The Sun.
London, England, 1838-03-24 00:00:00

POOR-LAWS.

The Earl of WINCHIL SE A presented a petition front
the guardians of the poor of a union in the county of Lincoln,
against the Beer Act. He expressed a sincere hope that this
House would tike up this subject, and revise the law, for he
was satisfied that it had tended greatly to demoralise the poor.
The Noble Earl then presented a petition from the guar-
dians of the poor of the Kettering Union, expreeiive of their
belief that the Poor-law had been beneficial, hue at the same
time complaining that they had not the discret;.onary power of
granting out-door relief. He perfectly concueTed in the state-
ments made by the petitioners, and he hotted that a power of'
that description would be afforded, as he wets convinced, front
his own experience, of fee absolute necessity of it. Many cases
had occurred during the late severe weather which rendered
such a power essential, in order that the industrious poor might
have the benefit of it. The Noble Earl then alluded to the
statements which had been made in that House by m. Noble Earl
not now in his place (Lord Stanhope), and he regretted that
they should have been made at all ; for he wars satisfied they
had a mischievous effect on the morals of the lot cer orders in the
country. There had also appeared some letters calculated to
inflame the minds of the working classes, which had been dis-
tributed in the manufacturing districts. Fie must say that he
teought they were highly prejudicial, and, it would be well if
her Majesty's Ministers would turn their attention to the sub-
ject. Those letters were mitten and, published by wicked,
designing people, in order to inflame and disquiet the mimic
of the lower clas,cs, misrepresenting the effects of the Poor-
laws. The last Act upon that subject had never been framed
with the view of the paltry saving which it effected, but with
a more enlarged and statesmanlike view, as being calculated
to restore the working classes to that moral condition which
in former ages they exhibited. As regarded the prayer of
the petition he most cordially coincided in it, a,nd should be
glad to see the suggestion adopted.
The Earl of RADNOR defended that pro vision of the Bill
of which the petitioners complained. Besides, the petitioners
had shown no case of inconvenience having,' arisen.
The Earl of WINCHILSEA said that he had a letter
which accompanied the petition, pointing; out some cases of
hardship which had taken place.
After a few observations from Lord LILFORD, the peti-
tion was laid upon the table.

Lord W I-1 KR NC LIFFE deferred until Monday his motion
for the production of the correspoudence which had trans-
pired between the Commissioners and the Guardians of the
Windsor union.

On the motion of the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, the
Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists' Affirmation Bill was
read a second time.

'The Marquis of CLANMARDE complain-A of the
non-production of certain r'turns relative to the constabulary
force in Ireland, which had been some time ago ordered
by the House, and he moved their production forthwith.—
Agreed to.

The Archbishop of C ANTWRBURY presented petitions
for the immediate abolition of negro apprenticeship, front
North Walsham, containing 11,000 signatures, Huddersfield,
Bradford, and other places.
On the motion of Lxcl COLCHESTER, certain returns
connected with the capture ofslave ships on the coast oQ Africa,
were ordered.
The House then adjourned to Monday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MAReg 23.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at the:usual hour.
Mr. CRAFER from the Treasury ?resented papers,
TAMWORTE-1 ELECTION.

Colonel LYGON appeared at the bar, and, stated that the
Committee appointed to try the merits of thi; petition against
the return for the Borel:tgli of Tamwora, had determined
that Henry Edward A'Court, Esq., the Sitting Member, had
been duly elected, and that the petition against his return, and
the opposition thereto, were neither fri•tolous nor vexatious.

1111:.PROTHEROE obtained leave to bring in a Bill to
repair the Halifax road.
Mr. J. A, SMITH brought in the West India Dock Bill.
Captain WINNINGTON obtained leave to br'Ang in a Bill
to improve the Severn navigation.
Mr. BROTHERTON presented a petition from the Edin-
burgh and Glasgow Union Canal Company, 'against the Edin-
burgh and. Glasgow Railway Bill.
Mr. HALL moved for leave to bring in a Bill, for paving
St. Pancras._Agreed to,
Sir G. STRICKLAND brought up the report of the
Committee on. the Hudde:•sfield Road Bill.
Mr. PALMER brciught up the report r,f the Committee
on the elfast Water Works Bilk
MOY NAVIGATION PALL
Colonel PE RCE VAL moved that the report of the Com-
mittee on the Riper Mov Bill he referred back to the Com-
mittee on the Standing- Orders.

Mr. PA LM ER inquired what. report the lion. and Gallant
Member alluded to ?

Colonel PERCEVAI, said, he meant the. Report that was
referred to the Sub-committee.

Mr. R. PALMER (w)o spoke so indistinctly as to be
scarcely audible in the gallery), w..ts understood to say that
the Standing Orders Committee '.fad reported that the Stand-
ing Orders ought no!. to 'oe in ~nis eas, dispeascd and
the Sub-committee had decid'Al that the Bill ought nut to be
Feeceded with.
Sir GEORGE STRICKLANI) thought thw.t this mls
not :a entitled the parties to indulgeuc:e from the
Standing case
Committee. The Coramittee had
st a
ibeen aee,,ised of being too indulgent in frirmer instances,
and .es a member of it, he was certainly opposed
t, a case which furnished such slight trt•,,mnds for it being
made the subject of a further charge against them.
Colonel PERCE AL sail that th,al.e were some 11CM
features in favour of the Bill, which "nr.d not bmn laid Le-
fore the Standing, Orders Committee, a•Akl therelorv'it was he

as so anxious to have it referred back to them. He hoped
that as the Government had approved of the work, and ex-
pressed their willingness to advance a sum of money towards
it, and as a similar indulgence bad been granted by the Com-
mittee within the last fortnight, on much slighter grounds, the
Honourable Member would not persevere in his opposition to the
motion.

Mr. S. LEFEVRE thought the House bound to support
the decision of the Standing Orders Committee, and contended
that a strong case had been made out for enforcing their de-
cision. He did not think the Gallant Officer had made out
his case. No person could accuse the Standing Order Com-
mittee of being too severe.—(Hear,thear.) In nineteen cases
out of twenty they were rather too indulgent. He thought
the House was bound to support their decision.—( Hear. )
Mr. Serjeant LE FROY supported the motion.
Mr. AGL lONBY said the ground on which he opposed
the motion was, that it would be setting a most inconvenient
precedent to refer cases back to Committees. He did not
mean to say that a case might not occur in which the Bill
ought to be referred back to the Standing Orders Committee,
but he thought there was no ground for such a proceeding on
the present occasion.
Mr. F. FRENCH said that he understood all his
Honourable and Gallant Friend required was, that the House
should act in an Irish case as they had a few days since in a
Scotch case.
Colonel PE RCEVAL—Hear, hear. The Edinburgh and
Glasgow Railway.
Mr. F. FRENCH—If that was so, he (Mr. F.) would
certainly support the motion.
Mr. GREEN said the Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway
Bill had been referred back on totally different grounds.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, when the House
divided, and the numbers were—
For the motion l9
•
Against it 72
Majority against the motion —s3
NEGRO SLAVERY.
Petitions were presented against Negro slavery by Mr.
Hawes, from several parts of the borough of Lambeth ; by Mr.
Gaily Knight, from different parts of Nottinghamshire; by
Mr. Brotherton, from Stratford-upon-Avon, and other places ;
by Mr. E. L. Bulwer, from different parts of Lincolnshire ;
by Major Aglionby, from Cumberland; by Sir Geo. Strick-
land, from Stockton-upon-Tees ; from Hornesworth, near
Birmingham ; by Mr. Shaw Lefevre, from different parts of
Hampshire ; and by Sir R. Ferguson, from Nottinghamshire.
Petitions with a similar prayer were presented in great
numbers by Mr. Baines, Mr. Protheroe, Mr. Lister, Mr. Lyt-
ton, Lord Ashley, Lord Alford, Mr. Greene, Mr. Collier,
Mr. Briscoe, Mr. A. Whyte, Mr. Sheppard, and Mr. Fort.
Mr. HOGG presented a petition from the Licensed Victual-
lers of Beverley, praying to be relieved from any liability for
the loss of goods belonging to the Customs, unless such goods
sire specially intrusted to their care.
Gen. O'NEIL presented a petition from the High-Sheriff'
and Grand Jury of Antrim, praying that the management of
Dipensaries and Infirmaries might not be taken from the
gentry and given to the Poor-law Commissioners.
IRISH POOR LAW.

Lord CASTLEREAGH presented a petition, signed by
the High Sheriff of the county of Down, on behalf of a meet-
ing of the inhabitants of that county, against certain provisions
of the Irish Poor-law Bill, and a petition from the parish of
hda, in the same county, to the same effect. The
Noble Lord also presented a petition from the parish of
Cumber, in the same county, against the present system of
national education in Ireland.
POOR-LAW AMENDMENT ACT.

Mr. LIDDELL presented petitions from places in North-
vrnbcrland and Durham, praying for alterations in the Poor-
law Amendment Act; and be moved that those petitions be
referred to the Poor-law Commiitue.
POST-1101HE DUTY.

The HON. MENIBER presented also a petition from the Pori
mrster3 in the county of Durham for a reduction of the Posi
hot .4,1' duty.
SMALL TENEMENTS RATING BILL.

Mr. HODGSON preset ted a petition from BerwiA-upon
Tweed against this Bill.
POOR LAWS AMENDMENT ACT.

Mr. BET HELL presented a petition from Hull, with
:7. 110 signatures, for zi repeal of the Poor-laws Amendment
Aut. Although he felt it his duty to present the petition, he
cid not atrree with the prayer.
TAXING OF LITERARY INSTITUTIONS.

The Hoer. MEMBER also presented a petition from the
Lyceum Literary Ls!itution, Hull, praying that such institu-
:ions might be exonerated from the pAyment of all Parlia-
mentary and other rates and taxes, except the land tax.
MEDICAL CHARITIES BILL.

Petitions were presented against this Bill, by Mr. F.
French, from the Medical Students of Ireland; by Mr. Cal-
Izte;ban, from the Licentiate Apothecaries; and by Mr. Shaw.
POOR LAW.

Mr. B. BING HAM (we believe) presented a petition,
q;gned by 1,678 persons :n a district of Staffordshire, complain-
I:g of the unconstitutional powers which had been granted
the Poor-law Commissioners ; also stating that the Assistant
Poor-law Commissioner for the district had endeavoured, both
by misrepresentation and intimidation, to induce them to break
no the union which at present existed under the Gilbert Act.
1-k moved that it be referred to the Poor Law Committee.
Mr. BULLER said from his knowledge of the Assistant
Commissioner referred to, be could not believe he could be
guilty of such conduct, and that opinion was corroborated by
:he testimony of one of the most influential Gentlemen in the
23t ighbourhood of the district in question.
Mr. AGLIONBY presented a petition in favour of the
Landlord and Tenants' Bill.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from the Dissenters of
Dundee, against further endowments to the Church of Scotland;
andalso a petition from the Carpenters and Joiners of Kilkenny,
praying to be heard before the Committee appointed to inquire
into the system of combination amongst operatives in Ireland,
in order that they might have an opportunity of repelling the
charges that had been brought against their body.
COUNTY RATES.
Lord J. RUSSELL wished to ask the Hon. Member who
had introduced the Bill with regard to County-rates, if he had
any abjection to withhold it for the present. He thought it
%,‘ as desirable that it should be postponed until some time
after Easter.
Mr. HUME said, when he answered the question put to him
yesterday, it was with the hope of having some time fixed, be-
cause having been put off three times, at the request of
different parties, there seemed to be no end to the postpone-
ment. He was ready to agree to any fixed period.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—The second Wednesday after
.Easter.
Mr. HUME assented.
EASTER RECESS.

Sir R. PEEL asked what was the intention of her Ma-
"esty's Government with regard to the adjournment for Easter,
so far as the House of Commons was concerned?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied the House would adjourn
on Wednesday the 11th, till the Tuesday of the week follow-
ing Easter week.
POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.—RESIGNA-
TION OF COLONEL KENNEDY.

Lord fohn RUSSELL moved the Order of the Day for
the Poor Relief Ireland Bill.
- Sir R. PEEL would take this cpportunity of asking
a question pith respect to two or three matters con-
'', cted with the establishment of the Constabulary Force
in Ireland, a,nd with reference to the rumoured re-
signation of the officer who had had for some time the
chief superintendence and controul over that Force; and
the question was mainly grounded upon the discussion
Nthich took place at the time when the change in the law was
made, he begged particularly to refer to that discussion. The
House would probably recollect that in February, 1836,. the
Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland proposed a Bill making
very material alterations in the mode of the appointment
of a Constabulary Force in Ireland.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
The Noble Lord proposed by that measure to transfer the se-
lection of police constables from the Magistrates of Ireland,
who had heretofore held it, and to vest it either in the Lord
Lieutenant, or an officer acting under him, and having the
charge of that force, That there might be no mistake
as to the expressions of the Noble Lord on that occasion, he
would refer to the best prevailing authority, and read from
it an extract from the Noble Lord's speech. The Right
Honourable Baronet here read an extract from the
speech of Lord Morpeth, in which he stated, that al-
though the appointment would be nominally in the Crown,
it would be practically in the hands of the Inspector-
,General—and that without imputing any improper motives to
file Magistrates of Ireland, it was clear that where the
ap oointment was partially vested in them, they would be desirous
to appoint their own friends. The Right Hon. Baronet then
proceseded :—Upon the grounds of the more impartial ex-
ercise of that discretion, the Noble Lord had proposed tq
invest it in the Inspector-General. He was followed by the
Noble Lol'd (the Secretary for the Home Department) who
held nearly language. He said that another inconve-
nience of the present system was, that while a part of the police
force was appointed by the inspector, another part was ap-
pointed by the magi.qrates, and the object of the Bill was
to place under one inspector General the direction of the
whole force, and to give him a compiete control over it.
These reasons had considerable influence with him (Sir
Robert Peel), and also with several of his Honourable
Friends who had strong objections to the measure;
and for the purpose of removing all suspicion, the
N,able Lord had communicated at the time to the ,House that
an officer of the highest character and strictest impartiality
woulti be the person to whom the superintendence of the
Police would be committed. The Noble Lord had applied
to him k'Sir Robert Peel) to confirm his testimony as to the
character nt4 that officer, and he thought that many of the ob-
jections to that transfer were to a certain degree mitigated, if
4
not entirely removed by the announcement made to the House
that the appointment which had taken place was free from al
suspicion of party 13.'as, and although the Magistrates woe]
lose the nomination of the constables, still the transfer would
be to an officer of integrity and impartiality. He ( Sir R.,
Peel) acquiesced in the. rrangements thus made, but distinctl
with this reservation, that the trust should be administered wit
perfect honesty. If it werootherwise—if the power of that tru
was to be employed to party purposes, then he said the effiei
ency of the Bill would be destroyed. He thought the satn4
rule should be adopted in Ireland as was adopted in th
metropolis, and the Government ought in no case to interfere'
ith the nomination of the officers, for the purpose of gratify-
i
t7its political friends. If Col. Shaw Kennedy should b 2 ap-
poi,:ted to the force, let him have the nomination of the men..
If he knew any thing of Colonel Shaer Kennedy, he would,
he yeas cure, employ a proper discretion in die selection of 61
men, in, I he had no doubt a well disciplined force would
sno!tiy be established in Ireland It was, therefore, on the
Lem; that 2he rule employed in the metropolis would be cm-,
ployed irr .11 •eland, and that the officer who had the command!
of the force ,would, have the power of appointing the men ;

it was upon that assumption—which was not contradicted—
it was upon the assumption that the same rule observed in
London would be adopted in Ireland, and also from the public
announcement that the officer to be appointed was of the high
character of Colonel Shaw Kennedy, that he for one waived all
objection to the Bill of the Noble Lord, and in fact persuaded
many of his friends to withdraw their opposition. It was
now publicly stated that Colonel Shaw Kennedy had tendered
his resignation of the command, and the questions he wished
to ask were, Ist—Whether the same rule with respect to the
original appointment prevailed in the constabulary force in Ire-
land as in the metropolis ? 2d—Whether or not it was true
that Colonel Shaw Kennedy had tendered his resignation,
and whether that resignation had taken place in consequence
of a difference between him and the Government in the exe-
cution of his public duty ? The third question he had to ask
was—Whether, supposing that resignation to be offered and ac-
cepted, it was intended that the same rule which had been pub-
licly announced by the Noble Lord as influencing the choice of
Colonel Shaw Kennedy would be observed in the appoint-

ment of his successor?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that it was not his intention
o answer each of the questions which bad been put by the
Right Hon. Baronet, because with respect to the rule regu-
lating the appointment of the constabulary force in Ireland, his
Noble Friend to his right could state that much more
clearly than he could do. With respect to the question
as to Colonel Shaw Kennedy, he begged to inform the Right
Hon. Bart. and the House, and he did so with great regret,
that Colonel Shaw Kennedy bad tendered his resignation,
and that that resignation had been accepted. With
respect to the ground upon which that resignation had been
tendered, he did not think that he could state those grounds,
without laying the seeds of future discussion in that House,
which, upon a question of a nature like the present, he
did not think would be at all advisable.—( Hear, hear.)
With respect to the conduct which was to be pursued in
naming a successor to the Gallant Colonel, and the future
management of the Constabulary Forec in Ireland, he had
only to say that, having the highest opinion of the integrity of
Col. Shaw Kennedy, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and himself
would consult the Gallant Officer—would take his opinion
with respect to the whole management of the force, and
whether any improvements might be introduced. He did not
think it would be possible to place the force under the same
rules and management as the metropolitan force in England ;
for it was absolutely necessary that the Executive in Ireland
should have more controul over the police than the Executive
in London had. _

Sir R. PEEL said the Noble Lord had misunderstood his
question. He had asked whether the same principle would
control the appointment of a successor to, as had controlled
the appointment of Colonel Shaw Kennedy ? Upon that oc-
casion the Noble Lord said the appointment would be made
without regard to party feeling.
Lord J. RUSSELL had no hesitation in saying that the
same principle would govern the appointment of the Inspec-
tor General who would succeed Colonel Shaw Kennedy.—
( Cheers.)
Lord MORPETH said the Right lion. Baronet had cor-
rectly quoted, he believed, the very words used by him in in-
troducing the Bill, and in every instance of an appointment
to the force since that time, it had been left entirely in
the hands of the Inspector-General.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
He certainly never understood, and never admitted, that the
Lord Lieutenant meant to divest himself of his right of ap-
pointment.
Sir R. PEEL wished to ask whether it was the prevailing
practice in the Constabulary Force of Ireland that promotions
from the inferior classes took place, as the reward of good
conduct?
Lord MORPETH said it was usual to promote indivi-
duals from the ranks to the offices of sub-constables
and constables, but it was not customary to select in-
dividuals for the hi sheet offices from the inferior classes.
Sir E SUG DEN, who, in consequence of the noise made
by Members leaving the House, was nearly inaudible, waa
understood to_ask whether certain clauses in the Irish Poor-
law Bill—of which the consideration had been postponed—

would be again brought forward ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was understood to say that the
clauses which related to the continuing of Local Acts would
be retained.
IRISH MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS BILL.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL then said—l shall also take
this opportunity of explaining my intentions wiLli respect to
another subject to which the Right Hon. Bsronet opposite
has alluded. I have already stated that it is my intention,
after proceeding with the Irish Poor-law Relief Bill,
to go on with the Committee on the Irish Municipal
Corporations Act ; anti if I find that it is proposed to
move an instruction to the Committee, such as has
been moved in former years —,namely, to abolish all

Corporations in Ireland—l shall bring the measure on before
Easter, that the Hou;e may come at once to a decision upon
that instruction.—( Hear, hear, hear.) But if it is not in-
tended to move such an instruction, I think it would
be inconvenient to the House to go on with the Bill
before Easter. In that case I would go on only with the Poor
Relief Bill, in order that it should be printed, with the amend-
ments, before the holidays.
ELECTION COMMITTEES.

Sir R. PE EL then said—Sir, I really thank the Noble
Lord for the kindness of his suggestion, and in
return I beg to offer a suggestion to him.—(A laugh.) Sir,
with respect to the subject of the tribunal fur trying Parlia-
mentary Elections, whatever the difference of feeling may be
respecting Committees on opposite sides of the House, I
'relieve it is on all sides considered desirable to have a
declaratory Act, clearing up those points on which there have
been contradictory decisions in different Committees. Ido
not mean to propose such an Act myself—l think the Go-
verment had better take the matter in its own hands.—
( Cries of " Hear, hear.") I think it would be an advantage
to have an examination of the evidence before Election Com-
mittees, for the purpose of ascertaining what the points are on
which contradictory decisions hare been come to. It would be
very expensive to publish all the evidence ;:and yet without it, it
is not possible to know on what grounds the decisions have been
founded. I think the matter worthy the consideration of the
Noble Lord, whether a Committee might not be ap.
pointed to examine the proceedings of Election Committee:,
so as to enable the House to consider what are the points
on which doubts exist. I think that a better course than an
unlimited motion for an examination of all the evidence.

My proposition is, that a Select Committee should be ap-
pointed for the purpose of ascertaining the decision of Election
Committees, and examining the evidence taken before them,
with a view to passing some declaratory Act to settle the
principles of law which were in future to guide the decisions
of these Committees. It was in fact similar in its nature
to the suggestion which had been made some time ago by
his Hon. Friend the Member for North Lancashire, and

would, he was convinced, have the effect of diminishing
the expence and doing away with the delay, which now at-
tended the proceedings of these Committees.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that he had no objection in
principle to the proposition of the Noble Lord, which had
been referred to by the Right Honourable Gentleman ; but
at the same time he confessed that he was not very
sanguine as to its result. The Members of the Com-
mittee, from whose assistance they could only hope to
derive any advantageous result—namely, Gentlemen who
belonged to the legal profession—could not devote sufficient of
their time and attention to it to bring the subject to anything
like a satisfactory conclusion.
Sir EDWARD SUGDEN did not think there was
anything in the difficulty suggested by the Noble Lord,
fur the subject of inquiry lay in a small compass.
Mr. O'CONNELL never knew anything connected with
law to lie in a:small compass—(Laughter)--and he thought
such a Committee would only be made tho means of con-
tinuing the present system of abuse.
Sir R. PEEL said that the objection of the Hon. and

Learned Gentleman did not apply to his proposition, for' no
expression of opinion was required from the Committee which
he proposed.
Mr. HUME begged to direct the attention of the
Right Honourable Baronet to the evidence before the
Committee on Controverted Elections which had been
laid upon the table of the House during the present
Session. It appeared from that, that the best mode of dimi-
nishing the expense of elections would be simplifying and de-
fining the qualification of voters.
Sir R. PEEL said that was one of the objects of the Com.
mittee he had suggested.
POOR LAWS (IRELAND.)

The House then went into Committee on the Poor Laws
Ireland) Bill, Mr. Bernal in the Chair.
The clauses from 101 to 113 inclusive were agreed to with
a few verbal amendments.

In clause 116 it was proposed by Lord J. RUSSELL to add
in line 13, after the word " incorporeal," the following
words :—" Aud also every fee-farm rent and rent-seck and
rent-charge tithe shall include rent or composition in lieu of
tithe, and also the Minister's money charged under an Act
made in Parliament of Ireland in the Session holden in the
seventeenth and eighteenth year .of the reign of King Charles
the Second, for provision of Ministers and Corporate towns in
Ireland."
Mr. SHAW objected to the amendment proposed by the
Noble Lord. He trusted that the Government would not al
persevere in including Minister's money. 1

Mr. LITTON contended that subjeCting Minister's money
to a charge of this kind was a departure from the principle of
the Bill, which he should oppose, and if necessary divide
against it.
Mr. WOUL FE saw no reason whether on the grounds of
good sense or technical reasoning Minister's money should be
excluded from taxation.

After a few words from Mr. W. ROCHE,
Sir E. SUGDEN thought that the Noble Lord should
have tried the question fairly, and have included Minister's
money in the clause in which tithes were made chargeable.
He did not think that it ought to have been brought forward
in a clause for the purpose of defining the meaning of the terms
used in the present Bill.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL could not see any dis-
tinction between Minister's money in Dublin and in London;
and as they were assessable in London he saw no reason why
they should not be made assessable in Dublin.
After a few words Irons Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Goulbtum,
Sir E. Sugden, and Mr. Callaghan,
2.;1r. SHAW would certainly oppose this motion. The'
:addition bad not been originally contemplated by Government,
:but became the Hon. and Learned Member pressed it on them
,they slipped it into an interpretation clause.
Lord MO RPETH did not think the Right Hon: Gentle- ,
-,ran bad the slightest grounds for the injurious terms in which
be had spoken of the conduct of Government.—( Hear, hear-)
They had, e they said, reserved the point for consideration,
ad having consulted their law officers their opinion was in
favour of the charge. The object of the Government was,
not to oppress the Clergy, but to take care that no descrip-
tion of property was exempt which was properly chargeable. i

Mr. WYSE said that in Waterford Minister's money was
constantly demanded as a substitute for tithe.
Mr. WO ULFE said that in point of fact, Minister's money
was not a rent charge, but was given as a substitute for tithe.
After a short conversation between Sir E. Sugden, Mr.
O'Connell, Mr. Woulfe, and Mr. Barron, strangers were
ordered to withdraw.
The House divided, and the numbers were—
For Lord J. Russell's motion
Against it
Majority —B3
The clause (116) as thus amended was then agreed to.

Clause 117.
Mr. O'CONNELL on the bringing up of the report would
propose an exemption for turf land.
The Committee then proceeded to the consideration of the
postponed clauses.
Clause 26.
Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN would take the sense of the House
against this clause
Colonel CONNOLLY thought the Bill would be defective
without it.
Mr. WYSE should vote with the Honourable Member for
Limerick.
Mr. LITTON thought the provision a wholesome one, and
not open to any objection.
Mr. SHAW was of opinion that in a Bill like the present,
which was an experimental one, the provision was absolutely
necessary.
Lord CLENIENTS proposed, as an amendment, in line
seven, that paid Guardians should be substituted for paid offi-

cers.
Lord J. RUSSELL could not agree to the amendment.
After a few words from Mr. Lucas, Sir F. Trench, and
Mr. Lynch,
Lord CLEMENTg withdrew his amendment.
Mr. LUCAS proposed as an amendment in line seventeen,
that where no persons could be found to act as unpaid Guar-
dians, the Commissioners should be empowered to appoint paid
Guardians, who would be remunerated out of the funds of the
district.
After a few observations from the Attorney-General for
Ireland, Lord Clements, Sir F. Trench, Mr. D. Brown,
Captain Jones and Mr. Currie,
Lord CA STLERE AGH said That if any thing was cal-
culated to make the Bill unpopular in Ireland it would be the
Clause under consideration.
Mr. J. GRATTAN concurred with the Noble Lord in his
opposition to paid officers under the Bill ; but he considered
the case under consideration one of necessity.
Sir R. BATE SON considered the Clause in question as
highly objectionable.
Lord MORPETH thought the words of the Clause made
out a case of necessity for conferring the power in the Clause.
Sir W. SONIERVILLE was decidedly opposed to the
payment of Guardians.
Mr. BARRON thought that in some cases it would be
found absolutely requisite to pay the Guardians.
Sir C. STYLE said, that without this Clause, the Bill
would be wholly inoperative, and, in his opinion, the Govern-
ment would not be justified in omitting it.
Mr. ARCHBOLD was opposed to the Clause.
Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN said that if the Clause passed, the
Bill would be more unpopular in Ireland than it even now was.
It was utterly at variance with the principle of the measure.
Lord J. RUSSELL deprecated the line of argument
adopted by the Hcn. Member for Limerick.
Mr. SHAW thought the Clause absolutely necessary.
Mr. LUCAS then withdrew his amendment, and the
House divided on the motion that the original Clause stand
part of the Bill.
Ayes 35
Noes 33
Majority for the Clause
_

On Clause 42,
Mr. SHAW expressed his fear that the arrangement con-
templated would be likely to lead to religious controversy as
welt as expense—possibly to contending claims from nume-
rous bodies of Dissenters to the appointment of Clergymen of
their own. He suggested that the better way would be for
the Board to invite some neighbouring Clergymen, and that
the Guardians should Lrm some estimate of the compensation
for his labour proper to be allotted to him.
After a short conversation the Clause was adopted.
Clause 23 was, by Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S suggestion,
omitted.
On Clause 72, " provided always that every rate made
under the authority of this Act on tithe or compositions,
or rent in lieu of tithe, shall be paid by the tithe-owner," a
desultory conversation ensued, which resulted in the Clause
being omitted.
Lord CASTLEREAGH proposed a Clause to exempt
that part of Ireland which supported their oan poor from the
operation of the Act.
Lord J. RUSSELL opposed the Clause, on the ground
that it would render the whole Bill nugatory.
Mr. SHAW opposed the Clause.
Sir R. BATE SON supported the Clause, because it was
hostile to the whorkhouso system.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the Clause 25
Against it... 66
Majority
The Cl:tuse was then read a second time and committed.
Mr. A. YATES brought up a Clause, the object of which
was to authorise the Guardians int'ases of emergency to make
temporary loans out of the poor-rates.
Lord CLEMENTS objected to the Clause, as he coati-
de.ed it could not be properly introduced into this Bill.
Mr. LUCAS concurred with the Noble Lord.
Lcrd MORPETH thought that the principle of loan funds
good, but. thought it better not to mix up any extraneous
matter in an experimental Bill like the present.
Mr. YATES withdrew the clause.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN proposed a clause, of which the object
was to enable the guardians to contract with the landowners
and grand juries fur the repair of the roads, &c., so as to se-
cure a supply of labour for the poor.
Mr. F. FRENCH did not think it would be wise to con-
nect this with any other measure.
Lord MORPETH disapproved of the clause, and said
that such a provision wou:d destroy altogether the work-
house test. If the poor could get work let them leave the
workhouse.
Mfr. WYSE agreed that it would be injudicious to adopt
such an enactment.
Mr. YATES contended that the interests of the poor had
not been sufficiently considered by the Government in this part
of the Bill.
After a few words from Mr. SHAW and Mr. S. O'BRIEN,
the clause was negatived without a division.
A clause, making it obligatory that returns should be an-
nually made to Parliament, was, on the motion of Mr. S.
0 BRIEN agreed to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. LUCAS proposed a clause founded on the English
Bill, for making each pariah in a union rateable for the sup-
port of their own poor.
Lord J. RUSSELL feared that such a clause could not
be adopted without introducing also the law of settlement.
Mr. LUCAS said, that if it would have such an effect, he
would abandon it, but he did not think it would.
Mr. F. FRENCH did not understand the utility of such a
clause, as all were to be relieved in the workhouse.
Mr. LUCAS said that the object which he had in view
was to prevent one parish from being rated beyond the bur.
then which they ought to bear in reference to their poor.
Mr. SHAW thought it would be difficult to ascertain where
each pauper came from.
Colonel CONOLLY supported the clause, on the ground
that it would he a good substitute for the law of settlement.
Lord CLEMENTS, though he approved of the clause,
feared that it was one which could not, at least at present, be
put into practice.
Sir E. BATESON supported the clause.
Lord MORPETH said that, although Irishmen might
be fond of acknowledging the place of their nativity, the
place of their nativity might not be fond of acknowledging
them, when the question was one of money. He hoped the
Hon. Gentleman would not divide, but, if so, he must op-

pose him.
The House then divided, and the numbers were—
For the clause ... .................. 25
Against it.
Majority
The remaining clauses having been disposed of, the House
resumed;„ and the report was ordered to be received.
GLASS DUTIES BILL.
On a to motion for the second reading of the Glass Duties
Bill,
F. FRENCH said the excise duties on glass operated
to discourage the manufacture of that valuable article of trade
in this country to the extent to which it might be carried.
There 1 were 32 restrictions or regulations with respect to the
manufa• mire of glass, all of them imposing penalties, and the
result is •as, not only that an extensive illicit trade was carried
on in th at article, but that the whole trade would before long
fall into the hands of Germany and other foreign countries.
He cert. tinly could not help expressing the opinion that, in-
stead'the present measure, all the duties ought to be re-
It appeared that one valuable branch of the trade
re-
pealed. eale
do. :
in this a rticle had been almost destroyed by the operation
of these • duties. This country possessed in great abun-
dance a 11 the materials used hi the manufacture of glass;
and the' 401 they might not be as cheap as lin other
countries yet this circumstance was more than counter-
balanced
by the superior skill of our workmen, and by the
of fuel; but such was the vexatious operation of
d the mode of collection that our glass manufacture
ethhiesatPanseas
was unde Tsold in the colonies by German and foreign glass-
- urers. There was one arrangement of the trade
particular
open to complaint, and that was that the menu-
faeturers could net use the refuse which resulted from the ma-
nufacture of crown glass in the making of bottles, especially
of large
,ottles, which were use to contain vitriol. The Corn-
ms in their report, dwelt upon this as well as other
a ion e
matters, Ana recommended that it should be made legal to
make bo tties from the refuse of crown glass or cullet. Mr.
.14‘Cullo elz, in his " Commercial Dictionary," said that he
doubted -which were most prejudicial, the large duties them-
selves or • the vexatious regulations under which they were
collecter I. Since 1790, instead of the manufacture increasing
in that e ttiole, it had declined. In a speech which the Pre-
sident of ' the Board of Trade (Mr. P. Thomson) had made,
and whi• ib had added to his reputation, he said that " a miser-
aisle dut, e sir 600,000/., collected at an expense of 101. per
cent., wt kept up to impede our native industry—to put a
stop to al 1 4 .mprovernent—and become only a source of use-
less .eppre es 4 ,n and fraud." He wondered how the Go-
vernment wet Ild attempt to continue this duty after such
an opinion w; is expressed by one of %lull. members. With
respect to a ie Irish trade, the duty was comparatively
small, until I . few years ago it was greatly increased, to
almost the cnt ire ruin of the glass. manufacturers of that coun-
try. A few I ears ago a Right Honourable Gentleman op-
posite propose d to equalise the duties between England,