The Sun.
London, England, 1838-02-13 00:00:00

SIR JOI-IN SOANE'S MUSEUM.

Mr. CLAY had a petition to present on belntlf of the family
of the late Sir John Soane, fur leave to bring in a Bill to alter
and amend the Act passed in the year 1833, for the settlement
and preservation of his Museum, in Lincoln's-inn-fields. The
Bill was to have-been presented by an lion. Friend of his
(Mr. Clay), who took a great interest in the measure on
public grounds alone, having no connection with the family ;
and who, if he had not been prevented by circumstances, would
have explained to the 1101.13 e the nature and objects of the
Bill applied for. The lion. Member was proceeding with
further explanations, when
The SPEAKER suggested that the petition should be re-
ferred to the Committee on Standing Orders.
Mr. CLAY said that as the petition was of very peculiar
interest, he wished to state to the House the circumstances
out of which it arose.

Mr. SCARLETT considered the Hon. Member out of
ercler ; and thought that he had better act upon the sugges-
tion of the Speaker, and confine himself to stating the prayer
of the petition. •
Mr. CLAY said that the obj-et of the Bill applied for was
to remove the Museum from Lincoln's Inn-fields to the British
Museum ; to pr,vide for a librarian out cf the estate ; and to
apply the aunt left for the support of the Museum in Lincoln's
Inn-fields to the son and part of the family of the deceased,
who were almost in a state of destitution.

Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND presented three petitions,
praying for leave to bring in Private
Mr. BARING presented a petition from the county of Cork,
in favour of Vote 63 Ballot, and the total aholitior if tith(

b 3 111 01 les.
NI4IW POOR LAWS.
Mr. FIELDEN presented thirty petitions against the Ness
Poor-law, from thirty different parishes and hamlets of Nor-
wich and its vicinity, signed in the aggregate by 7,611 per-
sons. Also a petition from sixty-two inhabitants of the parish
of Hunston, Sussex; also from the parish of Downington,
Sussex, signed by forty-two persons; from Pagham, Sussex,
signed by 210 ; from six hundred inhabitants of the
City of Chichester. Also a petition from Weston. under-
Penyard, Herefordshire, signed by every labourer in the
parish, and by thirteen out of the fifteen farmers of the parish ;
also from the parish of Linton, Herefordshire, signed by 220
persons; also from certain inhabitants of the City of Hereford,
signed by 1,063 persons. From Broomside, Durham, a pe-
•ition signed by 384 perslns. All these came from agri-
cultural districts, and all prayed for a total repeal
of the New Poor Law. The Hon. Member also pre-
sented several petitions, having the same prayer,
from manufacturing districts. From a public meeting
of the township of Sheriffhill, Newcastle-upon Tyne,
signed
by the Chairman ; from a public meeting of the township of
Lochwood, Yorkshire, signed by the Chairman; from Clay-
ton, in the palish of Bradford, signed by 930 persons ; from
Hyde, Cheshire, signed by 2,819 persons; from Torege, Lan-
cashire, signed by 160 ; from Huddersfield, signed by 9,564 ;
from Ossett cum Gawthorp, Yorkshire, signed by 880 ; from
Gawthorp, signed by 206 ; from the township of Fixby, signed
by 70 ; from Luithwaite, Yorkshire, signed by 672 ;
Golcar, also in Yorkshire, signed by 690. The total number
of signatures to these petitions being 26,552.
Sir G. STRICKLAND
supported the prayer of the peti-
tion, which was ordered to be referred to the Committee on
the Poor-laws. and Trom

NATIONAL EDUCATION.
Mr. M. PHILLIPS presented a petition from Manches-
ter, siansd by 23,500 persons, praiing the House to take into
consideration the necessity that existed of establishing a na-
tional system of education. The Hon. Member cordially
agreed with the prayer of the petition, believing that a na-
tional system of education was necessary.
Mr. BROTHERTON supported the prayer of the petition.
Mr. WYSE said that notice having given by the
Hon.
Member of his intention to present the petition, he believed
it
was consistent with the regulations of the House for any Mem-
ber to state his opinions upon the subject.
The SPEAKER said that it was for the House to deter:
mii:e whether the Hon. Member should be heard or not. It
was not usual for Hon. Members to state their opinions on the
presentation of a petition. It the lion. Member wished to do
so, the better course would be to give a notice to that effect.
Mr. WYSE submitted to the juclirment of the Chair.
Colonel G. LANGTON, highly approving of the object
of the petition, gave it his cordial suppor
etition from Dundalk,
t.
Mr. RE DDINGTON presented a p
praying fur the abolition of tithes in Ireland.
Sir J. COLQ UHO UN presented a petition from Dunbar-
ton, against certain clauses in the Sheriffs' Courts Bill.
On the motion of Sir M. WOOD,
appointed to examine the reports made in 1830 relative to the
improvements in the City, together with any plans which they
might deem necessary for the same object, and to report to the
House. a Select Committee was

Mr. Serjeant JACK SON presented a petition from the
Officers of the Pipe Water Corporation of Dublin, praying for
compensation in the event of their office being abolished by the
Irish
L nm er:Coi
nll favour
pal
yNoorupa ooEnf
ayßn
presented
x t e
n s o
ofa tpheet i
st i
oo
ffn r fargo
on:
NA,osthetobny-Bunaducort:
and a shortening of the duration of Parliaments.
Sir G. STRICKLAND presented a petition from Led-
burgh, praying for a total abolition of the Negro apprentice-
ship in the West Indies.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
Mr. WAKLE ir said it was with very great regret that he
ever spoke in the language of complaint, but unfortunately he
was very often called upon to do so. He had a very strong ob-
jection to every thing in the shape of unfair play. He alluded
to the practice of the press, as connected with that House.
With regard to the press, personally, he had no complaint to
make, either before he had the honour of a seat in that House,
or since. On the contrary, the press had rendered him an es-
sential service. Without its aid he never would have obtained
the situation he now held. For a long series of years he had
been honoured with its abuse—(Laughter)—he was inured to
its abuse, and to that abuse he owed the proud honour of a
seat in that House. He had no blame to attach to
it, for his own part—he had no complaint to make against it per-
sonally ; but on the part of the working millions of England, he
had to complain in the most severe, if not in a loud manner.
On Friday last he presented to the House seven or eight pe-
titions, on behalf of the Glasgow Cotton-spinners. He was
sorry to go into this discussion—he hoped the Speaker would
betray no anxiety—it was with reluctance he adverted
to it ; but he wished Honourable Members to bear in
mind that if the privileges of the House were to
be broken, they ought to be violated with strict
impartiality. He stated again that, individually, he had
no complaint to make. Ho was utterly regardless of
whatever course the press might pursue with regard to him-
self, but he had presented to the House seven or eight pe-
titions, praying the House to interfere with the Crown for the
mitigation of the sentence on the Glasgow Cotton-spinners.
In the Morning Chronicle Newspaper there was an
entire omission of every one of those petitions, although
one of them contained upwards of eighteen thousand
signatures.—( Hear, hear.) That fact of itself might be of
little importance ; but what followed ? The Hon. and Learned
Member for Dublin presented a petition immediately after
him, and that petition being from the merchants, bankers, and
traders of Dublin, a description was given of its contents in
11. e MornLy Ch, uncle. 1., the Tin:es newst_o.i.e,
were two lines of notice with regard to that petition—
" Mr. Wakley presented several petitions to the House

in favour of the Glasgow Cotton-spinners." But in the
succeeding lines there was—" Mr. O'Connell presented a
petition from Dublin, signed by 4,000 inhabitants, including
the bankers, merchants, and traders of that place. Now he
begged to ask plainly the question—was the House prepared
to witness, from day to day, a violation of its privileges, and
to witness at the same time an act of such injustice to be com-
mitted ?—( Hear.) Many Hon. Members might consider the
Glasgow Cotton-spinners to be guilty ; but it ought not
to be withdrawn from the public, that there were hundreds of
dissentients in this kingdom who considered the sentence on
those men as being far too harsh ; they took an interest in
the sufferings of those unfortunate individuals, and prayed,
through petitions to that House, for a mitigation of the sen-
tence. He did not intend to make any motion on this subject ;
but he begged leave, for the information of the House and the
public, to state that on Friday last he presented petitions from the
Trades of Edinburgh; from the United Labourers of Edin-
burgh ; United Operative Masons of Scotland ; the Operative
Cork Cutters ; the Inhabitants of Linwood ; and the Trades
and Working Classes of Dundee. He bad only to say in
conclusion, whatever might be the consequences to himself,
and whatever might be the consequences to the House, that
if a similar course of injustice be pursued on future occasions,
he should fearlessly and perseveringly exercise the privilege
which he had a right to exercise in that House, and
call the attention of the Speaker to the fact of there
being strangers in the House, and consequently to the
exclusion of strangers from it ; because it was far better, in
his opinion, with reference to the proceedings of the assem-
bly, that those proeeedings should not be reported at all, ra-
ther than they should be reported incorrectly, and with
an apparently premeditated view to create illusion and mis-
conception in the public mind.—( Hear, and cheering.)
Having made that pledge, to which he would resolutely adhere,
and from which no consideration on earth would induce him to
depart, he would present the following petitions—from the
operative united masons of Edinburgh—from the working
classes of Leeds—from the Islington Working Men's
Association—from the working classes of London, in
public meeting assembled at the Mechanics' I nstitu-
tion, Southampton-buildings—from the Cumloch Work-
ing Men's Association—and from Dalkeith--all, we be-
lieve, in favour of a mitigation of the sentence on the
Glasgow Cotton-spinners.
DUBLIN TRADES' UNIONS.

The HON. MEMBER then presented a petition from the
stucco plasterers of Dublin, which related to the character of
the working men of Dublin. The petitioners denied the al-
legations sshich had been made against them, and they
prayed for an inquiry into Trades' Unions in general, and
particularly into the constitution and conduct of their own
body. As the petition from those respectable persons, the
merchants, bankers, &c., of Dublin was printed and circulated
with the Votes, he should more that the petition which he
now presented be also printed and ordered with the Vutes.—
Ordered.

THE COLONIAL SECRETARY.
Sir WILLIAM MOLESWORTH gave notice that on
the 6th of March he would move that an humble address be
presented to her Majesty from this House, to the effect that
the House respectfully expressed its opinion, that in the present
critical state of her Majesty's foreign possessions, it is impor-
tant that the Colonial Minister should be a person in whose
forethought, diligence, vigilance, and skill this House and
the country at large could confide, and that with all the due
regard to the prerogative of the Crown, this House could not
place confidence in the present Colonial Secretary.—(Great
laughter.)
GLASGOW COTTON-SPINNERS.
Mr. LEADER presented a petition praying for an inquiry
into the Glasgow Cotton-spinners' Association.
NEW POOR.LAW.

An HoN. MEMBER presented a petitioa for the repeal of
certain clauses in the_ New Poor-law Bill.

NEGRO APPRENTICESHIP.

Mr. SANFORD presented a petition from some place in
Sottersetshire against the system of Negro Apprenticeship in
the Colonies.
BALLOT.

Mr. SANFORD also presented a petition from the game
county in favour of the Ballot.
POOR LAWS (IRELAND).
An Hotl. MEMBER presented a petition in favour of Poor
Laws for Ireland.
Sir R. FERGUSON presented a petition from the North
of Ire:and against the Irish Poor Law Bill, or for various
amendments in the same.
POOR LAWS.

Lord FRANCIS EGERTON presented a petition from
a parish in the county of Lancaster, against the New Poor
Law Bill. If he saw any one of her Majesty's Ministers
present—(Hear, hear)—
Lord J. RI:isELL here entered the House, and took his
seat upon the. Treasury Bench.
Lord FRANCIS EGERTON was happy to see the
Noble Lerd. The petition which be had just presentad, for
the repeal of the Poor-law Bill, Ivas signed by a clergyman,
and above 400 of the most respectable inhabitcmtsof the parish ;
and he (Lord F. Egerton) believed this to be but a sample of
the state of public opinion in the country relative to this Bill.
The Noble Lord said, that with regard to the manner in
which petitions were brought forward on other occasions, he
had only to say that he was not a party to, and did not en.
courage anything like disrespect or discourtesy towards the
11ous. In conclusion, he begged to repeat that he thought
this petition was entitled to, and he hoped would receive, the
serious attention of Ler Majesty's Ministers.
Mr. PENDARVES presented a petition from St. Ives,
in the county of Cornwall, praying for the reduction of the
duty on post horses.
THE BALLOT.

Lord DUNCAN presented a petition from Southampton,
signed by 400 electors of that town, praying for the protection
of the Ballot.

LIGHTING OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. WAKLEY said, that as be understood the person was
in attendance with whom arrangements had been made for
lighting the House with gas, and as he had been also informed
by the officer that this was the time when the candles were
generally lighted, he wished to know from the Speaker
whether the experiment could now be tried, in order to afford
Hon. Members an opportunity of contrasting the effect.
The SPEAKER said that the experiment had been tried
on Saturday, but that the Committee had come to no deci-
sion, but had referred the matter to the House itself
to judge how far it was successful. He would not take it
upon I.lruself to say when that second trial should be made,
but he would leave the matter entirely to the House.
Mr. WAKLEY said the gas tubes were above the glass,
and the flame of the gas could have no effect on the atmosphere
of the House.—( Hear.) That ought to be distinctly under-
stood.

Sir F. TRENCH had been told, that although no danger
was likely to occur above the glass, there was very consider-
able risk, in making such an experiment, upon the beams
above.—(
Laughter.) Gentlemen might laugh, but it was a
consideration that, in making a new House, the beams might
be made of iron, and the risk thus avoided. He was told that
when the experiment was made, Leach apprehension was ex-
cited in the mind of those who witnessed it.
Mr. WAKLE Y said at that time the quantity of boat was
not anticipated, and allowance was not rruclo for the excited
temperature. Although he was not present on Saturday
evening, he was informed that the temperature could be regu-
lated with the greatest possible ease. He offered no o ;
he merely communicated to the House what he had been de.
sired to do by the officers ; and in conformity with that re-
quest, he moved that the House this evening be lighted with gas.
The question was put and agreed to, and the Speaker gave
the necessary directions to the Sergeant ; on hearing which,
several Members rather precipitately left the House.
Mr. MILES presented a petition, praying for an extension
of time fur the purchase of lands by the Bristol and Exeter
Railway Company. The petition was referred to the Com-
mittee on Private Bills-
SLIGO ELECTION.

Mr. F. FRENCH had a petition to present, which he con-
sidered of some importance to the privileges of the House. It
was the petition of Mr. J. P. Somers, the Member for the
borough of S;igo, who stated, that at the last election John
Martin and himself were the candidates, and that he was re-
turned by a considerable majority over the former ; that a peti-
tion against the return, professing to be the petition of John
Golden and Robert George Tyler was presented on 27th Nov.,
and a day appointed for taking the petition into consideration.
The petitioner stated that he was prepared to prove that the
signature of Robert George Tyler, attached to the petition,
was not in the handwriting of that person, and that he was
informed and believes that the other signatures would be also
D oved to be spurious upon
stepsinquiry in r ef. The petitioner therefore
htdet. His
he
prayed the House would take such erence to the peti-
tionerand the
manid to-morrow gem !
object
was
to
should move that it be referred to a Select Committee.
MEDICAL CHARITIES (IRELAND) BILL,
phr iavviel e gtehseo f
petition the
printed, asthey
In answer to a question from an Hon. Moon, on the Op-
4tion benches,
Pc)-Mr. F. FRENCH said he had not the slightest objection
0 postpone the nxt stage of the Medical Charities' Bill till
tl,v;dnesday week, or Wednesday fortnight, if required.
CONSTABULARY (IRELAND.)
_ .

took
e
Colonel PE RCEVAL begged to ask the Noble Lord, the
Secretary for Ireland, when it was likely that the returns which
had
been ordered by that House on the 20th of December last,
and the reports of the sub-constables of police to Col. Shaw
d NIORPETH would make inquiry into the cause of
KeLoonredy, were likely to be laid on the table ?
the delay, and hoped to be able to give the Hon. and Gallant
Member an answer in a few days.
POOR-LAWS (IRELAND) BILL.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the Order of the Day
for the House resolving itself into a Committee of the whole
House upon the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill.
oLord CLEMENTS trusted that the House would allow
him to make a few observations upon the general prin-
ciple of the Bill before it went into Committee, as he
was not present when the discussion on the second readin
n.
place. He wished to express his sincere thanks to the
lio
Lord (the Secretary for the Home Department) for
introducing
the present Bill, with the main features of which
he most cordially concurred. He thought that nothing
could ameliorate the condition of Ireland without the state of
the poorer classes was taken into most serious consideration.
He rejoiced the Bill was in the hands of the Noble Lord, and
ho thought that a great debt of gratitude was due from the peo-
ple of Ireland to that Noble Lord for the introduction of the Bill.
A great part of his constituents thought the powers given to
the Poor Law Commissioners were too large ; be thought
they ought not to be given without some check or controul.—
(Hear.) He thought the Central Commission would not act
wrong so much from evil design as from ignorance. Ho was
af,..id that there Itc.,,er would Le mach or any good done to
the suffering poor in Ireland, without a very extensive
system of out-door relief, And elan vlith.,,t an ca.

tensive system of voluntary out-door relief. Much
had been said respecting the way in which the clergy
were to act with respect to this l'oor-law Bill. It had been
said, and no doubt with much truth, that any system of
poor-law which prohibited clergymen from interfering in
their management must ultimately end in attaining great
benefits.—( Hear, hear.) He felt that much which had
been said by those who urged that point was unan-
swerable ; but he did think facility should be given
to them for inducing a voluntary assessment. He must say
that due praise had not been given to the Protestant and Ro-
man Catholic clergy for their zeal in the discharge of their
duty on the principle of universal charity. The clergy had
been placed in a hostile position with their fellow-country-
men, and they were supposed by that House to be mere
politicians, but every person who knew them well knew
that they were ever on the alert for the purpose of
relieving those who were objects of charity. He thought
the Poor-law Commissioners ought to encourage charitable
people to come forward in the way he knew many did at
present, to assist persons out of the workhouse ; and un-
less that was done, and the system was perfectly organised, he
believed the Poor Law Bill would be a complete failure.
As the House did not seem disposed to listen to him, he would
detain it but a short time longer.—( Hear, hear, hear.) With
respect to settlement, he thought there were great errors in
the way in which that question was treated. He thought that
without some practice of settlement there would be no effectual
good under the Bill. He was intimately acquainted
with the Western districts, and he was convinced that,
as they were the poorest parts of Ireland, the Bill ought
first to be introduced into them, in the same manner as the
English Poor-Law Amendment Act had been introduced into
those parishes in England in which pauperism was most
prevalent.
[The Noble Lord was scarcely listened to in the House,
and was very imperfectly heard in the Gallery, in consequence
of the noise which prevailed whilst the gas-lights outside of the
inner ceiling were being lighted, according to the motion of Mr.
Wakley, and on the principle of the experiment which was first
made on Saturday night. To make the effect of the ex-
periment intelligible to those who have not witnessed it, we
should explain that, in the alteration made last night, under
Dr. Reid, an inner ceiling was constructed several feet below the
former one—the centre being flat, and the sides (which sloped)
being entirely of glass, the whole length of the House. Now, along
these on the outside, between the two ceilings, and immediately
above the glass sides, there are laid on each side three pipes,
running the whole length, and pierced at small distances to
permit jets of gas to issue. When these were lighted the effect
was novel and really beautiful—the light, mellowed by passing
through the ground glass, was yet almost equal to the light
of day. The effect appeared to give great satisfaction to the
Members.]
Sir E. SUGDEN entirely agreed that Poor-laws were ne-
cessary for Ireland, and that any calculations which might be
made were of little or no importance to the subject ; for if the
Hon. Member for Dublin was correct in his views, there was
a great deal more misery than the framers of the measure
had anticipated. What was poverty in one situation was
destitution in another—for instance, poverty in Ireland
was absolute destitution in England. As he thought that
Poor-laws svere necessary, he had come to the conclusion
that there could be no safety for property without them.
As the Bill was framed there was no limit to the ex-
penditure ; and on this part of the subject be wished
to say a word, because he considered it to be
the duty of the Legislature to guard against it.—( Hear.)
He should be disposed to ascertain first what would
be the operation of the Bill in a few districts ; for
he defied any man yet to say how it would work.
He entirely disapproved of that part of the Bill
which prohibited out-door relief in every case. The Bill
further proposed to put under the direction and absolute control
of the Poor Law Commissioners, all the workhouses and all
the charities of the country, in order that they might appro-
priate them and bring them in the aid of the General Poor
Law Act. He for one should certainly not agree to any
clause which would take from the poor of Ireland any relief to
which they were entitled under any existing foundation.
The Poor Law Commissioners were about to take these
private charities under their controul, but he contended that
if the House sanctioned such a proceeding it would be
acting inconsistently with what it had done in the case
of the English Poor Law Bill. —( Cries of " Hear, hear.")
Let them pass their own law if they liked, but let them not
take away those charitable institutions which had existed for
centuries. As he read the Bill, it took away all the charitable
funds of all institutions in Ireland, a proposition to which he for
one would never agree. Their object was to relieve the poor,
but why confine them to the workhouse ? why oblige a poor man
to walk some twenty miles for the poor pittance which was
there given him. He was against the law of settlement. He
thought it would lead to much litigation ; that litigation
would necessarily lead to great expense. He acknowledged
that the law had its benefits, but in his opinion they
were much overbalanced by its evils.—(Hear, hear.) He
wes friendly, and always had been, to emigration, provided
there was a good starting place and a good place of re-
ception, but he would not give a premium to emigration,
which might lead away some of the most substantial and best
of our peasantry. Again, under this Bill, if the money
received for emigration was to be applied to the casual
poor, one union might relieve another of its superabundant
population. lie did not see how the Emigration Clauses
were to work ; if the emigration was simultaneous it was
impossible they could work. It appeared to him, there-
fore, that the whole case as regarded emigration, must be
reconsidered, and must be differently provided for. —( Hear,
hear, hear.) In all these Clauses providing money he
should like to see a limit, because if he found the Poor-law
Commissioners making such an order as bad been stated to-
night, he should not give them the extensive power asked for
by this Bill, but should certainly vote against Hear. )
The Commissioners meant to do good he had oo doubt, but
they wished to do it in their own way. Upon the whole he
was very much of opinion that the features of this Bill must
be very much altered, or that it must be withdrawn alto-
gether. There were many parts of the Bill which he entirely
objected to. In the first place, as it gave no right
to the poor man, he should object to any liability being thrown
upon him that he was not subject to by law at present. He
doubted very much whether the Bill would suppress vagrancy;
on the contrary he thought it would have a tendency to encou-
rage it. As regards.. mendicancy, he could not think
that the clauses of the Bill could have a tendency to absorb
that. He did not think that mendicancy could be struck at
by this Bill. What did the Noble Lord mean by mendi-
cancy? Suppose an honest and industrious peasant was able
to earn something, but not enough to support his family,
was that man to be treated as and considered a mendicant?
In Ireland mendicancy was occasionally resorted to by those
who, although they would be considered in a state of destitu-
tion in this country, were not's() in comparison with the gene-
ral poverty. Was a man who was industrious, and who sup-
ported his family by his labour whenever he could ob-
tain employment, to be punished as a mendicant ?—Hear,
hear.) It was impossible that the House would pass
a law for inflicting penalties upon a man so circumstanced, for
doing that which was not morally wrong. There was a clause
relating to the conduct of persons towards their families, to
which he begged to call the earnest attention of the House.
But first he would go to the 49th clause, which referred to the
liabilities of married women. It provided that a married
woman should be compelled to maintain her owe children and
the children of her husband. Now, was it possible that they
could throw upon a married woman the burthen of maintaining
her husband's children by his former wives ?—( Hear, hear.)
There was another clause making it penal for any person to
desert an infant under the age of seven years. This provision
would go to this extent, that if any person had the casual cus-
tody of a child under seven years, not as a parent, but as a
nurse, and deserted the child, she might be punished
by imprisonment or hard labour for three months. But no
nurse would desert a child if she received the money for it;
and it was only when not paid for it that the desertion took
place. On the whole, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
said he would support the Bill—not in its details,
because he should vote against several of its provisions ; but
with all its imperfections he could not propose a better measure.
Lord MORPETH was sure the Hon. Member would not
think he was treating him with any disrespect if be did not
follow him into the details into which he had gone, particularly
after the opinion expressed by the House the other day in the
most intelligent manner as to its wish to go into Committee.
He did not understand that the Hon. Member was opposed to
the leading principles of the Bill, and thought it would be most
accordant with the feelings of the House to go into Committee,
and endeavour to make the present such a Bill as would
conduce to the welfare of Ireland. It was necessary that
everything should be done to nizke the Bill as palatable as
possible, and he had the more satisfaction in adopting this
course as they remained without any feasible alternative of the
proposition of any other measure.
Sir F. BURDETT thought some of the clauses were ob-
jectionable, and that they could never Le carried into effect.
He complained that her Majesty's Ministers had not even had
the courtesy to consult any of the Members of that part of the
empire who might be able to give them important and
valuable suggestions. They might rest assured that the
poor of Ireland never would consent to be shut up in
workhouses, as proposed by the Bill. Their feelings and
habits (which had been by no means consulted) were totally
opposed to such a system. He thought the arguments of the
lion. and Learned Member for Dublin the other night relative
to the inability of the poorer class of farmers to pay rates,
had remained unanswered, and appeared to him unanswerable.
The Bill would never, in his opinion, pass the House of
Commons. The objections to it were too numerous and
too important. No one had asked the Ministers for the
Present Bill—at least the people of Ireland had not
petitioned for it—and upon the principlo of the pre-
sent measure, they never could frame a Bill consonant
to the feelings of the people of Ireland. The present Bill
was an attempt to put a restraint upon the people of Ireland
which they never could enforce..—( Hear, hear.) He thought
the effect of the Poor-law in England was not cal-
culated to recommend the introduction of a similar mea.
sure in Ireland.—( Cheers.) He thought that the present
measure was one of the wildcat and most uncalled for he had
ever heard. He should therefore oppose it altogether.
Mr. BARRON could not but congratulate the people of
Ireland upon their obtaining a new advocate in the Hon.
Baronet.—( Hear, and cheers.) It was quite in accordance
with his previous conduct, and in unison with his subscription
to the Spottiswoode fund. The people of Ireland received the
present measure as the greetest boon, and as one of
the most useful measures that had ever been discussed
in or out of Parliament. The maimed, the blind, the dc-
crepid, and the aged would be protected by the Bill.
He had attended a public meeting in Ireland, where
the Bill was unanimously approved of, with only one
xceetion, and it was held in the city of Waterford, where
there was a society in existeaco which was founded upon
the fame principle, and so far from the people haying

any objection to going into workhouses, they were often
obliged most reluctantly to refuse admission to more
than from fifty to sixty in a week. He was afraid
the speech of the Honourable Baronet was not dictated
by sympathy for the poor Irish, but was called forth
by the wish to stab others by opposing their measures—( Hear. )
Sir W. BR ABA ZON rose to give his utmost opposition to
the Bill. He denied that the Bill would be a boon to the people
of Ireland. He founded his opposition to the Bill principally
as the lamentable report of the Commissioners who had been
sent into unfortunate Ireland for the purpose of feeling the pulso
of the people of that country.--( Hear.) He had letters and
papers in his possession which showed clearly the people of
Ireland viewed with alarm the introduction of such a measure.
He hoped Ministers would not propose the Bill without attend-
ing to his suggestions. He had not intended to speak upon the
Bill until he heard gentlemen on both sides of the House de-
scribing it es a panacea for the evils of Ireland.
Mr. WALK ER, as an Irish landlord, thanked the Noble
Lord for having brought in the Bill ; and he believed that
every other Irish landlord would think in the same manner, if
he had a similar opportunity.
The Speaker then left the Chair, and the House resolved
itself into a Committee on the Bill.

On Clause I being read,
Mr. SHAW expressed his opinion that the English non-
resident Commission would not do well in Ireland.

Lord J. RUSSELL said that it was proposed to have only
Assistant Commissioners sitting in Ireland to execute the ac-
tual work, while the controul and the power to make regula-
tions would rest with the Board in England. If any other
course were adopted, they would lose the valuable experience
attained by men like Frankland Lewis and Nicholls, who had
devoted their whole time to the subject for some years past.
The Assistant Commissioners would have instructions to for-
ward all questions and claims to Somerset House, so that no
difficulty or serious delay could arise in any case.
In reply to queries from Sir E. KNATCHBULL and
Mr. SHAW,

Lord Jt RUSSELL stated that it was intended, as the Bill
specified, that the Irish Poor-law Commission should only last
as long as the English one. There was, however, a Corn-
mitt, e sitting on the subject, which would report, after due
deliberation ; so that he could not at present speak positively
on that subject.
Mr. O'CONNELL understood the case to be as follows
There was to be a Commissioner, residing in Ireland who was
not to be an Irish Cemmissioner.—(Laughter.) He was to
attend to the facts of the case, and do the work, but others in
England, who knew nothing about it, were to have the con-
trol.—(Hear, hear.) This came of following up the theory
of centralization, and the animus of the matter was that Eng-
land should over-ride Ireland. However, he was convinced
that the Bill, such as it was, could not work at all, without
giving the powers claimed for the Commissioners to aliens.—
(Oh I) He was ready to agree with the Hon. Member wbe
exclaimed at his conviction, and get rid of the provisions with
the principle and the plan altogether.—(Laughter.)
After a conversation in which Sir Edward Sugden, Mr.
Darby, Mr. Shaw, and Mr, W. S. O'Brien, took part.
Mr. GOUL BURN said that there was an especial neces-
sity for establishing an office, and some authority in Dublin,
competent to give positive instructions and afford information
without delays and references, in a country where the prin-
ciple of the Bill would be so new to the public.
Mr. REDINGTON wished that the English Board
(which must want local experience) should only form a Court
of Appeal.
Mr. LITTON thought the Bill could not work at all unless
same local authority was appointed to adjudicate immediately
on all questions, as they arose.
Mr. C. BULLER thought that the best plan would be to
have an entirely independent Board in Ireland.
Mr. J. GR ATT A N and Mr. LUCAS supported the clause.
Lord CLEMENTS thought an independent commission in
Ireland would work very well if it were composed of expe-
rienced and impartial Englishmen.
After a few words from Mr. BEAMISH and Mr.
P. THOMPSON,
Mr. O'CONNELL said that this Irish Bill was founded
on the abuses of the English Poor Law, and quite inapplicable
to Ireland; for the Irish labourers did not shrink from work.
They would walk six hundred miles to get work in England.
They wanted not the artificial stimulus or English screw al}'
plied to them by this Bill.

Lord J. RUSSELL did net believe there was such a diffe-
rence between human nature in Ireland and in England, where
the labourer preferred receiving 10s. 6d. a-week without la-
bour, if he could get it.
Mr. O'CONNELL did not speak of the English gene-
rally, but of the pauperised labourer, who preferred to live on
the parish pay. There was not such a class in Ireland ; and
the Bill not being applicable, would totally fail.
Sir E. Sugden, Mr. Shaw, Mr. W. Roche, Mr. F. French.
and Sir W. Somerville advocated the propriety of a resident
Commissioner in Dublin as a general rule : his absence should
be the exception.
Mr. O'CONNELL moved, as an amendment, that the
Poor Law Commissioners for Ireland for the time being be
empowered to carry this Bill into effect.
After a short discussion the Committee divided, when the
numbers were—
For the amendment

Against it
Majority 94
The original clause was then agreed to. .
Clause 2, with verbal amendments, was agreed to, es were
also clauses 3 and 4.

Clauses 5 to 10, inclusive, were also agreed to.
Clause 11, relative to delegating and revoking the power
of the Commissioners, was agreed to with a verbal amendment.
On clause 12 being put, which related to, the examination of
witnesses upon oath, &c.
Mr. G 0 I.ILBURN said this clause was, in principle, a de-
viation from the English Bill.
Lord MO RPETH said it was framed with an intention to
harmonize with the system of legislation at present prevailing,
with reference to the taking of oaths.
Mr. O'CONNELL considered it would be better that a
declaration should be made in all cases connected with a 1313
of this sort.
Mr. LITTON thought it was better that parties should be
allowed to make an oath or declaration, as they thought fit.. _
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL would not object tot r,
insertion of words allowing persons to object to take an o°
provided they objected " on conscientious scruples."
Sir E. S I.JG DE N thought it better to leave the law of the
land as it was on this point.
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON concurred in the observation.
Mr. O'CONNELL moved to leave out the words 44 upon
Sir R. PEEL said that the discussion upon the words " on
oath" might as well have been taken on the second clause, in
,which they also occurred, as in this. He objected to the in-
troduction of a new principle of law in an Irish Poor Law Bill.
—( Hear, bear.)
After a few words from Mr. O'Connell, Lord Hewiek, and
Lord Sandon,
Mr. YATES approved of the amendment of the Hon. and
Learned Member for Dublin, and hoped he would not with-
draw it.

Mr. HUME considered it absurd to leave the administra-
tion of an oath, or the dispensing with it, to the option of any
party.
An HON. Mimi= said it was important that the rule
which was acknowledged by law should be adopted in this case.
Mr. W. ROCHE thought they were bound to follow out
the principle which they themselves had laid down.
Mr. MILES considered the wording of the clause defective.
Mr. P. THOMSON was not prepared on this occasion by a
side wind to affirm the principle that oaths generally should
be abolished, at the same time that he agreed where a party
had a conscientious scruple the oath should be dispensed with.
Sir R. PEEL said the Right Hon. Gentleman declared
that he would not establish the general principle of dispens-
ing with oaths by a side wind, or in an Irish Poor-law Bill;
but what did he say in the very next sentence? Why, that
they ought to decide that where there was an allegation of a
conscientious scruple, the party should be relieved from the
necessity of taking an oath. This was carrying out the
principle to the fullest extent. He would not say it would
be right that the Commissioners under this Act should in all
cases examine on oath, but he thought it only proper that they
should have the power of administering an oath whenever
such a course was deemed necessary. In those instances in
which the law required an oath that should be the rule, and
this would, in his judgment, be the safest course which they
could pursue.—( Hear.)

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that a discretionary
power was reserved to the Commissioners under th• Euglisls
Poor-law Act, and this clause went no farther. It was,
therefore, not a new principle which they sought to establish.
Mr. O'CONNELL said it seeraed to b• forgotten that they
were making a new law, constituting a new tribunal, and giving
powers fur the first time. As they had a clear sheet before
them, it was incumbent on them to carry out to the full e%-
tent the principle which they had adopted in other cases.
After a short conversation,
Lot d HOWICK felt bound to resist the motion of the
Hon. Member for Dublin.
The Committee then divided.
On returning to the gallery we found the numbers to be--
For the original motion l4B
For the amendment
Majority
Clause 12, after some discussion between Lord Mooring'
and Mr. S. O'BRIEN, was agreed to.
Clause 13.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN objected to that portion of the clause
which made refusing to attend on summonses from the Crown
a misdemeanour.

Mr. S HAW concurred in Mr. O'Brien's opinion.
Mr. O'CONNELL approved of the clause as it stood.
After one or two observations from the ATTORNEY-
GENERAL and Mr. MAULE, in support of the clause, it
was agreed to.
Clause 14 was agreed to.
Clause 15.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN thought Unions on the scale contem-
plated would be much too extensive, namely, on an average
of 2,000 persons and 200,000 acres. A Union of that extent
would include the whole county of Carlow.
—Lord MORPETH said that the question of the extent of
Unions had been fully discussed last year; it was then consi-
dered whether it would be possible to fix any limitation to the
size of the Unions, and eventually decided that any limitation
would inconveniently shackle the Commissioners, and that,
therefore, it would be better to leave the extent to the judg-
ment of those gentlemen, to adapt it to the wants and circum-
stances of the parties to be benefited by the Union.
, Captain DUND A S thought that the size of unions should
cave some limits. In England the large unions had been
found exceedingly inconvenient.
Mr. WOULFE said it was impossible to fix on any gi•o

size for the unions, as they must be adapted to the wants and
circumstances of the locality for which they were intended.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that this difference of opinion
only showed the utter impossibility of working this Bill. Last
year Ireland was to be cut up in diamonds of 20 miles square.
in which no man was to be more than 10 miles distant from
the workhouse. What would become of that arrangement
now, when they were to look for market towns in which to
erect the workhouse, and that in Ireland the market towns
were, in some cases, 20, and even 30, miles asunder? Mr.
!iicholl had, in his Report, promised a millennium for Ireland
if he could only get a school, a barrack, and a workhouse
together, and now they must hunt for a market town in which
to erect a workhouse.
Mr. GORING deprecated large unions, as rendering it
most inconvenient for the poor who might wish to visit their
relations in the workhouse.
Mr. GRATTAN would support the clause as it stood.
Lord CLEMENTS was opposed to large unions.
Lord HO WICK said that it had been agreed ou all sides
that there should be no limit to the size of the unions. He
had no doubt, however, that the Commissioners would be able
to make them suit the convenience of all parties.
Mr. WALKER supported the clause.
Mr. WYSE thought the only effectual course was to adopt
the arrangement proposed by the clause.
Mr. GORING moved, as an amendment, that the town
lands in the clause should not be more than ten miles from the
Union workhouses.
Sir R. PEEL was of opinion that in an experimental mea-
sure, such as was the present, the widest possible discretion
should be allowed. It had been argued that the English
poor had objected to the size of the Unions established by the
late Act ; but this was not to be wondered at when it was re-
membered within what narrow limits they would have gained
relief under the old Act. The Irish, however, had no poor
law, and of course could not make the same objection, which
Was but the result of comparison. There could be no hope
for the success of the Bill, if the mode by which it was to be
carried into operation were confined within too narrow limits.
After a few words from Lord MORPRTII, Mr. PARROTT, and
Mr. O'CONNELL,
Mr. GORING again urged his amendment.
After a few words from Lord CLEMENTS, Lord SAN DON,
and Mr. W. BARRON,
Mr. GORING withdrew his amendment.
The clause was then agreed to.
On the motion of Lord MORPETH, the Chairman re-
ported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Friday.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, on mov-
ing the Order of the Day for going into a Committee of Ways
and Means, wished to call the attention of Members to the
experiment made that evening, as to the new mode of lighting
the House. He thought an opportunity would offer now, on
moving that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Ways
and Means.
Mr. HUME thought the House could not come to a fair
conclusion, without some more experience on the subject.
There was much difference of opinion, and he thought it would
be better to take the sense of the House to-morrow.
The House then went intea Committee of
WAYS AND MEANS.
On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
CHEQUER, " The sum of 11,413,750/. was granted to her
Majesty to pay off and discharge any Exchequer-bills charged
on the aids or supplies of the year 1837 or 1838, now remain-
ing unpaid or unprovided for ;" and " That a sum not exceed-
ing 2,000,0001. be granted to her Majesty to discharge the
like amount of supplies :granted for the ,service of the year
1837, or any preceding year.
v On the motion of Mr. G. KNIGHT the First Fruits Bill
Was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Wed-
nesday, February 28.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and
the House adjourned at Twelve o'Clock.