The Sun.
London, England, 1847-05-08 00:00:00

-guN, LONDON, SATUR.DAY M0RN.L1,42,0-, MAY 6, 1547.

great difference between destitution and moderatement. Nor did he think that the paupe.rse the
electoral districts ought to hzve any weight, for the fact, the
e
d . mplov-
residents in towns too often held out a premium for i auperism,
for the induced those who had been engaged in
country employments to settle there in the hole of
obtaining rack-rents frcm their proprietors, a, d if this
ell•suhatre had to a great
extent become of
ssystem
proprietorsste
in
o w for this
m to provide for the
extent been framed with a view
pauperism of the country. But, in fact, it was in the power
reallytn to s be altered,of the electoral districts as now provided to impose upon the
towns. Yet, he believed, that a great change would be
wrought by the payment of money wages instead of goods.
Many of the poor of the electoral districts now flocked into
,uenacned ofif thethis wantmode ofof einthpilnoyg-,
mtheent
in
the cotionntsre,
was to proceed, the towns would soon be in the
same position as the country, and the towns would
towns,
in
c
consequenly be ruined. The clause was, therefore, totally
unnecessary, for, if it were adopted, the relief committee would
be quite superseded, and the landlords would he quite unable
to improve their property in Ireland. It must be a matter of
great anxiety in that country, for it was evident that
if the principle of the clause was to be adopted, the lands ad-
joinirg the towns would have to bear the rates.—(Loud cries
of "Divide. divide.")
Loro DESART said that the best criterion would he the dif-
ferent rates which had been levied, and those which have to be
levied if these principles were to be applied. That difference was
bfourt
tihneu cr
eh
is,
ttsr stress
in
abnetel
butl ai d upono the
abmetowttenetno6f.!mdo.
naneyd 6obs.ta4t.d,
be recollected that the system pursued there was one grounded on
a habit of taking the rack-rents, and these rents were collected
weekly, so that while, in fact, the number of persons who had
to pay the rate had decreased, the rents in many cases had in-
creased. This was a strong fact, which he thought it
necessary to state, for between the census of 1;.31 and 1841,
there was a great difference, especially in the small towns;
and in one instance which had come under his own particular
knowledge, the population, which in 1831 was 5,431, had in
1841 been reduced to 4,152, and in another from 901 to 609.
Now, these facts showed that there was si,mething more than
the rental to be attended to in framing a law that was to regu-
late the rates.—( Cheers, and cries of " Divide, divide.")
Earl FITZ WILLIAM said that the clause was not rightly
applicable to all the districts, for in framing a poor-law for Ire-
land, they ought to take all the districts—the high rated dis-
tricts as well as those which were rated lowly. The matter
was of the utmost importance, as it was necessary to equalise
the rating between the town and country districts, and if this
benefit was to be obtained, they ought to take some other
means for it.

The Marquis of WESTMEATH conceived that the right
means had been adopted for accomplishing the ends which the
Government had in view, and he trusted that they would be
careful in the steps which they took, for if it were necessary,
he would take the responsibility of ascending the steps of the
throne, even though he was alone, for an improvement of their
plan.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE would relieve the Noble
Marquis behind him ( the Marquis of Westmeath) of his res-
ponsibility, by expressing his hope that the several Noble
Lords would take the course which the Government intended
to adopt, and pursue that line of conduct which appeared to
him to be most independent. —(Cheers.)
Lord 1311OUGHAM hoped and believed that the Noble
Marquis would not have to ascend the steps of the Throne
alone.—( Great Laughter.) (Loud cries of " Divide, divide.")
The Howe then divided—
Contents
Non-contents
Majority
The clause was then struck out of the Bill.
Clause 12 was agreed to.
On clause 13 being read,
Earl FITZ WILLIAM made a few observations, which were
inaudible in the gallery, and the clause was agreed to.
Clause 14 was agreed to, as well as clause 15.
On clause 17 the Earl of CLANCARTY said that some
measures should be taken for the more effectual collection of
the arrears of the rates.
Lord STANLEY said with reference to the observation of
the Noble Earl (Clancarty) that unless measures were taken to
collect each rate as far as it should be done, before another
was struck, the consequence would be, that those who illhd pay,
would in self-de fence be obliged to refuse papier t also, and they
would do it too. He thought her Majesty's Government should
give this matter their best consideration, otherwise the rates
would not be collected at all.
Clause 18 was also agreed to.
On the motion of the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, the fur-
ther consideration of the clauses was adjourned till Monday.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

-19

HOUSE OF COMMONS. May 7.
The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four o'clock.
THIRD READINGS.
The following Rills were read a third time and passed :
Caledonian Railway (Extension of Motherwell Branch of
Clydesdale Junction Railway to Auchinheath Mineral Field,
with branches to the Wishaw and Coltness Railway, Can-

derside, and Hamilton).
Caledonian Railway (Branches to Wilsontown, to Fauldhouse,
and to Biggar and Broughton).
Caledonian Railway (Branches from the Clydesdale Junction
Railway to the Douglas and Lesmahagow Mineral Fields
and to Strathavon).
Colchester, Stour Valley, Sudbury, and Halstead Railway
(Extension from Lavenham to Bury St. Edmund's).
Glasgow, Dumfries, and Carlisit Railway, and Glasgow,
Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway (No. 2).
Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway, and Glas-
gow and Belfast Union Railway (No. 1).
Manchester Markets.
Scottish Equitable Life Assurance Society.
Wolverhampton Gas.

REPORTS.
The following reports were brought up and ordered to be
engrossed :
Birkenhead (Commissioners) Dock Acts Amendment (con-
struction of New Docks and alteration of Culvert).
Birkenhead Dock Company and Herculaneum Dock Company

Amalgamation.
Caledonian Railway (Branch across Clyde and Glasgow

Station.)
Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway (No. 4).
Ipswich and Bury St. Edmund's Railway (No. I)—Extension
to Yarmouth.

The reports on the following Bills were further considered
and agreed to :
Shipowners' l'owing Company.
Terrington Marsh Division, Allotment, and Harbour.
Mr. GREFNE moved That. the order made on the 33 day of
this instant May, referring the petition of the Lancaster and
Carlisle Railway Company, against the North Western Rail-
way (Deviations at Skipton, Casterton, and Sedbergh)
to the Committee on the Bill, be read. That the said order
be discharged. That the petition be withdrawn.— Agreed to.
MEDICAL REGISTRATION BILL.
Petitions were presented in favour of the Medical Registra.
lion Bill, by Dr. Bowring, Mr. Tatton Egerton, and Captain
Berkeley.

State for the Home Department if, in eonformiy with the
recommendation of the Commissioners in Lunacy in their last
report upon Idayooek Lodge, the magistrates of the c,-,unty of
Lancaster, on the renewal of the license this year, have re-
quired the proprietor, Mr. Coode, to reside on the premises;
and also to provide a competent medical assistant, likewise to
reside in the asylum ?
Sir G. GREY, in answer to the question, said—l beg to
state, that originally a correspondence took place between the
Commissioners and the visiting justices on the subject of this
license, and the result was that it was only granted for a short
period. Upon its renewal the license was granted in
the name of Jr. Jackson, who resided on the premises,
arid he understood that, at the same time, security was taken
to insure the appointment of a resident medical officer ; and a
gentleman named Green, a most competent person, had since
been appointed to the office.
Mr. W. 0. STANLEY gave notice that, on Tuesday, he
should call the attention of the House to the report of the
Commissioners on this subject.

IRISH PAUPERS.
Sir B. HALL wished to ask a question of the Right Hon.
Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
Ho wished to know whether the Government had received any
information with respect to 2.5 rt Irish paupers sent to Liverpool
by the Mayor and inhabitants of Wexford, 130 of whom im-
mediately became chargeable to the parish of Liverpool? He
also wished to know whether any steps had been taken to prevent
the spread of disease consequent upon this influx of Irish paupers.?
He wished also to know whether it was the intention of her
Majesty's Government to take any steps to relieve the great.
pressure of the poor's-rates in various parts of England and
Wales, by the influx of those paupers ; and also, whether it was
the intention of her Majesty's Government to bring forward
any measure for the alteration of the law of settlement in
Ireland ?

Sor G GREY had received many communications upon
the subject ti the great amount of immigration of Irish pau-
pers to Liverpool. He had been informed that from the 15th
of January the number of Irish paupers who had arrived at Li-
verpool amounted to 181,000, of that-number between 40,400
and 50,000 had emigrated again from that port, or gone further
into the country. With reference to the adoption of mea-
sures to prevent he spread of disease , orders had
been sent to the port of Liverpool, ordering that
two ships should be set apart as lazarettos, or hos-
pital ships, so that all vessels coming into the Mersey
with deck passengers from Ireland shou'd be compelled to hoist
the yellow flag, and go alongside the lazarettos and put
their sick passengers on board. This measure had given great
satisfaction to the inhabitants of Liverpool. With respect to
the question of 250 paupers having been sent
from Wexford to Liverpool, it appeared that those
persons were wrecked on the coast of Wexf rd, and
that a subscription had been entered into by the Mayor and
inhabitants of Wexford to charter a vessel for the purpose of
carrying the poor people to Liverpool ; a letter was also
sent with them, written by the Mayor of Wexford, recom-
mending those persons to the justice and mercy of the
people of England. He was not able either to state that the Go.
vernment proposed to relieve the existing pressure upon the
poor-rates of the various parishes in England ..nd Wales, and
they were not prepared to make any alteration in the law of
settlement in Ireland.
IRISH ABSENTEES.
Sir W. BARRON wished to know whether any measure
was to be introduced, to send back the 11,000,0001. of Irish
property spent in this country by Irish proprietors, because he
thought that, if the poor were to be sent back, it would be but
right that the property should also be sent back.—(Laughter.)
RAILWAYS BILL.
Mr. HODGSON wished to know whether any alteration
was proposed to he made in the Railway Bill, which he saw
was appointed for the second reading on Friday next ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that it
was the intention of the Government to make some alterations
in the Bill. He thought that the better course would be to
allow the Bill to be read a second time sub silentio upon that
occasion, and after that to take the discussion upon the
Captain HARRIS said that he wished to ask the Noble
Lord, the First Lord of the Treasury, whether it was the in-
tention of her Majesty's Government to introduce any measure
to stop the continual exportation of wheat from this country ?
The return which he held in his hand, showed that 134,000
quarters of wheat went out of the country in the month ending
the sth April last, and there was reason to suppose that a
much greater quantity of wheat bad been exported in the pre-
vious months.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that it was not the intention of the
Government to introduce any such measure.
ARMY RETURNS.
Mr. F. MAULE said that two days ago the Hon. and Gal-
lant Member for Liverpool obtained assent to a motion as an
unopposed return. It was a return of the surgeons, paymas-
ters, and quartermasters, with the dates of their services. He
( Mr. F. Maule ) did not object to that, but the motion con-
cluded with an order for the grounds why those parties had
been excluded from the benefits of the recent advances made
its the officers of the army. He wished to make this state-
ment ere he made a motion on the subject, and he now gave
notice, that on Monday next, he would move that that portion
of the order be rescinded. Consideration for that department,
and the public service, required that this return should not be
rr lade.
INCREASE OF PENSIONS TO THE SOLDIERS.
In answer to a question from Captain LAYARD,
Mr. F. MAULE said that it was the intention of the Go-
vernment n
sot taos
troe ci onma
rme
aesned t
ht hee
il
at ei rma
at imo n
roaft
e theof w6da.r rtaonst
df.ts ramdearyl y
it .
Also, to provide for an extra pay for good service after 21 years.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. HORSMAN wished to know which measure the Go.
vernment intended to proceed with on Monday next. He
thought the Health of Towns Bill was in the list of orders for
that day.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied, that it was his intention
is proceed
theo that, ht h
Prisonsate
Chancelloran d
of the E
Transportation x Billah Exchequer
r Monday,
would
h t preliminary
b ring some business under the consideration of the House.

THE CURRENCY.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in bringing
Oils subject before she House, said that he knew that great
a. nxiety prevailed on this subject, and he trusted that he would
b e justified by its importance if he claimed the attention of
t'ne House to the few observations he had to make upon it.
le wished as briefly as possible to state what were the inten-
ti ons of the Government, and, in doing so, he need hardly say
t: sat the question had occupied the anxious consideration and
a. ttention if the Government. His Noble Friend and himself
h ad received from day to day numerous deputations of various
P artier, and they were in constant communication
vi ith those persons who were the best able to
give them information upon the matter.—( Hear. )
Ele did not wish to raise any discussion this evening upon the
subject of the currency. but he might at once inform the House
gnat the Government were not prepared to adopt any alteration
its the Act of 1844.—(Cheers.) Having made that declaration
I.,,htixievdiesmhteiein,gich, i also adsl, that the Government did not desire to in-
t, erf e r e with
aintgnehrdeeit
havhtnea accommodationwettnhemavtemraendrdepressed
which
still he was glad to say thatgPii commercial lent:chdsrane necessityTt
wtr
hLyafesol
riakmnme
oanntphrepeeye
stringenta appearance
market
from
present. i
might
'eithergh t
hemeasures,
n enti in the Bank of En arce of improve-
h happy to state that the bank had lifeoulnasdt
exhibited a receipt in gold and silver bullion of 400,000/.
lie should, on the usual day, the 1 •May, give the usual
notice for the exchange of Exchequer bills.
it indispensable to raise the rate bills from
d. of interest on new
tike day of exchange at 3d,
that the demand was fardiem.—(Hear, hear.) He was
condition to
snake advances on Exchequer irtesteulfrninfraomthe Bank
to move that the House do
He lessw than was expected, it nothhaveivng
e:xceeded 170,00 W.
usual to
not
ask for hills. He was happy to state
was also happy to state thatt
Tidy of pressure had passed Monday e seve-
rity
former occasions it hail been He
proposed onfor thepurpose
DI empowering the Government, by Act of Parliament, of
course, to pay interest on advances y
go over.nto Committee .
.
v discount. On
vs hole that might be due, but he did
proposed, therefore, to pay interest toytwish
of discount on all
slims of money paid previous to the ' '"
way
lath or 19th of June next.
A ny person who paid any portion of his • instalment previous to
the 18th or 19th of June, that might paymenthat
.o f theH e
would be entitled to receive discount :sfhoorft oidot
subsequent.y become
thaf
date
calculated from that
up to the period when the instalment That
was to say if any body paid up early
.would becomehis
May June instal-
ment, he would receive one month'ys interest, t or if he paid his
July instalment, he would be entitledutoetrweso,month's interest;
or if he paid his August instalment, he would be entitled to
three months interest, and so in like manner paying instalments
in June. He expected that a considerable sum of money would
be paid up in this way. sufficient indeed to enable the Exche-
quer to discharge its liabilities. He proposed now with the
permission of the House, to move that the House, should, on
Ald
e ei
interest
rrethe
inpurpose
advancesof hy consideringlvsy
ef an d
authorising
, go
the into
payment Com
Committee
of
st
dis-
count.
The motion was agreed tea
on
PUNISHMENT ON VAGRANT (IRELAND) BILL.
On the question being put for going into Committee on this
Bill,
Mr. P. SCROPE said he wished to ask a question of the
Noble Lord at the head of the Goverment. It was of the
utmost importance that this question should be decided, and
that the House and the country should know whether the poor-
law for Ireland was to be of a permanent, or only of a tempo-
rary character. If it were to be permanent for three years
only, much uncertainty would be created ; and he would draw
the attention of the House to the fact, to the belief, that if it i
were to he only of a temporary character, it would be worth-
less and hopeless. The poor would not confide in it, and the
rich would not act upon it, or in any way promote the general
welfare of the country ; for the absentee landlords, who are
now spending their incomes in France or Italy, would not
return to do their duty to their country, and look after
their property.--( Hear, hear. ) On the contrary, if it
were to be of a permanent character, it would be in
every way useful, and he trusted, therefore, that the Bill would
be of a permanent nature The people of this country had
come to the decision that the time had arrived when some
measures should be taken for preventing the people of this
country from falling into the deplorable state of misery
which
had fallen upon the people of Ireland. They had come to that
opinion from motives which were quite justifiable. He knew
that they had to maintain their own poor, and that unless some
provision of a permanent nature was made for the relief of the
poor of Ireland, the industrious people of England would come
into the condition of the potato-fed and miserably paid people
of that country. He therefore wished to ask the Noble Lord
whether he was prepared to-night to state what the permanent
character of the Bill would be?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the Hon. Gentleman had
asked him for an explanation as to whether the Government
should go on with the present Bill pending the proceedings in
another place. In the first place, he might answer, he was
more than ever convinced that such a Bill for the relief of the
poor of Ireland was necessary. Still, he he did not think that
a reason for postponing the present Hill. He thought, how-
ever, that if the general Billwaslinsited in its operation in
point of time, be could not ask the
House to pass the present
measure, which was of the general character, without a similar
limitation. He did not think it would be proper to give way to
a feeling of jealousy in regard to the proceedings elsewhere.
or that they should say, that unledssthe Poor Relief Bill was
passed in another place, they would not agree to the Vagrancy
Bill here. He hoped they wouldf
the l3l into
nt o Committee now,
and at some future stage eßill they could consider
whether they should introduce clauses to limit its duration,
or should the other Bill not pass, to refuse the present Bill
altogether. With regard to such a poor-law for Ireland as
they had agreed to, he was more than ever convinced of its ne-
cessity, and that the Bill as it had passed through that House was
He had only that day •
absolutely required. received a state-
ment respecting a poor 403. , who, for many years,
had been the serf or slave of freeholder,
landed a _
_proprietor, who having
accepted a small sum for his freehold, was
turned out and
allowed to starve, and his wife and child had (tied for want of
food refused by those on whose lands he had lived for many
years.—( Loud cries of " Name, name.) He
certainly should
not, but he thought no one could be blind to the circumstances
which were passing in Ireland, and the necessity there
was for an efficieot measure for relief. Though
this had not been the case, he certainly thought
that, in the transition state from the public,
works to the permanent measure for relief, thate proprietors
in the neighbourhood of the places where the poor people
lived, should find the means for that purpose. He would only
further remark, that two gentlemen who had hitherto opposed
out-door relief (Mr. Richards, the Commissioner, and Mr.
Gulson, the assistant Commissioner) had expressed their
opinion that in the present state of Ireland such relief
was necessary.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD hoped that the third reading of this

Bill wordd not take place until the House was put in pos-
session of the fate of the Bill in another place.
Mr. F. •FRENCH thought the question put by the
Honourable Member for Stroud was fairly answered
by the Noble Lord at the head of the Government.
He did not see any principle e hich could justify the Hon.
Member for Montrose in putting the question whether these
advances to the relief of Ireland should be postponed, untilshe
question at present under consideration in another place—he
meant the Irish poor-law—was settled. fhe Hon. Member
should remember that these advances were for the purpose of
meeting the distress which prevailed, and he could not accede
that Ireland should be dealt with in a different manner from
England or Scotland.
Mr. SHAW said that it was very inconvenient in discussing
what was passing in the other house, but he did not think that
they ought to pass the Bill referred to unless their was a right
to relief. He considered that it was very unjust in the Noble
Lord to refer to the case he did without giving the name of the
party, as by his so doing he made the case apply to a whole
class, which was neither just nor reasonable. He therefore
wished that the House would forbear forming an opinion on
that statement, for he did believe that the Irish landlords were
doing their best, under very difficult circumstances, to relieve
the distress.
Sir H. W. BARRON complained that many humane asei
philanthropic landlords in Ireland had been attacked in that
House for neglecting their duties, when, in tru' h, they were
struggling by all the means in their power under the most
adverse circumstances that men could be placed in to relieve
the poverty and distress that was about them. They should
recollect that Ireland had no native manufactures; that her
landlords were absentees, and spent their money here and
abroad, and that the soil was im; oserished in conse-
quence; and, therefore, Honourable Members who had
never been in Ireland, and who knew little or nothing
about that country went too far when they legislated
for Ireland in this way, and without an adequate knowledge
of her requirements. With all respect for his Hon. Friend
the Member for Stroud, he must say that this was a most im-
proper time for him to have brought forward his motion. He
( Sir W. Barron) had always been in favour of a poor-law for
Ireland ; but, at the same time, he objected to its being made
a permanent measure, and he had the same objection to this
measure being made a permanent measure, because he had
great doubts as to how it would work.
Mr. ROSS said he had looked upon the Bill as a hazardous
experiment, but he knew they must risk something, and there-
fore he should support it. He hoped, however, that no com-
binations would be entered into to prevent the carrying out of
measure.—( Hear, hear.) He hoped, at the same time,
that the poor-law would not be so mutilated in the other House
of Parliament, as to render it defective; if it were so muti-
lated, they would have to perform again all the work they had
done.
Mr. B. ESCOTT said vagrancy in Ireland was punishable
by transportation, and in order to discover how the present law
worked, he had moved for returns on the subject, and complained
that the returns had not been furnished. He stigmatised the
conduct of those who, acting in opposition to the Noble Lord,
had succeeded in mutilating the Poor-law Bill ; but he con-
sidered
that the Noble Lord✓ might now appeal to the country 1
with far greater confidence and sympathy than at any past
period of his administration.
Mr. TRELAWNY said Ireland had long recognised a per-
manent poor-law, and that was decidedly the feeling of the
House. He trusted the Government would persevere in '
endeavouring to pass the Poor-law Bill as left by that House.
The House then went into Committee on the Bill.
Clause lst was agreed to.
On clause 2 being proposed,
Mr. P. SCROPE proposed an amendment, to the effect
that the capability, of a man who deserted his family to support
them, should be inquired into before his conviction.
Mr. SHAW said the law referred to existed, and that
vagrants were liable to seven years' transportation. It was an
objectionable law, but it did not work the mischief the Hon.
Gentleman (Mr. Escott) seemed to conceive.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD said the law was not often put in
force, but prostitutes and disorderly persons were occasionally
brought up before grand juries at quarter sessions, in accord-
ance with it, and punished under it. It was a law which ought I
at once to be repealed.
Mr. SHAW said no persons were punished under the Act
unless there was presumptive evidence of crime against them.
Mr. B. ESCO'fT said the Hon. Gentleman's statement
confirmed Isis worst suspicions with respect to the existing law
of vagrancy, and that it placed a man in great danger of losing
his liberty for years if an act of simple vagrancy was proved
against him. In England men were not punished on presump-
tive evidence of crime. The law had been carried out against
several persons, as the returns he had moved for would show ;
and if he was not able to procure them, he should endeavour to
get them through some other source.
Mr. HENLEY considered it necessary that it should be
clearly ascertained whether a man had wilfully deserted his
family, or whether he had been compelled to leave them from
distress.
Mr. P. SCROPE explained. It was unfortunately a com-
mon practice in Ireland for men to desert their families, hut
they frequently did so from distress ; for instance, to work else-
where ; he simply asked them to introduce a proviso to pre-
vent. a man from being imprisoned three months, who had not,
in the strict sense of the word, deserted his family.
After a desultory conversation, the amendment was with-
drawn and the clause agreed to.
On clause 3 being read,
Mr. M. O'FERRALL suggested to the Government the
proprietary of limiting or defining the class of persons who
were to carry the provisions of this clause into effect.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said there were two classes of men-
dicants in Ireland; one living upon the hospitality of their
friends, wandering about from place to place, and the other de-
manding relief where their intimidating acts could extort it.
Now this clause was to suppress that state of things. The
country was more infested with mendicants and sturdy beggars
than this country before the law was passed for punishing wilful
mendicancy, and relieving the destitute poor. True
it would be difficult to effect the reform in-
tended to be brought about by this clause but the
wandering mendicant habits of a large body of the
Irish peasantry must lie changed before they could work any
good in that country, and he had, therefore, no hesitation in
pressing for the continuance of this clause in its present form.
Mr. M. O'FERRALL said the Noble Lord had misunder-
stood him. He did not object to the powers proposed to be
taken by the clause. All that he wanted was, that the exe•
cution of the powers should be trusted to cautious and discreet
hands.
Mr. GREGORY agreed with the Noble Lord that the
mendicant habits of the people was a curse to Ireland, and he
should certainly vote for the clause.
After a few words from Mr. BELLEW, who supported the
clause,
Sir WALTER JAMES said they were about to attempt a
dangerous experiment, for the confirmed habits of a people were
not so easily changed as some lion. Gentlemen might suppose.
Besides, it must be remembered that they were dealing with a
Roman Catholic people, who entertained a feeling that they
had a right to beg, and they ought therefore, to be the more
cautious in legislating upon this subject. He apprehended that
all that would be required, was now and then to make an
example of incorrigible mendicants, and he thought, instead of
the power to commit for the offence of begging being vested in
the hands of one magistrate, it ought to be extended to two
justices of the peace in petty sessions assembled.
After a few words from Sir G. GREY,
Mr. P. SCROPE said there could be no doubt that men-
dicancy was practised to a very great extent in Ireland, by
persons who were not really destitute. M►ny Irish beggars
had been known to give their daughters marriage portions,
while he found it, related by Mr. Carlton in his tales of the
Irish peasantry that in Ireland it not unfrequently happened
that a beggar called upon a farmer to beg a little meal, and
finding that he had none, offering to sell a peck, which he had
in his possession, below the market price. An effort he
thought, however difficult, ought to be made to put an end to
such a state of things as that.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. D. CALLIGAN said no one was more anxious to put
a atop to professional mendicancy in Ireland than he was ; but
it was a difficult task to alter the habits of a people. The
Irish people were remarkable for their hospitality, and he knew
many small farmers who took a delight in relieving all who
applied to them in the character of destitute poor. If they
could pass a Bill which should restrain the donor from giving
he thought they would be striking a blow at the root of the
evil ; but in the existing state of feeling and affairs in Ireland,
he could not consent to the passing of a Bill of pains and
penalties pressing wholly upon the poor.—( Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Lord Sandon, Mr. More O'Ferrall,
Sir D. Norreys, Mr. Young, and Lord Arundel,
Mr. P. SCROPE moved a verbal amendment.
The gallery was ordered to be cleared, but the amendment
was withdrawn without a division.
The clause was then agreed to.
The 4th clause, as amended, was agreed to ; so were 5,6,
7,8, and the other clauses.
The House resumed, and the report was ordered to be
brought up on Monday next.
POOR RELIEF SUPERVISION (IRELAND) BILL
No. 11.

On the order of the day for going into Committee on
this Bill,
Sir ROBERT FERGUSON remarked that the commis-
sion under this Bill was made permanent; whereas by the
English measure it lasted for only five years. The Hon- Ba-
ronet cursorily remarked several other minor differences be-
between the English and Irish Bills. He thought, if the twos
countries were to be similarly governed, the two measures had
better be the same ; and he wished to know from the Noble
Lord what was the reason for introducing these differences.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said with regard to one of the dif-
ferences alluded to by the Hon. Baronet' namely, that this
Bill was limited in its time of operation ; he had to state that
since the Bill had been introduced, the Government had re-
solved to alter this provision to five years, the time in the
English, Bill. It was impossible to expect that every provi-
sion of the Bills should be the same, considering the different
character of the two nations ; but the general principle exist-
ing in the English measure had been adopted tor the measure
far Ireland. Saving some small difference the Bills might be
said to he nearly similar.
The House thon went into Committee on the Bill.
Clause 1, after a few remarks from Mr. P. SCROFE, Mr.
LAaOUCHERE, and other Hon. Gentlemen, was agreed to.
As were clauses 2 and 3.
Clause 4 was agreed to as amended.
On clause 5, Sir R. FERGUSON remarked, the difference
between this provision and the corresponding provision in the
English measure, which required the secretaries, &c., to act
under a seal.
Mr. F. FRENCH agreed with the Hon. Baronet. Ac-
cording to this Bill, the officers, like all officers in Ireland,
were to be irresponsible. He complained that in the Board
of Works there was no one to answer for complaints.
The clause was then agreed to, as was clause 6.
Clauses 7 and 8 were postponed.
Clause 9, as amended, was agreed to ; so wits clause 10.
Clauses, from 11 to 14, were then agreed to.
On clause 15 being proposed,
Sir ROBERT FERGUSON proposed an amendment,
which he, however, immediately withdrew ; and the remain-
ing clauses having been agreed to, the House resumed. Re-
port on Monday.
POOR REMOVAL BILLLAND .)
(ENGLAND AND SCOT-
Sir G. GREY moved the second reading of this Bill.
Sir D. NORREYS complained that the Bill would injuri-
ously affect those Irish persons who had become residents in
this country.
Sir G. GREY said that the Bill did not materially differ
from the Poor Removal Bill which had been passed; the
only material difference was, that the process by which a person
was removed to his legal settlement, was more simple, more
expeditious, and less expensive than at present. Thus, if a
person became chargeable, he would be immediately summoned
before a magistrate, before whom he would be examined as to
his settlement, to which he would, in the ordinary course,
be removed • but he would not be removed because he wss an
Irishman. 'The House was no &mist aware that many com-
plaints had recently come fi om Liverpool, with respect to the
immigration of destitute Irish persons into that town—in fact,
to such an extent had this taken place, that the workhouse
accommodation was quite inadequate for their reception. If a
summons was applied for against any of them, it was wholly
inoperative, as the person to whom it was directed, could not
frequently be found. This would be remedied by the Bill
before the House ; as its object was to render it necessary that
parties coming over from Ireland, or from a place from another
part of this country, should at once be examined, and an order
made at once, if the case was a fit one for rem oval ; but no
one at present, not liable to be removed, would be removed
under this Bill.
Sir J. GRAIIAM said he should be glad to give his sup-

Fort to the Bill, but at the same time he could not help ex-
pressing his conviction that it would ultimately be found to fall
far short of the necessity of the occasion which bad led to its
introduction.—( Hear.) During the last few years great alte-
rations had been made with respect to the removal of the poor
both in England and Scotland. Till 1844 the burden of re- l
moving the poor was placed upon the counties, and. conse- I
quently, when it was a county charge and not a parochial one,
there was much less hesitation in carrying it into exe •
cution. He believed the task was so extremely one-
rous before the Irish pauper could be removed ; there
were so many obstructions and so many heavy charges
on the parishes that it was resorted to with reluctance ;
and, in addition, the pauper must be accompanied by an officer,
but he hoped that the time would come when the destitute
Irish poor would be relieved in their own country ; but until
that time did arrive, it would be better to consider whether
the destitute Irish poor could not be removed in a more sum-
mary and cheaper manner than at present. Yet though this
Bill _would remove some of the difficulties, it would not remove
some of the objections which now existed to the removal of the
Irish. With respect to Liverpool, the Right Hon. Baronet
( Sir G. Grey) had stated that he had adopted what he ( Sir
James Graham) considered proper measures of quarantine with
respect to the proprietors of members in the habit of bringing
over large numbers of destitute paupers; but if he was
rightly informed, the state of things in Liverpool was ex•
tremely anomalous. For instance, there was a stipendiary ma-
gistrate in Liverpool, who, because he entertained some scru-
ples with respect to the state of things in Ireland, would not
grant warrants for the removal of destitute persons to Ireland,
unless a mandamus was moved for in the Court of Queen's
Bench; therefore the law relating to the removal of the poor
was suspended by a stipendiary magistrate. But this was not
all ; the Liverpool ratepayers wished to get the destitute
Irish distributed over the whole country, and money had actu-
ally been advanced to pass them, by the aid of cheap trains, to
the metropolis. What would this lead to? It would infallibly
lead to disease, and the English labourer would be
brought, of necessity, to the condition of the Irish labourer.—
( Cheers.) Disease, poverty, and misery would, therefore, be
spread throughout the metropolis —( Hear, hear)—and the Go-
vernment would ultimately be compelled to resort to mea-
sures to send the destitute poor to their own country. This
measure, so far from being sufficient for the emergency, would
be found vastly insufficient, and must come again before Par-
liament, when measures equivalent to the necessity which
required them, would be found indispensable.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. P. SCROPE thought a change absolutely necessary,
and that the present shuttlecock system ought to be done away
with. They ought, at all events, not to rest till the soil of
Ireland was made to sustain the Irish poor.
Mr. FRENCH objected to the Hon. Member for Stroud
always referring to the conduct of the people of Ireland in those
matters relating to England.
Mr. CARDWELL called the attention of the Hon. Mem-
ber fur Roscommon to the condition of Liverpool during the
last few tenths. Liverpool, which with a population of
300,000, bad had added to it 100,000 destitute Irish persons,
who had been treated by the inhabitants of that town in the
most exemplary manner. Now the object of the present Bill
was to afford a relief to this state of things.
Sir W. BARRON agreed with the Hon. Member for Mayo
in his objection to the portion of the Bill relating to the
removal of the Irish poor from England. The Bill empowered
magistrates in the most summary manner to take up any per-
son on the suspicion of pauperism, and send them out of the
country. Now if Ireland was a portion of the United King-
dom, he could not see how such an arbitrary law should exist.
He could not see how they should apply a different law to Ire-
land, to that they would impose on Scotland or Yorkshire. A
more dangerous, unwise, and impracticable measure was never
devised by any man having common sense. It was a law more
adapted for Russia, than a country professing to be free.
Lord SANDON was surprised at the indignation expressed
by the Hon. Member. Were it really intended to deprive the
people, coining from Ireland to this country, then there might
be some reason for it. But this was not the object of the Bill.
Its object was to do away with a technical objection which pre-
vented the proper working of the measure, the intention of
which was to provide for the removal of those who could not
give any explanation that they were not paupers, and likely to
become dependent on English relief.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER hoped the
statement of the Noble Lord would satisfy those who had ex-
pressed themselves against the Bill. He must say he had
been much surprised at the speech of the Hon. Member for
Roscommon, which proceeded on an entire misunderstanding
of the Bill. It was a measure applicable to all parts of the
empire alike—whether Scotland or the Isle of Man, as well as
Ireland. It was provided that wherever a person became
chargeable to a parish in England, if he was a native of any
of those places, he could be removed there. A simi-
lar provision existed in the Scotch poor-law, as ap •
plied to the natives of England, the Isle of
Man, or Ireland.—(Hear.) At present a summons
was necessary in order to effect a removal; but the circum-
stances of Liverpool, from the immense number of paupers
there, were such, that the present alteration was proposed,
which was, that the overseer, or relieving officer, who was
applied to for relief should have the power to take the party so
applying before a magistrate, who had the power, on examina-
tion, to order a removal. The whole object of the Bill was to
dispense with the: service of the summons. and he must
say, that he could not see in the Bill any peculiar hardship to
Ireland. _ _ .

Sir H. W. BARRON did not object to the poor being
removed from England to Ireland, but he really did object
to the monstrous provisions of thif Bill.
Mr. P. SCROPE explained.

Mr. WAKLEY much regretted having heard the speech of
the Hon. Baronet who had just sat down, calculated, as it was,
to produce ill feeling in Ireland. After the millions this coun-
try had voted to Ireland for her relief, he was surprised to hear
the language used by the Hon. Baronet, particularly when he I
remembered that had the landed interest of Ireland done their
duty towards the poor of their own country, much of the pre-
sent misery would have been averted. Notwithstanding that,
the Hon. Baronet considered the present proposed relaxation
of the law was unjust, he very much feared the law would still
remain inoperative, owing to the great expense which the
removal of the poor involved. Why, in his own
parish, or rather a parish in this metropolis with which he was
recently connected, of all the removals that took place every
eleven out of twelve were Irish paupers. Why, then, did the
Honourable Baronet use such language as he had done to that
House. Had the Hon. Baronet read the return which had re-
cently been made uponthe present state of the poor in Ireland?
If he had he must have seen that in Cork hundreds, nay,
thousands were dying of fever without a hand to help them to
a cup of water to quench their burning thirst. What were
the Irish gentry about ?—( Hear, hear.) It was time
this country spoke out. Already the ill effects of this neglect
ou the part of the Irish gentry had made their appearance,
within a few miles of this metropolis. He grieved to say it,
but it was too true, that the typhus fever had broken out in
many of the metropolitan workhouses, and it was high time the
voice of this country was heard. He understood that in an
other place a successful attempt had been made to restrict the
operation of a poor-law for Ireland, but be warned the Irish
landed interest that the time was coming when this country
would be compelled, in self-defence, to force such a law upon
them.
Mr. FORBES said he was unfortunate enough to have taken
an unpopular view of the Irish question, but still he did not
object to the passing of this Bill, though he must protest
against the abuse which some Hon. Gentlemen in that House
were continually heaping upon Irish landlords. As a body
the landed interest of Ireland bad strove hard to do their
duty, and it was too bad that they should be subjected to abuse
because they could not mitigate all the evils that surrounded
them without having recourse to some adventitious aid.
Mr. GRAINGER said m his opinion Irish Members had a
perfect right to object to the passing of this Bill. Its powers
might be necessary, but there was no protection against their
being abused.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it appeared to him,
from what had fallen from the Hon. Gentleman who had just
sat down, that Irish Members did not object to the principle of
the Bill, but only to the manner in which it was proposed to be
carried out. He had therefore thought that this discussion
would have produced more beneficial and effective results, had
it been deferred till they got into Committee on the Bill.
Sir ROBERT FERGUSON did not deny that the distress
mentioned by the Hon. Member for Finsbury was terribly
severe, but still it did not follow that the guardians and
relievers of the poor had not done their duty. If the Hon.
Member would move for a return of what they had done, he
would find that they had been most energetic in their efforts to
mitigate the distress and suffering, while several of the resident
gentry had fallen victims to their praiseworthy exertions to aid
in assuaging the prevailing [misery of the people. No doubt
there were instances where the guardians had neglected their
duties, but in far the greater number of instances (and the
absence of many Hon. Members from that House proved the
assertion) they had nobly remained to adminster to the sick in
their neighbourhood.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed.
On the question that the House resolve itself into Committee
of Supply,
POST-OFFICE ARRANGEMENTS IN THE
HEBRIDES.

Mr. H. I3AILLIE rose to call the attention of the House
to the defective postal arrangements in the Hebrides. The Hon.
Dumber said that hitherto the only means of postal communi-
cation with Long Island, one of the Hebrides, was by a packet
maintained at the joint expense of Lord Macdonald and Col.
Gordon, the two principal proprietors. A few years ago Col.
Gordon withdrew his contribution to the support of the packet,
and in consequence of the many and repeated calls upon him,
caused by the distress at present existing, Lord Macdonald
had threatened to withdraw his proportion also. The people would
thus be deprived of all post-office communication. He had '
thought it necessary to call the attention of the Government
to the subject, in the hope that they would adopt some means
of affording this very necessary accommodation.
Mr. PARKER said that although no official report had
been made to the Treasury, he had no doubt the attention of
the Postmaster would be given to the subject.
SUPPLY.
The House then went into Committee.
A vote of 453,7561. was taken for defraying the charges of
the Commissariat department.
A vote of 40,6461. was taken for the half-pay and pension
allowances.
On the proposition that a vote of 50,0001. be taken for the
works on the Caledonian Canal,
Mr. HUME and Mr. WILLIAMS objected on the grounds
that the canal was worthless as a national work.
After a desultory conversation, the vote was agreed to.
The vote 0 20,476/. for the paving and lighting, &c., public
buildings in Ireland was agreed to.
The vote of 25,000/. for the salaries and expenses attending
the Houses of Parliament was agreed to.
The following votes were agreed to:-
26,9001., for salaries and expenses in the department of
the Treasury.
16,4001., for salaries and expenses in the Home Depart-
ment.
71,0007., for salaries, &c. in the Secretary' office for Fo •
reign Affairs.
18,0001., for salaries, &c. in the Secretary's office for the
Colonies.
37,7001., for salaries in the offices of the Privy Council.
2,000/ , for salaries in the office of the Lord Privy Seal.
26,722/., for salaries in the offices of the Paymaster Ge-
neral.
The next vote proposed was 15,8231. for the salary and
expenses of the office of the Comptroller-General of the Ex-
chequer.
Colonel SIBTHORP opposed the vote on the ground that
the office was an useless one, and ought to be " knocked off.'
—lt was, however, agreed to.
The next vote was 2,620/. to pay the salaries of the officers
and the expenses of the State Paper-office—which was also
agreed to.
3,4401. was next proposed to defray the expenses of the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners to the 31st of March last.
Mr. WILLIAMS opposed the Bill on the ground that the
expenses of the commission ought to be paid out of the ample
revenues of the Church.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL explained that it was arranged at
the time the commission was appointed, that its expenses
should be paid by the State.
Mr. HUME urged the Noble Lord to postpone the vote
until the mode in which the money was expended was laid in
'AI
detail be:.cire the House. The Hon. Gentleman the Member fo
altlon had a motion on the paper for that purpose—sot
the House would soon be in a position to judge of the thaexpen-
diture.
Mr. GOUL BURN defended the Church, and considered
that the State ought to pay for the expense of the Commis-