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

TUESDAY :SIGHT'S GAZETTE. 'At the Court at Buckingham Palace, the 27 day of Fe bruary, 1847 , present the Queen ' s most excellent Majesty in Council, her Majesty having been pleased to appoint the Right Hon. Henry Earl Grey to be Lord Lieutenant and Custos Rotulorum of the county of Northumberland, his Lordship this day took the oaths appointed to be taken thereupon, instea;:l of the oaths of allegiance and supremacy. FOREIGN -OFFICE; IlLsucti 1, 1847. The Queen has been pleased to approve of M. EueneWro, lig Consul at Newcastle for his Majesty the King of the French. 'VAFIC, 2. I st Dragoon Guar is—B -OF anke E s Tomlin, Mancit Gent., to be Cornet, purchase, vice Brire, who retires, March '2. 7th Dragoon Guards—Cornet John Thomas Cramer to be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Riddell, who retires; William Stucker Wood, Gent,, to be Cornet, by purchase, vice Cramer. March. 2. 14th Light Dragoons —Cornet and Adjutant Richard Prety nian Apthorp to have the rank of Lieutenant, Feb. 18; eourrneeteoot:l: tobert Townies , Woodman to be Lieutenant, without purch ase, vice Barrett, deceased, Feb. 19 ,• Augustus John c ur Gent, to b e C ornet , w ith ou t p urc h ase , vice Wood man;Tg Surgeon Archibald Stewart, from the 61st Foot, to be vice Sinvtli, appointed to the 87th Foot, March 2. , 4 th Foot—Ensign John Richard Lovett to be Lieutenant, by Purchase, vice Chetwode, appointed to the Bth Light Dra re" Ensign Edward Mulso Purvis, from the 74th Foot, to Ensign, vice Lovett, March 2. 12th Foot—Ensign Edward Foster to be Adjutant, with the rank of Li eutenant, April 14, 1846 ; Robert Nasmyth I rv i ng, frit., to be Ensign, without purchase, vice Foster, appointed Adjutant, March 2. , 14th Fout—Fred er i c k L e M esur ier, Gent., to be Ensign, wit hout purchase, vice Dumas, deceased, March 2. h Foot —Ensign George De la Poer Beresford to be 'lieutenant', by purchase, vice Fergusson, who retires; Berelek h 3' Craven Blackburn, Gent. to be Ensign, by pur e., • ase, vice Beresfore, March 2. bd 37th Foot —Lieutenant Henry B. Phipps to be Captain, -lase, vice Parkinson, ' who retires ; Ensign John .I.f.r.rersage Geor ge t o be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Phipps ilhant Pollard, Gent., to be Ensign, by purchase, vice George, March 2. oot—Ensign Samuel Douglas Abercromby to be .4euten ant, ) oy purchase, vice Bethune, who retires; James 1 3altimr, Gent., to be Ensign, by purchase, vice tbercromby ; March 2. Henry Montgomery, Gent., is be , n3 ign, by purchase, vice Cameron, appointed to the Ist or vrenadier Regiment of Foot Guards ; March 3. wt s ; tll Foot, Captain Fitzmaurice William Colthurst, from - PaY 75th F oo t, t o b e C a pt a i n , vice George Edwards, Ah m e "changes, receiving the difference. Lieutenant John ti to be Captain, by purchaie, vice Colthurst, who re- Ensign George Armstrong to be Lieutenant, by pur ``lB,e, vice Ahmuty. Henry Butler, Gent. to be Ensign, by PUrchase, vice Armstrong. March 2. D 6l st P oot—Assistant-Surgeon P. Gammie, from 80th Foot, r Surgeo n , v i ce S tewart , appo i n t e d t o th e 14 t h Li g ht Noons, March 2. cl) 4 ?' Foot —P. S. Crawley, Gent., to be Ensign, by pur r() vice Purvis, appointed to 4th Foot, March 2. s th Poot—Henry Carr Lucas, Gent., to be Assistant. 4 8 r : t r l ,' vice Gammie. promoted in the 61st Foot, March 2. nan t C ' ° o t—Ensign Charles Pringle Beague to be Lieute- Rid e ' e Y Purchase, vice Bentinck, promoted in Cape Mounted 56th ; Ensign Frederick John Gothleipe Saunders, from 8 70 V, to be Ensign, vice Beague, March 2. ,01b " urgeon aeon,i Smyth, from 14th 1 4 ! Dragoons, to be Surg vice Richard Arthur Pear dft,'D., who retires upon half pay, March 2. e' ol l Rifle Regiment.—Lieutenant Robert Watson to aptain, without purchase, March 2. _'-'ape Mounted Riflemen—Lieutenant Arthur Cavendish r. e . n .tiuck, from 84th Foot, to be Captain, by purchase, vice ' J r Cannon, w h o ret i res, M arc h 2. 57 th Foot __Captain Fitzmaurice Colthurst, of Foot, to be Major i n th e army, Nov. 9, 1846. 8 OSPITAL STAFF—James M`Nab, M.D., to be Assistant . r e u t r i r°n to the F orces , v i ce Si meon H en dy Hardy, M.D., who s upon half-pay, March 2. wi'lEUoitANDuat—The commission of Captain Kenneth i s4 u s r e . bison, of 29th Foot, has been antedated to Dec. 22, Royal OFFIC OF ORDANCE, FEE. 27. Regiment Fj of Artiller N y—Sergeant. Major William Elliott to be Quartermaster, Feb. 8. ij a Cor ps of Royal Engineer s —Sec o nd Captain Henry Drury mess to be Captain ; Second Captain Edmund Twist Ford Lieutenant Phipps John Hornby to be Second Captain, s V i et t Ford ; S econd Lieutenant James Thomas Burke to be rs Lieutenant, vice Hornby ; Second Lieutenant Francis fdward Cox to be First Lieutenant, vice Galton, placed on t he Seconded List, Feb. 20, 1847: Commissions by the Lord Lieutenant of Staffordshire. e Queen's Own Ral Regiment of Staordshir Yoman Caval!yWilliam oy Francis Bridgeman, ff Gent., e to be Cor ry net, vice Briscoe, promoted, Feb. 20. BANKRUPTS. Thomas Lawrance, draper, Reading, Berkshire, March 13, a ' half -past twelve, and April 24, at half-past eleven, at the ) urt of B an k ruptcy. G reen, off i cial assignee, Alderman bury'; Reed and L o n g f or d, F r id ay - street, C heaps i de. John Brown, carver and gilder, Great Queen-street, Lin coln's Inn-fields, March 21, at half-past eleven, and April 24, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Follett, official amignee, Sambrook-court, Basinghall-street ; Shaw, Furni vat's Inn. Thomas Bowles, victualler, Horsmonden, Kent, March 11, at half-past one, and April 16, at two, at the Court of Bank ruptcy. Whitmore, official assignee, Basinghall-street ; Sten ning, Long-lane, Bermondsey ; Stenning and Carnell, Tun bridge, Kent. Francis Charapness, linendraper, Bishop's-road, Pad dington, March 11, at half-past twelve, and April 16, at half past eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Carman, official assignee, Birchin-lane, Cornhill ;- Randall, Castle -street, Holborn. Edmund Strevens, victualler, Brighton, March 11, at one, and April 16, at half-past one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Whitmore, official assignee, Basinghall-street ; Rosser, Tam- Plin, and Co., Fenchurch. street ; Dempster, Brighton. Michael John Stone, grocer, Abingdon, Berkshire, March 8, at one, and April 12, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. 1 1 ,!aliatn, official assignee, Coleman-st ree t, City ; W a ll er , Jun., I to bury- c i rcus . John Andrew, wood engraver, Grove-terrace, Queen's toad, Bayswater, March 9, at half past twelve, and April 12, A t half-past eleven, at the Court of Bank ru pt c y. T urquan d , official J assignee, Old ewry-chambers, City ; Webber, Caro line...street, Bedford-square. John Reddy and Thomas Keddy, bookseller, Bridlington, Yorkshire, March 10 and 31, at ten, at the Town-hall, Hull, Kvnaston, Hull ; Hicks, Gray's Inn, London ; Bell, Hull. Nathaniel John Earle, grocer, Falmouth, March 16, at eleven, and April 8, at one, at the Exeter District Court. Hirtzd, official assignee, Exeter; Bullmore,, Falmouth; Goode and Co., Bedford-row, London. William James, builder, Stone, Gloucestershire, March 16 and April 13, at a quarter-past one, at the Bristol District Court. Hutton, official assignee, Bristol; Badham, Gray's Inn, London ; Chandler and Co , Tewkesbury. David Williams, cattle salesman, Ruthin, Denbighshire, ' • March 16 and April 9, at twelve, at the Liverpool District Court. Turner, official assignee, Bristol; Posock, Bar tholornew-close, London; Smart, Ruthin ; Evans and Son, Liverpool. William Herbert, tea dealer, Bristol, March 15, at twelve, aoApril 13, at eleven, at the Bristol District Court. Miller, tendon assignee, Bristol ; Davison, Bloomsbury-square, . 4 % ll ' l °n Brittan, Bristol. ...":1 ► (Lruttelollgir6llallidatsrli.el6l°e, al one,t mak maker, • e a r ß d I ristol 1/ 6161"l istrict Clu ir r e t. ' n , official assignee, Bristol ; Phillpotts, Cardiff. b,Jackson Prinee, grocer, Coxhoe, Durham, March 11, at T a s l ,f - Paa ten,.and April Bak at one, •at asst Newcastle-upon . iltn•rne District Court. er, official gnee, Newcastle 1.1 -4. - Fyne; M.arshall,.Durham;.Smith, Durham ; Rogerson; ncoln's Inn-fields, London. ti William Beresford, lace manufacturer, New Lenton, Not- Onarnshire, M arc h 12 an d A pr il 16. a t t e n, at the Sheffield N:sntrict Court. Freeman, official assignee, Leeds; Patchett, tingham, Binney, 040seph Hepworth, wine merchant, Huddersfield, March 19 to r ' , l Al ' 6l 9 , at eleven, at the Leeds Oistrict Court. Kynas '' Mcial assignee, Leeds; Wilesworth, Ridsdale, and Craddock, Gray's Inn-square, London; Cronhelin, Leeds. W'l DIVIDENDS DECLARED. 6 i , • Le-e, milliner Fore-street, Cripplegate—first div. of tiniiin the pound, on ' Monday, March 8, and two following ~,( j aYBl t the ffice of Mr. Cairein-lane,ity. div l ioun a sfield, o commission merchan naan, t ß , Manchester-second in of 7(1. in the pound, and a first and second div. of 2s. sd. N„,'"e pound on new proofs, on Tuesday, March 23, or any yepent Tuesday, a t the office of Mr. Fraser, Manchester. po w 11 0 1 . mercer, Preston—a first div. of ls. 9d. in the thon l TuesdFraay, ser, MarManc ch 16, hester. or any subsequent Tuesday, at erice of M r . W. Salfo r d, builder, Stockport—first div. of I s . 734d. t 0 Ine pound, on Tuesday, March 16, or any subsequent Tuesday', at the office of Air. Fraser, Manchester. „ . the ans, ironmonger, Liverpool —second div. of in L. Pound, on any Monday, at the office of Mr. Bird, iverpool. to D. MacDougall, merchant, Liverpool—second div. of 3 1 ,id. t he pound, on any Monday, at the office of Mr. Bird, J. Richardson, merchant, Liverpool—fourth div. of a ld. a nd 3 -16ths of a penny in the pound, on any Monday, at the office of Mr. Bird, Liverpool. J• Massey, engineer, Etruria, Staffordshire—first div. of 3s. in the pound, on any Thursday, at the office of Mr. V a lpy, • Birmingham. W. Griffiths draper, Great Malvern, Worcestershire— second div. of in the pound, on any Thursday, at the office of Mr. Valpy, Birmingham. D. Antrobus, apothecary, Audley, Staffordshire—first div . of 11y. in the pound, on any Thursday, at the office of air' Valpy, Birmingham. W. J. Dunsford. surgeon, Bristol—first div. of 9s. in the pound, on any Wednesday, at the office of Mr. Acraman, ristol. is J. Marshall, merchant, Birchin-lane, City—fourth div. o f W en as;the pound, onWednesday, March 3, and two f o ll ow i ng " ed nesdays, at the office of Mr. Turquand, Old Jewry, City. ~W. Hounstield, draper, Cardiff—fi r st di v . o f 2 s. 103 . i n the st P ol ound on any Wednesday, at the office of Mr. Acraman, di W. Cameron, conf ec ti oner , N ewcas tl e - u p on -T yne —fi rst Mr. of 2 s. d. in the und, on anyoffice Saturday, at the of vllaker,9 Newcastlpoe-upon-Tyne. 1 Pannell, grocer, High-street, Poplar—first div. of 10 d in the pound, on any Wednesday, at the office of Mr . Whitmore, Basinghall-street. • (Dividends, &c., in our next.) Y°eHELAGA ; OR, ENGLAND IN THE NEW WORLD ---r-dited by Eliot Warburton,'Esq., author of " Tne Crescent Ityl the Cross." —This work has already reached a third edi eticji"„' We shall be surprised if it (13 not go through many C,_'"3. It possesses almost every qualification of a good ,°(,---grace, variety, and vigour of style— a concentrated Power of descriptio'n, which has all the effect of elaborate ,Painting—informatiou carefully collected, and judiciously t'')",rltunicatedsound and enlarged views of important gees '°llsa hearty and generous love of country—and the whole pervaded by a relined but sometimes caustic humour, which IFParts a constant attraction to its pages. We can cordially cPalmend it to our readers, as well for the amusement of its • g:tter. portions, the vivid brilliancy of its descriptions, and sPnc►io„olid information it contains respect Neg in Canada, and r a wl , generally, of England in the w World." Jo hn It U DDIN IL LNESS OF THE DUKE OF SOMERSET.— wi th extrem e regret we make the announcement that ;IT Gr ace the Duke of Somerset was suddenly seized with a S h ondiv afternoon last, at his residence, Wimbledon arrott's services were immediately put into re ' efloil„i'it.i°r:r.Dr. Parrott succeeded in restoring the Duke to 4.scio u a re v Sn eSS, but his Grace remained during the night :in • „.y_preearious state, and on Monday afternoon the reports Grace's medical attendants were very far from encou -%lng. b ter enefit for the distressed Irish and Scotch at aiestys Theatre on Thursday produced 1,3701., the When of the expenses having been defrayed bnow y Mr. Lutnley. is Considered considered how early it is in the season, that even 0 ne ,.,, 1 t a week before the ordinary period at which the -`' ena, and deserted places of public amusetnerrr wast by he e t highest class of society, the result Must be ' 9 "croxl 44 far above all rational expectation. nTh - Teca men $ .CAI had run thro4 :ming one ' s ry of his vleics d upon to do Tuntry.—DO .TES. THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY , MORNING, MARCH 3, 1847. rIIPERIAL PA RLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, March 2. The Loan CHANCELLOR took his seat on the 'Woolsack at Five o'clock. POOR-LAW (IRELAND). The Duke of RICHMOND presented a 'petition from the rate-payers of Enniscorthy :complaining of the present Poor law in Ireland. SPIEIT DUTIES. The Duke of RICHMOND laid on the table a peti . ion from the agriculturists of Sussex against the proposed reduction in the duty on spirits, LAW OF SETTLEMENT. The Duke of RICHMOND, after presenting a petition from the guardians of the poor of Hastings, praying their Lordships to repeal the law of settlement of last session, and that the poor might be supported by a national rate, on real as well as personal property, proceeded to move the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the opera tion of the law. As he believed no objection would be offered to the motion, he should but briefly advert to the reasons by which he was actuated in making it. Few agreed with respect to the real object of the measure, and the Attorney and Solicitor-General had put a different construc tion on the Bill to the one put by those who framed it. Some said that it was of a retrospective character whilst others enter tained a different opinion. Thus great complexity had been introduced, and as many of the quarter-sessions had decided against the opinion of these Learned Gentlemen, great litigation had been the result, and would, no doubt, continue until an alteration took place. Even the auditor of a union, if he entertained a different opinion, might disallow relief; and the question would have to be removed from the quarter sessions by certiorari into the Queen's Bench, but owing to the great arrears of business great delays would take place in deciding particular cases.—(Hear.) The Bill was unjust to the rate payers, and most pre judicial to the poor, as they had no definite opinion as to what place really was their settlement, so much difference of opinion prevailed. The measure was one of those hastily introduced at the close of the session, and passed when many of their Lordships were out of town. As the Act had worked most injuriously. he thought] it was right that the matter should be inquired into by a Committee. The ground upon which he rested his motion was the one universal feeling expressed by all parties ' that some change was necessary. The Government, if they did not repeal the law, ought at all events to bring in a declaratory Act, declaring what the state of the law really was. It was not necessary to go further into the merits of the question, as the Noble Lord had intimated his intention of not opposing the motion. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that the Noble Duke had made a very good Parliamentary case in support of his motion. It could not be dis puted but that very great abuses and disputes had arisen re specting the operation of the law. A Committee of the Lower House had been appointed, who had made a special report upon the subject ; and he would put it to the Noble Lord whether he would not postpone his motion until they had time to see what steps would be taken in accordance with that report. Lord BROUGHAM said that there was no doubt that the Act had been framed very carelessly, and when their Lord ships looked to the Aet they would not be surprised that it was so ; he found that it was passed on the 26th day of August last. Now, for the 14 days previous to that date, their Lordships were very little inclined to pay attention to pauper removal from parish to parish, being engaged in a totally different descrip• tion of removal—namely, to their coun' ry seats or to the Continent —( Hear, hear.) He would observe that none of the petitions prayed for a total repeal of the law. They only sought an alteration in the law, which, in fact, was neces sary to snake it tolerable, which it was not in its present state. He had often complained of this careless legislation. He found that out of five hundred and ninety laws, which had been the sum of their legislative labours during last session, the greater portion of them had been passed subsequent to this, which had been so justly complained of. The opinion of Mr. Hill had been t.kcu upon the conduct of the Poor-law Commissioners, and he gave his answer upon the case as it was put before him. The The Noble Lord (Lyndhurst) and he were of the same opinion with Mr. Hill. Mr. Hill gave an opinion upon a case stated to him, but the slightest difference in facts might have totally altered that opinion. Mr. Hill had not the slightest idea that that opinion would be made public ; for aught he knew the case might have been submitted by the Poor-law Commissioners themselves ; indeed, he ( Lord Brougham) was not sure that it was not. But it was stated that Mr. Hill had taken a great deal upon him in this case. Why, he only gave an answer to the question put to him, and he could not see that any man could do less. But Mr. Hill, when Member for Hull, in 1833, was so far from an adversary, that he was a decided supporter of the poor-law measure, and he had not yet changed those opinions. Lord CAMPBELL heartily concurred in the propriety of granting the Committee asked for by the Noble Duke. H e thought his Noble Friend had made out a decided case for such appointment. There ought to be a clause in the Poor-law Act which would give to an individual resident of so many years standing a claim upon the parish with which he was so long connected. The system had worked well in Scotland, and ought, he thought, to be carried out in England and Wales. Lord BEAUAIONT could not refrain from pointing out h thatich tthhee purpose Noble o Lord h the had ti lfawllaean. to The e N a ci s e b t l t al i n e o m ree drernhotradiinnstatoihde7parish to a person who had resided in it for so many aa, he conceived that the very fault of the Bill was, conferred no such claim. He object for that years. it Now, which the Bill was framed was not carried out in this Bill.— ( Hear, hear.) The authorities of the parish could not, it was true, compel the pauper to remove, but they could make him miserable by petty annoyances—they could plague him in every way, and so induce him to go, and thus the provisions of the law were thrown aside. Lord CAMPBELL agreed with the Noble Lord, that it would be better if the provisions of the Act were carried out more efficiently, but the fact was that the public mind was not prepared at the time for a larger measure. But the Bill was so far good, that it laid the foundation for future reforms. The Duke of RICHMOND replied he was opposed to any settlement like that contended fcr. He had read the report to which a Noble Lord had referred, and which was before the other House,and from a perusal of that document he wat, more than ever strongly of opinion as to the necessity of the Com mittee for which he asked. The motion was then put and agreed to, without any amendment. RAILWAYS IN IRELAND. Earl FITZ WILLIAM presented a petition from the grand jurors of Wicklow, in favour of railways in Ire land. He was not going to enter into a long dis cussion, which had been decided some days ago in another place; but he did not think he would be doing his duty to wards England, if he did not offer a few observations to their Lordships. He had often drawn the attention of their Lord ships to the resources cf Ireland. The effect of the present calamity in Ireland would not be confined to the mere loss of the article of food, but would operate most disastrously in other ways; and it would, therefore, be necessary to provide means of employment. Twenty-four or twenty-five millions, more than half the rental of the country, had been destroyed. The rental of this country was 62,000,000/., and if 90,000,000/. had been destroyed, would not English gentlemen consider it a case calling for relief of the most comprehensive character. He did not think that the proposition which had been intro duced into the other House for granting money for the con struction of railways was an ill-advised measure, as he consi dered, if it had been passed, that it would have gone far to remove the distress. He did not think that it would have been a substitute for the works that had been going - On for the last six months ; but still a measure of the kind to which he. had referred, woultilaVigiven einploymei.t to vast, numbers of the people. " Certainly the measure did not deserve the ridicule which bad been cast upon it. What was wanted was to make the land of Ireland as oroductive as possible, and this would have been a step in the right direction. On the Con tinent, they would find that all great public,works were car ried out by the Governments of the various'eountries People in this country were too apt to judge Ireland by England, and to consider that great public works could be carried out in the same way as here; but. if they waited until private enterprise carried out public works like railways, they must wait for a considerable time. The state of Ireland prevented the capitalist from embarking his money in Irish speculations. He did not wish to undervaiu , the loan of one million and a half which had been made to the landed proprietors in Ireland, but he did cousidei that there had been a very great disposition to over-rate its effects. He beard that all the landlords were looking for a share of it, and he would remind the House that if such were the case, and if it were divided, it would only amount to nineteenpence per statute acre. He did not deny that there would be some lucky individuals who would be able to improve their estates by the loan, but they would only be individuals, and it should be their desire to improve the coun try generally. If a proprietor of twenty thousand acres. and with an income of 4,00;1. a year, wanted to improve his estate, he could not borrow less than a sum of 10,000/., which could immediately subject him to a repayment of 6501. a year. He gave credit to Irish proprietors for a greal deal more good sense than the English press were willing to give there, and he believed that any prudent Irish gentleman would think twice before he would embark in a speculation which would sub • jest him to such a large immediate outlay, and the benefit of which would be only prospective, after a long series of years, and after repealed negotiations with lessees, and sub-lessees, and occupiers. He believed that the Irish proprietors were wisehst gentlemen more rs prudent than they got credit for. But what was it that eant had been T th h e ey las p t r s o ix po m se thing that months; they they proposed the • • suggested substitution of re-productive for non produc tive works.—( Hear, hear .) - d They called aloud for the construc tion of railways ; might be introduced in an the ou c l a d rrying out of the sys tem,He must say that the suggestions made greatly preponderate. of in heland for the im provement of the country were worth attention . But the House ought to remember that these' improvements must be carried on on a grand scale in order to meet a great But it was said that these loans from the Board ofr vtvoerxkigsency. were not to be repaid. What did the report of the Commissioners say? ? They said, " that the re- payments were in general ers made with great regularity." With respect to the benefits of some of these works. He had been told that in consequence of the construction of roads in the county of Galway, the customs had increased to an extent that; he was afraid to name. The House was perhaps aware that in the county of Mayo there was one of the first harbours in the world. He meant Black sod Bay. Well, a road was formed to this place, and where in 1637 there was not a single stone, and not 20 tons of corn exported, there was at that time 1,600 tons of grain exported; there were nine stores, and a very thiving population. The Dean of Westminster had stated to him that the land of Ireland, geologically regarded, was not to be compared with the land of England. Lord BROUG HAM—He only looked at the surface. Earl FITZWILLIAM—Without going into the questien of what might be the value of a certain number of acres. But as to the general value of land, there could be no comparison be tween the two countries. The surface of the country was studded with rocks and encumbered with mountains. Earl GREY—There are rocks in this country also. Earl FITZ WILLIAM said his Noble Friend must allow him to dispute that question with him. Speaking as a geologist, there were r of rocks scattered over the surface of this country. The soil was different from that in which rocks were frequent. The question was, whether or not they were to raise Iceland to the position of the more favoured portion of the United King dom. He felt perfectly satisfied that the difficulty in which they were at present plunged by any charity they might be able to afford, could only be relieved permanently by some otl er means. Earl GREY said, he thought the measures which had been proposed by the Government we re ca l cu l ated to benefit I re l an d. I'he drainage that was proposed would be of the greatest advantage. He would remind his Noble Friend that there were other measures to be brought for ' ward. His Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack had prepared a measure to facilitate the disposal of mortgaged estates in Ireland. This he conceived would b e most de sirable, for the purchaser would come into possession o f a; ' estate which he could improve, and land was thus brought into the market which the purchaser would buy with a view to improvement. Notwithstanding what the Noble Lord said, he believed there was a vast amount of capital in Ireland, of which few wsre aware, and which only required to be developed by exertion.—(Hear, hear. ) His Noble Friend had pointed out the great advantages which, had arisen in some instances from the public works. He (Lord Grey) never heard that these works had not conferred advantages, and, as they were still in operation, good would continue to accrue from them. One of the most important of $ then war, the ;Irrigation of the Shama, vthick was still is progress, and which had, during its progress, conferred great advantages upon the people in that part of Ireland; but at the same time, he could not help thinking, that there ran through his Noble Friend's speeches , a sentiment of a t very dangerous character. He seemed to think that Ireland was to look to England, and to the English Government for aid, instead of tru , ting and relying upon her own exertions. There was no such dangerous delusion, as he was persuaded that no country could be forced into opulence by the assistance of another. The wealth of this country was owing to the economy, to the small savings, through a vast numbar of years, of the people , which had accu mulated and increased from age, and not by aid from the state; but by individual, by private enterprise. His Noble Friend seemed to think that Ireland was a poor country, and had not within herself the elements of her own success; but if his Noble Friend would peruse Professor Keane's work he would see how great her resources were, and how much individual enterprise might do to develops them. The improvement of the soil was owe great step in that direction. In some places rocks had been removed, and the soil rendered fruitful. In Scotland this had been carried to a great extent, as great blocks of granite had been removed, and fertile crops had been the result. Why, many parts of England were some years ago little better than mere bogs, of heaths which pro duced no crops, but which had, by the enterprise of the people of this country, been rendered productive. It was for Ireland to do the same—to depend upon herself, and not, as the burden of his Noble Friend's speech seemed to apply, that in all cases of difficulty she was to depend upon England.—( Hear, hear.) It was a libel upon Ireland to say that she bad not within herself the elements of her own prosperity. He was not insensible to the distress in Ire- land, and was prepared to do his best to alleviate it ; but it could not be removed at once, but by degrees. He hoped Ire land would depend more upon herself, and that in the course of time she would become a prosperous nation.—(Hear.) Lord AIONTEAGLE agreed with the Noble Earl that Ire land must look to herself for the promotion of her own prosperity ; but there were enterprises which could only be effectually carried out with the aid of the State. In Scotland, for instance, the Government, during no period of famine, advanced money for the purpose of improving turn pike roads ; and Mr. Telford, in writing on the subject, had stated that Scotland had thereby been advanced " many gene rations." Now, he contended that the carrying out of a similar principle in Ireland would not fail to produce smilar results. Ireland, in her distress, did not come for aid to England; he was speaking in the Imperial Parliament, which was empowered to dispense the revenues of the country, to which she contri buted her fair portion. She merely sought relief from the Im perial Treasury of the Imperial Government, to which she con tributed her fair share. But there Was one thing in which this country stood alone. He meant the relief which England had bountifully raised for the relief of Ireland; and he was glad that the heavenly flame had net been extingui!hed by the angry sad erroneous statements which had been put forward for the sole purpose of putting a stop to the collection of money for the relief of the Irish distress. Even supposing all the measures that had been passed with respect to Ireland were as effectual as they were stated to be, but if they were they could not fail to have to encounter, at she best, a season of peril. He sincerely thought that some such scheme as that proposed by Mr. Drummond and his coadjutors was most expedient for the purpose of giving employment to the people on railways, when the relief which was being given began to relapse. Unless something of this kind were done they must continue to pro mote public works as they were compelled to do last session. They would but add to the difficulties of their position if they did not adopt other means to follow them. He fully con curred in the sentiments of the petition. The petition was laid on the table. Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 2. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock. SECOND READING. The following Bills were read a second time and ordered to be committed : Cork and Bandon Railway. Cork, Blackrock, and Passage Railway. Dublin and Drogheda Railway (Purchase of Navan Branch, &c). Great Western Railway ( Amendment and Extensions). Newmarket and Chesterford Railway. KILMARNOCK AND ARDROSSAN RAILWAY. The report of Mr. Examiner Smith on this Bill, stating that the standing orders had not been complied with, having been read by the Clerk, Sir W. HEATHCOTE moved that the report be referred to the Standing Orders Committee.— The motion was agreed to. LAW OF SETTLEMENT. - - Mr. GORE presented a petition from a place in Devon com plaining of the Poor-law of last session. A number of petitions to the same effect were presented, and referred to the Committee now sitting. MUNICIPAL LAW. An HON. Mzalasn presented a petition from the Mayor and Aldermen of Cork, praying that the principal in stitutions of Ireland might be assimilated to those of England. POOR OF IRELAND. Mr. AlNSWORTHpresented a petition from the guardians of Bolton, complaining that the people of this country were called upcn to support the poor of Ireland, and praying the House to pass a law to compel the proprietors of Ireland to support their own poor. TEN HOURS' BILL . Mr. MITCHELL presented a petition from a person named Tythe, a flaxspinner, against this Bill. NAVY ESTIMATES. Lord J. RUSSELL said that it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to proceed with the remainder of the navy estimates on Friday night, atter the ordnance estimates had been disposed of. SITES FOR SCOTTISH CHURCHES. Mr. BOUVERIE rose for the purpose of moving for a Select Committee to inquire whether and in what part of Scotland, and under what circumstances, large num bers of her Majesty's subjects had been deprived of the means of religious worship by the refusal of certain pro prietors to grant them sites for the erection of churches. The subject bad been brought before the attention of the House in the last session, and a Bill was introduced by the Honourable Member for Perth, the Secretary-at- War, which did not, however, reach to a second reading. A disposition had been shown to wait and see what the pro prietors would do in the matter, and the Bill of last year was withdrawn; but he was sorry to say. that with the exception of one or two, the same wan , . of disposition to afford sites for places of worship still prevailed as did in 1845 and 1846. He was not a member of the Free Church, and he could not be misted by zeal in its favour ; but he advocated its just claims for redress, as he was persuaded great injustice had been done. No less than 470 of the best ministers of the Es tablished Church of Scotland had left its pale, followed by 2,000 of the lay officers, and, it was calculated, accompanied by about one-third of the people of Scotland. They left be cause they felt it their duty to do so in the maintenance of the principle that the Church was inde; endent of the Go vernment in religious matters, a principle in which he en tirely agreed.`( Hear, hear.) No better proof could be afforded of the truth of this principle, than the fact that this House, composed of persons of various religious denominations, would be called on to discuss the proposition, of the advisability of adding to the number of the Bishops of the Church of England. Whether that principle be true or not, some of the brightest and best minister s and most zealous and sincere members of the Scottish Kirk had thought it right, on the assertion of it, to leave the pale of the Establishment. Many expected that this secession would not last long, but what has since occurred showed that such an anticipation was groundless. No less a sum than 1,354,0001. had been contributed for the support of the Free Church since the disruption had taken place. It had 630 teachers and 440 ministers in connexion with it. It had two normal schools, and had contributed to 191 schools sums averaging 1001 each. It had been stated that the schism was not likely to be lasting, but the event proved how erroneous was that calculation. He thought, therefore, that such a body had a right at least to a favourable hearing. It had been most prompt in inquiring into and relioving the pre sent famine, and from a letter written by the Lord Advocate to the Secretary of Stated for the Home Department, De cember 10 last, it would be seen how strenuous had been the exertions of the Free Church for the relief of the distress. He maintained that if this body were seeking favour at the hands of the House, enough had been shown that they were entitled to it. But they did not ask for anything of the kind ; all that they asked was that full justice might be done them. They claimed full and free toleration at their hands, and the free exercise of their religious belief, without hindrance or interruption. They alleged that they had been unjustly treated,' and in support of that allegation he would mention one or two of the instances of injustice of which the parties complained; but, in doing so, he did not wish to discuss the motives or intentions of individuals. One of the cases he wished to refer to occurred on the property of his Grace the Duke of Buc cleuch, but in speaking of that particular instance, he had no wish to speak otherwise than in terms of respect of the manner in which the Noble Duke performed the duties which his rank and high station in this country imposed upon him ; but still the Noble Duke was but a man, and cf course subjected to all his weakness and infirmities.._ ( Hear, hear. He said there were two c ongregations of that Church upon. ) the Duke's property, and both complained of interference with the r worship. One of these was at Canobie, in Dumfriesshi re , and the other was at Wanlo c kh ea d , in the same county. The church at Canobie consisted of 600 people. The Duke had been repeatedly applied to for a site upon which to build a church, for his Grace was the sole possessor of the land in the district. When the disruption first took place, that congregation met at a cress road, and subsequently in a field belonging to his Grace; but the Duke applied to the courts of law, and obtained an injunction against them. After that, however, some arrangement was made with his Grace, under which this congregation were allowed to erect a tent on a field of his, and thus they continued to worship in that tent throughout the year, but such a place of worship amounted, in his opinion, to a prohibiti on o f wors hi p altogether. The other church was at Wanlock-head, the highest ground in Scotland, a place where only green food could be grown for cattle..-(Hear, hear.) The people were poor, and miners by occupation; but seven hundred of these, or seven-eighths of the whole population, belonged to the Free Church. These people there worshipped in a tent in the open air, but their tent had been destroyed some weeks ago, and they had teen obliged, when the weather would permit, to worship in the open air. Their minister had parted from the Scotch Church at the time of the disruption, and had continued amongst them teaching and ex horting his people. But even he could scarcely find a resting place. His family was thirty miles distant from the place of his ministrations ; and he himself, as if almost denied a lodging in the town, lived in one room, only nine feet square. (The Hon. Member then proceeded to read a letter written to him by an eye-witness of the mode of conducting worship in the Free Church of Scotland ; the writer stated that the con gregation, consisting of upwards of 1,000 persons, were assembled round a canvass tent for the purpose of hearing Dr. Candlish preach; the tent would not however . contain one-third of the people, and they were com pelled to move off to a mead at the foot of the hill where they listened to the Rev. Gentleman for upwards of an hour and three quarters in the pouring rain.) Such (continued the Hon. Member) was the state of the tenants upon the es tates of the Duke of Buccleuch, and such had been their condi tion for the period of four years, since the rupture with the Es- ' tablished Church. He would contrast the conduct off hat Noble Duke with that of the Earl of Aberdeen. It was well known that the latter Nobleman used every means in his power, as a mem ber of the late Government, to stay the movement of the Free Church party ; but so soon as the severance took place he was among the first of the landowners of Scotland to grant sites for building places of worship to those persons upon his estates who wished to worship God accord ing to the forms of the Free Church of Scotland. The Duke of Buccleuch had erected a magnificent chapel at Dalkeith, and he conducted the worship according to the rites of the Episcopal Church, yet he refused to grant to others the right of worship which he claimed for himself. These two cases had reference to the Lowlands ; but he now came to the Highlands, in which similar proceedings had been going forward. In the islands of Skye and Lewis there was a large property owned by Lord Macdonald. On e this property vi there ere 4,000 persons belonging to the Free Church, yet his Lordship had thought fit to refuseth.e!epeople any sites for th e ir chapel s ; th us practically prohibitin g the public worship of these people. of Ardnamurchan Sir James Riddellproperty about In the neighbourhoed forty miles in length by five miles broad. It a wa the north wests in belonging to of Argyllshire. There were 1,100 people a the Free Church, and Sir James Riddell was himself Dissenter from the Established Church, yet he refused ex. tending th e r i g h t h e c l a i me d hi mse lf to others. In and 15 Strathspey there was a tract of country 30 miles b long longing to broad, with f rom 2,000 to 3,000 persons e the Fre e Ch urc h . Th e propr i etor was the Earl of Seafield, an d h e had -also r efused sites ; t so that . In the people h a d to ' W ors hi p . in openthe another di s t r i c t i n t h e W estern H i g hl an ds, persons we re o bli ge d to worsh i p in the open air. In the island narris, 4,000 air. of Mull they were obliged to celebrate the ordinances of their common Christianity in a 4 . cattle were h ouse d . Now there , w " e re. plat e gLom, ~.ew hoofin the cases wh ere thi s b o d y h ad a right to :complain of I' d he trusted that convenience to w hi c h they were subjected , an the recital of th em would iodate the into ` them. proposition 'he made for an inquiry 1 state of House to sanction the What were the consequences of this.' to which things? There was, first of all, the ~,,r e vo l f the people he had adverted, namely, that a large ...,-., o od, were entirely prohibited from worshilVing ordinary and in addition to this, which was an evil of no magnitude, th ere was great exasperat i on and acerbity on ac count of the obstacles which had occasioned such a deprivation. The people were in a frightful state of destitution, and in such circumstances he should fan c y the people ought to be provi with places in which t o meet and offer UP Pro er t h ey were ca tion to the great Gi ver o f a ll good• s ef supplies proceedings prived of all pl aces o f wors hi p by - He w e e not o he had already relat e d t o th e Hw* remedy but for prepared to propose any specific retu to himself he was perfectly ready and to the full length of the remedy proposed by re _u s i v i i . l e lin Thhat him—namely, to refer property q judicial tribunal to have its value decided. , w y his ticwirgrfaohriesgiFotersientdo belowm w s a h s o t e h l e d course pursued in the ease of a railway, Oa, If a railway, excluded in this important instanceagg e s which could do him no benefit, ,t, in_ that case was, da-odthrfoourghwhhyi; p park, he could not object to He would remind the House that the rep Y But a it was not the 1 that the conven ien p ce ubl of the commonwealth . ic convenience was requA railway from Yeovil to Dorchester could not conduce to t h e accommodation of the commonwealth, but on o ly r. to the convenience of the public in the neighlas h ood and the wealth , of private individuals. On that grounchowanydastltrahte ggrroouunndd alone the Legislature should interfere. s j taken without compensation. It was datnnus sine in aria. But there were cases where no compensation was allowed. The Hon. Member then quoted the Metropolitan Buildings Act, forbidding all to let for h ire certain buildings or rooms, such as were contrary to the provisions of the Act. Here he said parties were in the dreepceriigpetdogfhehmighof rtehnetisr, pro perty.andyet the Legislature stepped in andcase of the Commons Inclosure The same was the ne ~ knew, belonged to a few in dividuals;Act, when commons, . an- r e ci deprived of these, and that on and yet they were the ground merely of the . publicwe health. He would quote another point than any of those he had quoted. ease, which was m Under certain ciorreeuminst-ances the Court of Session had the arishea, an d the presbytery also had the power to divide taking the land of the heritors of power of s o divided, to the ext en t o f four acres s uch parish as glebe land an d for the purpose of building a manse for th e clergyman appoi nted to the parish. He begged, therefore, t o move for a Sele ct Committee to inquire into th e subject.i ' ish e EWART seconded the motion. It was incumbent upon any Hon. Member on moving for a Select Committee of first, that there was of a gr a ievance, and, lie Ait;l. Committee adE wb a been et, n) that House to , by the appointment secondly, might be suggested. of a grievance( some remedy might the existence thought proved by his lion. Friend—a grievance no less than that of deprived great portion of the subjects o f S c otla nd being of th e a means of religious worship, and if ,thsat all not a grHieavdanheei: d w of a no s er . — bl s eya r Hear s ee thea r to H h o e n a hear.) bring. ) Memberi o he did not know d wrohoavted Honourable Friend a f Bill upon the subject, as was it to mi n h t t erfe p re erha w p i s th the rights for session, have been said Perth last Friend had t that he was aboit His Honourable moving . . the appointment of a Select wo private property. objects in view - in • to inquire and expose—these were Committee —via., , functions of a Parliamentary Committee. eying that the pro the legitimate The people of Scotland were justified in excellent theys might be in other prietors of Scotland, howev proved themselves intolerant iii this, and that respects, had ttend to as well as ' they had duties to a rights. They might oet— say with their national p " A king may make a belted knight, A marquis, duke, and a' that." But whether they were marquis or duke, they must know they had duties to perform as well as rights to maintain. Because he thought the claims of the Free Church were founded in justice, he motion. On the question being put , had great plea sure in seconding the Sir GEORGE GREY said, in reference to the present question, he would have to call the attention of the House to what took place on former occasions when this subject was brought under consideration. He had hoped that the motions made and the debate thereon would have rendered the bring ing forward of the subject no longer necessary, and that the comparatively few proprietors who refused sites would have seen the policy of being influenced by the feelings and opi nions expressed by the House. On the first time the subject came under consideration the Ri g ht H on. Baronet opposite (Sir James Graham) stated to his late lamented friend Mr. P. M. Stewart, that he hoped that the proprietors would see the necessity of giving way on the subject; or that if they did not accede to the prayer of the Free Church, that some speedy remedy for the state of things complained of might soon be afforded. On a second occasion when the Member for Perth (Mr. F. Maule) brought the same subject before the House, the Right Honourable Baronet repeated the same thing. He must say, that the continued refusal of sites by proprietors was most impolitic, and opposed to the interests and welfare of the country.—( Hear, hear.) He be lieved that time and reconsideration had had its effect, and that I such cases were not now of so frequent occurrence as formerly, I though he regretted to find that a few still existed. He saw that there were cases still in the Free Church—though all hope of re-union was now given up—where the inhabitants of ex tensive districts were totally debarred from worshipping God according to their consciences. Under these circumstances, his Hon. Friend had come forward to ask, not for a legislative remedy for the grievances complained of, but for a Committee to inquire into them. It was alleged that strong reasons existed in many cases for refusing the sites. If that were so, it was a legitimate cause of inquiry, and would very properly come under its consideretion. There were some proprietors, however, as soon as they became aware that a re-union had become impossible, than the sites, which till then had been re fused, were granted. To ascertain who those proprietors were would be the result attained by the labours of the Committee. Those also who laboured under the imputation of refusing sites would have an opportunity of showing the mntives which in fluenced them in such a course. He, therefore, for one, was ready to assent to the inquiry. He did not, however, wish to be understood as pledging himself to any legislative course in consequence of that assent. There were parties who were unwilling to believe that the cessation would be permanent, and therefore they were un willing to grant sites ; but that expectation must have long since passed away, and for the future better things were to be hoped. He did not wish, on this occasion, to enter into the question as to whether the cessation was right or not, but he thought everybody would admit that it was a remarkable event, which carried with it the sympathies, if not the convictions, of the many. He wished for one moment to glance at the cir cumstances under which this inquiry was proposed. It had pleased God to visit a part of Scotland with severe destitution, and in this state of things the members of the Free Church, discarding all sectarian feeling, had joined with all parties in raising a common fund for removing the prevailing distress. It was now, for the first time since the cessation, that both parties had come together in harmony and union. They had thrown aside all ill-feeling, and, united, they had taken upon themselves the good will of feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and arresting the progress of the destitution. Let them hope, then, that before the year closed, all differences would be forgotten, and both parties would again unite them selves in good fellowship and religion. Sir R. H. INGLIS was unwilling to enter into a general discussion of the subject, but, before ha proceeded further, be must be allowed to express his sense of the feeling and moderate manner in which his Hen. Friend had brought forward this motion. (Hear, hear. ) But he must say that no object which he had ever felt himself compelled to oppose was e►er brought forward and advocated in a manner more calculated to gain it friends. This was very different from the proposition made last year by his friend the Secretary at War (Mr. Fox Menlo). He spoke not of the manner ; he referred to the object. There they proceeded to direct an Act; here they only proposed a Committee of Inquiry. But he did think that some regard ought to be paid to the feelings and principles of those who supposed that it was an essential part of their duty to forward the principles of the Free Church of Scotland. He could not agree with his Honourable Friend who seemed to hold up some, whose names he had mentioned as bigots and parse cutants. One, especially of them, he ( Sir R. H. Inglish) knew intimately, and knew his Hon. Mend was quite unequal to anything so unworthy of—he would say a man, but of a proprietor in a Christian country. He felt himself bound to rise up and defend his Hon. Friend Sir James Riddle, who he knew was incapable of it, and would be the first to assist in forwarding any great benevolent object. In reply to the state ment of the proposer, he might, in the first place, remind him that the population was overstated ; there were but 3,000 people, and 1,540 of them belonging to the Free Church. He passed that by, however, and he ,saw by the smile of the Hon. Gentleman that he did not consider that any answer. But he would ask the Hon. Member, as he had asked him the former year, whether he was prepared to give the same privileges to the other Dissenters? He recollected that last year the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. Maule), when he put the question to him, did not at all seem prepared to accede to the proposition. He therefore thought that his Hon. Friend ought not to move the House to do that, the principle of which he was not prepared to make common to all—Roman Catholic as well as Protestant. He thought that the remaining landowners who had refused to grant sites had done so by the conduct of the members of the free church of Scotland. He had been credibly informed that at Kimoss, and some other places, the Free Church had built their establish ments, not only near to, but in actual juxtaposition with, the churches of the establishment, insomuch that the same bells awl the same clock answered for both buildings. The real ques tion in dispute was, whether he, as a member of the establish ment, should be compelled to erect buildings upon his estates for the purpose of propagating a system of worship to which he was conscientiously opposed. He hoped the House would pause before they gave their assent to the proposition of the lion. Member for the appointment of a Select Committee on the subject. He did not think that the Duke of Buecleugh was actuated by any unworthy motives in refusing sites for places of public worship. He thought the Hon. Member for Kilmarnock had introduced the question in the manner that was most unobjectionable, still he did not think that a legisla tive measure would mend the matter. Sir JAMES GRAHAM wished to say a few words in the present stage of the discussion. It having been his painful duty to address the House more than once before. Ile had but little to add, and nothing to retract. He much regretted that sites had been refused to the members of the Free Church, and that some individual proprietors, from a sense of dap, had made such a refusal. It was, after all, as the Member of the University of Oxford had stated, with many of these proprietors, a case of conscience ; but he differed with the Hon. Member in thinking that the present motion was better than the one proposed last year by the Hon. Member for Perth. He did not consider that the question was one for a Committee. It was admitted that cer tain of the great proprietors of Scotland had refused sites to the Free Church. No one attempted to deny it. The Hon. Member for Kilmarnock's statement of facts, which had been presented in a calm and dispassionate manner, presented nothing new. There had been only two additional cases stated ; the one was that of Lord Macdonald, of Skye, and he was even told that that that case had been mentioned last year. These refusa's would diminish as the weight of public opinion would come to bear upon the subject. He understood that they were already few in number. What was the object of the measure? Why it had been frankly stated by the seconder of the motion that exposure was the object. Now such was not a proper object. They were discussing the subject at a moment when every solemn feeling in their nature should be called forth ; they were in the midst of a great national calamity, of such an extent and of such an awful character, that it humbled the pride of man. He did agree in the sentiments of Mr. Jones Loyd, so eloquently expressed, and which they had all read in the morning paper, that the present was an occasion when the angry opposition of party ought to be silenced, and all the bitterness of religious animosity ought to bPassuaged in the sentiment of Christian charity. Now, he would ask, was ex posure a legitimate object ? •r was it desirable that the con duct of certain individuals should be inquired into ? If there were no other grounds, he would be prepared to resist the motion. Was it just, or was. it advisable, that they should inquire 'into what were the religions opinions of the Duke of Buccleuch or of the Earl of Aberdeen? He would ask, was it even tolerable that such an inquiry should take place? He lamented these refusals. He did not think that they would continue. The Secretary of State had de clared that they had diminished, and ke therefore saw no room for a Committee of Inquiry. He considered that the measure brought in by the Member for Penh 'was m: st objectionable, and the course of legislation on that subject would be most dangerous. The question was, however, one of degree, and he did not doubt the competency of the Legislature, but if they were to legislate they should do it on the principle of general toleration; it must not be confined to Scotland, but extend to all society. The principle of toleration was universal. He would not trespass upon the attention of the House farthert but upon those grounds he would object to the motion, andiq pressed to a division, he would vote against it. Lord G. BENTINCK concurred in all that had fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet who had just sat down, more especially as he could not agree with the sentiment expressed by the Right Hon. Member opposite, that if the proprietors of land in Scotland refused to grant sites, he was prepared to take them from them by legislative enactments. Every Hon. Member who had addressed the House had praised the moderation of the Hon. Member who moved the appointment of this Com mittee. He admitted that there was the snaviter in moil() in his manner, but there was also something of the fortiter in re, especially when speaking of the Duke of Buccleuch ; he (Mr. Bouverie) acknowledged the virtues of the Noble Duke, but also hinted that he was willing to indulge in a little persecution. All those who were acquainted with his Grace, were aware that persecution was altogether foreign to his character, and that a more generous person did not exist. It was evident that a great degree of provocation had led to many of these refusals. He believed nothing could be more violent and indecorous than the denunciations flung by the preachers of the Free Church upon those who had refused to grant sites. He was not prepared togo into an inquiry with regard to the conduct of his Grace and other noble individuals who had been alluded to. If the landowners were to be com pelled to grant sites for the Free Church, on what ground were sites to be refused to the Roman Catholics ? Wherever the members of the Free Church had been refused sites, it was because they wished to build them in offensive stations. Mr. F. MAULE—No, no. Lord G. BENTINCK—IIe believed, however, that such was the case, they wishing to build their churches beside, or near to, the churches of the Establishment. To conclude, he begged to say that he would support the Right Hon. Baronet in his objection to the motion. Mr. F. MAULE, after the speech of the Noble Lord and that of the Right Hon. Gentleman who preceded him, he thought that without going into any argument, he could establish a fair claim to an inquiry into the subject. The Noble Lord had brought forward assertion after assertion, which he (Mr. Fox Maule) would be able to prove before the Committee were wholly without foundation, and the facts of which had been misrepresented to the Noble Lord. If the present were a question for a Committee of Inquiry into the mo tives of individuals, he would be one of the last to ask the House to grant the Committee moved for. The Committee sought for was only one to inqure into a national grievance, and one which affected an integral part of the nation, and affected more than one half of the population of that part of the United Kingdom. The matters in issue had been before the House on former occasions, and each time the statements made by the Honourable Member who brought them for ward had been disputed, and he must say that he thought the time was now come when the House was bound to have a full explanation of the matters complained of. If it were true that unjustifiable language had upon some occasions been used, unworthy of Christian ministers, let the facts be made as public as the refusal of sites had been made. He had no wish to protect or to expose either of the parties. Four or fivecase.shail sites, been butbrought y were forw only forward of individuals brought having ref used to grant for ward with references enhancingto districts the in difficultieswhich h wteree membersnoot other proprietors, and thus H t e h w e remlhilotisetlel ministers Noble Lo F r r d ee wh c a h t u h re a n d f e been the the Free conduct of in the island of Skve, to whom sites had been re fused, and what had been its results famine had done th e re—starvation riv h e a n d d to one de i s ts per w a o ti r o s n. worst, anidhrmeaatnsy were persons had sautsotneoesree thetiime h flocks of se held out that the poworwoulwdeapplytzog on rhooitheirown mountain sides. From the pulpits, bl and f inD Divine g w ra o v r e s l hi p p i , ts th in e v'o'beerediifecnaceeenddwntaoostassausceressfeullyor inc l u v lc n a e ted upon the single instance had occurred of dinwolicinitedrhisnoetfhtoehle peop.el Was it to be borne that these poor the urivilege of a roof to protect them from the incthe appropriation peopiesh,uid o l e i m b p a ee ro n d i c e ie y n r ioe t ' t i the weather during their celebra tion of Divine wo rship ?—( Hear, bear.) He believed that driving i ft themtheheHouserefuseds,and al latter,tsho wouldrun y nthe risk of drive these poor men to depair, from the habit of attending public worship. H e most earnestly. trusted that stthhaeolyi they yg u h se wt aa w sec o tee u rd l t d ,aisno gr wt a hh n a t ett t hth h e e er Committee bare, a T n h d i th s at and required redress.—( ear, hear.) h were founded in truth o r no the complaints of the Frei Churc t C r ° ll m th mi might of be I lard r Y Mr. STUARTdes WdrOßseTd the House LEYthoug on htth t e h R e igsihdteHoofnt.heGGeno tleman who first a ' eminent (Sir George Grey) should have remained silent on the question, and left it to the advocacy of the Hon. Member behind him. It was going upon a most dangerous principle. He would not yield to that Right Hon. Baronet in the slightest degree in his support of the principles of toleration, and in his admiration of the great body of the Free Church, yet he could not support the present motion, because he honestly believed it would tend to retard instead of advance the cause they were so anxious to promote. The question was in course of settle ment ; it would, in due course of things, be arranged by the people of Scotland themselves, and for the House to step in and interfere would be to revive the evil. It was ad mitted that since last year the cases of refusal of sites had greatly reduced, and that this year there were but thirty. This showed that the cause of the complaint was being gradually done away with, in obedience to the expressed feeling of the House, and the sense of the Scotch people. To appoint a Committee, therefore, would be of no use, but to excite again the bad feeling that was dying away. With regard to the Duke of Buccleuch it was well known that he had only refused because parties, ministers and their frieni;s from a distance, came on his estates and excited his own tenantry against him. He (Mr. S. Wortley) did n it say that the Noble Duke acted right in refusing sites, still he mentioned this in his vindication. As a proof that the state of things was steadily improving, he would refer to the fact that while thousands of petitions were poured in last year into Parliament. on the subject not one was presented during the present.— ( fleas, hear.) On these grounds, theref re, he did not think any good would come from the Committee. He would therefore oppose its apsointment. Lord J. RUSSELL, in rising to support the motion. must not be understood as speaking on the behalf of the parties to whom it had reference. No one had more strongly resisted the claims of the Free Church party before the unfortunate seces sion than himself, as he could see no good that would arise from it. But the secession had taken place. A great number of the people of Scotland had left the Established Church, and their ministers had given up their houses and their means of liveli hood, so that they might be at liberty to express the strong religious feelings which they entertained, freely and unmolested. That secession having taken place, he was now no less persua ded that everything should he done to enable them to preach and to practice the doctrine which they believed that it WB3 their right to do.—( Hear, hear. ) The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester (Sir James Graham), put the case in a smooth and round form, from which they might conclude that all further inquiry into the subject was unnecessary. He said that the facts were un disputed—that a Committee was not required, but no sooner had the Right Hon. Baronet concluded than up got the Noble Lord the Member for Lynn, and said that regarding the facts, they were not to be taken for granted. He disputed their correctness, and stated that the reason why sites had in many instances been refused was, because the Free Church parties had acted in such an unbearable and oppressive manner that to grant them was impossible.—(Hear, hear.) Now, this was to be ascertained by inquiry. As the facts were disputed, and as these reasons for a refusal of sites were given, a Committee of Inquiry to ascertain the truth was re quired. They would then learn the true reason why the grant of sites was refused. Here it was confessed there was a considerable grievance. In one place par ties were driven to the moor and the moss, under the pelting of the storm, and drenched by rain, in order to listen to religious worshi in such a way as they desired. Like the Covenanters of old, when persecution was the established law, they were deprived of all shelter in their endeavours to worship according to the dic tates of their consciences. In other places they had to go out in boats to meet the ministers whose religious doctrines they adhered to. All this had been justified, on the ground of the rights of property. Now a legislative remedy was talked of; and while on the one hand he was unwilling to consent to a legis'ative remedy on a subject of such difficulty, on the other hand, if it were proved that the facts alleged were true—that the inquiry showed that the refusal of sites din of arise from the improper proceedings of the parties themselves, but were simply refusals on the ground of being a different religious sect, and if the pastors still were obliged to worship with out the shelter of a roof or dwelling, he would not be indis posed to a legislative remedy.—( Hear, hear.) It was, there fore, a case for inquiry, as it would not be for the House at once to interfere. He admitted that if the Free Church was entitled to sites, that so was the Roman Catholic, the Society of Friends, or any other religious body.—(Hear, hear.) The principle he admitted was universal. But though that was the case, it did not convince him that a legislative re medy was not advisable,—( Hear, hear.) There was no thing more sacred than the right of every man to wor ship according to the dictates of his conscience; and though some gentlemen of the highest character and most benevolent disposition had refused sites, it only showed to what extremes men of the best feelings would go on the question of religion. —( Hear, hear.) They had an instance in the Hon. Member for the University of Oxford himself, than whom none could possess a more kind or benevolent disposition, but on this question he has shown how little he can feel for the sufferings of others.—(Heat, hear.) He thinks the people of Scotland should support the churches that were open for their accom modation, and has no regard for their feelings or opinions when they differ from him. But how would that Hon. Member like, if he were in a town where there was no place of worship but a Roman Catholic chapel, and was told to attend there for there was no other place for him, and that there was plenty of room. —(Cheers and laughter.) This showed, how little persons ' of the kindest notions could act justly in religious disputes.—( Hear, hear.) Though it might be considered a dangerous principle in legislation to admit such a remedy as he referred to, and that it would be a violation of the rights of property, still he would be prepared to support it if he saw it required. With respect to the rights of property, was not the rights of property equally violated in questions of health. in constructing railroads, and in forming streets or squares? There was no hesitation in opening a way or removing a house if they thought such a step was necessary. On the same principle he did think, in the granting of sites, that inter ference might be required —( Hear, hear.) In the course of the present debate he had been glad to hear but one opinion prevail as to the impolicy of refusing sites, and he hoped, whatever decision the House might come to, those who had hitherto made such refusals would take notice of this general expression of opinion, and change their course of proceed ing in relation to the w ors hipp ers o f th e F ree Ch urc h . Mr. SCOTT was prepared to give his vote against this Committee of Inquiry. if he were to consult the wishes of one of the Noble parties who were so often alluded to, he be lieved that he would court inquiry, and prove beyond doubt that he had good and sufficient reasons for withholding these sites. Similar, he believed, would be the sentiments of Lord Macdonald. When he remembered the late commotions in the Church of Scotland, and the fact that the vast number of sites which had been in the first instance refused had dwindled down to about thirty, he could not but see with pain this re -opening of the question, and he hoped that within a few years, if they were to allow the public opinion to unfold itself, the country would be at peace—(Loud cries of "Divide.") Colonel MURE thought they were bound to make inquiry, and he would support the motion of the Hon. Member, at the same time not pledging him-elf to support any after motion which might be founded upon it.—(Continued cries of " Divide.") The gallery was then cleared for the division, when there appeared— For the motion for inquiry Against it Maiority 2B POOR REMOVAL BILL. Mr. lIANKES then proceeded to call the attention of the House to the report of the Select Committee on the Settlement and Poor Removal, and also to the copy of the case submitted by the Poor Law Commissioners to the Law Officers of the Crown, for their opinion with reference to the construction of a clause in the Poor Removal Act. It had been his (Mr. Bankes') endeavour to induce the committee to examine into the working of the measure as it affected the comforts of the poor, but after some discussion, a majority of the Committee determined to postpone that consideration. If the Committee did not, before Easter, make greater progress than they had yet done, he should feel it his duty to bring in a measure modifying in a very great degree, or perhaps, repealing alto gether, the Act of last session. It had been promised by the Ne,ble Lord and some others of the Members of the Govern ment, that this subject would be laid before the House this session; but looking to the great diversity of opinion in that Com mittee, he did not see any hope that they would have a measure introduced in sufficient time to warrant them in expecting it to pass into a law that session. There was a feeling very popular now-a-days to do away with settlements altogether, and to provide for tti poor by a national rate. hat feeling had greatly progressed in consequence of t he defi ciencies of the Bill passed last Parliament.—( Hear.) He believed that the abolition of settlements would be most prejudicial to the poor, ani that it would not (as had been absurdly argued) give a stimulus to industrial exertion. To support his statement he must allude to the evidence of Mr. Guls.m, an Assistant Poor-law Commissioner, but he must first state that the reason he had not referred to it before was, because the Committee which sat upon this subject decided upon reportiag before they heard, and published the evidence. Now, Mr. Gulson, in his evidence, said the Act was unjust and defective, had totally failed in its operation, and must sooner or later be altered. This he thought was enough to prove his case. He could conceive no better testimony in his favour than this. It was perfectly true that it counterbalanced the evidence of the Po , r-law Commissioners themselves, but he thought the preference ought to be given to Mr. Gul son's evidence, because he had ample opportunities of witnes-- ing its injurious effects upon the poor, whereas the Poor-law Commissioners had no such opportunities. Mr. Gulson spoke practically, but the Poor-law Commissioners gave their evidence theoretically. No doubt the intention of the Act was good, but in carrying out its details it was found to be unjust and inoperative. Perhaps it did not weigh so oppres sively upon the poer as the rate-payer, but even admitting that proposition, the law ought to be altered in that respect or discontinued altogether. He regretted much that Govern ment had allowed the session so far to advance without stating what they intended to do with the poor-law. He did not expect that they would have disclosed its details by this time, but certainly he had expected that its general principles would have been communicated to the House. Had there been any parties in the House responsible for the operation of the poor-law, he was quite certain so many defects could not have crept into it, and he was, therefore, the more anxious to learn what improvements were to he intro duced into it. The law had been decided by the law officers of the Crown, as well as ether eminent legal authorities, to be defective, and he thought the House was entitled to have the opinion f these legal gentlemen. But he did not ask for much, all that he asked for was the case upon which the opinion was given. Mr. Lewis, n the Committee, stated that six questions were submitted to ;he law officers of the Crown upon which to found their opinion upon the legality of this law, and it was for the production of these six questions that he now made this motion. They were called for in the Committee, but it was stated that only the House of Commons had the power to ask for their production, and it was under these circumstances that he brought forward the present motion. At present there was a strong feeling abroad, that the law oug ht to be abrogated altog ether, but he warned the Govern ment that thir best course was to amend its defective provisions, and the strong fe eling would subside. In an amended form, and, with the aid of a new Poor-law Commission, the Act might prove successful, but, without that amendment, it must still remain unjust and inoperat ive. 111 r. C. BIJLLER said it was a rule in the legal pro fession, which had always been respected and observed , both by the Ilse and the Government, that neither the case nor the opi nions of counsel should be produced. The question which had been referred to the Committee alluded to, by the Hon. Gen tleman opposite, was a most difficult one. Opinions upon the law of settlement were so very diversified, that it was quite impossible for the Committee to have come to any decision upon the subject, without first considering its general bearings, and without considering what were the particular circumstances of each mode of settlement. The question which he thought to he decided by the l em mittee was, whether there was anything connected with the framing of the law, which rendered the working of than measure in a manner contrary to the opinions of those who brought in that measure. The opinion of the majority of the Committee was, that the interpretation of the Committee should be different to the interpretation put upon it by the framers of the measure. A particular interpretation had been put upon the Act, in consequence of which, one half of the paupers of the country had obtained an irremovable settlement; and he, for one, would not cor sent to alter the measure, so as to meet the " pposed in tentions of the frame rs o f t h at measure. It would be a great hardship to the poor of the country if such a course were adopted. The excuse of the Committee for refusing the evi dence of Mr. 1 3u1ston upon the working of the present law was, that the Hon. Member for Dorsetshire had proposed that evidence too late; the evidence had been closed when he offered it, and the Committee were then engaged in reporting upon con i -,N.--i,... ,-.. - -- v e • ti-:'' '~... the evidence they had heard. The House must look upon this' question as a whole ; it was one which affected, to an immena4k.):‘ extent, the condition of the people of thi s country. - r- 4 ! Mr. MILES said that there was a very strong opinion iq the minds of the Committee that the operation of the Poor - V Removal Bill ought to have been most carefully looked into. The real question, he thought, for the House to consider was whether the country was to be taken in by a gross fraud. The country thought it was a fraud, and it was reprobated throughout all portions of the country as such. The Hon. Member then alluded, at considerable length, to the statements of a gentleman residing in the Frome union—a union con taining twenty-nine parishes—showing the injurious operation of the existing law in that union. Sir G. GREY thought that the motion of the Hon. Member was a most unusual one, and he hoped that the Hon. Member would not press it. He did not see what advantage could possibly be derived from publishing to the world the six doubts referred to by the Hon. Member, and which had been submitted to the opinion of the law officers of the Crown. The Hon. Gentleman should submit a definite motion on the subject, and until he did so he should consider himself entitled to abstain from entering into the general question. Mr. FINCH thought that the Hon. Member for Dorset shire should not press his motion at present. He was of opi nion, howev er , t h at t h e Removal Act of last session was one which produced considerable evil, and was passed to favour the landed at the exrense of the manufacturing interest ; but as the law of settlement was at present under the consideration of a Committee, he thought the Hon. Member should wait for their report. If they did not recommend its repeal, then he would support the Hon. Member if he made a motion to that effect. Mr. RICE thought the Hon. Member for Dorsetshire should persevere in his motion for a repeal of the Act of last session. He knew that in his own district it would operate most injuriously, for on the 25th March next, notices would be served on many cottagers in his neighbourhood, who would be obliged to leave their holdings on Michaelmas next. The lion. Member stated several instances where the operation of the Act was most harsh. He hoped, therefore, the Hon. Member would persevere with his motion after Faster, and ho might rest assured he would be well supported by petitions. Mr. E. WODEHOUSE hoped the Hon. Member for Dor setshire would persevere in his efforts, and expressed his obli gations to . him for having taken the question up. The late Act had operated most injuriously in his part of the country. Mr. VERNON SMITH was glad that this discussion had taken place, otherwise the report of the Committee might have had the effect of inducing a feeling throughout the country that the Act of last session was to be permanent. He hoped, however the Hon. Member would not postpone his measure till after Easter; for he contended, that the repeal of the Poor Removal Act of last session was preliminary to coming to any arrangement with regard to the law of settlement. The sooner, therefore, he brought forward the measure the better would it be for the country. Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that his respect for the time of the House prevented him from referring to the evidence that had been adduced, but which was not before the House, and for the same reason he did not intend to go into the question of the Removal Act of last session, which was not under their consideration. The Hon. Member for Dorset.. shire gave notice of his intention for an alteration, er the repeal of the Act of last session, after or before Easter. He by no means denied that the interpretation of the law officers of the Crown had given a more extensive operation to the Act, than those who had brought it forward, or the House which passed it, intended. But he could not concur in the censures which had been passed on that extension, for the balance of advantages was greatly and decidedly in favour of the poor of the country. That was not the question now, but he considered that he should be wanting in his duty if he did not detail some of the advantages to which he referred. There was one class, however, against whom it operated unfavourably. He believed the Act of last session had conferred inestimable advantages on large classes of the poor of this country. Fire of all, he would call attention to that great provision in the Act, which stated that a pauper shoule net be removed after a residence of a certain number of years. The next had reference to those who re sided in a place for some time, but who had not established right of settlement by a residence of five years. Ha was seise fled that if this Act was rightly uederstood with respect to the recipients of relief, it would be found that it was decidedly favourable to the poor, and that it was therefore a humane and. just enactment. With regard to the effect of the Act upon the ratepayers, he had never altered the opinion he had already expressed, and he should continue to entertain it, notwith standing the offence he had thereby given to many of his friends, that the law of settlement did not impose too heavy burdens on the ratepayers. As he was a member of the Com mittee now sitting on the subject, he could not well use the evidence which had been adduced before it. If this were not so he might have availed himself of the evidence of Mr. Gulson, a gentleman of considerable experience, who was called by the Member for Dorsetshire before the Como mittee, to show that they ought not to alter the present law of settlement. As the whole of the evidence would be in the hands of Hon. Members in the course of a few days, he en treated them not to give their attention to garbled extracts, but to peruse the whole of it. He was a man of the highest. authority. and well conversant with the operation of the law, not only in the manufacturing districts of this city, but in many parts of Ireland, in fact, he possessed more practical know ledge on the subject than any other man. They had that day examined one of the guardians of the Suffolk and Cambridge Union and the chairman of a court of guardians in the north of England, a learned gentleman of great experience, whose evidence would be found most material. In fact, he was jus tified in saving that the whole of the evidence adduced before the Committee would tend to show, that the Act of last session ought to be maintained in all its integrity, but that some por tion of the existing poor-law, and even of the law of settle ment, admitted of correction. Mr. 0. STANLEY considered that in making the altera tions referred to, they would not overlookthe rate-payers, many of whom were in a condition little removed from pauperism. He trusted that the Committee now sitting for the purpose of inquiry into the law of settlement, would endeavour to (Weise remedies for all the anomalies which existed in the present law, and whieh had led the Attorney and Solicitor-Generals to form a different opinion to the one entertained by many of the boards of guardians. Mr. E. - DENISON considered notwithstanding the sitting of the Committee, that the House was in a fit condition to proceed then to the discussion of the question of the law of settlement. No pledge had been given to the Committee that the question would not be entertained by the House until the Committee had furnished their report. He considered that the law had worked well ; but when the ratepayers were dis .,atisfied the recipients could not fail to suffer as the ratepayers would believe the poor forced upon them, and it was not un likely that they might be used unkindly. Theretore some alterations were necessary. The evidence taken before the Committee had not had that effect upon his mind which the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Dorsetshire had stated it haiipb ad upon his. Jr W. JAMES wished to know if the Government. intended to take steps to remove some inconsistencies INith . - respect to the powers placed in the hands of auditors relating to the of accounts? He commended the conduct of the Com mittee in not wishing to interfere with the law of last ses sion until they had proposed the adoption of a better measure. Mr. NEW DEGATE bore testimony to the fitness of Mr. Gulson to give a practical opinion on the working of the law, Sir G. GREY stated, in reply to the question of the Hon. Member for Hull (Sir W. James), that the• Poor-law Com missioners had .taken the matter into their special consi deration. • Mr. WAKLEY said, the parties who were so anxious to get this. law repealed were tyrannical boards of guardians, and gentry who had no wish to pay for the maintenance of the poor. Now he believed the Bill an excellent one, and he was sure if they compared the good end the evil of the measure that the former would be found to predominated to a great ex tent.—( Hear.) It would be useltss for him to repeat what had been so well said by the Right lion. Baronet (Sir James Graham ), but he could confirm from his own experience all that he had stated on the subject. The ratepayers in the me tropolis did not complain, so far as he could judge, of the opera tion of the poor-law. The expense of the rates pressed heavily upon them, but they bore the expense because they be lieved that it was absolutely necessary. In his parish since the Bill had been in operation the guardians had not sent any Irish paupers back to Ireland, because they knew that by doing so, they would drive the to starvation. The Irish pauper obtained relief in this country when he sought it. Was it not mons'rous, that in Engbuti, an Irish gaup• r was entitled to relief, but that, if he were sent to his own country, under the same Crown and under the same laws, he would be doomed to starvation. The Right Hon. Baronet in passing the Bill, got in the small end of the wedge, and he hoped the people would see that it would be driven home, and that all future laws on the subject would be framed on the same principle. So anxious was he to put the matter to the test, that he gave the Irish paupers a general invitation to come over here. He wished they would all come over. He wished 2,0;i0.090 of the destitute people of Ireland would come over here during the next month—( Hear and laughter)—because it would bring the Parliament to its senses with respect to those laws. He was informed that in St. Ann's parish, out of every shilling paid to the poor, that l Id. was paid to Irish paupers, and that out of 27,0001. expended for the relief of the poor in his parish, during the last year, 20,0001. was expended in the support of Irish paupers He admitted their right to relief, and would not deprive them of it, but what he said was, that the poor-laws of the three coun tries should be assimilated, and that each county should sup port its awn poor. Mr. HARRIS said that the whole of the question had arisen from the vague manner in which the Act had been constructed, leaving it discretionary with the guardians to adopt the law or not. Mr. BROTHERTON said that he believed that the measure would be a humane one if properly carried out; and looking at it as a whole, he believed that the good more than cointerba lanced the evil, arid he would be sorry to see it repealed. Mr. B. ESCOTT said, that with respect to these numbers of little debates, they only indicated that the whole question, like one of finance, was to be hung up for another session of Parliament. The indignation of the townspeople in England had been very generally excited against the provisions the law, and he could tell them that the country people also were of opinion that some substantive alteration should take place in the relief of the poor. They could not enter into the question of relief without entering into that of settlement, and they could not enter into the law of settlement without enter ing into the question of rating. The people of England would not be satisfied unless the great mass of property should be brought to contribute with the land. The proprietors o f funded property should be ma de to contribute their com mon share with those who contr ibute their hard earnings. h was the owners of funded property who made the poor.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) It was they who caused the great amount of taxation which was levied upon the people in order to pay and keep them up. Mr. S. WORTLEY said that nothing would satisfy the people unless there was an abolition of the law of settlement. Mr. BANKES said, that after what had falle n f rom the pro. ceding speaker, he would agree not to press his motion. EXPENSE OF ENGLISH RAILWAYS. whLicohrdheGh.aßdEgiNvelni notice,NC K in ri expressedsin regret that th e Ri g ht io Hon. Member should thi n k th at he was want ing i n courtesy to the o cc, of n h is ke the moti ons o f ma the Hou se t o t hi s question. h ß i u m t ‘, M her e , in , all on g a fo r mer thes e cubjehnccatoeli f o l r rish of rail waysthe was und er cons ideration ' , the late Exchequer had made the e xtraordinary statement he did as to thoufilit it necmsar6 he ra ilways, he (Lord G. Bentinck) the expense of En question. The extraordina rysh ould set himself right on the Exchequer. hhd . 3 in ta a te d ill e statement which that the sev e e ri x cellor of the -oCfhathnet principal lines of railway t . ... e , ountry be fore r the year 1840 had cost no less a sum th i a n n him (Lord G. Bentinek) to o m e alt - e 9 ; 0 11 1 i 0 rq . r ) h . ls t hadtl i n duced and the followng was the result to which nir had ar rived. subiec, The Right Honourable Gentleman stated that the London and Birmingham Railway before 1841) had cost no less a sum than 8,250,0001. ; but what would they think of this surprising statement, when he told them that if they looked in page 475 of the returns furnished to that House they would find the sum expended was only 5,994,536'. ; and of the ten Bills enacted for this company, but six were passed before 1849.—( Hear, hear.) The Grand Junction was stated to have cost 4,638,000/. before 1840, whereas he found there had been expended but 1,921,496/. The Great Western was stated to have spent before 1840, 8,282,0001.; the expenditure, however, he found was only 4,508,160/. The Brighton Railway was represented to have cost 2,867,0001.; the real expense was 1,166,540/. The South Western was repr,ented to have cost before 1840, 2,600,000/. ; the sum, however, though somewhat under ' that, was 2,054,3601. But the greatest departure from the LIGHT DUES. Mr. FOSTER presented a petition from the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Liverpool Shipowners' Society, com plaining of the heavy burden of the light dues. GENERAL FAST. Mr. PLUMPTRE presented a petition from Exeter pray ing the House to address her Majesty to appoint a day for national fast and humiliation, on account of the calamity which had visited Ireland and some parts of Scotland. LAW OF SETTLEMENT. Mr. C. BULLER brought up the second report of the Committee now sitting on this subject. HORSEFERRY SUSPENSION-BRIDGE. Mr. HAWES presented two petitions from the borough of Lambeth, and also two from the borough of Westminster, against the Horseferry Suspension-bridge. THE ENGLISH POOR-LAW.—THE LAW OF SETTLEMENT. Mr. BANKES presented a petition from the parish of Auckland, in the county of Durham, signed by the guardians of the union. They stated that there were twenty thousand eight hundred and ninety-nineinhabi tants in their union, and that they had endeavoured to carry out the provisions of the Poor Removal Act, but they de sired to state their unanimous opinion, that the law, as ex plained and laid down by the Attorney-General, was fraught with the most serious injury and inconvenience The Honourahie Gentleman also presented several petitions from the counties of Dorset and Somerset, praying for the aboli tion of the law of settlement, and the institution of a national rate. He had also to present a petition from Bridport to the same effect. THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS. Mr. E. DENISON would take the liberty of stating to the House the course which he intended to pursue. The motion of which he had given notice was that a Committee be ap pointed to inquire into and report upon the constitution of the Ecclesiastical Commission. Since he had given that notice the Noble Lord at the head of the Govern ment had intimated his intention to introduce a Bill for the purpose . of altering the constitution of •tthat 'Com mission. Under those circumstances, he considered that it would be rather a retrograde step than one in advance, if he asked the House fora Committee, as the Noble: Lord had himself acknowledged the necessity of a reform. He would, therefore, beg leave to postpone his motion until this day fortnight. PUBLIC ACCOUNTS. • Dr. BOWRING postponed his motion on public accounts till the l6th March. PUBLIC MORALITY. Mr. SPOONER gave notice of his intention, on that day Fortnight, to bring in a Bill for the purpose of repressing the trade in prostitution, and giving more effectual protection to females. NATIONAL FAST. Mr. PLUNIPTRE said, that in consequence of what had fallen from the Noble Lord (J. Russell), on the subject of a national fast, he (Mr. Plumptre) begged to withdraw his mo- . . . tion on the same subject. CASE OF Sltt THOMAS BRISBANE MAKERSTON AND WILLIAM MALCOLM FLEMING. Dr. BOWRING moved that the petition of Sir T. M. Brisbane Makerston and William Malcolm Fleming be printed with the votes.— Agreed to. OUTRAGES IN MAYO.—SEED FOR IRELAND. Mr. DILLON BROWNE wished to put the two questions to the Right Honourable the Secretary fur Ireland of which he had given notice some time be fore. The Right Honourable Gentleman had made a statement, in his place in the House, that certan illegal combinations prevailed in the county of Mayo for the pur. pone of preventing the cultivation of the soil. He (Mr. D. Browne) had lately received a communication from that county, stating that the Right Hon. Gentleman was misinformed in that particular ; and among these communications he might instance tne from Mr. Phillips, a resident magistrate, who said that every person, on the contrary, was most anxious for the cultivation of the land. Now, the question he wished to ask was, on what authority the Right Hon. Gentleman bad made that statement, the parties who had communicated this information, and whether any motives were assigned as a ground for these outrages, particularly as respected the county Mayo, and as they were affected by the relations between landlord and tenant. He also wished to know whether it was the in tention of the Government to supply seed for Ireland in suffi cient quantities to relieve the necessities of the people? Mr. LABOUCHERE said that, with respect to the first question asked by the Hon. Gentleman, he had every reason to believe that the statement he had made in the House was essentially true ; he did not mean that it was general, but in particular portions of the country an organised combination did exist to discourage the cultivation of the soil. The best answer, perh:ps, he could give would be to read a letter he had received from a person on whose word he could place every reliance ; and having said this, perhaps the Hod. Member would not press for the name of his correspondent. ( fa l r ' m he er n s Right Hon. Hon. Gentl eman th en rea d a lett er , d a t e d Feb ruary, which stated th at an organ i se d b o d y were actua ll y stirring e t u h t e t er people teu n i t n s, Mayo, against particularly cultivating the tthe small ssoil, and representing that they would be better remnnerated by labouring on the public works, which theyalleged w ould continue continue for an i n d e fi n i te period. This spirit he (the corres pondent) w as sorry to say was gaining ground in the country . ) With respect Ito th e second q uestion, he (Mr. Labouchere) would answer it in a way s i milar to the fi rst, by * reading to the Hon. Member, and to the House, a letter he had received on the subject of seed from a member of the Irish Government. HIGHWAYS Mr. RICE, seeing the Right AlrS Hon..Baronet the Secret ar y wished t o as k h im introduce inhisplace, any Bill thi s session f or forif Government the llom e Departmentinteuded to the management of the highways;? Sir GEORGE GREY said a Bill was last session draw n up on the subject alluded to b y t h e Honourable Member, which had since been revised and amended, and if an opportunity offered it would be introduced in the course of the present session. • cc JUSTICES OF LANCASTER. Mr. T. DTINCONII3E said that it was his intentioa to call the attention of t h e House to e petition s w hi c h h e pre sented from Warring ton, complaining of the cond uc t of Alessrs: Lyen and S.ubbi, justices of the county of Lancaster, in the ci erciie of their summary jurisdiction, on the trial of four won king men for leaving their emp lo y , and to submit a motion thereon . - He understood, however, that the subject had been under the consideration of the Government, and he should like to know from the Right Hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the result of the consideration of the Government. Sir GEORGE GREY said that the attention of the Government had been directed, not to the allegations as they appeared upon the face of the documents before the House, but with respect to the irregularity complained of in a petition recently presented to the House. The result of that conside ration was, that the Government had come to the conclusion that the convictions were illegal, and that the petitioners were entitled to take advantage of the informality set forth in their petition. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that having hear d from the Government that the magistrates had acted in an ille g al manner he was p er f ect ly satisfied, and would therefore with draw his motioa ;Il; e d 00 the fel' titer , 3015 two 1 0° deal %th