The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-03 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY , MORNING, MARCH 3, 1847.

rIIPERIAL PA RLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, March 2.
The Loan CHANCELLOR took his seat on the 'Woolsack at
Five o'clock.

POOR-LAW (IRELAND).

The Duke of RICHMOND presented a 'petition from the
rate-payers of Enniscorthy :complaining of the present Poor-
law in Ireland.

SPIEIT DUTIES.

The Duke of RICHMOND laid on the table a peti.ion
from the agriculturists of Sussex against the proposed reduction
in the duty on spirits,

LAW OF SETTLEMENT.

The Duke of RICHMOND, after presenting a petition from
the guardians of the poor of Hastings, praying their
Lordships to repeal the law of settlement of last
session, and that the poor might be supported by a
national rate, on real as well as personal property, proceeded to
move the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the opera-
tion of the law. As he believed no objection would be offered
to the motion, he should but briefly advert to the reasons
by which he was actuated in making it. Few agreed with
respect to the real object of the measure, and the
Attorney and Solicitor-General had put a different construc-
tion on the Bill to the one put by those who framed it. Some
said that it was of a retrospective character whilst others enter-
tained a different opinion. Thus great complexity had been
introduced, and as many of the quarter-sessions had
decided against the opinion of these Learned Gentlemen, great
litigation had been the result, and would, no doubt, continue
until an alteration took place. Even the auditor of a union,
if he entertained a different opinion, might disallow relief;
and the question would have to be removed from the quarter-
sessions by certiorari into the Queen's Bench, but owing
to the great arrears of business great delays
would take place in deciding particular cases.—(Hear.)
The Bill was unjust to the rate payers, and most pre
judicial to the poor, as they had no definite opinion as to what
place really was their settlement, so much difference of
opinion prevailed. The measure was one of those hastily
introduced at the close of the session, and passed when
many of their Lordships were out of town. As the Act had
worked most injuriously. he thought] it was right that
the matter should be inquired into by a Committee.
The ground upon which he rested his motion was the one
universal feeling expressed by all parties' that some change
was necessary. The Government, if they did not repeal the
law, ought at all events to bring in a declaratory Act, declaring
what the state of the law really was. It was not necessary to
go further into the merits of the question, as the Noble Lord
had intimated his intention of not opposing the motion.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that the Noble
Duke had made a very good Parliamentary case
in support of his motion. It could not be dis-
puted but that very great abuses and disputes had arisen re-
specting the operation of the law. A Committee of the Lower
House had been appointed, who had made a special report upon
the subject ; and he would put it to the Noble Lord whether
he would not postpone his motion until they had time to see
what steps would be taken in accordance with that report.
Lord BROUGHAM said that there was no doubt that the
Act had been framed very carelessly, and when their Lord-
ships looked to the Aet they would not be surprised that it was
so ; he found that it was passed on the 26th day of August last.
Now, for the 14 days previous to that date, their Lordships were
very little inclined to pay attention to pauper removal from
parish to parish, being engaged in a totally different descrip•
tion of removal—namely, to their coun' ry seats or to
the Continent —( Hear, hear.) He would observe that none
of the petitions prayed for a total repeal of the law. They
only sought an alteration in the law, which, in fact, was neces-
sary to snake it tolerable, which it was not in its present state.
He had often complained of this careless legislation. He
found that out of five hundred and ninety laws, which had
been the sum of their legislative labours during last session,
the greater portion of them had been passed subsequent to
this, which had been so justly complained of. The opinion
of Mr. Hill had been t.kcu upon the conduct of the
Poor-law Commissioners, and he gave his answer
upon the case as it was put before him. The
The Noble Lord (Lyndhurst) and he were of the same
opinion with Mr. Hill. Mr. Hill gave an opinion upon a case
stated to him, but the slightest difference in facts might have
totally altered that opinion. Mr. Hill had not the slightest
idea that that opinion would be made public ; for aught he
knew the case might have been submitted by the Poor-law
Commissioners themselves ; indeed, he ( Lord Brougham) was
not sure that it was not. But it was stated that
Mr. Hill had taken a great deal upon him in this
case. Why, he only gave an answer to the
question put to him, and he could not see that any man could
do less. But Mr. Hill, when Member for Hull, in 1833, was
so far from an adversary, that he was a decided supporter of the
poor-law measure, and he had not yet changed those opinions.
Lord CAMPBELL heartily concurred in the propriety of
granting the Committee asked for by the Noble Duke. He
thought his Noble Friend had made out a decided case for such
appointment. There ought to be a clause in the Poor-law Act
which would give to an individual resident of so many years
standing a claim upon the parish with which he was so long
connected. The system had worked well in Scotland, and
ought, he thought, to be carried out in England and Wales.
Lord BEAUAIONT could not refrain from pointing out
h thatich tthhee
purpose Noble oLord h
the
had
ti
lfawllaean.
to Thee Na cis
ebtl
talineomree
drernhotradiinnstatoihde7parish to a person who had resided in it for so
manyaa,
he conceived that the very fault of the Bill
was, conferred no such claim. He object for
that years.
it Now,
which the Bill was framed was not carried out in this Bill.—
( Hear, hear.) The authorities of the parish could not, it was
true, compel the pauper to remove, but they could make him
miserable by petty annoyances—they could plague him in
every way, and so induce him to go, and thus the provisions of
the law were thrown aside.
Lord CAMPBELL agreed with the Noble Lord, that it
would be better if the provisions of the Act were carried out
more efficiently, but the fact was that the public mind was not
prepared at the time for a larger measure. But the Bill was
so far good, that it laid the foundation for future reforms.

The Duke of RICHMOND replied he was opposed to any
settlement like that contended fcr. He had read the report to
which a Noble Lord had referred, and which was before the
other House,and from a perusal of that document he wat, more
than ever strongly of opinion as to the necessity of the Com-
mittee for which he asked.

The motion was then put and agreed to, without any
amendment.

RAILWAYS IN IRELAND.

Earl FITZ WILLIAM presented a petition from the
grand jurors of Wicklow, in favour of railways in Ire-
land. He was not going to enter into a long dis-
cussion, which had been decided some days ago in another
place; but he did not think he would be doing his duty to-
wards England, if he did not offer a few observations to their
Lordships. He had often drawn the attention of their Lord-
ships to the resources cf Ireland. The effect of the present
calamity in Ireland would not be confined to the mere loss of
the article of food, but would operate most disastrously in
other ways; and it would, therefore, be necessary to provide
means of employment. Twenty-four or twenty-five millions,
more than half the rental of the country, had been destroyed.
The rental of this country was 62,000,000/., and if 90,000,000/.
had been destroyed, would not English gentlemen consider it
a case calling for relief of the most comprehensive character.
He did not think that the proposition which had been intro-
duced into the other House for granting money for the con-
struction of railways was an ill-advised measure, as he consi-
dered, if it had been passed, that it would have gone far to
remove the distress. He did not think that it would have
been a substitute for the works that had been going-On for the
last six months ; but still a measure of the kind to which he.
had referred, woultilaVigiven einploymei.t to vast, numbers
of the people. " Certainly the measure did not deserve the
ridicule which bad been cast upon it. What was wanted was
to make the land of Ireland as oroductive as possible, and this
would have been a step in the right direction. On the Con-
tinent, they would find that all great public,works were car-
ried out by the Governments of the various'eountries People
in this country were too apt to judge Ireland by England, and
to consider that great public works could be carried out in the
same way as here; but. if they waited until private enterprise
carried out public works like railways, they must wait
for a considerable time. The state of Ireland prevented the
capitalist from embarking his money in Irish speculations.
He did not wish to undervaiu, the loan of one million and a-
half which had been made to the landed proprietors in Ireland,
but he did cousidei that there had been a very great disposition
to over-rate its effects. He beard that all the landlords were
looking for a share of it, and he would remind the House that
if such were the case, and if it were divided, it would only
amount to nineteenpence per statute acre. He did not deny
that there would be some lucky individuals who would be able
to improve their estates by the loan, but they would only be
individuals, and it should be their desire to improve the coun-
try generally. If a proprietor of twenty thousand acres. and
with an income of 4,00;1. a year, wanted to improve his estate,
he could not borrow less than a sum of 10,000/., which could
immediately subject him to a repayment of 6501. a year.
He gave credit to Irish proprietors for a greal deal more
good sense than the English press were willing to give there,
and he believed that any prudent Irish gentleman would think
twice before he would embark in a speculation which would sub •
jest him to such a large immediate outlay, and the benefit of
which would be only prospective, after a long series of years,
and after repealed negotiations with lessees, and sub-lessees,
and occupiers. He believed that the Irish proprietors were
wisehst gentlemen morers prudent than they got credit for. But what was it that
eant
had been
Tthheeylasptrsoixpomse
thing that months;
they they proposed the • • suggested
substitution of re-productive for non produc
tive works.—( Hear, hear.) -
d They called aloud for the construc-
tion of railways ;
might be introduced inan the
oucladrrying out of the sys-
tem,He must say that the suggestions made greatly preponderate.
ofin heland for the im-
provement of the country were worth attention. But the
House ought to remember that these' improvements must be
carried on on a grand scale in order to meet a great
But it was said that these loans from the Board ofr vtvoerxkigsency.
were
not to be repaid. What did the report of the Commissioners
say? ? They said, " that the re-payments were in generalers
made with great regularity." With respect to the benefits of
some of these works. He had been told that in consequence of
the construction of roads in the county of Galway, the customs
had increased to an extent that; he was afraid to name. The
House was perhaps aware that in the county of Mayo there
was one of the first harbours in the world. He meant Black-
sod Bay. Well, a road was formed to this place, and where
in 1637 there was not a single stone, and not 20 tons of corn
exported, there was at that time 1,600 tons of grain exported;
there were nine stores, and a very thiving population.
The Dean of Westminster had stated to him that the land of
Ireland, geologically regarded, was not to be compared with
the land of England.
Lord BROUG HAM—He only looked at the surface.
Earl FITZWILLIAM—Without going into the questien of
what might be the value of a certain number of acres. But as
to the general value of land, there could be no comparison be-
tween the two countries. The surface of the country was
studded with rocks and encumbered with mountains.
Earl GREY—There are rocks in this country also.
Earl FITZ WILLIAM said his Noble Friend must allow
him to dispute that question with him. Speaking as a geologist,
there were r of rocks scattered over the surface of this country.
The soil was different from that in which rocks were frequent.
The question was, whether or not they were to raise Iceland to
the position of the more favoured portion of the United King-
dom. He felt perfectly satisfied that
the difficulty in which they were at present
plunged
by any
charity they might be able to afford, could
only be relieved
permanently by some otl er means.
Earl GREY said, he thought the measures which had been
proposed by the Government were calculated to benefit
Ireland. I'he drainage that was proposed would be of
the greatest advantage. He would remind his Noble
Friend that there were other measures to be brought for-
' ward. His Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack had
prepared a measure to facilitate the disposal of mortgaged
estates in Ireland. This he conceived would be most de
sirable, for the purchaser would come into possession of a;
' estate which he could improve, and land was thus brought into
the market which the purchaser would buy with a view to
improvement. Notwithstanding what the Noble Lord
said, he believed there was a vast amount of capital
in Ireland, of which few wsre aware, and which only
required to be developed by exertion.—(Hear, hear. )
His Noble Friend had pointed out the great advantages which,
had arisen in some instances from the public works. He
(Lord Grey) never heard that these works had not conferred
advantages, and, as they were still in operation, good would
continue to accrue from them. One of the most important of
$ then war, the ;Irrigation of the Shama, vthick was still is

progress, and which had, during its progress, conferred great
advantages upon the people in that part of Ireland; but at the
same time, he could not help thinking, that there ran
through his Noble Friend's speeches, a sentiment of a
t very dangerous character. He seemed to think that
Ireland was to look to England, and to the English
Government for aid, instead of tru, ting and relying upon
her own exertions. There was no such dangerous delusion,
as he was persuaded that no country could be forced into
opulence by the assistance of another. The wealth of this
country was owing to the economy, to the small savings,
through a vast numbar of years, of the people, which had accu-
mulated and increased from age, and not by aid from the state;
but by individual, by private enterprise. His Noble Friend
seemed to think that Ireland was a poor country, and had not
within herself the elements of her own success; but if his
Noble Friend would peruse Professor Keane's work he would
see how great her resources were, and how much individual
enterprise might do to develops them. The improvement
of the soil was owe great step in that direction. In
some places rocks had been removed, and the soil rendered
fruitful. In Scotland this had been carried to a great extent,
as great blocks of granite had been removed, and fertile crops
had been the result. Why, many parts of England were some
years ago little better than mere bogs, of heaths which pro-
duced no crops, but which had, by the enterprise of the people
of this country, been rendered productive. It was for Ireland
to do the same—to depend upon herself, and not, as the burden
of his Noble Friend's speech seemed to apply, that in all cases
of difficulty she was to depend upon England.—( Hear,
hear.) It was a libel upon Ireland to say that
she bad not within herself the elements of her
own prosperity. He was not insensible to the distress in Ire-
land, and was prepared to do his best to alleviate it ; but it
could not be removed at once, but by degrees. He hoped Ire-
land would depend more upon herself, and that in the course of
time she would become a prosperous nation.—(Hear.)
Lord AIONTEAGLE agreed with the Noble Earl that Ire-
land must look to herself for the promotion of her own
prosperity ; but there were enterprises which could only
be effectually carried out with the aid of the State.
In Scotland, for instance, the Government, during no period
of famine, advanced money for the purpose of improving turn-
pike roads ; and Mr. Telford, in writing on the subject, had
stated that Scotland had thereby been advanced " many gene-
rations." Now, he contended that the carrying out of a similar
principle in Ireland would not fail to produce smilar results.
Ireland, in her distress, did not come for aid to England; he was
speaking in the Imperial Parliament, which was empowered
to dispense the revenues of the country, to which she contri-
buted her fair portion. She merely sought relief from the Im-
perial Treasury of the Imperial Government, to which she con-
tributed her fair share. But there Was one thing in which
this country stood alone. He meant the relief which England
had bountifully raised for the relief of Ireland; and
he was glad that the heavenly flame had net
been extingui!hed by the angry sad erroneous statements
which had been put forward for the sole purpose of
putting a stop to the collection of money for the relief of the
Irish distress. Even supposing all the measures that had been
passed with respect to Ireland were as effectual as they were
stated to be, but if they were they could not fail to have to
encounter, at she best, a season of peril. He sincerely
thought that some such scheme as that proposed by Mr.
Drummond and his coadjutors was most expedient for the
purpose of giving employment to the people on railways, when
the relief which was being given began to relapse. Unless
something of this kind were done they must continue to pro-
mote public works as they were compelled to do last session.
They would but add to the difficulties of their position if they
did not adopt other means to follow them. He fully con-
curred in the sentiments of the petition.
The petition was laid on the table.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 2.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
SECOND READING.
The following Bills were read a second time and ordered to
be committed :

Cork and Bandon Railway.
Cork, Blackrock, and Passage Railway.
Dublin and Drogheda Railway (Purchase of Navan
Branch, &c).
Great Western Railway ( Amendment and Extensions).
Newmarket and Chesterford Railway.
KILMARNOCK AND ARDROSSAN RAILWAY.
The report of Mr. Examiner Smith on this Bill, stating
that the standing orders had not been complied with, having
been read by the Clerk,
Sir W. HEATHCOTE moved that the report be referred
to the Standing Orders Committee.— The motion was agreed to.
LAW OF SETTLEMENT.

- -
Mr. GORE presented a petition from a place in Devon com-
plaining of the Poor-law of last session.
A number of petitions to the same effect were presented, and
referred to the Committee now sitting.
MUNICIPAL LAW.

An HON. Mzalasn presented a petition from the
Mayor and Aldermen of Cork, praying that the principal in-
stitutions of Ireland might be assimilated to those of England.

POOR OF IRELAND.

Mr. AlNSWORTHpresented a petition from the guardians
of Bolton, complaining that the people of this country were
called upcn to support the poor of Ireland, and praying the
House to pass a law to compel the proprietors of Ireland to
support their own poor.
TEN HOURS' BILL.

Mr. MITCHELL presented a petition from a person named
Tythe, a flaxspinner, against this Bill.

NAVY ESTIMATES.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that it was the intention of her
Majesty's Government to proceed with the remainder of the
navy estimates on Friday night, atter the ordnance estimates
had been disposed of.
SITES FOR SCOTTISH CHURCHES.
Mr. BOUVERIE rose for the purpose of moving for a
Select Committee to inquire whether and in what part of
Scotland, and under what circumstances, large num-
bers of her Majesty's subjects had been deprived of the
means of religious worship by the refusal of certain pro-
prietors to grant them sites for the erection of churches.
The subject bad been brought before the attention of the
House in the last session, and a Bill was introduced by the
Honourable Member for Perth, the Secretary-at- War,
which did not, however, reach to a second reading.
A disposition had been shown to wait and see what the pro-
prietors would do in the matter, and the Bill of last year was
withdrawn; but he was sorry to say. that with the exception
of one or two, the same wan,. of disposition to afford sites for
places of worship still prevailed as did in 1845 and 1846.
He was not a member of the Free Church, and he
could not be misted by zeal in its favour ; but he advocated its
just claims for redress, as he was persuaded great injustice had
been done. No less than 470 of the best ministers of the Es-
tablished Church of Scotland had left its pale, followed by 2,000
of the lay officers, and, it was calculated, accompanied by
about one-third of the people of Scotland. They left be-
cause they felt it their duty to do so in the maintenance of
the principle that the Church was inde; endent of the Go-
vernment in religious matters, a principle in which he en-
tirely agreed.`( Hear, hear.) No better proof could
be afforded of the truth of this principle, than the fact
that this House, composed of persons of various religious
denominations, would be called on to discuss the proposition,
of the advisability of adding to the number of the Bishops of
the Church of England. Whether that principle be true
or not, some of the brightest and best minister s and most
zealous and sincere members of the Scottish Kirk had thought
it right, on the assertion of it, to leave the pale of the
Establishment. Many expected that this secession would
not last long, but what has since occurred showed
that such an anticipation was groundless. No less a sum than
1,354,0001. had been contributed for the support of the Free
Church since the disruption had taken place. It had 630
teachers and 440 ministers in connexion with it. It had two
normal schools, and had contributed to 191 schools sums
averaging 1001 each. It had been stated that the
schism was not likely to be lasting, but the event proved how
erroneous was that calculation. He thought, therefore, that
such a body had a right at least to a favourable hearing. It
had been most prompt in inquiring into and relioving the pre-
sent famine, and from a letter written by the Lord Advocate
to the Secretary of Stated for the Home Department, De-
cember 10 last, it would be seen how strenuous had been the
exertions of the Free Church for the relief of the distress.
He maintained that if this body were seeking favour at the
hands of the House, enough had been shown that they were
entitled to it. But they did not ask for anything of the kind ;
all that they asked was that full justice might be done them.
They claimed full and free toleration at their hands,
and the free exercise of their religious belief, without
hindrance or interruption. They alleged that they
had been unjustly treated,' and in support of that
allegation he would mention one or two of the instances of
injustice of which the parties complained; but, in doing so, he
did not wish to discuss the motives or intentions of
individuals. One of the cases he wished to refer to
occurred on the property of his Grace the Duke of Buc-
cleuch, but in speaking of that particular instance, he had no
wish to speak otherwise than in terms of respect of the manner
in which the Noble Duke performed the duties which his rank
and high station in this country imposed upon him ; but still
the Noble Duke was but a man, and cf course subjected
to all his weakness and infirmities.._ ( Hear, hear.
He said there were two congregations of that Church upon. )
the Duke's property, and both complained of interference with
the r worship. One of these was at Canobie, in Dumfriesshire,
and the other was at Wanlockhead, in the same county. The
church at Canobie consisted of 600 people. The Duke had
been repeatedly applied to for a site upon which to build a
church, for his Grace was the sole possessor of the
land in the district. When the disruption first took place, that
congregation met at a cress road, and subsequently in a field
belonging to his Grace; but the Duke applied to the courts
of law, and obtained an injunction against them. After that,
however, some arrangement was made with his Grace, under
which this congregation were allowed to erect a tent
on a field of his, and thus they continued to
worship in that tent throughout the year, but such a place of
worship amounted, in his opinion, to a prohibition of worship
altogether. The other church was at Wanlock-head, the
highest ground in Scotland, a place where only green food
could be grown for cattle..-(Hear, hear.) The people were
poor, and miners by occupation; but seven hundred
of these, or seven-eighths of the whole population, belonged to
the Free Church. These people there worshipped in a tent in
the open air, but their tent had been destroyed some weeks
ago, and they had teen obliged, when the weather
would permit, to worship in the open air. Their minister
had parted from the Scotch Church at the time of the
disruption, and had continued amongst them teaching and ex-
horting his people. But even he could scarcely find a resting
place. His family was thirty miles distant from the place of
his ministrations ; and he himself, as if almost denied a lodging
in the town, lived in one room, only nine feet square.
(The Hon. Member then proceeded to read a letter written to
him by an eye-witness of the mode of conducting worship in
the Free Church of Scotland ; the writer stated that the con-
gregation, consisting of upwards of 1,000 persons, were
assembled round a canvass tent for the purpose of hearing
Dr. Candlish preach; the tent would not however .
contain one-third of the people, and they were com-
pelled to move off to a mead at the foot of the hill
where they listened to the Rev. Gentleman for upwards of an
hour and three quarters in the pouring rain.) Such (continued
the Hon. Member) was the state of the tenants upon the es-
tates
of the Duke of Buccleuch, and such had been their condi-
tion for the period of four years, since the rupture with the Es- '
tablished Church. He would contrast the conduct off hat Noble
Duke with that of the Earl of Aberdeen. It was well known that
the latter Nobleman used every means in his power, as a mem-
ber of the late Government, to stay the movement of the Free
Church party ; but so soon as the severance took place he was
among the first of the landowners of Scotland to grant sites
for building places of worship to those persons upon
his estates who wished to worship God accord-
ing to the forms of the Free Church of Scotland.
The Duke of Buccleuch had erected a magnificent chapel at
Dalkeith, and he conducted the worship according to the rites
of the Episcopal Church, yet he refused to grant to others
the right of worship which he claimed for himself. These
two cases had reference to the Lowlands ; but he now
came to the Highlands, in which similar proceedings
had been going forward. In the islands of Skye and Lewis
there was a large property owned by Lord Macdonald. One
this property vi there ere 4,000 persons belonging to the Free
Church, yet his Lordship had thought fit to refuseth.e!epeople
any sites for their chapels ; thus practically prohibiting the
public worship of these people.
of Ardnamurchan Sir James Riddellproperty about
In the neighbourhoed
forty miles in length by five miles broad. It awa the north-
wests in
belonging to
of Argyllshire. There were 1,100 people a
the Free Church, and Sir James Riddell was himself
Dissenter from the Established Church, yet he refused ex.
tending the right he claimed himself to others. In and 15
Strathspey there was a tract of country
30
milesb
longlonging to
broad, with from 2,000 to 3,000 persons ethe Free Church. The proprietor was the Earl of
Seafield, and he had
-also refused sites ;t
so that.
In
the people had to ' Worship . in openthe
another district in the Western Highlands,
persons were obliged to worship in the open air.
In the island
narris, 4,000
air.
of Mull they were obliged to celebrate
the ordinances
of their common Christianity in
a 4 .
cattle were housed. Now there ,
w "e
re. plat egLom,
~.ew hoofin-
the cases where this body had a right to :complain of I'
d he trusted that
convenience to which they were subjected, an
the recital of them would iodate the into` them.
proposition 'he made for an inquiry
1 state of
House to sanction the
What were the consequences of this.' to which
things? There was, first of all, the
~,,revol f the people
he had adverted, namely, that a large ...,-., ood,
were entirely prohibited from worshilVing ordinary
and in
addition to this, which was an evil of no
magnitude, there was great exasperation and acerbity on ac-
count of the obstacles which had occasioned such a deprivation.
The people were in a frightful state of destitution, and in such
circumstances he should fancy the people ought to be provi
with places in which to meet and offer UP Pro er
they were ca-
tion to the great Giver of all good• s ef supplies
proceedings
prived of all places of worship by - He wee not
o he had already related to the Hw*
remedy but for
prepared to propose any specific retuto
himself he was perfectly ready and to the full
length of the remedy proposed by
re
_usivii.lelinThhat
him—namely, to refer property q
judicial tribunal to have its value decided. , w y
his
ticwirgrfaohriesgiFotersientdo belowm
wsahsotehl ed course
pursued in the ease of a railway, Oa, If a railway,
excluded in this important instanceagg
e
s
which could do him no benefit, ,t,
in_ that case was,
da-odthrfoourghwhhyi;
p
park, he could not object to
He would remind the House that the rep Y
But a it was not the
1
that the
conven ien pceublof the commonwealth . ic convenience was requA railway
from Yeovil to
Dorchester could not conduce to the accommodation
of the commonwealth, but onolyr.
to the convenience
of the public in the neighlas hood and the wealth
,
of private individuals. On that grounchowanydastltrahte
ggrroouunndd
alone the Legislature should interfere.
sj
taken without compensation. It was datnnus sine in aria.
But there were cases where no compensation was allowed.
The Hon. Member then quoted the Metropolitan Buildings
Act, forbidding all to let for hire certain buildings or rooms,
such as were contrary to the provisions of the Act.
Here he said parties were in the
dreepceriigpetdogfhehmighof rtehnetisr,
pro-
perty.andyet the Legislature stepped in andcase
of the Commons Inclosure
The same was the
ne
~ knew, belonged to a few in-
dividuals;Act, when commons,
.an-reci deprived of these, and that on
and yet they were
the ground merely of the. publicwe health. He would quote another
point than any of those he had quoted.
ease, which was m
Under certain ciorreeuminst-ances the Court of Session had the
arishea, and the presbytery also had the
power to divide
taking
the land of the heritors of
power of
so divided, to the extent of four acres
such parish
as glebe land and for the purpose of building a manse for the
clergyman appointed to the parish. He begged, therefore,
to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the subject.i '
ishe EWART seconded the motion. It was incumbent
upon any Hon. Member on moving for a Select Committee of
first, that there wasofa graievance, and,
lie
Ait;l.CommitteeadE wb a
been
et,
n)
that House to ,
by the appointment
secondly,
might be suggested.
of a grievance(
some remedy might
the existence
thought
proved by his lion. Friend—a grievance no less than that of
deprived great portion of the subjects of Scotland being of the
a
means of religious worship, and if
,thsat all not a grHieavdanheei:
dwofanoser. —bl seyar Hears ee
thea r
to
Hh
oe
na hear.)
bring. )
Memberi o
he did not knowd wrohoavted
Honourable Friend
a f
Bill
upon the subject, as was
it
tominhtterfepreerhawpisth
the rights for
session, have been said
Perth last
Friend had t
that he was aboit
His Honourable
moving. . the appointment of a Selectwo
private property.
objects in view- in
• to inquire and expose—these were Committee—via., ,
functions of a Parliamentary Committee.
eying that the pro-
the legitimate
The people of Scotland were justified in
excellent theys might be in other
prietors of Scotland, howev
proved themselves intolerant iii this, and that
respects, had
ttend to as well as '
they had duties to a rights. They might
oet—
say with their national p
" A king may make a belted knight,
A marquis, duke, and a' that."
But whether they were marquis or duke, they must know
they had duties to perform as well as rights to maintain.
Because he thought the claims of the Free Church were
founded in justice, he
motion.
On the question being put,
had great pleasure in seconding the
Sir GEORGE GREY said, in reference to the present
question, he would have to call the attention of the House to
what took place on former occasions when this subject was
brought under consideration. He had hoped that the motions
made and the debate thereon would have rendered the bring-
ing forward of the subject no longer necessary, and that the
comparatively few proprietors who refused sites would have
seen the policy of being influenced by the feelings
and opi-
nions expressed by the House. On the first time the subject
came under consideration the Right Hon. Baronet opposite
(Sir James Graham) stated to his late lamented friend Mr.
P. M. Stewart, that he hoped that the proprietors would see
the necessity of giving way on the subject; or that if they did
not accede to the prayer of the Free Church, that some

speedy remedy for the state of things complained of might
soon be afforded. On a second occasion when the Member
for Perth (Mr. F. Maule) brought the same subject before
the House, the Right Honourable Baronet repeated the
same thing. He must say, that the continued refusal
of sites by proprietors was most impolitic, and opposed to the
interests and welfare of the country.—( Hear, hear.) He be-
lieved that time and reconsideration had had its effect, and that
I such cases were not now of so frequent occurrence as formerly,
I though he regretted to find that a few still existed. He saw
that there were cases still in the Free Church—though all hope
of re-union was now given up—where the inhabitants of ex-
tensive districts were totally debarred from worshipping God
according to their consciences. Under these circumstances,
his Hon. Friend had come forward to ask, not for a legislative
remedy for the grievances complained of, but for a Committee
to inquire into them. It was alleged that strong reasons
existed in many cases for refusing the sites. If that were so,
it was a legitimate cause of inquiry, and would very properly
come under its consideretion. There were some proprietors,
however, as soon as they became aware that a re-union had
become impossible, than the sites, which till then had been re-
fused, were granted. To ascertain who those proprietors were
would be the result attained by the labours of the Committee.
Those also who laboured under the imputation of refusing sites
would have an opportunity of showing the mntives which in-
fluenced them in such a course. He, therefore, for
one, was ready to assent to the inquiry. He did not,
however, wish to be understood as pledging himself
to any legislative course in consequence of that assent.
There were parties who were unwilling to believe that the
cessation would be permanent, and therefore they were un-
willing to grant sites ; but that expectation must have long
since passed away, and for the future better things were to be
hoped. He did not wish, on this occasion, to enter into the
question as to whether the cessation was right or not, but he
thought everybody would admit that it was a remarkable event,
which carried with it the sympathies, if not the convictions, of
the many. He wished for one moment to glance at the cir-
cumstances under which this inquiry was proposed. It had
pleased God to visit a part of Scotland with severe destitution,
and in this state of things the members of the Free Church,
discarding all sectarian feeling, had joined with all parties in
raising a common fund for removing the prevailing distress.
It was now, for the first time since the cessation, that both
parties had come together in harmony and union. They had
thrown aside all ill-feeling, and, united, they had taken upon
themselves the good will of feeding the hungry, clothing the
naked, and arresting the progress of the destitution. Let
them hope, then, that before the year closed, all differences
would be forgotten, and both parties would again unite them-
selves in good fellowship and religion.
Sir R. H. INGLIS was unwilling to enter into a general
discussion of the subject, but, before ha proceeded further, be
must be allowed to express his sense of the feeling
and moderate manner in which his Hen. Friend
had brought forward this motion. (Hear, hear. )
But he must say that no object which he had ever felt himself
compelled to oppose was e►er brought forward and advocated
in a manner more calculated to gain it friends. This was very
different from the proposition made last year by his friend the
Secretary at War (Mr. Fox Menlo). He spoke not of the
manner ; he referred to the object. There they proceeded to
direct an Act; here they only proposed a Committee of
Inquiry. But he did think that some regard ought to be paid
to the feelings and principles of those who supposed that it was
an essential part of their duty to forward the principles
of the Free Church of Scotland. He could not
agree with his Honourable Friend who seemed to hold
up some, whose names he had mentioned as bigots and parse-
cutants. One, especially of them, he ( Sir R. H. Inglish)
knew intimately, and knew his Hon. Mend was quite unequal
to anything so unworthy of—he would say a man, but of a
proprietor in a Christian country. He felt himself bound to
rise up and defend his Hon. Friend Sir James Riddle, who he
knew was incapable of it, and would be the first to assist in
forwarding any great benevolent object. In reply to the state-
ment of the proposer, he might, in the first place, remind him
that the population was overstated ; there were but 3,000 people,
and 1,540 of them belonging to the Free Church. He passed
that by, however, and he ,saw by the smile of the Hon.
Gentleman that he did not consider that any answer. But he
would ask the Hon. Member, as he had asked him the former
year, whether he was prepared to give the same privileges to
the other Dissenters? He recollected that last year the Hon.
Gentleman (Mr. F. Maule), when he put the question to him,
did not at all seem prepared to accede to the proposition. He
therefore thought that his Hon. Friend ought not to move the
House to do that, the principle of which he was not prepared to
make common to all—Roman Catholic as well as Protestant.
He thought that the remaining landowners who had refused
to grant sites had done so by the conduct of the
members of the free church of Scotland. He had
been credibly informed that at Kimoss, and some other
places, the Free Church had built their establish-
ments, not only near to, but in actual juxtaposition with,
the churches of the establishment, insomuch that the same bells
awl the same clock answered for both buildings. The real ques-
tion in dispute was, whether he, as a member of the establish-
ment, should be compelled to erect buildings upon his estates
for the purpose of propagating a system of worship to which
he was conscientiously opposed. He hoped the House would
pause before they gave their assent to the proposition of the
lion. Member for the appointment of a Select Committee on
the subject. He did not think that the Duke of Buecleugh
was actuated by any unworthy motives in refusing sites for
places of public worship. He thought the Hon. Member for
Kilmarnock had introduced the question in the manner that
was most unobjectionable, still he did not think that a legisla-
tive measure would mend the matter.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM wished to say a few words in the
present stage of the discussion. It having been his painful
duty to address the House more than once before. Ile
had but little to add, and nothing to retract. He
much regretted that sites had been refused to the
members of the Free Church, and that some individual
proprietors, from a sense of dap, had made such a refusal. It
was, after all, as the Member of the University of Oxford had
stated, with many of these proprietors, a case of conscience ;
but he differed with the Hon. Member in thinking that the
present motion was better than the one proposed last year by
the Hon. Member for Perth. He did not consider that the
question was one for a Committee. It was admitted that cer-
tain of the great proprietors of Scotland had refused sites to the
Free Church. No one attempted to deny it. The Hon. Member
for Kilmarnock's statement of facts, which had been presented
in a calm and dispassionate manner, presented nothing new.
There had been only two additional cases stated ; the one was
that of Lord Macdonald, of Skye, and he was even told that
that that case had been mentioned last year. These refusa's
would diminish as the weight of public opinion would come to
bear upon the subject. He understood that they were already
few in number. What was the object of the measure? Why
it had been frankly stated by the seconder of the motion that
exposure was the object. Now such was not a proper object.
They were discussing the subject at a moment when every
solemn feeling in their nature should be called forth ; they
were in the midst of a great national calamity, of such an extent
and of such an awful character, that it humbled the pride of
man. He did agree in the sentiments of Mr. Jones Loyd, so
eloquently expressed, and which they had all read in the
morning paper, that the present was an occasion when the
angry opposition of party ought to be silenced, and all the
bitterness of religious animosity ought to bPassuaged in the
sentiment of Christian charity. Now, he would ask, was ex-
posure a legitimate object ? •r was it desirable that the con-
duct of certain individuals should be inquired into ? If there
were no other grounds, he would be prepared to resist the
motion. Was it just, or was. it advisable, that they should
inquire 'into what were the religions opinions of the
Duke of Buccleuch or of the Earl of Aberdeen? He
would ask, was it even tolerable that such an inquiry should
take place? He lamented these refusals. He did not think
that they would continue. The Secretary of State had de-
clared that they had diminished, and ke therefore saw no room
for a Committee of Inquiry. He considered that the measure
brought in by the Member for Penh 'was m: st objectionable,
and the course of legislation on that subject would be most
dangerous. The question was, however, one of degree, and he
did not doubt the competency of the Legislature, but if they
were to legislate they should do it on the principle of general
toleration; it must not be confined to Scotland, but extend to
all society. The principle of toleration was universal. He
would not trespass upon the attention of the House farthert
but upon those grounds he would object to the motion, andiq
pressed to a division, he would vote against it.
Lord G. BENTINCK concurred in all that had fallen from
the Right Hon. Baronet who had just sat down, more especially
as he could not agree with the sentiment expressed by the
Right Hon. Member opposite, that if the proprietors of land
in Scotland refused to grant sites, he was prepared to take them
from them by legislative enactments. Every Hon. Member
who had addressed the House had praised the moderation of
the Hon. Member who moved the appointment of this Com-
mittee. He admitted that there was the snaviter in moil() in
his manner, but there was also something of the fortiter in re,
especially when speaking of the Duke of Buccleuch ; he (Mr.
Bouverie) acknowledged the virtues of the Noble Duke, but
also hinted that he was willing to indulge in a little persecution.
All those who were acquainted with his Grace, were aware that
persecution was altogether foreign to his character, and that
a more generous person did not exist. It was
evident that a great degree of provocation had
led to many of these refusals. He believed nothing could be
more violent and indecorous than the denunciations flung by
the preachers of the Free Church upon those who had refused
to grant sites. He was not prepared togo into an inquiry with
regard to the conduct of his Grace and other noble individuals
who had been alluded to. If the landowners were to be com-
pelled to grant sites for the Free Church, on what ground were
sites to be refused to the Roman Catholics ? Wherever the
members of the Free Church had been refused sites, it was
because they wished to build them in offensive stations.
Mr. F. MAULE—No, no.
Lord G. BENTINCK—IIe believed, however, that such
was the case, they wishing to build their churches beside, or
near to, the churches of the Establishment. To conclude, he
begged to say that he would support the Right Hon. Baronet
in his objection to the motion.
Mr. F. MAULE, after the speech of the Noble Lord and
that of the Right Hon. Gentleman who preceded him, he
thought that without going into any argument, he could
establish a fair claim to an inquiry into the subject. The
Noble Lord had brought forward assertion after assertion,
which he (Mr. Fox Maule) would be able to prove before the
Committee were wholly without foundation, and the facts of
which had been misrepresented to the Noble Lord. If the
present were a question for a Committee of Inquiry into the mo-
tives of individuals, he would be one of the last to ask the
House to grant the Committee moved for. The Committee
sought for was only one to inqure into a national grievance, and
one which affected an integral part of the nation, and affected
more than one half of the population of that part of the United
Kingdom. The matters in issue had been before the House
on former occasions, and each time the statements
made by the Honourable Member who brought them for-
ward had been disputed, and he must say that he
thought the time was now come when the House was bound to
have a full explanation of the matters complained of. If it
were true that unjustifiable language had upon some occasions
been used, unworthy of Christian ministers, let the facts be
made as public as the refusal of sites had been made. He
had no wish to protect or to expose either of the parties.
Four or fivecase.shail
sites, been
butbrought y
were forw
only
forward of individuals
brought
having ref used to grant
for-
ward with references
enhancingto districts
the in
difficultieswhich
h
wteree
membersnoot other
proprietors, and thus
Htehwe remlhilotisetlel
ministers
Noble LoFrrdeewhcahtuhreand
fe
been the
the Free
conduct ofin the island of Skve, to whom sites had been re-
fused, and what had been its results famine had
done there—starvation
rivheand dtoonedeistsperwaotirosn. worst, anidhrmeaatnsy
were
persons had
sautsotneoesree thetiime h
flocks of se
held out that the poworwoulwdeapplytzog on rhooitheirown
mountain sides. From the pulpits,bl andf inD Divine
gwraovreslhippi,tsthine
v'o'beerediifecnaceeenddwntaoostassausceressfeullyor incluvlcnaeted upon the
single instance had occurred of
dinwolicinitedrhisnoetfhtoehle
peop.el
Was it to be borne that these
poor the urivilege of a roof to protect
them from the incthe appropriation
peopiesh,uidol
e
im
bpaee
ron
dic
eiey
nrioet
'tithe weather during their celebra-
tion of Divine worship ?—( Hear, bear.) He believed
that
driving
i ft
themtheheHouserefuseds,and al
latter,tsho wouldrun
ynthe risk
of drive
these poor
men to depair,
from the habit of attending public worship.
He most earnestly. trusted that
stthhaeolyi
they
yguhsewt
aawsecoteeurdltd,aisnogrwtahhnatettththheeer
Committee
bare, aTnhdithsat
and required redress.—( ear, hear.) h were founded in
truth
or no the complaints of the Frei
Churc
tCr°llmthmi
might of
be I lard r Y
Mr. STUARTdes
WdrOßseTd the HouseLEYthoug on htthteh Re igsihdteHoofnt.heGGeno-
tleman who first a
'eminent (Sir George Grey) should have remained silent on

the question, and left it to the advocacy of the Hon. Member
behind him. It was going upon a most dangerous principle.
He would not yield to that Right Hon. Baronet in the slightest
degree in his support of the principles of toleration, and in his
admiration of the great body of the Free Church, yet he could
not support the present motion, because he honestly believed
it would tend to retard instead of advance the cause they were
so anxious to promote. The question was in course of settle-
ment ; it would, in due course of things, be arranged by the
people of Scotland themselves, and for the House to
step in and interfere would be to revive the evil. It was ad-
mitted that since last year the cases of refusal of sites had
greatly reduced, and that this year there were but thirty. This
showed that the cause of the complaint was being gradually
done away with, in obedience to the expressed feeling of the
House, and the sense of the Scotch people. To appoint a
Committee, therefore, would be of no use, but to excite again
the bad feeling that was dying away. With regard to the
Duke of Buccleuch it was well known that he had only refused
because parties, ministers and their frieni;s from a distance,
came on his estates and excited his own tenantry against him.
He (Mr. S. Wortley) did n it say that the Noble Duke acted
right in refusing sites, still he mentioned this in his
vindication. As a proof that the state of things was
steadily improving, he would refer to the fact that
while thousands of petitions were poured in last year
into Parliament. on the subject not one was presented during
the present.— ( fleas, hear.) On these grounds, theref re, he
did not think any good would come from the Committee. He
would therefore oppose its apsointment.
Lord J. RUSSELL, in rising to support the motion. must
not be understood as speaking on the behalf of the parties to
whom it had reference. No one had more strongly resisted
the claims of the Free Church party before the unfortunate seces-
sion than himself, as he could see no good that would arise from it.
But the secession had taken place. A great number of the
people of Scotland had left the Established Church, and their
ministers had given up their houses and their means of liveli
hood, so that they might be at liberty to express the strong
religious feelings which they entertained, freely and unmolested.
That secession having taken place, he was now no less persua-
ded that everything should he done to enable them
to preach and to practice the doctrine which they
believed that it WB3 their right to do.—( Hear, hear. )
The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester (Sir
James Graham), put the case in a smooth and round form,
from which they might conclude that all further inquiry into
the subject was unnecessary. He said that the facts were un-
disputed—that a Committee was not required, but no sooner
had the Right Hon. Baronet concluded than up got the Noble
Lord the Member for Lynn, and said that regarding the
facts, they were not to be taken for granted. He disputed
their correctness, and stated that the reason why sites had
in many instances been refused was, because the Free
Church parties had acted in such an unbearable and oppressive
manner that to grant them was impossible.—(Hear, hear.)
Now, this was to be ascertained by inquiry. As the facts
were disputed, and as these reasons for a refusal of sites were
given, a Committee of Inquiry to ascertain the truth was re-
quired. They would then learn the true reason why the
grant of sites was refused. Here it was confessed there was
a considerable grievance. In one place par ties were driven
to the moor and the moss, under the pelting of the storm, and
drenched by rain, in order to listen to religious worshi in such
a way as they desired. Like the Covenanters of old, when
persecution was the established law, they were deprived of all
shelter in their endeavours to worship according to the dic-
tates of their consciences. In other places they had to go out
in boats to meet the ministers whose religious doctrines they
adhered to. All this had been justified, on the ground of the
rights of property. Now a legislative remedy was talked of;
and while on the one hand he was unwilling to consent to a
legis'ative remedy on a subject of such difficulty, on the other
hand, if it were proved that the facts alleged were true—that
the inquiry showed that the refusal of sites din of arise from
the improper proceedings of the parties themselves, but were
simply refusals on the ground of being a different religious
sect, and if the pastors still were obliged to worship with-
out the shelter of a roof or dwelling, he would not be indis-
posed to a legislative remedy.—( Hear, hear.) It was, there-
fore, a case for inquiry, as it would not be for the House at
once to interfere. He admitted that if the Free Church was
entitled to sites, that so was the Roman Catholic, the Society
of Friends, or any other religious body.—(Hear, hear.) The
principle he admitted was universal. But though that was
the case, it did not convince him that a legislative re-
medy was not advisable,—( Hear, hear.) There was no-
thing more sacred than the right of every man to wor-
ship according to the dictates of his conscience; and though
some gentlemen of the highest character and most benevolent
disposition had refused sites, it only showed to what extremes
men of the best feelings would go on the question of religion.
—( Hear, hear.) They had an instance in the Hon. Member
for the University of Oxford himself, than whom none could
possess a more kind or benevolent disposition, but on this
question he has shown how little he can feel for the sufferings
of others.—(Heat, hear.) He thinks the people of Scotland
should support the churches that were open for their accom-
modation, and has no regard for their feelings or opinions when
they differ from him. But how would that Hon. Member like, if
he were in a town where there was no place of worship but a
Roman Catholic chapel, and was told to attend there for there
was no other place for him, and that there was plenty of room.
—(Cheers and laughter.) This showed, how little persons '
of the kindest notions could act justly in religious
disputes.—( Hear, hear.) Though it might be considered a
dangerous principle in legislation to admit such a remedy as he
referred to, and that it would be a violation of the rights of
property, still he would be prepared to support it if he saw it
required. With respect to the rights of property, was not
the rights of property equally violated in questions of health.
in constructing railroads, and in forming streets or squares?
There was no hesitation in opening a way or removing a house
if they thought such a step was necessary. On the same
principle he did think, in the granting of sites, that inter-
ference might be required —( Hear, hear.) In the course
of the present debate he had been glad to hear but one opinion
prevail as to the impolicy of refusing sites, and he hoped,
whatever decision the House might come to, those who had
hitherto made such refusals would take notice of this general
expression of opinion, and change their course of proceed-
ing in relation to the worshippers of the Free Church.
Mr. SCOTT was prepared to give his vote against this
Committee of Inquiry. if he were to consult the wishes of
one of the Noble parties who were so often alluded to, he be-
lieved that he would court inquiry, and prove beyond doubt
that he had good and sufficient reasons for withholding these
sites. Similar, he believed, would be the sentiments of Lord
Macdonald. When he remembered the late commotions in
the Church of Scotland, and the fact that the vast number of
sites which had been in the first instance refused had dwindled
down to about thirty, he could not but see with pain this re-
-opening of the question, and he hoped that within a few years,
if they were to allow the public opinion to unfold itself, the
country would be at peace—(Loud cries of "Divide.")
Colonel MURE thought they were bound to make inquiry,
and he would support the motion of the Hon. Member, at the
same time not pledging him-elf to support any after motion
which might be founded upon it.—(Continued cries of
" Divide.")
The gallery was then cleared for the division, when there
appeared—
For the motion for inquiry
Against it

Maiority 2B
POOR REMOVAL BILL.
Mr. lIANKES then proceeded to call the attention of the
House to the report of the Select Committee on the Settlement
and Poor Removal, and also to the copy of the case submitted by
the Poor Law Commissioners to the Law Officers of the
Crown, for their opinion with reference to the construction of
a clause in the Poor Removal Act. It had been his (Mr.
Bankes') endeavour to induce the committee to examine
into the working of the measure as it affected the comforts of
the poor, but after some discussion, a majority of the Committee
determined to postpone that consideration. If the Committee
did not, before Easter, make greater progress than they had
yet done, he should feel it his duty to bring in a measure
modifying in a very great degree, or perhaps, repealing alto-
gether, the Act of last session. It had been promised by the
Ne,ble Lord and some others of the Members of the Govern-
ment, that this subject would be laid before the House this
session; but looking to the great diversity of opinion in that Com-
mittee, he did not see any hope that they would have a measure
introduced in sufficient time to warrant them in expecting it
to pass into a law that session. There was a feeling very
popular now-a-days to do away with settlements altogether, and
to provide for tti poor by a national rate. hat feeling
had greatly progressed in consequence of the defi-
ciencies of the Bill passed last Parliament.—( Hear.)
He believed that the abolition of settlements would be most
prejudicial to the poor, ani that it would not (as had been
absurdly argued) give a stimulus to industrial exertion. To
support his statement he must allude to the evidence of Mr.
Guls.m, an Assistant Poor-law Commissioner, but he must
first state that the reason he had not referred to it before was,
because the Committee which sat upon this subject decided
upon reportiag before they heard, and published the evidence.
Now, Mr. Gulson, in his evidence, said the Act was unjust
and defective, had totally failed in its operation, and must
sooner or later be altered. This he thought was enough to
prove his case. He could conceive no better testimony in his
favour than this. It was perfectly true that it counterbalanced
the evidence of the Po ,r-law Commissioners themselves,
but he thought the preference ought to be given to Mr. Gul-
son's evidence, because he had ample opportunities of witnes--
ing its injurious effects upon the poor, whereas the Poor-law
Commissioners had no such opportunities. Mr. Gulson
spoke practically, but the Poor-law Commissioners gave their
evidence theoretically. No doubt the intention of the Act
was good, but in carrying out its details it was found to be
unjust and inoperative. Perhaps it did not weigh so oppres-
sively upon the poer as the rate-payer, but even admitting
that proposition, the law ought to be altered in that respect or
discontinued altogether. He regretted much that Govern-
ment had allowed the session so far to advance without stating
what they intended to do with the poor-law. He did not
expect that they would have disclosed its details by
this time, but certainly he had expected that its
general principles would have been communicated to the
House. Had there been any parties in the House responsible
for the operation of the poor-law, he was quite certain so many
defects could not have crept into it, and he was, therefore, the
more anxious to learn what improvements were to he intro-
duced into it. The law had been decided by the law officers of
the Crown, as well as ether eminent legal authorities, to be
defective, and he thought the House was entitled to have the
opinion f these legal gentlemen. But he did not ask for much,
all that he asked for was the case upon which the opinion was
given. Mr. Lewis, n the Committee, stated that six questions
were submitted to ;he law officers of the Crown upon which to
found their opinion upon the legality of this law, and it was for
the production of these six questions that he now made this
motion. They were called for in the Committee, but it was
stated that only the House of Commons had the power to ask
for their production, and it was under these circumstances that
he brought forward the present motion. At present there was
a strong feeling abroad, that the law ought to be
abrogated altogether, but he warned the Govern-
ment that thir best course was to amend its
defective provisions, and the strong feeling would subside.
In an amended form, and, with the aid of a new Poor-law
Commission, the Act might prove successful, but, without
that amendment, it must still remain unjust and inoperative.
111 r. C. BIJLLER said it was a rule in the legal profession,
which had always been respected and observed, both by the
Ilse and the Government, that neither the case nor the opi-
nions of counsel should be produced. The question which had
been referred to the Committee alluded to, by the Hon. Gen-
tleman opposite, was a most difficult one. Opinions upon the
law of settlement were so very diversified, that it was quite
impossible for the Committee to have come to any decision
upon the subject, without first considering its general
bearings, and without considering what were the
particular circumstances of each mode of settlement.
The question which he thought to he decided by the l em-
mittee was, whether there was anything connected with the
framing of the law, which rendered the working of than
measure in a manner contrary to the opinions of those who
brought in that measure. The opinion of the majority of the
Committee was, that the interpretation of the Committee
should be different to the interpretation put upon it by the
framers of the measure. A particular interpretation had been
put upon the Act, in consequence of which, one half of the
paupers of the country had obtained an irremovable
settlement; and he, for one, would not cor sent to
alter the measure, so as to meet the " pposed in-
tentions of the framers of that measure. It would be a
great hardship to the poor of the country if such a course were
adopted. The excuse of the Committee for refusing the evi-
dence of Mr. 13u1ston upon the working of the present law was,
that the Hon. Member for Dorsetshire had proposed that
evidence too late; the evidence had been closed when he offered
it, and the Committee were then engaged in reporting upon

con i
-,N.--i,...
,-..---v e •
ti-:''

'~...

the evidence they had heard. The House must look upon this'
question as a whole ; it was one which affected, to an immena4k.):‘
extent, the condition of the people of this country.
-r-4!
Mr. MILES said that there was a very strong opinion
iq
the minds of the Committee that the operation of the Poor -V
Removal Bill ought to have been most carefully looked into.
The real question, he thought, for the House to consider
was whether the country was to be taken in by a gross fraud.
The country thought it was a fraud, and it was reprobated
throughout all portions of the country as such. The Hon.
Member then alluded, at considerable length, to the statements
of a gentleman residing in the Frome union—a union con-
taining twenty-nine parishes—showing the injurious operation
of the existing law in that union.
Sir G. GREY thought that the motion of the Hon.
Member was a most unusual one, and he hoped that the Hon.
Member would not press it. He did not see what advantage
could possibly be derived from publishing to the world the six
doubts referred to by the Hon. Member, and which had been
submitted to the opinion of the law officers of the Crown.
The Hon. Gentleman should submit a definite motion on the
subject, and until he did so he should consider himself entitled
to abstain from entering into the general question.
Mr. FINCH thought that the Hon. Member for Dorset-
shire should not press his motion at present. He was of opi-
nion, however, that the Removal Act of last session was one
which produced considerable evil, and was passed to favour the
landed at the exrense of the manufacturing interest ; but as
the law of settlement was at present under the consideration of
a Committee, he thought the Hon. Member should wait for
their report. If they did not recommend its repeal, then he
would support the Hon. Member if he made a motion to that
effect.

Mr. RICE thought the Hon. Member for Dorsetshire
should persevere in his motion for a repeal of the Act of last
session. He knew that in his own district it would operate
most injuriously, for on the 25th March next, notices would be
served on many cottagers in his neighbourhood, who would be
obliged to leave their holdings on Michaelmas next. The
lion. Member stated several instances where the operation of
the Act was most harsh. He hoped, therefore, the Hon.
Member would persevere with his motion after Faster, and ho
might rest assured he would be well supported by petitions.
Mr. E. WODEHOUSE hoped the Hon. Member for Dor-
setshire would persevere in his efforts, and expressed his obli-
gations to
.him for having taken the question up. The late
Act had operated most injuriously in his part of the country.
Mr. VERNON SMITH was glad that this discussion had
taken place, otherwise the report of the Committee might have
had the effect of inducing a feeling throughout the country
that the Act of last session was to be permanent. He hoped,
however the Hon. Member would not postpone his measure
till after Easter; for he contended, that the repeal of the
Poor Removal Act of last session was preliminary to coming
to any arrangement with regard to the law of settlement. The
sooner, therefore, he brought forward the measure the better
would it be for the country.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that his respect for the time
of the House prevented him from referring to the evidence
that had been adduced, but which was not before the House,
and for the same reason he did not intend to go into the
question of the Removal Act of last session, which was not
under their consideration. The Hon. Member for Dorset..
shire gave notice of his intention for an alteration, er the
repeal of the Act of last session, after or before
Easter. He by no means denied that the interpretation of the
law officers of the Crown had given a more extensive operation
to the Act, than those who had brought it forward, or the House
which passed it, intended. But he could not concur in
the censures which had been passed on that extension, for the
balance of advantages was greatly and decidedly in favour of
the poor of the country. That was not the question now, but
he considered that he should be wanting in his duty if he did
not detail some of the advantages to which he referred. There
was one class, however, against whom it operated unfavourably.
He believed the Act of last session had conferred inestimable
advantages on large classes of the poor of this country. Fire
of all, he would call attention to that great provision
in the Act, which stated that a pauper shoule
net be removed after a residence of a certain
number of years. The next had reference to those who re-
sided in a place for some time, but who had not established
right of settlement by a residence of five years. Ha was seise
fled that if this Act was rightly uederstood with respect to the
recipients of relief, it would be found that it was decidedly
favourable to the poor, and that it was therefore a humane and.
just enactment. With regard to the effect of the Act upon the
ratepayers, he had never altered the opinion he had already
expressed, and he should continue to entertain it, notwith-
standing the offence he had thereby given to many of his
friends, that the law of settlement did not impose too heavy
burdens on the ratepayers. As he was a member of the Com-
mittee now sitting on the subject, he could not well use the
evidence which had been adduced before it. If this were not
so he might have availed himself of the evidence
of Mr. Gulson, a gentleman of considerable experience,
who was called by the Member for Dorsetshire before the Como
mittee, to show that they ought not to alter the present law of
settlement. As the whole of the evidence would be in the
hands of Hon. Members in the course of a few days, he en-
treated them not to give their attention to garbled extracts,
but to peruse the whole of it. He was a man of the highest.
authority. and well conversant with the operation of the law,
not only in the manufacturing districts of this city, but in many
parts of Ireland, in fact, he possessed more practical know-
ledge on the subject than any other man. They had that day
examined one of the guardians of the Suffolk and Cambridge
Union and the chairman of a court of guardians in the north
of England, a learned gentleman of great experience, whose
evidence would be found most material. In fact, he was jus-
tified in saving that the whole of the evidence adduced before
the Committee would tend to show, that the Act of last session
ought to be maintained in all its integrity, but that some por-
tion of the existing poor-law, and even of the law of settle-
ment, admitted of correction.

Mr. 0. STANLEY considered that in making the altera-
tions referred to, they would not overlookthe rate-payers, many
of whom were in a condition little removed from pauperism.
He trusted that the Committee now sitting for the purpose of
inquiry into the law of settlement, would endeavour to (Weise
remedies for all the anomalies which existed in the present
law, and whieh had led the Attorney and Solicitor-Generals to
form a different opinion to the one entertained by many of the
boards of guardians.

Mr. E.-DENISON considered notwithstanding the sitting
of the Committee, that the House was in a fit condition to
proceed then to the discussion of the question of the law of
settlement. No pledge had been given to the Committee that
the question would not be entertained by the House until the
Committee had furnished their report. He considered that
the law had worked well ; but when the ratepayers were dis-
.,atisfied the recipients could not fail to suffer as the ratepayers
would believe the poor forced upon them, and it was not un-
likely that they might be used unkindly. Theretore some
alterations were necessary. The evidence taken before the
Committee had not had that effect upon his mind which the
Hon. Gentleman the Member for Dorsetshire had stated it
haiipb ad upon his.
Jr W. JAMES wished to know if the Government. intended
to take steps to remove some inconsistencies INith. -respect to
the powers placed in the hands of auditors relating to the of accounts? He commended the conduct of the Com-
mittee in not wishing to interfere with the law of last ses-
sion until they had proposed the adoption of a better measure.
Mr. NEW DEGATE bore testimony to the fitness of Mr.
Gulson to give a practical opinion on the working of the law,
Sir G. GREY stated, in reply to the question of the Hon.
Member for Hull (Sir W. James), that the• Poor-law Com-
missioners had
.taken the matter into their special consi-
deration.

• Mr. WAKLEY said, the parties who were so anxious to
get this. law repealed were tyrannical boards of guardians, and
gentry who had no wish to pay for the maintenance of the
poor. Now he believed the Bill an excellent one, and he was
sure if they compared the good end the evil of the measure
that the former would be found to predominated to a great ex-
tent.—( Hear.) It would be useltss for him to repeat what
had been so well said by the Right lion. Baronet (Sir James
Graham ), but he could confirm from his own experience all
that he had stated on the subject. The ratepayers in the me-
tropolis did not complain, so far as he could judge, of the opera-
tion of the poor-law. The expense of the rates pressed heavily
upon them, but they bore the expense because they be-
lieved that it was absolutely necessary. In his parish
since the Bill had been in operation the guardians
had not sent any Irish paupers back to Ireland,
because they knew that by doing so, they would drive the to
starvation. The Irish pauper obtained relief in this country
when he sought it. Was it not mons'rous, that in Engbuti,
an Irish gaup• r was entitled to relief, but that, if he were sent
to his own country, under the same Crown and under the same
laws, he would be doomed to starvation. The Right Hon.
Baronet in passing the Bill, got in the small end of the wedge,
and he hoped the people would see that it would be driven home,
and that all future laws on the subject would be framed on the
same principle. So anxious was he to put the matter to the
test, that he gave the Irish paupers a general invitation to come
over here. He wished they would all come over. He wished
2,0;i0.090 of the destitute people of Ireland would come over
here during the next month—( Hear and laughter)—because it
would bring the Parliament to its senses with respect to those
laws. He was informed that in St. Ann's parish, out of every
shilling paid to the poor, that l Id. was paid to Irish paupers,
and that out of 27,0001. expended for the relief
of the poor in his parish, during the last year,
20,0001. was expended in the support of Irish paupers He
admitted their right to relief, and would not deprive them of
it, but what he said was, that the poor-laws of the three coun-
tries should be assimilated, and that each county should sup-
port its awn poor.
Mr. HARRIS said that the whole of the question had arisen
from the vague manner in which the Act had been
constructed, leaving it discretionary with the guardians to adopt
the law or not.

Mr. BROTHERTON said that he believed that the measure
would be a humane one if properly carried out; and looking at
it as a whole, he believed that the good more than cointerba-
lanced the evil, arid he would be sorry to see it repealed.
Mr. B. ESCOTT said, that with respect to these numbers
of little debates, they only indicated that the whole question,
like one of finance, was to be hung up for another session of
Parliament. The indignation of the townspeople in England
had been very generally excited against the provisions
the law, and he could tell them that the country people also
were of opinion that some substantive alteration should take
place in the relief of the poor. They could not enter into the
question of relief without entering into that of settlement, and
they could not enter into the law of settlement without enter-
ing into the question of rating. The people of England would
not be satisfied unless the great mass of property should be
brought to contribute with the land. The proprietors of
funded property should be made to contribute their common
share with those who contribute their hard earnings. h was
the owners of funded property who made the poor.—(Hear,
hear, and laughter.) It was they who caused the great
amount of taxation which was levied upon the people in order
to pay and keep them up.
Mr. S. WORTLEY said that nothing would satisfy the
people unless there was an abolition of the law of settlement.
Mr. BANKES said, that after what had fallen from the pro.
ceding speaker, he would agree not to press his motion.
EXPENSE OF ENGLISH RAILWAYS.
whLicohrdheGh.aßdEgiNvelni
notice,NC K in ri
expressedsin
regret that the Right
io
Hon. Member should think that he was wanting in courtesy to
the
o cc, of
n his ke the motions of
ma
the House to this question.
hßiumt
‘,Mhere,in
,allong
a former these cubjehnccatoeli
folrrishof rail-
waysthe was under consideration', the late
Exchequer had made the extraordinary statement he did as to
thoufilit it necmsar6 he railways, he (Lord G. Bentinck)
the expense of En
question. The extraordinaryshould set himself right on the
Exchequer. hhd
.3intaatedille statement which
that the
sev
eerix
cellor of the
-oCfhathnet-
principal lines of railway t.
...e,ountry before
r the year 1840
had cost no less a sum thiann
him (Lord G. Bentinek) to ome alt-e9;0111i0rq. r)h.lst hadtl induced
and the followng was the result to whichnir
had arrived.
subiec,
The Right Honourable Gentleman stated that the London and
Birmingham Railway before 1841) had cost no less a
sum than 8,250,0001. ; but what would they think
of this surprising statement, when he told them
that if they looked in page 475 of the returns furnished to
that House they would find the sum expended was only
5,994,536'. ; and of the ten Bills enacted for this company,
but six were passed before 1849.—( Hear, hear.) The Grand
Junction was stated to have cost 4,638,000/. before 1840,
whereas he found there had been expended but 1,921,496/.
The Great Western was stated to have spent before 1840,
8,282,0001.; the expenditure, however, he found was only
4,508,160/. The Brighton Railway was represented to have
cost 2,867,0001.; the real expense was 1,166,540/.
The South Western was repr,ented to have cost before
1840, 2,600,000/. ; the sum, however, though somewhat under
' that, was 2,054,3601. But the greatest departure from the

and Birmingham and Derby, together

Making a total of £8,009,6'2-7
Or about an average of 4,000,000/. on each of these year!.
Ile must say that when the exaggerations of the Right Hon
Gentleman went to the extraordinary length of 17,000,0001.
in the best face that could be put on the matter, or of
28,0.)0,0001., if the argument of the Right Hen. Gentleman
were taken in its fullest extent, he was justified in saying that
it could he nothing hut a trick of the trade, or if not so it was
what he ( Lord G. Bentinck) had alriltdy designated as mar
vellous a statement as was perhaps ever heard within the walls
of that House, and most ma-vellous, as coming from a Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer. The Noble Lord concluded by moeing
for a return showing the amount of money expended in the
actual cost of construction and of working stock (including
locomotive engines, carriages, tools, &c..) of all railways in
Great Britain awl Ireland in each triennial period previous to
the first day of January respectively in the years 1841, 1844,
and 1817 ; as also a return, sho wing the sums of money actually
expended by the following railway companies previous to
1841:—Logsdon and Birmieghtm, G7and Junction, Great
Western, Brighton, South Western, South Eastern and Mid-
land, likewise the aggregate sum expended by the above-men-
tioned railway companies in each year previous to 1841.
Mr. GOULBURN regretted that he had been the innocent
cause of inflicting on the Hous_v a somewhat lengthy speech in
support of certain returns to which there could have been no
possible ohjectioe. But he thoiteht he could satisfy the
H u e that it was not to him, nor to any statement of his, that
the.), were to impute this inconvenience. Ii on the occasion
when he had delivered the speech or expressed the sentiments
which the Noble Lord had seen fit to attribute to him, the
Noble Lord had avJiled himself of the privilege which he then
enjoyed (the 'louse belne then in Co-emitters), of observing
upon the statement which he (Mr. Goalburn) was alleged to
have made, or if he had asked any explanation of that state-
ment h. (Mr. Goulburn) would hare been most rea ly then to
give that explanation which he would now be compelled to give
and thus would be precluded ev, ry necessity fur further discus-
sion on this subject.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had
stated, that they had had a Chancellor of the Exchequer who
had advanced erroneous sta.emenoe and false calcu!a!ions, and
that he was therefere bean,' to suffer the penalties attached to
these. He (Mr. G itilburn) might say in return, that those
who expected to be Chancellor of the Exchequer, and who
misrepresented what fell from other Honourable Gentlemen,
and founded false arguments on those misrepresentations ; he
(31r. Goulburn) said that that person was not fit for the
office to which he might be thought to aspire. Hear, hear.)
With there observations he would proceed to state to the House
what it was he did say on the occasion to which the Noble
Lord had made reference; he would vindicate the words
he had made use of on that occasion. and the ugument
which he had deduced from them. The Noble Lord said th it
in making those statements he was doing that which was im-
proper, because lie was referring to a speech delivered three
weeks before in Parliameat.. He was afraid the Noble Lard
imputed to him a practice to which he himself was but too
prone, namely, that of t iking nine days to consider his reply.
Honourable Members would recollect that he then
spoke to the strict question before the House, and
referred particularly to a speech of the previous
evening. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had,
on bringing for ward hie Budget, adverted to the revenues of
the years 1842, 1843, 1844, 1845, and 1816, and had shown
by rethrence to a number of articles that a reduction of duty on
those had led to a progressive increase in the consumption of
such articles, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer argued
from thence that the reduction of ill.• duties on commercial
articles was the wiser policy to be 1 ursui:d. The Noble Lord
said that the Chancellor was wrong in his reasoning, and that
this increase urns not to be attributed to any change in the fitiane
cial policy of the country, but was to be attributed altogther to
the extension of railways. He said, "What has free trade to do
with it ? It is railway enterprise alone that has done this.
The Noble Lord said he (Mr. Goulburn) hail confined his ob•
nervations to the years 1839.40, and followed that statement up
with the declaration that these were the only two years of great
deficiency. Now, the Noble Lord subsevenily, to his own
speech, admitted that there was a deficiency in 1841 of two
millions, and in 1842 of three millions ; but let that pass.
The Noble Lord said he (Mr. Goulburn) attributed the defi-
ciencies of the years 1839-40 to the expenditure which took
place in those years oa railways. Now he (Mr.
Goulburn) said no such thing. What he did say would
be found correctly recorded in what he was not at
liberty to refer to in that House—in those memoranda which
conveyed the debates in some degree to the public. It would
be found from them that he stated, that during the sears of
deficiency there was raised for railways, in the course of com-
pletion, no less than 47,700,000/., and in order not to leave
the House in doubt, he stated the quarter from which he de-
rived his information. He collected it from a report made to
that House in the year 1846, from the Select Committee on
railways.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord, however, had
fixed a charge upon him, that he mecca that this was
the sum. espended in the years 1839 and 1810, but he
rratly ,sad no such thOig. 'What he did say was, tat
the amount e hail mentioned was the runt raised hp to that
ol.t for he iste-rio.e of completing the railways in question.
The Noble I. ird had tot • him that it' he ( Jr. Gaul urn) had booked over t,e. payee ,herce h • oto,in.•d his flour, I
have seen that the amount in en led sums ta ba'rai•ed
. Weil
did he not state that of 'he total ameont the eiserioanisis hart
raised 8 250,1;00% Pilo clout t had he been address nee an a.-
sembly who were not in the hsbt of attending to subjects
of
this nature, he should, perhaps, have been more particular and
precise in his observations He should have taken care to
guard his Beare: s against the iinpressom that .the whole sum
had been expended fn one or two years. ''here were
two ways of addressing that House. which wee supposed to
consist of an educated and well-infloraleii assembly. One was

mereli to deduce results in arguing particular topics, while
the other was to go into details and particulars which would
naturally suggest themselves to every man of intelligence. He
adopted the former course, for the obvious reason that he did
not wish to make himself more dull and tedious than was
absolutely necessari. la the way of implication the Noble
Lord had put into his mouth a statement which he never
made. The Noble Lord stated that he (Mr. Goul-
burn) stated that this sum had been cx ended in the
course 'of two years in which there was a large
deficiency in the revenue.—(Hear.) He s no such
thing. His argument applied to a series of years of deficiency,
beginning with 1837 and ending with 1843. So far the state-
ment he made was literally true, and was not capable of con-
tradiction. But it was said that he railed this wale of argu-
ment to impress upon the House what was not founded on fact,
namely, that there had been a considerable expenditure in
railway speculations during the time of the deficiency in the
revenne. Of course he could not decide so accurately as an
Honourable Member in the position of the Honourable
Member for Sunderland how much of the 47,00),0001.
was expended within the period of the deficiency, but
.!t could not have been an inconsiderable proportion
"because during the period many of the great lines connecting the
tnetr polis with the north were in the course of construc-
tion. Therefore he concluded that a considerable portion of
the outlay mast have been occasioned when there was a defi-
ciency I,ninth,fterievenue. There was a teturn sent to Parliament
different _„wch it was stated that the aggregate sums the
57,700.0017;"thaztawviere empowered to raise, amounted to
, it
st
was years after the commencement of
the deficiency
derable potion uf
the expenditure
natural to suppose that a eonsi-
hzepehnaditure of that sum fell wahin
the perioci to which
;ildverted. But there was
other evidence to which he
perhais the isT could refer to for
support, and in which
posed to place some degree of confidence,bl e Lord would be ills-
when an examination took place before te the year 1844,
upon railways, Mr. Laing wat asked what had
Select Committee
amount laid out in tie cowtructian of railways the
whole
time, and the reply was 64.000,0001. Now if they up to that
from that sum the cost of railways that were comnuicet,ed
previous to 1837, of which they had no distinct accuuntr, the
dy
would arrive at the exact amount expended between 1837
and 1844, which he was sure would go fully to
justify the statement that
he had made, namely,
that co-existent with the deficiency in the revenue,
there was a large expenditure in railway speculations. He
trusted he had now satisfied the Noble Lord and the House
that be had committed no error in his statements; and
in conclusion, he had only to thank the House for the attention
with which they had listened to him, and to refer them for the
real statement he did make to the ordinary channels by which
information of the debates which took place in that House were
conveyed to the public.
Mr. DISRAELI rose to make a few observations to the
ROWS for the purpose of substantiating the statements of his

real facts of the case had been shown by the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman in his representation of the expense of the South-
Eastern Railway. He was not content with increasing it one-third,
enr one-half, sir even double, for while the real expenditure had
only been 361,40.5/. it had been represented to be 3 837,0001.
iHe stated that the expenditure on the Midland railways was
1,235,000/., when, in truth, the whole expenditure at that time
'had only been 1,237,800!. But he (Lord G. Bentinek) was
quite willing to give the Right Hon. Gentleman credit fir a
total ignorance on this subject. It would seem that when he
took the Midland Counties Railway as an illustration, he ima-
gined that he was dealing with the Amalgamated Midland
railways of a I.ter period ; and therefore h. e included the ex-
penditure of the North Midland and Birmingham lines. If that
were so, then the entire expenditure from the first commence..
so that the truth was, that en
merit amounted to 4,7')4,753!.,
these seven railways from the first commencement, from A.
year 18.36, when their Acts were first obtained, the expendi-
ture of the whole of them had been hut 20,437,113/. When
an had sent forth a statement to the
the Right Hon. Gentlern
country that the expense in the two years of the deficiency was
37,729,000/. ; so th..t they had a Chancellor of the Exchequer
who, on the seven railway lines, was wrong to an amount of
17,291,000/.—( Hear, hear.) Now, if that was not a marvel-
lous statement for a gentleman to make, who once held
the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer, he (Lord G. Ben-
tinek ) did not know what constituted a marvelous statement.
But that was not the whole cas s. The argument of the Right
Honourable Gentleman was an answer to a speech
which was made three weeks before. Though
Honourable G,ntlemen hod come down to the House
calmly and deliberately, armed with the authority of the rail-
way
Committee report, of which he was himself a Member ;
he made this statement of the expenditure in the yea s of
deeiency. Now, as the only years in which a west de-
ficiency was found in the revenue were the years 18:i9 and
1310, tie impression which was intended to go forth to the
country was that this sum of .17,71i9,000/. was th eat, nditure
of the years 18;9 and 18-1 t. Whereas he ( Lord G. Bentinck )
found tl &tat these railways in those two years the entire sum
expended was but 9,718,99 1., showing an average expenditure
in each of the two years of 4.8.59,1:00/. ; so that taking this
view o- the question the Right Honourable Gentleman was
not wrong mer ly in the matter of seventeen but of twenty-
eight millions—( Hear)—end when they reflected the t tic
statement was come to after much deliberation ; with all the
pomp and circumstance which attended an Ex Chancellor of
the Exchequer, with the report of the Committee, of which
he had been a member, in his hand; and when they saw that
that statement was exhibited in the fate of that party, with
the figures quoted in perpendicular columns ; when they saw
all this, he trusted the House would not think that he had
occupied its time unnecessarily, in showing how little reliance
was to be placed on the statistics and stateme its of the Right
Hor. Gentleman. But when it went to the country and to
Irelond, that it was on account of the pressure from the
Rigko. Honourable Gentleman that her Majesty's Government,
which appeared to be wavering whether or not they would
accept the measure which he had introduced to the House,
when it was solely from the pressure of the Right Hon. Gen-
lemai that the First Lord of the Treasury was fixed to the de-
claration that he would resist the second readirg of the Bill
when it came to that House ; it would be stamped on the public
mind of the country that her Majesty's Ministers had allowed
themselves to be led by such blinded guides as the Right Hon.
the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. He (Lord G. Bentinck)
had stated that the years J 539 and 1840 were the two past
years in which there was any great deficiency in the revenue,
True there was a deficiency of 658,000/. in 1:437, ands f
345,09(`/. in IS ; but these deficiencies had arisen from the re-
duction of 930,0901. of taxes, and did not a-iso from any
prostration of the resources of the country ; but in the year
1841 there was a deficiency of '2,100,0901., and in the year
1842 of 3,979,0001. Was there, in these two yea,-s, a great
expenditure of money on railways? Far from it. He found
that in the course of these two years, there had been ex•
pended—
On the London and Birmingham
On the Great Western
On the London and Brighton
On the Grand Junction
On the South- Western
On the South-Eastern ... • ....... ..... 2,171,595
On the North Midland, the Midland Counties,