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

Tut: SUM', LONDON, TUESDAY, MAY 1,183 P.

Mr. A. 'WHITE presented a petition from Sunderland
against any further endowment to the Church of Scotland.
Mr. WARD presented a petition from Sheffield, stating
the excellent effect that had been produced in that town by
the abolition of the Combination Laws, and praying that no
further change might be made with respect to them, without
affording to the petitioners ample opportunity of being heard
before the Combination Committee.
The HON. MEMBER also presented a petition against Mr.
Sergeant Talfourd's Copyright Bill.
Mr. EASTHOPE presented a petition from Yarborough,
praying for the immediate abolition of the Negro apprentice-
ship system. Also one from Leicester, most numerously and
respectably signed, praying that no' further endowment might
be made to the Scottish Church.
Colonel VERNER presented five petitions from the county
of Armagh, against the Irish Poor-law Bill.
HULL ELECTION.
Mr. PRA ED had a petition to present from certain wit-
nesses who had been summoned to give evidence before the
Hull Committee—as the Committee could not take cogni-
zance of the matter the petition might be presented. It was
from two gentlemen who had been summoned to attend, and had
attended upon the Committee since the 17th March, and
others from the Ist April, without having been called
—they were detained until the recess, when the Committee
rose—they then received their discharge—their expences
were taxed, and they were promised payment, but they had
not yet got it, and were detained in town in consequence.
Mr. LANGDALE said the agent had been out of town
for some time, but he had now returned, and was prepared to
pay the petitioners.
Mr. BAIL LIE presented a petition from the compositors
and pressmen of Worcester, against the Copyright Bill.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL presented a petition from
the Archdeacon and Clergy of the diocese of Canterbury
against certain clauses in the Benefices Pluralities Bill.
Mr. CHALNIERS appeared at the bar with minutes of evi-
dence taken before the Kinsale Election Committee.—Laid
on the table.
Sir C DOUGLAS presented a petition from Warwick,
praying for protection to the Established Church.
Mr. PE NDAR VE S presented a petition from the parish of
St. Paul's and its vicinity, praying for the abolition of Negro
apprenticeship.
Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE brought up the report of the
Committee on the Highway Rates Bill.
Mr. T. ATTWOOD presented petitions from Stockton-
upon-Tees, and from a Catholic Congregation in Birmingham,
praying for the abolition of Slavery ; also a petition from Bir-
mingham, praying for the release of the five Glasgow cotton-
spinners.
Lord CASTLEREAGH presented petitions from parishes
in the county of Down, against the Irish Poor-law Bill.
Mr. JENKINS presented a petition from Shrewsbury,
against any further grant to the Ma)nooth College.
Mr. VERNON SMITH presented a petition from North-
ampton for the immediate abolition of Negro slavery.
Mr. CLAY presented a petition from the Independent
Gas-light and Coke Company, praying the House to introduce
a Clause into the Bill now in progress to prevent the mono-
poly of the Coal-merchants of London.
Mr. O'CONNELL presented four petitions against Negro
slavery.
Mr. Alderman COPELAND presented a petition from
Stoke-upon-Trent, praying the House not to repeal the new
Poor law Bill ; also a petition from the same place, against
the Rating of Tenements Bill.
On the motion of Mr. JOHN ABEL SMITH, the West
India Dock Bill was read a third time, and passed.
Mr. KINNAIRD presented a petition from the Lord
Provost and Town Council of Perth, in favour of the Edin-
burgh and Glasgow Railway Bill ; also, a petition from the
Society of Procurators in Perthshire in favour of the Sheriffs
Court Bill. The Hon. Member next presented a petition
from the Relief Presbytery of Auchterarder against any fur-
ther endowments to the Church of Scotland.
Mr. PRAED gave notice that to-morrow he would move
that the petition he had presented from the witnesses before
the Hull Committee, be referred to the Committee on con-
troverted election expences.
Mr. BAINES presented a petition from a place in Scot-
land praying that no farther grant might be made to the Scotch
Church, or to Schools established on sectarian principles.
The Hon. Member then presented a petition from the Town
Council of Leeds, in favour of Mr. Hill's plan for the reduc-
tion of the rates of postage.
POST-OFFICE.
Lord CASTLEREAGH wished to know whether the
Government had taken into consideration the propriety 3f
sending letters for Ireland, by way of Liverpool instead of
Holyhead ?
Lord MORPETH said that the subject was one of impor-
tance, and that the Government would take it into considers.
tion.

Lori MORPETH presented a petition from the Grand
Jury of the county of Meaty, against the Irish Poor-law Bill
in its present shape.
POOR LAW RETURNS.

Mr. CO LIRTE NA Y seeing tke Noble Lord the Secretary
for the Home Department in his place, begged to call the
attention of the House to a subject of which he thought he
had a right to complain. Four months since he had moved
for an order calling for the return of the number of union
workhouses ; and although he had made numberless inquiries
of the Noble Lord, and had received repeated promises
from him, yet the returns had not yet been laid on the table.
He wished the Noble Lord to state the reason of the delay.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the Poor Law Commissioners
had required returns to be made to them, and on the last occa-
sion he had made inquiries respecting them he found that they
had received only five hundred of the returns, and wanted
about one hundred; he had suggested that they had got
enough to enable them to make the return, and he believed it
would shortly be on the table of the House. As the subject
had been brought under the notice of the House, he would ask
Hon. Members to pay some attention to the amount of papers
required in some of the returns moved for. One return which
had been moved for, by the Hon. Member for Finsbury,
caused the Poor-law Commissioners to issue no less than
9,000 papers. Of course clerks must be employed, and
where such an amount of labour was cast upon them, if delay
occurred it was not to be wondered at.

TITHE TATION.'
Sir EDWARD KNATCHBCOMMUULL wishe.d to ask the
Noble Lord whether it was the intention of the Government
to introduce any Bill for altering the system of Tithe Corn-
mutation.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said it was not the intention of
the Government to introduce any such measure. The Com-
missioners would make a report early in May, which would be
laid before the House.
HIGHLAND SCHOOLS.
Mr. COL QUHOUN wished to ask the Chancellor of the
Exchequer whether it was the intention of the Government
to abandon the Highland Schools' Bill, or to proceed with it ?
It had been introduced early in February, and had passed no
farther yet than a second reading.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
second reading of the Bill had been postponed, in consequence
of a notice of an arnek4ment that had been given. He begged
further distinctly t(i-assure the Hon. Member, that he was not
disposed to abandon the Bill, or relinquish the hope of carry.
ing it.
COUNTY RATES.
Mr. GALL Y KNIGHT gave notice that, on the second
reading of the County-rates Bill, he should move as an
amendment the adoption of certain resolutions.
BENEFICES AND PLURALITIES.
Mr. HUME gave notice that on going into Committee on
the Bill for abridging Pluralities he should move as an amend-
ment, that it be an instruction to the Committee to provide
for the abolition of all pluralities.---( Hear.)
THE BUDGET.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER gave no-
tice that on Friday week he should bring forward his financial
statement for the year.__( Hear, hear.)
THE CORONATION.
Sir R. INGLIS said, that as it appeared by the Gazette
that there would be no banquet at the approaching Coronation,
he was anxious to know if any precession would take place,
by which the public at large would be enabled to witness some
portion of that interesting ceremony.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL•said it was nOt intended that the
Coronation should take ~ilaici4 the tail manner as in the
Vil'e late nbvet,gn William the Fourth; but he
He should stale now.
k‘buici add further that there would be a procession from
the Palace through the streets t 9 WettmiNtee Atile6y.
►
tion. ~hat her Majesty had isproted, of thO, adAO, which
" !ion. Priend had askedthe qUeS-
haci been offered t 8 and that it would be forin illy
stetted et a Council soon to be held, that the Coronation
would take place on the 29th June, instead of the day
originally fixed.—( Hear, hear.)
Sir F. TRENCH inquired if it was the intention of the
Government to recommend, according to tw.s precedents
which he would refer to, that the ladies of the Court should
at the Coronation be dressed in British manufactures.—( Oh l)
There were 50,000 starving manufacturers in the country.
The precedents to which he referred were two directions, one
the 20th, the other the 31st of March, in these words: " It is the
particular desire of the Queen, that her Nlaj,_•sty's suite, and
th,! 1 dies attending the drawing room shall appear in dresses
of British manufacture."
Lord J. RUSSELL said he must decline answering such
a que;tion.—( Hear, hear.)
CANADIAN REBELLION.
Mr. GO UL BURN asked what was the probable amount of
the expenditure which had been incurred by calling out the
militia, and other troops, to suppress the insurrection in our
North American provinces?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER *aid he
was aware any financial statement would be incomplete if it
did not contain the information which the Honourable
Gentleman required. He was sorry to say that he was not
in a condition to state the exact amount of the expences;
undoubtedly no difficulty would arise in stating the amount
which had been incurred up to the period of the last dispatches
from Canada ; but the pressure had been so extreme and so
unexpected, that it was obviously impossible, with the
existing machinery for superintending this expenditure to
arrive at an accurate knowledge respecting it. The
Right Hon. Gentleman proceeded to state, as we understood,
that a Board of Commissariat had been appointed to manage
t'-e expences, but their report had not yet been received.
Directly it was it would be laid on the table of the House.
The strictest instructions had been issued to curtail
the expenses within reasonable bounds ; and he would use
every exertion in his power to lay before the House all the
information he could obtain.
Mr. GOULBURN—WouId the Right Hon. Gentleman
state the amount already expended.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
on Friday he would endeavour to give the best reply he
could, but it would be imperfect.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said with reference to a ques-
tion put to him the other night by an Hon. Member, that he
had ordered the restrictions upon soldiers not to walk in the
Parks to be removed.—( Cheers. )
Mr. HUME wished to know on what day he could bring
forward his question respecting the Bank of England?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought the Hon. Member should
give notice for some notice day.
CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL.
Lord J. RUSSELL then moved the Order of the Day
for the House going into Committee on the Consolidated
Fund Bill.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS did not think the Noble Lord had
given an answer to his question. Ile wished to know whether
the procession would be the same as at former Coronations.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that formerly the procession was
from the Hall to the Abbey, but in the present instance it
would be through the streets.
, The House then went into Committee on the Consolidated
Fund Bill, which went through without amendment.
POOR LAWS—IRELAND.
The House having resumed,
Lord J. RUSSELL moved the third reading of the Irish
Poor Law Bill.
Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition against the
measure from the noblemen, merchants, bankers, and others of
Dublin. The first name to the petition was that of Lord
Roden, and it was also signed by Mr. Hamilton, the late Mem-
ber for the city.
The question having been put, the Hon. and Learned
Member looked round much perplexed, and moved that the
Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Sir WILLIAM B RAB AZ ON then appeared amidst loud
laughter, and said the Honourable and Learned Member
had got the start of him. He would give the Bill all the
opposition in his power, as it was not what was wanted
for the happiness of Ireland. The Hon. Member then
alluded to the number of petitions that had been presented
from various parts of Ireland against the Bill, and observed
that nothing could more strongly express the sense of the coun-
try, which was decidedly opposed to the measure, which was
unsuited to the wants and wishes of the people of Ireland.
The Hon, Member concluded by moving that the Bill be read
a third time that day six months.
Sir F. TRENCH said, if the Hon. Member had not moved
this amendment he himself had intended to do so. For he did
believe that no Bill regarding Ireland had ever been proposed
which would be productive of more mischief—that it would
annihilate property and extinguish industry. The Irish la-
bourers were willing and anxious to work—employment
ought to be given them instead of erecting workhouses, to
destroy the seeds of industry throughout the country.
Ile hoped he had said enough to convince the House that the
measure would be anything but satisfactory to the people of
Ireland. Ile trusted the Bill would be rejected; and he
would suggest to the Noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland,
the propriety of introducing, in the next session of Parliament,
a Bill for the relief of the indigent and infirm poor, and another
Bill having for its object the employment of the able-bodied
poor of that country.
Lord CASTLEREAGH could not allow the Bill to be
read a third time without entering his decided protest against it.
The people of Ireland were decidedly opposed to the workhouse
system, and there was also a very strong objection to the
large amount of patronage, and the great number of
offices which it would create. He believed there was
an English party in that House, who were impressing
strongly upon the Government the necessity of establishing
a system of Poor-laws for Ireland, and although he was not
prepared to assert that some measure was not required,
he denied that the present measure would effect the objects
for which it was intended.—(Hear, hear.) He regretted
to say'that many of those who were most strenuous in advocating
a system of Poor-laws for Ireland were among the persons who
were most ignorant of the wants, or habits, or character of
the people. In Ireland there was a vast deal of charity on
the part of the poorer classes, and the charitable feeling
would be much diminished by the establishment of the work-
house system, the only object of which appeared to be the en-
abling Government to exercise the patronage of Commissioner-
ships, and Assistant-Commissionerships. He (Lord Castle-
reagh) considered it would have been much better to adopt
the proposition he had made iii Committee, to allow
parishes that were willing so to do, to assess themselves.
He entirely agreed with the Hon. and Learned Member in
his decided opposition from first to last to this Poor-law Bill.
At a meeting in Belfast, Dr. Cooke, who was well
known as the Honourable and Learned Member's
political enemy, proposed three cheers for him, for having
strenuously opposed the Bill.—( Laughter.) Why did not the
Hon. and Learned Member at once come forward, and tell
the Noble Lord that if he did not withdraw this Bill he would
withdraw his support from the Government?—(Cheers )
Mr. O'CONNELL would implore of the Government to
mark the novel spectacle of the Noble Lord and himself rising,
one after the other, to protest against the present measure.
Men of all parties—the clergy of all religions, the Grand Juries
and in fact all pers- ns and parties in Ireland—were opposed to
it. Ile implored of the Government to pause before they
attempted to resist the prayer of unanimous Ireland.—
( Loud cheers.) The Irish labourer required no stimulus
to labour—it was well known that they travelled in thou-
sands every year 700 miles, from the extremity of Connaught
to the extremity of Kent, for the purpose of earning a few
weeks' wages. The whole system then was based upon
that blundering species of legislation. Why were clergymen
of all denominations to be excluded from being Guardians of the
poor, while the magistrates (mid he meant them no disrespect)
were to be ex officio auardians ? If they had reversed
the proposition, and made the clergymen guardians while
they excluded the magistrates, they would have evinced
t better acquaintance with the condition and habits of the
people.—( Cheers.) It appeared that there was to be no re.
lief out of the workhouses. Why, such a system never could
be carried into effectual operation in Ireland. Again, the
Bill prevented neither vagrancy nor mendicity.—(Hear, hear.) It gave
no control whatever over it, in direct contradiction of every principle of
poor.law relief, letting it roam at large. In England it was prohibited,
but not so in Ireland. There it would exist to as great an extent and
as unchecked as ever. The farmer would still be troubled with impor-
tunity from the vagrant mendicant ; and, in addition to what his charity
might prompt him to bestow on that class, he would have to bear a tax
for the workhouse paupers. Again, the Bill gave no settlement, and in
its absence there would be no temptation to the landlord to take care of
his own particular tenants. He was not one of those who gave in to
indiscriminate censure of the landlords of Ireland. But it could not be
forgotten that there were some harsh landlords in Ireland, and
d palliation for oppres-
that this Bill would be used by them for their own objects. They
would allege that they paid a regular tax for the support of
wouldtheir
inferiort)e t h e ir
tenants.exc us e an
should be remembered
sive poor-houses,con d
uct
towardsand
that
halso, that seven-tenths of the tax would be imposed on the occupants of
t
land, and only three-tenths on landlords; so that the absentee landlord,
who did not occupy his land, would escape with a comparatively small
imposition, while the resident landlord, who did occupy his land, would
he compelled to bear the heavier portion of the burden. Remembering
how many unsettled questions there still were respecting 16 Ireland—the
tithe question, the corporation question, &c.—it appeared to him to be
injudicious to bring forward a measure, on the merits which such diffe-
rence of opinion existed. The expense of it would be enormous.
The erection of the workhouses was estimated at 700,0001., and it was
prubabk it would run up to a mill on. Then there Wes the ono mous
staff: For these workhouses there must be 300 chaplains, To this
must he added the expense of the Poor-law Commissioners, cf the
guardians, &c. He had said on a former occasion that Ireland was too
poor for a poor-law. Was he not right ? The greatest anxiety at pre.
sent existed among the people of -Ireland to support their poor, but it was
found impossible. Why load them with the additional expense of this
enormous staff? Why expend one-tenth of the gross rental of the
country to construct machinery which was to extract a million a year
from the pockets Of the people ? At present the balance of agricultural
produce between England and Ireland was greatly in favour of Ireland ;
but an acre of land in Ireland was capable of producing four times more
than an acre in England, if sufficient capital were laid out in cultivation
arid manure. Of that capital, however, this measure went to
deprive the Irish farmer. In Ireland the agricultural labourer
could obtain only a shilling or eighteenpence a day; in England
the agricultural labourer obtained half-a-crown a day ; yet, under such
circumstances, it was proposed to lay a million of additional
taxation on Ireland. Profits were small ; wages were small ; but taxa-
tion was to be increased. In recompence for not giving to Ireland
the Bills by which she would be benefited, they wished to give her
this shutting up, prison Bill, and that was one of the results of the
blessed union. If he had chosen to do so, he could easily, by the aft', o
Cation of a false humanity, have justified his concurrence in the incr.
sure; but he preferred opposing the measure, as he shou:d always do

every measurewhitji In hit dpini;in witscaleuleted to do injitry to
'lreland.
Lord MORPETH said, great stress was now laid on apparent sym-
toms of repugnance to, the measure in Ireland by those who were hardly
Pearl in etiP!--tsitlell !.5 its curly seas so t r iti the long intervals. of
its eoneideration btit Who now, at the tenth or eleeLemti; Neer; ceilled
on the Hearse Jo stop, short, and to postpone the 13111 to a future period.
He mndt Confess he felt ioniesehat surprised that these symptoms did not
manifest ihemseivee at perioie It was impossible but that
many objections must lie to the details ci airy` ineristmri inttothreieg a
poor-law into Ireland. Yet, though the Honourable and Leaffleti 4ele:
tleman and the Noble Lord had in former stages entered into an exami-
nation of the details of the measure, they now refused to admit the
principle of the introduction of the poor-law into Ireland. With respect
to the present measure, it was natural that it should disappoint two
parties in Ireland. Those who were to be the recipients of the proposed
relief would be disappointel that that relief was not more extensive ;
those who were to contribute the relief would be alarmed and jealous at
the extent to which they were to be called upon for that purpose. But
fur all those different kinds of opposition it was the ditty of her Majes-
ty's Government to be prepared. They had been so prepared; they
had stood by the principle of their measure; they had yielded no part of
thet prieciple to influence or opposition, except where it was shown by
fir and open argument that some portions of the Bill Was dieseeptible of
improvement. It had been said before, and the Honourable Barre-let
weo had that evening moved the amendment repeated the charge, that
Government had shown themselves very stiflerrecked in this matter, and
that they had not paid the deference which they ought to the opinions of
gentlemen coming from the country in which the proposed measure was to
operate. Now, although Government had unquestionably adhered to
the principle of the measure, it was incorrect to say that they had not
adopted the suggestions made to them with respect to the details,
whenever those suggestions appeared to be deserving of adoption. In
proof of this he would refer to the numerous changes in the Bid
which had been introduced in the Committee.--(The Noble Lord here
read a list of the changes to which he alluded, comprehending—the
consent of the Guardians to be indispensable to dissolve any union; the
definition of the circumstances under which Guardians were to be ap-
; ointed ; the checks put upon grants for emigration ; the total exclu.
lion of the vagrancy clauses, &c. lee.) It had been further alleged that
this Bill was to be carried in spite of the sentiments and votes of time
Members for Ireland. Now he had made out a catalogue of the votes
on the subject. It appeared that on the principle of the Bill (the ques-
tion being the Speaker's leaving the chair), the Irish Members who
voted in favour of the Bill were tifty.six in number, the number who
voted against it was sixteen. It might be said, however, that the ma.
jority on that occasion waited to make alterations in the Committee.
It appeared, however, that in twenty-five divisions which took place
in the Committee there were only eight in which there was a ma.
jority against Government. In the other seventeen cases the majority
was in favour of Government Honest and sincere as he believed the
contributors to the Poor-rate, the opponents of the Bill, to be, he
could not help turning from what he considered their exaggerated ap-
prehensions to the poorer classes of the Irish people, wandering on the
highways, or perishing in their cabins. At the last of the meetings of
the kind to which he had alluded, and which had taken place in Dub.
lin, Mr. Staunton, the respectable editor of a Dublin newspaper, spoke
of the horrid destitution of the lower classes in the county of Tipperary.
The Honourable and Learned Member for Dublin replied that that
might be the case in a particular district, but that was no argument for
the general introduction of a Poor-law. Upon this the Rev. Mr. Toole,
a Catholic Clergyman, rose to address the meeting. Mr. Toole stated
that he resided in the county of Kildare; that he was well acquainted
with the state of the poor in that county; that there were annually hun-
dreds of them who died of want, but who would have been saved by a
Poor-law; that it was unimportant whether the names of bastiles or
prisons Were given to their places of reception, but that it was very im.
portant, that they should be rescued from utter destitution ; that whole
families were living in houses without roofs, exposed to the open air;
that sickness, consequently, spread among them to a most distressing
extent ; that all the wealthy people of the country were absent; and that
he hoped something would be done to alleviate the dreadful misery which
Prevailed. Now, in his (Lord Morpeth's) opinion, this short simple
statement outwent all the logic of the opponents of the Bill, and its elo.
quence exceeded theirs. The most practical objection which had been
made to the Bill was the allege] deficiency of means which the proposed
workhouses would possess for the relief of the destitute; while, on the
other hand, great stress was laid upon the sentiments of repugnance felt
by the poor of Ireland to be received into the workhouses at all. Now,
with reference to this last objection, he would ask whether, if they hoped
to devise any measure which would materially relieve the poor without
ruining the country by its enormous expense, it was not the safest plan,
while they rendered it impossible for the poor to perish from star-
vation, if they chose to avoid it,. to make the mode of relief
so irksome and unattractive, as to render a dependence on their
own labour and exertions as alluring as possible ?--(Hear.) The
alleged repugnance to workhouses would operate in two ways. It
would operate on the contributors to relief, and it would operate on the
recipients of relief. On the latter it would operate by inducing them to
find employment, that they might escape the necessity of going into the
workhouses; on the former it would operate by inducing them to give
employment, that they might escape the necessity of contribution. In
truth, from this indirect working of the Bill be anticipated the greatest
portion of the advantages which, in his opinion, would flow from it.
With respect to emigration, he was undoubtedly of opinion that, well
and judiciously conducted, it would operate with great advantage to Ire-
land ; but it would not be sufficient in itself, unaided by any system of
poor laws to remove all the distress which unhappily existed in that
country. He should like to know what scheme of emigration, or what
system of out-door relief, maintained by an assessment upon land,
could be established in Ireland for the relief of a distressed imputa-
tion, arneunting to 2,300,000 souls, if it were desired that the proprie.
tors of that country should remain in possession of a single acre of the
lands which they now held ?--(Hear, hear.) Under these circumstances
he was strongly of opinion that the system of relief proposed in the pre.
sent Bill was at once the simplest, the most comprehensive, and the best
that could be established. Felix faustutnque sit is the prayer with
which we now launch it forth into the world, and I feel assured that it
is a prayer which will find an echo in the breast of every man who feels
an interest in the welfare of Ireland.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. YOUNG (Cavan) expressed his approval of the Bill.
Lord PO WERSCOURT thought the Bill well calculated to insure to
the poor of Ireland that just relief which they had a right to expect from
the humanity of our enlightened nature, without imposing unnecessary
burdens upon the property of individuals.
Sir EDMUND HAYES was decidedly opposed to the Bill. He
looked upon the striking out of the
,vagrant clauses as an additional de-
fect in the measure.
Mr. CORRY was also opposed to the Bill.
Mr. M. BELLEW, considering the paramount necessity of some
legislative enactment upon the subject, felt himself compelled to give
his assent to the measure.
Colonel CONOLLY was instructed by his constituents, when the
Bill was first introduced, to support the principle of it, and the feeling
of his own mind inclined him to do so; but he now felt compelled to
depart from that course, because the amendments which lie conceived
to be indispensable to render the Bill efficient had heen rejected in
Committee. The great evil of Irsiand was poverty, and poverty could
not be removed by additional impositions.
Colonel VERNER would not oppose any really good measure, but
he felt obliged to vote against the present inefficient plan.
Sir EDWARD SUGDEN supported the plan proposed in the pre-
sent measure, because he thought that the test of destitution which it
established was time best that could be adopted ; and if they were to re-
lieve destitution they must have a test. He supported this Bill from a
solemn conviction that it would raise.the condition of the lower orders
of the people—(Hear, hear) and compel the landed interest of Ireland
to take more deeply into consideration the state of the labouring classes
in that country.
Mr. SHEIL agreed in the opinion that party feelings should not be
excited in a discussion of this description. Be would not stop to in.
quire how locking up the beggars would have the effect of putting down
the independence of the ten-pound voters. He must say, however, that
a total abstinence from political topics argued a false delicacy which lie
did not understand. The Duke of Wellington had stated in another
place, where he had the power of carrying his announcement into effect,
that he looked upon the Poor-law as a preliminary measure to the adop.
Lion of Corporate Reform. The Noble Duke wanted the rate not solely
for the purpose of relieving the poor, but as the standard for time qua.
lification. Such an intimation had certainly been given. Now, he did
not think that Corporation Reform had the slightest natural connection
with the Poor-law Bill, notwithstanding the artificial connection
attempted to be made between them also. Between poor-rates
and tithes he did think that the strongest identity existed. Why ?
Because both were charges on the land, and both were matters of ex-
periMent The Commissioners appointed by the Government reported
a plan by which tithes might be converted into a plan for the main-
tenance of the poor. Now, what he wished to ask itas, while the tithe
question was pending, was it not better to delay the settlement of the
Poor-law Bill, when the two measures were, to a certain extent, an ex-
perhnent ? Mark the origin of the question. At what time was it
pressed on the public mind ? In 1829 and 1830, by 1)r. Doyle, in his
celebrated pamphlets, in which he proposed the substitution of poor_
rates for tithes. What occurred in 1831 ? The Member for Wicklow,
seconded by Lord Carew, and supported by a large body of the Irish
Members, framed resolutions, by which it was proposed that poor-rates
should be substituted for tithes. In 1831 these proposals were brought
forward in a pure, an unreformed Parliament—(A laugh)—for convert-
ing tithe into a land-tax, to promote the purposes of charity and reli-
gion. Lord Grey came into office in 1831, and in 1832 that step was
taken with regard to the tithe questioa which had caused enormous
litigation, and had, at this moment, caused a great accumulation
of the arrears of tithes. It should never be put out of their
'consideration that they were now about to make an expe-
riment whilst enormous arrears of tithes still remained due. What
'was the plan proposed by the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tam-
worth in 1835 ? Why, that Right llon. Gentleman admitted that the
tithe question never could Ise settled until they paid off all the arrears.
The evil felt then was one which had since increased. What, then, was
his argument ? That they should not impose a new tax on Ireland before
those enormous accumulations were, not to say discharged, but even in
the slightest degree reduced. He did not mean to vote against it ; his
objection to it was, that its exact adaptation to the state of the country
was not considered. What was the state of Ireland now ? The clergy
had claims due to them to the amount of nearly 2,000,000!. The clergy
themselves owed the State 600,000!. The greatest body of the farmers
are those whose leases were previous to the Composition Act, and owed
arrears of five or six years. What was the state of the landlords ?
Those who held land at 40s. an acre paying 3s. tithe, paid
37, and put the 3s. into their pockets. Hiving reviewed
the state of the clergy, the farmers, and the landlords, he
wished to know was it judicious at this moment to press a
Bill of this nature, and to impose a new incumbrance before they got
rid of the difficulties incidental to the tithe question ? If this Bill were
carried without the Tithe Bill it would cause great practical confusion,
with a great deal of political discontent. What did he want? He
wanted a delay of this measure, not its ultimate frustration. A whole-
some delay, with a view to adapt it to the feelings of the Irish people.
He was the representative of a great county by a majority of 1,000,
composed not only of 101. but of 20!. voters; and in this great agricul-
curet district there existed but one feeling throughout the gentry, the
middle-classes, the shopkeepers, and the farmers; all were anxious for
the settlement of the tithe question before the Poor-law Bill. They
ought not to hurry and precipitate this measure. Ile was really Oslo.
nished at the change of opinion which had taken place on this subject.
The present Chancellor of the Exchequer was once a vehement
oPponent of Poor-laws; the Member for North Lancashire was once
also a vehement opponent of Poor-laws. So was the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Member for Tamworth, and the Marquis of Lansdowne.
What had produced the change ? He admitted there was a change in
public opinion, but it was the public opinion of this country, which he
knew was peremptory and emphatic.
Lord CLEMENTS maintained that there was no connection between
tithes and the present measure, and he looked upon the speech of the
}lon. Member for Tipperary as thebest confirmation of what the Duke
of Wellington had stated in another place. He should vote for the mea-
sure as the best remedy proposed for an evil which all admitted.
Mr. LUCAS thought that the Hon. and Learned Member for Tippe-
rary had a fair title to the credit of having relieved the languor of the
present debate, by introducing into it the tithe question, so remarkable
for the animosity which it inspired. He had three objections to the
present Bill, which, in his opinion, marred the principles on which it
professed to proceed. The first was, that there was a law of settlement
by accident merely instead of by birth or servitude; secondly, that a
certain class were exempted from the payment of tithe ; and, thirdly,
because the unions were too large. His second objection was to the 5!.
clause, which had already been under the consideration of time House ;
and his theed objection was one on which he certainly should net detain
the House-s-ihe alluded to the subject of settlement. He must express
his approval of the principle of the Bill, at the same time that he could
not but express his dissatisfaction at its details.
Mr. W. ROCHE should cordially vote for the third reading of the
Bill, and hesincerely trusted that it would be carried both in this and
the other House of Parliament.

'4r. C. F. THOMSON was sorry to find that the Hon. Gentleman

Mr. F. FRENCH was sure that his Honourable Friend would
object any further to the course he proposed, when he understood that
the discussion was to take place in Committee. An arrangement had been
made by the delegates from Ireland, which was sanctioned by the Eng_
lish and Scotch Colleges, and which was approved of by Sir B. Brodie,
Sir A. Cooper, Sir A. Carlisle, and others. They were anxious, before
the discussion took ptace, that the details of the Bill should be before
the House, and that some alterations should be made. He merely
meant that the Bill should go through Committee pro forma, and after-
wards that the discussion might take place.

Mr. WA KLEY said, that kith the understanding that the 13111 should
be brought forward at an early period of the evening; before the Com-
mittee was gone into, he hoped that no objection would be made to the
course now proposed by the Hon. Member for Roscommon. The
Bill,
theyopinion,
o ug
h trequired very material alterations. He thought,
then,ll in
that his
a very full discussion upon it, and he
therefore trusted that no opposition would now be made to the se..
t
cond reading.

Mr. O'CONNELL observed that it was only necessary now to un-
derstand that the Hon. Member for Roscommon merely intended to go
into Committee pro forma. To that Hon. Member some alterations
had been suggested which he wished to adopt, and having done that in
the Committee, then to take a discussion on the motion for the re-com-
mitment of the Bill so far as the principle of the Bill was concerned.
No doubt that discussion must come on at an early hour in the even ng;
for it were to come on at a late hour, it would be only necessary to ad-
journ it to another evening, The importance of the Bill could not be
exaggerated; and if it were not brought on at an early hour in the
evening, it would be impossible to have its merits discussed without an
adjournment.

Sir ROBERT PEEL hoped that an opportunity would not only be
given for a full discussion upon the general principles of the Bill; but
also, that portion of it, in which the medical practitioners were so deeply
interested.—(Hear, hear.) A full oPportunity ought to be given for
considering that very important gOitien. There ought to be an in-
terval of time between the detittiV Of the Bill being laid before them,
and the moment when the Ifotisle"would be called upon to take them into
consideration. He hoped that the Hon. Gentleman i.. moving the