The Sun.
London, England, 1838-07-24 00:00:00

IRISH POOR-LAW BILL.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL then moved the Order for the
House taking into consideration the Lords' amendments to
the Irish Poor-law Bill.
Sir STRATFORD CANNING wished to ask a question
on a subject of great importance to the commercial inte-
rests of the country. He understood that an expedition,
composed of several armed vessels, with 500 or 6CO
men had sailed from Bombay to the Persian Gulf. The only
two places to ►which the expedition could proceed belonged to
the Scbah of Persia, and an expedition against them might
place us in a state of hostility with Persia. He was desirous
of knowing, for the interests of the trade of the country, whe-
ther the expedition was likely to be attended with that conse-
quence?
Sir J. HOBHOUSE said it was undoubtedly true that a
small expedition had sailed, in consequence of a despatch re-
ceived from the Governor-General of India by the Governor
of Bombay, stating reasons which made the Governor-General
of India think it advisable to send such expedition. It was
sent for the protection of British interests in central Asia, in
consequence of the state of that part of the world.
Sir S. CANNING inquired if the expedition was merely
for general purposes, or had a specific object?
Sir J. HOB HOUSE could give no other answer than he
had already give n.
Sir R. PEEL wished to BA the President of the Board of
Control whether the Governor in Council in India had com-
plete authority to prevent the conveyance of the natives
of India fiat the purpose of being employed in the West
India settlements; and if not, whether it was the intention
of Government to pass an Order in Council forbidding
inch conveyance for the period of two years, or any other defi-
nite period.
Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE said, in answer to the two ques-
tions pot by the Right Hon. Baronet, he had no hesitatioN in
saying_it was his opinion at least—that there could be
io doubt whatever that the Governor-General had t 11.3
Over adverted to by thy: Right Honourable Gentleman.
He and the C,uncil had ire pea or of making laws for India,
and nothing could upset those laws but their abrogation by
the Home Government. With respect to the other question Ile

had to s-,.y that in consequence of the view taken by her
Majesty', ‘.;overnrnent it was the intention of the Court of
Directors to lose no time, but forthwith to issue an order for
the purposes mentioned by the Right Hon. Gentleman.
Mr. G. PALMER then rose to make the motion of which
he had given ne.tice.
Mr. P. THOMSON apprehended that the Hon. Member
was violating the orders and understanding of the House in
persevering in his motion.
The SPEAKER said the motion could only be brought
forward on Supply days.
After a short discussion, Mr. Palmer gave way.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL having moved the Order of the
Day, for the consideration of the Lords' Amendments to the
Irish Por,r-law Bill,
The SPEAKER said it was his duty to state to the
House wh,t had taken place relative to these amendments.
It was usual when amendments were proposed to be made
tending to touch the privileges of the House to con-
sult the Speaker on the subject. The amendments
which bad been made had' been laid before him,
and his opinion asked—his answer was that he did
consider them as contrary to the rules of the House. The
Rill was introducing a great novelty in the laws of
Ireland, and it wan, therthre, in Lis opinion, neces-
sary that they should n,-t pie's the strict rule, otherwise
they would take from the llouse of Lords any power
of considering, laws of such importance. There were two
precedents for considering these amendments ; they were the
cases of the English Poor-law Bill and the English
Municipal Bill, and very probably the House would think
the reasons now pressing as valid as upon those
oixasio;;s. As a general rule he thought the rules and privi-
h.ges of the House were best secured when not too far
stretched. lie had done his duty, and it reisained with
the House to take what step it pleased in the matter.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that no doubt the rule which the
Right Hon. Gentleman had stated did materially affect the
consideraion of this question. There certainly were amend-
ments introduced which went fully into the question of rating
and the disposal of money, but he hoped the House would
consider them as amendments intended rather to further the
object of the House of Commons in the Bill which it sent up.
That Bill had been adopted alter a very great consideration,
and its provisions had been agreed to by a great majority of
that House. On the third reading of the Bill 234 voted for,
and 95 against, the third reading. He wished to bring
before the attention of the Reuss the chief of those amend-
ment-, and to a7k Honourable Members to give their con-
sideration to them. On the whole he thought, considering
the very great importance of the Bill, the number of provi-
sions necessary to carry its object into effect, and considering
the great diversity of opinion as to the plan to be adopted
(even supposing the principle of the Poor-law to be adopted),
the amendments made by the Lords were fewer in number and
less extensive in principle than might have been expected.
There were, however, two or three of sonic importance.

(LEFT SPEAKING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

The LORD COANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at
the usual hour.

The Edinburgh and Leith Agreement Bill went through
Committee.

The Bishop of EXETER presented a petition from
some place in Ireland, against the Irish Corporations' Bill.
Also, a petition against the continuance of the grant to May-
nooth College. Also, a petition from Bradford complaining of
the present factorl, system, and in favour (we believe) of a Ten
I-lours' BM. As- a petition from Wingfield, Wilts, praying
that the countei.at.ci: 'given by the British Government in
India to Ilindoo ido'atry might be put an end to. The Right
Rev. Prelate supported the prayer of the petition, and said
that next Session the subject must come under the notice of
Parliament ; and presented a similar petition from the Wes-
leyan Methodists or Exeter.
Viscount MELBOURNE assured the Right Rev. Prelate
and their Lordships that measurei would speedily be taken
upon this subject which would satisfy the most scrupulous
conscience.

Earl ALBE3I A R LE presented a similar petition from
Norwich.

Ile Prisons Bill, the Parliamentary Burghs ( Scotland)
Bill, and the Schools' ( Scotland) Bill, were brought up from
the Commons. _ _ _

SPANISH LESION.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY, seeing the
Noble Viscount (Melbourne) in his place, wished to say
that the Noble Viscount had stated the other night
that the Commission to settle the claims of the Legion
w,is in active operation ; whereas it appared from informa-
tion which he (Lord Londonderry) had received, that the
Commission had not yet, assembled • and that it was not
known when it would meet. The 'Noble Viscount would
certainly not wilfully make a mis.statement, but he (Lord L.)
to have correct information upon this point, and to
know whether the N:Ve Viscount would lay before the House
the correspondence on the sulject.
Lord M ELI3OURNE said he had stated that the Com-
missioners (as he had understood) had arrived in London.
What papers were they that the Noble Marquis wished to have?
Lord LOND OND E R Y—Copks of correspondence he-
twmn Sir De Lacy Evans. Lord Palmerston, Mr. Black, &c.
Viscount MELBOURNE—Suppose th.se papers have
already bce!l laid before the Howe of Commons.
The :Marquis of LONDONDERRY then noticed the sub-
ject of the different constructions put by two Noble Lords
(Minto and Melbourne) on the additional articles of the
Quadruple Treaty, and enquired whi titer the Noble Earl
(Mint?) adhered to his opinion formerly expressed ?

Earl IN TO said he ;till adhered t.) that opinion.
Lord BROUGHAM said the Noble Earl's p ?rtinacity in
adhering to his opinion, did not lessen his (Lord Brougham's)
conviction of the palpable error of that opinion, nor increase
his estimation of the Noble Earl's wisdom. He now wished so
ask the Noble Earl, if when the contingency which was supposed
likely to arise, no longer existed, there would be any objoction
to lay that Order in Council (respecting Dutch ani Sardininn
vessels) before their Lordshins ?

The Duke of WELLINGTON said the inclination of his
mind ale ays was net to pre s a Government to produce jar pc, s of
this nature, and which, if he were sitting on the other side of
the House, he should no doubt resist the production of.
Lord BROUGHAM admitted the general rule as kid
down by the Noble Duke was quite correct. But he (Lord B.)
had considered a case had been fully made out for an excep-
tion to that rule. And the Noble Earl ( Tinto) had persisted
in his error, and who knew whether it might not be now acted
upon? Would the Noble Earl say if the Order in Council was
signed by the Noble Earl himself alone, or by some other
Member of the Government in conjunction with him.
Earl MIN TO was wilting to staze that if such
an Order was issued, it would not be issued on the
sole responsibility of the head of the Marine, but would
be signed by one of the Secretaries of State. But he must
decline answering positively a question relating to a condi-
tional order. Orders of the Admiralty, in fact, were not signed
by the Lords, but by the Secretary.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY congratulated the
Noble Viscount at the head of the Government on the speci-
mens of agreement and subordination which were presented in
that an-I the ether House of Parliament by Members of the
Mininisti v which he had orePifsed. —(A laugh. )
NATIONAL LOAN FUND LIFE ASSURANCE