The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-20 00:00:00

THE SEJN, LONDON, SATURDAY MORNING, FEBRUARY 20, 1847

•
in the community.—(Hear.) Their habits rendered them
peculiarly averse to take refuge in the workhouse, and
when they did, it was generally to die.—( Hear, hear.)
It was in this class, chiefly, deaths from starvation occurred.
But he was at a loss to imagine how any Government could
have prevented such a state of circumstances. He evas quite
ready to bear his testimony to the exertions hadwhichd been
w shade by the landed proprietors and the clergymen ofdifferent
denominations, as far as their means would Permit ,ulTi atallkeevitahtee
the sufferings of the poor ; at the same time he
liberty of saying, that it was the duty of the landed proprie-
tors, and of the clergy, and of all personet a influence,
to do all
ce' notth they
confine their exertions to individual cbsel Y
mischievous feeling.
'bu
could to prevent the existence
e
He was sorry that the Member for Mayo was
not in his place. He was anxious to call
the attention of the House to a communication which had
onlv reached him that day, which would at once show the im-
perative necessity of strenuous exertions being used to pre-
vent the people from being made the victims of delusion.
The Right Honourable Gentleman then read the following
extract :—" f understand that in this county of Mayo an
organised combination exists, to discourage simultaneously the
cultivation of the soil. The people are informed, that if they
do so. they will compel the Government and Parliament to
maintain them."—( Hear, hear.) Now, he did think that he
had a right to call upon every person, whether they were
landowners or clergymen, to endeavour, by every means in
tbeir power, to prevent such opinions being in-
stilled, and the people from being made the vic-
tims of such a delusion ; the consequences of which
would be, that the state of the county Mayo in the next
year would be far worse than it was at the present moment.
The particulars ef this movement were as follows :—" A large
body of men amounting to about 200, some armed, traversed
the county, swearing al wham they visited not to attempt to
cultivate the soil."—( Hear.) Should this system be carried out
to any extent, Mayo will be a perfect wilderness. When Ire..
land called, as she had an undoubted right to call t pon them
for assistance, they had also a right to call upon the gentry to
co-operate with them, and prevent these poor people from pur-
suing a course of conduct which would lead to inevitable ca-
lamity. age would say one word in reference to a subject which
had been repeatedly adverted to during the course of the debate,
he meant the conduct of the landlords of Ireland, with regard
to the exaction of their rents. He had watched with the most
intense anxiety the course adopted by them. He believed that
it was true that in parts of the country, especially in the north,
there had been a number of civil bill processes for rent due, but
these were seldom at the instance of the head landlord, but al-
most always at the suit of the middle man. Ile was afraid that
in some parts of the country a spirit was evinced which all
should regret, but speaking generally, he was bound to say,
that in his opinion they had exercised their rights with discre-
tion and liberality.—( Hear, hear.) As regarded the cottier
tenants, their means of subsistence having wholly failed, by
reason of the potato failure, he was proud to say that the land-
owners of Ireland had behaved with the utmost generosity.
In the county of Cavan, matters had also progressedfavourably.
he had before him the report of the assistant-barrister, Mr.
Murphy, in answer to some inquiries he (Mr. Labouchere) had
made to him as to the state of his county, it was as follow= :
" The number of ejectors has decrease considerably within the
last two or three years. In this session not one-half the number
of ejectments usually sued out have been so. On the whole,
the landed p oprietcrs had acted with kindness and forbearance,
and he would place Lord Farnham at their head. With regard
to another class of tenants perfectly solvent, who, be it re-
membered, constituted a very considerable part of the tenantry
of Ireland, in his opinion, they were bound to make them pay
their rents, otherwise how could it be expected that they
could contribute as they ought to the assistance of their
more destitute fellow-countrymen. He would not detain the
House at any great length. The element 'of bitterness had
been thrown into the discussion, but he hoped that it would
not draw them into a protracted debate.—( Hear, hear.) With
respect to the request of the Member for Fermanagh, the
• Government had considered what it was their duty to do, and
they found that they could not consent to it. Such was the im-
portance of the Irish business, that they could not postpone it.
Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL said that the state of Ireland
would not admit ef much delay in discussion, but he thought
it was due to the Irish Members to say that the bitterness did
not originate with them ; and if they were driven by these
taunts from the consideration of the feeling which had been
manifested by all parties—a feeling which did honour to the
country—he could tell the Hon. Baronet the Member for
Marylebone, that any state charity which could be given to
them by the House did not equal—could not equal—nay, could
not approach the amount of which Ireland had been defrauded
by the iniquitous Act of Union.—(A laugh.) He knew that
there would be a laugh, but he was not there to make such an
assertion without being ready to prove it. He would not then
detain the House, but he would take an opportunity
to do so. And further, the repeal rent, in the
recent prosecution of the leaders of the Irish people, had
' been found efficacious in securing justice to those whom the
Government of that day endeavoured to oppress and put down.
They had to wage a legal war against all the power the
Government most unscrupulously employed, but the shillings
of the poor peasants defeated all the attempts which were then
made. He was not prepared to go into all the items then, but
this he would state, the rent had done much in disseminating
information among the people, and in securing them justice.
The Hon. Member had also attacked repeal as a phantom. It
might be such, but this he would say, that the present state of
Ireland, brought about by the Government that have ruled
that country, was a frightful reality. They had taken
away the Irish Parliament ; they had oppressed and enslaved
the Irish people, and now this fearful retribution had over-
taken them. The most fearful destitution had overtaken Ire-
land, and they must rest assured they had not yet seen the end.
They would not only have to subscribe large sums ef money,
but the distressed population would come over in thousands,'' spreading pestilence ameng the people of this country ; and all
the attempts they might make would not prevent them from
coming. It was thus they would suffer for the wrongs they had
inflicted on Ireland. Let them read the statements of Lieute-
nant Caffin, contained in the papers of that morning, as a spe-
cimen of the condition of Ireland. That was from an Eng-
lishman, though daily the Irish Members were receiving much
worse accounts, bad as that was. He had thought it neces-
sary to make this explanation to the House after the attack
which had been made by the Hon. Member for Marylebone,
Mr. H. GRATT AN remarked that the Hon. Member for
Marylebone had said a great, deal about the subscriptions got
up for Ireland in a manner derogatory to the people of that
country. It would have been better if he had remained
silent. He had also made strong insinuations against the
Repeal rent, and that subscription he (Mr. Grattan) must
say was at least better than several in which the Hon.
Member had himself been engaged. He recollected, some
time ago, reading an account of a subscription got up for
electioneering purposes, in which that Hon. allember's own
name appeared, and it seemed also that he had seduced four
ladies connected with himself into subscribing to the same
aoncern.—(Laughter.) Surely a subscription to liberate the
Irish people was more praiseworthy and laudable than the I
miserable one with which he (Sir B. Hall) had been con-
nected. Further, with regard to the repeal rent, he (Mr.
Grattan), did make bald to say, that never, to his knowledge,
did he know of a single person with whom he was connected
get a single penny of it. It was applied to advance the in-
terests of the people of Ireland; and this he knew, that ha
saw 25,0001. of it paid to defend the leaders of the Irish
people when the late Government attempted to crush them
by the State proseeutions.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon
Member for Inverness (Mr. Baillie) had talked a good deal
in a farmer debate about the exertions of Lord Macdonald
and Macleod of Macleod in the isle of Sky. They had ex-
pended, it was stated, about 25,000/., but not a word was
said as to whether or no it had been repaid. They had also
it appeared, adopted an economical system of cookery, but
that was nothing to what was proposed for Ireland, as there
they proposed to cook out of nothing at all. They had
written from Ireland to send them over some of the best soup
receipts, and he had been supplied with some front the Reform
Club that were economical enough. So good, indeed, were they,
that in the event of the Noble Lord at the head of the Go-
vernment resigning he would suggest that Monsieur Soyer
should be made Prime Minister.—(Laughter.) Let him
guard the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath of this fact.
But what was the case? Why, the whole of the money had
been plunged into the Caledonian Canal. —(Laughter. ) There
was 1,254,0001. given as a grant, not as a loan, but as a
grant, and then there was 306,0001. paid for repairs. Yes,
this was the answer to the Irish howl. Well did the
Ministry know that the best way to get into Scot-
land was, as in the time of the Stew arts, by
a bridge of gold, and they had built not less than a thousand
bridges in that eountry within the last few years.—( Hear,
hear.) He had always said that ho would support the Noble
Lord on7principle, and he only deeply regretted that the Irish
Members had not supported him. He did regret this, and
that the unconstitutional threat—for such he should ever con-
sider it—had been held out of leaving the helm of Government.
He would not have said so much, but that this was in all pro-
bability the last opportunity which the Irish 'Members would
for some time have of saying a word on the affairs of Ireland.
What was the pitiful sum which had been granted between the
Ist January, 1846, and the first day of the next year, for the
relief of starving multitudes ? It was only 113,0001.,
out of the 53,000,000 of national income. Then a great cry
had been made against the Irish landlords, but how could they
help themselves, for he could state, that in one instance, a gen-
tleman who was entitled to 5,000/. for rent, could not get
1,700/. There were some Irish landlords who did not do their
duty, and he would tell them who they were. The absentee
proprietors of Queen's county derived a rental of 25,5781., and
the property of tho resident proprietors was estionatedat 4,5301.
Now, what was the relative amount of the subscriptions of these two parties? Why, the subscriptions of those who
held 4,500/. of property, contributed 4591., while the con-
tribution of the absentees was only 2081. Such was the
contrast offered by those landlords, who did their duty and
those who did not. The Hight Hon. Gentlemen the Secretary
for Ireland, had talked of intros ucing 6eolbs. of flax seed into
Ireland, but what probability was there that such a proceeding
would be of any benefit to a country where the people were
starving. The whole amount of the money granted for the
relief of Ireland was 3,551,2021., while all the money which
had been advanced under Mr. Labeuchere's letter was only
77,0001.; so that in fact, it had turned out that the private
subscriptions far exceeded the amount of the public grants.
What then became of the acerbities of the Hon. Member for
Bath ? What became of his taunts and his allegations against
the Irish Members ? Why it was evident that they were alto-
gether groundless, for no man ever came into court with a less
knowledge of his brief, no lawyer ever made out a worse ease
than he had done, and the consequence was, as he deserved to
be on the present occasion, he was nonsuited. The
truth was, that this was a Divine visitation, and no
doubt they were justly punished far their offences, and
no acts of any set of men could have obviated it.
The same circumstances had occurred in 1800, when Mr,
Pitt had written his celebrated letter, when he ascribed
them to the visitation of Providence, and Mr. Wilberforce had
expressed the same opinion. The people of Ireland were
starving, and the Noble Lord had talked of opening depots for
food, but what had been the case, as it had been shown by the
Hon. Member for Mayo, that between November and January
only ten depots had been opened, and the small sum of
146,000/. was all that had been spent in providing the pro-
visions for starring millions. With these observations he
sdeould Houseconclude the remarks which he had to make to the
eerh,e and he did so with a sincere expression of his thanks
listenedP
‘ ttatbleyntehee and indulgence with which he had been
estnEetue •
House he had uudK. said that when he came down to the
fore the House te_nsthood that there was a press of business be-
that that business wi tt, and he came do an with the expectation
as awiLcarry forward certain Bills for the relief
of the Irish
Hon. Member for Mayo asmhre tame down to the House, the
number of cases of excekasive; Dillon
,leirowne) was stating a
in his county. Then
'(Mrrin:ld.efroys did the Caine
the Hon. Gentleman opposite
thing. Then some altercation tollo.w
..a.hd then came the
r.othiensgri. (
were
r)e,
observations of the Hon. Member fer aft!
strong,ut they
sigulnierlYetg
full of sound and fury,
people of helm
and thse
told that the
tleman had begun by speaking about fire to show that the
people of Ireland were in distress. But if the matter was n
brought forward, it was a pity that the En
'ot
to be regularlyEnglish
Members had been brought down to discuss tae subject under
such circumstances. He thought it was due to his own
countrymen, and to their countrymen in Ireland, to discuss
this subject with temper, and to bring it forward as fairly as he doing could before the House. And in this, he thought
it was due to the English Members to say that
there was nut one of them who did not most
deeply lament the distressing circumstances which had
occurred in Ireland ; nor was there one who had risen in his
place who had attempted to deny the existence of the distress,
er who would refuse to vote for any measure that might teed

to its alleviation, or that refused in any way to est so as to
give the relief out of the property of England wherever it
could be shown that it might be alleviated. But what was
the fact? Why, the Hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. J.
O'Connell) and the Hon. Member who had just sat down had
asserted the same thing. They said that the distress in Ire-
land was chargeable on the English people, and that it had
resulted solely as the consequences of the atrocities of the Go-
vernment of England against that country. Now the Hon.
member said this.—( There was an intimation of dissent from
Mr. Grattan.)—He (Mr. Roebuck) knew that the Hon.
Members did not remember what he said, but he distinctly
charged him with the expression, for he had distinctly stated
that the sufferings of the Irish people were caused by the
mismanagement of this country.—( Hear, and counter cheers.)
Mr. GRATTAN explained that the Hon. Gentleman had
mistaken him.—(Hear hear. )
Mr. ROEBUCK—I distinctly charge him with it.—
(" Hear," from the opposite benches.)
Mr. GRATTA N—l totally deny it.
Mr. ROEBUCK—I accept the retractation.
Colonel RAWDON rose to order. The Hon. Member for
Bath had agreed to accept the retractation, but had refined to
accept the denial. This was clearly a breach of order.
Mr. ROEBUCK—WeII, the matter was not worth many
words, for he thought that the conduct of the people of Eng-
land was above the attacks of the Hon. Member, but he felt it
was due to his fellow-countrymen, he again said, aye, and he
would say, it was due to his fellow. countrymen in Ireland to
say that they would not be moved from their benevolent purposes
by such attacks as these, but, on the contrary, they would
urged on to higher efforts of usefulness to Ireland by the repe-
tition of these charges, and that was his inducement to give an
express denial to the attacks. He would now follow out the
argument of the Hon. Member for Marylebone. That Hon.
Member had said that Hon. Gentlemen came down to that
House—and he (Mr. Roebuck) saw such now to be present—
who had taken large rents, and yet had refused in any way to
relieve the distresses of their country, or had even paid their
rates on the property which they held. He had shown that
instead of contributing anything, they had, on the contrary,
done nothing. Now he would take the case of Skibbereen—
that was a fair case—and it should be remembered that there
was a poor-law in Ireland. The people in that parish were in
the utmost state of destitution, and yet, although the rate
levied for the relief of the poor was only fivepence in the pound,
the owners of property refused to contribute their quota, and the
rate could not be collected. Then he did say that the Irish
gentlemen ought to contribute their share when the people of
this country were so heavily taxed for the support of their poor;
and he was prompted the more to this course, when he recol-
lected the distress which was at this moment being suffered by
the peasantry of this country. He held in his hand a paper
which was issued for calling a public meeting in the town which
he represented, for taking some measures for relieving the poor
in the county of Somerset. Those people were suffering from
the utmost deficiency of food, and at the present moment a
great portion of the poor in that county were absolutely subsist-
ing on horse-beans, with only a scanty quantity of the same,
while other persons were absolutely picking up the rotten turnips,
with the hope of getting a little sustenance out of them. This
he threw into the teeth of the Members opposite, and would
retort the charge of the Hon. Member for Meath, when, in
the face of the fact that 600,000 persons were wholly
supported by this country, he asserted that the people
of England were acting in a close and niggardly spirit.
600,000 persons had been relieved. The inevitable conse-
quence, he would answer, was, that the statements of the Hon.
Gentlemen could not be sustained. He would now come to
the acts of the Government. 'He was quite willing to give that
Government the fullest meed of his approval, if that was of
any value to them. They had taken upon themselves a re-
sponsibility which hardly any Ministry before had assumed.
They had spent money to an extent which had never been
equalled by any other Government for such a purpose. The
very Bill which he held in his hand, and which was then before
the House, was not a Bill which he could condemn ; on the
contrary,f,it was a good meaning measure. Now, after all that,
he did think it was very unjust for the Hon. Member for Kil-
kenny to make the charges he had done, and the com-
ment he had made, that they had created the miseries
of Ireland, and they did not do all in their
power to alleviate that misery. He believed that then' was an
amount of misery in Ireland that could scarcely be exagge-
rated. That was ail acknowledged ; but he did say that they
(the Irish landlords) ought to come forward and assist the
people of England in relieving that distress. As a representa-
tive of an English constituency, he did say they should be cau-
tious in what they did. There was a combination in Mayo
against tilling the land. They ought to be cautious that they
did nothing to:create such a state of circumstances, or make it
spread. If they took the people of Ireland awayfrom tilling
the soil, they would he making them dependent upon the people
of this country. They who asked the gentlemen of Ireland to
prevent their countrymen from being dependent upon this country
were their best advisers and the best friends of Ireland. They
(the people of Ireland) wanted some great man to conduct them.
He had often seen a great name over some old firm, but with-
out the wealth to conduct its concerns, or a particle of intelli-
gence to support it. The people of Ireland possessed no such
character as they required. They were led by those who had
nothing but a name and a power of vituperation to support
them. Though there was the contortion of the sybil, the in-
spiration was gone.
Mr. F. SHAW said he thought that the statements
laid before the House of the sufferings of Ireland were not
exaggerated, but he certainly did think they were inappro-
priate on the present occasion. He thought, however, that
the whole House would agree with him in thinking, that all
those gentlemen who had made those statements had said
nothing of an acrimonious character. But an Hon. Baronet
opposite certainly did depart from his usual caution and temper,
and the Hen. Member for Bath was unjust in fixing upon one
particular ease, and passing over a greater number. He thought
also that it was unseasonable in that House to mention the
names of Lord Lucan, Sir Wm. Beecher, and others. He
had, however, to cffer another case. Lady Carberry's
was one of the properties that had been neglected.
New, the Carberry estate was in the hands of the Dowager
Lady Carberry, and the greater portion of her fortune was
spent in relieving that distress ; therefore the charge was most
unjust. The Hon. Member opposite had said that the people
of England had been called ungenerous. Now, he (Mr.
Shaw) had never heard the accusation of want of generosity
on the part of the people of England. The Hon. Member
opposite, and a few of the friends with whom he was asso-
ciated, had certainly been attacked. They (the people of
Ireland) did not deny the generosity of the people of England,
but they did say that it was not generous to boast of it on the
present occasion. It was said that 600,000 persons had been
relieved at the cost of England, but the gentlemen of Ireland
were liable for the money advanced. He thought, therefore,
that it was both unseasonable and unjust to say so much on the
matter. It was most painful to the feelings of the Irish to
! hear the charges that were made against them. And after all,
what did the speech of the Hon. Member opposite amount
to, but that the landlords of Ireland were guilty of a neglect
of duty? It was most painful for Irish gentlemen to have
such remarks said at a time like the present.—( Hear,
hear.) The Honourable Gentleman opposite had said
"Do your duty first, then we will do ours." But the
poverty in Ireland was ten times greater than in England. Her
means were more than ten times less than in this country.
When he was in Ireland a short time ago, he found the land-
lords doing all in their power. assisted by their families, in
relieving the dissress ; and in their kitchens there was a greater
amount of relief administered than would be believed if it had
not been witnessed. He thought, therefore, it was most un-
generous to accuse the landlords of Ireland of a neglect of
their duty, and to reproach them with their poverty, at a mo-
ment like the present. The misery that existed was beyond
their resources, and ought they then to be accused of the
calamity that had visited their country ? After what
the landlords of Ireland had done, he repeated, that it
was most unjust to make these accusations. The Bill before
the House, as far as it went, was good, and calculated to work
beneficially for the country, and he believed the Government
had done as much as they lawfully could. All he hoped was,
that the discussion would be carried on without any furtber
acrimony. He felt bound to deny what had been said of the
Irish landlords, as a body, of not having done their duty.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said—Sir, I wish to say a few
words before the House go into Committee on this Bill. I
must say, as I agree entirely in the spirit of what the Hon.
Gentleman who has just sat down has said, that I wish we
may go into the eunsideration of this matter with more temper
and a more friendly tone towards those from whom we differ.
I am very far from boasting of any generosity on the part of
England towards the people of Ireland ; but then we may
claim to be exempted from the charge of insensibility to her
sufferings.—( Hear, hear.) There are a few matters on which
I wish to make some observations. It is impossible
to look forward to what may happen next year in Ireland
—to which an Hen. Gentleman has alluded—but I believe
the sufferings of the people of that country may be very much
alleviated. lam very sorry to hear that there is not only a
neglect of cultivation of the soil on the part of smaller tenants
and holders, but there is not a disposition to cultivate the soil.
I have heard to-day from three Roman Catholic priests, that
in their part of the country they found the smaller tenants
saying that not only did they not cultivate their land,
but they would not do so, because they considered
that they would derive no advantage from doing so.—
( Hear, hear.) This arises from the very unfortunate state of
society. We find the landlords and tenants indulging in mu-
tual recrimination. The landlords speak of the conduct of
tenants, whom they accuse of concealing their means, and the
tenants accuse the landlord of a neglect of his duty. Now,
Sir, in this period of great calamity, when se much suffering
exists among the people of Ireland, unless the landlords repose
the greatest confidence in their tenants—unless they g• more
among their tenants, and stimulate them to increased exertion,
and unless, on the other hand, the tenants are brought to
confide in their landlords, and are disposed to
profit by the encouragement given to them, I
fear the prospects of next year are very uncertain.--
(Hear, hear.) I also hope that the clergy of the various reli-
gious denominations will assist to avert the recurrence of the
present emergency. Ido not believe that any laws passed i
the Imperial Parliament, or that might be passed even
in
Parliament sitting in Dublin, will be attended with any bene-a
ficial effect unless this spirit of co-operation exists to carry out
these laws, and to infuse a spirit of improvement among the
people. There is another matter to which I wish briefly to
allude. An opinion is beginning to gain ground among the
people of this country, that although they were disposed to
make every sacrifice for the relief of the distress which at pre-
sent prevails its Ireland, yet there is an opinion spreading
among them, and I should say in Ireland also,
that the distress and the actual state of destitution
which existed even in ordinary years ought to give those who
were the victims of it a claim for relief on the property of
Ireland.—(Cheers.) I believe that it is the prevalent opinion,
that whatever may be done this year to relieve the distress, that
in future years, whenever the poor-houses are full, and in
certain cases, even where they are not full, that there should
be an adequate provision for the relief of the poor.—(Cheers. )
I have not heard, myself, from Irish gentlemen, anything to
warrant me in believing that they are opposed to this measure,
or that it will meet with any resistance from them. There
may, perhaps, be some difference of opinion as to the details of
this measure, but with regard to the principle itself, I believe
there will be no resistance.—( Hear, hear.) Whatever reluc-
tance there may be at present to have the whole relief of the
destitute placed upon them, I believe that, with regard to
ordinary times, the impression is unfounded that the Irish
landlords wish to avoid that obligation.—( Hear, hear.) I be-
lieve they have no wish to avoid it—( Hear, hear)—but will be
ready to give to a measure of that kind their careful assistance.
—( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman says that the
relief of the destitution should be placed upon all classes, and
that it ought not to be made a charge on the
land.—( Hear, bear.) I must say, that if the pro.
position of the Government be carried into effect, this will,
to a certain extent, be the case. And there will be a sacrifice
from all parts of the empire. I have not heard a single objec-
tion to this, nor do I believe that any has been made to it. I
do not believe that it will be objected to, but I think it right
to say that an impression very generally prevails that the pro-
perty of Ireland, though a poor country, should bear the charge
of Irish distress.—( Cheers.)
Mr. S. O'BRIEN was in hopes they would be able to dis-
cuss these measures without the introduction of any topics
calculated to excite any acrimonious
,feelings. The landlord
o
for
al ern,
bheandemwaoduld
esabcerifireceasd,yatno d he hoped
supporthim when h
the Hon. Member
oi
emberr.
S. O'Brien) was about to call upon another class of landlords
to perform teiraduty. He purposed that a Commit-
lp,otiitnttnedightto
tee should
bey
ascertained.si lreland,
He
end
htaod see
hospitals of i that country, that
the poor-houses
othkieecttirtnne
to stfaotrem ofo and
ofhoth
of this inquiry would be a convictionr"thtatt:teth.: pt
to
.1 empeoe
seeetodat
he e measuresumere
adi
of Government would be utterly inel

gency. The soup kitchens would be found inapplicable to
many parts of Ireland. He had always advocated a poor-law
for that country, and recent circumstances had more and more
confirmed the views he entertained on that subject. There
could be no doubt that for some years to come it would be
necessary to have recourse to stimulants to employ the surplus
labour of that country. The Bills for advances to landlords
would, he feared, employ but an inconsiderable portion of it,
and what, he would ask, was to be done with the remainder ?
A good system of emigration would do much good, but no
efficient plan for that purpose bad been proposed. The
system of railways proposed by Lord George Bentinek
would, if laid down, have absorbed all this surplus
labour, and conferred the greatest good upon Ireland. He
implored the Government to lay down some scheme for the
employment of the people in useful works, in order that those
painful scenes which were of daily recurrence in that country
should be put an end to.
Mr. B. ESCOTT said that nothing was further from his
intention than to prevent the House from going into Commit-
tee on this Bill. He considered it would be much better if
these Bills had been considered in the Pied they were in-
tended—as temporary and not permanent mi it ures.:There were
one or two circumstances, however, to which he wished briefly
to allude. The Hon. Member opposite said that the measures
proposed by the Government were inadequate to meet the dis-
tress for which they were intended. Well, he (Mr. Escott)
agreed with the Hon. Gentleman, and he would go even
farther, and say, that if the Noble Lord, or any one else, had
proposed them as anything else than temporary,
he would have given them his most decided opposition.
He was glad to hear what had fallen from the Noble Lord, for
no speech which had been made from the bench which he oc-
cupied (the Treasury )(luring that session, or many preceding
ones, held out such a beneficial prospect for Ireland. He had
promised a substantial poor-law for Ireland, a measure which
his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Bath, had been
taunted for proposing. If he understood his Learned Friend,
all that he desired was, that equal justice should be done to
Ireland; and they should permit him to tell the Irish Members,
that from the Parliament of the United Kingdom they never
will get equal rights unless they will consent to bear equal
burdens also. —(Hear, hear.) There was much suffering in
this country, and were it not for the exertions of the land-
owners, they should have starvation in England
as well as in Ireland.— (Hear.) He wished to impress
this fact upon the Noble Lord at the head of the Government,
as by reason of some expressions which dropped from him the
other evening, he saw clearly that lie much under-rated the
amount of English distress. He had not the opportunity of
seeing it to the extent which he (Mr. Escott) had. The
people of England were ground down, and they should not be
blamed when they recollected that all grants to Ireland were
had out of their hard earnings.
Viscount BERNARD said that Honourable Gentlemen
should not believe, for truth, all that appeared in blue books.
The rental in Ireland was by no means so high as had been
stated. The Honourable Member for 'Winchester had taunted
them with an opposition to a poor-law, but he was not
aware that there was any disinclination on the part of the
Irish gentlemen to an assimulation of the poor-law of Ireland
with that of England. On the contrary, he, with many others,
were in favour of such a measure. He would warn the
Government not suddenly to cease rendering assistance to the
destitute through the means of public works. He had received
letters which stated that in some instances this was the case,
and that great destitution was the consequence.
Mr. MONTAGUE GORE said that he was prepared to
give his testimony in corroboration of the statement of the
Member for Winchester, that great distress existed in the west
of England, but although such was the case, they should not
be deterred from sending assistance to their distressed fellow-
subjects in Ireland. The conduct of the landlords in that
country had been strongly animadverted upon, but,
as far as he could see, they had in almost every in-
stance acted with the utmost generosity.—(hear, hear. )
Ireland in her present distresses required the sincere sympathy
of the people of this country, which he trusted would be be.
stewed upon her. Whatever view the Government took of a
poor• law, or of any other measures for the relief of that coun-
try, they would do no good unless they dealt with the small
farms in Ireland, which were a great source of the evils of
that country. They must grapple with this question if they
meant to provide an efficient remedy. He was of opinion
that, great as might be the present suffering of the people of
Ireland, it would eventually result in good, and be the means
of causing a happier day to dawn in that hitherto distracted
country.
Mr. FITZGERALD could not remain silent after what
had been said by the Honourable Member for Mary-
lebone (Sir Benjamin Hall), but would not detain the
House long. He rose to protest against the attack on
the Irish Members which that Honourable Member had made.
With regard to the measures of the Government, he confessed
he did not think them as adequate for the crisis as they should
have been. Considering the vast amount of distress that pre-
vailed, and the harrowing accounts of the privation and suffering
which had been placed before the House, that the Government
would have been prepared with some comprehensive system of
public works. He considered that the carrying out of rail-
ways would have been a very desirable course of this kind;
and if the Government were not prepared to carry out so ex-
tensive a scheme as the Noble Lord the Member for Lynn,
they might at least have carried out those lines fur which Acts
of Parliament had been already obtained.
Lard C. HAMILTON had e ished to delay the progress of
the measure, and rose simply to ask the Noble Lord if he could
postpone the Committee on the Irish Poor-law Bill for a short
time, in order that it might not be taken whilst Irish .Mem-
bers were absent at their respective assizes?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL regretted that he could not accede
to the Noble Lord's proposition. if he were to postpone it
from the day on which it was fixed, he should be met by similar
objections on the part of other Irish Members, on account of
their desire to be in Ireland at the assizes, which would imme-
diately follow those to which the Noble Lord had referred. Ile
was anxious to have the Bill passed through that House as soon
as possible, in order that it might be sent up to the House of
Lords without any unnecessary loss of time.
Lord C. HAMILTON regretted that the Noble Lord could
not act upon his suggestion. However, he begged, as an Irisn
Member, to express his gratitude to the Government, and to
the English Members, for the spirit in which they had passed
the measures for the relief of distress in Ireland.—( Hear, hear.)
Many of the speeches, the tone of which had been complained
of, contained much good sense, and he hoped they would strip
what was good from what was worthless, and adopt it.
Lord CASTLEREAGH said the great object of their le-
gislation was to prevent thousands from perishing of hunger,
i and therefore, he thought, no obstructions should be thrown
in the way of this measure, and that Hon. Members, under
the circumstances, should reserve their speeches for scree
other occasion. He had read in the TimPs of that day a letter
from a gentleman, describing the condition of the people on
the coast of Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) He feared that this
letter was bet a specimen of others which they would continue
to receive from day to day. He hoped the Irish Members
would sink their differences, and honestly, fairly,
and impartially support whatever the Government
might propose for the benefit of Ireland.—(Hear, hear.)
If the same sort of visitation were again to betal Ireland, he
was quite satisfied that the only remedy would be to form a
network of railways throughout Ireland, by which they would
be enabled to convey food to all parts of the country. But
after all, he thought that the best plan would be to suffer the
Government to proceed with the other business, and to lay
aside all recrimination, and at once go into Committee on the

Lord DUNCAN said that nothing would have given him
greater pleasure tban to proceed with the Bill, and he trusted
the House would on all sides take the advice which had just
been offered, and suffer the Ministry to proceed with the mea-
sure. With regard to the allegations that had been assumed as
having been made by him, all he could say was, that he had
drawn his information from the blue book which he held in
his hand.
Mr. SHARMAN CR A.WFORD would protest against any
such disposition as was ascribed to the Irish peasantry. The
whole of the evil, in fact, was traceable to tke mischief arising
from the law of landlord and tenant. He trusted, therefore,
that the House would now, without further delay, go into Corn-
raittee on the Bill.
The House then went into Committee, amid cheers from all
sides.

On the first clause being proposed,
Mr. GOULBURN said that he wished to draw the at-
tention of the House to this clause, and this he did,
he assured the Noble Lord opposite, not because he
objected to the principle of the Bill, but because there
was one objection which he could not but offer to
it. The measure of the last session of Parliament had pro.
vided for unlimited drafts on the Consolidated Fund. If,
from the necessity of the case, the Government were to draw
from the Consolidated Fund, it would be quite necessary for them
to obtain such indemnity as this Bill provided. In the Bill of
last session certain sums were allowed to be drawn from the
Consolidated Fund for the completion of certain public works,
but it had been necessary to divert a part of the funds for other
purposes. The present Act provided for the indemnity of the
Government, but it omitted to provide an indemnity for the
officers who acted under their orders. It was always the custom in
any cases of the violation of the law to provide an indemnity,
not only for the Government, but also for the officers who
acted under their directions. A case of this kind occurred
some years ago, when, in consequence of a -careity of food in
the %Vest Indies, the Government in the colonies, as well as
the Government at home, in direct violation of the law, had
ordered the admission of food without payment of the duties.
Again, in 1826, there had been a scarcity of oats, and the
Government had directed the admission of oats, also in that
case, without the payment of duty, in direct violation of the
law, and they had fully experienced the advantages of the course.
In both these instances there had been acts of indemnity for the
officers as well as for the Government, and those instances were
of much less consequence than the circumstances of the present
important occasion. It would appear that the Act of last year had
given an unlimited authority to the Government to draw on the
Consolidated Fund for any amount that they night think
necessary, but in all these cases words were inserted to
give to the officers the indemnity which they were entitled
to, and especially for those officers under whose orders
the money had been issued from the Treasury, and who ought
to have the same indemnity as had been obtained by the Go-
vernment. Now, by the measures which had been passed during
the last session of Parliament, the power to draw money was
given in order to devote it to public works, and the money was
to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund. But there appeared
to be considerable ambiguity about the clause. By the first
words of, the clause it was decreed that it appeared that
the sums drawn were to be limited, but the Concluding words
of the clause seemed to imply that the amount to be drawn
from the Consolidated Fund should be unlimited. But there
was another principle to be considered, and that was the
power given to draw money in this unlimited manner, for it
should be recollected that it was but right that because ex-
traordinary circumstances occasioned extraordinary deviations
from the usual rule, they should, on every ordinary occasion,
give this power to, a Ministry, and it was with a view to
point this out to the House that he had made these observa-
tions. He did say, therefore, that such a clause as this should
not be hastily passed, but that some limitation should be
placed on the draught of public money from the Treasury.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that he quite agreed with the
Right Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, not only in
the necessity to attend to the suggestion contained in
the first part of his observations, but also that the question
which he had raised was of the utmost importance. There
was no indisposition whatever on the part of the Government
to prevent the insertion of such a clause as that which had been
proposed,Government,
a n d in tactand
ai t had already
clause
w as
receivedalready thepr e
considerationpare dwhich
of the
might either be inserted in the present Bill, or brought
forward in some future measure, and in which they might not
only meet the present case, but render the law fit to meet any
exigency that might arise. A clause had indeed been pre-
pared, and it might be introduced now or after as a future

clause of the Bill. With regard to the second proposition of
the Right Hon. Gentleman, he quite agreed that it was not
because a particular exigency had occurred that unlimited
power should be given to any Ministry i® draw money from the
Treasury. In this case the Bill asked for an indemnity of the
deviation of the money that ought to have been applied to the
public works, the amount of which, he believed, accoiding to
the terms of the Bill of last session, were to be unlimited. He

•
was glad, therefore, that the Right Hon. Gentleman had drawn
the attention cf the House to the subject, and he could assure
him and the House, that whenever the nece,sity
required it, the Government would be ready to in..
troducea measure to meet the circumstances of the case.

The Bill was divided into two parts,tiefirst clause rendered
valid those presentments which had been made under the Act,
and the fifth clause in the same way rendered valid all the
presentments made under Mr. Labouchere's Act. He had no
objection to the principle of the Bill, but it appeal-v(1 to him

that there were certain words in the first clause which em-
powered the Commissioners to expend as much money as they
pleased in any public works. The words were, "to com-
plete and execute," and thus no limit was placed to the money
to be expended. He thought that some check ought to be
established over the Commissioners, in order to secure, as
wrath as possible, economy on their part. There were instanees
where the public money had been grossly wisemployed, and in
one case, according to the returns made, it was found That the
labourers were earning very high wages, and the child taken
from the mother's back and laid down upon a heap of stones
were put down as yarning a shilling a day. He therefore pro
posed that the cost of the public work should in no case exceed
the amount of money given in the presentment.
Mr. LABOUCHERE did not quite understand the Hon.
Member. If he meant to say that if the money presented for
did not cover the expense of the work, there should be no
power to raise more. Such a course was likely to be produc-
tive of inconvenience, but if he meant to secure the careful
expenditure of the money the words were unnecessary.
Mr. FRENCH then withdrew his arnendm •nt to the clause.
Mr. GOULBURN objected to the Commissioners having
an unlimited power over the funds of the country. A specified
sum should be demanded.

the Paop tpal t a
applying n g
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that he agreed with the
Right Hon. Gentleman that it was of advantage to have a par-
ticular sum named, but it was not always possible. The Right
Hon. Gentleman at the beginning of last session, when in
office, proposed a Bill granting 50,000/. to the Irish for public
works, and at the end of that session it was found nece-sary to
propose
grant
cro. It w
p of4soould be better 01
. inectonrsegtouence of the failure of
ask an indefinite sum
and
it to the emergencies of the country. than asking
a definite sum, and exceeding it five or six times over. He ad-
mitted the importance of having a specific sum named, but in
this ease it was not possible.
Mr. GOUL BUR N said the cases were very different. When
the grant of 50,000/. was proposed, and it was afterwards found
necessary to increase it, the increased demand did not fall on
the Consolidated Fund. The 50,000., and no more, was
drawn from that source, while the whole demand was to be
drawn from the Consolidated Fund at present.
After a few words from Lord JOHN MANNERS,
Clauses 1,2, and 3, were agreed to.
Clause 4 was then agreed to.
On clause 5,

Mr, F FRENCH proposed an amendment, that the power
of appointing the assessment should not be given to the Board
of Wcrks. He thought this power wculd be better exercised
by the magistrates and cess-payers.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL defended the clause.
Mr, SHAW complimented the Attorney-General on the
judgment he displayed in drawing up the measure, and though
there might be circumstances which would warrant the mode
of procedure proposed by the Hon. Member whe moved the
amendment, he thought the clause under all the circumstances
should be allowed to stand.

Causes 5 and 6 were then agreed to.
The remaining clauses of the Bill were agreed to.
The House then resumed, and the Bill was ordered to be
reported on Monday.
POOR RELIEF BOARD.

Jr answer to a question from an HON. MEMBER,
Lord J. RUSSELL said the other two Bills relating to
Ireland, would be brought under the consideration of the
House on Monday fo tnight. With regard to the Bill for the
" appointment of a Board for the supervision of the administra-
tion of the laws for the relief of the poor in Ireland," he would
simply, at this late hour, ask for leave to introduce it, and make
his statement respecting its provisions on proposing the second
reading.

TEN HOURS' BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this Bill
being read,
Air. LEADER objected to it, as he believed the division of
last Wednesday was an unfair division. Such an important
question should not have been discussed on that day at all, but
should have been taken on some other evening, when it could be
fully discussed. The manufacturers had been grossly attacked
by be Hon. Member for Knaresborough, and full time should
be gi,en for those who differed from, and were against the Bill,
to be heard. He would suggest, that as many Members had
left to-night, under the impression that the question would not
come on, that the second reading be put off till next Wednes-
day—(lronical cheers)—he meant to some other future night,
when the matter could be fully gone into. He knew it was
difficult to get a night, at present, for the state of the Govern-
, trent business ; still, he thought, something should be done to
alow the House to come to a fair decision, which it had not as
yet —( Hear, hear.)
Mr. FERRAND said the Hon. Gentleman had stated that
he bad called the manufacturers the most destestab!e persons
on the face of the earth. He begged to state that no such ex-
pression ever fell from his lips, and that if he had made such a
statement, he should have been ashamed of it. For years he
had been attacked in this off-hand manner. Now no one had
a nigher respect for the manufacturers than himself. Many of
thaw—and he appealed to the Hon. Member for Oldham—were
his most intimate friends. There were many manufacturers
in his immediate neighbourhood who were a blessing to that
part of the country.
Air. B. ESCOTT explained, that on Wednesday he had
no intention to oppose unfairly the will of the House, in per-
sisting in his motion far the adjournment of the debate on the
Fa-:_tories Bill. He begged to give notice, that on the motion
that the Speaker do leave the chair, he should move that they
should go into Committee on the Bill that day six months.
Ile Bill was then read a second time.
POOR-LAW SUSPENSION BILL.
Lord J. RUSSELL obtained leave to bring in this Bill,
and it was read a first time.

Capt. PECHELL wished to know whether the Noble Lord
proposed to make any alterations in the eonstitution of the
Poor-Law Commission ?

Lcrd JOHN RUSSELL said that he had stated that he
coolci not take the consideration of the poor-law at the
present moment. The Honourable and Gallant Officer
must be aware that the House had been engaged, and neces-
sarily engaged, in the consideration of the measures necessary
for the relief of Ireland—not only in the consideration of those
measures which had been brought forward by Government,
but also by those which had been proposed by the Noble Lord
opposite. He (Lord John Russell) had already stated that the
sums necessary for the relief of Ireland should first be voted,
and then he might take the other matters into consideration.
In the first place, with respect to the measure which he had
introduced for the alteration of the poor laws in England, he
had to say that that law would not be founded on any report of
the Andover Commission. The Hon. and Gallant officer
seemed to think that this law was affected by
that Commission, and therefore he wished it to go
out distinctly that such was not the case, and that
he thought it was but right that it should be under-
stood that the Poor-law Commissioners had not lost the con-
fidence of the Government. The Hon. Member for Andover,
Mr. Etwall, might bring forward his motion, and it would be
for the House to affirm or deny it, but he must emphatically
repeat that hesaw no reason for saying that the Commissioners
had lost the confidence either of the Government or the House,
bat it was necessary that the law should be modelled on other
principles.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN trusted that the medical charities in
England would not be placed under the administration of the
Poor-law Commissioners.

Mr. ET WALL said that as it was the intention of the
Noble Lord to postpone the improvement of the poor. law, he
wished to ask when it was his intention to bring the amend-
ment of the poor-law forward so far as it effected England.
Lord J. RUSSELL had already stated that he could not
postpone the measures for the relief of Ireland on any consi-
deration, but 83 soon as they could be disposed of, he would
move the second reading of the Bill which he had just
brought in.
RAILWAYS (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. TUFNELL drew the attention of the House to the
misstatement of the Members who voted the other night
against Lord G. Bentinck's Bill, and stated that the number
for the Government was 332, and not 322. He moved that
the return should be altered.
Lord MARCUS HILL apologised, and threw himself on
the indulgence of the House.
It was ordered that the Clerk of the House be directed to
alter the return.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
The House adjourned at One o'clock to Four o'clock on
Monday.

ee
n iand
attempted s
PROTEST AGAINST THE BILL
FOR THE TEMPORARY RELIEF OF DESTI-
TUTE PERSONS IN IRELAND."
1. Because this Bill is based on the principle, that it is the
duty of a Government to provide food for the people, and
in
practice. It is false in theory, as being, in the natural
tlocionnjsuisdteicret hainsdperliinsacisptricoutsliicsoenisneqs tuho theory, f leading
state of things, utterly impracticable; the Government
having no store of food wherewith to supply the people,
or funds for providing the same. In practice, it leads to
injustice arid disastrous consequences, because such funds
can be obtained only by taxation; and if the taxes are
levied (as they ought and profess to be) equally on all,
the whole will be taxed, and supply the wants of a part:
the consequence of which must be, that some persons on
the verge of destitution will be thus reduced to the same
state as those whom they are taxed to relieve, and that
those who by prudence and industry have raised them.
selves out of the reach of want will be taxed for the
relief of the improvident and idle.
2. Because it is dangerous for a Government to take
any step which is calculated to instil into the minds of
the people the belief, that they need not rely on their
own exertions for their well-being, and a hope that it
they omit to take proper care of themselves, it will relieve
their necessities and gratuitously support them.
3. Because the Irish people are of a temperament pe-
culiarly likely to be misled.
4. Because experience, both in Ireland and in Eng-
land under the old administration of the poor laws,
proves that the attempt to provide gratuitously for the
needy is in its result dangerous to property and to the
independence and well-being of the people, and injurious
to none more than to those very persons whose benefit is
thereby sought; by superseding the necessity, and thus
repressing the energy of their own exertions to keep
themselves ; by diverting them from those resources
which the pressure of want would disclose; and, above
all, by teaching them to rely on external aid, which, as it
cannot be efficient in extent, or permanent in duration,
will finally leave them disappointed and discontented,
and more destitute and helpless than before.
5. Because I fear that if this measure be adopted it
will necessarily lead to other measures of a similar na-
ture, and that though some present relief may be given
to existing misery and destitution, it will lead hereafter
to an alarming increase of the evils thus temporarily
mitigated; and that, therefore, though feelings of the
most praiseworthy and benevolent character prompt its
adoption, prudence, reason, and true wisdom would re-
ject it.

6. Because charity is a proper motive for the private
conduct of individuals, but justice the paramount duty
of a Government; and because charity to some on the
part of the latter work out present injustice to others,
and ultimately evil to all. RADNOR.

OLDIIAAL—FALL OF A COTTON MILL.—On Sunday
last, shortly before one o'clock at noon, a small cotton mill,
situate near Werneth Coppice, Manchester-street, lately
occupied by Messrs. John and Frederick Potter, cotton-
spinners, suddenly gave way, in consequence of the excAva-
stieovtisrawi'llic,h are being effected underneath, in the formation
of one of the tunnels of the Oldham Extension Railway.
Fortunately the mill was nearly empty, the greater part of
the machinery, and other property having be-n removed to
another mill. The fallen building was three stories high. ,1
uses in the vicinity have also given way, and are
to be taken dime. i

TIDE NEW BISHOPS.—It is said —thit efour
Bishoprics to be created, according to the proposition of
Lord Jahn Rnssell, will be conferred on the Hon. and Rev.
Montagu Villiers, M.A., Rector of St. George's, Bloomsbury;
the Rev. Thomas Dale. M.A., Vicar of St. Pancras, and
Canon Residentiary of St. Paul's; the Rev. J. Slade, M.A.,
Canon (.1 Cheater, and Vicar of Bolton-le-Moors; and the
Rev. Basijamin Parsons Symons, D.D., Warden of Watiliam
College, Oxford, and Vice-Chancellor of the University.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Feb. 19.

THE ELECTRIC TELECRAPPI COMPANY V. NOTT AND GAMBLE.
Mr. BETHELL replied to-day on this motion, addressing
the Court for no less than four hours, and
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he would give judgment on
Wednesday next.
His Lordship rose at quarter before three o'clock.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Feb. 18.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Sir F. PuLLocc, Chief
Baron.)
PELL V. JONNA.

Mr. Humfrey and 3117. Medor were counsel for the
plaintiff; Mr. Sergeant Allen and Mr. Gray appeared
for the defendant.

This was an action brought to recover damages from
the defendant for the breach of a contract all.ged to
have been entered into by him to transfer his interest in
certain shares in the Leicester and Bedford Railway
Company, which had not been ratified by any legisla-
tive enactment. It appears that 40 shares having been
allotted to the defefohnt in the above company, he was
not able to pay the deposit thereon, and being about to
quit England, he authorised Mr. George Pell, the
nephew of the plaintiff, who had advanced the money to
pay the deposit, to sell the shares when he could
realise a small sum by them. The shares were after-
wards sold to the plaintiff at a premium of 11.; but when
the defendant was called on to ratify the transaction by
handing over the scrip certificates, he repudiated the
transiietion, the shares being then at a premium
of 41. The action was afterwards brought by the
plaintiff, who contended now that be was entitled to re-
cover the highest value of the shares after the sale and
before the action was brought. On the part of the de-
fendant it was argued that the action could not be sus-
tained, as the authority ought to have been in e,riting,
and no shares had ever issued, but only scrip; and by
the Joint-Stock Companies Act no legal transter could
be made of any interest in any such scheme till after the
act of incorporation had been obtained, which had not
been done.

The CHIEF BARON reserved the points raised by the
Learned Sergeant on the part of the defendant, and left
the question of damages contingently to the jury, by
whom they were assessed at 501.

February 19.
(Sittings in London before the LORD CHIEF BARON and
Common Juries.)
LEITH V. BILLING.
In this case, which occupied the attention of the Court
nearly the whole of the day, the plaintiff sought to recover
compensation for damages sustained by him in consequence
of having been thrown off a stage coach, the property of the
defendant, occasioned by the alleged carelessness and negli-
gence on the part of the driver, the servant of the de-
fendant.

The details of the case did not present any features of in-
terest to the public.
Mr. Crowder and Mr. Bovill appeared for the plaintiff; Sir
P. Thesiger and Mr. D. Keane tin: the defendant.

COURT OF COMMUN PLEAS, Feb. 18.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before the LoRD CHIEF JUSTICE
and a Special Jury).
HOPWOOD V. THORN.
Mr. Cockburn, Q.C., Mr. Elwin James, and Mr.
Lush, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant
Taltourd and Mr. Atherton for the defendant.
In this case both the plaintiff and the defendant were
Independent ministers, the plaintiff being the minister
of the Independent chapel at Thatcham, and the de-
fendant an Independent minister residing at Winchester.
The action was a joint action for slander arid libel, the
declaration containing counts for teeth, The slanders
complained of were various statements made by the de-
fendant, to persons of his congregation a'ad others, at
Thatcham, that the plaintiff having, before his entry
into the ministry, carried on business as a draper at
Southampton, in partnership with a person named
Pint-lone had, on his withdrawal from the partnership,
taken out large sums from the concern, more than he
was entitled to do; arid upon this statement used the
words that the plaintiff was " utiwetthy the name of a
gentleman, a minister, or an honest man," and that " no
person would let him get into a pulpit anywhere, so bee
was his character." There were oteer words f.kciured
on, that the defendant " had called the pleintiff a rogue,
and tie could prove it by the books at Southatiipten that
he had cheated Mr Piuherti of 2,0001." The libels
comp! :hid of were vontainad in a series of letters, one of
which was to a Mr. Hunt. and two to the R'v. Mr.
Ainslie. Dissenting minister, and secretary to the Ceti-
gregationel Board of Education, residing in Li»idon,
which stated "that Mr. Hunt had been to Southampton
and found all true;" there were other statements similar
to the above. This correspondence was of great length.
To prove the libels and slanders,
Mr. Edward Hunt, surveyor, residing at Thatcham,
was called. He stated that the plaintiff called upon him
on Janury 7, 1845, and made a statement of something
which a Mrs.Burfield had told him. On the following Sun-
day the plaintiff made a statement from the pulpit, re-
ferring to the accusations made against him, demanding
an investigation, and defying proof of the charges made.
The plaintiff also asked for an appointment of mutual
friends to consider the matter. The witness was the
friend alluded to to be appointed. He afterwards met
the defendant at Mrs. Burfield's house, where a conver-
sation about the matter took place, and there were sub-
sequent meetings of the parties at Mrs. Burfield's house,
and the defendant expressed nimself anxious to have a
public meeting, and there was a public meeting subse-
quently held, on the 18th of March; that meeting was
held at the Independent chapel at Thatcham, both plaintiff
and defendant being present. Statements were there
made by the defendant, which he had before heard him
make at Mrs. Burtield's house. The defendant read a
long statement of accounts between Pinhorn and the
plaintiff, theresult being that the plaintiff had taken 6,0001.
out of the concern, and had only put into it 1,2651.;
and that the plaintiff had drawn out 2,0001. more
than he ought to have done, which equity would compel
him to repay, and that these accounts were taken from
the books of the business. The defendant afterwards
told witness that the plaintiff's name " stunk in South-
ampton ;" that he had looked into the law of libel, and
could not be made liable for what he said.
Edward Pinnock, a member of the plaintiff's congre-
gation, deposed that the defendant arid two Misses Bur-
field called upon him and made similar statements to
the above, and said that " Mr. Hopwood would not be
able to hold up his head in Thatcham pulpit or in any
other."
It appeared, from the evidence of another witness
(Mrs. Arnold), that great excitement existed in the
village about this gossip, and that the plaintiff had put
it to the vote to expel Mrs. Barfield from the congrega-
tion till the statements against him were withdrawn.
John Carter, jun., deposed to being present at the
meeting at Thatcham chapel on the 18th of March,
when Mr. Hopwood said,—" Where are my accusers ?"
To which Mr. Thorn replied,—" I am your ac-
cuser." Mr. Hopwood said,—" I hear that you have
been calling me a rogue in the village." To which
Mr. Thorn replied,—" Stay a while and I will prove
you one." Mr. Thorn then read many letters and
a long statement of figures. After this, Mr. Hopwood
said, " Now you have made my character look so black,
if you can prove what you have stated I will be 100/. to
any charity ; and, it' not, you shall he 1001." Mr. Thorn
refused ; as also to go to Southampton to examine tise
books, "as it hed taken him a week to examine theta
already." At this period of the meeting some one said,
"We cant our dinners ; look at the time !" and the
meeting broke up.
The Rev. Mr. Ainslie, a Dissenting minister, residing
near the Regent's Park, was then called—He had known
the plaintiff and his character for many years. He knew
of hie being in business at Southampton. He had heard
of these reports, and went down to 'Thatcham in 1845,
and called on the defendant with a view of inquiring
into the matter. He entered into a correspondence with
Mr. Thorn. [Various letters were then put in, and
proved by the witness, some of them containing the
libellous matter complained of ]
On his cross-examination, it appeared that he had
gone to see Mr. Pinhorn, and that Mr. Pinhorn said,
" He had no charge to make against Mr. Hopwood ;"
but he admitted that he had made statements of com-
plaint to Mr. Thorn against Mr. Hopwood.
The Learned JUDGE thought statements made regard-
ing the plaintiff, relating to his former trade, and not re-
lating to his present calling as a minister, not actionable.
Mr. Sergeant TALPOURD then addressed the jury for
the defendant. He regretted that the present charge
should have been brought. He regretted that those
whose profession it was to compose differences should
have resorted to such a course. He thought it a cir-
cumstance to be regretted when persons were brought
up in trade, and lived to man's estate before entering a
profession, and had a background of life to look upon
which unfitted them for their profession. There might
be exceptions in instances of great talent or enthusiasm;
but the plaintiff was not such an instance. The results
of the present trial, if against his client, must be
lamentable, and he could not, therefore, but regret that
a more private tribunal had not been resorted to for
settling this difference. The Learned Sergeant then
went at great length, and with much eloquence, through
the evidence.
His LORDSHIP summed up, and the jury found a ver-
dict for the plaintiff—Damages, 2504
The cause occupied the whole day, and was not over
until nearly 7 o'clock in the evening.
February 19.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before the Loon CHIEF JUSTICE and
a Special Jury.)
THE LORD 3fAYOR OF LONDON V. PARRINSON AND ANOTHIR.
THE PATENT WEL.

This was an action brought by the Lord Mayor of the city
of London, on behalf of the
Corporation,against the
deferdants, manufacturers of the patent fuel, at
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, for the infringement of the Act of
Parliament in importing fuel into the port of London without
paying the usual duty imposed on coal. The real question
raised by the action was, whether or no the patent fuel was
coal within the meaning of the statute, and therefore liable
to the duty.
Mr. Sergeant Channel! and Mr. Willis appeared for the
plaintiff ; Mr. Martin and Mr. Hill for the defence.
Mr. Sergeant CIIANNCLL opened the case, stating that the
action had been brought to protect the revenue of the City,
which had been infringed by the defendants is importing
their patent fuel into the port without paying the usual duty.
The plaintiff maintained that the fuel was coal, imported in
its present form in order to evade the Act of Parliament, and
the present action was brought to try the question.
Evidence was then taken to prove the chemical character
of the fuel.
Prefessor Brande deposed to having analysed the patent
fuel, and found that a 1,000 parts contained 927 parts coal and
73 parts coal-pitch or tar, to make the former cohere; the
coal did not seem to hare undergone any change whatever,
but was in its natural state.
Messrs. Cooper and Jackson corroborated this evidence.
The former stated th At in several samples he had examined,
the coal was in the proportion of 900 to 940 to the 1,000 parts,
and while some portions were well mixed and compact, tithe);
were very friable.
Mr. Child, -a coal merchant, gave evidence to the effect,
that he did not recognise practically any difference between
the patent fuel and ordinary coal.
This way the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Ma Brix addressed the jury brietiy to the 0144 that. he
vi add prove that the materials of She patent fuel were in their

unmixed state almost useless, and that their value depended
altogether on the manufacturing process they were sub
milted to. The materials were made to undergo several
preparatory processes, and then introduced into a retort,
where they were heated to a red heat, well mixed together
by a revolving screw, and when the fusion was complete the
matter was run out, and formed into the brick-like pieces in
which it was found when sent into the market for sale.
James Gordon said he was the manager of Messrs. Parkin-
son aad Co.'s intiouf,,ctory, at Newcastle. He superin-
*tended the practical operations of the patent Mel. It was
made up of very small coal, the result of the second
screening. It could not be used for domestic
or steam purposes, and cost in that state about
three shillings a ton. It was then mixed with pitch,
and a little lime, which had been prepared for the union, and
the whole was submitted to the action of high heat in a re-
tort until all the materials were well mixed. It was then
run into moulds aid allowed to cool. (The witness here
described the process in detail, and by the aid of plans. The
apparatus had cost nearly 40,0001. The fuel was an article In
extensive demand. and sent all over the world. Its price
was about :20s. in London, and a ton and a half of it occupied
about the same mobil as a ton of ordinary coal.
Mr. Wallace, superintendent of the Gravesend Diamond
Steam-boat Company, deposed that for the last year they-
had used the patent fuel, and found it much superior to the
ordinary Newcastle coal. It did not yield so much
smoke, or block up the flues. It also produced steam
quicker. He did not think the coal-dust, of which
the patent fuel was made would he of use in steem-boats.
They could neither get heat nor steam from it.
John Napier, engineer, stated that he had also used the fuel
for steam-vessels, and found similar benefits to those stated by
the previons witness.

,
This was the case for the defence.
At the suggestion of his LORDSHIP, it was arranged that
a verdict should be found for the plaintiff, subject to be
turned into a special case for, the consideration and decision
of the Court above.

A verdict, subject to this arrangement, was then given,

COURT OF QUEEN'S RANCH, Feb. 19.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius at Guildhall, before Mr. Justice Erma
and Common Juries.)
THE MIDLAND GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY.—BYRNE V.
KEIGHLEY.
Mr. Cockburn was for the plaintiff, and Sir Frederick
Thesiger for the defendants.
This was an action, brought by the plaintiff, an engineer,
to recover 400/. from the defendant, Mr. Richard Kelley,
of Cleveland-row, St. James's, one of the managing com-
mittee of the above-mentioned company. The company was
projected in the autumn of 1845, when similar projects were
as " thick as flies on a summer's day," and was registered in
the name of a Mr. Holmes, its promoter, on the 24th of
September. The object of the line was "to form a more
direct communication between the towns of Reading and
Northampton." The committee of management applied to
the plaintiff, through their secretary, Mr. Kemp, on the 11th
of October, for the terms on which he would become the en-
gineer of the line. His terms were accepted—namely,
500/., 1001. to be paid down and the remainder on the
plans being deposited at the Board of Trade by the memora-
ble 30th of November, 1845, and an agreement to this effect
was dnly drawn up and executed on the 14th of October,
Mr. Holmes acting on behalf of the committee. Assistants
were to be engaged by the plaintiff, and were to be paid by
the company. Although the line was seventy-five miles in
length it was surveyed and the plans duly deposited. The
" panic," however, cut off the proj .ct in the midst of its
triumphs, as owing to the non-payment of the deposit it was
impossible to proceed to Parliament, and it fell to the ground.
The defendant was an active member of the committee.
The plaintiff's case, however, fell to the ground also in
consequence of the absence of Mr. Beales, the attesting wit-
ness to the agreement, who was called on his subpo3na, and
the plaintiff was accordingly non-suited.
ARCHES' COURT. Feb. 19.
(Before Sir H. J. FUST.)
THE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE PROMOTED BY TROWER V.

BURST, CLERK.

This was originally a cause of office, promoted under
the directions of the Lord Bishop of Chichester, against
the Rev. Mr. Hurst, rector of Thackham, Sussex, for
highly immoral conduct. The usual proceedings having
been taken, the Court pronounced the articles brought in
against the reverend gentleman proved, •and sus-
pended him ab officio et beAeficio for the space 'of three
years, condenned him in the costs, and directed
that the suspension Aould cootinua until the customary
certificate of gout] conduct w 21.4 ;odg, d in the court.
That decree w,is defy transmitted to the Consistory
Court of ChicheAer, to impound the profits of the bene-
fice. Sequestration issued to Mr. Butler, who entered
into an arrangement with Mr. Hurst, by which he was
allowed to continue in possession of the glebe land, on
condition that he paid a rent-cktrge. The rev. gentle.
man also occupied other land, on which there was a
su►u of 791. due for tithes under the Commutation Act.
Repeated applications had been made to him far the
payment of the moneys due, but he had tailed to comply
with them.

Dr. HAGGARD (with whom was Dr. Bayforti) con-
tended that the non-payment of these sums, inasmuch
as they constituted a part of the emoluments of the living,
was a disobedience of the sen:ence of the Court, and he
now prayed the Court to issue a monition against. Mr.
Hurst to show cause why he should not be pronounced
in contempt. In other cases where there had been a
disobedience of the sentence, not as regarded the profits
of the living, but in continuing to discharge ministerial
duties, that had been the course pursued.
The Learned JUDGE observed, that this was certainly
a very novel proceeding in this court. When a sentence
was pronounced, it was sent to the bishop of the diocese
in which the benefice was situated, who took means to
enforce obedience to the decree, and was, in point of tact,
the ecclesiastical sheriff. On him devolved the duty of
levying the sequestration, and taking care that the divine
offices were performed. A sequestrator was appointed,
whose duty it was to make a return to the registrar of
what had been done, thus assimilating the practice to
that pursued in courts of common law. If a sheriff could
not make a levy, he must make a return to the Court, and
resort would then be had to other means. If the Bishop
of Chichester had certified that he had appointed a se
questrator, that Mr. Hurst had refused to pay, and that
he (the bishop) was unable to enforce the sentence, the
monition now prayed for might have been granted; but
the Court could not direct it to issue on the present ap-
plication. This was a case of non-payment rather than
of receiving the profits of the living. He must, there.
fore, refuse the motion.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Feb. 19.
nr RE BARLOW.

An application of rather a novel Itiure was made in this
case. A marriage settlement was in existence, but the bank-
rupt had absconded, leaving his wife in great distress. The
assignees had got about 3001., and had taken the opinion of
Sir James Russell, who was of opinion that the
,ast,ignees
could legally apply the assets to the extent of one-third
towards the settlement, but if the Commissioner did not
approve, a short petition in bankruptcy should be presented.
The Learned COMMISSIONER (Holroyd) granted the appli-
cation.

SECONDARIES' COURT, Feb. 19.
(Before Mr. Secondary JAmts.)
GREENING AND OTHXRS V. WICHOLIN.
The plaintiffs in this action are manufacturers of cutlery at
Sheffield, and defendant is a cutler at Wolverhampton. The
claim was for 14/. 16a. 9d. for goods sold and delivered.
The plea was, not indebted, but the defendant had, under a
judge's order, admitted that two parcels of goods had been
delivered.
Mr. CHARNoCtr, for the defendant, admitted that the goods
had been received, but the second lot had been refused in
consequence of a dispute as to the discount, and the goods
remained at the railway office for some months. The real
defence was that the credit bad not expired. It appeared
thAt when the second lot of goods were refused defendant
offered a cheque for the amount, although the credit had not
expired, but it was refused, and it was then agreed that if
defendant took the second lot of goods, credit should be given
for the whole until Christmas, 1846, the original credit being
up to July.
The SECONDARY suggested that the plaintiff should submit
to a nonsuit It certainly was a question for the jury
whether they believed the evidence for the defend nt, but, if
they did, as a point of law he considered the plaintiff was
not entitled to bring his action.
Mr. SHIELD, the plaintiff's attorney, contended that the
plea "never indebted" was not sufficient to meet the me,
for at all events the first accour t had become due, and that
there was no consideration for the second contract.
The SECONDAAY held that there was a consideration on
the discount, if not on any other grounds; the giving up one
claim and substituting another debarred the legal claim on
the first account. He would, however, give leave to move
the Court above on that point, and if the plaintiff was en-
titled, to a verdict for 131.85. 6d., the amount agreed to be
the value of goods.
Mr. Shield elected to be nonsuited.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
WORSHIP-STREE7:
Henry Vawser, a shopman, in the employment of Messrs.
Parks and Co., linen-drapers, No. 76 and 77, High-street,
Shoreditch, was charged with robbing the firm of two lac,ies'
shawls and two pieces of ribbon.
Mr. Frederick Parkes stated that the prisoner had been in
their employment since the Ist of the present month only.
Witness received certain information which gave him every
reason to suspect the prisoner's honesty, and on Thursday he
(Mr. Parkes) distinctly saw him put something into his
pocket. Ho soon after left the shop and 'went up stairs, but
quickly returned. Witness subsequently went into the pri-
soner's bed-room, and in the great-coat pockets of the latter
he discovered the two shawls, the property of the firm, and
now produced. He left them there, and proceeded to the
station• house, and gave information of the robbery ; and it
was arranged that a constable should at once proceed to and
watch the premises. As was expected, the prisoner, at the
closing of business, about eleven o'clock, went out at the
private door, bat was at once taken into custody by the po-
liceman, who found the shawls in question upen his person.
Police-constable Ames, 198 H, deposed to his hav-
ing taken the prisoner into custody, and finding upon
him the shawls alluded to. Upon further searching him at
the station-house, two pieces of ribbon were also found upon
him in his trousers pocket. The prisoner addressed the pro
secutor, who had followed them to the station, thus :—" For
God's sake, Sir, forgive me this time, and I w ill never be
guilty of the like again."
The prisoner, on being asked if he had anything to say in
his defence, replied " Nothing ;" and he was about to be
fully committed to Newgate tor trial, when it was suggested
that if he were remanded for a few days it was more than
probable that other things would be brought against him, as
it was believed that he had been carrying on his nefarious
p ria,chtel cessut
go considerablea
ststion
lvasaccededexten
t.to, and the prisoner was
remanded.

-------------__-
; !ADVERTISEMENT.] --TEAS AT WHOLESALE PRICES,
No. 2, BUCKLERSBURY, CREAPSIDE.—FamiIies whose
consumption is large, and study economy, will derive
considerable advantage at this establishment. One uni-
form price is affixed, by which the purchaser of a single
pound can obtain it on the same terms as the trade.
Black Tea ...2s. Bd., Ss., 3s. 4d, 3s. Bd., 45., 4s. 4d., ss.
Green......... 38. 44., 3s. Bd., 45., 4s. 4d., 55., 65., 7s.
I Coffee. ....... 9d., 104., Is., ls_ 2d., is. 4d., is. 6d., ls. Sd.
i One pound sent free to any part of town. Orders from
the country forwarded the same day; and when the
quantity is for 61b. weight (tea only), the carriage is
Ipaid to any part of England.—.AANskaa. and Co.
wholesale tea dealers, 2, Bucklersbury, 'Cheapside.
DREADFUL ACCIDENT.—On Tuesday last nine
persons left Bi,!eford in the omnibus for 'Torrington, most of
them for the purpose of attending the rnarket at the latter
place. On passing the quay at Bideford the hores took fright
and plunged into the sea, when, dread'Ail to rela e, eight out
of the nine were drowned, the tide be'dp, up at. the time. !he • - •
driver of the vehicle was saved.