The Sun.
London, England, 1838-03-03 00:00:00

VOTE BY BALLOT.

Mr. HUME presented a petition from the town of
Brentford, numerously signed, in favour of the Ballot.
The petitioners stated that they bad suffered much at
former elections from the system of intimidation which
was carried on, that they were unable to exercise the elective
franchise, and they hoped the House woulii adopt
some mode of protection for the voter, stating, o'c the same
time, that the system of secret voting appeared '.o them best
adapted to affect that object.
Lord HENNIK ER presented a petition from Leicester,
praying for an amendment in the present system of levying
County Rates.
Mr. JOHN PARKER presented a petition from Sheffield,
praying for the immediate abolition of Negro Apprenticeship.
Mr. 110DGE S presented a petition from several Post-
masters, praying that a corresponding duty might be placed
upon steam carriages. The Hon. Member also presented a
petition from the freeholders of Chard, praying for the Vote
by Ballot.

Mr. FA Z AKERL Y brought up the Report at the Poor-
law Committee.

STEAM ENGINES.

Mr. MAC'KINNON, seeing the Presiderat of the Board of
Trade in his place, wished to know whethi;r the Government
would have any objecti,m to his moving for a Select Com-
mittee for the purpose of ascertaining *what improvements had
been made on the steam-engine, and how far those improve-
ments were applicable to steam navigation.
Mr. P. THONI SON said he thought the House ought to
eol;sider well before they instituted Committees upon subjects
of this deseription—scientific subjects, upon which the Mem-
bers of the House could not be supposed to be familiarly
co►,versant, and upon the investigation of a Committee
of that Ikuse would not lead io any satisfactory result.
PILOTS.

Mr. P. T vas understood to say that a measure
Iu answer
I o from Mr. PEASE,
tloamusec om Nioi Ni
for the regulation of pilots would be probably introduced in
the course of the Session.
PIZIVILEGE—ROMAN CATHOLIC OATHS.
BISHOP OF EXETER.
The lion. Mr.. LANGDALE said he res 3 with great re..

luctance to draw the attention of the House to a speech in the
public papers; in which his name appeared. He would not say
where, but it was sufficient for him to mention that his name
was brought before the public in a character which he did
not think he deserved. It had been observed by a Right
Reverend Prelate in some place, he would not say where,
regarding the oaths of the Roman Catholic Members,
that the animus with which the oath had been proposed
was the criterion by which it ought to be interpreted ;
and the Right Reverend Prelate said he was desirous
of ascertaining from some Member of the Crown, at
the time of the passing of the Relief Bill, what that
animus was. Now, it appeared to him (Mr. L.) a much
more ready way to get at that animus, to see what was
said by the Minister of the Crown of that day, than to ask
that Minister of the Crown at the present moment what
his intention was at that time. The first passage in the
speech of the Right Reverend Prelate in which he (Mr. L. )
was mentioned by name, was in the following terms : Ano-
ther, and he believed a more favourable notion had been
set out—that the oath was not to: affect parties in their
Legislative capacity. That notion was brought forward, he
believed, in the first instance, by an lion. Gentlemau, the
brother of a Noble Lord, a Member of that House—by the
lion. Mr. Langdale." He (Mr. L.) acknowledged that his
opinion had been that the animus with which the oath was
proposed was the criterion by which the oath should be judged.
Now the Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth
( Sir R. Peel) introduced the measure of Catholic Emancipa-
tion ; and, as the House adopted the measure, it was fair
to conclude that they adopted it in the very sense
in which he proposed it. He (Mr. L.) would read from
" Hansard's Debates" that part of the Hon. Baronet's spee(h
which specially referred to the Roman Catholics being in Par-
liament. The Right llonourable Baronet alluded to a mo-
tion made by Mr. Wilmot Horton. He (Mr. L.) world men-
tion that the Right Rev. Prelate must have been aware of this
before lie alluded to it and !aid it did net apply to the matter. The
House would see whether it did or not. The Right Hon. Baronet
said " Another proposal has been made by a Right Hon.
Friend of mine, who suhrgests from a suspicion of the manner
in which t. 14 Roman Catholics night exercise their Parlia-
mentary privilege, that they shall be precluded by law from
voting on matters relating directly or indirectly to the in-
terests of the Established Church. Now, I object to this proposal,
first, because it is a dangerous thing to establish the precedent
of limiting by law the discretion by which the duties
and functions of Members of Parliament are to be
exercised ;: secondly, because it is difficult to decide
beforehand what are subjects affecting the interests of 'the
Church ; and thirdly, because by excluding Roman Catholics
from giving their individual votes you do little to diminish
their real ihfluence. I believe you will find more real security
in confidence than in avowed (Istrust and suspicion, unaccompa -
nied by effectual means. For these reasons T, am unwilling
to deprive Roman Catholic Members of this house of
that freedom of judgment which belongs to other Members of
the Legislature. I would put them upon the same
footing with a Dissenter from the Church of England."
Now, if there were to be no " avowed distrust and suspicion,"
it could not be intended to restrain them in the exercise
of their legislatorial functions.
The SPEAKER here interrupted, and suggested to the
lion. Gentleman if he was confining himself exclusively to a
mater of privilege ; if not, there was no motion before the
House, and he was entering upon a subject which might pro-
duce a protracted debate.
Mr. LANGDALE—Then he would conclude with a Teo-
fon, but he thought it extremely hard that when an accusation
of perjury was made against him personally, he should not
have an opportunity of %indicating himself, while the aecu•
sation was circulating all over the country.—( Loud cheers )
Now, what was the opinion of Sir Charles Wetherell on this
subject? His words were : " Suppcse we were to move
the destruction of the Established Church : d yen
me-au to tell me, that Catholics would be acting agaiest
their Pailiamentary oaths if they sanctioned such a
m.•asure."—( Hear, bear.) Ills ( Mr. L.'s) name had been
broaght forward in a second accusation by the Right
Reverend Prelate. His words were—" It (tile Catholic
oath) had been assimilated to the declaration made by
D'sseutere on taking office. This teas a notion of Mr
Langdale," &c. Now, he (Mr. L.) bed stated this, and
Ire thought it a very. statesmanlike view of the suhject.
welds of the oath were : " I solemnly and sincerely, in the
presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I will eesa r
exercise ;Iry influence that I may obtain by virtue of the
office nhich I hold, to weaken or subvert the P.'otestaiit
Church as by law established"—the remainder of the oath
however went much further than that which was taken by the
Catholics—" or to disturb the rights of its Bishops rr
Clergy." Now what was the distinction Orawn by the Right
Rs verend Prelate ? That the declaration was eapresely
limited to England, and not to Ireland, and did not
bied the parties to any particular tenderness towards the
Church in 1.-eland. Session after Session they had be, n
bearing it . asserted that they could not affect the Church in
England without affecting that in Ireland ' • and were they,
after this, to be charged by the Right Rev. Prelate with per-
juey ?—( Hear.) Why, the oath was as binding on a member of
the Church of England as it was on a Roman Catholic. Had
there been nothing done to affect the Church Eetablishment
in England? There had been a diminution of bishoprics ; there
had been an alteration in the see of Chester ; and he believed
thet mraeure seas approved of even by the heads of the
Church themselves. Now this had been done by men who
ace!ording to the Right Rev. P. elate were as much bound by
their oaths as Roman Catholics. Were these statements,
however, new to thorn? Was this the first time they had
heard of charges made respecting these oaths ? Whet
was the case during the reign of George the Third ?
'Fhe Right Rev. Prelate said that a man in office was not
bound by his oath, and yet the King was bound. The King,
by his coronation oath, was bound himself to preserve to the
Biehops and Clergy of the realm such rights and privileges as
might appertain to them. The Hon. Member for Oxford
had said in his place that it was a mockery to talk of Roman
Catholics violating their oaths,_ if the King could do
so. What did George the Fourth do ? Why, what the most
learned member of the Bar said he could not do without
violating his oath. William IV. did the same. According to
the statement of the Right Rev. Prelate, the Archbishop cf
Canterbury had violated his oath.—( Cheers.) He thought
the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, if he was charged with
with perjury, would consider himself hardly dealt with.
Ile (Mr. L.) was not in the habit of using strone• language ;
:but any person having the feeling of a men, when he saw a
-question like the present brought' before the public—
when he had been dragged before it—he thought that
he was called upon, not only in justice to his own
character but those that be represented, to make the observa-
tions he had. He regretted the charges that had been
mode by any individual, but when they came from a
person whose sacred character ought to give all charity
towards his neighbour, he must confess that it was derogatory
to the dignity that he filled. He was proud to bear tes-
timony to the Prelates presiding over the Established
Church, but when he looked to the accusations of the Right
Rev. Prelate, he almost blushed to bring them before this
khnise of Parliarnent.—( Cheers.) He thought the accusa-
tions were unworthy the character of a Prelate of the Church
cif England, and he would venture to say that they were most
agy,re.vated falsehoods.—( Cheers, )
The SPEAKER—I suppose the Hon. Member imputes
falsehood to the arguments.
Mr. L A NGDAL E--Certainly. When he used the word
falsehood, he used it with reference to the expression. Ile
would now move that the Morning Post be laid on the table.
Sir E. SUGDEN felt bound to say a few words in conse-
quence of having been present when the Right Reverend Pre-
late made the observation, which had been alluded to. He
could assure the Hon. Gentleman opposite, that his own irn-
presesion on those observations was, that they were directed
with marked kindness towards the Hon. Member.—( Cries of
" Oh, oh," and cheers.) Hon. Gentlemen might put what
construction they pleased, but that was his impression.
The SPEAKER thought that some substantive motion
.shoulel be before the House.
Sir EDWARD SUGDEN then said he would withdraw
all that he had stated to a more fitting opportunity.
The ATTORNE Y-GENERAL was not anxious to make
many observatiohs, because the speoch to which the Right Rev.
Prelate had alluded was uttered by him in a former Ses-
sion, and any objection to it ought to have been urged before.
He believed that hie honour required no vindication whatever
from the aspersions of the Right Rev. Prelate.
Mr. O'CONNELL stated that the allusions made by the
Right Rev. Prelate to him were totally without foundation.
Lord II OW IC K, before the discussion terminated, begged
to remark, that in the speech of the Right. Rev. Prelate, ex-
pressions had been attributed to him that were totally unlike
any thing he had ever uttered, or bore any resemblance to it.
The Alorning Post of the day was then ordered to lie on
the table.
Sir E. SUGDEN wished to ask the Hon. and Learned
Ms mber opposite (the Attorney-General) a question.
Zhe ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Is it relative to the
Bishop of Exeter ?
Sir E. $ UGDEN wished to ask the Hon. and Learned
Attorney-General, when lie would really fix a day for the se-
cond reading of the five Bills relating to copyholds, manorial
boundaries, escheats, and descents ?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had expected to have
moved the second reading that day, and to have named the
Right Hon. and Learned- Gentleman upon the Committee.
Sir E. SUGDEN begged leave to decline acting upon the
Committee of any Bill brought in by the Learned Attorney..
General.—( Hear, and cheers.) When asking a question on
mibjects vitally connected with the property of the country,
and in which he (Sir E. Sugden) naturally felt highly inte-
rested, the Hon. and Learned Attorney-General had insult-
ingly asked him whether his query referred to the Bishop of
.Exeter ?—(flear. ) Anything that related to that Right Rev.
Prelate would be discussed in its proper place ; but be (Sir
Sugden) desired—( Cries of " Order, order," drowned the
/conclusion of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's sentence).
The ATTORNOY-GENERAL had not the most distant
intention of offending or insulting the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman.—( Hear. )
Sir ROBERT PEEL begged to repeat a question which
he had put to the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Home
Department a fortnight since. It was when the papers rela-
livf, to the dispute with the United States concerning the
'boundaries of Maine and New Brunswick would he laid On
tl'e table. The Noble Lord ha,l stated a fortnight blek that
they were nearly mealy, yet they rwera not yet forthcominf;.
Lewd J. RUSSELL said that the papers bad been pre-
pared by the Noble Lord in whose department they lay, amt
given, as he thought, to he printed;- but he had since found
-that tire papers he had directed to be printed were other
papers, and not those the Rieht Hon. Barcia:t ached for. 110
(Lor Russell) had no 6:;-u-' bt they would soon be presented
to the., ,Hou:e.
Lc ,rd SANDON begged to ask the President of the Board
or T rade bad any remonstrance beearnade to the Danish Go-

vernment for the stoppage of vessels passing the Sound to
undergo quarantine ? Such detention was highly detrimental
to the cotton trade of this country.
Mr. P. THOMSON said the attention of the Government
was drawn to the subject.
Upon Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S moving the Order of
the Day for going into Committee on the Poor Law ( Ire-
and) Bill.
Mr. FR ESHFIELD desired to have some understanding
respecting the five Bills which the Attorney-General had upon
the papers of the night set down for the second reading. The
answer to the question at the office, " Are the Attorney- Gene-
ral's Bills printed?" was, " No, Sir;" and to the second
question, " Is any one of them printed?"—" No, Sir," which
was really too bad.—( Hear.) He thought some period ought
to be mentioned by the Hon. and Learned Attorney-General
when there would be a possibility or a probability of their
being discussed.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL assured the Hon. Mem-
ber they had all been completely drawn up. He had no notion
when the momemt would come when they could be distributed,
but when they were he would tie any day, the earliest Hon.
Gentlemen, pleased for the discussion.
Sir E. SUGDEN hoped the Learned Attorney-General
would have more success with these than he had with some
former measures which he had drawn up for the amendment
of the law.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL would be quite satisfied
if the present Bills were as well drawn up, and as satisfactory
to the public, as the Wills Bill—to which he supposed the
lion. and Learned Gentleman alluded—had been.
After a few words from Mr. O'Connell, Sir E. Sugden,
and Lord John Russell, the matter dropped.
POOR LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
The House went into Committee on this Bill.

Clause 47 bing proposed,
Mr. GRA TTAN rose to move the omission of this clause,
which empowers the guardians to provide for emigration. In
his opinion this clause was a relief to the rich rather than the
poor. The effect of any emigration forced by publiclwaf.s
went directly to check it. He was ready to tax his con-
stituents with the support of the workhouses, but he was not
prepared to tax them for this purpose.
Mr. LYNCH supported the clause. He wished to know
from the Noble Lord how the expense of emigration was to be
borne ?

Captain JONES wished to know how the money was to
be raised by the guardians in the different unions ?
Viscount MORPETH admitted that the absence of a case
of settlement must operate against the working of this clause ;
but still he thought the clause would lead to some good.
After a siren conversation, in which the amendment was
supported by Mr. O'Connell, Mr. S. O'Brien, and Mr.
French, and opposed by Lord J. Russell,
Sir R. BATESON should oppose the clause, as it was
calculated to render the Bill a curse, rather than a benefit, to
Ireland.—( Hear, bear.)
At the suggestion of Mr. Bernal, two or three incidental
verbal amendments, proposed by different lion. Members,
were here disposed of, in order to clear the way fur Mr.
Grattan's amendment, that the clause be struck out.
Mr. WYSE approved of the clause, as he was strongly in
favour of the principle of emigration. -
Sir F. TRENCH thought the poor of Ireland ought to be
provided for in a better manner than this Bill afforded : and
that they ought not to be shut up in those workhouses.
Mr. Sergeant .JACKSON supported she clause as it stood.
Mr. REDINGTON supported the Bill generally, and did
not consider that any material emigration would ever take
place, as the coeotry would be much improved in its general
condition by this Bill.
A desultory conversation here arose as to the wording of
the clause, in which Str E. Sugden, Mr. S. O'Brien, Mr. J.
Grattan, Sir R. Ferguson, and Mr. S. Rice, with caller Hen.
Members, took a part.
The CHANCELLOR of the. EXCHEQUER would sug-
g,est that, in all cases where emigrants ware to he sent out
at the expense of the Union, their clai.ns should be inves-
tigated at two separate meetings of the Board of Guar-
dians. —( Hear. )
Mr. LUCAS said that the Right Hon. Gentleman was rea.
toning directly contrary to the sense of the House. All bad
agreed that emigration would be an evil, as withdrawing the
able-bodied labourers from the country.
Lord M 0 R PET II thought that the united labour of Hon.
Members had put the clause into a shape which would effec-
tually guard against abuse. Such being the case, he should
certainly vote for its retention.—( Hear, hear.)
After some observations from Captain Jones, Sir R. Fer-
guscon, and Mr. O'Connell,
Mr. LITTON declared himself in favour of the emigration
clause.
Lord M 0 R PETH said that the Bill provided that the ap-
plication should be supp.rted by three-fourths of the Guar-
dians, but the sum given to be regulated by the Cemmi,sioncs.
At the second meeting the Guardians would only have to de-
cide on the particular persons to be sent.
Sir F. TRENCH approved of the suggestion of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer.
Lord CASTLEREAGH very much doubted the expedi-
ency of emigration. He would suggest that the clause be
withdrawn.

Lord MORPETH would be very willing to take the ad-
vice of the Noble Lord, but that he felt afraid that the next
accounts from Ireland would inform them that the most popu-
lar clause had been withdrawn.

Mr. O'CONNELL said that this was the clause which had
been most emphatically condemned at the Poor-law meeting
in Dublin. Mr. Staunton, of the Register, who drew up
the report of that meeting, condemned this clause in express
terms.
After a few words from Captain JONES and Sir EDWARD

SUGDEN,
Lord MOR PETH proposed the insertion of these words,
" That the sums necessary for emigration purposes should be
raised under the direction of the Commissioners, and that per-
sons proper to be sent out should be recommended by two suc-
cessive meetings of the Board of Guardians."
The question was then put from the Chair that tho clause
as amended be agreed to.
Mr. J. GRATTAN would persist in moving the omission
of the clause, and would divide the House on that motion.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw.
Ayes .. .
Noes

Majority against the amendment —4s
Clause 48 was agreed to.
On clause 49 being proposed,
Sir E. SUGDEN said that if no person else proposed the
omission of the Clause altogether, he should move the leaving
out of those parts of it which rendered it imperative upon every
married woman to maintain all the children of her husband,
including, of course, those which might be the product of a
former marriage. To compel the wife to maintain the for-
mer children of a husband, who was either unable or unwilling
to provide them, was alien to all the principles of the British
Constitution. The provision, whilst it threw the whole liabi-
lity upon the mother, would not have the effect of checking
immorality.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL contended that the clause
laid down no new rule. The 49th and 50th clauses should be
taken together. The meaning of the clauses was, that if the
children were to be maintained by the parish, the mothers of
such children should, though not receiving relief, be still con-
sidered as chargeable to the parish. The object was to make
the mothers of illegitimate children receiving relief to be con-
sidered as also chargeable. Any seeming harshness was re-
moved by the next clause, which enacted that all relief given
to mothers or children should be considered as given to him
ho was liable to their maintenance, and that he sould be held
as chargeable. There was no new obligation cast here, and,
therefore, there was no hardship.
Mr. O'CONNELL said the effect of the present clause
would be to prevent labourers coming over here to earn occa-
sional wages, When the labourer came back with his wages
they would deduct from his poor pittance the amount for
which his wife and family became chargeable. This, perhaps,
might be just and right, but it would alter the entire state of
things in Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) The poor labourer who
stinted himself of every necessary—who lay, perhaps, in a
ditch, too happy if he could procure shelter in a barn, would
find his little hoard thus broken in upon. Would not such a
law hold out a temptation not to come back at all—( Hear,
hear)—to leave his family altogether, and thus all the ties that
soothed and softened humanity, and which it was the boast of
the Irish poor to cherish—( Hear, hear)—and this, forsooth,
was a law of charity and benevolence to Ireland. It was a
frightful clause, and could not exist in its present condition.
Sir E. SUGDEN said that the argument of the Attorney-
General seemed to assume the right of relief. How could the
term'chargeable be used if there was no right to relief ; or why
should the penalties in the 53d Clause be laid down ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was understood to say that it
was the intention to remove these penalties.
Sir ED WARD SUGDEN admitted that would be an
improvement of the Bill. He still, however, did not see, as
there was no right of relief, why the 49th or 50th Clauses
should be retained.

Some further conversation then ensued, when
Sir EDWARD SUGDEN moved as an amendment, that
the words "and every married woman shall maintain her child,
and every child of her husband," bu ommitted.

Lord iIOR PET H agreed to the amendment.
The words, " married woman" were then orderec to be
struck out of the Clause.

Mr. LUCAS proposed a similar amendment respecting
bastard children. It was to the effect of making fathers .T. 43
well as mothers of bastard children liable for their maintenance.
After a few words from the Solicitor-General, Mr. Darby,
the Attorney-General (for Ireland,) Mr. O'Connell, Sir E.
Sugden, Mr, Jepbson, Lord Mcrpeth, Lord Clements, and
Mr. Barron, the amendment was understood to be agreed to.
The clause as amended was then ordered to stand part of
the Bill.

C.:Julies 50 and 51 were aizo agreed to.
Clause 52 was postponed, zt the suggestion of Mr. G'CON-
NELL.

Lord J. RUSSELL observing, as he assented to the post-
ponement,that though he believed the principle (attachment of
wages) to be a just one, he did not, notwithstanding, anti-
cipate any very great benefit from its practical operation in
Ireland. And the Noble Lord further added that unless the
clause should meet the general approbation of the House he
should not feel inclinad, even at a future period, to press it as
part of the Bill.
On clause 53,

Sir E. SUGDEN inquired bow the framers of the Bill in-
tended to apportion relief to the families of labourers travelling
to Ireland io search of work, or in the case of an incurable'
cripple whose father was not able to maintain it by his wagcs
as a labourer? Was he and his whole family to go into the
workhorse to obtain relief for it?

Lord J. RUSSELL said that it W 5 never intended by th,,
words or this clause to prevent the guardians from exercising
such a discretion as might enable them to extend relief in such

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, MARCH 3, 1835.

cases. It was not imperative on them to compel the parents to
enter in these cases.
Mr. MAU LE thought that there was no necessity for alter-
ing the clause.
Mr. LYNCH thought that now was the proper time to in-
troduce a provision against vagrancy.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that a law against vagrants would
be quite inoperative until this provision for the poor had been
some time in operation.
Mr. O'CONNEL L would move that the guardians be per-
mitted to freely admit part of a family only.—( Hear.)
Mr. WALKER advocated the propriety of empowering
the guardians to lock up those professional mendicants who
were so great a curse to Ireland.
Mr. JEPHSON supported the views of the Hon. Member
for Wexford.
Sir C. STYLE and Mr. J. GRATTAN supported the proposal
for allowing the guardians a discretionary power of admitting
part of a family without obliging them to imprison all in the
workhouse.

Mr. W. BARRON would contend against the perpetuation
of any such severe penalties.
Sir E. SUGDEN hoped that the new psor-houses would
not be turned into bridewells for the mendicants.

A long discussion took place respecting the propriety of
adopting the words " absconding out of the workhouse,"
which it was contended by Mr. O'CONNELL and Sir E. Sco.
DEN might be interpreted to apply to persons who had never
been in the workhouse, but had absconded to avoid entering it.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that it was necessary to be very
explicit in framing laws that were to be put in force by Irish
country Magistrates, many of whom interpreted the laws
with very considerable latitude, to suit their own notions of
equity.—( Laughter.) One country gentleman (Mr. Bolin.--
broke), who bad been so obliging as to make an abstrct of the
statute for the use of his brethren, headed one of his chapters,
" vagabond"—vide " Irish gentlemen."--( A laugh.)
The clause was then verbally amended and passed.
Clauses 54 and 55 were struck out.
Clause 56 was agreed to, with some verbal amendments.

Clause 57 was postponed.
Clause SS, with some formal ammdments, was agreed to.
Clause 59 was postponed, and the Chairman having re-
ported progress,
LordJ. RUSSELL said that it was his intention to pro-
ceed with the other clauses of the Bill on Friday next.
On the motion of Mr. Wysg, the following returns were
ordered :

Return of the sums granted by Parliament in each year,
from 1834 to 1837 inclusive, for the advancement of educa-
tion in England and Wales.
Return of the number of applications made to the Lords of
the Treasury in each year, from 1834 to 1837 inclusive, for
aid towards the building or maintenance of schools, or pay-
ment of teachers, classified according to the counties and reli-
gious denominations to which they respectively belong.
Return of the number and amount of grants, and of the
amount of each grant, severally made by.che Lords of the
easury in answer to such applications, classified accord-
ing to the counties and religious denominations to which
the schools to which such grants have been made respectively
belong.
Copy of the conditions and regulations under which such
grants have been made.
Report of the manner in which such grants have been ap-
plied to each school, and of the results produced thereby.
Return of the names and qualification of Inspectors, if any,
appointed by the Treasury, to see such grants applied in ac-
cordance with the regulations under which they were made.
Return of the sum granted by Parliament for the establish-
ment of schools for teachers

Report of the progress made, if any, in the application of
such grant.
Mr. BAINBRIDGE moved for Returns, relating to the
distillation of spirits in England, Scotland, and Ireland, re-
spectively.
Mr. BARRON moved for copies of communication ad-
dressed to Lord J. Russell on the subject of the Irish Board
of Charitable Bequests in March, 1837.
Mr. GIL LON moved fur the following Returns, which
were agreed to :
Return of the names of the parishes in Scotland in which
Churches, in connection with the Church of Scotland, hare
been erected, to which parishes quoad sacra have been an-
nexed, including those Churches which were denominated
chapels of ease ; and the amount of the uneahausted teinds in
the original parishes of which these parishes quoad sacra
formed a part.
Also the names of the parishes in Scotland in which Churches
in connection with the Church of Scotland (not being parish
Churches) are now being erected, and the amount of unex-
hausted teinds in each of these parishes ; specifying in both
cases the class, or classes, under which these ut:exhausted
teinds fall.

Li.ave of absence was granted to Mr. F. Mat,LE for three
weeks, on the ground of the ill-health of a near relative (ai
we understood), and to Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD, for circuit.
Adjourned at a Quarter to Twelve o'Clock.

ROUSE OF LORDS, MAReir 2.

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at
Five o'Clock.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented a Supplement
to the Treasurer's account of the city of Dublin.
. .

Lord R NDNOR presented a petition from the inhabitants
of Carlow, praying for Vote by Ballot.
Lord DEVON presented a petition from North Devon,
against the operation of the Poor Law Amendment Act.
Lord ASHBURTON presented a petition praying for the
reduction of postage.
Lord R E DESD ALE presented petitions from Shafton,
in Westmoreland, Kirkby Lonsdale, and another place, in
favour of the atiolition of Negro Apprenticeships.
The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition from_Glou-
cester, against favouring any system of education in which the
Bible is not taught conformably to the articles of the Church
of England.
Lord BROUGHAM stated that he had made an arrange-
ment in the absence of the Noble Duke, whom ho now saw
opposite, to bring on his motion on Tuesday next, and he
wished to know from the Noble Duke whether that day would
be convenient for him ?
The Duke of WELLINGTON said it would.
Lord LYNDHURST presented a petition from the
skinners and glovers of Glasgow, against combination, praying
that they might be heard at the bar in case of any relief being
granted.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from Ponty-
pool; from the inhabitants of Manchester, agreed to at a
public meeting; from Basingstoke; from the Protestant Dis-
senters meeting in the Independent Chapel at Falmouth ; from
the inhabitants of the County and Borough of Carmarthen ;
and from Thornton and Agar in Yorkshire, in favour of the
abolition of Negro Apprenticeship. Also a petition from a
place which was not heard, in reference to the Glasgow Cot-
ton-spinners, and their sentence. The petitioners, like some
others whose petitions he had presented, seemed to have con-
sidered that it was in consequence of their combining to rise
wages that they had been tried and sentenced. He (the
Noble and Learned Lord) protested against that as he
had always done.—( Hear, hear.) It was the duty and
sometimes the right of working men to combine to raise
wages ; but they were not at liberty to use violence or threats
against those who thought proper to work. His opinion was
that those poor men had been convicted of a very slight
offence compared with what they had originally been charged,
and that they had suffered sufficiently. The Noble and
Learned Lord presented a petition to the same effect from
the western branch of the Ladies' Shoemakers' Society, and
a petition from the debtors in the gaol of St. Thomas, in the
County of Devon, for the speedy passing of the Im-
prisonment for Debt Abolition Bill. He said, I have
so many applications from different parts of the coun-
try on this subject, that I think it right to take this
opportunity of answering them, which, otherwise, I have no
means of doing, by reason of their number; and I dare say that
my Noble and Learned Friend opposite, who has taken part
with me in this Bill, will contirnt what I say, that there
has been no delay whatever on the part of your Com-
mittee, for there is great difficulty in the details
of the measure ; but so much day light has broken in
upon u', that I have no doubt our labours will be brought
speedily to a termination.
Lord LYNDHURST said that the inquiry had been at
tended with much difficulty, and had been now nearly brought
to a close.
Lord BROUGHAH thought that the Committee would
close after two meetings more. The Noble and Learned
Lord then presented a petition from Evesham in favour of
National Education.

SLAVE TRADE PREVENTION.
Lord
Lord BRO UG H AM—My
situations,lt is
walhwear
duty to call your Lordships' attentions,tdoii:thies
Yal equity agarenedable to charge
s
u
nb
0 j
we
c
mt
-ym
a
pt
at
e
inr
fourl
soenrigeokoisf
filling
pheigtiitlions.
Pfairness ought
to shine forth, with neglect of that duty which
every one owes
to his ,neighbour—namely, to ascertain the facts as charged
before the charge is launched against any individual.
But if, in addition to a total want of
attention to
the facts, it is found that the facts are not of a secret
nature, but that they are such as have passed before hundreds
in this House, and that those facts have been circulated through
the ordinary means of information—and that, iu addition to
this information, which consists of the public press--of Members
of the other House, who stand 'below your Lordships' bar
in addition to all these ordinary means, extraordinary means
have been taken to prevent misconstruction--with the avowed
purpose of making it utterly impossible to misrepresent
what I said—then I think, my Lords, that I have a right not
only to complain that the ordinary course of justice has been
departed from, but an extraordinary course even in the history
c,f Injustice—l will call it no more, for I will not imitate the
ex a,rrele which I have condemned has been dictated by the
ultra z.lal of political partizanship. But it should not leave
the floor of the other House of Parliament—it should have
lain with all creeping, craw,ing , and unutterable thiags,
upon the e arth's surface—it should not have emerged into the
upper air, I vad taint all that should be pure and incorrupt.
My Lords, J shall proceed to state those facts which will
-srdships to tell whether I have already too
enable you r 1.,
highly chart; .ed my case, and whether I have been led aside
by that ze 1 , with which I regard. every thing connected
with this i raportant question—to misconstrue or exaggerate
the accout its which I have laid before your Lordships.
It is not ni stter of individual concern—not merely affecting
the &cont it betweon the two Houses of Parliament—but it
entwines it self around the whole question of slavery, for if I
Lave been guilty of exaggeration, as I have demonstrated to
your Lon Whips that I have only understated my case—
if I have nu use the attack on slave-trading to be the vehicle of
any exascer ! .ated statements against an honourable body
of men--1 I.diould as the advocate of this great question—
to who; n ii. is left by the country—to whom it is left, lam
sorry to r,ay, by the Government, and to whom it is left
for the prvsent by the other House of Parliament—l