The Sun. — London, England, 1847-03-20 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, March 19. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon tiikWool sack at Five o'clock. POOR REMOVAL BILL. _ Earl ST. GERMANS presented a petition hom Set ash, in the county of Devon, praying for a repeal of the Poor Removal Act, and the substitution of a parochial settlement. The Bishop of DOWN and CONNOR presented a petition from the ratepayers of the county of Lincoln, praying for a repeal of the law of settlement; and also a petition from Dromore, in Ireland, praying fora repeal of the law forbidding marriage with a deceased wife's sister. The Earl of WICKLOW presented two petitions from the county of Wicklow against the principle of out door relief, and against any alteration in the mode of rating in that county. Also, a petition praying the Government to encourage an extensive system ofemi gration. If he might be permitted to offer a suggestion, which was not, however, one of his own, for he had not yet fully considered the question, it was that facility should be given by her Majesty's Government to grant loans for the purposes of emigration, under the same arrangements as were proposed with regard to loans for the improvement of estates. POOR REMOVAL ACT. The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from a rate-payer of Storrington, in the county of Sussex, complaining that the Poor Removal Act operated against him in an unjust and grievous manner, and praying fora remedy. He hoped that the Noble Marquis (the Mar quis of Lansdowne) would see the necessity of having the whole law of settlement brought under consideration. He must say that he differed altogether with the report which the Select Committee on the Poor Removal Act had come to, and thought if they delayed the amendment of the Act till the whole question of the law of settle ment was disposed of, great injury would be inflicted, It was not possible in one session of Parliament, and before a general election, to give that due consideration which such an important subject as the law of settle ment required. He had also a petition from the union of Newenton, in the counties of Hereford, Worcester, and Gloucester, to the same effect. Lord CAMPBELL said, that having the honour of being on the Committee, he entirely concurred in the report which had emanated from it. One reason which had greatly influenced him in coming to that decision was, that the other House had strongly recommended that there should be no legislation on the subject till the whole question had been fairly considered. But he would not have come to that decision if his own opinion had in any degree led him to a different conclusion. It might, perhaps, have been as well if the Act had been retro spective as well as prospective, but if they were to bring in a Bill now, having reference only to that clause, their Lordships would find that there would be a great deal of difficulty attending the working of it. The Earl of SUFFOLK was understood to agree to the prayer of the petition. Lord BROUGHAM took the same view that the framers of the report had taken. The general complaint from the country against this Act was, not that it was oppressive or unjust, but that it was so written that they could neither make head nor tail of it—(Laughter. ) They knew their mother tongue very well, but they were unused to the step mother tongue of this Act of Parliament. Lord BEAUMONT did not rise to defend the Act of Parliament, but he wished to say one word in defence of the decision to which the Noble Duke's Com mittee had come. One of the propositions made to the Committee had been already disposed of by the Noble and Learned Lord ; the other proposition was, that they should frame another Act which would operate from that time forward, and be somewhat different from the Act passed in the last session of Parliament ; but if that had been done he felt convinced that a great deal of inconvenience would have arisen under the altered system. The only thing in the Act difficult to be understood was the proviso. But even admitting that the ambiguity existed, he for one should deprecate any interference with the Act, be cause it would effect that principle for which they had been so long contending, namely, the interminable removals of the poor from place to place. That principle had been established, but not carried out efficiently, because no settlement was given. Under these circumstances he thought they would derive the advantage from the present measure, that it would lead to the consideration of the whole question, and when the whole question had been considered, they should then adopt measures to meet the imperfect state of the law with respect to removal. The Duke of RICHMOND begged to remind his Noble and Learned Friend opposite (Lord Campbell), that he was of opinion that this Act was injurious to a large class of the poor, who were most entitled to the consideration of their Lordships' House ; be cause of late they (the ;poor-law guardians) had been bringing into the unions those who had been receiving out-door relief. This law was said not to be retrospec tive; but in one case it had been decided that it was re trospective, and he would wish to kno.v what guardians were to do under these circumstances. His Noble Friend opposite (Lord Beaumont) had said, that the measure would lead to much confusion, and give rise to a great deal of litigation. He hoped and trusted that if her Majesty's Government would not alter the plan, which they had taken from Sir James Graham's sugges tions, that they would do justice to the poor-law. guardians, and bear the expenses of any litigation that might ensue.—(Hear, and laughter.) Lord ASHBURTON thought that this measure was certainly one entitled to consideration. Now, as respected the opinion of the Noble Lord, although he was satisfied that that opinion was disinterestly given, yet it could hardly be taken as a criterion for the whole country. In the north of the country, where he resided, it was very probable that this Act might have worked mischievously, but where he (Lord Ashburton) resided it had proved of considerable benefit. and be fore it was repeated he thought that time ought to be given to the people to ease themselves of their obli gations to each other. Lord PORTMAN conceived that it was quite ne cessary that the question of the removal of the poor should be decided upon, as early as possible ; and he must entreat that his Noble Friends, the Members of the Governrcant would, before the end of the session, bring in a Bill, nut a declaration, but an enactment which would have the effect of doing what the Act of last ses sion was intended to effect, viz., a retrospective in fluence upon the present state of the several pa- fishes. He did not suppose that before the end of the present session they would have time to settle the question, and as it would be requisite before Thursday next to give notice of removal to all the parishes interested, fur by the Act, Lady-day was appointed as the expiration of the time for giving notice. It was, therefore, absolutely necessary that something should be done before the conclusion of the session, for, unless they did, they would have an immense number of poor before Michael. nias without any legitimate settlement. Should the notices of removal be carried into effect, and the poor be carried out of the parishes where they now resided, tbey would have to be taken to places where there were no houses to receive them ; and before winter they would have a number of people without a home or a right of relief. In one in stance which had come under his notice, a number of individuals had been removed from the workhouse by order of the medical man, and had been taken into the houses in the place; the consequence of this was that they could not be taken to the several parishes to which they properly belonged, and these men were now chargeable .on the rates of the place where they re , aided, Lord BEAUMONT—That could not be, for a five years' residence was required to gire a title to perma nent relief. Lord PORTMAN—That might bo true, but the ques tion was whether they could be removed. Lord BEAUMONT—That wa, the law. Lord PORTMAN—His Noble Friend might be the best lawyer in that House, but he evidently knew very little of the practice. However legitimate it might be to make an order for removal, it required a great deal of evidence to justify it in a court of law. After some fe - w words from Lord COLCHESTER, the subject was dropped. The Marquis of CONYNGHAM said that he had a few remarks to make in reference to a matter personal to himself. There was a matter at present before the other House of Parliament, with respect to which a deputation had waited upon Lord John Russell. His name had been inserted inadvertently in a list of persons who attended that deputation, and he wished to state the fact publicly, to avoid the absurdity of having his name upon the list of a deputation in favour of a measure to which he was opposed. Lord NIONTEAGLE said that the mistake arose partly with him, The Noble Lord had attended a meet ing with reference to this deputation, but was compelled to leave the room before the business was over. The Noble Lord's name had been put down in the list of those who had attended the meeting, but by a mistake, was placed by the secretary upon the list of those who had voted in favour of the deputation. Lord BROUGHAM said, that according to the mi nutes of the meeting it would appear, that those who were not there were represented as being there, and those who were there were represented as not being there. —(Laughter.) Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE Of COMMONS, March 19. The SPEAKER took the Chgir at Four o'clock. The f o ll owin SECOND READINGS. g Bills were read a second time :- 13ingley Im p r ovementClaridge's Patent Asphalte Company—Ewell Rates —Legal Quays (London)— Macduff Harbour—RosP, Cromarty, and Part of Nairn District Ro ads—Saffron Walden Rates—Wark:- worth Harbour. INco mt T , Several Hon. Members p t i( l !. e s ' ejite . d p,Aiti ons f rom the collector 6 and assessors of an increased ramuneratioß for tillecieritax' praying for EDUCATION. labour, Mr. BRIGHT p resented a petition from against the Go vernment scheme of education. Norfolk Mr. HUME pres ented a petition from several ee l, o l - masters in Scotland, praying that they m i ght b e G a pointed registrars of births, deaths, and marriages 1- order to aitOrd an addition to their scanty income ' in LIGHT DUES. - Mr. FORSTER presented a petition from Whitehead in Bristol from a.° merchants and shipowners, praying fora reduction of the charges made fur light dues. POOR REMOVAL ACT. Sir DE LACY EVANS presented a petition from the city of Westminster against the Poor Removal Act. THE MARRIAGE ACT. Mr. CRAVEN BERKELEY presented four peti tions from Cheltenham from the Dissenting ministers, the solicitors, the medical men, and general inhabitants of the place against the law forbidding; marriage with a deceased wife's sister. _Dr. BOWRING presented a petition from Bolton against the Bolton Improvement Bill. RUM DUTIES. Mr. DENNISTOUN rresented a petition from the distillers of Glasgow, praying that no alteration might take place in the rum duties. RATING OF TENEMENTS BILL. Mr. T. S. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from Drogheda, complaining of the injustice of allowing several rate-paying clauses to remain on the statute book, restricting the Parliamentary franchise of voters in Ireland. THE SEJA, _LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MARCH 20, 1847. around him. He gave to the Rev. Mr. Baldwin a subscrip tion of 10/. for the relief of the poor of Mallow. He was proprietor of 160 acres in that townland, and most of the houses were leased away from him. To show that he was not a bad landlord, he might mention that many of these men had not paid any rent for periods of five, seven, and ten years. He paid also to another parish, in which he had a small farm, the sum of 31., being an equal quota with the other landlords. He could himself say that he had known that gen tleman extensively employing his poorer neighbours. He knew for a certainty that he had frequently paid for agricultural labour 251. or 301. a week. He thought that it was essential to the character of the House that nolling should be stated within its walls but what was found to be correct, and he re gretted that the Hon. Baronet who had made the charge had not etdeavoured in the first place to ascertain its correctness. Sir B. HALL was obliged to the Hon. Gentleman for having given notice of his intention to bring this subject before the House. He could also assure the House that if he had made those statements without having first tried to ascertain whether they were well founded, he should, in his own opinion, be deserving of the severest censure from the House. He would certainly express his most sincere regret if in any. thing he had said he had caused any annoyance to ths feelings of the gentleman whose name had been mentioned. It ap peared that there was a large meeting held at Fermoy, at which resolutions were passed on the subject of the poor-law, and a deputation of two clergymen were appointed to wait upon the Noble Lord at the head of the Government. Those gentlemen had waited upon him (Sir B. Hall), and made cer tain statements to him, which they requested should be stated in that House, in order that they might go forth to the world through the ordinary channels of information. It had been his lot in life to be intimate with a number of persons profess ing the Roman Catholic religion, and he should consider it an insult to that body if he hesitated to give the same confidence to members of that body, as to members of the Established Church. Accordingly, he gave the fullest credit to their statements, and requested that in order to prevent any misap prehension of them, they should be ptit in a written form ; and it was the statements thus made to him that he had given to the House. He trusted, therefore, that the House would not believe that he was negligent in his en d eavours to aut h ent i cate the statements which he had made to the House. He said he had now set himself right with the House, by again referring to the respectable authority on which he had made the state ments he had laid before the House the other evening. But if any statement which he had made should be proved incorrect, he would be the first to retract such statement as publicly as it was made. Mr. CALLAGHAN said the gentleman to whom be had referred, namely, Mr. Courtenay, had kept for the last six months not oue dog.—( Great laughter.) Mr. SHAW thought if the Right Hon. Baronet opposite had followed the rule usually observed in that House, and omitted introducing the gentlemen whose case he had noticed he would have saved himself and the House both time and trouble. If he had allowed him before making his explana tion to read the letters which he held in his hand, the Hon. Baronet would not have missed some points which he ought to have observed. Mr. Courtenay said instead of 70 dogs in the neighbourhood of Mallow, he had never kept more than 12, and for the last six months not one. That gentleman said he had never refused his contribution in aid of the poor. He had given on one occasion Si., and another 10/., for the poor in that neighbourhood, and he spent from 251. to 30/. a week on labourers at his own estate. But because one gentleman who called upon him for a contribution to the funds of the relief Committee had put him in the public papers in the most scurrilous manner, Mr. Courtenay had refused to give his contribution to that gentleman,_ but he had sent a contribu tion to the secret ary o f the fund. Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL thought that the Right Hen. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Shaw) should have followed the course of the Hon. Baronet on that side of the House (Sir B. Hall), and avoided using scurrilous and unbecoming language, especially towards Catholic clergymen, who were quite unde serving of the charges made against them. Mr. SHAW did not make any, charge against them. He had only stated what Mr. Courtenay told him. Sir H. W. BARRON defended the conduct of the landlords in that district generally, and thought that if the other Irish landlords had followed their example a great deal of the dis tress might have been prevented. POOR-RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL. SUBSCRIP TIONS FROM THE UNITED STATES. On the motion for the House going into Committee on this Bili, Sir WILLIAM CLAY presented a petition from the Tower Hamlets, praying that the poor law of Ireland, might be assimilated to that of England. Mr. D. CALLAGHAN presented a petition to the same effect from the Mayor and Corporation of Cork. Lord JOHN RUSSELL—Sir, I hope my Hon. Friend ( Mr. P. Scrope) who has given notice of a motion, will not offer any opposition to the motion, that you now leave the chair in order that the House may go into Committee on the Biil. In the next place, I wish to avail myself of this opportunity to state that I have observed.with great pleasure and satisfaction the munificent subscriptions which have been raised in the United States of America for the relief of the destitute poor in this country and in Ireland.—(Loud cheers.) I think it is not improper in this House for me, a British subject, to state that I am ex tremely gratified to find that the United States have not for. gotten their common origin ; and that, actuated by charitable feelings, they are making great exertions to collect large sums of money for the relief of the existing distress. —(Hear, hear. ) Mr. P. SCROPE said, as he found the object of his motion was embodied in the Bill, he should not press it. He should not, therefore, detain the House from going into Committee. The House then went into Committee. On the first clause being proposed, Mr. P. SCROPE objected to the word " permanent," as being unparliamentary and unprecedented. He objected to the words "permanently disabled' in the clause, as indicating the description of persons toward whom relief should be extended. These words would effectually prevent nearly two-thirds of the poor from receiving relief. The proportion of people who came under the title of permanently disabled, was very small, as the greater part of those who required relief, were reduced to that necessity, from sickness or accident. He wished to know if the Right Hon. Gentleman would consent to the omission of the words? Sir GEORGE GREY said that if the word, permanent, were omitted, it would open the door to relief being indiscri minately administered to those suffering under the most casual sickness or disability. Mr. SHAW said that the sth clause which empowered the giving of out-door relief to the sick would meet the objection of the Hon. Member. Mr. POULET SCROPE said that the clause referred only to medical relief. Sir H. WINSTON BARRON said that the great sympathy of the Hon. Member extended to the fact that, if the poor of Ireland were not so well relieved as the poor of this country, they would frequent England in the hope of bettering their con dition. He hoped that the Irish people would not he deceived by such sympathy. Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN said that he had listened with great sorrow to the statement of the Right Hon. Gentleman, for he had hoped that this amendment would have been carried. He thought that the words, permanently disabled, were by far too limited to admit of much relief. Sir J. GRAHAM said that he thought it would be safer that they should provide in a compulsory manner and by spe cification, for all classes entitled to relief out of the work house, instead of giving such a general permission as the one proposed. The Hon. Member for Stroud had objected to the word "permanently." But it had been used before, and ex pressly used for the purpose of preventing an indiscriminate administration of relief. He would adopt the definition that the clause in one or two cases stopped short of the necessity of the case, for he thought that those classes entitled to relief without coming under the definition of " permanently dis abled" should be distinctly specified ienlvd:etwhaeouAldetbe; b ought e t a n d a d t i t t h ie e n el w au h s i e e , h as he it h th ed en su st g o g od esl efficient one. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that with respect to what had been stated by the Member for Dorchester, the Act to which he had referred was again under the consideration of the House this year. With regard to the proposition of the Hon. Member for Stroud, he objected to extending this poor-law in the way proposed, namely, to relieve any family of persons upon a merely temporary sickness or distress. He had always objected to the principle of combining the relief of the desti tute with assisting labourers, &c., who might be in the receipt of wages. He had spoken to a person, a member of a board of guardians, who had told him that relief had been extended to a labouring man on account of a sick child, and on his asking if the child were sick, he was told that the man had made it sick on purpose. By such a way of applying relief much in jury might be done to those who really required assistance. Mr. VERNON SMITH agreed with the observations of the Hon. Member for Dorchester, and disagreed with the Noble Lord who had just sat down. A man might seek tem porary relief, and in the event of its being refused, might sell all his goods, and go into the workhouse, when a little timely relief might have materially bettered him, and kept him from being a OSS, which did not reach the gallery Sir W. CLAY thoug ht that th e princ i p le of out-door relief lAlefrtye a ,r charge a few w u o p r o d n s th frome c o u m n r t . r y R . should not be limited entirely to the permanently disabled, for sometimes s and extended. muchsocial misery, if a Lord COURTENAY supported the amendment, and would , liitttle would timely preven t reli reli ef were much if a vote were taken, support the Hon. Member who moved it. Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD thought the word ought to be struck out, as the clause, in its preaent shape, would be the eause of much hardship on the poor. Mr. MUNTZ had seen so much evil arise in England from obliging the able- bodied poor to go into the workhouse for temporary relief, that be must support the amendment. If the be properly defined. word " permanent " was to be retained in the clause , it should Mr. HENLEY thought it a great hardship to oblige the able-bodied poor to go into a workhouse for a few days when they wanted relief. They were thus obliged to break up their homes, which a little o u t-d o or relief would have prevented. Sir D. NORREYS would support the retention of the words in the clause. Sir H. W. BARRON took the same view of the subject. The state of Ireland was different to that of England, and must be dealt with in a different manner. Mr. NEWDEGATE thought that in the existing state of the Irish workhouses there was strong reason against crowding the people in them, especially the healthy and able- bodied , with the diseased, and aged, and infirm. Colonel RAWDON thought it would be best to leave the clause in its present form. Mr. A. S. O'BRIEN considered as this was to be a per manent measure, it would be best to leave t h e w ords in the clause, Mr. V. STUART thought it most important that in all the workhouses separate arrangements should be made for cases of fever. Mr. RICE supported the clause as it stood. Mr. SHAW b egue d th em t o observe in all their observa tions that th e presen t measure was to be a permanent measure. He thought it the words " permanently disabled" were struck out it would lead to great abuse. Sir ROBERT PEEL said that the present Bill proposed a material extension of the existing poor-law in Ireland, and the clause prop ose d to give the r i g h t o f re li e f to the permanently disabled. W ere the words struck out , t h e Bill would be alto gether alt ere d i n its character. H o t h oug ht that any ambi guity in the w or d s " permanent l y disabled"might be rem ove d by substituti ng " t h at destitute persons, disabled by old age or bodily infirmity, should be relieved in or out of the workhouse." In legislating for Ireland, he cautioned them to proceed with great care lest they demoralised the people, and led them to de pend on parochialsupport instead of trusting to theirown industry; Ile said that as there was little dependence to be placed upon voluntary conttibutions for the relief of the poor some more stringent measure should be introduced than the present poor law. He thought that for the purpose required the present experiment was sufficiently extensive, but he thought the omission of the word " permanent" would be ruinous to the clause. It was obvious that the two clauses should be con sidered together, for by their joint operation power would be given to the guardians to administer relief at discretion in cases where the workhouses were already full. He did hope that the House in its beneficent desire to improve the condition of the poor of Ireland, and so to relieve the property of this country from some of the burdens which pressed upon it, would not try this great experiment without a due degree of caution and consideration. Lord J. RUSSELL said he was; not prepared to give up the word " permanent" in the clause, but as regarcied tha suggestion of the Hon. Member for Waterford he was rem) , to consider it, for the insertion of certain words might meet the views and wishes of the Hon. Member. PLACES OF WORSHIP. The HoN. MEMBER presented a petition from Chatham, praying that the registration of places of worship might be vested in the civil,: instead of the ecclesiastical courts. The HON. MEMBER also presented a petition from Finsbury, praying for an inquiry into case of the Raja of Sattara ; and a petition from Bolton, praying for a general inquiry into the Anatomy Act. Mr. R. YORKE presented a petition from a parish in York praying for a general revision of the Poor Re moval Act. ASSESSED TAXES. Lord RENDLESHAM presented petitions from the assessors and collectors of the assessed taxes in the county of Lincoln (as we understood the Noble Lord), complaining that they were inadequately remunerated for their services. Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR presented similar pe titions from Middlesex. IRISH POOR-LAW. The NOBLE LORD also presented petitions from some place, the name of which we could not learn, in favour of an adequate poor-law for Ireland. PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND). . . . Mr. DILLON BROWNE presented several petitions from different baronies in Mayo, praying for an altera tion in the letter of. the Right Hon. the Secretary for Ireland, to the effect that labourers should not be ex cluded from the public works. They also prayed that if this removal must take place that the labourers might be employed in the cultivation of the soil, and that seed should be supplied to them for that purpose. POOR-LAW (IRELAND)—OUT-DOOR RELIEF. The nom. MEMBER also presented petitions from several clergymen in the same barony in which he him self resided, praying that the clause in the Poor-law (Ireland) Bill, which enacted that out-door relief should be given, might be retained. They also complained of the number of ex officio poor-law guardians. TENANT RIGHTS. Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD presented petitions in favour of the Tenant Right Bill, and praying that the practice now adopted in the province of Ulster might be legalised. POOR-LAW (IRELAND). Lord DUNCAN presented a petition, agreed to at one of the largest meetings held in the city of Bath, expressing satisfaction that the Government intended to bring forward an adequaate poor-law for Ireland. They prayed that their fellow-subjects should be made to con tribute in an equal proportion with themselves to the necessary expenditure of the State. NOTICES OF MOTION.—NAVIGATION-LAWS. Mr. LIDDELL moved for returns connected with the subjects of shipping and navigation. REGISTRY OF BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND MARRIAGES IN SCOTLAND. Mr. HUME gave notice that he should move that the Bill for the Registry of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in Scotland should be referred to a Select Committee up stairs. NEW POOR-LAW. Mr. FERRANI) gave notice that on an early day after Easer he would bring the new poor•law under the con sideration of the House. POOR REMOVAL ACT. Mr. C. BULLER pre:.sented a petition from Liskeard, against the Poor Removal Act passed last session. GOVERNMENT MEASURES. Mr. DILLON BROWNE wished to a,lc the Noble Lord when i; was his intention to proceed with the Waste Lands Bill? Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he intended proceeding with it on Monday next. Mr. SHAW wished to ask the Noble Lord whether he would proceed with Irish business on Government nights, and when he intended taking the poor-law for Ireland into consideration? Lard JOHN RUSSELL said it was his intention to proceed with the poor-law on Monday next, and he believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer had consented to proceed with the consideration of the Customs duties on Friday instead of on Monday, accord ing to the notice which had been given ; and he might at the same time state that before going into Com mittee the Secretary-at-War would take some of the estimates for the army which were necessary for the public service. ACCOMMODATION OF MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN THE NEW HOUSE OF LORDS. Mr. HUME begged now to ask the question of which. he had given notice the other evening, namely, whe ther any provision had been made in the new House of Lords for the accommodation of Members of the House of Commons? It appeared to him that there was no room for Members of that House, while in attendance there, unless they consented to be pressed and packed together in a way which was not creditable. He begged to know, therefore, whether there was any arrange ment for that accommodation which the Commons were entitled to have; and, before he resumed his seat, he begged to state that he objected to standing in the House of Lords so long as they gave a Peer the privi lege of sitting when he attended in the House of Com mons.--(Cheers from both sides of the House.) He submitted this to the attention of her Majesty's Govern ment, as worthy of their consideration. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he was not aware the Hon. Gentleman had given notice of these questions, and he was, therefore, not prepared to answer them. Mr. HUME (interposing)—Well, next week, Monday night.—(Laughter.) GREAT WESTERN AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAYS. Mr. BOUVERIE begged to ask whether the Great Western Railway Company, or its agents, or the South- Western Railway Company, or its agents, had been asked by the Committee of Selection, to state to what Members of the whole House they objected as members of the Committees to be appointed for Groups 5 and 6? Whether the Great Western Railway Company, or its agents, had objected accordingly, to upwards of 300 Members of the House? And whether it is the practice of the Conimit tteg of Selection to communicate, to opposing parties in any railway group, the names of the chairman and members proposed to be appointed for the Committee on that group. He said the facts of the case werethese. The Committee of Selection on Railway Bills reported on the 11th February, that they had grouped certain Bills into two sets, Groups 5 and G. Group 5 contained seven Bills affecting railways in the neigh bourhood of Windsor and Staines, and Group 6, thirteen Bills specially re:ating to the west of England ; and in each of these groups was a Bill belonging to the South- Western and the Great Western Railways respec ti%,ely ; in other words, the broad and narrow gauges. On the 15th of February, the Committee of Selection gave notice that they had appointed a Select Committee to try the merits of this question, and they gave a list of the lifernbers whom the; had appointed] for the Select Committee. That list was submitted to the Parlia miagy agents on both sides, that is, to the agents of they at Western and of the South- Western Companies. He had understood than this lint was objected to by the agents of both. On the 16th of February the Committee ' of Selection gave notice that the Select Committee would meet on the 20th of March, that is one week later than the time previously appointed ; and with this notice also they gave lists, as he understood, of the mem bers whom they had appointed to serve on the Com mittee, comprising, as he believed, 300 Members and a list of the Members objected to by both sides was re quested, and the Committee of Selection appointed the Monday following for the settlement of the affair. With the notice stating the circumstance, they had given the name of the Member who was named as chairman, as well as those of the Members who were to act on the Committee. He understood that these lists were again objected to by both parties. The Hon. Member for Co ventry had been named as the chairman of one of these Committees, and had complained to the House that this objection should be permitted by the Committee of Se lection. The several agents of the companies, as he understood, had then stated the names of all the mem bers, to which they objected. The only proof of this which he had was a letter received by Mr. Creed, the agent of the South-Western Company, part of which he would read. This letter was dated the 16th of March, and it stated that the writer had communicated the names of the Members objected to to the Committee of Selection ; but, however desirable it might be to shorten their labours, yet such a wholesale objection as that stated in the communication of the company could not possibly be allowed. He wished to have some explanation upon the subject from the Hon. Baronet opposite, and he should be glad to be corrected if ho had misrepresented any part of the matter; but if what he had stated was truth, or any thing like truth, he must say that the course which had been pursued was derogatory to the House; and while he admitted the zeal and ability with which the Hon. Baronet performed the laborious duties imposed upon him, he could not help thinking that he had, in this instance, committed an error of judgment. Sir J. Y. BULLER said he had great pleasure in an swering the question of the Hun. Gentleman. The ap plications were not made to only three companies, but to all the principal railway companies which were likely to have Bills before the House this ses sion. They were requested, for the guidance of the Committee of Selection, to state whether they objected to any Member sitting upon their Bills, and if they did, their reasons fur doing so. Only two answers, however, were received—one from the Great Western Company, and the other from the London and South-Western Company. As that course was the course prescribed by law in the case of contested elections, that the parties petitioning were called on to state their objection, ho did not see why that was not the proper course to be adopted in this instance. He did not know what were the numbers to which the railway companies did object, but be be lieved that the Great Western Railway did object to a much greater extent than the opposing comp a ny. Mr.ELLICE said it appeared to him that when Hon. Members had been asked to serve, and had agreed, and their narn,s were published in the papers of that Rouse should bo entitled to protection. He had hoped that his Honourable Friend opposite would have come in down and r a ec d , e i l!t e t , e i d th that the Committee were in g av r i e n a g sons to Ilon.esi) o er u r t or g objections as valid, with had adopted. As respected himself, ed to himraslellf; Members for the course they if the Committee of wouldcause of at once say Selection had appli t r e e s t e io c n or t a o whether either party had any just ° lien. But when he stated that in neither of panies had he the slightest interest, the remarks of the Honourable Member, it would be seen, were ground less and false. The 11-11 , e, he thought, should pro tect Honourable Members from such imputations being cast upon them, as it was necessary for its cha racter that its proceedings should not be called in ques tion, unless on sufficient grounds. Mr. WILSON PATTEN must say that he'was most surprised at the Honourable Gentlenaan taking the matter up so warmly. It was well known, however, that there were many objections to Members serving on such Committees, which did not in the least affect the character of those who were objected to. He must say that the situation of the Committee of Se lection was a most painful one, and if it was ren dered more so it would be impossible for it to dis charge its duties with efficiency.—(Hear and cheers.) His own impression was, that the Hon. Member had committed an error, but he did not think the course the House had adopted would in any way lower its high character. Mr. ELLICE explained. He hoped he had not expressed himself in any way to offend the Honourable Member.—(Hear, :hear.) It was true he had spoken warmly on the subject, bat he did so because he believed the character of the House was in volved in the matter.—(Hear, hear.) He disclaimed any intention of wishing to cast any imputation whatever on his Honourable Friend opposite—he disclaimel it the other night, and he did so now. He knew the arduous duty of a member of one of the Railway Com mittees ; but he hoped that the practice of making charges against a Committee behind its back would not be repeated again.—(Hear, hear.) • Mr. S. HERBERT considered that there was no wish on the part of the Hon. Gentleman with whom the dis cussion had originated to cast any imputations' on the Hon. Member (Mr. Ellice). A misrepresentation pre vailed as to the right of persons to object to Members nominated to serve upon Committees. The:South• Wes tern sent a list to the Committee of Members to whom they objected, but they refused to entertain any such proceeding on the part of the company, and the list was in consequence returned to them. What the Committee asked for was a list of the Members who were disqualified from sitting on the Committees from their connexion with various railways. It was possible that a Com mittee might not know those Members who were di rectors of companies ; and, therefore, it was necessary that such a list should be furnished to them whenever they required it. Sir W. HEATHCOTE stated that he endeavoured to explain as well as he could that he had no intention to impute improper conduct to the members of the Committee behind their backs. The imputation, if it really was an imputation, was this, that every member of the Committee, with the exception of two, were selected from one district of the country. The discharge of the Committee had no reference to private character or private connexion. Now he would put himself upon the judgment of the House. He was called upon by his Hon. Friend to say that what he bad done was wrong, and that he would not do so again, but he maintained that what he bad done was right; and it; at any future time. from any oversight or want of information, they should have nominated a Committee, and afterwards it ap peared that there were good reasons to discharge it, he would consider it his faithful duty to face the obloquy which he knew attended him at the present ►nument.—(Cries of " No, no.") At all events, he knew that he had given some offence to his Hon. Friend, but he would tell him that the reason why he did not confer with him was, because there was no question of private connexion; it was only an objection to a line of country, and it was nothing which any Gentlemen could answer, or required any communica tion with individual Members. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, be rose as a Member of the House; although he did not often take part in the duties to which the discussion referred, yet he thought it necessary to do so after the statement of the Hon. Baronet. The objection to his Right Honourable Friend was not that he had any private interest to disqualify him from serving on the Com mittee, it was only to the place which he represented, and upon which there could be no difference of opinion as to matter of fact. He concurred generally with the Hon. Baronet, and he felt quite sure that the House could not do better than leave all these matters to his discretion, and he was certain that he would exercise a sound discretion, and preserve the character of the House. He considered also that the house ought to support him in the discharge of very onerous duties. Mr. ELLICE wished to know whether, should a Com mittee be appointed, after the fullest investigation and named in the votes, it could be discharged without the interference of the House After a few words from Lord SANDON, which did not reach the gallery, Mr. AGLIONBY suggested that before the Com mittee nominated by the Committee of Selection was reported to the House, or appeared on the votes, some communication should be made to the Members :vhom the Committee of Selection intended to put upon the list. He thought that after such communication, any Hon. Member might himself object; but he did not think that the honour of the House would be advanced by striking out the names of Hon. Members of the Committee after they had once been placed upon it. Mr. VILLIERS STUART thought it was scarcely fair that this charge should be brought forward a second time, as that had been done in the - first in stance, and an explanation given. After a few words from Mr. BOUVERIE the subject dropped. AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS. In answer to a question put by an HoN. MEMBER, Mr. M. GIBSON said, that it was the intention of the Government to proceed as speedily as possible with the 13111 relating to the collection of agricultural statistics. JUVENILE OFFENDERS' BILL. Lord MAHON wished to know what course was in tended to be pursued with respect to the Juvenile Of fenders' Bill. Sir G. GREY said that the Bill was proposed to be read a second time, and that any discussion which might arise upon it should be taken upon a subsequent stage. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. Sir R. PEEL hoped the Noble Lord would allow him to remind him of a rule of the House to which he often used to call his (Sir Robert Peel's) attention—it was to give the House distinctly to understand what order of the day was to have the precedence over the others.—(Hear, hear.) He believed it was gene rally understood that the Poor Relief Bill would be pro ceeded with, but it would be certainly an advantage to have more decisive intimation. Lord J. RUSSELL admitted the propriety of the Right lion. Baronet's remark. WINDOW-TAX. Lord DUNCAN wished to know whether there was anything in the Health of Towns' Bill bearing upon the - window tax? The Noble Lord the Commissioner of `Woods and Forests had given an opinion, in:which he expressed a decided coviction that this tax militated against the health of the population. Lord MORPETH said that the window-tax was a financial, as wellias a sanatory question, and as he had re ceived no intimation from the Chancellor of the Ex chequer on the subject, he could not promise that any alteration would be made with respect to it. HIGHWAYS. Mr. AGLIONBY wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it was the intention of Government to introduce any measure for amending the law, and providing for the better management of highways ? Sir GEORGE GREY was understood to say that the subject would be referred to a Select Committee. FRENCH HOSPITAL AT PORT MAHON. f Mr. BORTH WICK was desirous to put a question to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the sub ject of an alleged arrangement between the Govern ments of France and Spain, by which a French military hospital and a store of coal are said to have been esta blished in Port Ma ion. lie thought when France was increasing the defences of her shores, and when she was crowding the sea with ships at a time of profound peace, and when he looked at other circumstances to which he would not fully refer, but which would not soon be forgotten, it was most important that the atten tion of the Government should be called to the conduct of France—that they should watch her proceedings with jealousy, and that the people of this country should be informed whether the Government were or wero not vigi lantly watching the conduct of that nation. When he looked at the conduct of France during the last fifteen years, and at the readiness which her Ministers had evinced to rival and embroil other nations—to sacrifice European liberty, if not European nations, he thought a British Member of Parliament would ill discharge his duty if be did not call the attention of the Government to such a matter as this ; but he put th e ques ti on in no s pi r it of offensiveness to any one connected with foreign policy. Lord PALNIERSTON said. in answer to the question put by the Hon. Member, he had only to say that the Government had received no official information tending to confirm the re port, but the tendency of such information as they had received induced them to believe that such report was unfounded. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE. On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL, it was agreed that the House at its rising do adjourn till Monday. SEARCH WARRANTS. General JOHNSON desired to know whether the Govern.. ment had issued instructions authorising policemen to enter houses and search without warrants ? Several cases of such a nature had come under his observation ; one was, where two policemen came seventeen miles out of their district, and ar rested two persons fur theft, it was clearly proved that the parties had been twenty miles distant at the time the robbery was committed. Sir GEORGE GREY said that no such instructions had beer. issued. MR. MARA. The Earl of LINCOLN wished to make an explanation with reference to the appointment of Mr. Henderson and Mr. Mara, alluded to by him on the previous night. On refer ring to some documents in his possession he found that he was wrong. Mr. Mara had only been appointed six months, and Mr. Henderson 1 - ad held his appointment for nearly five years. POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL. On the motion for reading the order of the day for going into Committee on the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill, Mr. E. CALLAG HAN said he wished to make one or two observations before the House went into Committee. It would be remembered that the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath stated the other evening, a•:d it was afterwards reiterated by the Hon. Member for Marylebone, that in the neighbourhood of Mallow there resided a gentleman of large property with an income of 10,0001. a year, who kept a great number of dogs— tweritty-seven it was said—and yet this gentleman had neglected to subscribe to the funds for the relief of the poor of the district. Now he held in his hand a letter from that gentleman, from which he learnt that this statement was un true. The truth was, that while in London opposing a railway which passed through his domains, he was applied to to contribute to a local fund for the relief of the poor, and he wrote to his agent to know if any previous application in re spect of his farms in the district had been made. Now before he received an answer to this letter he was surprised to see the letter of the Rev. Mr. M•Carthy published in the public prints. He felt exceedingly indignant at this, and did not send his subscription, but when he did this he employed the people Lord G. BENTINCK thought that the man who was con fined by illness presented as great a case of hardship as the men inenpleitated for work from ti'e effect of socid"n•, and he trusted, thc.:refute, tua• tile clause ,souid be ametaied bj the omission of the word " permanent." Mr. B. ESCOTT coincided in the opinion expressed by the Noble Lord the Member for Lynn, that the omission of the word " permanent" would be an improvement. After a few words from Mr. MUNTZ, Mr. YOUNG wished to know from the Noble Lord at the bead of the Government, whether in the concession he made to the Hon. Member for Waterford, cases of fever were to be included? One of the greatest sources of destitution was the inability of the peasant to labour when he had just recovered from fever. The hospitals did, indeed, give them medicine, but when medicine could do no more, then food and nourish ment were required to complete his restoration to health and strength. He wished to know, therefore, if this was to be considered in the clause ? Lord JOHN RUSSELL—Yes. Mr. P. SCROPE said that as the Noble Lord included cases of sickness, as well as of accident, he should not press the amendment of which he had given notice. Sir H. W. BARRON said that the Hon. Member seemed to forget that they had hospitals, and medical dispensaries for the purpose of affording relief to such as might require it. Mr. WAKLEY said that Irish proprietors ought to blush, when they contrasted the operation of the poor-law in this country with their own. They had hospitals and medical esta blishments in Ireland, he had no doubt where salts or jalap could be dispensed to such as wished for them, but he (Mr. Wakley) was sick of the public hospitals of Ireland. The poor required attendance at their own homes.—(Hear, hear.) They wanted something more than physic; they wanted nourishment, and he (Mr. Wakley) wished to give them that at their own homes. What was the practice in England with respect to the treatment of the Irish poor ? If the Irish poor man applied to the relieving-officer, if his limbs were entire and perfect—if he were destitute only, would he be refused relief ? No. The relief would be at once given to him, it would be freely and generously given, but if that man were to go back to his native country, would he be entitled to relief there? No. The law there commanded that he should starve.—( Hear, hear.) Now, he (Mr. Wakley) thought that this word "permanent," had got in by accident. It was one of the most irrational things he had ever met with to insert it there; but if it had got there by design, he thought it must have originated in the mind of a very old gentleman, whom they were all anxious to repudiate.—(Laughter.) Why, if a man were disabled as well as destitute, the Noble Lord would not, it appeared, give him a right to relief. There was a dis cretionary power to be allowed to guardians for the relief of persons out of the workhouse, and if the Noble Lord meant to give that relief, where did the necessity arise for retaining this obnoxious word. The poor-law of Ireland was a discredit to the country, and he wished to know why it was not assi milated with the laws of Scotland and of England ? The Noble Lord had got some curious information with respect to Scotland. In Scotland the poor man consented to live upon meal, and in Ireland he consented to live upon potatoes, and if he consented to live upon turf he did not think his betters would think a moment about it. What the honest Englishman wished to know was, why there should be three different poor-laws for the three countries ? If they retained this word permanent they would deprive the poor Irishman of all relief from whatever causes his destitution might arise, and he trusted, therefore, that the Noble Lord would reconsider this question, for if the Hon. Member for Stroud consented to the withdrawal of his amendment, he should vote against his doing so.—( Hear, hear. ) Lord J. RUSSELL conceived that if this amendment were adopted, they would in effect be retaining all the abuses of the old poor •law. Sir WALTER JAMES could not help thinking that the Honourable Member for Finsbury had nut shown his usual acuteness in the consideration of this clause, for it did in fact give the very relief which he seemed to desire. There was one thing which he earnestly desired the Noble Lord would consider, and which he would put before him before he sat down, and that was the necessity of extending outdoor relief, and on that he would give his opinions very plainly be fore the conclusion of the consideration of the Bill. Mr. B. ESCOTT was quite agreed with the lion. Member for Finsbury, for as the clause now stood it was evident that the whole of the discretion was ai to whether a man was entitled to permanent relief or not, and therefore if a man was under the necessity of obtaining relief for a month he was just placed in the same position as if he required relief for his whole life. He should therefore vote for the extinction of the word per manent. Mr. GROGAN felt sore upon the remarks that had been continually made by the English Members upon the difference between the poor-laws for the two coun tries, and which had been reiterated by the Hon. Member for Finsbury to night. This was a grievance which several Irish Members as well as himself complained of. Lord JOHN MANNERS understood that the relief was to be granted to the heads of families, and if so, there could be no objection. Mr. J. O'CONNELL should certainly vne for the amend ment of the Hon. Member for Stroud. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought that after the declaration of the Noble Lord the Hon. Mem ber for Stroud, would not press his motion to a division. His Noble Friend had stated that some further addition was to be made to the Bill, and he thought therefore that the House had better wait until they heard what that addition was. Major LAYARD thought that as the Bill was evidently incomplete, the amendment was clearly unnecessary, he should vote though with great regret against it. Mr. POULETT SCROPE said that, after the declaration of the Noble Lord, he was not inclined to press his motion to a division, but he would draw this fact to his notice. It ap peared from the returns that the number of able-bodied poor, the heads of families, who had been relieved in 1845, amounted to more than 160,000, while the number of those who were absolutely disabled was only 193. There had been a direction given by the Poor-law Commissioners to withhold relief re quired in a great number of cases, and that he thought ought to be altered. Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD trusted that the Noble Lord would not overlook the cases of destitute widows. Mr. WAKLEY explained. The Noble Lord had stated that he was desirous of introducing all the abuses of the old poor-law into Ireland. Now, no man had done more than he had to do away with those abuses ; and he only wanted to recur to the principle of the old poor-law. without, at the same time, retaining its abuses.. Nevertheless, under the circumstances, he did not wish to press the House to a division. The amendment was withdrawn. Lord COUR TENAY then moved his amendment for allow ing relief to widows and their children, and for destitute chil dren, and to make that relief compulsory on the guardians; but after a brief conversation, in which a great number of Members took part, he intimated his intention of withdrawing it, as he relied upon the Government taking the necessary steps for carrying out his design. After a few words, from Mr. SCROPE and Sir G. GREY. Mr. SHAW complained, that while the clause gave the right of permanent and absolute relief to aged and disabled persons, whether in or out of the workhouse, it did not define the discretion to be vested in the authorities, as to how the re lief should be administered. Relief was to he given either in or out of the workhouse, but he thought some limits ought to be platted - von this discretion. After a few words from Mr. WA/CUM and Sir G. GREY', the clause was agreed to. On clause two being proposed, Mr. SHAW rose to object to the unlimited power the clause gave for administering relief to the able-bodied poor. He de clared his intention of taking the sense of the Committee upon it when the clause was put to the vote. Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN moved an amendment, in effect placing the power of administering out-door relief solely and absolutely in the hands of the boards of guardians. Sir GEORGE GREY resisted the amendment. In Eng land they had experienced the danger of such a power, and he could net, therefore, consent to th e a lt erat i on proposed by the Hon. Gentleman opposite. It would place the guardian's beyond the control of the Poor-law Commisssioners, and might lead to considerable mischief. Mr. GROGAN supported the amendment. Mr. LABOUCHERE admitted that the success of this law would depend in a great degree upon the exertions of the Board of Guardians; but, still, after the experience they had had in this country of the existence of this discretionary power, he could not consent to the amendment which was sought to be introduced into the clause. Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT did not think the amendment ought to be acceded to. Mr. HAMILTON considered the principle of giving out door relief to the able-bodied poor was highly objectionable; but, if it were to be established, he thought it should be ac companied with the proviso contained in the amendment. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER entertained a very different opinion. If there was no room to relieve the able-bodied poor in the work-house, they ought to be relieved out of it ; but before out-door relief was given the guardians should be required to prove two facts—first, that the work house was full, and, secondly, that the person seeking for relief was really destitute and in want. After a few words from Mr. Bellew, Mr. Dillon Browne, Mr. Yesey, and Sir G. Grey, Mr. NE WDEGATE objected to the introduction of the proposed words. Captain LAYARD thought the proposed clause gave too much power to the board of guardians, the result of which would be, to give great dissatisfaction to the people. After a few words from Sir B. HALL and Mr. D. 13RowNE, Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN said that he was perfectly satisfied that English Members did not fully understand the nature of Irish business. It must appear plain to every ore, from the tone of the remarks made to-night, and of thoso made last evening, that the most opposite views were entertained even on the subject of the value of Irish land. He thought that the amendments he had proposed would be of con siderable service in giving effect to the measure before the Committee, and tending also to promote its efficiency, he was sorry that the Government had opposed his amendments, and under such circumstances be felt himself bound to with draw his amendments. The amendments were accordingly withdrawn. On clause 2 ( A. ) being read, Mr. P. SCROPE moved some amendments, having the effect of giving power to the Commissioners to afford out-door relief to able-bodied paupers. He thought that the poor-law for Ireland ought to be of the same nature as that which existed in this country. The Hon. Member went on to refer to a meet ing held a short time since in Ireland, on the subject of the poor-laws, and drew the attention of the House to the nature of the resolutions passed at that meeting, to the effect, that the rights of property were only secondary to the rights of exist ante, and that the property of the country ought to support its poverty. Mr. LABOUCHERE believed the workhouse test would be the most stringent one, and he thought that labour should net be too much relied upon as a test for relief, for many cases had come under the notice of the Government, where the labourers preferred to receive relief in the Government works, at a lower rate than they would have received from private employment. He thought it much better, therefore, to frame the law so as to stimulate the employment of the labourers by the proprietary of the country ; and unless this was kept in view more harm than good would result. He was, therefore, of opinion that the workhouse test should not be abandonedl for the labour test, which would be found to be wholly inapplicable to the circumstances of the country. After a few words from Mr. O'BRIEN and Mr. DILLON BROWNE, Sir GEORGE GREY said that the proposition of the Hon. Member would have the effect of making permanent the present system of public works in Ireland.—( Cheers. ) Mr. FERR AND said that disease prevailed to so great an , extent in workhouses, that 225 persons had died in on e week in the Cork workhouse. Mr. LABOUCHERE said that provision was made for that in the Bill th en b e f ore th e H ou se, and every board of guardians in Ireland would have the power to make provision for such a state of things. Mr. SHAW then rose to propose the omission of clause 2 (A.), authorising out-door relief to the able-bodied poor. He considered, that if this principle were introduced, that supply and demand w ould be completely deranged, and that it would open a door to fraud. He considered that out - door relief should only be given to the sick and disabled. What he ob jected to was, that they should hold it out at the pre sen t mo ment above all others, whe n a gigantic system of out-door relief was in operation, by telling the people, in vast the public works, that when numbers employed on they were su.pended, and they stood in need of relief, as no doubt they would, that they shouldhave out-door relief. At the present moment 700,000 heads of families, representing no doubt 3x0,000 persons, were subsisting upon public charity in Ire- land. To hold out to able-bodied persons that they should be entitled to out-door relief would destroy every motive to t.eete tia! eteeeeteee eel leees tonodrabie bane - set the eleat uer tor eel. sew In cad laid so much stress—those seven hundred thousand persons would at once be transferred from public works to re ceive relief under the Bill before the House. In sic counties —Sligo, Roscommon, Leitrim, Galway, Clare, and Mayo, 1,300,000 persons were at present receiving assistance in the shape of employment under the Labour Rate Act; but the whole of the rates in those counties was only one million seven hundred thousand pounds; it was therefore a mockery and a delusion to say that the rates cellist support such a vast number. He admitted that the land must now be taxed to a greater extent than heretofore for the support of the poor. The famine was the difficulty by which the Noble Lord was pressed, and to meet it he proposed a permanent measure for what was a temporary calamity. He felt certain that the Go vernment were iutrodueing a principle of which they did not approve,—a principle which he believed would be productive of much evil and diaster. There was a latent disposition to in dustry in the people, and it ought to be the province of the Government to stimulate instead of deadening it, and if the people knew that there was a permanent law to compel the Government to support them, they would be inclined to remain indolent. For these real ons he would move the omission of clause 2 (A) in the Bill, and when the time came he was prepared to take the sense of the House upon it.—( Hear. ) Mr. D. BROWNE said that there was a general opinion in Ireland that out-door relief was the only system of relief agree able to the people of Ireland. —( Laughter.) And he hoped that the Government would persevere in their intentions. The landlords of Ireland had neglected their duty, and some decisive step ought to be taken. Mr. YOUNG said he was of opinion that the property of Ireland should support the poor, and with that view he sup ported the measure of the Noble Lord some sears since to in troduce a poor-law into Ireland, which had effected many col lateral advantages. He, however, considered that the first clause of the Bill would more than double the present rates of Ireland. ( Hear, hear.) Since many who would find their suppot t from private resources, and who would never enter a workhouse, would now seek and obtain relief. He, therefore, considered that the objections of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin were not exaggerated. With regard to the second clause, he was of opinion that it introduced a most dangerous principle—it contemplated a permanent remedy for what was only a temporary evil, and was only calculated to alarm and mislead. There was nothing in the * Bill which made it at all necessary that out-door relief should be given to 'he Irish pauper. He had an extract from a letter written by a gen tleman employed on the Commission both in England and Ire land, which stated that those who were employed on out-door works were demoralised, and their employment generated a bad feeling between them and the ordinary working classes. The provisions of this Bill had generated a very great feeling of alarm. Amongst the proprietors of land in Ireland, in the county of Cavan, there were three unions in which the respective ratings were already 7 1 / 2 d., 9 1 ,2 d., and 1034 d. in the pound, and upon such rating would the Government attempt to enforce the ad ditional expense of out-door relief. In the last census taken, it was found that in that county there was one labourer to nine statute acres, that was to say twice as many as could be employed, even supposing their agriculture to be of the very best description. He was afraid that before the agriculture of Ireland attained a high pitch, years upon years of experience must be gone through ; but in its present condition it was impossible f o r it t o support the burden about to be placed on it. • Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the Right Hon. Gentle man who had moved this clause in Committee upon this Bill, proceeded in his speech upon a fallacy. The Right Hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose, and to take it for granted, that the present state of Ireland was to be a criterion for the present poor-law. In his argument, he had asked, how is this clause and this to provide for the present calamitous necessities of Ireland. He should admit at once, as he had already ad mitted in the course of that evening, that he did not think that a permanent poor-law, or any permanent law would pro vide for a state of things so calamitous as they at present ex isted in Ireland. When he beard the Right Honourable Gen tleman say that these were 300,000 persons now resitting in Mayo, and that the property of that county was not sufficient to support them by out-door relief, he must say that they could not expect that the Right Hon. Gentleman's description referred to the usual state of things in Ireland. He could not admit that the present Bill, and particularly the clause then under consideration, was to be tried by such a test, and indeed if they were to try it by that test, 'now completely would all the circumstances mentioned by the Right Honourable Gentleman fail. The Right Honourable Gentleman had sa ii that he did not correctly represent the views of the deputation which he saw upon that subject. He was very sorry if he had not correctly represented their views on what he had said, but certainly he did wish to convey what they had said, and he admitted the importance of the observations of the gentlemen whom he then saw. The Right Hon. Gentleman said, that one of their declarations represented that they were fully prepared to admit that property in Ireland should be burdened to any extent for the purposes of indoor relief- Let the House apply that system of indoor relief to that which the Right Hon. Gentleman took as the usual state of things in Ireland. Let them try that as compared with the present sate of things in Ireland. Let them take 700,000 persons, heads of families, representing 3,000,000 persons, and who would build workhouses to contain that number?— ( Hear, hear.) Yet if they look, the Right Honourable Gentleman's argument in its application to the present Bill and to the rresent state of things in Ireland, and if they took it as well for itself as for the measure to be proposed, he did not remember anything of very great importance which was proposed as a substitute, except the system of in-door relief, which system, be it remembered, was contained in the present Act of Parliament for the poor-law for Ireland. It was therein enacted, that if there was not sufficient room in the workhouse it should be lawful for the board of guardians to raise money for the purpose of building a new workhouse, or of making additions to the existing, workhouses. That Bill had not provided for a state of things 'at all resembling the pre sent calamities of Ireland. Would the Right Hon. Gentleman who had thus argued from the present state of things show how vague the poor-law might be to remedy them. The Right Honourable Gentleman who had just sat down had proceeded upon a fallacious argument, for he had represented it as the wish of the Government that out-door relief should be the determined rule, and in-door relief the exception, in Ireland. He thought that the Hon. Gentleman in that respect had misunderstood both the Bill which was then proposed and the observations which he (Lord John Russell) had made to the House before the Speaker left the chair that evening. He had never argued that it was fit or desirable that out-door relief and help should be given as a general rule from the unions of Ireland. He was not of opi nion that, in itself, it was a desirable system. The Hon. Gentleman would admit, that no labour given in the rural parishes of England was a sufficient test of the existing desti tution. He entirely subscribed to that sentiment. The system of out-door relief had been decried, but how was the Government to relieve those who were suffering, unless by a system of out-door relief, when the workhouses were full ? This case he had stated when he formerly addressed the House, and he now wished to fix their attention on it, as being the ordinary mode of relief. In this respect take the law of England. It was sufficient for the purpose of meeting the destitution of the country, and all he asked was, that they would make the law of Ireland also sufficient for the same purpose. In illus tration he would call the attention of the House to a case of great distress at Todmorden some years ago. In this parti cular case the workhouse was quite full, and the guardians of the poor ordered that the able-bodied should receive sot-door relief. The law was, that the guardians should apply some test, to show that the party who might seek relief was really destitute, and with this view, that the relief should be given in food and in the workhouse, or out of tee workhouse if there was not accommodation within.—( Hear. ) He asked should that relief be denied to Ireland, and that there should be no sufficient resources for the guardians when the workhouse was full, but that they should be obliged to say we cannot see you die of hunger, but we have no alternative, as the law prevents us raising the necessary funds ?—( Hear, hear.) For such a case as this he proposed the present system of relief. He did so, because he was afraid that in the years before them—though the calamity of destitution might not exist to its present extent—that very serious distress would be found to pervade Ireland. The Hon. Gentleman who had just spoken said, and said truly, that there were three times the number of agricultural labourers to the land of Ireland compared to what there were on the best cultivated districts of England ; and four times the number there were on the ave rage of English land. Still there must be some way or other of providing for these Irish labourers.—(Cheers.) There had grown up an unfortunate confidence, not only among the poorest, but among the richest, of that country, in the potato as the food of the people.--( Hear, hear.) This being so, and considering the failure of the crop, it could not be expected that the potato would ever again constitute the permanent food of the people to the same extent as before. Other crops would have to take the place of the potato, in order to supply the same quantity of food which that root before supplied. But he said that in order to do ao, and in order to lead to a better system of cultivation, they could have no other resource so good as charging the property of Ireland with the maintenance of the destitute poor.—(Cheers.) He also b!licved, as it respected the ordinary condition of the country, and the suppression of vagrancy and mendicity, that this measure would operate in a beneficial manner ; that, as it regarded the bad habits which these engendered, no scheme would be so good, in putting an end to them, and in operating as an inducement to both landlords and farmers to improve their system of cultivation. It would cause the abandonment of useless and unproductive works, and be the means of engaging the labourers in the cultivation of the fields. In future there would be greater cultivation of land than there had been, for unless the soil was much more scientifically worked, the popu lation could not be in a satisfactory or happy state. A great transition would take place, one of much difficulty and danger, and it behoved the Government, in consulting all the interests of the country, to consider what measure would be best calms lated to assist the country through. Taking the advice of Sir R. Kane in his excellent work on the industrial resources of Ireland, they would have to consider the most adequate and best mode of cultivating the land and increasing its produce. He thought that the mode of living of the Irish poor, their habits indolent and slothful, arising out of the great facility of procuring food with little labour, and their wretched dwellings destitute of all do mestic comforts, in a great degree were the cause of the want of skill and energy among them. But the labourers no longer depending on the potato for food, he believed would be a cause why the farmers would greatly improve in the cultivation of their lands, and in general habits. He believed that no labourers were more capable of exertion ; none could more advantageously employ their powers than the Irish labourers.—( Hear, hear.) During inquiries which he had made at the time the measure of the Noble Lord the Member for Lynn respecting railways, was under considera tion, he (Lord John Russell) had obtained some information on this subject. He was informed that it had been said, when Irish labourers went on railway work, that for the first two or three weeks they had a good deal to learn, but the work of education went rapidly on, and it was found that in six weeks they could labour as well as any of the others.—( Hear, hear.) In France, where the English labourers on railways were paid higher rates of wages than French labourers, the Irishmen were e reckoned equally skilful with the English and equally well paid.—(Hear, hear.) If, therefore, such were the disposition and power of the Irish labourers, why not direct them to the cultivation of the land, and thus occupied 'why might they not expect them to be as good and skilful?—(Hear, hear.) It was his strong Itelief that the present measure would cause a new existence among the Irish farmers and labourers. At present there was a great difference in many parts of Ireland, for though some districts he could not look upon but with alarm, in others great exertion was making for the next harvest, and altogether a greater breadth of land was sown than there had ever been before, being the be,einning of a new state of existence, and a new system of cultivation.—( Ilear, hear. ) If they looked to the past history of the English poor-law, they would find that at first it was provided that the able-bodied labourers, who would not work, should be sent to the workhouse as a punishment, and obliged to wear a badge of disgrace. Subsequently they had recourse to another system. In the reign of George the Ist, the workhouse test was introduced, obliging those who were out of employment and destitute, while there was room in the workhouse to go in there , so as to show that if they were really in want 'of food and shelter, their going in there was proof of their condition, and food and shelter would then be accordingly given, care at the same time being taken that the re l ie f s h ou ld n ot make the condition of the recipient better than that of the independent labourer.— gee a (Hear, hear.) Such a system was one which required care, in its administration, still he firmly believed that to that poor-l a w, and to ;he suppression of vaarancy and mendicancy, ss, t. skit asterir.ed ths sur,ory E. , A,ana, was one great reason why inctuitry , trade, tr.d commerce, had been so successful in this country.-- ( Hear, hear.) He confessed he telt great difficulty in intro' during !he measure at the present time, but he did so in order to effect the future improvement of Ireland.—(Cheers.) Mr. LEFROY, who rose amid loud cries of " Divide," 531 ' that after the speech they h a d h ear d f rom t h e N o bl e L o rd, ne felt it his duty to make some observations to the House Witu respect to the deputation which had waited upon his Lordships He, and the others, who formed that deputation, did not thin k they were asking too much in requesting him to give some at"' tentron to the resolutions which they were instructed to plan e s before him. And before he told the House what the result re that interview was, he would take the liberty of reading th e recommendation of the . Poor-law Commissioners to the Goveras ment.—(Loud cries of Oh, oh," and much confusion.) Ynti having alluded so far—( Cries of " Oh, oh," " Divide, divide', and marks of impatie n c e )—th e H on . M em b er procee d e d to rein. from the report, but so much confusion prevailed, that the non' Member's voice was scarcely audible. Having thus alluded to the Poor .law Commissio ners , he would proceed t o state what Were the opinions of many gentlemen.—( Cries of Divide, dirig e j oh, oh," and a variety of no i ses f rom a ll parts o f t h e House" What, said Dr. Doyle.—( Oh, o h . ) H e was sorry to trel,Pj, upon the patience of th e H ouse .—( I ncrease d confaso,s,°'' He had a duty to perform, a n d h e t ruste d t h ey wou ld a llow air ) a hearing.—( Criss of "Di v id e , di v id e, " and "Oh, 011 `,4 The Hon. Member h e re rea d severa l o f t h ese op i n i o ns, LI., statement of which was quit e i nau dibl e , an d t h en proce eded "' say, that if such be the case in Ireland, could they, unless till, adopted other measures, confer the the relief required, a ll ! ‘ s a there were great appli ca ti ons f or re li e f , t h ere wou ld b e d?.7 . „7 1 the number if they adopted th e propos i t i on o f t h e N o ble . ( Cries of " Oh, oh," and " Hear, hear.") He would MT : : that this law could never he carried out without a great 111 T I, tary lorce, and he would ra th er t h at a tax was l ev i e d On w 1 landlords of Ireland.—( Cries of "Divide, divide, " and etc • confusion, and " Chair, c h a i r .") If t h e Noble Lord were press this matter, he would b e gut ti ng t h e t h roats o f t h e ho ; of property.—(Loud cr i es o f "Di v id e, " and " H ear , hear' The Hon. Gentleman then recurred to the opinions which been expressed upon th e Bill. H ere t h ere was sufficien t! „, thority for the oppositi on th a t h a d b een expressed.--(1)!tsg dive, and Hear, hear.) Lord Devon's Commission exp, the same thing.—(Oh, oh.) N ow , h e wou l d as k o f t he No; Lord to reconsider t hi s q ues ti on —(R enewe d confus i o n)—f,,%l objections were not f o u n d e d upon any op i n io ns o f his. The were no schemes of his,. and before this law was passe° i f would ask of the Noble Lord to give them power over th at property, and to giv e th em a supp l ementary A ct to pree,f,,a that subdivision of t enan : cy w hi c h h a d b een the ru i n of Ire„,,,'" by legislation.-- ( R enewe d con f us i on. ) H e would ask aa°"" - „ • pro' perty and requ es t anot h er b oon , and that was, that a ll ~ perty in Ireland should be made to share the hardean''' ( Divide, divide.) There was at the present time large W . tunes made in Ireland, and if facilities were to be gisen : l business—if the great to wns were to b e i mpr oved--if asfi, • was to have fair play in o ne way it oug h t to h ave i t in anota''.' —( Renewed confusion.) The country was becoming oit • lised, and there ought to be some measures proposed for aar rying that civilisation into all parts of it.—(Fresh airs • of " Divide, divide," an d " Question, question.") He not wish to press on the p at i ence of the House.--0-# o ;# of " Divide, divide," and " Chair.") There was so n s ,s confusion in the House that it was a l most i mposs ibl e to the Hon. Member's observations. He gave her Majesty's vernment credit for being actuated by the best motives, bati desired that they sho u ld i n t ro d uce ot h er measures w hich D'" been recommended by commission upon commission. The elusion of the Hon. Gentleman's speech was lost amid 10'1' cries for " Division." Mr. ROSS, who was almost inaudible in the gallery fri t the loud noise which prevailed in the House, was understood say that he would vote for the Government on the PI: sent occasion, although he was not willing give his unqualified support. He believed, howevery_li the Government were b oun d t o t ry every measure in to remedy the calamity which had befallen Ireland. The_ t a periment was a perilous one. In his opinion four acres now be insufficient to support a family, for he believed Ilia would require ten acres, by reason of the potato failure. would not lend the Government his support upon the Prl,7 i , occasion, were it not t h a t w ith t h e measure they had p, occasion, • duced others mitigatory of the evils likely to:attend it; and„, W bt this feeling he would v o t e aga i nst t h e amendment o f the " Hon. Gentleman. 01 Sir H. W. BARRON sa id th at t hi s quest i on was on e t el the most vital import ance t o I r i s h propr i etors, and hetras,„, therefore that the House would allow him to make one'or s : s .t observations. If the House would s How him he would its attention to certain returns which he held in his ban d returns which (although he gave every credit to Goverew44 for the care and at t ent i on t h ey h ad exhibited in the fra.,, ty of this measure) would h e was a f ra id prove that the i r e aPeL a tions were likely to be disappointed. The Hon. Baronet si7 h went into a lengthened calculation to show that if England, fat a rental of 62,000,0001. per annum was rated 5,000,000" I 0 the mainte nance o f 1,5 0 0 ,000 paupers, Ireland, with onl , rental of 13,000,0001., and a pauper population of 2,30 0,e r; would, at the rate of 7s. 6d. each p erson , b e c h arg ed a° o t than 5,000,060 f., an amount which he felt convinced could be yielded by the country. It was not, however, his rater tion to vote against the Ministry, although he could Isot,,', s s teal his fears that th e i r ant i c i pat i ons of the good that Wow" "" suit from this measure were too sanguine. ot a Mr. FITZGERALD next a d dressed the House, but oos sentence reached th e g all er y. W e un d erstood hi m t o SO t hha when the religious houses had been suppressed in Ireland' a, 43d of Elizab e th, or w h at was commonly termed t h e Eng Poor-law, ought to have been introduced into that country. Mr. SHAW replied. He would not detain the House log s i i He merely wished to say, in reply to one remark of the 1 41 ,° 0 w o i Lord, that by giving in-door relief the unemployed wook l oo , come for it, but be stimulated to depend on their own exeil l io s but by giving out-door relief they would come for it, an d all self-reliance, and thus become entirely dependent "" . poor-rates. - The Committee then divided, when there appeared— For the clause..... .l, 242 Against it......... .. Majority for th e c l ause 206 The House then resumed. The CHAIRMAN reported progress, an d o btained lee " ° sit again on Monday, to consider the remaining clauses of the Bill. THE PRISONS BILL AND THIS CUSTODY OF OFFENDERS BILL were, on the motion of Sir G. GREY, read a second time and ordered to be committed. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and th e House adjourned at a Quarter before One o'clock. ((AIL WAY COMMITTEES. (YESTERDAY.) HOUSE OF COMMONS. GROUP I. merits 4 The Select Committ ee appo i nte d to cons id er the men the Bills comprised in this Group re-assembled in Room 1!" at the usual hour this morning; Lord Granville Somerset 01 the chair. NORTH =NT LINE. fro Stroud Mr. Bidder's eviden ce was cont i nued. The lineßochaf to Chilham was an ex t ens i on o f t h e Gravesen d a nd . a _._ ter line. It would cross th e Medway on a railway br id g e ' and extend on to Halstowe, where it branched off to Sher' ness, crossing the S wa l e on a wooden bridge. — lll e r y a l ga from Halstowe the line entered a tunnel of 400 yards, skirted the north side of Sittingbourne, then reached Fat'L l ham, and terminated in junction with the existing line P 714 Ashford to Canterbury at th e Chilh am stat i on. There nc,j, be a station at Rochester, Chatham, Strood, Milton, IV stowe, Faversham, a n d a var i ety o f road-side statioJ* AO the present line the distance from London to CanterborY„,lo 80 miles; it would be reduced by the new line to 6 0 S d at and 7 furlongs. There was no doubt, in an engineering ) of view, the South-Eastern line was far superio!,,,toos Brighton line. Th e B r i g ht on li nes encountered clg uc h i e 10 at Boughton-Mil which it would b e almost iiiiikOs'Ltitiv overcome. Ttitse difficulties were av o id e d by the gal Eastern line. There were two tunnels on the Brightollo from Maidstone to Canterbury, one 2,955," and the 1,478 yards in length. The gradients were extremely se_fiefi while the line, as from L on d on t o C anter b ury, was two 50— shorter than the South-Eastern (North Kent) line. THE ESTIMATES. The estimated cost of the line from 'London to 8 01 was 70,0001., and from Lewisham to .Croydon, 142 _„' 10' The estimated cost o f t h e li ne from Strood to Chilh9lool, chiding the branch to Sheerness and Faversham, was 965 : 0 0 The estimated co s t o f t h e li ne from Maidstone to ChaP,nodi 414,0001. The estimated cost of the Maidstone and O t ity as an integral li ne was 275,000/. • the estimated cost 0 40 Dartford branch was 84.0001., and the estimated cost ° to Mitt Kent, from the junction with the Dartford Brane o P o ok Maidstone, P a dd oc k- woo d , an d T on b r i dge, was 1,016%0 d making a grand tot a l o f 2,966,000/. The total estinifi l the Brighton Company for these lines was 1,900,0001. is§ This closed Ali% Bidder's examination in chief. 11 A / 0e cross-examined at some length by M r . T a lb o t, b u t his° evidence remained unshaken. The Committee adjourned at four o'clock till MondaY STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE The Committee met yesterday at twelve o'clock. ~oro The following were the d ec i s i ons come to during the vw of the day:— 1 MIDLAND RAILWAY (WORCESTER, HERE MALVERN, AND CHELTENHAM LINES, ' BRANCHES TO SUDBURY). Standing orders not to be dispensed with. IMPORTANT ANN OUNCEME.- MANCHESTER AND SOUTHAMPTON (No. 2) 0 1 Allowed to proceed on condition of depositing new P and sections of the datum line. 1./ 1 The Committee were occupied nearly the entire (101_ ,et. this case, and the gre a t es t exc i tement was evinced reZ;sie nig the decision, which was not announced until hal' r four o'clock. The lobbies were crowded to excess. Oat S i / [A DVERTISEMENT.] —BILE INFALLIBLY C 110 7,.." - O at . 1 1oLLOWAY's 'Pmts.—Many who suffer from bile are uneon s r,i4 0 ' it ; they complain of sick-headache,-a derangement and sin' o rgt , the stomach, loss of appetite, lowness of spirits, want of e n ter/ feet, hand, and face swellings, and know not that these 0::" . 10 . .; denote the imperfect action of the liver, and, if not remedir,L r ecw, lead to dropsy. Holloway's Pills will always be fsund to ac i ,ottf" on the liver and stomach, and can y off the redundancy of 1 1 4 and thereby restore the patient to a f u ll en j oyment o f heall.l h oal . blue pill is a mercurial and de s t ruc ti ve me di c i ne, wh i c h no one;iisir take.--Sold by all druggists, and at Professor Holloway's 1 " . meat, 244, Strand, London. BIRTHS. On the 16th Inst., at St. Diary's-road, P ec kh am , the lad,' o f 1°114(1113 de Mancha, Esq., of a son. Ain' Pa ler On the 17th inst., at St. German's-pl ace , Bl ac kheath, land, of a son. t. ti On the 18th inst., at Wokofleld-park, Berks, the lady of go I Allfrey, Esq., of a son. ° On the 17th inst ,at Erskine House, Hampstead-heath, the O il. Henry Bruce, N:sq., of a daughter. OIT • On the 18th inst., at Larkhall-tise, Clapham, Mrs. Robert kl. cher, of a eon. On the 18th Met., at Mile-end, Mrs. Buncombe, of a dauFhte/ MARRIED. to At St. James's, Paddington, John Montgomery Campbell, 04 " Emily Georgina, eldest daughter of G. Chilton, Esq., DIED. 00 0 On the 16th inst., in Surrey-street, Strand , Mrs. W itten widow of C. 1). Wittenoorn, Esq., aged 62. a to On the 16th inst., at Boulogne-sur-mer, Mrs. Athill, widow late J. Athill, Esq., aged 7h. h CO' On the 17th inst., at Alfred Cottages, Kent - road, Mr. JoSeP— bead, bookseller, aged 79. On the 17th inst.; Herbert,, son of Mr. W. H. Chaplin, 0 - f - /310°P5 Stortford, Hells, aged 6. ,„, res toil• On the 17th inst., Fanny, the wife of Mr. F. W. 'roach, o f '" Lancashire. ..'s,,' Groff," On then 7th inst., Mary, the wife of E. W. MortlS. Ea of hurs , , near Tunbridge-wells. E 01 20 On the 18111 inst., in Gracechurch-sirsce, William ead Morley, Esq., aged 68. On the 18th inst., Thomas Parsloe, Loruan's-pond, Southwark• ; At Goring-heath, near R e adim, Caroline Sophia, the el dest d uSm ter of the Rev. EL T. Powve. - -- --.....- London: Printed and Published by MURDO YOLTNG, of No. . . . Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, N 0.112, strand, 1u the Precise: of the Savoy, 1A tho County of MiddleAlc• &MVO' bi luci 20, 1447. TIRE ( .1 ( jv i RAlni 'the god Co " 1 ib "h44 : Pa f. 1ftbit....1.11 the Po n dition lin s to; the_, 16721,c13T0t,' 1441aa Tavern. CONTRA( btktai MARIN eot of th , 2 t i h ie e "InZiot Se:tited Tai `V to treat 16 .. f0r Supply itetictitrarine 1 . and I Ilinitz d other of bet wee Itoor tzt s "'ORD, ) 0 .,2% or nett MOUTH-1 'll Walls til et e lb4 s,tenderin :5421144‘71:0rki11"- -;ate:l4:llll:endten:redlreuresreni.,:i bear in 10L. 6 1110 be d by a r , wok Contra of ti NATIoN) Utitution %. o :Aect to Lli lilt', occasio qielo f tko Yoh , oPtlon o ott 4 441.1117 exiterk fo s r bli tift e tabled the D - " 41 b •nus, ya e4cll relic/ eff 12` "., I ° o o A 4 ) 6- 1111 !Itvis(nth: GUS )4. I'll A lt iq I-asociat /414" e since p Poser d ,, j*: 11::: Ivhgittuniill S at . /. 441 , CI 4 414 j rec s a ve a for r to Suet 41 , t , it interest ' in terval IN Iv -race the t h ` 'tight Eton 11,!-.Ight Hon 1;:a4 night Hon ,},e. fight liou k r ,- it_ight Hot Sir William wallato 1 •;taore Lanz Colville k„," ,,,, "tlety &e ., L' , )r Charles ler H. Barr kC . Dent, I E" .v. Kerrison t,4 ‘ 1, 17n-rththenirp E ar s l v,„ Illiam SI gntry,, ...,,,,............ tUPER] G Juries C. ki chael I Charlea F kildre w Ge orge II ~ 1. 11, 0 S 01j • e' R-FIF 11 114, - ,`,,`, to Poli( ,1 '" , nred, Int l' it ilzttte ti t -Itt raPle: (41 TR to r ates. to t'r o spect w Vren - "Ye ; at tb V IE Ott b ,Fou 11T16h r ttlyLbY tr by and "` cutlers ti k idge to l)° :7 Y ' e. o°tthou Ite".. Arne] Fitt 'a ve 0! r on : 1 4 41 ( b et ze g % No it L AR% 4:t t ry. l SU 1 - 11 3117 25 15 4 100 40 , 100 ' 4 0 100 t o MO EO 10 0 trit eg minces w~-, ~ili