The Sun.
London, England, 1838-02-06 00:00:00

HOUSE. OF LORDS.

Mr. S. O'BRIEN asked if the Hon. Baronet the
Member for Warwickshire (Sir E. Wilmot) had effected
anything in regard to the accommodation of Members in
the House of Lords.—(A laugh.)
Sir EARDLEY WILMOT said he had been told by
a member of the Government that a communication bad
been entered into with the Upper House upon the subject.
What had since been done, he (Sir E. Wilmot) could
not say. _ _

COMMUTATION OF TITHES.
Mr. BARRETT gave notice, that some day in March,
he would call the attention of the House to the causes
which olistructed the Commutation of Tithes in England
and Wales, with a view to their removal.
POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL the Order
of the Day for the second reading of the Poor Relief (Ire-
land) Bill was read.

Sir CHARLES STYLE then rose to address the
House, but owing to the noise which prevailed he was nct
distinctly heard for some time. We understood the Hon.
Baronet to say, that although he considered the Bill insuf-

ficient for the purposes for which it was intended, and that
it would entail heavy expenses without corresponding
advantages, yet, notwithstanding these things, he
could not reconcile it to his conscience to Withhold
his support from the Bills—( Hear, hear.) Sooner than
that the poor of Ireland should remain in their degraded
condition, he was even preparad for a measure more kibj'et-
tionable in its details. The first thiiig that struck him a;
objectionable in this Bill Was, that whatever might be
the cost of this Measure ene.half the burden was, to he
imposed upon a class of individuals vho wO'e linage to
support it,
anda who ought not le ilistice to be called upon
to pay that 11,..1,
value
-.
os. was to be mstle liable to the payment or one-
persons occu,seje.,.,s „Ind to the
half of the Poor Rate, Noss, he thought that was too
hard, when they were aware of the almost de titute state
of persons who occupied a much higher station as tenants
of land. He was wall aware that it would be
said that those persons wOuld be relieved from the
charge which now devoleed upoe them ; but that writ a
payment made by them voluntarily, which was a vety d ties.
tent thing from their being comisel'ed to pay under an Act
Which was to be essrietl into effect by a most ettensi'Ve
!nachitieres It was also different, beauste tinder this Bill
the relief to the poor woilld yr. tetlrely left to the dis-
, ration of the Baits Law Guardians—it would remain
eh!, tkiii Whether the destitute poor should have
fedief or not—it remained with them to say whether
they would grant relief to all, to some, or to none of the
destitute poor within the respective unions. The Bill ex-
pressly provided that the Guardians of the respective
unions should have it in their discretion to make orders
fur the relief of the poor as they should thihk fit.
He could not but be very apprehensive that these Poor.
law guardians—that was to say, the ratepayers themselves,
the individuals whose immediate interest it would be, to
curtail the relief within the narrowest limits possible—that
these Poor-law guardians speaking the voice of the rates
payers, would take a very limited view indeed of the iiums
her of parson( who ought to receive relief under the
provisions of this Bilis He therefore Was disposed to
think that if it were really intended that this Bill should
be what it professed Oa Bill for the more effectual relief
of thu destitute In Ireland—that it should grant a right to
such relief to such persons as were destitute anti eneble.
support themselves ; and likewise that the nature of that
relief should be mile° to make it practically applicable to
the extent e,'; the destitution which existed in Irelands 140
ould endeavour to show that deflying a eight to relief
and by restrietine the Mode of administering that relief,
thet the Bill must prove inefficient as to its professed oh=
jeet—and likewise, that this Bill weitld he by hti teaks
effectual as a measure stf retnedying even h the slightest
deeree the cesulee which creates the destitution in Ireland,
,
ant that is, tne total want of employment ehy, the peoples
Why, what was the Bill ? It si.aa el Bill, that per-
haps, might be thcs', theiins of affording relief to
SOtooot or Pefhettis 120,000, and that altogether depended
Oaks eertain powers conferred upon the Poor Law Commis-
sioners, and for raising a sum of money by way of poor rate
for the purposes of emigration ; that was the full measure
of relief which it was intended to confer upon the destitute
poor of Ireland. Now if that Bill was sufficient as
its framers asserted for the necessities of the case,
let them for one moment consider what was the amount of
destitution which existed in Ireland. In endeavouring to
form an opinion on that subject, he would not revert to the
amount of relief given in England, or the number who
received that relief. He had been told that in mak-
ing a calculation upon such a basis, the results would
be quite erroneous, and give an exaggerated statement
of the amount of destitution in that country. He thought.
however, he was justified in referring to the evidence and
the information which was collected by the Commissioners
of Inquiry on the state of the poor in Ireland. He was
aware that it had been objected that the Commissioners of
Inquiry had been mistaken in many of their calculations,
and that the amount of destitution had been stated to be ex-
aggerated ; but it was very certain that the distress which
existed was most extensive, and imperatively called for relief.
The poor in Ireland were without raiment ; they lived in
hovels that were totally unfit for any human being to breathe
in ; they were huddled together in crowds, and lay on the
damp floor at night. Such was really the case of the poor
in Ireland, and he should like to know what degree of
human suffering further than that was required before
it was thought expedient to give relief ? He thought
if relief ever was necessary, the poor of Ireland
required it.—( Hear, hear, hear.) There ware near
two millions of human beings there in this state of abject
misery. The present Bill, in his opinion, would not ope-
rate in the slightest degree upon the cause of destitu-
tion ; for it was not by shutting up 200,000 or 300,000
persons that any good could be effected, or the
social condition of the Irish peasantry improved. This
great evil existed amongst the peasantry of Ireland.
The Irish peasant had at present no security for his miser-
able subsistence unless the occupation of some small plot of
ground. Now the Bill held out no right to him to claim
relief, or no prospect of enjoying it ;conseqeently no feeling
of security was created that he who received this relief
o ould continue to obtain it, as the administrator of the law
had the power of refusing it, even if he had the means of
granting it to the fullest extent it required. The
struggle for land which now existed to such a fright-
ful extent in Ireland would still continue una-
bated, and it was to this cause that most of the
crimes that were committed, and the insecurity of property
which prevailed there were mainly owing. He would not
occupy the time of the House by entering into state-
ments to prove that this was the fact, for it was
already known to every one who was acquainted
with the administration of tlie law in Ireland—it was
a well-established fact, that there was scarcely a landed
proprietor in Ireland who dared to make the slightest
alteration whatever in the distribution of his property,
without incurring the danger of raising an insurrection
in the country around him. It did appear to him that the
time was come when they could no longer delay taking
some decisive and vigorous steps to battle with the difficul-
ties which surrounded this question. In his opinion
the only course to pursue was at once to place the landed.
proprietors ;n that position in which they would becom-
polled to find either employment or subsistence for the poor.
There was one part of Mr. Nicholl's Report which he
wished to read to the Housa, as it related to a part of the
country with which he was intimate.—[The Honourable
Member read an extract from the Report, which stated
the wretched state of the people in the county of
Donegal.] He contended that an efficient Poor-law
would certainly be in the end a pecuniary advantage to
the landlords in Ireland, although it would, no doubt, be
attended with some pressure at first. Although he advo-
cated a Poor-law on the most extended scale, lie was con-
sinceti that auxiliary measures should accompany it. He
would vote for the second reading of the Bill with the
greatest reluctance, and only because he had no alternative.
Mr. SHAW agreed with the Hon. Baronet that the
right to relief ought to be given to the destitute poor in
Ireland. But he did not agree with him that it should be
given out of the public funds. _ _

Mr. O'CONNELL agreed with Honourable Mem-
hers that this was not to be treated as a party
question. But he did not agree with them that the Irish
Members were unanimous as to the necessity of a Poor-law
for Ireland. He would not occupy the House at any
length on that occasion, as he intended to move an
amendment on the motion that the Bill he committed, to
the effect that it should be committed that day six months
or three months.--(Hear, hear, hear.) He was not
opposed to a Poor-law which would give relicf to the sick,
the wounded, or the aged ; or any measure which should
be free from the permanent ill of tempting the labouring
classes to augment their numbers by looking to the
workhouse as an ultimate refuge. If he stood
alone he would oppose the Bill.—( Hear, hear.)
He was convinced that Ireland was too poor for a Poor-law,
and there never was a poor country benefitted by aPoor-law.
Nctvs hi:standing the distinction which had been drawn be-
tween poverty and destitution, by the sages who said there
was more poverty in Ireland and less destitution than in
England, it was impossible for him to explain, as he did
not understand how so much poverty should exist without
destitution. A hundred workhouses, in which 80,000
persons were to be boxed up and imprisoned for the
benefit of their health and the improvement of their
morals—bv the separation of the husband from the
wife, and the parent from the child—this was wholly unfit
for Ireland. Mr. Nicholls need not have gone to Bristol or
Manchester to ascertain that the Irish were unwilling to
take relief in workhouses. He (Mr. O'Connell) would
not occupy the House by discussing the merits of the Bill
on that occassion, as he intended to oppose the Bill on
wing into the Committee.
Mr. GIBSON rejoiced that there was at least one
Irish topic upon which all sides of the House were
agreed, and he regarded the present discussion as an omen
of better days for his unhappy country. Before they
proceeded, however, to legislate on a measure which
was of such paramount importance as this, and which was
pregnant with consequences of such a vital nature,! they
ought to enquire if they had sufficient data to proceed upon.
Ile denied that they had such data, and he impeached in
particular the report of Mr. Nicholls. That gentleman
had stated that the number of poor that would re-
quire relief in Ireland would be only eighty thousand. He
could not believe it. From his experience of the state
of the poor in Ireland, he believed that that was only a
fraction of the number that would require relief. By
another report that had been made, it appeared that there
were at least 2,000,000 of poor in Ireland, and taking
from that number the 80,000 that were to be provided
for in workhouses, what was to become of the remainder ?
He agreed with the Hon. Member for Dublin that no Poor-
law was calculated for the benefit of any country. fle should
resist through every stage the introduction of any Poor-law

tHE SUN, LONDON, Tr_t_lSDAi*, PI4titUAIIV

groandcd upon such erroneous data as was found in Mr.
Nicholl's report.
Mr: J. °RATTAN thought that the Bill in its peineiplee
Was one best adapted for the improvement of the condition of
Ireland. His request on the present occasion to Ministers
would be to keep the Bill as it with the eiceptioq Of the
clause's relating to eibigratiem The introduction of the issue
sUbjects of out-door relief and emigration in one Bill lie did
not approve of, and thought that tbey.shodld not be iiiiited *tip.
No machinery that could be devised Would be ablb to gibe
effect to the eystete.
Mr. P. SCROPE agreed in the sentiment that the Bill
was one of a most
I—...portent character for Irelana,, and even
pwore so than the Rattan Clethelie Relief the pending
MUnieipal Corporations Bill; or any other Bill affecting the
interests of Ireland. He looked upon it as calculated to faise
Ireland from the most miserable and degraded country to the
Most opuleitt and prosperous on the rice or the glut:ie. To
not allowing out-door edict' he objected. In conjunction with
the Poor-law; he trusted that the Government Woitld coneeet
a system for employing the population in public works.
Mr. HINDLEY did not agree with the [tight Ildn. Gene
tlernan:the Recorder for Dublin in hie congratulation that this
was nd party qiiestion: Ul6 thotiO-ht it wtiiild hive bben better
if it had beets; far he bttlieVed that if it were a party question
the benches on either side would have been more thickly
clothed.—( Cries of," Oh, oh, oh.") But, as it was not a
party question., they both agreed on the side of oppreesion,—
( Ole oh.) As to the machinery of the Bill, he did not object
to that, whether it related to the eine hundred eiforkhoeses or to
those workhouse confined to the reception of 80,000
Individuals; but lie wondered how the Bill could be called a
good Bill, or that it could be designated as a Bill for the more
effectual relief of the poor of Ireland. One of its chief effects
would be to stop the source which now relieved the poor,
namely, that of private charity. They were also empowered
to !Atte wa-rants for the apprehension of suspected persons,
and the money which a person might have received an hone
before to relieve his destitution might be taken from him, and
employed to send him to the house of correction. And this
was in tt Christian land. Had the Noble Lord the Secret try
for Ireland a heart? Had he read those Scriptures which in-
culcated good will and charity ? If they persisted in that
course; and made also Mr. Nicholl the Commissioner for the
achninietration of the new Poor Laws in Iceland, who was also
a Commissioner to the handeloom weavers, they might depend
upon it they would produce a state of things to which those of
Canada would be but as a very little affair:
Lord CLEMENTB requested that the Noble Lord the
Secretary of State for the Home Department would, upon
going into Committee, more particularly describe the nature
of the powers to be given to the Commissioners: They were
large tiottrefa, They had the power of settling the question of
emigration, and of deciding under what circumstances emi-
gration was desirable ; they had also the power of the forma-
tion of unions; and of deciding upon the size of the unions.
He did !lot object to these powers; but required that some
principle should be laid down upon which this discretion should
be exercised. He should like also to be informed whether the
Bill was to collie into operation gradually, or whether its ope-
ration would commence simultaneously in all the proposed
Unions.
Mr. W. ROCHE thought the great difficulty would be to
get over the practical part of the working of the Bill. If
they were successful in that the Bill would prove to be one of
almost unmixed good.
Lord J. RUSSELL did rot concur in the opinions ex-
pressed by the Hon. Member (Mr. Ilindley) that because
both sides of the House agreed they were therefore agreed on
the side of oppression. The law as it now stood made va-
grancy an offence transportable for seven years, This pu-
nishment in consequence of its rigour had not been carried
into operation, and they now proposed, as that punishment
had been deemed too heavy, to draw the line, but in such a
manner as nut to render the law inoperative, as it now was,
from its severity. It was but just to relieve the destitute, and,
according to the law of England, that relief was provided for,
and it was the intention to put the proposed law for Ireland
on the same footing. That law, he considered was founded
on charity, and while destitution was relieved vagrancy
was punished. If it were to be said generally—as had been
too much said in the laws for the relief of the poor of
England, passed in the last century—that every case should
be relieved on claim, or at most on imperfect inquiry, then a
mass of simulated destitution would be produced, in addition
to that which really existed, and thousands of persons would
be found would rather take the idle means of existence
afforded them by such a system than have recourse to labour
or honest industry ; in proof of which fact he would only re-
fer to a letter which appeared in the public papers a few days
past, signed " A Mai ket Gardener." The writer of that let-
ter, after cautioning the public against those persons who went
about begging under the name of "the poor frozen-out gar-
deners," stated that he and other entployers were not alone
willing, but actually wished to employ these men, but that
almost every one of them left their labour to live upon public
charity the moment an opportunity was offered them of obtain-
ing anything from it. These kind of abuses arose in every
country, and Ireland was not an exception to the general rule.
Therefore, to establish a system of indiscriminate relief, with-
out establishing also a test for destitution, would take away
the stimulus to honest industry, and make the poor entirely
dependent upon the public.. Some test being, then, neces-
sary, the workhouse was deemed by him the best that could be
taken ; and he (Lord John Russell) was glad that the Right
Hon. Baronet on the other side had seen the case in the swine
light. As for the question of his Noble Friend (Lord Cle-
ments) respecting the power of the CoMmissioners, he ( Lord
John Russell) should endeavour to give him an answer when
ho undertood it ; but he would say that much would have to
be left to the discretion of these gentlemen.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed on Friday next.
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORS AND FREEMEN.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved that the House resolve
itself into a Committee on the Parliamentary Electors and
Freeman Bill.
Mr. H. HINDE, before the Bill went into that stage, had
an amendment to move, by way of instruction to the Com-
mittee. It was, that the Bill as it then stood should be se-
parated, and divided into two Bills. The Hon. Gentleman
then moved, " That it be an instruction to the Committee to
divide the Bill into two Bills."
Lord J. RUSSELL was decidedly of opinion that the Bill
should be passed as it then stood.
Colonel SIBTII 0 RP supported the amendment. He re-
gretted to see the Noble Lord who had passed the Reform
Bill, and was such a friend to liberality in the extension of the
franchise in one direction, threw every obstacle possible in its
way in another.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) And he re-
gretted it the more, because on the former occasion to which
the Noble Lord alluded he had cast aspersions of the foulest
kind upon that most respectable body of men, the freemen.
Sir A. DAL R YMPL E could not support the amend-
ment, for from his own experience, the Bill was absolutely
necessary.
Mr. PR A ED disagreed with the Hon. Gentleman who
spoke last. There could be no possible reason for uniting the
two subjects of the Bill. The Noble Lord might say it was a
boon to the constituents, but the constituents wanted no boon ;
there was no need of such nonsense. He should support toe
amendment.
The gallery was then cleared for a division, but none took
place. On our return we found
Mr. MACLEAN on his legs, supporting the amendment.
He (Mr. Maclean) was astonished that the Government
should propose such a measure, because, if he had been rightly
informed on a recent occasion orders had been sent from the
Exchequer to all the collectors of taxes to remit none of them
on any account whatever. And yet here they were giving
encouragement to individuals not to pay up their taxes. As
yet the House were quite in the dark as to the substantial
merits of the question. It appeared to him ( Mr. Maclean)
to be the first of a series of initiatory changes in the Reform
Bill, which he hoped the Noble Lord would be called on to
explain the grounds of before they were permitted to pass.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the Committee l5B
For the Amendment
Majority
The House then resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.
On Clause I being put from the Chair,
Mr. T. DUNCONIBE should propose an amendment,
which was intended to act as a most summary repeal of
the rate-paying Clause altogether. It was to insert in lines
16 and 17 of the Bill the words " except such as shall have
become payable from him (the rate-payer) previously to the
11th day of October in the preceding year." That would
set the question at a fair issue, and decide it on broad grounds.
He was happy to believe that the principle of the repeal of
the rate-paying Clause was gaining friends at every discus-
sion. In 1883, when the Gallant Member for Westminster
brought it forward, only twenty-four voted in its favour. In
1834 it was supported by thirtyaseven. In 1836, when he
(Mr. Duncombe) first moved its repeal, fifty-one supported
the motion, and in 1837 seventy-three voted for the second
reading. On that occasion the Tories, fearing that the Whigs,
if left to the mercies of the Radicals, would be beaten, went
over, joined the former, and turned the scale by a majority of
elLven.—( Laughter.) He was sorry to hear an Honourable
Member say that they were only disreputable persons who did
not pay their taxes. The facts were far otherwise. In the
parish of St. George, Hanover-square, 5,144 persons resided
liable to pay rates and capable of voting, yet only twenty-four
persons had voted from that parish. From the passing of the
Reform Bill every unconstitutional measure had been resorted
to crush the liberal interests in boroughs, notwithstanding
Lord John Russell's express declaration that, according to the
Constitution, no taxes ought to be imposed on any man except
through his representative. He claimed the same privilege
for the electors in boroughs as for the 501. electors in counties
) were not liable to the land-tax.—( Cheers.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the main object of the Re-
form Bill had been to secure the strict payment of taxes as a
passport to the possession of the elective franchise ; but now
the Honourable Member proposed to extend that franchise to
those who paid no taxes—a totally different principle from that
intended by the Reform Bill. If he admitted this amendment,
it would go to alter the ancient spirit of the Constitution, and
establish the principle that insolvency and beggary were as
sufficient qualifications for voting as independence and in-
dustry.
Mr. WARBURTON reminded the House that the old
scot and lot system of rate-paying was one of the most fruitful
sources of bribery and corruption, and that the tax-gatherer's
attendance at the hustings; afforded no security, for he had been
found ready to swear that the electors had paid their taxes, 4)
hope of remuneration from the Candidate. The amendment
of the law by the Noble Lord was good, but it did not go far
enough till it reconciled this anomaly.
Mr. CLAY would support the amendment of the Hon.
Member for Finsbury, and if that failed, then that of the Noble
Lord.
Colonel EVANS said that the thanks of the people were
due to the Noble Lord for his exertions on this point, on

v;h:cli he (Colonel Evans) felt a deep interest, having betin the
first to bring it forward in the House ; but he also felt that the
,Iriaenditient of the lion. Member for Finsbury deserved his
stipPori.
Mr; HUME said that under the scot and lot qgieth Ynly
the, parish ratel were paid; the King's taxes had been super-
ilm Refoirti Hear; hear.
,) Nothing; how-
ever,. of 'unity of election was gained Tay the predaution.
itt MI. Leaders litte election elaen elediors came, and said
readv to itiite for him if the t;otnmittee would pay
their taxes— ( [fear, hear)—but the tioittinitte,e deeliriedi and
then (he had reason to think) they went to ofter their services
t:) the other sidv.—(A, The Noble Lord had raid
that he eOuid not tlltartktres fromthe spin,c.)f
lieform but one of its provisions was that flick shaft!t! he.
no constituency of less than three hundred electors. Now,
there were actually flay such constituencies in the ki;tgdom,
and they would he likely to contiritie if the Noble Lord did not
accei:t the amendment of the Honourable Mettiber for Fins-
bury, and thus remo+ec all discrepancies in the §pitit or the
Reform 80.

•
Lot•J J. RUSSELL acknowledged that the assessed taxes
were sided to the parochial, for attaining greater ce,sirity in
the qualification of electors, lie was astonished at the at-,ee.
(kite told by the Hon; Meniber respecting the applicants to
Mr. Leader's tlectiBn COniiiiittee; for they must haski been
prepared for the 6th of July in the pfcVions April, and their
names must have been on the Registry to l'ovenifier to have
enahled them to appear as voters at the time it wohld have
been available for Mr. Leader. He was glad the Hon.
Member for Kilkenny was not soft enough to be imposed
upon by the eleven.—( A laugh.) The Hon. Members for
I3ridport and Finsbury had argued that it was a hardship for
the voters in borooghs to be called on to pay King's taxes,
while the fifty-pound tenants in counties were exempt; and
he really thought that the house of Commons in pasiog that
measure ought to hove arranged that the latter should have
paid these ta?les res): The lion. Member fur Killienny was
much more answerable for this than himself; for he had voted
for the exemption, and it so happened that none of the Go-
vernment did.—(Laughter.) Ile thought the lion, Member
for Bridport was mistaken respecting the discrepancies in
the election law of Scotland and England. There were no
poor-rates in the former to pay, but the assessed taxes were
to be paid.—( Here the Noble Lord read a extract from the
Scottish Act to that effect.)
Mr. WARBUItTON—There is no annual registration.
Mr. GILLON said his Honourable friend was right—
there were payments of assessed tales and registration of a
voter, but there was no renewal of the latter; and a per-
son once placed on the registry remained on it whether he con-
tinued to pay his annual taxes or not—( Hear, hear)—for it
had been decided that a failure to pay his taxes did not in-
validate his

Mr. BA INES apprOved of the principle of the Bill, but he
contended that its operation ought to be extended. By the
Bill as it at present stood, the extension of the time for the
payment of rates and taxes, applied only to persons whose
n meg were already upon the register of the past year, and not
to those who claimed in virtue of their occupancy to have
their names inserted upon the register for the that time. This
was a distinction unknown to the Reform Act, and he hoped
the Noble Lord would extend the time for the payment to the
1I th of October in the preceding year, as well as to those
names which were not in the former register to those that
were inserted in that register. He might mention, to show
the importance of this alteration, that in the borough which
he had the honour to represent there were upwards of a thou-
sand names claiming to be registered in the last Revising Bar-
risters' Court, not one of whom could have availed himself of
the benefit of this Bill if it had then been passed into a law.
Nothing could be more detrimentil to the Reform Act than to
grant the privileges under it partially or parsimoniously.
Sir S. WHA L LEY hoped the Noble Lord would allow
the people the full benefit of the spirit in which the Reform
Act was framed.

Mr. PRA ED said, the lion. Member for Finsbury had
imputed to him a sweeping assertion that only disreputable
people did not pay the King's taxes; but be had said no
such thing. He did indeed say that, as a general rule, the
payment of just and fair debts was a fair test of respectability,
and he thought that any systematic evasion thereof was deci-
sive of the contrary.
Mr. HALL should support the motion, as he thought it
would be beneficial to all classes of voters.

Mr. JARVIS said the present Bill was a truckling policy
on the part of the Government, and was sure to be thrown out
by the House of Lords.
Mr. LEADER should support the amendment of the Hon.
Member for Finsbury
After a few words from Viscount Ebrington, Colonel Sib-
thorpe, and Mr. C. Buller,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the amendment of the Hon. Member for Finsbury went too
far, as it went to qualify persons to Tote not only who had
neglected but those who were unable to pay their rates.
Sir E. Si:lG D E N felt some surprise at this measure being
brought for Ward by the Noble Lord, and supported by some
of the Hon. Members opposite, because he thought the Noble
Lord had, on former occasions, said that he looked upon the
Reform Bill as a final measure, and that they were not to have
a revolution every year.—( Cheers.) Lord Althorp withdrew
the 101. clause from the Reform Bill, on his suggestion. One
object of the present Bill was to bring about changes in the
Reform Bill by little and little. It would ultimately lead to
what the Hon. Member for Finsbury wished to accomplish by
his amendment. He would sooner vote for the amendment
titan for the original clause.
Lord J. RUSSELL was glad to hear the Right Hon.
Gentleman opposite, who had night after night declaimed
against the Reform Bill, as a revolutionary measure, now come
down and say, " Let well alone." He now made war, not
against the Reform Bill, but to support it. If the Reform
Bill was a Bill of such mischief as the Hon. Members oppo-
site predicted, they should rather ask to repeal it than pre-
serve it as it was. He never had maintained that changes
might not become necessary in the Reform Bill, and he should
be always ready to make partial corrections in it, with the
view to preserve and make it perfect. He could not, however,
agree in the alteration proposed by the Hon. Member for
Leeds—from the time that a voter got his name upon the re-
gister he would have the benefit of the extension of time for
paying the rates and taxes. _ _

After a few words in explanation from Mr. C. BULLER
and Lord J. RUSSELL,
Mr. O'CONELL said it was a curious specimen of con-
servatism to recommend the support of a bad law, which Hon.
Gentlemen opposite formerly so vehemently protested against.
Sir E. SUGDEN had said nothing of a bad law. He
had only spoken of obeying a law, a thing which the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman did not, perhaps, understand.
Mr. O'CONNELL said the Right Hon. Gentlemand had
lost his temper.—( Cries of " No, no.")
Sir E. SUGDEN said he was in the most perfect good
humour.—( A laugh.)
Mr. O'CONNELL—Then the Right lion. Gentleman
knew how to say an uncivil thing in a good humour.
The gallery was then cleared for a division, ►wen the num-
bers were—
For the motion
Against it
Majority —99
_ _

On our return t) the gallery we found
Mr. BAINES upon his legs, proposing an amendment, to
the effect that one year's payment of taxes should be a suffi-
cient qualification far voters.
At the suggestion of Lord J. RUSSELL the amendment
was, however, withdrawn.

O❑ the question that the clause stand part of the Bill being
put,

. -
Mr. NIACLE AN expressed his determination to tnke the
sense of the House upon it, as he considered it objectionable.
The Gallery was then cleared for a division, when there
appeared--
For the clause 214
Against it
Majority _96
On our re-admission, we found

- •
Mr. JERV Ls, after a few words, proposing, as an amend-
ment to the clause, the insertion of the following words :
" That no sum of money should be taken for the registration
of any voter."
Mi. BERNAL suggested that such an amendment would
not be applicable to the Bill, which merely referred to the
time at vs hick rates and taxes should be paid.
After a few words from Lord Granville Somerset, Mr.
Praed, Mr. Goulburn, Lord J. Russell, and Mr. Jervis,
The clause was agreed to, as was also the preamble, after
having been verbally amended.
The House then resumed, and the Bill was ordered to be
reported.
THE COAL TRADE.

the coal trade teas 661/,.l.9eted in the port of London. It Will
not his inteiition that they should ear7y their inquiry further, o 5
g.) in ) the coal trade as it existed in the north ; and in mar,'
that they should confine therriseireS to this branch of the sUIP
ject merely, he should propose that their investigation should
Le limited to the regulations of the coal trade in London, rind
the amount of duties chargeable on coals brought into marlc,e.
the metropolis. In these inquiries they would find colts?,
derable assistance in the report of the Committee of I e2(i,
Though they did not want to make any material alterations
with respect either to the amount of the duties or the way is
which the coal trade was carried on, he was anxious that the
matter should be fully examined into, in the hope that a satin'
factory result to all parties would be arrived at. The lion•
meni:2cr then moved that the House should resolve itself into
Cab tfY4,
Lord G. gOMBIISET
of the north were not the only infgrpAtil,..
p,::1 the interests of the cordovvneri
He cUsipproved of invidious distinctions, would be regardect,,
1s the system et
combination in this trod,'existed as much nOWover hntlioul,-;ht that the whole subject, without reference td alit Pnry
of the country, should he inquired into,
Th,, I-Luse then resclvcd itself into a Committee of the
whole House.

Mr. LABOUC tIERE, on bringing forward the motion of
which he had given notice, for the House resolving itself into
a Committee on the coal trade, said that the object he had in
view was the continuance of the Bill which Mr. Fiankland
Lewis brought in a few years ago for regulating the coal
trade, as respected this metropolis and certain parts of the
adjoining counties. That Bill, as the House must recollect,
made an alteration, by which instead of being sold by men-
sureecoals should be only sold by weight, the dues being re-
gulated by the same principle. The operation of Mr. Frank-
land Lewis's Bill was limited to seven years, and as that time
had nearly expired it became necessary to continue its provi_
,ions, If it were allowed to expire the consequence would
be a return to the old system. The whole arrange-
ments with respect to coal metres would be done away
with, and the vexatious imposts and dues of the city
0f London would all be revived. There could, he
thought, be no difference of opinion as to the impro-
priety of allowing this Bill to expire, but at the same
time he begged to say that it was not his intention to propose
its renewal without allowing the House a full opportunity of
looking into it, and closely and accurately investigating every
one of its provisions. It appeared to him that the proper
course uould be to refer the Bill on the second reading to a
select Committee up stairs. It provisions would by this means
be best examined and considered, and, with this impression on
his mind, that was the course he meant t o take. He had
communicated with the parties interested in the subject, both
in the North and in London, and they all expressed themselves
perftctly satisfied with what he proposed to do. There was
one point which he was bound to mention, and it was one.
Which be was sure would give satisfaction to the House, and
that was, that when the corporation of the City of London ap-
plied to him to move for the renewal of this Bill they stated
that they would consent to have the duty now levied by them
on each ton of coals reduced one half. " The sum thus to be
given up to the public would be about 6,0001. a year, and
showed the disposition of the City of London to do everything in
their power to contribute to the comfort and welfare of the inha-
bitants of the metropolis. He should propose that the select
Committee should have power to inquire whether the duty of
12d. the chaldron, at present paid, could not be still further
reduced, and also to investigate generally the manner in which

Mr. LABO UCHE RE then proposed a resolution to the
eff'et that et Bill should be braught in for continuing the law
no,v in operatiop with respect to the coal trade of the ine-
tropoll;,
Mr. GOtibIllURN feared that the object which the llon•
gentleman had iri t3si4 would not be attained by his resolu-
tion, s. it went merely to the Pentinuanee of the present Act,
and not to the inquiry proposed.
Mr. LABOUCHERE meant to effect the inquiry by
means of an instruction to the Committee. With respect t!"
what had fallen from the Noble Lord (Lord O. I!4onterset):i
he had merely to explain that his reason for mentioniw' th
co-downers -,
of the north was, because it was on them 1•17' true,,
trop olis depended for a supply of that article. lie was •ort.„?
to say that little or no coals reached the port of London from
any other quarter.
The resolution having been agreed to, arid the House bal-
ing resumed, leave was given to bring the Bill in, and it was
subsequently brought in mid read a first time, and ordered for
the second reading, as we believe, on Thursday next.
In answer to a question from Colonel SIBTHORP,
Lord J. RUSSELL :It'd it was the intention of the 6°'
vernment to proceed with the Parliamentary Electors Bill OP'
Monday or Friday se'nnight.
Mr. JERVIS gave notice that on the re-committal of the
Bill he would press the insertion of his clause.
The Court of Sessions (Scotland) Bill arid the Shcrif4
Courts (Scotland) Bill, respectively, on the motion of tho
LORD ADVOCATE, passed through a Committee. To be
printed with the omitted clauses, and re-committed.
Mr. WARBURTON moved the second reading of the
Qualifications of Members Bill.
Colonel SIBTHORP would not resist the motion, though
he was satisfied the Bill never would succeed.
Mr. PRAED would not oppose the Bill, but he could lot
help thinking that, instead of preventing fictitious qualifica-
tions, it would have the contrary effect. At present the qua:
lification was required to be real, but this measure would render
it pertlonal, This was only an attempt to nibble away the ae"
cessity or qualification altogether, and therefore he rnikst pre'
test against it.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to bd
committed on Thursday.
Viscount PALMERSTON laid on the table some par
which had been ordered.
The other Orders of the Day having been disposed of, the
House adjourned, at a Quarter to Twelve o'Clock,

HOUSE OF LORDS, FRB. 5.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Weei'
sack at five minutes past Five o'clock.
Lord DENNIAN presented two petitions from CI:"
ventry, praying for a general system of national education ;
and that by that system no preference might be given t°
any particular sect.
htit
Lord GLENELG laid on the table certain pellets, -
his Lordship made no observation thereon. fel
Lord RIPON wished to know whether it was in tee
contemplation of her Majesty's Government to grante
we understood, a charter for the purpose of colonizing 1%4e
Zealand ?
Lord GLENELG wished to have till to-morroW t°
answer the question.
AFFAIRS OF CANADA.
Upon the motion of Lord BROUGHAM, the Orderr
of the Day was read for hearing Mr. Roebuck at the D 6
on the affairs of Canada.
[The House of Lords this evening presented a very'
mated and novel appearance. Immediately Mr. Roebuck v?,
ordered to be called in, several Peers left their usual seen',
and stationed themselves on the benches near the P°e;
among whom we observed, Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Ll‘c'te
the Earl of Radnor, the Duke of Wellingt°re
the Marquis of Salisbury, the Earl of Aberdeen, and
Wharncliffe. Lord Melbourne appeared to pay great atte
tion to the speech of the Learned Gentleman, of which he t°°re
voluminous notes. Lord Glenelg sat next to the 1-4°,5
Chancellor at the table. The space below the Bar Wfr,
c:oeeled. Mr. Leader, Sir William Molesworth,
the
Wakley, Mr. Hume, and several other Members
take an interest in Canadian affairs, were peeeeut t"
whole of the evening.]
Mr. Roebuck was then called in. He said—My Lords'
I appear before your Lordships as an advocate for the Pu'r,i
pose of laying before your Lordships such statements, 001,
such arguments thereon, as, I believe, will induce your 1-Ifie
ships not to allow to pass into a law a Bill which is noW ''er
upon your Lordships' tablefor the better government of L°w__,
Canada. My LordS, this is a Bill of Pains and Penalties
ers
penalties to be inflicted on my clients in consequence ni
tain supposed misdeeds of theirs, which misdeeds they base
performed to the full and perfect concurrence of the
only masters to whom they can possibly aPP!3'
t.,
namely, their constitusnts. My Lords, my el'ere.
on this occasion, are the Assembly of Lower irg
nada ; and, in consequence of certain conduct of Oleo,
approved of by the unanimous voice of their constitne;s
your Lordships arc called upon to punish them, by rednelbo
them from freemen, who had authority possessed frow'r,,
privilege of a free Government, to be in a condition of SC. it
My Lords, I am here to show that the assertions Whim
have been made respecting the Assembly of Lower Cat'43)l
are utterly false and without foundation, and that that he
in ell their proceedings have been firm, wise, Prudent, 1,
forbearing ; and that if on any hand there have been 'facie,
lation, deceit, hypocrisy, petulance, and ill-conceived, Ill'' a
Bested measures of Government, infinitely worse earr,sle„t
into execution, they are not the parties to blame,
that the culpiits are nearer at hand, my L°l.t-isst
and that your Lordships need not go out of toe,
to find subjects for your animadverstato
But I still advance one step further. I will point 00t
your Lordships simply what the injustice of this 1301,11,:
which in justice I shall prove by falsifying the tube
gations that have been made against my clients,
it
Assembly of Lower Canada.—( Hear, hear.) I ;Bits
prove the impolicy of this measure—l shall proveuee
injuitice, my Lords, by taking one after anote
5,
the assertions that have been made respecting the
sembly of Lower Canada, and showing them to be with°lo,
foundation one after another ; and I shall show time I,it
policy of this measure to your Lordships, by pointing °it,
the fated consequences that will necessarily result front,
I will not content myself with proving that the tendene) t°o
this measure is most dangerous, but I shall demonstrate ,
your Lordships that it is wanton mischief. I shall dery °°f
strate to you that there exist means of making the peore °,
Canada subjects to you by their hearts, and not only tot ste
cure the present peace of your American possessions, bufy
provide for the future security of Great Britain. An. Er
Lords, the firAt portion of argument which I have to
e'
will relate to the injustice of the proposed tnfasure, vof
before I can prove that injustice, I must know tee
what my clients are accused. But amidst all ,e 0
farrago of calumnies which are alleged against them, I
find nothing but assertion without proof, declamation sr"
out foundation, and calumny without guilt. Those asseee
tions have taken every possible shape ; they have appear to
in pamphlets, poems, and speeches, aye, even speeches Pry
the Ministers of the Crown. The calumny has taken eve 5,
shape, but calumny it still is, as I shall show your Lordsbirie
My Lords, there are three propositions which do not lie 0
in the vague generalities of debate, and with which 1- e3O(
grapple: The- first of these is that the AssemblY
Lower Canada have improperly and unwarrantably (_
mended an Elective Legislative Council, and that tbee
stopped the supplies in consequence of that denui4
not having been acceded to : next, that the Assent' ite
is connected with the revolt which has broken °I,
in Lower Canada ; and, thirdly, that the peculiar dOetlef
ties arising from the differences of race in the population
that country require the Bill now • before your Lordships
5
Now, my Lords, I will prove every one of these aeserti°°e
to be false. My Lords, I assert boldly that the conduct
the Assembly in demanding an Elective Legislative Cole
and stopping the Supplies as they have
justified donefor two years, °
was by the Constitution which you yourselves 0; t
them. That so far from demanding punishment, it ong''.
rather to extort your admiration, and, if anything-, your 0;
tation also. My Lords, I will prove that the Assembly. is 110
connected with the revolt which has broken out in the Can`
des, and which has been suppressed by means disgracefule
to our national character—which if it now is smoulden°;"
it is under the terrors of a disgraceful butchery and iaeer,
diarism which would disgrace the worst annals of the most l'a,rt:
barous nations. My Lords, I don't stand here tojustify reval t
I stand here to justify the Assembly, and I will show tile°,
their conduct has been perfectly correct and justifiable by
the treatment which they have received. I will show re
your Lordships that their conduct arose from t.ae-
deceit, vacillation--from the II) pocricy and cowardle"
of the Ministers of the Crown. Furthermore:,
I will show your Lordships that the Bill which is no's
before your Lordships is unfounded in justice, that it
the mere pretext of parties who have sinister interests i°
this matter, and who are endeavouring to appeal
to ()o
worst passions for the worst and most base ° f
purposes—their own private and pecuniary satisfaction.'
(Hear, hear.) My Lords, in defending the Assembly"