees had been appointed to inquire into the state of Ireland. Sir W. SOMERVILLE—I said 63. Mr. REYNOLDS thanked the Right Hon. Baronet for having multiplied the number by thirteen.—(Much laughter.) He saw he was wrong in his multiplication —(Laughter)—but had the Right Hon. Baronet in formed them what good these sixty-three Committees and their inquiries had done for Ireland? It was always the mode of shelving a grievance on Ireland to appoint a Parliamentary Committee to inquire into it, and no thing more was heard of it. He would vote for the mo tion of the Hon. Boronet the Member for Waterford; but he wished to guard himself against being bound by the Hon. Baronet's speech.—(Hear.) If that speech were good for anything, it was good for this—that we were to repeal the poor-laws, go back to the system of protection, and increase the power of the landlords. Now he was not prepared to do any one of these things. In deed, he would perhaps have given a silent vote upon that occasion, but for something which had fallen from the Hon. Baronet the Member for Clare (Sir L. O'Brien) in allusion to a most honoured and estimable Protestant clergyman—he meant the Rev. Mr. Osborne. The Hon. Baronet had said his statements ought to be received with caution; now that was as much almost as doubting his veracity. Mr. Osborne had undertaken to prove all his statements relative to the Kilrush union; but his challenge had never been accepted. The Hon. Baronet had endeavoured to vidicate Colonel Vandeleur, who, no doubt, might be a very estimable private character; but there were statements made before a Committee of that House which would go to bear out the charges made against him. The Hon. Member here referred to the report of the Committee of inquiry into the state of the Kilrush union, and read a considerable portion of the evidence. One witness had stated that in that district 1,950 families had been sent adrift, whose houses had been levelled, 408 families were there who were turned out of their homes, and 341 families ad mitted again as care-takers. There were in all 2,359 families unhoused, representing no less than about 12.000 persons. Colonel Vandeleur was chairman of the Kilrush union, and some of those evictions were stated to have taken place on his property. Three fourths of the mortality, great as it was in Kilrush union, arose from the want of food. It was said that prospe rity was reviving in Ireland. Was that so? Did the condition of their gentry show reviving prosperity? The Encumbered Estates Act answered the ques tion. Had they manufactures ? Had they com merce ? No. The country was in the most im poverished 'state, and the inhabitants were flying from it in thousands. What had that House or the Govern ment done to remedy such a state of things? Why, literally. nothing. He should be glad to know, then, what objection the Government had to inquiring on the subject as proposed by the motion. If no other result were derived from such an inquiry than to ascertain the causes of the fearful mortality in the Kilrush and Ennistymon union, it would be of the greatest utility. He would say no more on the matter, as the motion, of which he had a notice on the paper, would afford him another opportunity of referring to it. Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL said it was most unfair to attribute the distress which prevailed at present in Ire land either to the free-trade system introduced in 1846, or to the poor-lzw established in 1847. Any retura upon their steps on either of those questions would be ruinous to the most necessitous portion of the population of Ireland—the working classes. The distress existed long prior to either of those measures, as was shown by , the report of the Devon Commission in 1845. He re gretted, however, that the Right Hon. Secretary for Ireiand had opposed the motion. Admitting, as he did, the great prevalence of distress, he (Mr. O'Connell) thought the beat remedy would be to reform the stand ing orders of the House, which impeded the progress of Bills for promoting private enterprise. But for the obstructions thus offered,capital would flow into Ireland to stimulate and develop its industrial resources. Mr. S. CRAWFORD traced the existing distress in Ireland to the disordered state of the relations between landlord and tenant—(Oh, oh!)—and he should move to add to the end of the resolution the following words:— " More especially , to consider the best means of amend ing the laws relating to the relations of landlord a nd tenaet.” Sir W. BARRON had no objection to the addition. Lord J. RUSSELL—Sir, the House would not have any clear remedy before it if it went into Committee of the whole House on the motion submitted into Commit to them. The lion. Baronet proposes that we should goCommittee of the whole House to consider the state of Ireland ; and he refers more particularly to the famine, to the laws ad mitting the import of foreign corn, and to the poor-law of Ireland; and it appears to him that if we were to re store protection, and repeal the poor-law of Ireland, we should be in a fair way to remedy somo of the distresses of Ireland. An Hon. Gentleman gets up and supports the motion, and is remedy is not to repeal the poor-law, but rather to give it greater laxity—to give a more liberal system of relief—in fine, to extend the poor-law further than it now goes. lam afraid, then, that we shall hardly arrive at any direct conclusion by going into Committee. Then with regard to protection, the lion. Member for the city of Dublin is entirely opposed to the views of the Hon. Member for Waterford ; and that, of course, is a question which, if gone into at all, must not be with respect to Ireland only, but the whole kingdom. The Honourable Gentleman who has just sat down proposed a further subject of inquiry—namely, the state of the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland—a most important subject of inquiry, certainly, and one upon which it might be most desirable that we should legislate. But lamat a loss to conceive how we should come to any satisfactory conclusion upon that subject in a Committee of the whole House. I am afraid that if we went into Committee on the motion of the Honour able Gentleman we should only ose find that his hepresent suppo rters would immediately opp anything have to propose, and the Committee of the whole House would find itself unable to adopt any remedy what ever. Now with regard to the statement made by my Right Honourable Friend the Secretary for Ireland I must observe that he did not represent, as the Honourable Member for the city of Dublin would seem to imagine, that the present state of Ire land was a state of prosperity. But starting from the point of 1845, from which my Right Honourable Friend started, it certainly appears that at that time Ireland, although she did not suffer the same calamities she has since had to endure, was placed in this unhappy position. She contained n population far greater than that for which she could find ernp!oyment; the wages throughout the country were wretchedly low; the abodes of the peasantry were teiserable beyond those of any other people in Europe; and their food was not pro cured by wages, but they were compelled to subsist al most exclusively on the potatoes which they raised from the soil. When there came upon a country so situated the dreadful calamity of a famine, and of a famine not of ono year but of a succession of years, it was inevit able that those painful scenes we have beheld should have occurred, that we should have beheld many per sons driven from their homes unable to pay the rent they had previously paid during the flourishing state of the potato crop; others emigrating to distant shores in the hope of procuring there a subsistence they could not procure at home; while the property of the country was compelled to a certain extent to support its poverty, and THE EVENING, APRIL 9, 1851 great numbers of persons crowded to the workhouses as a last resort in a state of weakness and disease which led to a very great mortality. These are the consequences that we have seen—the consequences, not of any law of Parliament, or of any act of the Government, but the consequences of the state of society which existed in 1845, and of the dreadful famine which followed that year. Why those consequences were as certain as that when an earthquake happen. in a country you will find buildings thrown down, as that when you have a dread ful pestilence in a country you will find there a dreadful mortality, or as that after a dreadful hurricane you will find trees torn up by the roots. These are not conse quences for which the Government and the Legislature can immediately provide; they are the consequences which have followed the calamities I have mentioned. We now find, according to the statement of my Right Hon. Friend, that although Ireland cannot be said to be in anything like a state of prosperity, yet there are symptoms in that country of a less aggravated distress than that which prevailed in former years. We have seen that, although out-door relief was never refused when absolutely necessary, that relief has been di minished to such an extent that during the last three months of the last year the whole cost of the outdoor relief in Ireland did not amount to more than 1,0001. ; and since that time it has amounted at the utmost to 2504 a week. That at least is a symptom that there are not so many persons re quiring relief as there had been in former years. Then with regard to crime, we find that the number of crimes and outrages returned to the constabulary in Ire land has diminished. There are various other circum stances which tend to show that the country is some what less distressed than in former years. That is the state of Ireland at present. It may require a remedy from the Government and the Legislature; but we are hardly likely to find that remedy by going into the pro posed Committee of the whole House. My Hon. Friend the Member for Kerry says that a relaxation of some of our laws with respect to the application of capital would be found of great use in particular cases, and he men tioned his reasons for entertaining that belief. But if that case requires the attention of the House, let it be brought before the House as a separate question. Again, if the state of the relations between landlords and tenants requires the consideration of Parliament, let the Government or some Hon. Member bring that subject under our notice. But we should hardly in a Committee of the whole House be able to decide upon any one of those questions; and neither should we have before us any plan for dealing with them. I, therefore, trust that the House will not adopt the proposal of the Hon. Baronet the Member for Waterford.—(Cries of" Divide.") Mr. F. FRENCH, who was very indistinctly heard amidst the noise in the House, and the impatient cries for a division, was understood to say that the evils of the famine in Ireland had been greatly aggravated by the poor-law. Sir H. W. BARRON replied. He distinctly and em phatically denied that he had stated that ho wished to have the poor-law in Ireland repealed. He had objected to the out-door relief system, and to nothing else. In the next place, he denied that he had said they should return to the old system of protection. He had merely stated the real condition of Ireland, and had left the House to draw its own inferences from that statement. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the motion . . 129 Against it... .. 138 Majority against the motion ... --9 The announcement of these numbers was hailed with considerable cheering from the Irish Members and the Members on the opposition side of the House. Mr. FRE WEN moved for a Select Committee to in quire into and report to this House on the advantages to be derived by the establishment of a mail train betwen Great Yarmouth, in Norfolk, and Leicester and Rugby, to meet the mail trains at Rugby, going to and return ing from Liverpool and Holyhead. Mr. C. LEWIS said that the question to which the Hon. Gentleman's motion referred possessed no na tional interest, and did not concern any of the great lines of communication, as, for example, the transmission of the French mails between Dover and London, and the Irish mails between London and Holyhead. He pro mised that the subject should be fully considered by the Government and the Postmaster-General, with reference to the public revenue and the local interests concerned; but it was hardly a question which required the appoint ment of a Committee of Inquiry. Mr. FREWEN, upon the assurance of the Right Hon. Gentleman that the subject should receive the serious consideration of the Post-office authorities, would not press his motion to a division. He might be permitfed to observe, however, that the Right Hon. Gentleman was mistaken in supposing that it was not an important national question, inasmuch as all the letters connected with the shipping interest on the coast of Norfolk in tended to go to any of the northern ports—such as Hull and Newcastle on the eastern, and Liverpool on the western coast—lAd now to be sent by way of London, The motion was then, by leave, withdrawn. On the motion of Mr. SCULLY, were ordered — Copies of all correspondence, since the Ist day of December last, between the Clogheen board of guar dians, the Poor-law Commissioners in Ireland, the Poor law board in England, and the Lambeth board of guar dians, relative to the alleged illegal removal of a pauper named Margaret MiCarthy and her two children from the Lambeth to the Clogheen workhouse last November. A return of any bill or bills of costs lodged in the proper office for taxation in the Court of Chancery, Ire land, in any cause in which George Matthews was a re lator, or one of the relators, and A. J. Macrory, the solicitor for the relators, since 1830. Also, a return of the names of the 39 principal mari time and internal markets of Ireland from wbicn Mr. Griffith constructed the average scale of prices ap pended to his letter to the Lord-Lieutenant on the 23d day of December last; with the prices of the different articles of agricultural produce mentioned in the said scale in the several markets, on the Ist day of every month during the years 1848 and 1849. MURDER OF:A BRITISH OFFICER NEAR ADEN. Colonel K. TYNTE wished to inquire of the Secre tary of the Board of Control if any official intelligence had arrived relative to the murder of a British officer near Aden, and if so, what steps the Government in tended taking in consequence of the outrage? Mr. WILSON concluded the Gallant Colonel referred to the report of the murder of Captain Milnes. No accounts had been received beyond those in the public prints, but in all probability would be by the next In dian mails. The Small Tenements Railway Bill was read a second time, on the motion of Mr. J. A. SMITH. Lord ASHLEY brought up his Bill to encourage the construction of lodging-houses for the working classes, which was read a first time. The remaining orders of the day having been disposed of, the 1101130 adjourned at Half-past Twelve o'clock. PARLIAM TO THE SECRETARY OF THE BRADFORD REFORM ASSOCIATION. (EVERY MONDAY AND WEDNESDAY.) Monday the 7th, was the rather pompously announced onslaught on the Ministerial proposal on the Income-tax. It finally solved itself into very little. An anxiety to protest against alluding to any connexion the question might have with Free Trade, called to me mory the popular tradition, of the man at the bar who told the judge he desired to let the matter drop; while the imperfect manner in which the proposal was adhered to by the party that made it, tempted to recollection of the lady who, " Saying I will ne'er consent, consented." In spite of an affected shyness in the use of terms, the " interests of British industry," meaning the suppression of your industry to divide the proceeds among somebody else, came out upon us in ex press words. And what I had thought to be the for lorn and abandoned mystery, of " adding taxation to price," figured prominently in the speech of one of the ablest and newest recruits of the Anti-commercial party. What has come over the spirit of the Free Traders and their dream, is more than can be expected of me to tell; but in all this contest between the two antagonistic principles of raising a tax from the wealth of the rich or the bread of the poor, the accredited organs of Free Trade kept aloof from the debate. Surely this is not the way in which human affairs are managed. If the Free Traders are not beaten at the next general election, it will be in spite of human means taken to ensure it. Nothing can make me conceal from myself or anybody the conviction, that the three sessions of Parliament which have gone by, were the seed-time in which should have been se cured the permanent triumph of the Free Trade cause; —that no folly or fallacy on the part of the Protec tionists should have been permitted to pass, without receiving the same prompt and fearless castigation it would have had in the Free-Trade Hall ;—that there ought to have been established a system of watch and watch, by which a certain number of the men who have taken the Free Trade enlisting-money by being sent to Parliament, should have been continually on duty, bound to reply wherever the enemy would pre sent himself. Instead of which, with the exception of the members of the Government, who are the only men by whom any good thing hangs, the course of the Pro tectionists has been one scene of parliamentary triumph, with hardly au opposition except on rare occasions a flashy speech meant to be seen in a newspaper, and not directed with , either point or vigour to the movements of the opponent. Why those who served you so well when the contest was in Temperance Halls and meeting-houses, eshou omd serve you so feebly when t he y have got into th C k t mous House of Parliament , i s what history must 100 a, and possibly will solve. On Tuesday Lord Ashley moved a Bill tonencourage I was o in r r w y a tn p lacessot cons t ruc tion of lodging-house s for the worki g lasses, whic hhear niwmas instant©agreed to Bradford w ithout o e division. ef th of aid. If we can only prevent the s topping our trade iu foreign corn, the thing will weed : vNerYOLsiDriceIrteEFORMER. I am, Sir, your London, April 9, 1851 duty off bricks has oc casioned many ! in genious minds to B RICKS AND BRICK -31ARING.—The removal of the for this purpose has recently _ _ e , en re ton of their cost. One occupy themselves with the Lu t ean d 6 uc o t f . economising the labour thereon, and the cons 9. Bteamtha.chlte,sit, and the assistance of two obfe men,etnh ;d r horses, iu s ,at surprisingly charge of co ay mpressed, sharp 15s. the day, m ay be perfected. Drain tiles of every form, of ten eexhibiting;nlhours, aodst acn° lin9t , Poawit : oo and pipes and parts of pipes of any complexity, may be thrown o ff with equal facility. Messrs. Randell and Saun ders are the patentees, who purpose placing their invention and square, in the Exposition. FADVEIITISEMENT. j—TliE EARL OF ALDBOROUGD AND Ilouoviey's riu.s.—An astounding cure by this miraculous me di c ine, aster every other means had failed. See extract from his Lordship's letter, dated " Bella'Vi Messina, Leghorn, Feb. 21, 1845. Pro f e ssor Holloway—Sir :I gto acquaint you that your pills hav e ef fected a cure of a disorder in my liver and stomach which all the most eminent of the facnity, at home and all over the continent, had not been able to effect; nay, not even the waters of Carlsbad or Ma rienbad. (Signed) " Atnuosionort." These wonderful pills will cure any disease of the liver or stomach.—Sold (also Holloway's Ointment) at Professor Holloway's Establishment, 244, el trawl, and ti all nacgitne Yglit9. l l. 49uglI0ut tin Civilised world, IVISIONS. ; presentatives, in favi 'This document will speak for itself. (From the Yi tes and Proceedings of the House of Common.) TUESDAY, inct.. - IL 8. STATE OF IRELAND. Motion made and Question proposed, " That this House do resolve itself into a Committee, - to take into consideration the state of Ireland, with a view to relieve the distress there existing :" —Amendment proposed„ at the end of the Ques tion, to add the words, " and more especially to consider the best means of amending the laws r elating to the relationship of landlord and tenant :" Question, " That those words be there added," put, and agreed to :—Main Question, as amended, put. The House divided : • - MINORITY—ALES, Naas, eteid , Lords Joseph sier p: D. 129. 2 3 91 Napier,t i . l l in g a s js , t ohies:e. C. Joseph R.ehc Percy Neeld, Floyer, John Anstey, T. C. JB A 3 aa r k gg w go te r : i i g l h vo t n. , .G 1 v e o . r g e Forester,FF o o r x b , e s , L l I .o ' I I . li c a r 0,. French, F. Baillie, 11. J. Baird, James Frew en, C. H• N N oe Newport,wr r d e y e g j , Baldock, E. 11. Fuller, A. E. Nugent Bankes, George Gaskell, J. M. Barrow, W. H. Gilpin, R. T. Batcson, Thomas Gooch, E. S. O'Brien, J. Bentinck, Lord H. Goold, Wyndham O'Brien, Sir Lucius Beresford, William Gore, W. R. O. O'Brien, Sir Timothy Berkeley G. F. Grace, O. D. O'Connell, John Bernard, Viscount Grattan, Henry O'Connell, M. J. Blake, M. J. Greene, John O'Flaherty, Anthony Blandford, Marquis Grogan, Edward Packe, C. W. Blewitt, Reginald Guernsey, Lord Palmer, Robert Boldero, George 11. Gwyn, Bowel Ponsonby, C. F. Brentridge, Richard Halsey, T. P. Portal, Melville Brooke, Sir A. B. Hamilton, G. A. Repton, G. W. J. Bruce, C. L. C. Harris, Captain Sadleir, John Bruen, Colonel Henley, J. W. Scully, Francis Buller, Sir Y. Higgins, G. G. Sibthorp, Colonel Burghley, Lord llildyard, T. B. T. Spooner, Richard Burke, Sir T. J. Hill, Lord E. Stafford, Augastus Castlereagh, Vis. Hodgson, W. N.. Stanford, J. F. Chichester, Lord J. Jones, Captain Stanley, Edward Christopher, It. A. Koating, Robert Stanley, E. 11. Clive, 11. B. Keogh, William Stuart, 11. Cobbold, J. C. Knightley, Sir C. Sullivan, Michael Colvile, C. R. Knox, Colonel Taylor, Thomas E. Corbally, M. E. Lennox, Lord G. H. Tenison, E. K. Crawford, W. S. Lockhart, W. Thompson,:Alderman Devereux, J. T. Mackenzie, W. F. Tollemache, John Disraeli, B. Macaghten, Sir B. Tyler, Sir G. Dod, J. W. M'Cullagh, W. Vyse, R. 11. Duncombe, A. Magan, W. H. Waddington, H. S. Dundas, George Meagher, Thomas Welby, G. E. Dunne, Colonel Mahon, O'Gorman Willoughby, Sir H. Du Pre, C. George Mandeville, Viscount Wodehouse, E. Edwards, Henry Maunsell, T. P. Wynn, 11. W. Fagan, William Meux, Sir Henry TELLERS. Farnham, E. B. Monsell, William Barron, Sir 11. Ferrer, James Moore, George IL. Reynolds, John -our of the retention of Smithfield Mark et' THE DECLARATION IN FAVOUR OF THE RETEN- TION OF SMITHFIELD MARKET. Yesterday a letter, of which the followiug is a copy, wa s forwarded to Lord John Russell, ➢I.P.: " Office of the City of London Central Markets Association. _ _ _ _ "My Lord,—T have the honour of transmitting herewith the declaration of 7,363 citizen electors of London to their representatives in Parliament (your Lordship being one) ex pressive of their opinions against the Government proposal to extinguish Smithfield Market, and their earnest hope that your Lordship and your colleagues will energetically support the corporate scheme for constructing an unobjectionable cattle market in or near the present central position of Smith field. In forwarding this complete list, I beg leave to assure your Lordship, that it will be found to avoid the errors which disfigure the several instalments previously transmitted. The duplicates which abound in the City Register have been de tected and corrected, and all names to which any doubt may have attached from the disgraceful conduct of one of the clerks in my employ have been expunged. Large as is the number of the names appended to this document, I would state for your Lordship's information that yesterday upwards of 200 signatures were added; and that more than .50 have been received this forenoon, since the completion of the list. Nor is there any question that, if time permitted, other thousands would yet desire so to express their deep interest in the t ra d e an d p ros p er ity o f th e City, an d th e i r creditable indignation at so unprecedented an attack upon corporate rights, trading interests, and personal property. But , this were s ure l y nee dl ess, s i nce t h e li st s h ows a ma j or i ty of 226 electors over the triumphant number which placed ypur Lordship at the head of the poll for the City, in 1847. lour Lordship will, I am sure, admit that your constituents then nobly responded to your appeals; and I hope I shall not offend by the expression of my hope and my conviction that their present appeal to your Lordship will be neither unheard nor unheeded. —I have the honour to subscribe my self, my Lord, your Lordship's humble servant, &c., (Signed) " Jeatas ACLAND. " The Right Hon. Lord John Russell, A 1.?., &c., April 8, 1851." The humble petition of the Lord MR Yor, Aldermen, ani Commons of the city of London , in Common Council ai sembled, Sheweth, That a Bill has been introduced into your Honourable House as a public Bill, intituled " A Bill for providing a Metropolitan Market and Conveniences connected therewith in lieu of the Cattle Market at Smithfield." That such Bill, as your petitioners are advised and believe, is in the nature of a private Bill, being a Bill for the erect ing, improving, repairing, maintaining, or regulating o f market, and to authorize the levying of tolls, rates, and du. ties; for which and other reasons such Bill comes within the description of a Bill to which your Honourable House has ruled that your Standing Orders are applicable, and that the Standing Orders Committee of your Honourable House have accordingly resolved, " That in the case of the Smithfield market Removal Bill the Standing Orders ought to be dis pensed with ; that the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill on inserting the notices once in the .London Ga zette, and for three successive weeks in the newspaper; and that the Committee of Selection be instructed not to appoint the first meeting of the Committee on the Bill for an earlier day than Thursday the first day of May," which resolution has been reported to your Honourable House, and agreed to. That the said Bill seriously affects the interests of the citi zens of London, who are represented by your petitioners, as also those of all persons using and frequenting the said market of Smithfield and the neighbourhood thereof; and that the said Bill infringes and abrogates certain of the pre scriptive rights which your petitioners have had and enjoyed from time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary, " which have been confirmed by charters granted by successive sovereigns, from the time of King Edward the Third, and which have received further and recent confirma tion by the opinions of the judges, given in the House of Lords, upon questions submitted to them in the progress of a Bill for establishing a market for the sale of cattle, in the parish of St. Mary, Islington, in one thousand eight hundred and thirty-five, and by the provisions which, in pursuance of such opinions, were inserted in the Act fifth and sixth William the Fourth, chapter iii. That your petitioners are advised and believe that the plan proposed by the saidßill is not adapted to effect the purposes intended. That it is further proposed by the said Bill to invest certain Commissioners, to be created by the said Bill, with extraordi nary and unprecedented powers. That your petitioners are the promoters of a Bill, intituled " A Bill for Enlarging the Site of Smithfield-market, and Improving the Approaches thereto," with respect to which the Standing Orders of your Honourable House have been declared to be complied with, and which your petitioners are prepared to prove is far more suitable for the objects contem plated than the Bill so introduced as aforesaid. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray your Honourable House that, in the event of the said first-mentioned Bill being proceeded with, it may be referred to the same Com mittee which shall be appointed to consider the Bill pro moted by your petitioners; or that you will otherwise permit your petitioners to appear by themselves, their coun sel, or agents, and to be heard with their witnesses at the bar of your Honourable House against the second reading of the said Smithfield Removal Bill, and generally in support of the allegations herein contained. Signed by order of the Court, HENRY ALWORTII MEREWETIIER. COURT CIRCULAR. The alterations to the front of Buckingham Palace being now completed, all guests and visitors to the palace will enter through the iron gates, next the centre gate of the en closure, to the east of the Palace. The entrance gate will be that to the south of the centre, and that for the exit to the north. Her Majesty and his Royal Highness Prince Albert, ac companied by their Royal Highnesses the Princess Royal and the Princess Helena, honoured Sir Edwin Lantheer, yester day morning, with a visit, at his residence St. John's Wood. Her Majesty and his Royal Highness were attended by the Hon. Miss Seymour, Colonel Buckley, and Lieut.-Col. the Hon. Alexander Gordon. The Queen, attended by the Hon. Miss Seymour and Colonel Buckley, visited her Royal Highness the Duchess of Gloucester, yesterday afternoon, at Gloucester House. His Royal highness the Prince of Wales, attended by Mr. Birch, took a carriage drive yesterday. His Royal Highness Prince Albert, attended by Colonel the Hon. Charles Grey, and Lieutenant-Colonel Hon. A. Gordon, visited the Exhibition of Works of Art the students of the School of Design, at Marlborough House, yesterday morning. In the afternoon his Royal Highness, attended as before, inspected the Flaxman Gallery at the London University, Gower-street. His Royal Highness was received by Baron Goldsmid, Charles Atkinson, Esq., W. Wyon, Esq., and several of the Professors of the University. The Queen and his Royal Highn Prince Albert in spected yesterday morning the two engravings by Mr. Lewis (life size) of her Majesty and his Royal Highness Prince Albert, from Winterhalter's picture, which were submitted by Mr. Moon. His Royal Highness Prince Albert inspected yesterday morning a portrait of his Royal Highness the late Duke of Cambridge, by G. P. Green, Etq. His Royal Highness also inspected a statuette, by J. E. Jones, Esq., of his Grace the Duke of Wellington. Her Majesty and his Royal Highness Prince Albert, ac companied by their Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales and the Princess Royal, honoured the Royal Italian Opera House with their presence last evening. The Royal suite consisted of the Marchioness of Douro, Hon. Miss Seymour, the Earl of Listowel, Colonel Buckley, and Lieutenant- Colonel A. Gordon. The Queen's private band attended after dinner, in Buck ingham Palace, on Monday evening, and played The follow ing pieces : Overture, " Eduardo e Cristina " Rossini Cavatina, " Schweitzer Familie ".....• Weigl• March, " Oberon " Weber. Adagio, &c~ Polonaise Desert T he in her Marchioness dutie o s a f D s ouro has ihnasreli Waitingeve d o t t h b e he C 0 (4 unenetne..2st of adan official n r e e s r i: r ll . r j . j C h o n ok G , o o r f d St. vie A w wth L deputation ord from John the Russell Church 3.yesterday, d S a c y e , ano his consisted of the dence in Downing-street. The deputatio on, A Re n l i , . r D ew r. ,s S ; im p p r s o o fe n s , so o r f ca li m i p rli b n el e l w & ton inr p Mr. Home Drummond, onel A • -i ll u i r ' e \ , e‘ h l l l . l l • 3 m i t ; BI r. Forbes Mackenzie, M.P., Col Scott, and S . " • Alex. Smollett. M.P., Hon. Francis . ir John Heron Maxwell, Mr. BODLIT, Mr. David Smith, Mr. Blackbarn, of Killean. The Earl e ofviAthruSnidrel Georgesnd S G u r r e r y ey ye a s n te d ra ll y r : L at an t g h deshlirae. e o had o a ine. n e interviw Mr. Charles Stevens had an interview with the Commis sioners of Railways yesterday, at the office of the Board of Trade, in the matter of the Bristol and Exeter Railway. A deputation from Sydenham, Forest-hill, and Lewisham, i n respect of the ame n d e d M etropol i tan Bill, 1851, had at: interview yesterday with Lord Seymour, at the office of her Majesty's Commissioners of Woods and Forests in Whitehall place. The deputation consisted of from Forest-hill— Messrs. W illiam Henry Whittell, Uriah Collyer, and Henry Major. From Sydenham—Messrs. Thomas Hunt, George Corbett, Henry Barrett, Joseph Slielbech, Thomas Bailer, Joseph Verey, Charles Pearson, Richard Ancock, George Hutson, Jeremiah Barrett, William Snazel, and James Greenwood. From Lewisham Henry Couchman, and Ben jamin Parsey. From Blyth Hill—Mr. Robert Espie. Dr. Johnson and Mr. W. Duncan, of Edinburgh, bad an interview with Sir George Grey yesterday at the Home office. The Oxford University Commission had a mee terday, at the official residence of the First Lord of w e sury, in Downing-street. Present, the Bishop L o b e Rev. H. te the Dean of Carlisle, the Master of Pembroke,ro Powe G. Liddell, J. L. Dampier, Esq., the Rev. PA. f P f r Norwich, . Stanle ll, y, the Rev. G. S. Johnson, and the Rev . Secretary). _ RAILWAY INTELLIGENCE. uppreceden THE RAILWAY SHARE MAR&ET.--Vi r e learn that there f:s o ta , n(l, say that the effect ted number has been within the last ten days an of sales of railway stock, chiefly c e amrd !oy the heavy " cos - es place in the middle of tinuations." The dealers, we nn d . of this will be to reduce the an'au ta n l l , I the " continuations" IiAILWAY.—This railway, the at the next account-day. wh ich next week, and consequently ti?_raise the price of shares. be commenced immediately, will co T ns i t iE ru N ct ° ion r o u f be an extension of the Aberdeen . line, a distance of 53 miles. bringing a continuous_r i way communication from London conies of Inverness to within 60 un , the metropolis of the High owsiiiSccholisi.,ol4 lan of Scotla nd. Idsnon-ros liAth Brighton, —We u n d ers t an d that th e di r ectors o f the London, and South Coast Railway have in structsdthe secretary permission mae application to tatmsioner of Customs for p for the wharf Deptford belonging to the company to be made a sufferance-wharf, in order to entitle it to the ' 1 privi ege of having goods landed thereat, on importation from toreign parts. since,Oxlf V o r We h e ar a hnwde_aastrhr ae tia tce irt l; the elder brother of the Bishop of the Bishop, c e h d d i e n a to the m Church . of Rome a.few day(); con anning the brother-in-law "professed," and was ad pitted into the Romish co s m t m . union , at the Jesuits' Church in Farm-street, on Sus la asy 1a , and on the same day, and at t he same place, w admitted Mr. James R. Hope, Q.C.—Heraid. The election for Governor and Deputy-Governor took place at the Bank of England yesterday-, when the re commendation of the directors was adopted by these lection of Mr. Thompson Hankey, jun., and J. J. G. Hubbard to fill the respective appointments . FUNERAL OF MR. RUsUTON.---LIV.ERFOOL, TUES.., DAY.—Mr. Rushton, late stipendiary magistrate of Liverpool, was interred in the Cemetery, Duke-street, this morning. No funeral has excited the same interest since the death of Mr. Huskisson, near to whose remains the lamented magis. trate reposes. All the magistrates of the borough , member of the council, and, indeed, the elite of the town were present , anxious to pay respect to the memory of one whom all classes loved anbonoured. . There were upward. of fifty private carrisge3 u the processou. MAJORITY-NOES, 138. Abdy, Sir ThOmas Greenall, G. Peto, Samuel Acland, Sir T. D. Grenfell, C. Pascoe Pilkingten, James Adair, R. Shafto Grey, Sir G. Pinney, William Aglionby, li. Grey, Ralph W. Ricardo, Osman Ashley, Lord Grosvenor, Lord R. Rice, E. R. Baines, M. T. Hallyburton, Lord Robartes, T. J. A. Baring, Sir F. Hanmer, Sir J. Romilly, Colonel Bass, M. T. Hardcastle, J. A. Romilly, Sir John Bellew, R. M. Hastie, Alexander Russell, Lord J. Berkeley, Admiral Hastie, Archibald Russell, E. Berkeley, C. L. Hatchell, John Russell, F. C. H. Bernal, Ralph Hawes, Benj. Scholefleld, W. Blackstone, W. Heald, James Seymour,So Lord Boyle, Colons.Heathcoat, John D. Bright, John Henry, Alexander Sheridan, R. B. Brocklehurst, John Hepworth, Lawrence Slaney, R.:A.,,; Brockman, E. D. Hinciley,Charles Smith, J. A. Brotherton, Joseph Hobhouse, T. B. Smollett, A. Brown, H. Hodges, T. L. Somers, J. P. Caulfeild, J. M. Howard, E. G. Somerville, Sir W. Cavendish, C. C. Hutchins, E. J. Sotheron, T. H. S. Cavendish, G.H. Jackson, William Spearman, H. J. Cavendish, W. 0 Kershaw, James Stanton, W. S. Childers, J. W. King, P. J. Stuart, Lord J. Clay, James Labouchere, Henry Tancred, H. W. Clerk, Sir G. Lewis, G. C. Thicknesse, R. A. Cockburn, Sir A. Littleton, E. R. Thompson, Colonel Collins, William Locke, Joseph Tollemache, F. J. Cowper, W. F. Mackie, John Townsheud, Captain Craig, Sir W. G. M`Gregor, John Traill, George Deedes, W. M'Neill, Duncan Trelawny, J. S. Denison, J. E. Marshall, William Vesey, Thomas Douglas, Sir C. Matheson, Colonel Villiers, Viscount Drummond, Home Morris, David Watkins, Colonel Duncan, Lord Mostyn, E. Westhead, J. B. Duneutt, John Mowatt, Francis Willcox, Brodie Dundas, Sir D. Mulgravo, Earl Williams, John Ellice, IL., jun. Norreys, Lord Williamson, Sir H. Ellis, John Ogle, S. C. Wilson, James Evans, William Oswald, Alexander Wilson, Matthew Foley, J. H. Owen, Sir John Wood, Sir Charles Fordyce, A. D. Paget, Lord A. Wood, W. P. Forster, Matthew Paget, Lord Clarence Wortley, J._S. Fertescue, Chichester Palmer, Roundel' Wyvill, M. Freestun, Colonel Palmerston, Vis. TELL/70. Glyn, G. C. Parker, John Hayter, W. G. Goulburn, Henry Perfect, R. Hill, Lord M. ANALYSIS OF THE DIVISION ON MR. lIERRIES' MOTION. Majority (tellers included) — Liberals ... Conservatives - 280 Minority (tellers inclAded)— Conservatives Liberals ... ... ... 197 f •• ••• • 15 -- 232 Absent— Liberals (including pairs) ... Conservatives (including pairs) Seats vacant — Aylesbury, Coventry, Enniskillen, Leith, Lon don, Longford, Somerset (West) ... .. Speaker ... ~. ... ... ... ... ••• ••• 70 •• ••• C 6 4.1110.• 656 Sir W. Molesworth paired off with Mr. Whitmore against Mr. Harries' amendment. Mr. Traill, M.P. for Caithness, paired against Mr. Ilerries' amendment with Mr. Thornhill, M.P. for the county of Huntingdon. SMITHFIELD MARKET. (From the Morning Advertiser.) We must own that we feel somewhat surprised that the nhabitants of the metropolis should regard with so much seeming indifference the Bill now before Parliament, for erecting a new cattle-market in the neighbourhood of Horn sey,—which is intended to supplant the cattle-market which has stood for so many centuries in Smithfield. We can only account for this indifference, on one of two suppositions,— 'either that the population of London have no definite notions as to how far they will be affected by the contemplatod transfer of the metropolitan cattle-market to llornsey, or that they are making sure the measure will never receive the sanction of the Legislature. With regard to the latter assumption, has i never oc curred to the inhabitants of London that their inactivity and seeming indifference are more adapted than anything else that could be imagined, to bring about the very result which we know they would deprecate did they suppose it to be probable? Will not the very fact, that they are so silent and inactive on the subject, be pleaded as a reason why the Bill promoted by a parcel of private speculators should be passed? If that measure is to be opposed in Parliament with any chance of success it is clear that the inhabitants of London must raise their voices to the loudest pitch in oppo sition to it. It is right they should know that unless they adopt, without delay, some energetic measures to oppose the Bill, there is too much ground to apprehend that it may re ceive the sanction of Parliament. There are, we know, some persons who think that any ac tive efforts, on the part of the metropolitan public, to oppose the Bill for a cattle-market at Hornsey, are unnecessary, because Sir George Grey, speaking in the name of his col leagues, has intimated that it is the intention of Government to oppose the Bill. No doubt the Home Secretary meant what he said. But then it is to be remembered, that Go vernments, as well as individuals, sometimes change their opinions. And even when Ministers do not change their minds, they are sometimes themselves made the subjects of change. The Whig Ministry can speak feelingly, because experimentally, on the subject. They know what it is to be out of office as well as in office. They were out a few weeks ago, and the odds are that they will he out again be fore many more weeks have elapsed. To rely, therefore, on the opposition of Government to the llornsey Cattle market Bill, for its rejection, would be to rest on a broken reed. Besides, even were it certain that they will remain in office for a little while longer, and that they were to op. pose the measure with all their might, what certainty, we should like to know, have we, that their opposition would be successful ? They are no strangers to minorities. That is a destiny to which they have _been a good deal accustomed of late. They are getting so much used to it, that it must by this time come to them as a matter of course. If the measure is to be successfully opposed, it can only be by the population of London adopting some energetic mea sures, with the view of knocking it on the head before the private adventurers who have got up the project, proceed farther with it. We rather suspect that the metropolitan population have not any very distinct idea as to the way in which they will be affected by the measure. It is doubtful, indeed, whether the mass of the population have any idea that they will be, in any way, affected by it. We are disposed to ascribe thetif indifference to it, to the assump tion that it is of no iinpotre ance to them. It is only bec ause the y are ignorant of h provisions of the measure , tha t the y could have come to this conclusion. Is it nothing to them, that the tolls on cattle are to be raised from twopen ce to eightpence per head, and those on sheep in the same prop ortion ? Surely, no one who is cognizant of this provision of the Bill, can be simple enough to suppose that the increased tollage will fall on any other party than the consumer. They will have to pay, in the shape of an increased tax on all their butcher's meat, the enormous sum meant to be expended on this new cattle market—this huge site for the sale of living and dead beasts, with which it is meant to deform one of the most beautiful spots in the neighbourhood of London. We have never hesitated to acknowledge and lament the evils which have been so long associated with Smithfield Market. And were the choice to lie between the retention of the metropolitan cattle market on its present site, and its transfer to Hornsey, we should not hesitate in saying—let it, by all means, be transferred to Hornsey, or to any other place in the neighbourhood of London. But that alternative is not placed before us. The question does not lie between Smithfield Market and its enormous evils, and the erection of a new market at Hornsey. Smithfield Market is suscep tible of great improvements. And, wkat is more, the Corpo ration are ready and willing to make such improvements as may be necessary to obviate the objections usually urged against it. Their plans are before the public. They are so comprehensive, that most, if net all, the objections which may be made to the present metropolitan market will be ob viated in the apprehension of every person of unprejudiced mind. Still we deem it right to express our conviction that the plans of the corporation for very greatly enlarging the area of Smithfield, and making such erections in connexion with the market, as may obviate existing evils, are, though good, not all that they might be. They are susceptible of great improvement. A still wider area might be embraced. We pointed out, in our paper of Thursday last, how this might be done. If the space proposed to be devoted to lodging houses and baths were to be appropriated to the new market, the latter would be made one-half larger than is at present intended. This would be an immense addi tional improvement. It would remove every conceivable e jection to the metropolitan cattle market being continura where it is. And what is to prevent this improveng3Lo What is to hinder the adoption of our "g" bates It is not too late. As we remarked last 've in their and lodging-houses are excellent way. We can say this the more freely, because as our own. ins no journal has devoted so much space to their advocacyuses and baths. As But other sites can be had for lodging-houses a sufficiently en_ compared with the importance of ha larged area for the metropolitan cattlevi:ngarker, they are un worthy a moment's consideration. corporation, in the We throw out thew hints to the hope weightiest objections to the that as they have done so well to remove, their contem ma do still better, by so plated new market, many of they site remaining where it is, oncil 3 e r to the improving their plans as toaKec. those retention of the cattle market where it is, littl_ who are not personally interested in the success of the Hornsey speculation. Since the above was in type, we have received a communi cation, which we elsewhere insert, consisting of a declaration, signed by 7,363 citizen electors of London, and which has been forwarded to I,9rd Mau Ti we n And the ether city re. Lie rern ulke atial lined arch SIG' r 1,