The Sun.
London, England, 1838-03-21 00:00:00

SLAVERY.

Colonel SA LWE Y presented a petition from Ludlow
for the abolition of the Negro Apprenticeship System.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from Mr. Gillespie, Billi-
ter-street, London, against the Coal Monopoly, and praying
to be heard against it before the House. Also a petition from
Sir H. Bedingfield, of Norfolk, stating that some property
belonging to his family had been confiscated, and granted
to a Society called " The New England Company for
Diffusing the Gospel in New England," and vested
in certain Trustees, which Trustees had been continued
down to the present period ; but the object for which the
Company had been established had long since ceased, and
he prayed that " as the Charity Commissioners could not take
the case into their consideration, the House would direct such
inquiries as they thought fit into the subject." He (Mr. H.)
thought it a matter worthy of the consideration of the House,
and he would move for certain returns connected with it. The
Hon. Member then presented petitions from Worthing and
from Mallow in favour of the Ballot; also two petitions
against the Bible Monopoly. The House was aware that there
were at present in England and Scotland individuals who
had the sole right of printing the Bible ; and the pe-
titioners prayed that this monopoly might be abolished.
He wished to state in reference to these petitions that they
were of great importance, inasmuch as within the last year
the patentees had endeavoured to stop the printing of Bibles
with annotations, which had not been attempted for fifty years
before. The Hon. Member presented another petition from
Dumfries, noticing the present unfortunate state of affairs in
Canada, and expressing a hope that Lord Durham might be
despatched to that colony with as little delay as possible, with
a view to the satisfactory adjustment of the grievances com-
plained of by its inhabitants.
NEWRY ELECTION.

The Clerk of the Committees appeared at the Bar with the
reduced list of Members appointed to serve on this Committee
as follows :—William Taylor Copeland, Lord Teignmouth,
Sir J. B. Y. Buller, Sir 'l'. Dyke Acland, John Henry
Vivian, C. R. M. Talbot, Lord Viscount Barrington, Sir
George Thomas Staunton, Sir Charles Lemon, Joseph
Bailey (Sudbury), and Hon. Sidney Herbert.
Mr. PEA SE presented petitions from places in the county
of Durham. praying for the abolition of the system of negro
apprenticeship.
Mr. VERNON SMITH presentel a variety of petitions
on the same subject.
Sir R. PE EL presented a petition from the Clergy of
several united parishes in the county of Down, stating that in
those parishes there were twelve Churches which required
enlarging and seven rebuilding. They prayed that means
might be aff.)rded them of encreasing the Church accommoda-
tion in those parishes. The Right Honourable Baronet
then presented a petition from Carrowkeel, in the county of
Cork, praying that some arrangement might be made with
respect to the levying of tithes ; a petition from Clonmel,
for extending spiritual accommodation to the Catholics in
Canada ; and a petition from Evesham, against the Municipal
Boundaries Bill.
On the motion of an HoN. MEMBER, the London and Green-
wich Railway Bill was further considered, and ordered to be
engrossed.
COUNTY CORONERS' BILL.

Mr. PAK INGTON, in rising to bring forward the motion
of which he had given notice, on the subject of County
Coroners, commenced by intreating the indulgence of
the House, of which he stood in great need. He was
about to propose very considerable alterations in one of the
most ancient and important of their institutions : and he
felt diffidence in approaching the subject when he considered
that one of the oldest and most experienced Members of that
House, his Hon. Friend, the Member for Cirencester, had been
baffled in his many endeavours to bring about that alteration.
He regretted that the subject had not been brought up by her
Majesty's Government, as it was one well worthy of their con-
sideration. The object of his Bill was principally to put
an end to the vexatious and harassing contested elec-
tions, by which many counties in the kingdom bad been
at various times disturbed.—( Hear, hear.) He wished
see men capable of filling the situation obtain it without the
ruinous expense it had hitherto entailed upon them, and he
wished to increase the compensation which had hitherto, been
awarded to these functionaries. It was not necessary to detain
the House by pointing out the anomalies and inconveniences
of the present system. Three modes had suggested
themselves which had all been made the subject
of enactments submitted to that House. One was
to restrict the franchise by disfranchising all below
the value of forty shillings, and confining it to those
who had a right to vote for Members of Parliament for counties.
Another mode that had been thought of was to disfranchise the
freeholders altogether, and give the power to the Crown. The
third mode was to disfranchise the freeholders and transfer the
choice to the magistrates at quarter sessions. With regard to the
first lie thought there was a great and insuperable objection,
for although the franchise would be restricted, the great evil
which had hitherto existed would not be removed. The con-
tests in these elections was almost exclusively of a political
character, and where the trial of party strength generally
took place.—( Hear.) If the franchise was restricted to the
voters for counties he thought the same evils would go on, and
the expense attending elections would be but very little
lessened. With respect to the second mode, he did not think
it would be productive of good ; and as to the third, the trans-
fer to the Magistrates at Quarter Sessions there were certainly
objections, but of the three modes it was decidedly the best.
One objection which might be made to the Bill was that it
would introduce party spirit on the bench, and disturb the
unanimity amongst the magistracy. He could not subscribe
to that opinion. He believed that the magistrates generally—
he knew that in the county which he had tko honour to
belong to—in the discharge of their public duties they
were as free from party bias as it was possible for human
nature to be. He might be told also, that by his Bill he was
taking away a right which had been exercised by the free-
holders from time immemorial. He could, however, cite
instances where the Houses of Parliament had for the
public benefit taken away individual rights. He would
instance the case of the forty shilling freeholders in
Ireland, whose rights were abolished for what was considered
a great public benefit. He would also instance the case of the
Municipal Reform Act, which in many instances had a dis-
franchising power. He would instance under that Bill the
case of Macclesfield, which, previously to the passing of that
Act, possessed a Coroner for the town separate from the
county, and he was elected by the freemen of the town.
By the Municipal Reform Act that office was abolished,
and the rights of the freemen were taken away. The
present mode of electing the Coroner by the freeholders
at large was an antiquated custom, and not in accordance
with the present distribution of property. He thought it
was right that some mode of selecting the person who was
to discharge the judicial duties of Coroner should be
adopted, by which the public would be assured that the fittest
person would be appointed to that office. He thought it
would be also right that parties who might have the honor-
able ambition of wishing to fill the office of County
Coroner, should not be exposed to the ruinous expense
that was at present entailed on them. He was de-
sirous of assimilating, as far as he could, the elec-
tion of County Coroner to the mode in which the Coroners
for cities were chosen under the Municipal Reform Act.
The Municipal Corporation Act gave the appointment of the
city and borough Coroners to the Town Councils; and al.
though he did not think they offered the best pre-
cedent, because they were elective bodies, yet there
was some analogy between them and those bodies
to which his Bill proposed to give the appointment,
namely, the Magistrates in Quarter Sessions. Another provi-
sion of his Bill was to divide counties into Coroners' districts
—another to give Coroners the power of resigning their
office, which at present they had not, without incur-
ring much expense and trouble, by application to the
Lord Chancellor. Another provision was to attach to the
jurisdiction of the nearest district Coroner, detached portions
of counties, which in some cases were at considerable distances
from the counties to which they belonged. He also pro-
posed to increase the fees and allowances to Coroners.
He believed he was right in stating that Parliament had, in
all cases where it was shown that the remuneration of these
officers was inadequate, as compared with the duties which
they had to perform, readily assented to every pro-
position that had been made to increase it. Where
there were a number of candidates for the office, and they did
not object to the amount of the remuneration, it was thought
by some that that was sufficient evidence that it was equal
to the nature of the duties to be performed by them.
He did not think this, however, a fair way of look-
ing at the question. He thought they ought to look
more to the respectability of the office, and to the importance
of the duties appertaining to it, and if they did so they would
find that the present rate of remuneration was any thing but
adequate to them. He would not detain the House by going
into calculations with respect to the changes which he proposed
in the amount of fees. He would just state, generally, that
he would limit himself to the same additions that had been
made by the Bill brought in by his Hon. Friend near him last
year, namely, that to the increase of 11. 6s. Bd. given
by that Bill, there be a further increase to 303. ;
and that instead of receiving 9d. one way, they should receive
93. each way, and be compensated for all travelling expenses.
There was another point to which he would beg to call the
attention of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite (her
Metesty's Attorney-General); hut at the same time he begged
to state that he intended it rather as a suggestion than
as a point material to the objects of this Bill. By the Bill

which had been brought in on a former occasion
by the Honourable and Learned Gentleman, direc-
tions had been given to the Courts of Quarter Ses-
sions to prepare a scale of fees, the consequence of
which was that in no two counties were the fees equal.
Now he would wish to know whether in proceeding with a
Bill of this kind it would not be desirable to take the
opportunity of equalizing the fees all over the country.
There only remained one other subject to which he requested
the attention:of the House, and on which he begged to address
himself to the Honourable Member for Bridport, who
had for many years originated a motion on the subject
he was about to mention,—he meant the important ques-
tion, whether or not in a Bill of this kind it was necessary
that a declaratory or enacting clause should be introduced,
that the Courts of Coroners are of necessity open. An attempt
to introduce such a clause into the present Bill would have
the effect of preventing its passing in another place. After
what had passed last year, he thought it would be better to
bring in a special Bill for this purpose, than to endanger the
present by taking such a step. The Hon. Member concluded
by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the
laws relating to the office of County Coroner.
Mr. C RIFFS seconded the motion for leave to bring in
the Bill. The subject was one that he had brought forward
most thanklessly for the last two years ; but he trusted the
difficulties he had met with, would not beset the Hon. Mem-
ber who now brought it forward. He objected to giving the
whole of the power of, appointing Coroners to the Magistrates
at Quarter Sessions, but still he agreed with his Hon.
friend that some change was absolutely necessary. He was
in favour of giving to the county constituency in this respect
all the advantages which they could derive from their franchise
under the Reform Bill. He wished the Honourable Member
success with his Bill, and hoped that his own objections would
be removed.
Mr. WA RBURT ON said that the Bill should have his
most decided opposition. The Hon. Member for Droitwich
professed to base his Bill upon the Municipal Reform Act,
Which gave the appointment of Coroner to the Town Councils ;
but there was no analogy between the Town Councils and
the Magistrates in Quarter Sessions. The Town Councils
were elective bodies ; and although the election was not
quite popular, yet it was nearly so'; whereas the Ma-
gistrates in Quarter Sessions were not at all elective.
It would be subversive altogether of the objects of
the institution of Coroner to give the appointment to the
Magistrates, whose conduct it would be the duty of the
Coroners to investigate. For instance, in a case where
lives had been taken in a riot, the question for the
Coroner might be whether there had b^en sufficient
cause to justify the Magistrates in ordering the Riot
Act to be read. Surely it was important that the
judicial officer who bad that enquiry to conduct should
be popularly chosen, and not appointed by the:Magistrates.
The office was one which above all others ought to be
held by popular election ; but be had no objection
to a better regulation as to the mode of election.
Unless it was declared that Coroners' Courts were to be open, he
thought that in the instances where the conduct of the Go-
vernment or the Magistrates was to be investigated the public
would be excluded: such being his opinion he should, in
Committee, move the insertion of a clause, that the Courts of
all Coroners should be open.
Mr. WAKLE Y felt himself bound to oppose the in-
troduction of the Bill, as he thought by it great inroads
were made in the Constitution of the country, and the
most atrocious propositions were included in it. The
effect of this Bill would be to disfranchise nearly one mil-
lion of voters. He could tell the Hon. Member that there
was no privilege which the people valued more dearly
than that of electing this officer. He hoped, therefore,
that the House would at once, and without ceremony, reject the
proposition for receiving this Bill. In the discussion which
would take place, the Hon. Member would see that the sense
of the House was against him, and he hoped that he would
withdraw his Bill, and join with him in requesting the Govern-
, ment to take the measure into their own hands.
Sir G. STRICKLAND said that there was no one more
anxious than he was to impart respectability and increased
efficiency to the office of Coroner; but he confessed
that he did not see any likelihood of attaining these
objects by the Bill of the Honourable Member. He ( Sir
George Strickland) did not agree in the propriety of giving
the management under this Bill to the Poor-law Guardians.
He thought that only one degree better than giving it to the
Magistrates. He did not think that any good would be at-
tained by making the proposed alteration, and lie would
therefore, oppose the motion of the Hon. Gentleman ( Mr.
Pakington.)
Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL did not think that
the appointment to so important an office as this
should be left to four or five persona in large
counties. lie had great reluctance in opposing the motion of
his lion. lion. Friend, for whom he had very great esteem.
He would not consent to depriving the freeholders of their
present privileges—( Hear, hear)—but he thought some alte-
ration in the present system was advisable.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL did not think the proposed trans-
fer of the election of Coroner from the freeholders to the
magistrates in quarter sessions, was at all advisable. lie,
therefore, opposed the motion.
Mr. PAKINGTON said, that if Ministers would take
the subject out of his hands, he was prepared to abandon the
measure.—( Hear, hear.) If th. 3 Noble Lord did not under-
take the matter, he would take the sense of the House upon
his motion.
Sir E. SUGDEN recommended the Hon. Member to
withdraw the Bill.
Mr. PAKINGTON then withdrew the Bill.
MANUFACTURE OF BONDED CORN.
Colonel SEALE rose for the purpose of bringing forward
the motion of which he had given notice on this subject. The
Bill which he intended to propose was similar to one read a
second time last session, and introduced by the late Member
for Worcester (Mr. Robinson). The provisions of the Bill
were as follow :—First, it would empower the Commissioners
of Customs to erect buildings of a peculiar construction for
the manufacture of bonded corn ; secondly, that the Commis.
sioners should be empowered to deliver bonded corn to per-
sons occupying those premises on their giving security that,
within a certain time—say two months, all corn so manufac-
tured should be exported or delivered again into the bonded
warehouses for the purpose of exportation. The third part
of the Bill provided further security that the provisions of the
Bill should not be violated, and contained penalties, &c. The
object of the Bill was to enable merchants trading to foreign
countries, and particularly to distant colonies, to lay in sup-
plies in our own ports in this kingdom, and not be under
the necessity, as at present, of going to Copenhagen,
Hamburgh, Dantzic, and other northern ports for their
supplies, at great inconvenience, cost, and loss of time.
It was well known that a large trade was carried
on in manufactured corn by America and the ports in
the Baltic, to all parts of the world, and particularly to our
West India colonies. In 1837 from Dantzic alone 200,000
barrels of flour were exported to our colonies. From the
United States of America 800,000 barrels of flour were ex-
ported in like manner to the same destination. A comparison
of expense would show the advantage to our merchants of
opening this trade. The prime cost of flour in America was
423. ad. per barrel, port and insurance duties made it 4s. 3d.
more. The import duty En the colonies was ss. per barrel,
making it altogether 51s. 3d. per barrel. In England the
prime cost of the flour manufactured from bonded corn would
be 255. 3d. per barrel, the port duties, &c. would make it
2s. 6d. more, being in all 275. 6d. per barrel, thus effecting a
saving of 235. 6d. per barrel. He might be told that this was
seeking by a sidewind the repeal of the corn laws. This he
denied. He, and those who concurred with him, denied this
in toto. On the contrary, he thought the present measure, if
carried, would strengthen the corn laws. He would conclude
by moving that this Bill be now read a first time.
Mr. COLLIER, in seconding the motion, contended that
the effect of the present system was injurious to the manufac-
turing and commercial interests, without being in the slightest
degree beneficial to those of agriculture.
The Marquis of CHANDOS said that the present propo-
sition was, that foreign corn should be taken out of the
Queen's warehouses and ground for exportation. He con-
ceived that if a removal of the corn was permitted, the preven-
tion of fraud would be impossible.
Col. SE A LE—The grinding is to take place under lock.
The Marquis of C H AN DO S--It would have to be removed
for the purpose, and he much doubted if all their ingenuity
could prevent fraud if that once took place. He was sure that
the Honourable Member who made this motion had no inten-
tion of interfering with the Corn-laws, but that would be the
effect of this Bill, and he felt bound to oppose this Bill, and
also to state that if the Hon. Member succeeded in obtaining a
first reading he would oppose it in every future stage.
Mr. WARBURTON thought that nothing but mere sel-
fishness on the part of the agricultural gentlemen could offer
any opposition to the motion of his Hon. Friend.
Sir. E. KNATCHBULL denied the charge of selfishness
as it was made, and he felt quite satisfied that his disclaimer
would go quite as far with the country as the Honourable
Member's assertion.—( Hear, hear.) He must say that in his
opinion the present motion was a covert attack on the Corn-
laws, but he would not oppose it on that ground, but merely on
the facility it would afford for fraud.
Mr. P. THOMSON said that the motion was simply this,
that foreign corn should be ground in this country, under
lock, and the whole produce exported, for which bond was to
be given.—( Hear.) The Noble Lord who feared fraud
should recollect that a similar practice existed with respect to
many articles under the Queen's lock. Under the security of
that lock depended a great portion of the revenues of the
country. For tobacco, which paid a duty of 1,000 per cent.,
there was no security but the Queen's lock ; for sugar,
which paid 100 per cent., and for coffee, which also
paid a high duty, there was no other security.—(Hear,
hear, hear.) Now, if that lock could be picked as easily as
it was supposed, what must be the insanity of those who, hav-
ing the power, would use it in the case of corn, which only
paid a duty of 35 per cent., and would spare the tobacco,
which paid 1,000 per cent.? There were, in fact, many pro-
cesses of manufacture carried on at this moment under lock,
and no fraud was attempted, nor could be perceive the possi-
bility of fraud in the present instance. He would not give
the Bill his support unless every particle. of the corn was ex-
ported, even the bran.—( Hear, bear, hear.) He did not
anticipate from the measure the great benefits hoped for
by some Hon. Members, but still he thought its adoption
would be attended with some practical utility. A consider-
able change had taken place within the last four years in the
corn-markets of the United States. Those places formerly
supplied not only their home, consumption but exported
largely, whereas they had now become places of considerable
import. For the supply of the towns on the seaboard flour
only was available, as the mills for grinding were far up in
the interior ; and the Noble Lord opposite who had an objec-
tion to seeing large quantities of bonded corn in the Queen's
stores would consequently see that the proposed measure of-
fered great facilities for getting rid of that porn by providing

for its exportation in a manufactured state to America. But
there was another argument in favour of the measure, and that
was, the moral effect likely to be produced on the country by '
opposition to it. All agreed that the commercial classes
would, in some degree, be benefited by it; and the question
was, whether it would be worth while to stand up and refuse
that class the benefit for which they contended. Even now
there was a great feeling against the Corn-laws, but if other
measures were refused on the plea of preserving those laws that
feeling would be very much increased.
Sir JOHN RE ID trusted the Bill would receive the sup-
port of all parties.
Mr. LIDDELL, being quite convinced that the measure,
while it would greatly benefit the commercial and shipping in-
terests, would not in the slightest degree militate against those
of agriculture, would give it his support.
Mr. M. PHILIPS said that this was a measure of the
greatest importance to commercial persons, particularly to
shipowners. He did not profess to be acquainted with the
details, but he felt it his duty to support the principle.
Mr. A. C HAPNIAN did not think that any fraud could be
committed under the Bill. Twenty years' experience had
convinced him that no fraud could be committed with respect
to flour under lock.

Colonel SIBTHORP could not agree with the Hon. Mem-
ber behind him (Mr. Liddell), nor could he place the same
confidence in the Right Hon. the President of the Board of
Trade. Experience of the past had rendered him cautious
with respect to the future, and notwithstanding the sincerity
with which the Right Hon. Gentleman might adhere to his
views with respect to the fructifying nature of free trade prin-
ciple, he (Colonel Sibthorp) would not be induced to give
credit to his reasonings thereon.—( Hear, hear, and a laugh.)
He was opposed to the present Bill, because it would act as a
direct encouragement to the importation of corn, and this
would always hang over the heads of the farmers as a preven-
tive of cultivation.—(Hear.) There was something else in
the wind, and he would caution the House as to its trusting
any member of her Majesty's Government.—( Hear, hear.)
He had the greatest respect for the Queen, but the Queen
and the Queen's lock were two very different things.—( Hear,
hear, and laughter.) The Queen and Queen's Ministers were
also different things, in thought, word, and deed.—(Cheers,
and laughter.)
Colonel WOOD, if he thought the Bill would invade the
principles of the Corn Laws, would be one of the most for-
ward to oppose it ; but so far from doing this, it only carried
those principles into operation. The bulk of the article would
be one of the best securities against fraud, and all that the
agricultural interests could fairly ask was protection, so long
as a sufficiency of corn was grown in those dominions to pro-
vide for our home consumption.
After a few words from Mr. G. Palmer, Mr. Alderman
Thompson, Lord Worsley, and Mr. Plumptre,
Sir C. KNIGHTLEY considered the Bill a manoeuvre to
get rid of the Corn Laws, as, if he had any doubt that it was
so, the doubt would be removed by the support given to it by
Government, as lie did not believe them capable of supporting
any measure which was not opposed to the interests of the
agricultural classes.__( Cheers and laughter.)
Lord S ANDON should, though always friendly to the
landed interest, support the Bill.
Mr. W. ROC H E would not, as every precaution was taken
against fraud, negative the motion for leave to bring in the
Bill ; but, circumstanced as he was with his constituents, he
could not give it his active support.
Mr. P. HOWARD supported the Bill.
Mr. W. MILES thought it was better to allow the Bill to
be introduced.

Colonel RU S II BRO OKE had heard nothing calculated to
alter the opinions which he had previously entertained upon
this question. It should be remembered that there were many
rogues in grain—(" Hear, hear," and a laugh)—and in his
opinion this measure was a first blow against the Corn-laws.
Mr. VILLIERS admitted there were many rogues in grain
Renewed laughter)—and if he had previousy entertained
doubts as to that position the discussions upon this question
would confirm him. The measure in itself was a miserable
nibbling at a great principle : but as it might be productive of
some little good, while it could lead to no evil, he should give
it his support.
Colonel SE ALE briefly replied.
The House then divided—
For the motion ... 127
Against it

Majority 35
The House then resolved itself into Committee, the
Attorney-General in the Chair. The resolution that foreign
corn should be admitted to be ground under the Queen's lock
was agreed to pro for►na, and ordered to be reported ; and the
House resumed.
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill, which was
brought in accordingly.
ELECTION COMMITTEES.

Mr. O'CONNELL (who was next called for) said, that as
he had been asked by the Noble Lurd the Member for North
Lancashire not to bring on the motion Nhich steed in his
name in his absence, he should, therefore, postpone it, as the
Noble Lord was not then present.
INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT.

Mr. P. T HOM PSON moved for leave to bring in a Bill to
provide for international copyright. The object of the Bill
was to give to foreigners in this country the protection of the
copyright of their works, and to obtain the same for English
authors in foreign countries as much as possible. No one
could say that works of genius in literature should not be pro-
tected in the same manner as works of genius in the me-
chanical and industrial arts, and yet such was not the case.
No hardship was greater than that which authors of all
countries endured in this instance. It was with the view of
extending to that class of men of genius the same protection
which those of the classes alluded to alieady enjoyed that he
proposed to introduce this measure to the House. The Right
Hon. Member then quoted several cases in which authors in
this country had been deprived of the benefit of their genius
and; labour; in other countries by cheap pirated editions of
their works being printed and published abroad, and instanced
the works of Mrs. Trollope, Mr. Bulwer, Sir Walter Scott,
and Dr. Arnott in illustration of the fact. He also alluded
to the reciprocal piracy of England and the United States
in respect to the dictionaries of Dr. Webster and Dr.
Richardson, and stated that by means of the system neither
author received anything like a seasonable recompense for
the time, and labour, and ability he had expended on his re-
spective work. The want of some protecting law also led to
other evils—crime among the rest—for large sums were paid
over to the compositors employed in printing any popular new
work to pilfer the sheets, for the purpose of sending them to
America or Paris for piratical republication. One of the last
works of Sir Walter Scott, " Castle Dangerous," had been
pilfered in that manner, and the consequence teas that it ap-
peared in Paris, and even in America, before it was published
in London. What he meant to propose was, that the Crown
should have a power of making a convention, or entering into
a treaty, with any foreign Power for the mutual protection of
the copyright of authors, subjects of either, with a right of
fixing the terms of that treaty on a footing which should
equalise the protection in each. The Crown under the pro-
visions of the Bill was to have also a power of prohibiting the
introduction of spurious or pirated copies of any work printed
and published in any State with which the convention should
be made for an equal period of time as that State or country
should allow a term of copyright to authors of this country,
the maximum time to be fixed by the Legislature. The ma-
chinery for carrying those provisions into effect would be very
simple. When the Bill should be passed it would be the en-
deavour of Government to enter into treaties with other Go-
vernments for the purpose of procuring a reciprocal protection
for the works of British authors ; and from all he knew on the
subject he was quite satisfied that they would experience little
difficulty in coming to some effective arrangement.
Mr. D'ISR AEL I sympathised with the object of the mo-
tion, but he conceived that there would be many difficulties in
the way of ita success. He was of opinion that much might
be done towards securing it in America, but he thought that
it would be impossible from the prejudice of the trade to effect
it in Paris.

Sir R. INGLIS could not help thinking that the Govern.
ment would find a great deal of difficulty in carrying this mea-
sure into operation. The reciprocity at present was all on the
side of this country, and he was much afraid it would continue
so unless it could be distinctly proved to the other countries
in question that it was their interest to join in the matter. It
should, however, be recollected that even now the author of
a work has the power of securing the copyright in any other
country by sending over the sheets as they pass through the
press to be printed in that country.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that, in regard to the subject of
self-interest, it was clear from the reports on the subject that
no country had suffered more than France from the want of
such a protection as his Right Hon. Friend's Bill proposed to
give. In his opinion England would gain a very great ad-
vantage from the measure, as the accession of France to any
fair treaty founded on it could now be scarcely a matter of
question—there being such an advantage on the side of that
country proved to be involved in it. Some might consider
that there would be considerable difficulty in agreeing to a
convention, but it should be recollected that the subject had
already excited much attention in France, Germany, and
America. He believed that latterly Sir Walter Scott had
derived some advantage from sending out to America early
copies of his works, but the advantage was nothing more than
was derived from the sale of an early copy. He believed
that in America there was no remedy to provide against pi-
rated editions.
Lord MAHON had been informed by the late Sir J. Mac-
intosh, that when his" Histury of England" was printed in
Paris the French publisher suppressed the fact that the con-
tinuation of his history was by another and an inferior hand,
and which produced an impression unfavourable to this gen-
tleman. With respect to the question before the House, it
was a question how an existing evil could be redressed, and
he thought that their success depended much more upon ne-
gociation than upon legislation. He would wish to know
whether any negociation had been commenced with the United
States of America, whet.e he apprehended some difficulty. He
also apprehended some difficulty as to Germany with respect
to international copyright, for the several States themselves
did not appear to have as yet agreed upon any law of
copyright with respect to each other. He would not
pledge himself to the principle of the Bill, but when it was
introduced would be able to see whether he could give it his
support.
Air. WARBURTON had heard, from all who had spoken,
consideration exclusively bestowed upon the interests of au-
thors alone, but he thought that the interests of the reading
public were also to be considered. Piracy had the effect, as
he thought, of preventing authors and publishers charging
too high for their works. H. e thought the effect of the Bill
would be to establish an inquisitorial system. But if they
were to extend copyright to other countries it ought not to be
extended beyond the period for which it existed by law in this
country.
Mr. G 0 ULB URN thought that there would be great dif-
ficulties in the execution of the measure. Whatever doubts

he entertained as to the difficulty of carrying the law into
effect, he was anxious to see the Bill brought in, and, if
possible, to give more protection in this respect than existed
at present.
Mr. WA K LEY did not think there was any necessity to
interfere with the matter at all ; but if it was to be legislated
for, he would be happy to see a Committee appointed to in-
quire into the subject, and let them abide by the decision of
the Committee.

Mr. WYNN had great doubts as to the success of the mea-
sure, but was willing that the experiment should be made.
After a few words from Mr. HUME,
➢lr. P. THOMPSON said the consideration of the ques-
tion had been pressed on him by individuals engaged in lite-
rary pursuits, and, whatever difficulties beset it, he had en-
deavoured to grapple with those difficulties. With respect to
the United States of America he did not anticipate so much
difficulty as had been suggested, for the power to make regu-
lations with respect to copyright was vested in the general
Government. He did not either anticipate so much difficulty
as had been suggested with respect to France or Germany.
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
THE POOR-LAW COMMITTEE.
_ _

Mr. L A NGDAL E rose to move an instruction to the Pour-
law Committee, to inquire how far the Regulations of the
Poor-law Commissioners have been compatible with the in-
mates of workhouses attending their respective places of
worship on the Sabbath day, and to inquire and report how
provision may be made for securing to all such inmates the
power of attending divine service according to their respec-
tive creeds. His object in bringing forward the motion was
to secure to every poor man the right of attending his own
place of worship.
Mr. LUSHINGTON seconded the motion.
Lord J. RUSSELL would submit to the House that this
was one of the questions submitted to the Poor-law Committee
by their instructions, and that therefore any measure on the
subject was premature.
Mr. O'CONNELL would recommend his Hon. Friend to
withdraw his motion until the matter was investigated by the
Committee.

Mr. BROTHERTON had had several complaints from
unions of the difficulties thrown in the way of attendance at
lilac(' of worship,
After a few words from Mr. Blackstone, Lord J. Russell,
and Mr. Galley Knight,
Mr. LANGDALE withdrew his motion.

SHERIFFS IN ENGLAND AND WALES.
Colonel DAVIES moved for leave to bring in a Bill to re-
gulate th *office of High Sheriff in England and Wales.
Leave given.
ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS (IRELAND).
Mr. BARRON moved for leave to bring in a Bill to conso-
lidate the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts in Ireland.
The Report of the Commissioners stated that great irregula-
rities existed in these Courts, and he therefore hoped that
leave would be given to bring in the Bill.
Mr. G 0 UL BURN could not see the propriety of, or ne-
cessity for, the present measure, at least until the House knew
the intention of Government on the subject.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was rather inclined to agree with
the Right Hon. Gentleman, that it would be better to post-
pone any measure on the subject until the intentions of Go-
vernment were declared.
Mr. O'CONNEL L would recommend his Hon. Friend to
withdraw his motion ; it was one of too much importance to
originate anywhere but with the Government.
After a few words from Mr. LITTON and Mr. WOULFE,
leave was given to bring in the Bill.
CHURCH BILL.

Lord J. RUSSELL then rose to bring in a Bill for carry-
ing into effect with certain modifications the fourth report of
the Church Commissioners.

Sir R. INGLIS did not expect that a Bill of such import-
ance would be proposed by the Noble Lord within a quarter
of an hour of the period when the Hon. Member for Salford
( Mr. Brotherton) was in the habit of moving the adjournment
of the House.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the measure which he was about
to bring forward was one founded on the report of the Church
Commission appointed during the time that the Right Hon.
Member for Tamworth was at the head of the Govern-
ment. He had formerly brought forward a measure founded
on the report of that Commission, and the measure which he
was then about to lay before the House was somewhat
similar. The Bill would recite in the preamble the
whole of the report upon which it was founded.—( Hear.)
It might be said that the report could not be exactly called
the report of the Commissioners, and he admitted that there
were some slight alterations which had been adopted at
the sugges'ion of the Deans and Chapters, end of other per-
sons interested in preserving the property of the Church.
One of the chief alterations made was, that, instead of taking
away the patronage from the Deans and Chapters which they
at present enjoyed, it was reserved to them so long as any of
the body remained alive. The Commission came to an end
in consequence of the demise of the Crown, and he (Lord J.
Russell), by then being in a position to do so, proposed some
modification of the report. There were two points upon
which not additions but alterations were made. One of them
was that they proposed to increase the number of persons for
carrying the Act into effect, by giving the Crown the ap-
pointment of five others, three of whom were to be Church-
men. The next was to place some limit to the revenues of
Deans and Chapters, as was at present the case with respect
to Archbishops. For instance, any income of Deans being
over 2,0001. per annum, and of Canons over the sum of 1,0001.
per annum, should go to the augmentation of small livings.
These were the only alterations of any consequence; all the
rest of the Bill would be unfavourable to the recommendation
of the Commission. On the second reading he should be pre-
pared to go more fully into the question, and at present con-
tent himself by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.
After a few words from Sir R. Inglis, Messrs. G. Knight,
Wynn, Gladstone, Pease, Ormsby Gore, and Goulburn, leave
was granted to bring in the Bill.
POOR LAWS (IRELAND).
Lord J. RUSSELL begged of the Hon. and Learned
Member for Liskeard to postpone his motion with respect to
controverted elections, which stood on the paper for Friday
next, as he was anxious to bring on the Irish poor-law Bill
on that night, with the hope of carrying it through the House
before the holidays. He also wished to have the Noble Lord
the Member for North Lancashire present on the discussion of
the Controverted Elections Bill, as that Noble Lord was
known to take a strong interest in the measure.
We understood the Hon. Gentleman to consent to the
postponement.
To a question from Mr. L E FRO Y,
Lord J. RUSSELL replied that he should bring forward
the Church Bill which he had just introduced in about ten
days or a fortnight after Easter.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, the
House having been counted out at half-past Twelve.

HOUSE OF LORDS, MARCH 20.

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at
ten minutes past Five o'Clock.
On the motion of the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, the
Residence of Clergy Bill was reported with amendments, and
ordered to be read a third time on Thursday next.
The Bills on their Lordships' table were forwarded a stage.
The Marquis of SLIGO presented petitions from Ponte-
fract, Bungay, and Lowestoff, praying for the abolition of
negro slavery.
Lord ROSEBERY presented a petition from the United
Association Congregation of the city of Edinburgh, against
any further endowment to the Church of Scotland.
Earl WIN C HIL SE A presented a petition from the Pro-
testant inhabitants of Lambeth, complaining of the increase
of Popery both in this country and in the colonies--complain-
ing that in the colonies Roman Catholic institutions had
been established at the public expense, and that the prin-
ciples of our Established Church were more and more
menaced by the Roman Catholic priesthood, and praying that
immediate measures might be taken for the protection of our
Established Church against the assaults of Popery.
Tho Earl of RIPON presented a petition from certain
proprietors in the Island of Barbadoes, expressive of their
mortification that it should have been stated in their Lord-
ships' House, that the Bill relating to the Colonies, and which
was to be further considered on Thursday next, should have
been called for, in consequence of the Colonial Legislature
not having properly discharged their duties, under the provi-
sions of the Negro Emancipation Bill. They did not deny
the right of the Imperial Parliament—but they denied
that, in consequence of their conduct in Barbadoes, this,
which they regarded as a very strong measure, was at
all called for. They also gave an extract from a
dispatch received from the Noble Secretary of State
for ,the Colonies, some time since, in reply to certain
dispatches he had received, and in which he expressed his high
gratification at the manner in which the authorities in Barba-
does had discharged their duties. He (Earl Ripon) regretted
that his Noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies,
was not in his place at the time at which he presented this
petition.
Lord D ACRE presented petitions from Sheffield, Wel-
lingborough, in Northamptonshire, a place in Hertford, and
from Wooten-under-Edge, praying for the immediate aboli-
tion of Negro Slavery.
On the motion of Lord WHARNCLIFFE, certain re-
turns were ordered relative to the Canadas.
POOR LAWS (SUSSEX),
Lord WYNFORD presented a petition from Lewes, against
the New Poor-law Act, stating that crime had much increased
in the county of Sussex since the passing of that Act.
The Duke of RICHMOND said he did not know whether
the meeting, at which this petition was agreed to, was a large or
a small one ; it might be a large one, for at the last elec-
tion for Lewes there had been a very severe contest, and
the Poor-law had been made a grand " cheval de bataille."
In the Western division of the County there certainly had been
a more than usual number of offences ; but in the Eastern
division the Magistrates were of opinion that the increase
of crime had been owing to the suppression of smuggling,
which had thrown upon the country a great number of
men who were quite disinclined to work.--( Hear, hear.)
With respect to the western part of Sussex, he begged to as-
sure his Noble Friend that in 1886, on the 17th of February,
the number of persons in custody in the House of Correction
of Petworth was 105, and on the 17th of February in the
present year there were only 40. Much of that, he was
aware, might be attributed to the excellent system of
prison discipline carried on then, but still it was evident that
crime was much on the decrease in that part of the country.
It was evident, then, that the petitioners spoke of what they
really knew nothing about, and when they referred to the
state of crime they must have been alluding to the opera-
tion of the Poor-law Act in other parts of the country.
Lord WYNFORD said, it was very likely that crime was,
in some respects, diminished in that part of the country which
had the benefit of his Noble Friend's assistance, but, in the
other parts of it, it was decidedly increased. It was also de-
cidedly increased in Kent, in Dorsetshire, and, he might add,

tions.

in every part of the Kingdom, since the Poor-law Amendment
Act came into operation; for, by tho returns on their Lordships'
table, it appeared that there was an incre::se of 900 in each

of the last two years.
The Duke of RICHMOND explained.
Earl STANHOPE had petitions to present from dif-
ferent parts of the country, but they were all agreed
upon one point, and as the subject was of very consi-
derable importance, he hoped he might be permitted to
call their Lordships' attention to it. The first petition was
from AlMondsbury, in the West Riding of Yorkshire ;
and the petitioners stated that if the Poor-law were car-
ried into effect in that district, there would be no peace
in society, and no security for property—that it would
cause a wide breach between the rich and the poor, and
induce the latter, not without reason, to consider the
former as their most dangerous and deadly enemy. The next
petition was from Halifax, in the West Riding of Yorkshire.
He had also petitions from South Gloston, from Bradford,

and various other places in Yorkshire. Also from Todmorden,
Towerby, Rickston, Hulme in Manchester, and Huddersfield.
The Noble Earl then said that although he did not anticipate
that there could by any possibility be any opposition
to so unexceptionable a motion as that he had then

to bring under their Lordships' notice, yet he felt it
would be his duty to preface the motion with a few obserya-
.

As some -Noble Lords had stated that the New Poor

Law had been beneficial in its working, and that it had been

hailed as a boon by the people, it was incumbent upon him to
show that it was detested by all classes of the people. He
was thoroughly convinced, and he would endeavour to con-
vince their Lordships that it was not—could not be—accept-
able to the labouring classes of this country ; on the other
hand he would show that it must be looked upon with horror
by them in the fear that through misfortune they might
be obliged to seek relief under its provisions. The cri-
terion of the popularity or unpopularity of a measure
was to be found in the feelings of the people as
shewn by them in their petitions. From a report of a
Committee of the other House, he found that for a total
repeal of the Act, petitions had been presented with 201,000
signatures; for the repeal of clauses 3,000; and for the amend-
ment of the Bill 63,000 signatures, making a total of 269,000
persons who petitioned, either totally or specifically, against
the measure ; while, on the other hand, in favour of the mea-
sure, only 35 petitions had been presented, with 258 signatures.
The petition which he had had the distinguished honour to
present from the West Riding of Yorkshire was received
only as the petition of the individual Mr. William Stokes
who had presided at the meeting, though it spoke the
opinions of three hundred thousand independent Protes-
tants against the continuance of the greatest public grievance
which this country had ever been oppressed with. These pe-
titions were the more entitled to their Lordships' considera-
tion, and to be regarded as true, genuine, spontaneous expres-
sions of public opinion, inasmuch as this was a subject
upon which no religious enthusiasm whatever had been
excited, as in the case of the petitioners against negro
slavery—a subject with which no sectarian principles had
been mingled, as in the case of the petitions against the
Church-rates—a subject upon which no party politics had
influence, as in the case of the petitions for the Bal-
lot ; but on the contrary, persons of all political opinions—
and especially a subject upon which the Conservatives and
Radicals had united together with persons of every religious
persuasion, and cordially co-operated as in one common cause.
From whom did the petitions proceed in favour of the law ?
It was natural to suppose that some persons were benefitted
by the law, and it was, of course, quite a natural thing
for them to come forward to complain of any attempt
to prevent them from continuing to enjoy those benefits. Had
the labouring class of society, when the Poor-law had been in
operation, come forward to ask their Lordships to continue
and cherish that measure, as a measure which had established
their character and benefitted their families ? No such
petition had yet been presented, and their Lordships
could not expect that any such petition would ever be received,
though they should be waited for till the day of judgment.
Petitions had been presented by some of those who by a
strange misnomer had been called Guardians. Of whast were
they Guardians ? Not of the property—not of the poor,
—nor of the poorest of her Majesty's subjects, because
the money was expended by them, not according to their
own discretion, but according to the rules and orders issued by
the great dictators cf Somerset House.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
Petitions had not been so numerous against the measure,
because many parts of the country were in a degrading and
disgraceful state of intimidation. In Cambridgeshire and in
other counties the labourers had been threatened, that
if they atttended the anti-Poor Law meetings, they would
be deprived of their employment. No wonder that they pre-.
ferred avoiding the immediate and pressing evil, starvation, out
of the workhouse, than the contingent evil of imprisonment
within its walls I But if the ballot were adopted there would
be abundance of petitions signed against the Bill.—(Hear'
hear, and a laugh.) The Secretary at War (L°r",,
Ilowick) had said in the House of Commons,
there had been no burnings and riotings in the agriesti-
tural counties, in consequence of this Bill.—( Hear, beer.)
Was there no other proof of the existence of this distress and
discontent? Would no evidence be satisfactory to the
Noble
Lord and his colleagues, unless acts of violence and outrage
took place, and the peace of the kingdom was seriously endan-
gered ? If the Noble Lord and his colleagues had not the saga-
city to discover such symptoms, before such events took
place, he feared they would remain ignorant of the existence
of the disease until it became aggravated, and assumed a
form which they and others would find to be intolerable.
It had been said that all the agitation in the manufacturing
districts, and all the petitions which had proceeded from them,
had been got up by about a dozen individuals, who were
represented as not very respectable. He wished to know
whether those were respectable who encouraged and promot-ed
that senseless Bill, so acceptable to the Ministers of that day
—the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill—as, if the
new Reform Bill were the very perfection of hursan rea-
son, and the great masterpiece of human legislation, instead of
being on the other hand so unreasonable as well as unjust,
that it could not possibly long be allowed tq continue. Instead
of securing, as it ought to have done, a full, fair, and free
representation of all classes of the community, it gov°
a preponderating power to one class only—to the newly
created class of ten-pounders, and excluded the labouring
classes, who were the most numerous, the most meritorious,
as well as the most useful and valuable members of society;
but it was said they were not respectable. He (Lord S.) de-
tested every species of pride, and among others that
pride of purse, which disparaged a man because he was poor,
and considered wealth to be the best criterion of respectability.
With respect to those individuals with whom he (Earl Stan-
hope) had been in constant correspondence and comraunica7,
tion, he would say, that they were as eminently distinguished
by their talents, and the extent and variety of their informa-
tion, as by their patriotism and humanity. If he were to admit
the allegation of the Noble Lord, it would overset the whole
Noble Lord's argument, because if they did not possess ii?-
fluence or talent, would it be possible for these dozen indi-
viduals, who had agitated the manufacturing districts, to hale
produced such an effect, except the new Poor-law Bill Wag
known and felt in those districts to be an intolerable grievance ?
It was evident that her Majesty's Ministers were deceived as to
the operation of this Act, and he hoped, ere long, that the
voice of the country would make them say, and convince
them, that it had been most mischievous and fatal in its results-
Before the people of this country could quietly submit to
the New Poor-law, they must be made to believe that
tyranny and oppression were preferable to kindness and
humanity. He would not, on that occasion, say so much
as one word respecting the uncontrolled, and, he believed,
illegal tyranny of the triumvirate at Somerset House. Ho
would have another opportunity of stating his sentiments
upon that subject. Under the old law, a poor man had
to make application to his own neighbour—to one 'who
knew him, and was well acquainted with his character. Now
he was obliged to make his application to what was called s
relieving officer, residing at a distance, and one to whom he was
not known ; and therefore the poor labourer was obliged.
to lose very considerable time in making such application-
Ile was aware that some thirty or forty of their Lor:le
ships had condescended to accept the office of Chair-
man of the Boards of Guardians ; so far from
possessing real power—they had not even the shades',
of it—they had not even the power of giving such
diet as they pleased to their own poor. They were
obliged to adhere to the orders given them from Somerset
House ; and if they rebelled for a third time, they were liable,
Chairman and all, to be sent to the Treadmill. Under the
former system the labourer received speedy, if not immediate
relief. Under the present law, from the forms which it pre-
scribed, from the difficulties which it seemed studiously to in-
terpose in the way of applications for relief, he ( Earl Stan-
hope) knew in Suffolk in many cases a delay of ten days halt
occurred between the application for relief and the administra-
tion of the same. If, contrary to any reasonable expectatioeu
the labourer did not receive from the vestry the relief to wisilb
he was fairly and justly entitled, he could then appeal to the.
magistrate, but this the law now prevented, for under the-
present system the magistrates and vestries had both become:
mere nullities. The labourer, after going a considerable dis-
tance, might have at last obtained the favour of being admit-
ted into the prison of the Board of Guardians ; and here be
would refer to the county of Suffolk, not because he had any'
connection with it, either by property or residence, but be-
,
cause it was one of the counties in which, in some parts, tho
Poor-law was most harshly enforced. If he quoted his
authority, it would be one of the greatest weight with the
Noble Earl whom he saw on the cross benches. The gentle-
man was a considerable landed proprietor in :the county, con-
spicuous and generally revered for his benevolence, not OP-
posed in principle to the measure, but so disgusted with
the brutality with which applications were received, that.
he refused to attend the board of guardians. The poor la--
bourer might come and say, I have a sick wife, or I
have'
buried my wife ; but he was desired to be silent, and merely to
answer the questions asked him. This was the sort of justice
dispensed by the boards of guardians. Then if application
were made for out-door relief the guardians of the Triumvirate
at Somerset House, in their kindness and liberality, were gra-
ciously pleased to sanction the application, and might give re-
lief—but to what extent ? Seven pounds of flour per week, to
make into dumplings or hasty pudding, for the poor people
i
had no ovens to bake it in, and sixpence per week. II
a considerable number of unions, by the order of Somerset.
Ilouse, if this out-door relief were 'refused the labourer way-
to_ be imprisoned. That was an experiment which was to be
made on the unfortunate individual to try what was tlea
minimum of subsistence on which human nature could
exist, and what extent of suffering he was willing to un-
dergo, before he resigned his liberty and was willing to be-
come the inmate of a prison. What were the opinions ex-
pressed on this subject by the greatest Minister this country
ever saw—by a statesman who having steered the vessel of
the State with safety and in honour amidst a tempest unexam-
pled for its difficulty, danger, and duration, was justly &nom'.
nated " the pilot who had weathered the storm"—and, un-

like those pilots of whom many had been seen at different
seasons and on both sides of the House, by their policy to
raise storms which no other men had been able to quell?
The sentimets of that great man—he need not say that he
alluded to William Pitt--on the debate of Mr. Whitbread's
Motion, 1791, were as follows:—" No temporary occasion
should force a British subject to part with the last shilling of
his little capital, and compel him to descend to a state of
wretchedness from which he might never recover, merely that
be might be entitled to receive a casual supply." He would
again repeat, that these new workhouses were prisons in their
confinement—prisons in their discipline—prisons in their
privations—worse than prisons in the quantity and quality of
their food—and yet they were told by a Noble Lord (Hard-
Rieke) the Lord Lieutenant of the county of Cambridge,
whom he wished were present on this occasion—they were
told by that Noble Earl that the term prison was most im-
properly applied, and that they ought to have been termed
asylums for the poor. The Noble Earl might just as well
have said that Newgate and the hulks were asylums for eir-
minals. On this point he (Earl Stanhope) had authority—
the authority of the present Viceroy of Suffolk—not the
Lord Lieutenant of the county, but the present Viceroy—
the Assistant Poor-law Commissioner, Dr. Kay.—( Laugh_
ter. ) That gentleman said, " It is our intention to make these
workhouses as much like prisons as possible, and as uncom-
fortable as possible ;" and most strictly had that intention been
carried into effect. Everybody knew that the greatest aver-
sion existed towards these workhouses, and that they were
considered as the last and melancholy refuge to which the
labourer might ultimately be reduced by the extremity of his
distress and destitution, and this, he would contend, was a
sufficient answer to all those misrepresentations which were
current, that they encouraged idleness, and were places of
luxurious ease. They had heard of cruelty practised in bar-
barous ages and in remote and uncivilised countries ; but he
should wish to know in what period of history, ancient or
modern, sacred or profane—in what region of the earth, how-
ever barbarous or savage—the diabolical doctrine was ever
'before adopted and reduced to practice, that poverty was to
The treated as a crime ? Why were those to be thus treated
wile were disabled by the dispensation of Providence, and the
widows and orphan; who, having lost their husbands or fathers,
had__ become destitute and incapable of prqviding for themselves?
1-1 e was ashamed for the honour of his country that he was
obliged to ask the question. He should feel it impossible to
argue a matter which of itself was so repugnant to the common
sense and feelings of the country ; and here he must be allowed
to quote the opinion of the late Lord Eldon—a name which
he could never pronounce without the utmost veneration for
his profound learning, for his spotless integrity—( Hear)—and
withal, the deepest grief for his irreparable loss. The opinion
frequently expressed by that Noble and Learned Lord, as it
was known to a Noble Baron whom he saw in the House, and
to himself, was, " This is the most infamous Bill that ever
wee enacted in a Christian country"—( Hear)—a sentiment
which deserved to be written, not only in the hearts of their
Lordships, but of the whole country, and he knew, if the life
of his Noble and Venerable Friend had been spared—if it had
pleased Providence to restore to him even a small portion of
leis bodily strength—there was nothing on this earth which he
so earnestly wished as to appear again in that House, and with
that authority with which he always addressed the House, to
advocate the cause of the poor and wretched.—( Hear.) With
respect to the increase of crime the Noble Duke on the cross
benches (Richmond) wished to limit it to one division of the
County of Sussex ; but he (Earl Stanhope) could assure the
Noble Duke that the increase was general throughout the
county, and the fact was admitted by the Home Department.
The cause was, that the imprisonment in the workhouse was
worse than the imprisonment in a goal. He would call upon
their Lordship; to respect the rights of the labouring classes ;
but if this were not done the inevitable result would be, and he
stated it with pain and sorrow, the partition of property, which
when it was originally propounded at the period of the French
Revolution was considered so wild and frantic a chimera. He
tad thought it his duty to state to their Lordships the dangers
with which they were menaced. It was not too late to return,
bat it would be when the hurricane arose which would level
to the ground all the existing institutions of the country, and
spread anarchy and rebellion in every district. The Noble
Earl, in conclusion, would address to them the words used to
to prisoners at the bar, " God grant you a good deliverance ;"
and then moved "for a statement of the petitions presented to
this House during the last Session of Parliament on the sub-
ject of the Act entitled An Act for the amendment and bet-
ter administration of the laws relating to the poor in England
and Wales,' specifying the number of signatures to each, the
description of the persons from whom each petition proceeded,
whether owners or occupiers of land, ratepayers, inhabitants,
guardians, or others, and whether they were or were not as-
sembled at a public meeting held for the purpose of petition-
ing, the place or places from which each petition proceeded,
and the prayer of each petition, whether for the repeal of the
said Act, or for its amendment, or for its continuance, or for
what other purpose."
Lord B RO U G HAM said that the charges brought forward
by a Right Rev. Prelate the other night were more specific
than those which the Noble Earl brought forward, and having
piedged himself to answer them he should do so, at the same
time he could not help observing that they were selected with
skilfu; felicity to suit the occasions they were intended to an-
swer, being introduced at the time when men were not pre-
pared to meet them. When, however, men came forward
Prepared to meet and repel those charges, what was done ?
Zbl, they dealt in generalities, and left nothing tangible to
Y hold of in fact, stated no one circumstance which
°°sl:d be either met or repelled.--( Hear, hear.) When he
entered public life he was one of those who lamented the
state of gross ignorance in which the poor, the working
classes, had been so long involved, and whose unremitting
endeavours were to improve their condition, both physically,
Morally, and religiously. At first their efforts were vain, and
some of the best friends of the poor doubted very much
Whether their attempts were not productive of more harm
than good. Every step they took they were met by the de-
znoralising and depaupering effects of the system of poor laws
tflen in existence. To the abuses of the system the friends of
the poor directed their attention, and he was one of those who,
in 1817 and 1818, endeavoured to ascertain its defects, with a
view to the eradication of the bad and the retention of the
good. In 1832 a Committee of Inquiry was agreed to on the
subject. That inquiry was prosecuted with this view, and it
was with this view that the measure in question was ultimately
carried through Parliament.—( Hear, hear, hear.) If, instead
°f being a benefit to the poor, the measure inflicted misery on
them—if, instead of promoting peace, it had excited rebellion
-if the new system were incomparably worse than the old—
then he would admit fully and frankly that great and mighty
had been the failure of its promoters—that their legislative
and administrative labours had been in vain. But was this the
ease, or could it be said that the measure had not been suc-
cessful? He cared nothing about big words, or where they
Were used, or whether they were employed sparingly or eco-
Imonmically ; but this he would say, that, regardless of vitupera-
ti, without proof to that effect he would not believe there
Were grounds for the complaints that the New Poor Law Act
Was a failure—that it did not tend to raise the character as well
43 to increase the comforts of the poor. It was not his inten-
tion to follow the Noble Earl throughout his speech, and
with respect to one-half of it he did not hesitate to assert that
it would do just as well for the preamble of a speech on any
other subject as on that of the New Poor-law Amendment
a rt•—( A laugh.) It reminded him of the two prefaces of
:s.llust, one to the history of a six weeks' conspiracy, and the
her to that of a two months' war, but both so perfectly ge-
neral that they would do just as well for a work of any other
kind, or on any other subject, as those to which they were pre-
-I,_°l,•—( A laugh.) Then came the matter which the Noble
had more immediately in hand. lie had expected that
tsus Noble Earl mould have brought forward charges so de-
npt.sed that they could either be fairly met or at all events ex-
plained away; but had he done so? Now, what had the
Noble
Earl done? Why, instead of specific charges, he only
treated their Lordships to the part of a series of discourses or lectures--lectures which enabled him to appear in the double
e,a!Praeity of lecturer and founder.—( A laugh.) The Noble
I never went so far as to say that this was an illegal
Act._(" Hear, hear," from Earl Stanhope.) Now, he
understood what a bad, a criminal, an oppressive Act
Was, and had done his best on many occasions
to resist such Acts —he understood, too, what an
Unconstitutional Act was. It was an Act contrary to the spirit
of all other Acts—opposed to the principles of the Consti-
tution—but an illegal Act was, he must candidly acknow-
ledge, a matter that passed his comprehension. A law might
be bad, but surely that which was law could not be illegal,
and, consequently, as the New Poor Law Act, without refer-
ence to the question whether it was good or bad, was law, the
Noble Earl had nothing to complain of on the score of its
legality.—( A laugh.) He (Lord Brougham)hoped that he
should he able to satisfy their Lordships that there was nothing
tyrannical or oppressive—that there was nothing either novel,
Actor unheard-of—in the powers conferred by this
Act. He could point out fifty other Acts which gave much
sore extensive powers to Commissioners, and as instances
of this kind he might mention the Oxford Act, as well as
the Acts relating to the parishes of St. Andrew's, Holborn,
and St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, in every one of which not only
were larger powers given to the Commissioners, but they were
appointed, not for a term of years, but for the whole term of
their natural lives.
_ Earl STANHOPE—But these Commissioners were to be
appointed by the rate-payers.
ra Lord BROUGHAM—Yes ; •but though chosen by the
Du
the Noble Earl forget (the Noble and Learned Lord con-
uel) that the Boards of Guardians under this Act were
Welted by the rate-payers? The Poor-law Commissioners
sec, e not appointed for life, but for five years only ; and con-
sequently, unless the Act were renewed in another year, their
!,s would cease. Nothine, therefore, could be less hide-
:Zin_s6.ent than the position of these Commissioners. The Com-
csss
,luoners, it should be recollected, were answerable for their
P7i.a et, not only to the Crown by whom they had been ap-
Eoued, but also to Parliament and the public. And the
tsreasrds of Guardians were chosen by persons who had an in-
bo;_t in the proper management of the parochial funds. The
sers co.
The nseuentl vestd eithe in the Commissioners or in
Boards of Guard anse r by this Act, were exercised under
abuser
control ; and, therefore, sufficient guarantee against
for
was provided. If there had been any just grounds
tabsetrcaoimiltdfaints which the Noble Earl had urged, there
abua ceedine
of pro s@ straightforward, manly, coostitutional, and
.legal mode
open to him. He might state the instances of
sic), e that IQ occurred whether on the part of the Commis-
eie,:rs, the Boards of, Guardians, the Assistant Commis-
corn 8, or the Relieving Officers, and then have moved for a
yen oath of Inquiry, before which witnesses could be heard
oath for and against the charges. Now, with respect to
ekes Precedented powers (as they were called) which the
„ee gae, all hecould •ae that the manner in which they
eere exercised
say
tallodvve_a.:!t: was open to the country, patent to Parliament,
es which v‘s,upervi given by the Oxford Act ? That Act

enabled the parties not only to take up beggars, but also to
take up distressed persons. Nay, it went farther, and said
that they might be kept at work until they had reimbursed the
pai ish all these expences, or, in default, be sent to the House
of Correction, and there put to hard labour for a period of 30
days. This was not all—imprisonment was too moderate a
punishment ; and, therefore, a power was given by it to whip
the parties three times during the period, or every ten days.
The Poor Law Amendment Act contained no such power,
and vet it was said that its provisions were unprece-
dented. It was stated, to be sure, that obliging able-
bodied men to take pot-luck in the workhouse was an unheard-
of thing ; but he asked whether it was at all compatible with
the powers given by the Oxford Act. By the Oxford Act
not only were the authorities empowered to take up beggars,
but they were required to search for distressed persons, to
break open their doors, as if poverty was a quasi crime, and
compel them to go into the workhouse.—( Hear, hear.)
Under the Gilbert Act, passed, he believed, in 1782, Mr. Hall,
an Assistant Commissioner, on going into a workhouse, found
the paupers walking about in fetters, and, on inquiry, was told
they were treated as felons, because it was necessary to pre-
vent their breaking bounds and running away. Nothing of
this kind could happen under the present law ; and if the
Gilbert Act permitted such proceedings, could it, he asked,
be said that the powers of the Poor-law Amendment Act were
unprecedented? He (Lord Brougham) contended that there
was not a single harsh or oppressive power given by it, and
lie would add that much misrepresentation prevailed on the
subject of out-door relief. It was untrue that the Com-
missioners had ever prohibited out-door relief ; on the con-
trary, it was continued by them in all cases where the reliev-
ing officers saw fit to give it. An exception to this was un-
doubtedly made in the case of able-bodied workmen. It had
been found that, in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred so
far from seeking employment they avoided it ; and, therefore,
it was deemed requisite that relief should be afforded to them
in the workhouse only. If a party were incapable of
work from disease, mal-formation, or other circumstances,
out-door relief was afforded, and that principle had been
extended to cases where an able-bodied man had children la-
bouring under some natural infirmity, such as deafness,
dumbness, or blindness. In all such cases an equitable con-
struction was put upon the Act, and the parties were dealt
with in the same manner as the aged and the infirm. Had he
(Lord Brougham) not therefore a right to complain of this
foul misrepresentation, when, in point of fact, it appeared that
out-door relief was denied to no one who was fairly entitled
to it ? He would pass over the question of medical relief,
and reserve himself until the Noble Earl brought the subject
forward. He had heard of no complaints from the poor
themselves with respect to it. Complaints had proceeded
from the medical men alone, who seemed more sensitive on
'the subject than their patients. Those who had attended to
the working of the present system would admit that the poor
were never better attended to than now : but it was perfectly
true that the medical men could no longer draw money
without doing the work for which they were paid. And
he did udt hesitate to say that medical relief was
much better under the new than under the old system.
—( Hear, hear, hear.) He knew, also, that large and liberal
allowances of meat and wine were made in all cases where
there was a necessity for generous diet ; and therefore he
thought the new law was a great improvement, and materially
contributed to the comforts of the poor. He would now give
their Lordships some other samples of charges that had been
made against this measure. A gentleman (whom he would
name if necessary), a Clergyman of the Established Church,
had been named as baying stated a melancholy story of the
mal-treatment of a poor cripple in a workhouse. The conse-
quence of this was that a letter was addressed to him by the
Commissioners, calling upon him to say where it was that such
mal-treatment had taken place, and expressing their anxiety
to have the case investigated. To that letter no reply was
condescended to be given--( Hear)—reasonable as was the
request it contained.
Earl STANHOPE here interrupted the Noble and
Learned Lord, and said that the Gentleman alluded to was
the Rev. Mr. Bull, the Rector of a place the name of which
we aid not catch, and that he (Earl Stanhope) could show
the Noble and Learned Lord the Reverend Gentleman's an-
swer to the letter in print.—( Hear. )
Lord BROUGHAM said that the Commissioners, then,
knew nothing of such answer having appeared. Be that,
however, as it might, there was another case he would men-
tion to their Lordships of a most gross charge against the
working of this Bill. A general officer, representing a town
in Lancashire, had been said to have charged a Board of Guar-
dians, of which he was himself too a member, with great in-
discretion in the exercise of their functions. They (the
Guardians) wrote to the Gallant Gentleman, stating that he
had been mentioned at a meeting at the Crown and Anchor
Tavern as having made this charge, and begging to be in-
formed more particularly as to the nature of it. They natu-
rally considered him bound to explain the charge, and them-
selves equally bound to call upon him to do so. But what
was the reply of the Gallant Gentleman to that application?
He said that he must decline entering into any explanation
upon the subject, for it would be an endless task if he were to
attempt to give explanations of all his objections to the new Poor
Law. But this General Officer might have at least conde-
scended to state his objections to the manner in which the
measure was administered with reference to his own neighbour-
hood. With reference to many of the charges made in News-
papers, it was well known how Newspapers refused to state
the authority upon which they were made. Their prac-
tice was to say that he had received the information from a
correspondent on whose veracity they placed implicit confi-
dence, and, if more strongly pressed upon the subject, they
made an apology, stating that they were very sorry, and had
been misinformed.—(A laugh.) The Noble and Learned
Lord then read a statement from a paper, which, he said, was
thus headed, " Horrible atrocities of the new Poor-law," and
it went on to state that " one Gentleman, a Clergyman, had
told a neighbour that a friend had told him that two gentle-
men at Cambridge:had.told him—(Laughter)—that in a work-
house at Cambridge, where a labourer, his wife, and children
were confined, they being at last worn out with confinement,
or tested,' as it had been called, and thinking that it would
be better to be half-starved with their liberty than in a prison,
the man said that he and his wife would go out of the work-
house, but that on his applying to do so the answer he met
with was, You can't take your wife out, for we buried her
three weeks ago.'"—( Cries of hear, hear, and a laugh.)
Isquiry, however, had been made with reference to
this charge, and the result was, that it did not relate to Cam-
bridge at all—( Hear, hear)—that it was communicated to a
person at Huddersfield by a person who had it from his brother,
residing at a place near Huddersfield, and who had him-
self been in the house of the man who had so told it to his
brother, and who had also said that he knew nothing at all
about it—( A laugh)—that this person told it to Mr. Oastler,
and Mr. Oastler told it at the Crown and Anchor. Such,
then, was the sort of evidence on which this measure was to
be condemned.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble and Learned
Lord then read a statement from a paper of words which he
said had proceeded from the lips of a Clergyman—a Clergy-
man, he was bound to say, not of the Established Church—
( Hear, hear, from the Right Reverend Benches)—but at
all events, one who had a considerable influence in the place,
of which the following are some of the leading contents :
After saying that " it Magna Charta had been passed with-
out blood it should be re-instated without it," this Clergy-
man went on to say that " sooner than adopt the New Poor
Law Bill, he would light up the tocsin of anarchy."—
( Great laughter.) How that was to be done he (Lord
Brougham) was at a loss to know.—(A laugh.) He then pro-
ceeded to say that " be would plunge a dagger into the bowels
of the Bill"—( Laughter—" that he would never pay any
taxes towards such a Bill"--( Hear)—" that if it was to pass
into a law he for one would become an outlaw"—( Hear)—
" that if Parliament did not pass both Bills, then the cry
should be, down with the mills.' "—( Hear.) ." If they re-
ceived this Bill then they must give up the Bible—( Hear)—
for that the devil himself was not more opposed to Almighty
God than was this Bill to the word of God."—( Hear, hear.)
" In my town of Ashton," continued this Divine—and he
(Lord Brougham) well knew the town of Ashton-under-Lyne,
where the population was of very excitable materials, and a
place, moreover, where the poor law was most unpopular, be-
cause it was the least known—( Hear)—" in my town of Ash-
ton, as soon as March comes, we have determined on the
course to be pursued. Let any man dare to allow himself to
become a guardian under this Bill ; it shall be eye for eye
and tooth for tooth.' "—( Hear.) Why it was enough to make
their Lordships' blood run cold—( Hear)---to hear language
such as that proceeding from the mouth of a Minister of the
Gospel—( Hear, hear)—and addressed, too, to those who knew
nothing of the measure referred to except through such com-
munication—( Hear)—to a population over which his influence
must naturally be great. Another individual had called the
Commissioners " Cerberuses and Devil-Kings"—( A laugh)
—and then came another, who said that " rather than disgrace
himself by petitioning what was called the Parliament—
( Hear)—in favour of such a Bill he ought rather to bring the
Parliament down on their knees before the meeting he was
addressing, and, with a pistol in one hand and a petition in
the other—( Hear, hear, hear)—compel them to repeal it." If
such, then, was the language held both by priest and layman,
he (Lord Brougham) must say that, while he respected the
feelings of the people for not lifting up a hand to break the
law—while he placed the utmost reliance on their good con-
duct—he was sure that it was not because there had been
wanting those who had tempted them to break the law—( Hear,
hear)—but because he thought the people more honest and
more intelligent than those who misled them.—( Hear, hear- )
The Noble and Learned Lord then said (referring to the indi_
duals alluded to) that he hoped these men had had their day.
The charges they had made had been confuted as soon as
made ; and one thing he would say in favour of the measure,
that of all those scenes which five years ago had wrung the
hearts of the framers of it, none were any longer heard of.—
( Cheers.) He heard no more of persons refusing to labour,
because the parish allowed them three and sixpence a week for
living in a state of idleness—(Cheers)—idleness it was called,
but it was living upon three and sixpence paid by the parish out
of the hard earnings of the " sweat of the brow" of the indus-
trious poor, who worked to support the idle in riot, pillage,
and fraud. He saw no longer such instances as 240 labourers
in one parish besieging the parish officers—and why . Because
9
they would not have the parish allowance without working for
it.—( Hear.) Ile heard of no such cases now as that of one
honest woman who, in a certain parish, was the only indivi-
dual who did not claim relief, until hunger and starvation
compelled her to do so.—(Hear, hear.) Under the old sys-
riliviaelar.) Wages were separated
curse was deeply felt under
ft
reornm everything
labour,
ao
dwma sa
oc.vs Ip.
it. It was destructive of man's peace, it was the parent of
idleness, and opened the door to every species of profligacy
and crime. The Noble Earl ( Stanhope) had told them to
look at the fruits of the new system ; these were the fruits of
the old.—( Hear.) The Noble Lord then concluded a most
eloquent speech by demanding a cessation of those attacks and
abuses which were made against the measure, which he main-
tained were base, foul, and injurious calumnies. " As you re-

I fuse," said the Noble Lord, "the Government and the Boards
the evidence to support the charges you Lring against them,
at least do not proceed to pass judgment upon them when they
know not of what they are accused.—( Hear.) Less than
justice you cannot give, and more than justice I do not pre-
tend to ask."—( Cheers. )
The Earl of ST RADBR OK E rose and read papers to show
that the accusation was not true that crime had increased since
the passing of the Poor-law Amendment Act.
Lord W YNFORD hoped it was not true that any Commis-
sioner had expressed himself in the terms that :lad been stated as
to making workhouses as like prisons as possible. As to the
statement which he had himself made on a former occasion as to
the increase of crime, he could only say that he took that state-
from the documents of the Secretary of State, and which
showed an increase of crime in the various counties of
England of nine hundred. He did not approve of the
meetings held in different parts of the country against the
Poor Law Bill, for although he disapproved of many provi-
sions of the Bill he believed that generally it produced great
benefit. He thought the Government ought to put down
those meetings, for the proceedings at some of them were
little short of high treason. He believed the poor in the
woi khouses were better off than the peer out of them. The
Poor Law Act was, however, more capable of abuse than any
other public Act which his Noble and Learned Friend oppo-
site could refer to. The Commissioners had in fact the power
to repeal an Act of Parliament, which no other set of men
ever had given them. The Act was in some of its provisions even
worse as regarded the poor than Gilbert's Act. The able-bodied
poor were not allowed to go out of the workhouse without a
three hours notice, although he denied that there was any right to
detain them five minutes. With respect to the bastardy clause,
he thought that ought to be immediately repealed, as it led
to the most frightful extent of infanticide. In the eastern
division of the county of Sussex one out of every ten ille-
gitimate children born had been murdered since the in_
troduction of this law. All this was capable of proof, and
ought to be inquired into. He was quite convinced the bas-
tardy clause ought not to be continued. He should take an-
other opportunity on a special motion for stating his opinion
on other parts of the Bill. He had seen it stated in some of
the newspapers that a family of paupers had applied to be
taken into a workhouse, and that being refused they were left
to the inclemency of the weather. This ought to be inquired
into. If true, it ought to be exposed ; and if not true it
ought to be contradicted. In another instance, people had
been sent by the guardians into a workhouse where a fever
raged, and the only inquiry instituted was by the guardians
themselves.
Lord BROUGHAM—Where was that ?
Lord WYNFORD—In the union of Bridgewater. These
were matters that should be strictly inquired into, for unless
they were, the abuses of the Act would altogether prevent the
good working of the beneficial parts of the enactment.
The Earl of STRADBROKE said a few words in ex-
planation.
gs
the
ag) n whoo
beenai
adg ua workhouse,
The Duke of RICHMOND felt himself called upon to say
d
a few words on a matter chiefly personal to himself, and which
was no less unpleasant to him to speak of than irksome to their
Lcrdships to hear. He did not generally read newspapers on
this subject; but in the Times he had seen a letter published
from a Mr. Rogers, of Devonshire-place, to which it was ne-
cessary he should make some allusion. Who Mr. Rogers was
he neither knew nor cared ; but he did consider it a gross
abuse on the part. of the editor of the Times to admit that
letter, and follow it up with the comments he had inserted.
fever
. educatedsa t s
hTrisalas
doing
odd questionednohtgi
nhtehearsehnoe
had
army,;
hds
Mr. Walter had moved for a Committee to inquire into the
in
working of the Poor-law Bill, and had brought forward a
woDfoumkheaenro f
cnhßai
dc ehr demn Lnia
b toou
nl t
enteredoas, hisnitoi
dsfs (otttmhhh
dideee
an-
swerhous Guardiansewaats
,the
thatt
mb ee remonstratedhw
not fear infection. The woman in her evidence stated that
she had applied to him to allow her to go 'out of the house,
and his answer was that she must
and that the living should not go out without the dead. " I
protest, on my honour," said the Noble Duke, with much
warmth and energy, " I never said anything of the kind."—
(Cheers.) He did not expect, notwithstanding this disavowal,
that either Mr. Rogers or the editor of the Times would do
him the justice to believe his denial ; but he did expect that
the editor of the Times would put in the answer of another
witness, namely, that of the Clergyman of the parish. He
was particularly astonished at the conduct of the Noble Earl
to his tenant, Mr. Barrett, a farmer of irreproachable con-
duct, and highly esteemed in the county of Kent. It ap-
peared that he sent to him to say that as he had abandoned his
duty to the country, by becoming a member of the Board of
Guardians, he should cease to be his tenant. He had de-
clared that he would never attend a meeting of Guardians him-
self, stigmatised those who did as inhuman, expelled them his
estate, and then, turning to their Lordships, bade them observe
how few petitions there were in favour of the amended law.
If he (the Duke of Richmond) were a tenant of the Noble
Earl, and were asked after such a warning to sign a petition
in its favour, he should say, " The Bill is a good Bill; but I
beg to be excused signing a petition that will expose me to
such a re-action." The Noble Earl wished them to return
to the days of stone breaking on the roads by gangs of vaga-
bonds, and of roundsmen, when the men whom they demo-
ralized in the gravel pits by day were found to be the active
agents in the attacks on the farm-houses and thrashing mills
by night, till scarce one of the latter was left in the district.
He (the Duke of Richmond) declared that he knew many in-
stances in which out-door relief was given to idiot-children
and sick wives at the present day, by Boards of Guardians,
much more freely than under the old system, and if his Noble
Friend would only venture to visit the workhouse in his own
district he should have a pass to enable him to get out safely
as soon as he pleased—( Laughter)—he would find very con-
vincing instances of the fact. By consulting their books he
found. that while only 230 paupers had been relieved in a spe-
cifis d time within the workhouse 610 had received out-door
relief, so that the Noble Earl should not take upon him to say
that the present law was worse than the old one. He be-
lieved his Noble Friend was acting conscientiously in this
matter, but he knew that he was also acting very injuriously.
Lord COLCHESTER said that any one who knew the
Noble Duke must be convinced that the charge against him
was groundless. He believed the Bill to be good in prin-
ciple, but it had not in practice been beneficial to the extent
anticipated.
The Bishop of CHICHESTER regretted that the Noble
and Learned Lord (Lord Brougham) should have, in stating
his charge against the Clergyman alluded to, 'asserted that
the!, were other Clergymen who would say the same. He
regretted that the Noble Duke should also have uttered the
same insinuation. There were above 10,000 Clergymen, be-
sides Dissenting Clergymen, in connection with these national
arrangements for the relief of the people liable to these unjust
charges—charges which would not only distress them but the
people under their ministry, who habitually sympathized with
them. They had received the new Bill as law, and as such
had endeavoured to give it the best effect.
Lord BROUGHAM explained that he did say that other
Clergymen had made similar charges, but he did not say that
they had made them in similar violent and exciting language.
The Marquis of BUTE said if it was intended to give the
poor man a power of appeal it ought to be given him at once.
The present state of things was a mockery. He was aware
of a case in which the Commissioners were applied to, to take
some of the children of poor labourers into the workhouse.
This the Commissioners refused, and, in his opinion, most in-
correctly and illegally, for nothing in the amended law took
away the right conferred on the poor labourer by the 35th of
George 111. to claim that species of relief for his family.
Viscount MELBOURNE expressed his cordial concur-
rence with the view taken of the subject by the Noble Lords
on his right hand (Lord Brougham and the Duke of Rich-
mond). The Noble Earl opposite ( Earl Stanhope) claimed
for the petitioners high immunities from party feelings, and
prejudices, and interests; but he would put it to the House
whether (after all that had been said on it) there would really
be any use in pursuing the subject any further ; and thereby
imposing the trouble and incurring the expense he contem-
plated ?
Earl STANHOPE replied—He did not tell his tenant—
" You shall leave the farm;" but he admonished him to take
care that the odium and re-action he was likely to draw upon
himself did not lead to injurious results with respect to their
joint property in the land, buildings, and stock. He was
charged with not having attended boards of guardians He
could not do so. He was not a magistrate, as he would not
be an instrument to carry into execution laws from the wisdom
and justice of many of which he entirely dissented, as he did
from this law. Neither had he been elected a guardian, and
consequently he could not attend at any of their boards. The
tumults and outrages which occurred in 1830 were the result
of the distress produced by the contraction of the currency,
and could not be attributed to the Poor laws.
After a few words from Lord BROUGHAM and Lord Witaes-
CLIFFE,
The motion was put, and negatived without a division.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

On Sunday, Mrs. Child, a lady living at Home-
hill, Camberwell, whose intellects have been for some time
impaired, contrived to elude the vigilance of her family, and
escaped from home. She afterwards proceeded to Waterloo-
bridge, from the balustrades of which she precipitated herself
into the river. She was observed by a waterman, who imme-
diately put off in a wherry from the shore, and rescued her,
but owing to iser long immersion in the water, there are but
faint hopes of her recovery.
One night, in the early part of last week, as the
trawl boats of Messrs. Wilson, of Whitehaven, were out fish-
ing about mid-channel, the men on board were suddenly visited
by hundreds of winged voyagers, who buzzed about their cars,
and seemed resolved to abide by them whilst pursuing their
hardy toil. The strangers settled on the decks in hundreds,
and many suffered themselves to be caught. They were larks.
These blythe songsters are occasionally driven from the Scot-
tish to the English side of the channel in great numbers, and
it is presumed that the flocks we speak of, inspired by a natu-
ral instinct to seek their native shore, and tempted by a fa-
vouring breeze, had been on their way across the Firth, when
arrested in their flight by the shifting of the wind, with which
they had buffetted till the shacks of night had closed upon
them. Left thus forlorn amidst darkness and mists, they had
been attracted by the light hoisted on the masts of the trawl
boats, and had there sought a resting-place. The fishermen
brought a few into Whitehaven on the following morning ;
but of the hundreds who a second time ventured on their
pathless way," doubtless the greater part would perish in
the deep.
On Saturday the 3d inst., the Rev. Hugh Williams,
I. A., of Llandaff, was collated by the Rev. Richard Pritchard,
B. D., by commission from the Lord Bishop of Llandaff, to
the valuable vicarage of Bassaleg, near Newport, Monmouth-
shire, vacant by the death of the Rev. Thomas Leyson, M. A.
—Bristol Gazette.