The Sun.
London, England, 1838-05-01 00:00:00

ESLEYAN MISSIONARY SOCIETY. tnd thAt neither the petition nor the optKisition thereto were
(YESTF-RDAI.) frivolous or vexatious.
The Clerk of the (71-ct.\--, was then directed to attend to--
sorrow iii ekiicr to amend the return.
~',:‘,talOns were presented by Me. flVvii§a iYtnn in 6 peoprte-
tors of the Birmingham Cam_t.! Company ; by Mr. VILLIERS,
and by Mr. But.:tt,.t sg,ainst certain clauses in the Grand
Junction rtiiihriy Bill.
Sir S. GLYNN Moved Olt third reading of the Ring's
Ferri 'Roo, Bat.
MeS WILBRAHAYI complained that the till had been
taken out of the hands of the Members for the county, and
placed in the hands of a fitrtmger.
After a few wore from Mr. JARVIS the Bill was read
a third time and passed.
Mr. 0. BROWNE presented a petition from Mayo, and
two petitions from the county of Sligo, praying that the River
Moy Navigation Bill might be re-considered.
Mr. DIVETT brought up the Report of the Committee on
the Bristol and Exeter Railway Bill.
Mr. BLACKBURN presented a petition from the pawn-
brokers of Warrington, against the British Pledge Society
Bill.
On the motion of Mr. EASTH OPE, the Leicester Gas
Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed.
Mr. HOUSTON presented a petition from Renfrew, in
favour of the Glasgow Railway Bill.
On the motion of Mr. R. FERGUSSON, the London-
derry Bridge Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be
committed.
On the motion of Mr. LAW HODGES, the Gravesend
Cemetery Bill was read a third time, and passed.
On the motion of Sir G. STRICKLAND the Brampton
and Brierley Road Bill was read a second time, and ordered
to be committed.
Ors-the motion of Mr. JONES the Lochfoyle Drainage Bill
was read a second time, and ordered to be committed.
'On the motion of Lord STANLEY the Bolton and Pres-
ton Railway Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be
committed.
Lord EBRINGTON brought up the Report of the Select
Committee on the Standing. Orders.
Mr. YORKE brought up the Report of the Committee on
the Wickam (Cambridge) Inclosure Bill.
Mr. A. CHAPMAN presented a petition from Whitby,
praying for the better observance of the Sabbath.
Mr. CRAVEN BERKELEY presented a petition from
Stroud, in Gloucestershire, agreed to at a public meeting,
praying for the abolition of Negro Slavery.
Sir E. FILMER presented a petition from a place in
Kent, praying for an alteration in the Poor Law Amendment
Act.

(Conclusion, from our Second Edition of last night.)
Petra JONES (the Indian Chief) Beconded the resolution.
,poke at some length, in excellent English.
The Rcv. E. FRASER (a native West Indian pt'eclier) sup-
ported the resolution, in an address marked by considerable
ability, and which was received with great applause.
G. FlNcn, Esq., proposed the third resolution, upon reicr-
r'ng to the mission about to be sent out to Christianize the in-
habitents of New Zealand, the Figee and other Islands.
11. PowNELL, Esq. seebncled the resolniion.
The Rev. Mr. aoron Missionary from Ceylon, elo-
quently supported the resolutin, which was unanimously
carried.
Mr. Hardy here retired amidst loud applause, and his place
as Chairman was tilled by H. Pownall, Esq.
Vicount BEavAP,D moved the 4th Resolution, which related
to the North American Indians, and deprecated the encroach-
ments makins:, by the British on the Indian lands.
The Her,, and Rev. Mr. BERNARD (brother of the Viscount)
seconded the Resolution.
The Rev. T. WAvou (from Ireland) supported the Resolu-
tion, which was carried unanimously.
The Rev. Mr. BUNTING then announced the Rev. R. New-
ton, and the collection._( Loud laughter.)
The Rev. R. NEwToN, who was received with great ap-
plause, moved the fifth resolution, which was carried unani-
mously ; and shortly after five o'clock, the meeting, which
Ras at once crowded an;l respectable, separated.

ELECTION COMMITTEES.
(YESTERDAY.)

(From our Second Edition of last night.)
II U L L.
The Committee met at eleven o'clock, but strangers were
'not tdmitted till half-past twelve o'clock.
When Counsel and Agents were called in, the Chairman
stated that the Committee had considered the vote of Henry
Hilkin was a good vote.
The next case that was gone into, and the evidence upon
which was not concluded when the Committee adjourned,
was that of William Hunter. It appeared that the voter, in
going to the poll, stated that he meant to give his vote for
Hutt and Wood, but the vote was entered in the books as
having been given for Wilberforce. The object, therefore,
was to strike the name from the votes of the latter, and add it
to the votes of the former party.

efiposite had arrived at the determination that he could not support the
MK With regard to the st. clause, he should not have anticipated
ihiit onj• eery serious argument of importance would have been raised
on that clause. TIM ease of settlement lie-was willing to admit was of
far more importance, but While the Hon. Member felt so deeply en
subject, he seemed to have pat- out of Consideration the great
di&ultiee Whieh efoott in the way of his proposition being carried into
effea. It was said that tile overseers and guardians would be com-
pelled to give relief to strangers, elhe Weed withdraw it, therefore,
from those to whom it should be granted, the inhabitants of the district
which the guardians lived. But as there was no eorepuleory relief
ilesir)=--were the guardians compelled to give assistance in one
case and refuse it I Bet if they were to grant it at all, it
would he better certainly thaa CIIdS petsone who were living in their
own neighbourhood should receive it, anti that it should not be given
to strange paupers. The Hon. and Learned Member for Tipperary.
had not attempted to grapple with the provisions of the Bill them-
selves. but by instituting a comparison between its probable effects and
those of another measure which was also before them, he had en-
deavoured to show that the measure was one which the House could
not safely pass. Thli at least showed that there was little which
could be Urged against the Bill itself, and would tend to show also
that little exclise remained to those llonourable Gentlemen who should
continue to oppose its being passed into a law. But what said an Hie
hOutable and Gallant Member orpocite ? He had hitherto invariably
steipetted the Measure; but nOW jIC C :me forward and said that it was
se sweeping and eo seateneibe In its prov felons, that he had determined
to withdraw his support theta It. He said, too, that the Government
had not varied the Bill at all in aceerdenee with the amelidnients which
had been proposed. He denied this on the part of Government 01 fa:
as regarded these points, which were not important to the principle ale.
the whole character of the Bill; but if the Government had abandoned
the right to give relief to able-bodied paupers, the chief merit of the
Bill would have been taken away, and they would be palming a fallacy
on Ireland with reference to the Poor-law. Was it not notorious
that in that country imposition was carried on to the greatest
possible extent on the humane and charitable, and that mendieaney
prevailed so far that there were many persons who made a living by
their pursuing that trade in preference to their obtaining honest em-
employment ?—('• No," from Mr. O'Connell.) The hon. member might
say " No," but he must admit that there were cases of deceistion of a
very alarming description. It was necessary in the condition of things
that it should be so, and it was declared to be the case most pointedly
by the commissioners who had berm appointed to inquire into the sub-
ject. But was not the mode of relief at present adopted infinitely more
expensive and attended with much greater waste than that which
would be introduced by the Bill which was now before the House being
carried ? Then it was said that Ireland was too eider to support its
paupers; he must confess, however, that it did not seeitl to him to be
possible that a country could be found to be really in such a state if the
produce was properly distributed. But what class was it by whose kinds
ness and charity that the poor were now supported e It was the poor
themselves ;—(Hear, hear)—and it was owing to their character and
their religious feelings that their present support wes to be attributed,
He had himself seen a ease in Ireland where he witnessed more human
misery and destitution that he could have imagined. In a village which
he visited he found the people living in wretched hovels, which were
without windows and without doors, while the wretched beings were
unprovided for even with straw to make their miserable beds, and yet
they were paping a yearly rental of 30s. or 325. to their landlord. He
had the curiosity to what was the probable amount received by the
proprietor the lands, and he was assured that it could not be less than
0,0001. Did the individual to whom he referred support the poor ?
Did he contribute in aid of the funds of those excellent charitable in-
stitutions of the neighbourhood of his estate—or did lie, as the poor man
always did, give " the bit and the sup" to the poor peasant who came to
see him ? In the whole course of his inquiry lie could but find one in-
stance in which any portion of the great fund which lie had received had
been appropriated to charitable purposes on the estate. The fact was
that all the regulations, however excellent they might be for the main.
tenance of houses of industry, were inoperative, because they were not
compulsory. Ile contended that it was the duty of the Legislature to
provide some uniform system for the relief of the really destitute, and
thus get rid of the difficulties they now had to contend with. With re-
spect to the question of vagrancy, he admitted that it was necessary for
the working of the Bill that some sound system of vagrant laws must be
introduced into Ireland, and also that assistance must be afforded in
some shape or other for the employment of the poor. He thought even
in a pecuniary point of view it would be advisable to effect local improve-
ments in many districts in Ireland.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL thought that in the present- state of Ire-
land it was desirable that there should be some system of Poor-laws
in Ireland, but lie feared that the present measure would rather have
the effect of paralyzing than bringing out the resources of the country.
Lord STANLEY could not vote for the third reading of the Bill,
without expressing his dissent from a great many of the provisions cm-
tallied in it, and also from expressing his doubts as to the working of
many more of them. So much was left to the Commissioners, that It wee
unavoidable that the House could be otherwise than utterly uncertain
and ignorant as to what would be effects of the Bill, either as regarded
the recipients of relief, the ratepayers, or the landlords of Ireland. His
Right Ron. Friend said that it was not determined in the Bill whether
100 or 1,000 workhouses would be necessary in Ireland for the carrying
out the workieg of the Bill. It would, therefore, be impossible to say
what would be the charge on the landowners of Ireland, It was, how.
ever, left to the Commissioners to say what should be the amount of
taxation that should fall on the Irish people, and how it should be pro-
portioned. With respect to the amount of relief that would be re-
quired, what a diversity of opinion existed on the subject. Mr. Nicholls,
in his Report, said that it would be necessary to erect only 100 work..
houses, with accommodation for 100 persons in each. This was to ray,
that means of relief should be only provided for 80,000 persons. The
Commissioners were to have the power of building as many work-
houses as they pleased—for instance, a thousand workhouses, with
accommodation for a thousand persons in each; and this with.
out the consent of the rate-payers, who were to defray all the ex-
penses. If a workhouse in a union was too large for the destitute
in the district, it might be filled with those from distant places. His
Right Hon. Friend said that it was impossible that a system of vagrant
laws could be introduced in the Bill, but that it was absolutely neces-
sary that some system should be enacted. Now, he thought that it
would be most unjust if they passed a law to punish vagrancy without
giving a legal claim to relief, and they could not de this without giving
local settlements. They were also so ignorant of what would be the mo-
ral effects that would be produced by the Bill in Ireland that they were
legislating in the dark. The time, however, had arrived when it was
absolutely necessary that some provision should be muds for the relief of
the destitute poor in Ireland. The measure as it stood was highly ob-
jectionable in many points of view, but some measure of relief for the
poor of Ireland was imperatively called for on all sides, and therefore,
however reluctantly and hesitatingly, he should should support tho third
reading of the Bill.
Mr. O'CONNELL intimated that he should divide the house also
on the question that the Bill do pass.
The House then divided, and the hurnbers were—
For the third reading ......... 234
Against it ...... 59
Majority
—.175
On the question that the Bill do pass,
Mr. O'CONNELL wished to make two remarks. One of them was
reference to something which had fallen from the Right Hon. Member
for Manchester, who had stated that, in the present state of pauperism in
Ireland, there were many eases of imposition. Phis was an assertion in
the very teeth of facts, fur the whole evidence on the subject proved
that there was a universal anxiety in the minds of the Irish people to
labour whenever they got work to do.—(Hear.) This, therefore, was a
calumny on the Irish people, which ought not to have been uttered by
the Right Hon. Gentleman. Again, the Noble Member for Bath had
talked of the agitation which had been got up against the measure. The
Noble Lord might be assured that he (Mr. O'Connell) would have found
it much easier to get up an agitation in favour of the Bill, but he bad
throughout given the measure his honest opposition, because he thought
it calculated to injure Ireland, and he would give fair notice that he
would never cease, by all honest agitation, to endeavour to get rid of the
evils of the measure. After the decision just taken, he should not
trouble the House again to divide.—(Heare
Viscount CASTLEREAGH had witnessed the third reading of the
Bill with deep sorrow, but he derived no slight consolation from his
confident expectation that its provisions would be modified in that place
where wicked measures were sure always to find a salutary check.—
(Great laughter.)
Lord J. RUSSELL could not allow the Bill to pass its last stage
without loudly protesting against the language which had been used by
the Noble Lord, when he asserted that the Bill had passed its third
reading by a majority of English Members, who had not considered its
details or its consequences.—(Hear,) He thought that those Irish
Members who opposed the Bill, or who gave way to language such as
that of the Noble Lord, did an injustice not only to themselves but to
their Representatives.—(Hear.) This very measure was produced last
year in all its details, and having half gone through a Committee of the
House in the course of the past session, every part of it was neeessa-
city well known in Ireland at the time.—(Hear, hear.) Its second
reading was supported by a large majority of Irish Members, and
under these circumstances it was an exceedingly unfair and un-
just representation of the legislation of that House to say that the
Bill had been carried solely in consequence of the support of
an English majority, who had not considered its details or its conse-
quences.—(Hear, hear.) He could safely say that with the exception of
the English Poor-law Bill, which was considered so long in Committee,
and he might remark that, if he had taken no part in this debate, it was
only because he considered almost every argument on the subject
exhausted, that tine question had been put in every light in which it
possibly could be put by lion. Gentlemen who had paid the closest at-
tention to the subject. With the exception of the English measure, he
mould safely say that he hardly knew any Bill which had been more
anxiously and carefully considered—(Hear, hear)—or which could be
more honestly described as having received the deliberate and dispas-
sionate sanction of the House.—(Hear, hear.)
The Bill was then passed without a division.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND) BILL.
Sir R. PEEL begged to ask the Noble Lord what course he- proposed
with respect to the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL had before stated that he did not wish to
proceed with the Bill in question till the sense of the House hail been
taken on his tithe resolutions ; he should therefore fix it for the same
day, with the view of subsequently postponing it.
MEDICAL CHARITIES IRELAND BILL.
Mr. F. FRENCH in moving the second reading of this Bill, said,
that it was proposed that the debate should be reserved for the Committee.
Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN hoped that the Honourable Gentleman
would not that night press the Bill to a second reading, as a great num-
ber of Irish Members wished to take part in the discussion upon it;
and inasmuch as a great interest was felt with respect to the Bill, and
it was perfectly obvious from the present state of the house, that there
was no expectation entertained by a great many Members, that the Bill
would have come on upon a Government night.