The Sun.
London, England, 1838-04-10 00:00:00

that there could, have, been any expectation that a letter,
which had been addressed to 900 persons would be kept a se-
cret. It was not so kept,.. but had been published in almost
every newspaper in the country. The object of that letter was
twofold. In the first place, he was desirous to do justice to
the parties ; and secondly, he was desirous to do justice to
the objects of the inquiry. He put it to the Members of the
Committee in what state would their proceedings be but for
this circular, and the information which was thus laid be-
fore them ? He had endeavoured beforehand to get the
best evidence for them. It was, he admitted, prima facie;
but the Committee looked upon it in that light ; and whene-
ver it appeared to furnish grounds for further inquiry, the
Committee determined that that course should be taken. The
Hon. Member had imputed motives, he would not howe-
ver venture to impute motives to him. They had had a
lesson read on that subject this evening-4A laugh)—and he
would not venture to touch on anything that might appear a
case of privilege. The Hon. Member had ventured to antici-
pate an earlier close of the session than he (the Chancellor of
the Exchequer) felt himself justified in anticipating ; but
whatever might be• the period at which the session should
close, the Committee would be able to bring their report-to a
close before the termination of the session. The Hoe. Mem-
ber.had said that he had expected a majority of the cases to be
such as, upon inquiry, to turn out so unfounded as to warrant
their entire rejection. He would not contradict his assertion ;
he had no right to contradict his assertion ; but he would chal-
lenge the Hon. Member to meet him on that point when the
evidence should be published, and he certainly did not fear the
result. With respect to pensins he was bound to say that the
promises made by the Government bad been kept. None of
these pensions had been granted since the commencement
of her 'Majessy'sreign. The Committee had recommended
that the payment he now proposed should take place, because
it would be unjust to those parties—to those who had the
greatest claims from services, and to many who were in dis-
tress, to withhold from them the fulfilment of those claims.
If he were at liberty to refer to many of those cases it would
be seen that it would be the height of cruelty and injustice to
withhold from those this money, to enable them to meet those
engagements many of which had been contracted on the faith
of these pensions. In conclusion he would confidently appeal
to the Members of -the Committee both with respect to the
proceedings of the Committee, and of the conduct of the Go-
vernment with regard to those proceedings.
Mr. HUME felt bound to say that the only regret he had
respecting the proceedings of the Committee was that his
Hon. Friend the Member for Southwark was not a Mem-
ber of that Committee, because he hid no doubt, from the
attention he had bestowed upon the subject, he would have
been a valuable-assistant in the inquiry. With respect to the
conduct of the Government, he was bound to say that, but
for the assistance the Committee had derived from the infor-
mation that had been afforded them, they could not have en-
tertained a reasonable hope of being able to close their
labours even next year. With respect to the report of the Com-
inittee he believed that theyivould be able to finish in a day
or two at least with respect to the first class of cases, and be-
forp the House met after "the holidays the Chancellor of the
Exchequer would be able to obtlin additional information.
.As the circular letter hid beenirierltioned, he felt bound to say
that as they had not the parties before them to be examined
it 'lVas impossible to have better framed a series of - questions
to meet a variety of cases. He was quite sure that the Com-
mittee we by no means desirous to continue any burthens
on the public only so far as mightiberconsistent with Cho well-
founded and just claims'of the parties concerned. He was as
'anxious as any one to see the claims of those parties inquired
into, but-he was Also anxious to avoid doing injustice.
Mr. HA W,E S was bound to say that the inquiry had been
conducted with perfect fairness, and all the information asked
for had been willingly and readily furnished. As to bringing
forward before that Committee any person in receipt of a
pension to be- examineet.the thought -such such proceeding would
be an act of wanton cruelty. His Hon. Friend had,used
language which- was &I—justifiable "in calling the Committee
a cheat and a delusion. Whatever delusion existed he must
say it bad been created by his Hon. Friend the Member. for
Southwark, who had held out expectations on the subject
which, from what, he kneri- or the nature of those cases, he
w_apboutid to say the Hon. Member could never have expected
f 6 realise. _
rc
Mr. P. Hovratell,Mr. Warburton, -and Mr. S._ O'Brien
concurred in the ex i tranietor of- a wish that that the Honour-
able. Menaher for Southwark should be placed upon the CCtni--
mittee.
Mr. J. WOOD' said if the Hen. Member was proposed
to be placed on the Committe he would vote for him being so
placed.; but he would-advise the Honourable Member not ttr,Y
consent to 4im'Ejeg hein4pl.ced on an-unjust inquiry.
After a few.vvojdk.f;on'Mre.-tXNUI) A LE,
1!(1-r. H.V.M`E wiphed. to *ALF Ai; fitinourable Member oppo.
site to wfiont.,the inqairy pes„utijust, whether to the public, or
the parties ?
„es • •
Mr. J. WOOD—It-was important to the parties.
rphe.§llAllQEtl4ll3,tßt, Ihk,EACHE§UER thought
the Honourable Member's a+sheevetion most' singular, as the
firsi.ellect`of theinqiiiry wasttleitdte nbvrbefore the House,
and proposed,at the tnanintenniereeornmendation of the Corn-
mittec. Deviotild appeal to theTuties themselves, to whom
so far from the inquiry being unjust, it was quite the contrary,
and he hatfirad- letters from some of the parties, returning
their thanks to him that this inquiLy had taken place, and
'stating that they bad the utraQsflpildence in the decision of
the Committee.

-•
- t
Mr. WAK LE Y feared that the rote proposed to-night was
'A- unfavourable omen as to the ultimate result of the labours
of the Committee. He hoped his Hon. Friend would not be
indmeed br,these _dulcet notes to become a Member of the
Committee, as it would merely be removing himself from the
vantage grotiid.. He-was now the Censor of the Committee,
and could freely make such remarks as he thought its conduct
would merit —( Cheers.)
Mr. MACLEAN-matt ISbseri-ttrat the proposal to place
the Hon. Member-for Southwark on the Co-rnmittee could not
now be considered very complimentary_ by that gentleman, when
he recollected the very uuceremonious way in Which he had
been rejected on a former ocrsion.—( Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Mr. MACLEAN, Mr. Hums, and
Mr. S. RICE,

Colonel SiBTHORP observed that it would be very,de-
sirable to know how many quarters must be paid .before the
matter was decided, as if quarter after quarter was to be paid,
while the investigation was thus protracted, the public would
have great reason to complain. " '
Mr. HAWES thought the Hon. and Learned Member for
Southwark ought to feel much obliged to the Hon. Member
who had seconded the motion for putting hips .on what he
styled a useless and unjust Committee.
Mr. GOULBURN was perfectly satisfied to vote for the
motion, as it harmonised with the opinion he had originally
expressed. He also quite agreed with the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, that the termination of the Committee's labours
was the proper time for discussion.
The resolution was then agreed to, and the House resumed.
POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved that the report on this
Bill be brought up.
Mr. GOULBURN wished, previous to the question being
put, to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what time he
expected to be able to bring the Budget forward?
Mr. RICE had not yet determined on the exact period, but
hoped it would be in the course of a month.
Sir ROBERT BATE SON wished to know from the Noble
Lord the Secretary for Ireland whether he had received any
official information of two horrible murders which had been
recently committed in Tipperary ?
Lord NIORPETH had received official information of a
dreadful murder in Tipperary. He believed that only one
life was lost. He had also received a statement of the causes
which led to the act, but wished to refrain from any prema-
ture discussion on the subject which might interfere with the
ends of justice.
Mr. GOULBURN wished to know whether the Bill for
the registration of voters in Ireland would be, brought on be-
fore the holidays?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL could not say whether the Bill
would be brought on before the holidays..
Mr. LUCAS presented a petition from Monaghan, praying
that relief under the proposed Poor-law should be confined to
the infirm poor.
Sir IL BATESON presented one with a similar prayer
from Donegal.
• 1.
The questionwas then put, " That the report be now
brought *" •• :#
Mr. P. SCROPE moved the addition of a clause giving to
the Board of Guardians power, without the sanction of the
Commissioners, to employ a portion of the funds in the em-
ployment of the able-bodied destitute poor on public works or
otherwise.

Mr. S. O'BRIEN seconded the motion.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL would object to the clause on
the grounds he had before stated. He considered that it would
be carrying into effect a plan of out-door relief. He thought
it far safer that the House should not sanction a plan of out-
door relief, as he knew how that s)stem had been abused in
England, and he feared that in Ireland the abuse would be
much greater. He thought the principle most dangerous, and
that it would be exceedingly unsafe to introduce it.
Colonel CONOLLY was decidedly opposed to the intro-
duction of the clause.
Mr. ROCHE thought that employing the paupers would
only tend to keep down those who were struggling to keep out
of the workhouse.—( Hear.)
The question was then put, and the clause negatived.
Mr. RE DINGTON proposed a clause in lieu of clause 15,
providing for the simultaneous operation of the Poor-law in
all parts of Ireland.
Lord MORPETH would oppose the introduction of this
clause. His wish was that the operation of the Bill should be
as simultaneous 113 possible, but he thought a power should be
left with the Commissioners to select districts with which to
commence.

This clause was also lost.
Mr. REDINGTON then proposed the following clause :-
4, And be it enacted, that every person begging or gathering
alms, or placing
.himself for the purpose of receiving or gather-
ing alms, or setting any child so to do, within any union in
which the Commissioners shall have declared a workhouse to
be fit for the reception of the destitute poor, shall, on conviction
thereof before any justice of the peace at Petty Sessions, in
open Court, either by confession of such offender, or by the
(Ti lence on oath of one or more credible witnesses, be com-
mitted to the common gaol or house of correction, there to be
kept to hard labour for any time not exceeding a fortnight for
the first offence, and not exceeding- one calendar month for
the second offence : Provided always that no person shall be
liable to be so convicted who shall have applied to be admitted
to the workhouse of such union and been refused admittance
thereto by the guardians or other officer of such union work-
house, by reason of their inability to accommodate such per-
son or child, and provided also that Co person shall be com-
mitted to such gaol or house of correction (if it should be the
first offence), who, not having applied for admission to the