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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, March 19. The Loan CHANczLLon. took his seat upon the Wool sack at Five o'clock. POOR REMOVAL BILL. Earl ST. GERMANS presented a petition Rom Salt ash, in the county of Des on, 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 for a_ 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 of emi 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 propezed 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. lie 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 fir one should deprecate any interference with the Act, be cause it would affect that principle for which they had been so long contending, namely, the interminable removals of the poor from piece 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 mea-ure, 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 RICHMON. D 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 know 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 comideration. 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 wa s very p ro b a bl e t h at t hi s A ct m i ght have I 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 I'ORTMAN conceived that it was quite ne oessary 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 Government would, before the end of the session, bring in a Bill, not 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 rishes. lie 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, for 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, fur, unless they did, they would have an immense number of poor before Michael.. mas 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, they 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 workhonse by order of the medical men, 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 sided. Lord BEAUMONT—That could not be, for a five years' residence was required to give a title to perma nent relief. Lord PORTMAN—That might be true, but the ques tion was whether they could be removed. Lord BEAUMONT—That was 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 few words from Lord COLCHESTER, the subject was dropped. The Marquis of CONYNGUAAL 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 bad waited upon Lord John Russell. His name had been inserted inadvertently in a list of persons who attendid 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 MONTEAGLE said that the mistako 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 01 CO,IIhIIONS, March 19. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock. SECOND READINGS. The following Bills were read a second time Improvement—Claridge's Patent Asphalte Cornpany — Ewell R a t es —L e , ra l Quays (London-5 sduff Harbour —Ross Cromarty , and Part o f Nairn District Itoads—S4ron Walden Rates—Warlc worth Harbour. Sereral Hon. r il l eri ;VOME-TAx. of the pAitions fro t he collectors and asse ssor :" an increased ranuueration r income-tax pray in ill r f EDUCT " t h o e , k i j labutir ' : . ) " schem e of i el '," -F rom N Mr. BRIGHT presented a —. . against the Government s: fo o I l k . Mr. IlliAllt-; presented a petition fro j - cati t, , masters in Scotland, praying that ti: l e ). y se „j' a ` pointed registrars of . byths, deaths, and r - r - ,V'. t be ap rnages, in order to afford an addition to their scanty income. LICAIT DUES. Mr. FORSTER presented a petition from Whitehead in Bristol from the merchants and shipowner:, prayi ng for a reduction of the charges made for 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 THE BtIN solicitors, the medical men, and general inhabitants of the place against the law forbidding marriage with a deceased wife's sister. Dr. BOWRENG presented a petition from Bolton against the Bolton Improvement RUM DUTIES. Mr. DENNISTOUN rresented a petition from the di.stillers 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. tiONY'DON, ponies had he the slightest interest, the remarks of the IronOtiiiiire - Araiber, it would be seen, were ground less and false. The House, he thought, 'should pro tect Honourable Members from such imputations being cast upon them, as it was necessary for its cha racter that it, proceedingti should not be called in ques tion, unless on sufficient grounds. Mr. ‘VILSON PAT I'EN must say that he - was most surprised at the Honoue4ble Gentle;nan taking the matter up so warmly. It was well known, however, that there were many objections to Members serving on such Committees, which aid not in the least affect the character of those who were objected to. lie 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 charael 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 disclaimed 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 lion. 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 parsons 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 IL 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 had done was wrong, and that he weuld not do so again, but he maintained that what he had 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, ho would consider it his faithful duty to face the obloquy which he knew attended him at the present moment.—(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 R►USSELL said, he 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 nut 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. Ile 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 w,uld exercise a sound discretion, and preserve the character of the House. He considered also that the Ilouse ought to support him in the discharge of very onerous duties. Mr. ELLICE wish, d 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 b hom the Committee of Selection intended to put upon the list. He thought that after such communication, any lion. Member might himself object; but he did not think that the honour of the House would be advanced by striking out the names of lion. 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 subjec dropped. AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS. In answ*-r to a question put by an HoN. MEMBETI, Mr. M. GIBSON said, that it was the intention of the Government to proceed as speedily as possible with the Bill relating to the collection of agricultural statistics. JUVENILE OFFENDERS' BILL. Lord MAHON wished to know what cc , urse 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, bat it would be certainly an advantage to have more dyeizive intimation. Lord J. RUSSELL admitted the propriety of the Right Hon. 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:',vhich he expressed a decided coviction that this tax militated against the health of the population. Lord MORMTII said that the window-tax was a financial, as well;as 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 sabiect would he referred to a Select Committee. FRENCH HOSPITAL AT PORT MAHON. Mr. BORTHWICK 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 cf France and Spain, by which a French military hospital and a store of coal are said to have been esta blished in Port Malion. He 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 circumstanaes 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 wa.ch her proceedings with jealousy. and that the people of this country should be informed whether the Government were or were not vigi lantly watching theeonduct 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 he did not call the attention of the Government to such a matter as this ; but he put the question in no spirit of offensiveness to ar.y one connected with foreign policy. Lord PALMERSTON 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 for 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 been issued. MR. AIARA. 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 Lad 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. CALLAGHAN 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►, and 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— twenty-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 ho 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 wa, 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 PLACES OF WORSHIP. The Flo Ni. 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 fioN. 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 HoN. 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 outdoor relief should be given, might be retained. They also complained of the number of ex officio poor-law guardians. TENANT RIGHTS. Mr. SHAT MAN CRAWFORI) 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. FERRAND gave notice that on an early day after Easter he would bring the new poor-law under the con sideration of the House. POOR REMOVAL ACT. Mr. C. BULLER presented a petition from Liskeard against the Poor Removal Act passed last session. GOVERNMENT MEASURES. _ Mr. DILLON BROWNE wished to ask the Noble Lord when it wss 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 fur Ireland into consideration? Lerd JOHN RUSSELL said it was his intention to proceed w ith the poor-law on Monday next, and he believe d 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. ACCO ‘IMODATION 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 atteinled in the House of Com mons.—(Cheers from both sides of the House.) Ile 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 lion. Gentleman had given notice of these questions, and he was, therefore, not prepared to answer them. Mr. lIUME (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 beappointed 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 Commit ttee 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 were these. 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 relating 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 tively ; 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 eave a list of the Members whom they had appointed fur the Select Committee. That list was submitted to the Parlia mimuLy agents on both sides, that is, to the agents of the Wat Western and of the South-Western Companies. He had understood that, this list 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 mom bers whom they had appointed to serve on the Com natte.e, 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 eircurnstarice, 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 mern 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 i n th e communication I 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 he 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, ho 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 Hon. 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 for doing so. Only two answers, however, were received—one from the Great Western Company, and the other fr:,in 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, he 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 he be lieved that the Great Western Railway did object to a much greater extent than the opposing company. Mr. ELLICE said it appeared to him that when Hon. Members had been asked to serve, and had agreed, and their names were published in the papers of that House should be entitled to protection. He had hoped that his Honourable Friend opposite would have come down and admitted that the Committee were in error in having received these objections as valid, with uhuatd g ad iv o i p u t g ed r . eas Z a r t e o sp H ec o t n e . d A h le im m s biir f s the i f f o t r hec Committee ocmoumrsitete ofhey Selection had app li ed to him, he e ' would at Once say whether either party had any just cause of objection to him. But when he stated that in neither of these COUI. SIii.TURDAY :EVENING I MARCH 2,6, I .._ 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 or these men bad 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 3/., be•ng 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 tabour 251. or 30/. a week. He thought that it was essential to the character of the House that nia'.hit - ,g 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 erdeavoured 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 tha 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 put 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 endeavours to authenticate 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 he had referred, namely, Mr. Courtenay, had kept for the last six months not one 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 fir 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 secretary of 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. Sir. SHAW did not make any charge against them. He had only stated what Jr,a 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 Bill, 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 oppo.ition to the motion, that you now leave the chair in order that the House may go into Committee on the MI In the next lace, I wish to avail myse lf o f t hi s oppor t un i ty to s t a t e th at 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 m I this House for e, a British subject, to state that 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, 31r. 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. Ha hoped that the Irish people would not be 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. Ile 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 administrati-n 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 in the Act ; but he thought that the clause, as it then stood, was a good one, and, with the addition which he had suggested, would be a most 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 to e waldhs told that imthatre thelief had been hadbee nemxtaednedeidt to a labouring man on account of a sick child, and o n hi s as ki ng were s if ick th o e n e p h u il rp d ose. y sick, li h such a way of applying relief much in jury might be done to those who really required assistance. Mr. VERNON smrru agreed with the observations of the Hon. Member for Dorchester, anti 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 charge upon the country. After a few words from Mr. ROSS, which did not reach the gallery, s h o S u i l r d l n V o . tCbLe liAYttehdo e u n g t h i r t e t l ha yt t o t h t h e e p r p in er c m i p a l of d permanently e ntl y o out-door disabled,- oor relief ief for it ldpreventmuchsoemxpeetnimsees teaenxdrrhd. touch social misery, if a timelylittle relief were Lord COURTENA Y supported the amendment, and would, if a vote were taken, support the Hon. Member who moved it. Mr. SHARNIAN CRAWFORD thought the word ought to be struck out, as the clause, in its preaent shape, would be the cause 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 he must support the amendment. If the word " permanent was to be retained in the clause, it should be properly defined. 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 out-door relief would have prevented. Sir D. NORREYS would support the retention of the words in the clause. Sir IL 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 the words in the clause, Mr. V. STUART thought it most important that in all the workhouses separate arrangements should be made for cases of fever. t Mr. RICE supported the clause as it stood. Mr. SHAW b egge d them to o bs erv e in all their observa tions th at t h e present measure was to b e a permanen t 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 proposed to give the right of relief to the permanently disabled. W ere the words struck out, the Bill wou ld b e alto gether alt ere d i n its character. He thought t h at any ambi guity in th e words " permanently disabled " m i g h t b e removed by substitu t i ng " that 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 parochial support instead of trusting to their own industry; He 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 e xtensive, but he thought th e omission of th e 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 be was not prepared to give up the word " permanent" in the clause, but as regarded tha suggestion of the Hon. Member for Waterford he was reat'y to consider it, for the insertion of certain words might meet the views and wishes of the Hon. Member. Lord "Cr. BENTINCK thought that the man who was eon. fined by illness presented as great a case of hardship as the man incapacitated for work from the effect of accident, and he trusted, therefore, that the clause would be amended by the omission of the word " permanent." Mr. B. ESCOTP coincided in the opinion expressed by the Noble Lord the Member for Lynn, that the omission of the word " permanent" would be an hrpreve.ment. After a fee words from• Mr. Al UN Tz. Mr. YOUNG wished to know from the Noble Lord at the head 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 'n the clause? Lord JOHN RUSSELL—Yes. Mr. P. SCROPE said thetas the Noble Lord included cases of sickness, as welt as of accident, he should not press the amendment of which he had given notice. Sir H. W. BARRON said that the Hon. Member aeemed 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 hart 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 t his 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 wculd reconsider this question, tor 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 not shown his usual acute n e ss i n th e consideration y 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 Lent 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 Hon. Member for Finsbury, for as the clause now stood it was evident that the whole of the discretion was as 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 reqaired 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 vo e 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. 111 r. 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 these 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 eases, and that he thought ought to be altered. Mr. SIIARMAN 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 :ng 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 placed upon this discretion. After a few words from Mr. WAKLIT 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 pour. 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 not, therefore, consent to the alteration proposed by the Hon. Gentleman opposite. It would place the guardians 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 introd..:ced 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. Vesey, a d 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. BROWNE, 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 or.e, from the tone of the remarks made to-night, and of those 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 lie 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 sane 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 shouLl 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 tha❑ 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 abandoned 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'BereN and Mr. Drr.LoN 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 one week in the Cork workhouse. Mr. LABOUCHERE said that provision was made for that in the Bill then before the House, 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 would be completely deranged, and that it would open a do or to fraud. He con,idered that ont-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 present mo ment above all others, when a gigantic system of out-door relief was in operation, by telling the people, in vast numbers employed on the public works, that when they were suspended, and they stood in need of relief, as no doubt they would, that they should have out-door relief. At the present moment 700,000 heads of families, representing no doubt 3,000,000 parson,, were aubsiatiog 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 independenee—to that self-reliance on which this Right Honoerable Baronet the Member for Tamworth had laid so much stress— these seven hundred thousand persons would at once be transferred from public works to re ceive relief under the Bill before the House. In six counties —Sligo, Roscommon, Leitrim, Galway, Clare. and Mayo, 1,30 ),000 persons were at present receiving assistance in the shape of employment under the Labour Rate Act; but the whole of the rates in tho-v counties was only one million seven hundred thousand pounds; it was therefore a mockery and a delusion to say that the rates could support such a vast number. He admitted that the land must now be taxed to a greater extent than heretofore for the supp or t o f th e p oor . The famine w a s th e diffi cu lty 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 introducing 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 rest 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 Irelansl. —( 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, aud with that view he sup ported the measure of the Noble Lord some rears 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 supper: 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 103 S id. 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 experienee must be gone through ; but in its present condition it was impossible for it to support the burden about to be placed on it. Lard 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 Bill 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 heard the Right Honourable Gen tleman say that there were 31)0,000 persons now residing in Mayo, and that the property of that cr,unty 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, how completely would all the circumstances mentioned by the Right Honourable Gentleman fail. The Right Honourable Gentleman had sad 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 state 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 Ilonourable Gentleman's argument in its application to the present Bill and to the eresent 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 arid help should be given as a general rule from the unions of Ireland. He was not of opi moo 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 out-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 t• e 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 so, 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 bslicved, 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 calcu 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. H e t h oug t 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. Ile believed that no labourers were more capable of exertion ; none could more advantageously employ their powers than the Irish labourers.—( Hear, hear.) During inqui ries w hi ch 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 hail 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 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 belief that the present m easure 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 DIED. exertion was making for the next harvest, and altogether a greater breadth of land was sown than 017 the I f;th ' just , t at Bou ' logne . i . su 6 r-tner, Mrs. A.thill, widow 0 wi O d 11 tl o i t e c ldbh Suer DIED Cl. Mrs. Witten7; there had ever been before, being the beginning of a new state late J. Athill, Esq., aged 75. of existence, and a new system of cultivation.—( Hear, hear.) If they looked to the past history of the English poor-lase, they t i n )o e .l l . 7 I ll e i r o , s ,, t g ., ed a . t 7 , 9 l..lfred Cottages, Kent-road, Mr. Joseph C° l. would find that at first it was provided that the able-bodied he°aClL, On the 17th inst., d ll c e , rbert, son of Mr. W. H. Chaplin. of 131 ' h° 0 1 :: labourers, who would not work, should be sent to the workhouse St(°:,itftiirl'l7ltileiriti'is'ta.,gke'anny, the wife ot Mr. F. W. Tuach, of Prey as a punishment, and obliged to wear a badge of disgrace. Lancashire. of Grove' Subseque n tly th ey h a d recourse to another system. In the on the viol inst., Mary, the wife of E. W. Morris, Esq., reign of George the Ist, the workhouse test was introduced, horse, the'e near J . St u h nb i l i l l ' sT c ,ln el" Graceehurch-stteet, William it eadsbalr obliging th ose w h o were out of employment and destitute, while th ere was room i n t h e workhouse to go in there ,so as to Al o or n le7 h , e E l s B i t i ii j a u f s e t d ., Thomas show that if th ey were rea ll y i n want of food and s h e l ter, t h e i r At Goring - heath, r tn ß a e o a Pdianrgs,loCaroline a p h o ia n , th S e ou el i dhewstardica.tign. going in there was proof of their condition, and food and terof the nee. lt. T. Powys. shelter would then be accordingly given, care at the same time being tak e n that the relief should not make the condition of London: Printed and Published by MURDO YOlTNla, th of e .;;; el , - l et SAttlrdArt the recipient better than that of the independent labourer.-- I °r the' Int a i y n o t y e , r, i a n t 77 th re e S c u o n un Offi ty ce o , i N ) o n t a ll e , s s ex tr , and, m oo (Hear, h:ar.) Such a system was one which required gee 29, 1847. The Committee then divided, when there appeared — Fur the clause 36 Against it Majority for the c l ause 206 The House then resumed. The t. HAIRSIAN reported progress, and o of the sit again on Monday, to consider the remaining clauses Bill. OF THE PRISONS BILL AND THE CUSTODY OFFENDERS BILL were, on the motion of Sir G. GREY, read a second time lin ordered to be comn.ii ted. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and th° House adjourned at a Quarter before Otte o'clock. obtained leave to UAILWAY COMMITTEES. (YESTERDAY.) HOUSE OF COMMONS. GROUP I. The Select Committee appoirred to consider the merits of , 1 the Bills comp r i se d i n t hi s Group re-assembled in Roo m at the usual h our t hi s morning; Lord Granville Somerset I' the chair. NORTH ICENT LINE. Mr. Bidder's e vi d ence was cont i nued. The l i ne from Strood to Chilham was a n ex t ens i on o f t h e Gravesen d and bridge, ter line. It would cross the Medway on a railway sheer and extend on to Halstowe, where it branched en `", ness, crossing th e S wa l e on a wooden bridge. - DT - roing from lla!stowe the line entered a tunnel of 400 P ru '' skirted the north s id e o f Si tt i ng b ourne, then reache d Fav fro e ham, and termin a t e d i n j unct i on w i th the exist i ng line Qu id Ashford to Canterbury a t th e Chilh arn station. There sirs; ol , be a station at Rochester, Chatham, Strood, 13y stowe, Faversham, and a variety of road-side stations. lo s the present line th e di s t ance f rom L ondon to Canterbury oes 80 miles; it would be reduced by the new line to 6 0 m int and 7 furlongs. Th ere was no d ou b t, i n an engineering r-tihe of view, the South-Eastern line was far superior t° l o g s Brighton line. The Brighton lines encountered da, c , s u i , to at Boughton-hill which it wou ld b e almost impossciu—tli. overcome. These diffi cu lti es were avo i ded by the (.lille Eastern line. 'acre were two tunnels on theßrightn n t ber from Maidstone to C an t er b ury, one 2,955, and the °ere, 1,478 yards i n l eng th . Th e gra di ents were extremely seLaes while the line, as from London to Canterbury, was two shorter than than the South-Eastern (North Kent) line. TILE ESTIMATES. The estimated cost of the line from London to Dr '7 ) 001 was 70,0001., and from L ew i s h am to .Croydon, 14 2 10' The estimated cost of the line from Strood to Chilh,l6ool. eluding the branch t o Sh eerness and Faversham, was 9 0 ' , The estimated coat of the line from Maidstone to Char t ,' d 414,000/. The estimated c os t o f t h e M aidstone and St ~.""t ° 1 1 ; as an integral line was 275,0001.; the estimated cost e' t . t he Dartford b ranc h was 84,0004, and the estimated cost ° io Mid Kent, fr o m th e j unct i on with the Dartford Brame" 1•' Maidstone, P a dd oc k- wood, and Tonbridge, was 1,016, of making a gra n d t o t a l o f 2,966,0004 The total estitua' „ the Brighton Company for these lines was 1,900,0001., .8 5 This closed Mr. Bidd er ' s exam i nat i on in chief. 11c:3.4 cross-examined at some length by Mr. Talbot, but his''' . evidence remained unshaken. The Committee adjourned at four o'clock till Monday STANDING ORDERS COMMITTE E The Committee met yesterday at twelve o'clock. The following were the decisions come to during the° uf of the day:— MIDLAND RAILWAY (WORCESTER, HEREF°,9 MALVERN, AND CHELTENHAM LINE S, W 1 BRANCHES TO SUDBURY). Standing orders not to be dispensed with. IMPORTANT ANN OUNCEMEN T, MANCHESTER AND SOUTHAMPTON (No. 0) Allowed to proceed on condition of depositing new P and sections of the datum line. Wit S The Committ ee were occup i e d nearly the entire dai eet' this case, and the greatest excitement was evinced resf o ot ing th e d ec i s i on, wh i ch was not announced until bail r four o'clock. The lobbies were crowded to excess. f [ADVERTISEMENT — EILE INFALLIBLY Ctrib Bo( ~ itiioLLowey's l'lLLs.—Many who suffer front bile an uncon sC 'ii,g ; they complain of sick-headache, a derangement and sin ll the stomach, loss o f appetite, lowness of sp rits, want of feet, hand, and lace swellings, and know not that these sYl i igp• denote the imperfect action f the liver, and, if not remedied , , , ire ctli 'cad to dropsy. Holloway's Pills will always he found to ac ,, t „',DoOl * on the liver and , toinach, and cony (AT the redundancy of or VIS and thereby restore the patient to a full enjoyment of hea lt %hoill blue pill is a mercu r i a l an d destructive medicine, which no one to o take.--Sold by all druggists, and at Professor Holloway's "s meat, 244, Strand, London. On the IGth inst., at St. Ma RIR7I7S ry's-road, Peckham, the lady of Joa de Mancha, Esq., of a son. On the 17th inst., at St. German's-place, Blackheath, Mrs.cuther. land, of a son. Rot, On the 18th inst , Wokefield-park, Berks, the lady o f Allfrey, Esq., of a son. O❑ the l7th inst , nt Erskine House, Hampstead-heath, the Henry - Bruce, Esq., of a (laughter. On the !sill inst., at Larkhall-rise, Clapham, Mrs. Robert H• cher, of a son. On the (sill init., at 31ile-end, Mrs. Buncombe, of a daugl_2ls-1----'.. MARRIED. „ At St. Jams s's, Paddington, John 'Montgomery Campbell, rA , '' in - lily Georgina, eldest daughter of G. Chilton, Esq., care, in its administration, still he firmly believed that to the , poor-law, and to the suaression of vagrancy and mendicsney , they were indebted for the social order which had characterised the seciety of England, and it was one great reason why industry. ti add, and commerce, had been so successful in this country," ( Hear, hear.) He confessed he felt great difficulty in intl. order °. clueing the m easure at the present time, but he did so in to effect the future improvement of Ireland.—(Cheers. . a Mr. LEFRO Y, w h o rose am id l oud cr i es of "Di v id e ," said that after the speech they had heard from the Noble Lord, be felt it his duty to make some observations to the House Kith re.pect to the deputation which had waited upon his Lordsh i p' He, and the othe rs , w h o f orme d that deputation, did not this ,: they were asking too muc h i n requesting him to give some a t e tention to the resolutio ns w hi c h t h ey were i nstruc t e d to pla c _, before him. And befo re h e t o ld t h e H ouse w h at th e result s , that interview was, he would take the liberty o f reading th e recommendation of the Poor-law C omm i ss i oners to the Goveth7 ment.—(Loud cries of " Oh, oh," and much confusion.) Nn er ,; having alluded so far-s-(Cries of , 6 Oh, oh," " Divide, divide', and marks of impatience)—the Hon. Member proceeded 000. from the report, but so much confusion prevailed, that the 1 1 ; 1 % Member's voice was scarcely audible. Having thus alluded to the Poor •law Commissioners, he would proceed to state what 7 0 1 ; the opinions of many gentlemen.—(Cries of " Divide, ,) oh, oh," and a vari e ty o f no i ses f rom a ll parts o f t h e Id°n e What, said Dr. Doyl e .—( Oh, o h . ) H e was sorry to tre 9 P ss, ~ w ould allow upon the patienc e o f th e H ouse. —( l ncrease d con fusie . o , He had a duty to pe r f orm , an d h e truste d t h ey a hearing.—( sof "Divide, eivide," and 01 - 1, °h i The Hon. Member h e r e rea d severa l o f t h ese o pinions' m statement of which wa s q u it e i nau dibl e, an d then procee',de , r e y say, that if su c h be th e case in, Ireland, could they, unleo b adopted other measu res , con f er th e t h e re li ef requ i re d, at blf there were great a ppli ca ti ons f or re li e f , t h ere wou ld b e d! ) ", a ,a, the number if they adopted the proposition of the Noble lfr,, r t ( Cries of" Oh, oh," and " H ear , h ear .") H e wo uld ass% that this law could never he carried out without a great un l i tau force, and he would ra th er t h at a tax was l ev i e d en tb landlords of Ireland.—( Cries of "Divide, divide," and grea t confusion, and " Chai r , c h a i r .") If the N o b le L or d were e ~ press this matter, h e wou ld b e cutt i ng t h e throats of t h e 110 1 ° 1 of property.—(L ou d cr i es o f " D iv i de, " and " H ear , bear' ci The Hon. Gentleman then recuri ed to the opinions w been expressed upon the Bill. Here there was sufficiest e e , thority for the opposition that had been expressed.—P i " dive, and Hear, hear.) Lord Devon's Commission expresso the same thing.—( Oh, oh.) Now, he would ask of the hi, Lord to reconsider t his question—(Renewed confusion)—foro objections were not founded upon any opinions of his. 1 1 / 1 1 0 were no schemes of his, and before this law was essse u ae ir would ask of the Noble Lord to give them power over t.. 4 property, and to give them a supplementary Act to preve; d that subdivision of tenancy which had been the ruin of Reit er by legislation.—( Renewed confusion.) He would ask another question and request an .ther boon, and that was, that all P r ", perty in Ireland should be made to share the berdenS• which bus, ( Divide, divide.) There was at the present time large t o tunes made in Ireland, and if facilities were to be gise n aa l business—if the great t owns were to be improved—if net was to have fair pl a y i n one way i t ought to have it in isnot e r ' —( Renewed confusion.) The country was becoming lined, and there ou g ht t o b e some measures proposed for ner; rying that civilisation into all parts of it.—(Fresh n r A l a i of " Divide, divide," and " Q uest i on , question.") He not wish to press on the patience of the House.—(C ri c j i of " Divide, divide," a nd " Ch a i r .") Th ere was so sa u t i confusion in the House that it was almost impossible to the Hon. Member's observations. He gave her Majesty's ri a verrinaent credit for b e in g ac t uate d b y t h e b est mot i ves , bg•, desired that they sh ou ld i ntro d uce ot h er measures which nip, been recommended by comm i ss i on upon comm i ssion. The elusion of the Hon. ( - 3entlensan's speech was l us t amid 1°- cries for " Division." Mr. ROSS, who was almost inaudible in the gallery the loud noise which prevailed in the House, was understood say that he would vote for the Government on the P sent occasion, although he was not willing „it give his unqualifi e d support. H e b elieved, however, tler the Government were bound to try every measure in of s . to remedy the calamity w hi c h h a d b e f a ll en Ireland. The e ;id periment was a perilous one. In his opinion four acres W now be insufficient to support a family, for he believed thane would require ten acres, by reason of the potato failure. would not lend the Government his support upon the em r — ca , occasion, were it not th a t w ith th e measure they bad in'ta duced others mitig a t or y o f t h e ev il s likely to:attend it; anc l ,Lat this feeling he w o uld vo t e aga i nst t h e amendment of the s" Hon. Gentleman. of Sir H. W. BARRON sa id th at t hi s quest i on was 0 " a m i the most vital i m p or t ance t o I r i s h proprietors, and betroth' therefore that the H ouse wou ld a ll ow h im to make one or O l t observations. If th e H ouse would llow him he would di r er its attention to certain returns which he held in his I °l returns which (although he gave every credit to Geeeren 3 :4 for the care and a t t en ti on th ey h a d exh i b i ted in the fran'ita, of this measure) would lie was afraid prove that their esPe c he a tions were likely t o b e di sappo i nte d . Th e Hon. B aron et t jai went into a lengthen e d ca l cu l at i on to show that if England n' fa . a rental of 62,00,0004 per annum was rated 5,000,00 01 • 1 , s the maintenance of 1,500,000 paupers, Ireland, w ith en6 o o, rental of 13,000,6001. , and a pauper population of 2.300' lit would, at the rate o f 2'. 7s. 6d. each pe rson , b e c h arge d 1 1 °, t , than 5,000,060/., an amount w hi c h h e f e l t conv i nce d cous' be yielded by th e country. I t was not, however. his intew. tion to vote against the Ministry, although he could n ot en v teal his fears that th e i r an ti c i pat i ons of the good that wou ld suit from this measure were too sanguine. t S Mr. FITZGERALD next a dd ressed the House, but Obit sentence reached the gallery. We understood him to sal Vs when the religious houses had been suppressed in Irelandr lish 43d of Elizab e th, or w h at was commonly termed the Eng Poor-law, ought to have been introduced into that country Mr. SHAW replied. He would not detain the House leek e i , He merely wi s h e d t o say , i n rep l y to one remark of t h e Neul t Lord, that by giving in-door relief the unemployed would 7: 11, come for it, but be stimulated to depend on their own exertio,o but by giving out-door relief they would come for it, flail, all self-reliance, and thus become entirely dependent on poor-rates. T i'E as.\ - 1 of the said Ci "'reef, on Ti Precisely iu t ermination t That in zuli Profits for tin interest and thit eOrporati HE c T INN] 01 East Indic of the said C , 11 cl-street, o had previous "To call tl tag A 3 cenferr r ecommend pire c t ers. ,, The said C 11 84 intimate Court, "For a Co Arrest of a P el /Airman." rirRE fitat the been POST 2 ith Instant to be ebserr The Governr, Bury in this TllcasnAT, Trea sury, the 24th ins' Tin 1! INTER] itAISED ft annum, con' T o ti LADI The lam( Conduct du cuilnently c and pro mo t, Vacancy in have the 1 totincemen' holden in ti rcsPectfully The grou. Pretensions a tibmltted t You that sh fel, it shall MY conduct 14 ffra,ges I London CON' bepartmen The Con Of the Linit notice, tha be ready TRACT to; the Royal Portsaltat of one or c demanded, bEPTF , Stewart's. PORTS! Springwell Persons The Coo on applica Tender wi any notice rimed in w Every 1 t altY, and and must ter signed lee person each of th 40 , 01. fur e N Al Thta Tr With resp, has, on al lattare of also the erects to Assure] ate:. The re haa enabl a toarth 1 ex each I t\ 1 , The d Deeemb GU Xo. 11, henry I Francis Sir Wal Thorsso John H John GI George Joh' IA Leiria I A. W. 1 Samuel In th IoW Ra With pa each of Boi %seared and th 4 Daily e Loar 'tided s attaine In ti on th 4 Which Is now betwei also IT! L; vrif , °/ Not day it Dir. the Cc come 1000 To et Th and h and POU. Pa: will a übj a fur t: will, Maj Bog JOSI E.( E. 7