The Sun.
London, England, 1847-05-11 00:00:00

GROUP L.

This Committee met this morning at twelve; present, Mr.
Bankes, chairman ; Mr. Carew, Sir B. Hall, Mr. Hindley, and
Mr. Henley.
PAISLEY, BAIZEHEAD, AND 11URLET.

The CHAIRMAN said the agreement between the Canal
Company and the Greenock Railway Company, and the Ayr
Railway Company would better now be explained. It bad
made a strong impression on the Committee, who hesitated
to grant further powers to parties who had made a use of them
very unfavourable for the public.
Mr. WHATELIY explained that the agreement arose out of
a ruinous competition between the canal and the railway,
when passengers were carried a distance of seven miles for
twopence. It was arranged, therefore, that the canal should
not carry light goods or passengers. The fares had been
little affected, for the rail carried passengers at seven-eighths
of a penny per mile. But they were prepared to give up the
agreement if the Greenock Company would aid them to
compensate the canal, as the Chairman would recommend.
The CHAIRMAN said the Committee had no power to en-
tertain the offer.
Mr. Wilson, a large mineral l'enorietor and lessee, gave
evidence in Ruonort of fl,
terrea for the accommodation offered by it to the different
works in the district.

Mr. Pitcaird, factor to Lord Glasgow, agreed that the Hurlet
line would much better suit the mineral fields than the other
lines. It offered a direct communication to the port of Rea-
fern, which he thought the natural port of the district.
Mr. Blythe, C.E., was asked a few questions bearing prin-
cipally on matters of a local nature.
The CHAIRMAN announced that the majority of the Com-
mittee were in favour of the Hurlet scheme being granted.
Mr. flttnrAnD, for the opponents, was heard very briefly.
The CHAIRMAN then declared the preamble of the llurlet
Railway proved for all except their Neilston and Barskiven
branches.

GLASGOW, PAISLEY, ICILMARNOCE, AND
AYE, AND AYRSHIRE AND BRIDGE OF
WEIR (No. III).

Mr. flora was about to open the merits of this Bii
when

The Ctr.tramAN said he thought that schemes enough for
that district had been sanctioned; and he recommended the
promoters to consider whether, in the face of this, they ought
to zo on.
Sir B. HALL requested the Kilmarnock and Ayr Direct
should understand that the same observations applied to
them.
The Committee then adjourned.

RAILWAY SHARE MARKETS,
LIVERPOOL, MAY 10.
STOCK EXCHANGE.-The market is still very flat, and
prices continue to cone down; even the heavy st •cks are
declining, and the quotations are lower than we last reported.
There has been very little business done to-day. The sales are-
Birmingham and Oxford, 04 p.-Caledonian, Halves, .*4 dis.
-East Lancashire, New (scrip), par-Great Northern, 14
dis -Liverpool, Crosby, and Southport, 3y p.- London and
North-Western, 170- Ditto, Fifths, 131/4 p.-Ditto, Quarters,
New, 9% p.-Manchester and Leeds Fifths, 334p.-Ditto,
321. Shares (late Extensions), p.-Manchester, Sheffield,
and Lincolnshire, Eighths, 465. 3d. dis.-Midland Stock,
11414-Ditto, 401. Shares 2% p.-Ditto, New, 1:14 p.-Staf-
fordshire Union Railway and Canal, 174 dis.-York and
North Midland (East and West Riding Extension), 10!•4 p.
MANCHESTERhe , MAY 10.
STOCK EXCITANGE.-T sales are-Ambergate, Notting-
ham, and Boston, 1 5 dis.-Birkenhead, Lancashire, and
Cheshire, dis.-Birmingham and Oxford Junction, 7-
Eastern Counties, 1831-East Lancashire, New, 11, dis.-
Ditto, New (scrip), 1-16 dis.-East Lincolnshire,ll,4
11/ c. p.-
Fleetwood, Preston, and West Riding Junction, 7-16-
Leeds, Dewsbury, and Manchester, par-London, Man-
chester, and Birmingham, 66!.x-Manchester and Leeds, 32/.
Shares (late Extension), 1-16 p.-Ditto, Fifths (late West
Riding Union), 1-16-:Manchester and Southampton, 30s.
6d. dis.-North Staffordshire, 1 7.16 n.- North-Western
leg dis.-South-Eastern and Dover, No. 4, dis. ,
LEEDS, MAY 10.
STOCK EXCHANGE. -The sales are-Amber ate, Notting-
ham, and Boston, 275. dis.-East Lancashire, New, 335. 9d.
dis.-Ditto, New (scrip), Is. dis.-East and West Yorkshire,
dis.-Great Northern, IA dis.-Huddersfield and Man-
chester, Thirds, 2s. 6d. dis.-Leeds and Thirsk, 51:2 dis.-
, Ditto, Preference, 3s. 6d. p.-Leeds, Wakefield, and Midland,
17s. 6d. dis.-London, Brighton, and South Coast, 511 -
Ditto, Fifteenths, 2s. p.-Malton and Driffield Junction, 15s.
dis.-Manchester and Leeds, 32/. Shares (late Extensions), 3s.
p.--Ditto, West Riding Union, c. p.-Manchester, Bux-
ton, Matlock, and Midland, 7s. 6d dis.-Newcastle and
Berwick, New, 1% p.-North British, Extension (scrip), 6s.
6d. p.-North Staffordshire, 31s. 3d. p.- North-Western, 395,
clic-York and North Midland, Preference, 8,4, p.
SHEFFIELD, MAY 10.
STOCK EXCHANGE.-The sales are-Ambergate, Notting-
ham, and Boston, 1% dis.-East Lancashire, New (scrip),
par-East Lincolnshire, 1% p.-Manchester and Lincoln
Union, 11/2 dis.-Manchester and Leeds (West Riding
Union), 2s. p.-Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire
(Great Grimsby and Sheffield), 8/. dis.-North-Western, 2/.
dis.-Leeds, Wakefield, and Midland, 1/. dis.
EDINBURGH, MAY 8.
STOCK EXCHANGE.-The sales are-Caledonian, New,
405.-Dundee and Northern Junction, 30s. 6d.-Dundee and
Perth, Quarters, 515.-East Lothian Central, 413.-Edin-
burgh and Glasgow, Quarters, 178-Edinburgh and North-
ern, 174-Ditto, New, 635.-Ditto, Newport, 7-Ditto, ditto,
New, 38s. 6d.-Edinburgh and Perth,4os. Ditto,Halves,
123.-Great Northern, 515.-North British, 303-Ditto,
Quarters, 83L.-Ditto, Thirds, 50s. _

GLASGOW, MAY 8.
STOCK EXCHANGE.—The sales are—Caledonian, New, 38s.
Dundee and Perth, Quarters, 50s. 6d.—Edinburgh and Perth
( New Co.), 41s. 3d.—Glasgow, Kilmarnock, and Ayr, 3514--
Glasgow, Dumfries, and Carlisle, s%—Manchester and
Southampton, 12s. 6d.—North British, Thirds, 50s.—Ditto,
Quarters, 87s. 6d.—Ditto, New Quarters (scrip), 20s.

SHEPHERD'S BANKRUPTCY.—These bankrupts had
their first hearing on Thur?day. They were extensive wine
merchants, bad been in business about twelve or fourteen
years, and their failure excited a deal of surprise to those not
intimately acquainted with their dealings. Debts to the
amount of 12,000/. were proved, besides the bankers' claim
of about 5,000/., which stands over. They owe the Exeter
Bank 8,700/. and odd. The London creditors generally have
not yet proved their debts. It was rumoured that the estate
would
sopoaflyaittajobirioeaus.ptpTltihehdreefecoorsohartit:lings in the pound. The bank-
:l7alt,ll:3sa4neTels.orfr.7R/.
apleprhwseaenkdeforsr
rtuhepttsw'
rn
THE
tAnuy —L eu nan G. Proby 1-.lasillbeen re-.
was appointed trade. assignee-alb
;Stored to his commission in the 43d Foot.-
lected that this officer absented himself Foots
mwontbhesr:'clie
Ifrom his corps for the purpose of visiting a sick brothermat
Borne, and in consequence of which his commission was
cancelled. The Commander-in-Chief has, however, taken a
favourable view of the case, and Lieutenant Proby has been
permitted to return to his duty. It need scarcely be added,
that punishment for absence without leave is usually a
heavY the
one.

► IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT
HOUSE OF LORDS, May 10.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
sack at Five o'clock.
THREATENING LETTERS BILL.
Lord DENMAN proposed the second reading of this
Bill. In doing so, he said he conceived that his
motion would not meet with the slightest objection,
as it was to amend the present anomalous state of the
law with respect to persons sending threaten-
ing letters for the purpose of extorting money.
The existing law was so imperfect, that unless
a letter of this nature was actually addressed
to the person from whom money was sought to
be extorted no offence was committed, and the
object of the Bill was to render it equally criminal to
send a letter with the view of extorting money from a
person to that person's relations or friends.
The Bill was then read a second time.
THE TOWNSEND PEERAGE.
The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a petition
from a gentleman named Charles Townsend, "com-
monly called Lord Charles Townsend and Marquis of
Townsend," praying for an alteration of the Act passed
three years ago with respect to the Townsend Peerage.
CORN.

The Earl of HARDWICKE gave notice that he
would ask her Majesty's Ministers two questions, first,
whether they knew what quantity of wheat was in the
country ; and, second, what Quantity they expected to
be imported.

RATING IN IRELAND.
The Earl of ST. GERMANS presented a petition
from the rate-payers in the County Down, praying that
the rates should be as usually charged, one-half upon
the landlord, and one-half upon the tenant.
THE FACTORY BILL.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented several pe-
titions from various parts of the country in favour of the
Factory Bill.
PUBLIC-HOUSES IN SCOTLAND.
The Duke of BUCCLEUCH presented a petition
praying that their Lordships would take into considera-
tion some measure for licensing public-houses in Scotland.
ARMY SERVICE BILL.
On the motion of Lord STANLEY, the further read-
ing of this Bill was postponed till Fric:ay next.
LANDED PROPERTY (IRELAND) BILL.
The report on this Bill was postponed till tomorrow.
POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
On the order of the day for going into Committee
upon this Bill being read,
The Earl of WICKLOW rose to propose an amend-
ment to the 20th clause, of which he had given notice,
but was interrupted by
Lord STANLEY, who said that he wished to ask her
Majesty's Government whether they intended to insert a
clause in this Bill respecting electoral division. He would
put it to the Government whether they did not think
that by argreeing to the words " electoral divisions"
after the word " union" they would render more effectual
the working of this measure.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE was understood
to say that power already existed to alter the extent
of the electoral divisions.
Lord STANLEY complained that the Noble Marquis
had not answered his question. He thought that the
Commissioners should have the power to make those
alterations, and not only that the Commissioners should
have the power, but that the Executive should give the
Commissioners authority to exercise it, and to reduce
the area of unions of large electoral divisions.
Lord BROUGHAM said, that under the law of
settlement, power was given to divide parishes in such
cases as those which were of great extent, and he
thought that similar power ought to be conferred in the
present Bill.
After a few words from the Marquis of Lansdowne,
Lord Clancarty, and Lord Redf,sdale,
The Earl of WICKLOW said that ho was quite
aware of the existence of the power to which the
Noble Al arquis (the Marquis of Lansdowne) had referred.
He wanted to impress upon their Lordships what ap-
peared to him to Le a grievous injustice, namely, throw-
ing upon certain rural districts the whole weight of the
support of the pauper population of the towns. Ile
considered that the pauper population of an union
should be supported by the union at large. Un-
less this were the case, the expense which
would be thrown upon the towns would be enormous ;
in fact, property in towns would be destroyed altogether.
After the opinion of their Lordships the
other night he conceived that their Lordships
would accede to the following amendment :
"In clause 20 to insert, after the word repealed' in
twelfth line, the words and that it shall be lawful
for the said Commissioners, when they shall see
fit, to form into separate electoral divisions towns
with a population of three thousand, or upwards.'"
He said 3,000, because he believed small towns of that
size would be best accommodated by such an arrange-
ment.

After a desultory conversation, in which Lord Mont-
eagle, Lord Campbell, and Lord Brougham took part,
Earl GREY said, the clause which already existed in
the Bill was word for word the same with the amend-
ment of the Noble Earl, as far as could be.
After a few words from the Marquis of Clancarty,
Earl Grey, and the Marquis of Lansdowne,
Earl FITZWILLIAM. said, the amendment of the
Noble Earl raised questions of a most important charac-
ter—how, ansi on what principle they were to form the
new communities which they were about to form in Ire-
land? The Noble Earl (Grey) thought the Commis-
sioners had power enough, and the amendment had the
effect of extending that power. Ile asked any Noble
Lord whether he thought the Commissioners under the
clause of the Bill would act in the way proposed by the
Noble Earl? What he wished to know was why the re-
lief of the poor should fall upon the electoral 3ivision
”<3 not upon 02. t That was a question
deserving attention. Another was, whether the town
poor ought to be relieved by the country division also,
or ought rather to be separated from the country. These
were important questions. He said he would support
the amendment of the Noble Earl.
The Earl of CLANRICARDE said the whole question
under the present amendment was the area of the elec-
toral rating, and all that was meant by the Noble Earl
in his amendment was, not that he differed from the
principle of the clause in the Bill, but that he wished to
suggest some duties to the guardians or commissioners
for acting upon. But many other suggestions as well
as this might be made. He thought then it would be
far better to leave the commisiouers in power as they
were by the Bill.
The amendment was then put to their Lordships, and
was lost without a division.
The Earl of WICKLOW then rose to propose ano-
ther amendment, of which he had given notice, but after
a few words from the Marquis of Lansdowne, the Noble
Earl withdrew his amendment.
The clause was then agreed to.
Clauses 22 and 23 were then agreed to.
On the 24th clause being proposed,
Lord MONTEAGLE said that if they attempted to
remove the children from those workhouses, they would
deprive them of all chances of education ; and, on the
other hand, if they retained them, they would be bring-
ing up a pauper population which they could not turn
to any account. He would suggest that those Poor-law
Commissioners should have the power of effecting a
union of unions, and that the education of industry
should be superadded to that of intellectual education.
Thus the children would be properly educated and pro-
perly taken care of. He merely wished to suggest the
insertion of such a clause as the one he had prepared.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE admitted the im-
portance of the Noble Lord's recommendation, and inti-
mated that her Majesty's Government were favourable
to the introduction of industrial as well as educational
training into the schools. He would, however, take the
suggestion into consideration.
Clauses up to 30 having been agreed to,
Lord
STANLEY
clause
in rose
the
Bill
to propose:
—That, th the
savese
o r insertionaa sg r e oe mf theen
following
herein-
after provided, it shall not be lawful for any occupier of
rateable property holding under any i
to be made or entered into after the rassing of this Act,
nor for any tenant at will, or from year to year, after
the Ist day of January, 1849, to deduct from the rent
to which he may be liable in respect of such property
any amount whatever in respect of any rate which may
he imposed at any period subsequent to the date of such
lease or agreement, or subsequent to such Ist day of Ja-
nuary, as the case may be. That all the provisions of
the Act 6th and 7th Victoria, c. 92, intituled, " An Act
for the further Amendment of an Act for the more effec-
tual Relief of the Destitute Pcor in Ireland," for the
charge and recovery of rates upon property rated to a
net annual value not exceeding 4/, shall be deemed and
taken to apply to the like property rated to a net annual
value value not exceeding 5/. ; provided nevertheless,
and he it enacted, that no immediate lessor holding under
any lease or agreement to be made or entered into
after the passing of this Act, shall be authorised to de-
duct from any rent by him payable under such lease or
agreement to his superior landlord, any amount whatever
in respect of any rate which may be imposed at any pe-
riod subsequent to the date of such lease or agreement.
He said the time had now arrived when it became his
duty to submit for the adoption of their Lordships the
amendment of which he had given notice. Re was
quite sure that their Lordships, in proceeding with the
discussion, and with the amendment, of this most im-
portant subject, would approach it without any reference
on their part, or without any influence on their minds
from the misapprehension and misrepresentation which
had been industriously circulated, not only within the
walls of that House, with regard to the object as well as
the motive which had led him to propose the clause—
that they would not consider whether the vote which he
asked them to come to, should confer upon them a mo-
mentary popularity, or the reverse of popularity—that
they would not either be influenced by those insinua-
tions which had been very liberally circulated with re-
gard to the probable political consequences of their
Lordships' adoption of the motion which he had
submitted fur their consideration and adoption. (Hear.)
It had been stated that his was a landlord's amendment.
Now, he denied that altogether—(Cheers)—nay more,
he should be ashamed of himself if, connected as he was
with property in Ireland, he submitted to their Lord-
ships' consideration a clause intended or calculated, ex-
clusively or even primarily, to benefit that class to which
he himself belonged.—(Hear.) lie shculd be yet more
ashamed of himself, if that advantage were to be pur-
chased by any corresponding advantage upon any other
class of society ; but his firm conviction was, that so far
from being a landlord's question, if it be anything it was
especially a labourer's, and not a landlord's question.—
(Loud cheers.) The object which he had in view was—
and which he was sure all their Lordships had in view--
was how they could best conduct this perilous experi-
ment, upon which they were called upon to enter, upon
which they had decided ; and notwithstanding
all the objections, and all the difficulties,
acaohnuodduukicatl alllt the dangers, he thought, upon the
whole they had wisely decided to enter, but it was for
their consideration, and it was important that they
actouesxipdeerriaiiten,
calmly
as t
lyando dreelnidbeerrattheelyirhopoewrttyo

of Ireland, best able to bear the burden, which was
about to be thrown upon it ; and best able to bear this
burden of the employment of those labourers whom they
desired to rescue from a pressure upon the poor-rates.
He was not then deterred by any of the considerations
to which he bad referred, from submitting to their
Lordships an amendment, which, in his conscience, he
believed was nesessary for the safe working of this
measure. He was not even deterred from submitting
this amendment, by the rather unusual intimation con-
tained in that extraordinary message from the House of
Commons, which was conveyed to their Lordships a few
nights ago— (Cheers:and laughter)—by my Noble Friend
the Noble Earl on the cross benches ; who, for the
purpose of influencing your Lordships' deliberations
and decisions upon this measure, thought it necessary to
state to your Lordships that he was in a position
to state from authority that Earl Lincoln had changed
his mind upon the subject of an Irish poor-law.— (Cheers
and laughter.) Undoubtedly, recent events had made it
perhaps convenient that when there was any general
change in the House of Commons cn masse, early inti-
mation should be given to your Lordships of such a
change, but he (Lord Stanley) with all the respect which
he had for his Noble Friend on the cross benches, and it
was most unfeigned, and the other Noble Lord to whom
he referred, he hardly thought that such an intimation
was likely to have an undue influence on your Lord-
ship's deliberations, when his Noble Friend on the cross
benches, stated that he was authorised, on authority, to
state for the information of your Lordships, that Lord
Lincoln had changed his opinions.—(Laughter.) He
was also farther deterred from bringing forward this
questicn, than by that which had much greater weight
in his mind—namely, the expressed objection of my
Noble and Learned Friend (Lord Brougham) whom he
did not see in his place, and also from the
objections of the Noble Marquis (Lans-
downe) on the opposite benches. He repeated
that he was not even deterred by their
objections, but he thought the objections of his Noble
and Learned Friend had reference more particularly to
what were fallaciously announced to be the objections
to the measure. The Noble Marquis, in stating the
ground of his objections, stated what he (Lord Stanley)
considered a most dangerous principle to enunciate of
which a public man could be guilty, namely—that they
must legislate, not upon principles, but upon impressions.
—(Hear.) This was a matter of too great consequence
for them to consult impressions ; they must look to the
effects—to consequences. They must see that their le
gislation did not obtain momentary popularity, but that
it would lead to placing the country out of hazard, and
enable them to legislate safely for her defence ; and he
felt convinced that, unless they adopted the principle of
the amendment he had intrusted to them, they could not
hope that this experiment could be conducted without
the most dangerous and cruel results. He asked them
to deal with Irish property as they would think it safe
to deal with English property.—(Loud cheers.) The
great body of them, perhaps, were unconnected with
property in Ireland ; they were called upon to legislate
with regard to that country, and he asked them,
before they decided, to place their hands upon
their hearts, and say whether they would dare
to propose, or whether they could carry into
effect a poor-law for England based upon the principles
of this poor-law ?—(Renewed cheering)—and deprived
of the safeguard which they had in England against
abuse.—(Hear, hear.) Why, if' they could not, with
what conscience, with what show of reason, with what
hope of success, could they impose upon Ireland that
which they knew they could not impose upon England ?
At all events they must show him that this experiment
was dangerous for England, and that it was safe for
Ireland, before they rejected his proposition ; they must
point out the circumstances which rendered it less
injurious to Ireland than to England. On them rested
the onus of proof, and not upon him. When
they asked him to cramp the relief to the poor
in Ireland, he asked them, on the other
side, to show that that system of relief which was not
safe for England, was safe for Ireland, and would be ac-
companied by a safeguard. They must explain the dif•
ference. The measure which they were about to adopt
would, by the confession of every man, press heavily upon
the parishes, and their object was—and his main object
was—to relieve too great a pressure upon the poor-rates;
not by a straightened and niggardly parsimony, nut by
withdrawing relief from those really destitute, not by
pushing and grinding down relief to a minimum point
in rural districts, but to supersede the necessity for pau-
perism, by furnishing the means for independent labour
—(Loud cheers.) Now let him first recal to their
Lordship's attention what was the principle which
the Legislature imposed on the landlords and tenants
with respect to the payment of the rates? As the law
existed, the rate was in the first instance levied exclu-
sively on the tenant, but when he paid his rent to his
landlord he deducted not one-half of the amount of the
rate, but one-half of the poundage upon his rent, which
was equal to one-half of the poundage charged upon
the rateable value of the land. Such at this period is the
practice. He had heard many Noble Lords say that
this burden was, after all, equally distributed between
the landlord and the tenant. It was no such thing.—
, (Cries of " Hear, hear.") It was notorious to every
one of their fordships conversant with the state
of Ireland, it was notorious that the rated value of land
was invariably upon an average below the fair rent-value
of the land. He believed.he should not much exaggerate
when he stated, that in some cases a piece of land was
rated at 201.; yet, without being overrated, it was worth
30/. ; still the tenant only paid rates for the 201., at
which it was rated. A shilling rate was levied upon
the tenant, and he paid one shilling upon each pound of
his rate-201. ; but he was entitled to deduct Is. 2d.
from his rent to defray the expense of the rate, and he
deducted, not 205., but thirty sixpence., or 155., from
his landlord, out of the 20s. h Jsy,
this, hehthadatifollijrath
was
of the rate was borne by the tenant, and three-fourths
was borne by the landlord.—(Hear, hear.) He did think
that this was exaggerated; it was rather below than
above the mark. The occupying tenant paid one-third,
and the landlord the remaining two-thirds.—(Hear,
hear.) Now, the relations between landlord and tenant
were far better understood here than in Ireland, and the
condition of the tenant was eminently expensive
England to what it was in Ireland. Farmers, for in-
stance, were larger here than in Ireland. He should be
content to rest the whole question on this ground.
He asked those who considered the poor-law
advantageous in England, what would be the condition,
the social and moral condition of a parish, in which the
farmer should have the power to levy rates, two-thirds
of those rates having to be paid by the landlords?—
(Loud cheers.) He did not ask them what they thought
would be the effect upon the landed property—that was
an important question ; but it was not the only one of
great importance ; and he asked them what they thought
would be the social condition of the labourer ?—(Hear.)l
What would be their state—what would be the effect of
the magnitude or diminution of pauperism in that i
parish ? He asked them what inducement there would
be to the farmer to employ additional hands and to make
improvements upon his holdings if he had not the alter-
native, as in England, that unless he employed them
he would have to pay for their support in the
union, but that if he did not comply, then they must be
supported by the parish, out of rates levied indirectly from
his soil. Ile was certain that if in England 'they
attempted to introouce such a measure, that it would
lead infallibly to the destruction of the moral and social
condition of that parish, to the destruction of inde-
pendent labour, to the increase not only of the rates, but
of the number of paupers ; that it would absolutely anni-
hilate all exertions at the improvement of that parish,
and it would be overwhelmed by a flood of universal
pauperism. Was there a man among their Lord-
ships who would deny that that would be the probable
result of such a measure in England? Was there a
man among their Lordships prepared to follow up this
legislation by assenting to a similar measure for
England? And upon what ground did they refuse to
do so? If they did not, the farmers in England might
say, " This is what the farmers in Ireland have obtained
why ought we not to be placed in a similar position?"
They would say that if the landlords in Ireland were
compelled to pay the rates that the landlords in England
should do the same.—(Hear, hear.) Now, was that
wise, was it politic, was it just, was it safe to create
such an anomalous state of things between two countries?
Lot them tell him upon what ground, upon what argument,
they could resist the demand to grant them the same
privilege which they were willing to allow to the Irish
tenants ? Well, if none of their Lordships would deny
the character of the state of things in England, let them
tell what was the safeguard which they could rely upon
in introducing such a system as this into Ireland. Was
Ireland more wealthy; were her means of permanent
employment greater than those of England ; were the
relations between landlord and tenant more confidential,
more thrifty, and was she more capable of employing
labour than encouraging pauperism ? But it was noto-
rious that the reverse of all this was the fact,
If there was security in the relations between the land-
lords and tenants, and that that security existed in
England, he saw no reason why the law with respect to
the two countries should not be assimilated. He did
not know whether he would not venture to trust such a
power as that proposed by the Bill, to Scotch proprietors
and Scotch tenants. Looking at the intelligence of
the farmers, to the habits of the country, and to
the extent of their farms—their knowledge of their
respective duties—it could be carried into effect with
more advantage; but he should be sorry to trust to the
operation of such a measure in England. (Hear.)
But he was certain of this that in Ireland it would be
absolutely and entirely ruinous—(Hear)—and absolute
ruin not only to the landlord, not to the landlord prima-
rily, but absolute and entire ruin to the whole property
of the country, whilst the plan he proposed would create
a body of independent labourers, and also a class
of farmers. If there was a hope of effecting this object,
and without this object there was no hope for the social
regeneration of Ireland—if there was a hope of effecting
this object it was by promoting the interest of the occu
pier, by increasing the amount of labour on the land
which he occupied. Rrally the principle enu-
merated by that Bill was so Utopian, not to say
so monstrous, that he could not believe that it

would be entertained by such an assembly as
this. It it could not be safely applied to England it was
for them to show that it could be safely applied to Ire-
land. But he wanted to know what the circumstances
were which rendered the adoption of the same principle
to both countries dangerous. Perhaps he might be told
that they could not trust the Irish landlords to make
agreements with their tenants. That really was the
only argument he had heard against the principle of his
amendment. lie did not wish to take the burden from
the shoulders of one body and to place it on the
shoulders of another, but he sought to affirm in this
Bill a principle which he believed would be of
the greatest advantage to the people of Ireland.
He asked them to interfere with no existing agreement
—he asked them to violate no present law. He asked
them to interfere with no existing contract or agreement
between the landlord and tenant as it stood at that mo-
ment, but this he did ask them:—That whereas the
principle is sound and just that the occupier, who alone

had the means of giving employment, should be induced
te give employment by a knowledge that a proper divi-
sion of the burden would fall upoa his own shoulders
instead of another man's, he asked them to affirm that
principle. He proposed in the amendment of which he
had given notice that, from the Ist of January, 1850,
tenants at will should become liable to the same condi-
tions as those who had at present permanent leases. If
that principle were sound, the question then came as to
its mode of application—and whether it was a safe one?
He did not apply it at once—he applied it prospectively;
he left it to the tenants at will and to the landlords for the
next two years and a half to enter into this new ar-
rangement. He knew the popular feeling upon this
subject. He knew the declamations that were made
upon the hard-heartedness and griping hands of the Irish
landlords. He knew the indiscriminating, sweep-
ing condemnation
.which this country was so much
disposed to cast upon Ireland and upon
all things Irish. He knew how ready people were to
say that they could not stop to pick the few grains of
wheat from the bushel of chaff, and that they could not
inquire into the exceptions in individual instances. He
had beard that the landlords of Ireland were totally in-
different to anything except collecting, in the most ra-
pacious manner, every thing that they could screw from
the hard earnings of their tenants ; but he also knew
that they were proceeding to legislate for the purpose of
laying upon the landlords those hardships which they
charged them with inflicting. If such were the character
of Irish landlords—if it were the fact that there were
instances of such short-sighted capacity—if they thought
that they could protect the tenant by this regulatisn
from the griping spirit of landlords—if they thought that
the same landlord, who had the power of exacting the
uttermost farthing from the tenant, and screwing out of
them every shilling and every penny that he could drag
from him by any process whatever—did they believe
that such a landlord would not protect himself against
their legislation by such an increase of rent as would
cover any possible amount of rate ? They
said that the tenant had not got the money
to pay the rate, and that they could not pay it. The
fact was that the tenants did pay it—(Hear, hear)—it
was by them it was now paid, and all that they had to
do, was to produce a receipt for so much rate as part
payment for so much rent; could they believe that if, as
they said, there was this spirit on the part of the
honest peasant to bid for land at whatever price it could
be obtained—if there was such a determined spirit on
the part of the landlord to exact the uttermost farthing
—did they entertain the delusion, that by saying, that
the landlord should pay the rate, they would relieve
the tenant?—the landlord would exact the utmost rent,
which the tenant would pay. so that there would be so
much less rate collected. They might fancy that they
relieved the tenant, but in the meantime they did away
with the inducement to the tenant to employ labour.
He would, perhaps, be met by the assertion, that the
amendment would meet with an universal resistance
unless it was altered. That was a confession which no
Government would mike without being degraded—that
was a confession which was fatal to all law, and he
trusted that in that House it would not be brought '
forward as an argument.—(Hear, hear.) If it
were believed, that the principle was one of
sound legislation, they should be firm in the application
of it, and the prospective application would enable all
parties to arrange it between themselves; but he hoped
that he should not undergo what he considered the de-
gradation of hearing, in that House, as an argument,
that they would adopt a principle not sound in itself, and
which would not answer in England, because there was
a passive resistance which they dare not encounter. He
was not aware that he need trespass further upon their
Lordships' attention in advocating the amendment of
which he had given, notice. He bad shortly put forth
what he conceived to be its recommendation—its encou-
ragement of labour—and that which would be fatal to
its rejection, namely, that in future it brought the in-
terest of the landlord and tenant to one dead level, and
would remove that mass of pauperism which threatened
the available resources of the country, and the only
means of providing for which was the diminution of that
tenacity with which the tenant in Ireland clung to the
occupation of his wretched plot of land, and the esta-
blishment of an independent body of labourers, apart
from the farmers. He did not think, unless his measure
was adopted, they could prevent that which
was acting as a continual flame in this country against
Ireland—namely, the influx of a large body of labourers.
So leng as the rate of wages was higher here than there,
so long would that influx take place. He did not ask
them to consider the measure with selfish eyes, for their
sin would be visited on their own shoulders, and a retri-
butive infliction upon this country. Let them consider
the question as judges deciding a question of life or
death, and he asked no more for the Irish landlord and
for the Irish labourer. It was such a measure, and such
a measure only, that could be effectual for this country
or for Ireland.---(Cheers.)
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE (who during his
speech was frequently quite inaudible) said that he
would venture to state to their Lordships that of all the
differences which they had had in the course of that ar-
gument on this important bill, the difference which the
amendment of his Noble Friend had made was the
most important. He said that not in reference to
the particular consideration adverted to at the outset
in the speech of the Noble Lord, on an observation made
upon a previous occasion. He was far from thinking
that the consideration arising out of the privileges of the
two Houses of Parliament, ought to be disregarded.
Yet, leaving that as a subject of a subsequent consider-
ation, he did wish to meet the Noble Lord fairly, and
discuss this amendment upon its own merits, exclusive
of any external consideration. The Noble Lord had
stated that he had no hesitation in stating that the re-
jection of this clause would prove disastrous in its con-
sprp).-,,,,q to h.th countries ; yet, he as confidently
stated, that it was its adoption which would be
productive of these effects to Ireland ; and to
the success of the measure, which he was justi-
fied in saying, was approved of by a great
number of their Lordships. Those of their Lordships
who were most opposed to the principle of this Bill, had
allowed many of the objections to the clauses which were
most objectionable to pass without dividing upon it, and
even the Noble Lord himself said that he was one, and
he was desirous of this Bill passing into a law. He
begged their Lordships to consider what was the cha-
racter of this Bill, and that it required extensive ma-
chinery to be created, for the assistance of the board of
guardians. The principles of the present Bill were en-
tirely consonant with the principle of a measure adopted
by their Lordships five or six years ago, and which, during
that time had been found to work well.—(Cheers.)
The effect of this measure would be to throw the bur-
den of the rating entirely upon the tenant, instead of
imposing it equally upon all classes. He asked the
Noble Lord to reflect a little before he imposed burdens
of this sort upon the tenants of the country. The
Noble Lord had stated that they ought to allow them-
selves to be influenced by the impression which any
measure was likely to produce. He thought that such
a principle was not calculated to assist any Goverment
in carrying out its measures,—for some regard for the
impression that any measure was likely to produce, was
a ssolutely indispensable —(Hear, hear.) The Noble
Lord bad stated, that the burden would be diss
tributed equally by his measure, and which would
remove much of the odium attached to the
Bill, by the proceedings of the Government
That odium did not attach itself to the measure in con

sequence of any fault of the Government. They stated
that they were about to impose a burden upon the coun-
try, and naturally it was not received with any degree
of pleasure, and it only remained for the Government to
protect the tenant against any undue exercise of power
by the landlord. A new system of valuation of the land
had been introduced into the country, and with that and
other remedies he thought that sufficient good would be
produced without adding to this measure—(which they
admitted to be attended with some degree of uncertainty,)
the further danger incurred by the motion of
the Noble Lord. It was the desire of the Noble
Lord, as he stated, to conciliate the people,
and yet he attempted it by affording a further
facility for the infliction of taxation of the people. lie
had complained of the imperfection of the measure, but
the imperfection of any law was no reason for departing
from the good principle which it might contain, and
trying measures which might aggravate the evil which
the law was intended to remedy. It was upon these
grounds, and from the conviction that the amendment
would render the whole scheme of legi§lation useless,
that ho asked their Lordships to refuse their assent to it.
After a few words from Lord WALSINGHAM,
Lord MONTEAGLE said that, feeling as strongly
upon this subject as he did, he must be allowed to state
why it was that he supported this amendment. He had
formerly stated, with regard to this measure, that the
public et large were frequently led astray by supposing
that what worked well in one country must necessarily
work well in another ; and therefore they argued that
because the poor-law answered in England, it should
equally apply in Ireland. Many of his statements would
indeed be inapplicable, if the state of things in Ireland
were analogous to those in England. The Government
would find, however, that if they introduced the Eng-
lish poor-law without modifications. they were enacting
the part of very unwise legislators.—(Hear.) Their
Lordships should take it into consideration that in Eng-
land the poor-law rate had been recognised from time
immemorial as binding upon all classes, but in Ireland
the law was altogether new, and likely, therefore, to be
viewed with distrust. There was great difference in the
imposition of a tax for the first time and the levying
of a tax which had been long in existence, and long re-
cognised by the various classes who paid their portions
of the same. Of all times, the present was the least
adapted for the collection of a tax which, compared with
the other taxes now levied in the country, was as the
weight of a mountain compared with the weight of a
mole-hill. Suppose that an alteration were to be
made, from a system of out-door relief to one of
indoor relief, or a change in the amount of
the taxation of the country from 10s. in the pound to ls.
in the pound, then there might be a probability of get-
ting the lesser amount collected, but when it was pro-
posed to raise the amount of taxation from Is. to 104. in
the pound, it was evident that the larger amounticooled.
never be collected. He was not sanguine as to tie stt
cess of the measure even with the clause as proposed by
y
the Noble Lord. He would much rather leave the
ho
responsibility of the measure inthteanyha,ndtnns
eohletheGo
able
to-
vernment, so that they should not at
turn round upon those Noble Lordclause, and ascribe its failure to
that the
tshewhoopesruaptptoonrteodf
the
pclrainucseipwlehoicfhththeeyclahuasde
it arose from
the only difficulty ho felt in suppo
i wn tarsi), d
however,
Ineagthaoonungdhtot one,
his belief of the impossibility
ced,
rltand
of carrying out the veep.-

sure before their Lordships.
Earl of lIARDWICKE considered that the opera-
tion of the poor-law had, in England i been
be the
supposed
for a momeilt, that if the poor's rates had
been paid by the landlords alone, that this country
would have ever risen to such a height of. prosperity, or
been enabled as it then was to assist in ameliorating
the mighty distress which overhung both this country

and Ireland. The Noble Lord opposite had stated that
the Government were anxious to give the landlords an
interest in the working of the poor-law; but was it to be
supposed that the landlords, who paid two thirds of the
rates, should be considered as parties likely to assist in
the beneficial operation of the mea-ore ; his only object
would very naturally be to reduce the expenditure. He
felt it his duty, therefore, to consent to the amendment
of his Noble Friend ; and he thought that in doing so,
he was acting with a due regard to the justice, the pros-
perity, aed the safety of the people of that country,
Earl ST. GERMANS said the Noble Lord who had
just sat down had advanced a line of argument in respect
of the ex officio guardians founded upon an erroneous
view of the English Poor law. But he could not avoid
adverting to the attack which the Noble Earl had made
when he remarked upon him, as the bearer of messages
from the House of Commons. He might disclaim this
at once and be done with it. He had not been the bearer
of messages from the House of Commons, bat he did
think proper to mention the opinion of a Noble Friend of
his who had been lately cfficially connected with Ireland,
and who had not habitually acted with a party ; he did
think it well to-xention the opinion of that Noble Lord.
But to advert to the argument of the Noble Earl—He
had overstated the proportions of the rate levied, as he
would find by reports which lay upon their Lordships'
table. The rate levied by the Bill was by far the most
equable, placing the grasping and the liberal landlord upon
a level, for the tenant was entitled, out of every pound
of rent which he paid, to half the rate which was levied
upon him. The Noble Lord then reverted to the debates
which occurred both before their Lordships and in the
Commons when the original Irish poor-law was intro-
duced, and quoted at length from the opinions expressed
by several Members of the Lower House on the
51. clause, all which, he said went to make
it more stringent upon the landlord ; nay, more, a Cona-
mittee of which the Noble Lord (then Mr. Spring Rice)
was Chairman, went so far as to recommend the imposi-
tion of the whole rate upon the landlords. He greatly
doubted as to the policy of the amendment, believing that
it would deprive the Bill entirely of any chance of

success.
The Earl of MALMESBURY• said he would explain,
as briefly as possible, why he would support the Noble
Lord's amendment. He was a❑ English landlord, as
some of their Lordships knew, without one acre of land
in Ireland, and without any experience whatever of that
country. He had, therefore, hitherto refrained from
debates on Irish affairs ; but on this occasion a great
principle was in question, and in that principle he was
interested. It was a principle which the members of
her Majesty's Government had adopted and affirmed in
the English poor-law, which they bad produced,
brought in, and passed. They affirmed then that the oc-
cupying tenant ought to pay the rates. The principle
of the amendment was, therefore, no new principle, and
if Ministers were opposed to it, he asked them why they
did not abandon the poor-law existing in England, and
enact a new law containing a new principle. But
what would be the consequences, he said, of the
present amendment ? On this head reference
had been made to the disorders that had
been stirred against the payment of tithes to
the Protestant clergy. He, however, denied the analogy
of the two cases ; they were entirely different, as the
history of religion alone might evince to them, and one
allusion had been made to legislating for the country as
it was. There was a sense of that phrase in which he
agreed ; but he could not advise, that to legislate for a
country as it was instead of what it ought to be, was not
the' way to improve and benefit that country. As long
as they refused to assimilate the poor-law of England
and Ireland, so long would discord continue ; they might
be twins, but they never would be twin sisters.
Earl WICKLOW had always maintained the princi•
ple that the rates should be paid by the occupier and not
by the tenant ; but although he supported such an
amendment at the time the poor-law was passed, he
considered that the present moment was most inexpe-
dient to introduce it. It would cause muck bitterness
between landlord and tenant, and would materially pre-
vent the proper and desirable carrying out of the niea-
sure. These were sufficient reasons to induce him to
vote against the clause.
The Archbishop of DUBLIN rose amidst loud cries of
" question" to address their Lordships. He should not
support the amendment of the Noble Lord ; but at the
same time he admitted that his principles were right and
sound.—(Hear, hear.) Still he believed that the plan
he proposed could not, in the present state of things in
Ireland, be carried out. He was most desirous that the
Bill should have a fair trial, and he was most anxious,
therefore, not to throw difficulties in the way of its
working. He thought, as be had said, that the clause
proposed a healthy and a correct system of ratit, ;
but still, in the present state of Ireland,
he conceived that the rate must after all
be paid by the landlords. But he feared that the poor
tenants of Ireland were not either in a fit condition of
purse or mind to be induced to believe if they paid the
rates, that they would not be called upon to pay them
again. He cited a case in which 1,6001. a year was saved
by the guardians of a parish by the adoption of a better
and more direct mode of paying the rates. Although
he considered that the plan of the tenants paying the
rate was the best, the wisest, and most judicious that
could be adopted, he could not, in the present state of
Ireland, consent to the insertion of such a clause into
the Bill.
Lord REDESDALE said he could hardly reconcile the
extraordinary argument which had been brought against
the proposition of his Noble Friend, because they were
told that the principle was correct, but that from the
state of Ireland it could not safely be carried our. No-
thing could be more safe or more simple than the pay-
ment of the rate by tho tenants. Why, if a tenant had
had a lease granted to him in which, for instance 3s. 6d.
in the pound vv.. deducted eu account of the rates which
he would have to pay, where was the hardship that would
be imposed upon him, and where was the ex-
traordinary advantage which the landlords obtain—
Much had bern said, and, in fact, many Noble Lords
had argued the measure as if that was the sole ground of
the measure, namely, the immigration of poor from Ire-
land to Liverpool ; but if they wanted to keep them in
Ireland they must afford them some encouragement by
providing them the means of lucrative employment and
by making it to the interest of the landlords to afford
them the employment they stood so much in med of..
Much might be done in this respect by leaving the onus
of the rates on the landlord and charging him a smeller
rent. lie would thus be spurred to use exertions to im-
prove his soil and to realise greater profits. In Scotland
the rates were paid by the tenants, and the greatest ad-
vantage was derived from the plan there adopted.
Lord ROSEBERY explained the nature of the past
and present poor-law of Scotland.
Lord CLANCARTY said that. although he entirely
concurred in the clause proposed by the Noble Lord,
and was convinced that they were indispensably neces-
sary, he yet noticed that as the House had not yet gone
the length of stating, that they would confide a discre-
tionary power to the boards of guardians, or that the
first clause should be carried into effect—that no assist-
ance on either sidewould be expected from him. Heshould
leave the matter to the House unaided by any vote of his
The measure was in the details inconsistent, as those
clauses which referred to the system of relief to be
given were temporary, while the provisions for rating
were of a permanent character. The existence of these
two provisions in one measure was an inconsistency
which he could net feel himself justified in supporting.
He felt ;much reluctance in withholding his vote, but
still upon the present occasion he felt it to be his duty
to do so.

Lord STANLEY said that there had been, no doubt,
in that discussion much which had given him the deepest
pain and anxiety. There was not one of their Lord-
ships who in the course of that discussion had an-
nounced their determination to vote against his amend-
ment, who had questioned the soundness of the
principle upon which it was founded. The kind-
ness with which their Lordships had listened to
him that evening would be a strong inducement to
him not to trespass upon their attention fcr any length
of time, yet he must still bring a few points under the
attention of their Lordships. It had been stated that
the Irish Poor-law had for the last five or six years
worked well, but what was the Irish Poor-law?—(llear,
hear.) It had been during that time strictly confined to
relief within the workhouse and to the destitute poor.
His argument was that it was the occupier of land in
Ireland who had the power of employing labour, and as
it was by the employment of the poor that the poor-rate
could be kept down, some inducement must be given to
them to reduce it as much as possible. He would sub-
mit that point to their Lordships, and also that of the
principle of out-door relief, for in the course of the de-
bate those arguments had remained untouched. He
felt most deeply that they were about to adopt for a
permanent legislation a mischievous and a dangerous
principle, and when they laid down this law for Ireland
nd
they gave it a mischievous principle for its guidance
oo a,
operation. Reference had been made to the pr-la
of Scotland, where there could be no cornpar::on;
and
out-door relief was not known to the Scotch law,
agreem •
t they
en
the landlord and tenant might make any the
pleased with reference to which of them should pay
the
law
rate charged, while it was a serioustted
that he should be
to do so in Ireland.
compelled to differ fromisi:
deeply lamented the
mrcanignyroertel.f those with whom he
had ever acted, and be yethaad.
obreietyn uosfedtohneitrhits
Lordships'
language and tone which
principle which he wished
He regretted that the
Whatever might bo the fate
House were opposedfo tllivehate
to introduce in the Bill,
of this question, he couldnr owould
assure;retvheenitr
hi notr
fdrsohmi ps
doingthat
his
duty. o
personal
e trusted consideration
that those who had done him the
honour to support
him on this question, and whose sen-
timents coincided with his own, would not think that he
exercised an unwise discretion in not giving their Lord-
ships the trouble of an unnecessary division. He should,
however, feel it his duty, for form's sake, and for that
only, to move this amendment on bringing up the report
on the Bill. He would do this in his own justification,
and in order that it might appear upon the journals of
the House that this amendment had been made.
The Archbishop of DUBLIN explained.
The Marquis of CLANRICAUDE denied that the
principle contended for by the Noble Lord opposite was
acceded to by the advocates of this measure ; and he
would have taken an earlier opportunity of proving this,
did he not see that the Noble Lord appeared to have
overlooked that a large majority of that House Was op-
posed to the principles which he wished to lay down,
Lord MONTEAGLE moved that the Bill be reported
on in its present shape.
Lord CAMPBELL said, that in all his experience
he had never heard or seen a motion like that just
moved by the Noble Lord ; and he was convinced that
neither in the Irish nor in the English Parliament
could they find a precedent for it.lt -g' therule
that a Bill should be reported in the state
in which it
was to be passed in a law. . Yet he found that in
the first
four clauses of this Bill two were limited in duration,
and two were left so far unfinished that they were with-
out limitation, reminding him very forcibly of Sir
Walter Scott's Melrose by nwoulini t. Buttress and
buttress alternately seemed framed .ebon and ivory.

There appeared to be a strange misunderstanding
this
measure, and the Noble Lord opposite, for while one PM'
posed to limit the operation of the measure to the Ist
January, 1849, the other proposed that it should be
limited to WO.
Lord MONTEAGLE then moved, that the operation
of the clauses authorising out-door relief to the able-
bodied poor should be limited (as we understood) to the
first of January 1849.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE then proposed tbat
the clause limiting the operation of the Act should bi!
o
inserted in the Bill for the information of the House; le
at the time of bringing up the report the GovertunellS
would feel themselves at perfect liberty to adopt a n
course which they might think proper with respect
that subject.
The Earl of WICKLOW complained that the Noble
Lord had adopted the amendment which he bad pre
posed to move, and he hardly knew what course he
witi
now to adopt. He thought the only course for him to
pursue, would be to bring forward his amendment, whet"
the amendment of his Noble Fri, nd had been disposed
After a few words from Earl FITZWILLIAM, and Sol
Gar,
The Archbishop of DUBLIN said that he thought
the object of the amendments of the Noble Lord WA9 t°
make one portion of the Bill of a temporary, and the
other, of a permanent character ; he had always e't"
ressed opinions tn.favourable to a system of outdoor
relief
to the able-b,xlied poor, and it vial because he
entertained these unfavourable opinions, that be pro"
posed that that portion of the Bill authorising out-dor
relief to the able- bodied poor would be of a temporapre
character ; while the other principle involved to the
Bill, not being of a new character, and involving no Derr
principle, should be considered as permanent.
Thy Marquis of WESTMEATH thought it nothing
more than fair that the s stem Of out-door relief for the
able-bodied poor shouldybe allowed a trial before She
measure
AftAfterer aw
somesa
short
orarta(diei
desultorys discussion, psseironin a,
cntohennevteCrol
sanalletieo
na:as agreed t°'
sumed, and the report was b brought oP °
ordered to e
Friday next.
Their
Lordships then
adjourned, at a quarter past
eleven o'clock. the House ;

HOUSE OF COMMONS. NOW' y
The SPEAKER took the Chair hAeirfant
3°bet
o'clock.
GREAT NORTHERN I:bA°rlLtiVirY
Mr. GISBORNE moved, pursuant to notice,
at it
ane instruction to the Committee on the Gre_tt Grant
ham)
Railway (Deviations between London suut,„rgate,
Nomtdßill, to entertain the petition of the -Asn'-iifisy
ingham, Boston, and Eastern Junction ita
Company, under their common seal. Sir Wos•
After some observations from Mr. Estcodortgr' Strutto
n Heathcote, Mr. Greene, Mr. A lio b and
the motion was withdrawn. g TONT>
SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY (NOlti..- 0, of the
Mr. 0. STANLEY moved the third retto'no
South-Eastern Railway (North Kent line)
General FOX moved, pursuant to notice, to n„ientrb'ng
11th clause as follows :—And be it enacted, thal-- ire•
contained in this Act, or in the Acts herein cited owritir
fcrred to, shall extend to authorise the company tr's
out the consent of the principal officers of her goillsi
Ordnance, or their successors, signified iU
rl,i
Bill. , the
under the hand of the secretary of the said PLi-said
officers for the time being] to carry the •ons
intended line of railway nearer to the f°rtificsitlths
of Chatham than a line six hundred yards iron' Thiob
counterscarp of Prince Edward's Bastion, on" yel
line shall be marked out and submitted for the aPPr°
of the Master-General of her Majesty's
Ordnance el
eliste-
the Inspector-General of Fortifications, „ ds&
after the passing of this Act, and that the said
be constructed to the satisfaction of the said olnstor
General of her Majesty's Ordnance and the InsPeec the
General of Fortifications, at the cost and charges
said company. d was
After a few observations the clause as amen-e kird
agreed to, and added to the Bill, which was read a ",
time and passed. OD 1°
SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY (STRO
MAIDSTONE).
This Bill was read a third time and passed, on the
motion of Mr. 0. STANLEY. NTT .09
SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY (MID ICE—
DIRECT lUNBRIDGE). of this
Mr. 0. STANLEY moved the third reading
Bill.
the
clause H
grantingOD
five
years
fourr pursuant t
comp to nuoi
st iocre;
Mr. R. par'n
chase of land be atered to three years. wits-
After some short discussion the motion Yin:
drawn, and the Bill read a third time and passe"'
REPORTS. ht
The reports on the followine. Bills were hr°llg
up
and agreed to:—
Belfast Port and Harbour. A Coat'
Caledonian Railway (Glasgow, Garnkirk, °-
bridge Railway Branch to Glasgow and Siatiou>
Cork arid Bandon Railway.
Cork, Blackrock, and Passage It ailivay-
Dublin Consumers Gas. s
Eastern Union and Ipswich and Bury St. Edmond
Railways Amalgamation.
Edinburgh Markets and Customs.
General Terminus and Glasgow
ranches.
Great Western Railway (Branch to join the West Lo
es!
n'
don Railway, Widening and _Enlargement of
504
W
London Railway, and Branches to Liarotnersn3th,
to join the London and South-Western Bailivay pear
Lambeth). Flatboat Railway
Glasgow, Barrhead, and Neilston Direct, and GIUSTI'.
Southern Terminal Railways Amalgamation.
Ipswich and Bury St. Edmund's Railway (No. 1---Sv
tension to Yarmouth).
Leith Harbour and Dock Dues.
Lynn and Ely Railway (Deviation and Lynn Docks).
Runcorn Gas.

Ryde Improvement.
Sheffield Markets.
Southampton and Dorchester Railway (Virearniouth
Branch).
Waterford, Wexford, Wicklow, and Dublin Railway
(No. 1).
and Coltness Railway
Wilsontown, Morningside,
(Branches to Benhar Coal-works and Edinburgh- and
Glasgow Turnpike-road).
SECOND READINGS.
The following Bills were read a second time, and or.
dered to be committed:—
Limerick Docks and Harbour.

New Zealand Company.
CjNSIDERATION OF REPORTS.
The reports on the following Bills were further oon•
sidered and agreed to:—

Binglev as.
BritisliCoGmmercial Insurance Company (No. 2. (Sale
Eastern Union and Hadleigh Junction (j 0.
to the Eastern Union Railway Company).
Ewell Rates.
Kingston-upon-Thames Small Tenement.
ol verb m pton Rates.
EXTENSION
ROYSTON AND CAMBRIDGE
RAIL WAY.
Mr. GOULBURN moved that it be an instruction t
the Committee on the Royston and Cambridge EXteir
sion Railway Bill, to entertain the petition of the 0'1;
versity of Cambridge against the said Bill. He said th
• at
petition had beer rejected because it did not contaln
its commencement the short title of the Bill.
Mr. BERNAL objected to the use of the word " en-
Mr.
and suggested that the Committee should '-
simply required to consider the petition.
Sir W. IIEATHCO rE opposed the motion, and Oil;
sidered the House ought not to alter a rule, comPlian
with which was exceedingly easy, as its wording vv-°
simpl xplicit.
Mr. BROTHERTON said, during the presents essio°rtit
many petitions had come before him, in which the hod,
title of the Bills to which they referred were erpicityed
and in order that the expense and injury might b 15.-6 Of
to the parties, he had himself written the short tit et‘.s
the Bills at the head of them. As this occurred thr°,:id
the laxity of Parliamentary agents, and as their lebo
down by the House should not be departed ,
should oppose the motion.
Mr. GOULBURN withdrew his motion.
DISTILLATION FROM GRAIN. ~_OlO
Mr. BROTHERTON presented several petitions 1110
various parts of this country against di4tillation fro
grain.

HEALTH OF TOWNS.
Viscount EBRINGTON presented several petitions in
favour of the Health of Towns Bill.
POOR-LAW (IRELAND).
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL presented a petition from
Kilkenny, against any increase in the number of e
officio guardians under the proposed new Irish Poor-lalf•
AIEDICAL REGISTRATION BILL.
Mr. AGLIONBY presented a petition, signed by 0
number of medical practitioners, in favour of the Medical
Registration Bill.
HEALTH OF TOWNS BILL.
Mr. BARCLAY presented petitions from Bristol'
signed by upwards of 3,000 persons, in favour of ail°
measure; also a petition signed by 72 medical practi-
tioners of Bristol to the same effect; and a petiti°ll
signed by the Rev. the Dean of Bristol, and 52 other
clergymen, to the same effect.

NAVIGATION-LAWS.
Mr. LIDDELL presented a petition, signed by
03(1
merchants and other persons interested in the trade
navigation u
of South Shields, against any alteration in the
navigation- laws.
Lord SANDON presented a petition,
HEALTH OF TOWNS BILL. ,
ous public bodies at Liverpool, the whole body of me-
dical men, and a large number of the working classes,
the parish authorities, and others, in favour of the
Health of Towns Bill.
signed by v
Mr. MUTT also presented a petition from Gateshead
to the same effect.
MONETARY SYSTEM. • de
e
Mr. FORBES presented a petition numerously 00
from Stirling, praying the House to adopt some ineasuro
calculated to give assistance to the Bank under I
present pressure.
HEALTH OF TOWNS.
Mr. UME d apetition in favour of this
_
; also p
one inresente p
favour of the Medical Practitionero

THE PETITION OF GEORGE DREW. n
Sir FREDERIC THESIGER moved that the pew"
tit °,n
of George Drew (presented 7th May), be printed
the votes.—Agreed to.
DISCOUNT ON LOANS. Brut
The CHANCELLOR of the EX CHEQUERrn°
the order of the day that the House go into Corareitte
on the Loan, Discount, and Instalment 8111.
PRICE OF GRAIN, AND LIMITATION IN
DISTILLERIES.
Mr. H. BAILLIE wished to ask a question of thet
Noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell). He found .j..tka
.nice the period be had put a question to the tO"
c bad
ernment
.on this subject, the price of btu

•

k;:•

er

cot
tot

of
brim(
VA l'estri
[4-A" Cntuji
dinar
more
ol.'r'. beard
their
at a
.1
it that (
sew;
'l,i--...., Mr
to

also
Gore,
none:
Share
batUn
Iltunb
Warm

adynn
;Itwa,
of E,
reali
%lent]
to le,
0 1
• 114 d, f
. zocrk,
I°olte,
11P0414
fitcep
the El;
Chequi
dent
mile of.
teat of
" rotate,
Liv.orewa
mi or •
Csaur,
tharte
sun fi
cosset

Stiarti
-Last

M
Whet
the /
Lion
that
kind
, the
that
but
()cm,

Wbie
the t
tine(
(
b
be zc
thou
114 iz
t

standing 1).?-
opposed this
bite one pro-
s to the Ist
it should be

the operation
to the able'
stood) to the

shouldO
ro
osed
.1 b:
House; and
Governmens
to adopt 901
,11 respect $0

at the Noblf
he bad Prcr.
ourse he wag
se for him to
&vent,
❑ disposed (
&M, and Bisr

he thought
Lord was to
ay, and the
always ex-
I of out-door
e
3 because h
that be Po'
ingouta
-door
tenwerarY
Iyed
in the
)
,ving no new

it.
bt it nothing
relief for the
before the

igreed to.
e Nouse re
rough"P °EI

quarter Pot

V 10. Four
befora

ce
at
th, firth
ro
rren-d Gant-
te,
Ambe.
ion 1411"1

rtDl sir 'Xl2'
Strutt,

01,111.
Wing °f lb°

3111. the the
to --,,thing
thate-- r •
cited -e
rwith•
pan, rs
er )Sbiesi
writris
I.
the
al_
id risnc" P•d
dolls
Fortifies
the
da fr°l3i
a wide
F tin nilli
the sPrro
na
I,l°_,llnedceistelt
ohms
e siliester.
aid T.
arges 01 &A

02„,1ed .4
read a thl

ow 1°

;sed, on the

:ENT AND

ding of thi.

notice, tbsi
plsorY P°l

was with'
osecl•

brag"

od Coat-
',ado>

Edmund'*

, Baltic aY

West Lon-
rit of West
wsraith, and
%away near

Glusg°l/
on.
No. 1---Ev

1 Docks).

iVeannouth

in Railwil

I RaiiiVAY
burgh and

Da, and or'

,s.
Lather eon-

'twat' (Sale

rEssioN

It rUCtiOO to
1 e
Extol!:
f the
Fie gain
contain 01'

word "
should be

I and coo'
;omPlitTweies
ording "-

ent gooier'
the 511°6
L lted,
13
it be eared
of
rt titles h
thr°ll4a
,e rule 11,',
from,

frog
tiOns ,AitiOn from

letitiODsll►

[don from
ber of e
Poor-I

;ned by a
Le Medical

i BrisCOL
ar of thP
%1 pi'Ll.
I PetItloo
52 other

I by 340
rade and
ion in the

by Yari"
, of Ole.
g cusses,
a the
r

atesbead

ly signed
measur-
o,
Inder it,

• of this
,titioners

petioori
ted rash

R moped
o,,,,ttee

I IN

n of tb®
Ind th'is
be qo
lugl 111-