The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-10 00:00:00

notice of those expressions, because he believed they
were used in the warmth of debate, but when the Noble
Lord, the premier of this country, rose and told him
that he had not learned his own language—(Laughter)
—he thought it his duty to rise and defend himself from
such a charge. He did not know on what authority the
Noble Lord had made use of these expressions. A puff
or a joke was all very well, but he did think that such
language from the Noble Lord was unbecoming and
unworthy of him.
The matter then dropped, and Mr. Hume passed on
to the opposite benches: and took his scat for a few
moments, amid considerable cheering and laughter, by

the side of Mr. Spooner.
Mr. FOX MAULE then replied to the question of
the Hon. Member for Westminster. He said the matter

should be taken into consideration.
Mr. ELLICE said, when he was Secretary-at-War,
he believed, as well as his memory would serve him,
that the men referred to had their pensions commuted
for two or three years' pay; but the men spent
the money they received in public-houses, and were
found wandering about London in a state of destitution,
so that they were unable to fulfil their promise, and to
make their way to America, but some of their comrades
have found their way from America to this country.
He considered their case worthy of the seri-
ous attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
and recommended it to his attention. There were, it,
appeared, but fourtken persons, and the expense of allow-
ing them a small pension would not be considerable. He
would not say whether it was or was not creditable to
this country, to have persona who had served them
wandering about in a state of destitution.
ROMAN CATHOLIC SOLDIERS.
Mr. MACARTHY inquired whether the Hon. Gen-
tleman the Secretary at-War intended to take any vote
for the purpose of finding Roman Catholic soldiers with
religious consolation from the ministers of their own
religion ?

Mr. F. MAULE said provision was made for Roman
Catholic soldiers receiving the consolation of
their religion both at home and abroad.

THIRD 'REPORT OF THE RELIEF (IRELAND)

COMMISSIONERS.
Sir D. NORREYS rose to make the motion of which
he bad given notice. The report of the Commissioners
imputed to the great mass of the Irish people a profli-
gate venality, and the House was bound to grant to Irish
Members an opportunity of disproving the sweeping
charge, of fixing the charge where it justly attached,
and of separating the innocent from the guilty. The
Commissioners were bound also to justify themselves
for making such statements, and to this purpose it was
necessary that the correspondence with the inspectors
from whom they derived the information on which they
based the accusation should be laid on the table. He did
nut look upon this question as one merely involving the
holding up of two or three persons before the country,
but he regarded it as a matter in no small degree bear-
ing upon the interests of Ireland. That country was in
a state of transition. A large portion of the higher
gentry were absentees, and their example was conse-
quently lost to the country, while the class into whose
hands the management of its affairs had fallen were new
to the transaction of public business. They had not yet
in Ireland got into the habit of that strict attention to
public business which was desirable, and errors no doubt
were committed; and he also believed that, where errors
were committed by individuals, they might in the
great majority of cases be traced to a kindly feeling, and
to an ardent desire to give relief rather than to any
fraudulent intention.—(Hear.) But even should the
contrary be the case, he contended that such disclosures
as would be made by the publication of the present
correspondence, if true, would be the greatest possible
benefit, for it would teach the people in future to show
more caution in their conduct. He knew no real check
for abuses of this description but bringing public opinion
to bear upon those who had offended. As a general rule
he believed that men did not do what was just and right
so much for its own sake as from a wish that it should
be believed:by others that they did so; and in accordance
with that view he believed that if they brought offenders
before the public, they would do more to raise the public
character of Ireland than by any other means that could
be proposed.—(Hear, hear.) In the observations he had
made he had sedulously avoided saying anything against
the Commissioners. :He believed they had conscien-
tiously reported on the faith of the statements made
to them; but at the same time he could not place this
confidence in all the officials who had been employed by
the Government. From many places reports of the
most exaggerated character had been made, as had been
clearly proved upon investigation. He believed it would
be found that in many cases the reports would admit of
explanations, and that in others they were gross exag-
gerations.—(Hear' hear.) It had been stated by the
Noble Lord (Lord John Russell), that there would be
an investigation into the character and conduct of magis-
trates ; but did the Noble Lord suppose that it was
really worth his while to do so ? Did he think that the
mere dismissal of one or two magistrates—or merely
censuring them, for he did not think it would go beyond
that—would be satisfactory to the country ?—(Hear.)
Indeed he would make very light of the circumstance,
whether magistrates had acted in this instance rightly or
not, because, from the state of the country, people had
been too often appointed magistrates who ought not to
have been placed in that position.—(Hear.) What the
people of Ireland would look for was, that publicity
should be given to the offenders whoever they were,
and he knew that there was in Ireland a sufficient
amount of honourable feeling to put a stop to such prac-
tices for the future.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Baronet
then moved, that " There be laid before the House so
much of the correspondence on reports of the inspectors,
under the Act 10 Victoria, chap. 7 (with the name, rank,
and residence of the parties referred to), as sustains the
statements made by the Commissioners of Relief in their
third report, condemnatory of the conduct of committees
or of individuals, in carrying out the provisions of the
said Act."
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN did not blame the Hon.
Member for Mallow for bringing the subject before the
House, but be did not think it advisable to publish
these cases now that Parliament was about to break up,
and the parties who might be falsely accused would have
no opportunity of making any explanation to that house.
Messengers from the Lords appeared at the bar and
summoned the House to hear the Royal Assent given by
commission to a number of public and private Bills, for
the names of which see the Lords' report.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN, in continuation, said that he
should feel it his duty to resist the motion of the Hon.
Member.
Mr. LABOUCHERE was ready to admit that the
Relief Commissioners had stated to the Government
that some of the relief committees were not in the
habit of discharging truly and faithfully their
duty. These cases, however, he was happy to say,
formed the exception and not the rule. He thought
that the motion of the Hon. Member, that there should
be laid before the House so much of the correspondence
or reports of the inspectors under the Act 10 Vic. c. 7,
(with the name, rank, and residence of the parties re-
ferred to), as contains the statements by the Commis-
sioners of relief in their communications to the Govern-
ment, would, if carried out, be attended with a good
deal of useless and most vexatious inquiries. Ile
could not agree with the statement that there was a
wide difference between the conduct of a person in the
magistracy and a party in a lower station of life. lie
did not know that he need trouble the House any fui ther
upon this subject. He did not agree with his Hon.
Friend the Member for Mallow that this iuquiry would
be short and satisfactory, and when he remembered that
the inquiry into the conduct of Captain Wynn had
occupied the attention of a Committee up stairs more
than thirteen weeks, and had involved the Government
in an' expense of 20,0001., he did hope that the House
would not agreed to this motion.—(Hear, hear.)
CONFERENCE WITH THE LORDS ON THE
JUVENILE OFFENDERS BILL.
Sir JOHN PAKINGTON reported that the Lords
required a conference with the House upon the subject
of the Juvenile Offenders Bill, and had appointed a meet-
ing in the Long Gallery immediately.
The Members having returned from the conference,
Sir J. PAKINGTON reported the result thereof to
the House.
Capt. JONES thought that the Hon. Member bad
acted very properly in bringing the subject before the
House at the present time.
Mr. ROSS considered that, under all circumstances
of the case, it would be highly desirable that the returns
moved for by the Hon. Member for Mallow should be
granted.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, when there
appeared— 19
For the motion
Against it
_BO
Majority against the motion 6l
into
Committee On the order of the day being read for going
,aoinraittee of Supply,
Lord CLEMENTS put a question to the Chancellor
of the Exchequer with respect to the system of relief to
be acted upon with respect to some of the rural districts
of Ireland.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated
in reply, the same system of distribution of food would
be continued, as had latterly been adopted.
War~ltr.
FERRAND wished to pat a question to the
Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary
Department with respect to a statement made by the
lion. Member for Bath Mr. Roebuck), wthrericeeffoecftdrtubgast
medical officers of unions could recover the
supplied by them. He wished to know whether such
statement were true.
Sir G. GREY said that he believed provision
was
made in special or sudden cases of illness, for allowing to
the medical officers the price of medicines that might be
administered.
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.
The House then went into Committee of Supply.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that the first vote that he should place in the hands of
the chairman, would be a vote of 182,200/. forcothe-
poor-law expenses. The salary of the chief el-
missioner under this Act, was proposed to be 2,0001.
per annum, and that of the two secretaries, 1,5001. per
annum each. Under the old law, the salaries of the
three commissioners was 6,000/. per annum, and that of
the secretary 1,000/., a saving would therefore be effected
under this head of expenditure of a sum of 2,000/. per
annum.
After a few words from Mr. FERRAND and Sir G.
GREY, on the subject of the inefficient remuneration to
medical practitioners under the poor-law,
Mr: WAKLEY said that the medical men of this
country were the worst paid of any profession in the
country, and he thought that the system could not much
longOr be staved off. The system of letting out a num-
ber of paupers by contract, was a most disreputable one,
such-as no gentleman would adopt with regard to his
stud of horses, or his kennel of dogs. He did not think
that this vote ought to be agreed to until the Bill
was before the House. He had heard that two of the
most important clauses had been expunged in another
place.
Mr. WILLIAMS said that he was not aware of the
Vature of the Bill, or the alterations that had been made.