The Sun.
London, England, 1841-01-30 00:00:00

system worked well, and ought not to be put down.
There ought, however, to be some provision made for
the industrious and meritorious pauper, and if such pro-
vision were brought forward by the Government, he
would hail it with joy. He had no intention, not pos-
sessing sufficient influence, of bringing forward any such
measure himself, but he thought a supplementary
power might, with great benefit and advantage, be given
to vestry or parochial meetings, to afford relief in cases
that were deserving of it.
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT would not trespass
long upon the House, especially as the present discus-
sion might in some degree be considered premature. At
the same time he begged to state that he had always
objected to the Bill, believing it to be founded on erro-
neous principles on any point of view, highly unconsti-
tutional, and altogether repugnant to the customs,
habits, and feelings of the people of this country. He
also thought that it undermined the best moral feelings
of the poor ; and at the time it was first introduced he
felt it to be a most dangerous and rash experiment.
Ile thought the Poor-law Amendment Act wasfundamen-
tally erroneous, to such a degree that it would not be
in the power of the Noble Lord so to frame the mea-
sure as to cause it to be permanently adopted by this
country. He (Sir Francis) entirely concurred in the
feelings which had been expressed by the Hon. Mem-
ber for Finsbury, and if it were in that Hon. Mem-
ber's power to move that the Bill should then be
thrown out and a new system altogether adopted he
would have been prepared to support it.—(Hear.)
He thought the first thing to be got rid of was the tri-
bunal in Somerset House.—(Hear.) It was impossi-
ble to frame any system of regulations which could apply
to every particular case. He thought the system of
centralisation was the most dangerous that could be in-
troduced into this country. The experiment had been
a total failure, and the more any new system departed
from it, and was opposed to if, the more likely would it
be to succeed.
M. HUME, as one of those who supported the
New Poor-law when first introduced, could not allow
the Hon. Baronet to say that it had been productive of
mischief and suffering to the poor. It was impossible
to prevent hardships ; but Gentlemen ought not to be
unjust to those who passed a measure to remedy still
greater evils and more intolerable hardships. It was
impossible for any man who had attended to the evi-
dence given before that House to deny that the mea-
sure was loudly called for. He admitted that there
were abuses even now, and no man could be more
anxious than he was to correct them. He re-
gretted with his Honourable Friend (Mr. %Vakley)
that there were evils in the present system ;
but he hoped that the Bill now about to be brought
in would remedy them. It was most desirable to make
the law as agreeable as possible to those who were to be
subject to it ; but he did not see the necessity for con-
tinuing the Commissioners ten years.—( Hear.) The
object of the Bill was not to benefit the middle classes,
but the poor themselves, and those who paid the rates,
and whose property was wasted by the old system, with-
out any advantage to the really poor. He would be
glad to see some provision introduced into this Bill to
ameliorai.e the condition of those whose misfortune it
might be to become inmat es of the workhouse.
Mr. A. W HITE said in the part of the country
with which he was connected, the new Poor-law had
operated well, and had given general satisfaction. The
orders issued from time to time the Commissioners had
been attended with the best effects.

before considered idle and careless, earning their wages
in a fair and proper manner. Besides relief was given to
those only to whom it ought to begi‘ en, the really destitute.
He differed with those who thought that the Board of
Guardians should make a distinction in the relief of in-
dividual cases. He believed that the only safe course
was to adhere to that wise and good principle of the
Act of Elizabeth, namely, that no poor person in this
country should be allowed to starve, but that all per-
sons reduced to a state of destitution should receive
food and shelter, and that persons should be relieved
because they were destitute, and not because they
were idle, and preferred Poor-law relief to wages. He
believed that the proper mode of relief was that which
had been afterwards confirmed by the Act of George 1.,
which had been most unfortunately altered by the law
of 1797. There would, however, always remain, even
supposing that there were considerable employment in the
country, and supposing that they gave relief to the desti•
tute, there would always remain enough to employ private
beneficence. He was not certainly one of those who,
when the amendment was originated, thought that they
were about to suppress the necessity for private cha-
rity. He felt, however, that charity ought to be spon-
taneous, and ought not to take the character of State
relief. It might, he thought, be safely left in the hands
of those who had ample means of relieving their poorer
neighbours, and who had likewise that kindness of feel-
ing, which, while it prompted them to:relieve the destitute,
conferred its own reward.—(Hear, hear.) In order to
carry the principles of the amended law, which were so
efficient, he thought it was necessary to maintain the
establishment of Guardians, and of Commissioners gene-
rally superintending the whole of the Act. With
regard to the Assistant-Commissioners, he had stated
last year, and he still felt, that he did not think it ne-
cessary that they should always have such a number as
at present, but he believed they could not at anytime be
reduced to less than twelve. He differed from the
Hon. Gentleman who had said that Lord Althorp had
stated that, at the end of five years, the Act was to
cease. The original intention of the Government was,
that there should be no specific term—that the powers
of the Act should be given, without any limitation as
to time. When, however, it bad been stated in the
House that the Act was a great and perilous experi.
ment, Lord Althorp consented that a period of
fire years should be fixed fur its trial, in or-
: der that Parliament might have time to be-
come informed on the subject, when it came
again under their consideration. He (Lord John
Russell) believed that they had now had the neces-
sary information, and he trusted that the House would
maintain the principle of the Act. He would acknow-
ledge, under those circumstances, that he would be de-
ceiving the House if he were to hold out a prospect of
any considerable relaxation of the law, or anything like
a return to the old system ; and for his part, as he felt
the necessity of the main principles of the Act, they
should always have his support and approval.—(Hear.)
Leave given.
FACTORIES' COMMITTEE.

On the motion of Lord ASHLEY, the Committee
of last Session, on Mills and Factories, was re-appoint-
ed, for the purpose of considering their Report, and
making it to the House.

Mr. LIDDELL said, if such had been the expe-
rience of the Hon. Member for Sutherland ( Mr.
White) it was quite contrary to his (Mr. L.'s) experi-
ence of the operation of the Bill in the North of England.
He thought the adjudication as to the relief to be af-
forded would be much better left to the Boards of
Guardians than to the Commissioners of Somerset
House. Ile was sick of hearing of relief afforded on
just principles—these just principles led to most unjust
practices.—(hear, hear:) He would gladly support
the Hon. Member for Finsbury in any attempt for the
improvement or the amendment of the law ; but not
only would he not support a proposition for the conti-
nuance of the powers of the Commissioners for ten
years, but he would not with his good-will continue their
power for two years or even for one year. To that
portion of the Bill, therefore, he should give his most
decided opposition ; as to the other portions of the Bill,
he should reserve his opinion on those until the Bill was
before the House.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the motion which he
had submitted to the House was for leave to bring in a
Bill for continuing the powers of the Commissioners for
a time limited, and for the amendment of the laws re-
lating to the poor. He had thought it right to state to
the House the period to it was proposed that the
powers of the Commissioners should be extended, and
it would be for the House to decide whether that pe-
riod should be for one or for ten years, or for any other
period on which, in their discretion, they might decide ;
that was not of course contained in the motiou now be-
fore the House. He did not think it necessary either
to go into the present state of the Poor-laws, or into the
consideration of any of the defects which might be ex-
isting in them, in making this motion, not only because
a similar Bill had been introduced last year, but because
on rio subject had a greater mass of information been
laid before the House and the country than on the
subject of the Poor-laws. Before the introduc-
tion of the original measure the inquiries of the
Commissioners appointed to investigate the subject,
and the results of those inquiries, had been circulated
throughout the country ; since then annual reports had
been presented by the Commissioners to the Secretary
of State, and by him laid before Parliament. Beth
Houses of Parliament had also instituted their own
inquiries by means of their own Committees, which
had sat during more than one session. With regard
to the Bill now brought in, a volume of special reports
of the Commissioners during the last year was in pos-
session of the House, so that it appeared, besides the
individual experience of many Honourable Members
as Chairmen, and members of Boards of Guardians,
the House had every thing that could be required to
enable Parliament to come to a tolerable conclusion
as to the general bearing and merits of the question,
For his ow❑ part, he could say that although it might
have been easy to allow the powers of the Poor-law
Commissioners to expire, leaving to the Boards of
Guardians the management of their local concerns, and
leaving to them the odium of any refusals of relief they
might have to make, yet, believing as he did the powers
of the Commissioners to be useful and necessary after
the neglect which had so long existed on this subject,
and after the abuses which were the consequences of
that neglect had taken such deep root—(Cheers)—he
felt that he should not be doing his duty if he did not
move for a continuance of those powers.—(Cheers.)
In 1819 he had thought the matter was one which
called for the attention of the Government, And he had
asked the Government of that day if they were prepared
to bring forward any measure for an effective
amendment of the Poor-laws. Mr. Canning had said
in reply that the question was so complicated, so large,
and so intricate, that it could not be matter of blame to
any Government that it did not take it up. Now, the
year before 1819, the sum raised in England for the re-
lief of the poor amounted to eight millions for that single
year alone. But the Government in 1835 had under-
taken the task, and as the Hon. Member had said at
that time the abuses were so great that there was a
general disposition in favour of some amendment of the
principles on which those laws were administered.--
(Cheers.) If the House would allow him he would state
in whit he considered the vicious principle of the
former administration of these laws consisted, and
what were the just principles on which their
am eadment had been undertaken. The labour-
ing classes depended upon three sources of
subsistence ; Ist, on wages ; on public relief
in CIFCS of destitution ; and, 3d, on public charity.
New the great fault of the old administration of the law
was, that it attempted to confound all these three
sources together. Vestries gave parish relief to per-
sons who were in the receipt of wages.—(Cheers.)
This had a tendency to lower the rate of wages, and to
degrade the labourer—(Loud cheers)—for it put the
honest and industrious labourer who was ready to live
upon his wlges, in a disadvantageous situation, as com-
pared with the idle and dissolute one who was placed on
the same footing, or perhaps in a better situation, by
this abuse of obtaining parish relief.—(Loud cheers.)
It likewise pretended to do that which could only be
done by private charity, by pretending to give that.
support which only a charitable and wealthy
neighbour might with propriety afford in cases of sud-
den misfortune, such fur instance as a case in which a
poor family nigh: have all the furniture of their cot-
tage destroyed by fire ; in that case wealthy and chari-
table neighbours could restore these unfortunate persons
to their rank in society, by furnishing them with the
means of replacing their property so destroyed. But
the administration of the Poor-law attempted to do
this. It was easy charity for a Vestry and Overseers
to give away money which did not belong to them, and
to say they would be extremely charitable in the parti-
cular case of A., 8., or C. But charity was not pro-
perly admistered in that way ; there could be no dis-
crimination in such an administration of charity ; it was
not true charity ; and by attempting to distribute charity
in that way, they perverted the charity of the country by
squandering immense sums of money upon unworthy ob-
jects. It oppearad manifest to him that the old system
proceeded on mistaken principles ; sums, for instance,
being granted to a daughter for tending a mother when
ill, and to a father that took care of his child, while the
nearest relations, were thus taught to look for a reward
in the discharge of the most natural duties. He was,
therefore, of opinion, that the amendment of the law
proceeded on a principle which was just—namely, that
wages should be the result of a fair contract between
the employer and the labourer. The employer gave
his money for what he considered a fair day's work,
according es he might require it. The labourer was
raised by this change in the law—he felt that what he
gained was the value of his work, and he did not feel
degraded by the acceptance of it. It was observed in
the first report of the Commissioners, that after the
amendment in the laws many improvident labourers
suddenly became industrious, and that several of the
Verniers felt sure rised at seeing labourers whom they had

THE SUN, LONDON', SATURDAY, JANUARY o. iSti

COURT OF SEWERS-WEST-

NIINSTE R.

The Special Court of Sewers was this day held at the
office of the Commissioners, in Greek-street, Soho, for
the purpose of trying the traverses made to the pro-
sentcnts of the Jury, in the cases of Chelsea Hospital and
of the church of St. Luke, Chelsea.
Mr. Bicknell attended on behalf of the Hospital, and
Mr. Bodkin on behalf of the church.
After sonic discussion it was agreed to adjourn the con-
sideration of the question of Chelsea Church until twe
o'clock.
A Jury was then sworn to try the traverse in regard
to Chelsea Hospital.
J. L. DON ALMON, Esq., the Chairman, was supported
by Mr. Ogle, as assessor.
A discussion having taken place as to who was to begin,
On the question being referred to the Assessor, he
decided that those who appeared for the district, and in
support of the presentment of the former Jury, were to
begin.
The SOLICITOR to the Court then addressed the Jury,
and explained the law of Sewers at great length, from the
Ist Act relating to Sewers, passed in the year 1427, down
to the present time, drawing their particular attention to
the Act of Henry VIII., which was, in fact, the law under
which they were now acting, and by which Act the lands
of the Sovereign were as expressly bound as the lands of
any other per son. It bad formerly been the practice
only to assess such ;persons to the B...were-rate
as were assessed to the Poor-rate; but the Commission-
ers were of opinion that much property which was not
liable to the Poor-rate was liable to the Sewers'-rate, and
accordingly had determined to present it to the Jury.
Among that property:which it was now sought to assess for
the first time was this portion of Chelsea Hospital, and al-
though it had never yet been assessed to the Sewers'-rate,
yet if they were of opinion that it was legally liable, it
ought now to be assessed. Now, he contended that under
the statutes to which he had before alluded, all lands of
every description were liable without exception, and conse-
quently that Chelsea Hospital ought to be assessed. The
Leal ned Gentleman concluded by quoting an immense
number of authorities in support of his argument.
Mr. Herts,let, the Clerk to the Commission, being
sworn, proved the presentment of the former Jury, found
on 27th November last, which was put in, and that portion
of it relating to Chelsea Hospital read.
Mr. John Dowling, the Surveyor of Sewers for the Ra-
nelagh district, explained the situation of the Hospital with
regard to the sewers under the jurisdiction of the Court,
for the purpose of showing the benefit derived by the Hos-
pital therefrom.
He was cross-examined by Mr. BICKNELL, the Solicitor
to the Hospital, who put in two letters, one an application
from the Commissioners of Sewers, in 1826, relating to
the turning the private drain in theßanelagis ground, into a
public sewer; and the ether the opinion of Sir John
Soane, that the turning such drain into a public sewer
would be detrimental 'o the Hospital. Witness also stated
that the present Ranelagh sewer had been formerly a
common ditch, into which the hospital sewer opened;
that the hospital sewer appeared to have been an ancient
sewer, and:that the western sewer of the Hospital opened
into a creek communicating with the Thames, until such
communication was cut off by the works erected by the
Commissioners of Sewers. Witness believed what was
called the western sewer, to be a public sewer. Before
the Commissioners made the alterations, the sewer was
sufficient to take away ...the waste water of the Hospital.
Does not know of any public sewer under the building of
the Hospital.
Re-examined.—The Commissioners had no jurisdiction
over these sewers until 1807. The alterations made by
them had materially benefited Chelsea Hospital.
By one of the Jury.—Did not know whether, if these
alterations had not been made by the Commissioners, the
Hospital Commissioners must have made them at pre-
sent, but they must have done so at some future time.
Mr. R. SIBLEY, surveyor, had made the valuation of
Chelsea Hospital.
Mr. MULLINS thought the going into an examination as
to the value was a waste of the time of the Court, as the
real question was, whether the Hospital was liable, and
whether it derived any benefit ?
Mr. ADEY thought the objection a most proper one.

Mr. DYER thought the opinion of the Assessor ought to
be taken on the subject, and abided by.
The AssESSOR thought there were three questions to be
submitted to the Jury. Ist, Was the Hospital liable ?
Was the proper person asseved ? And, 3d, Was it asses-
sed in the proper sum ? There had been therefore, as he
considered, no waste of time.
Mr. MULLINS was about:to enter into a further discussion,
when he was interrupted by the Chairman, who said that
the Assessor having given his opinion, he considered that
he must take the opinion of the Court as to whether there
should be any further discussion on the subject.
The CHAIRMAN said that it having been arranged that
the question of Chelsea Chapel having been adjourned to
two o'clock, it was for the Court to decide to what day
they should adjourn it, as it would be really impossible to
go into it to-day.
Mr. LESLIE said that he thought they ought not to fix a
day in the absence of Mr. Bodkin, who was counsel for
the appellants, and who promised to be there by two
o'clock.
Mr. DYER thought the Chairman had better take the
advice of the Assessor as to the power of adjourning the
Chelsea Chapel case, and rule accordingly.
The ASSESSOR thought the difficulty as to the power
was got rid of by the consent of Mr, Bodkin and. his
client, and therefore he should suggest to adjourn to ten
o'clock to-morrow,
The Seneierroa to Chelsea Church could consent
to nothing in the absence of Mr. Bodkin, who he knew
could not attend at ten o'clock to-morrow.
Mr. LESLIE thought it by no means certain that the
present case would be finished by ten o'clock to-morrow.
Mr. ADEY would move that the further proceedings of
the case in regard to Chelsea Church be adjourned to this
day fortnight.
Mr. Meisel:is seconded it.
The CHAIRMAN, acting (older the advice of the Asses-
sor, decided that the question could not be put.
Mr. Deere said it
.was always the practice, in every
Court, to state, when questioned, whether they would
take a certain cause on that day or not. He wished to
have the opinion of the Assessor as to their power to
adjourn beyond day to da, in the trial of these traverses.
The ASSESSOR was of opinion, that if they adjourned
at all, they ought to adjourn trona day to day ; if they
wished to adjourn to a longer period, they ought to obtain
the consent of the parties concerned.
The SOLICITOR to the Church of St. Luke's, Chelsea,
then applied to adjourn the case to Friday week, pledg-
ing himself not to take any advantage of any technicality.
After some discussion it was decided that the applica-
tion must be made in writing.
The examination of Mr. Sibley was then resumed as to
the proper assessment of the Hospital. He valued fourteen
acres of buildings at 1001. an acre, and thirty-six acres of
pleasure-ground at 101. an acre. The Ranelagh Sewer
was of much importance to the Royal Hospital, as it pre-
vented the gardens from being inundated.
Cross-examined—Mr. Hall occupied the hall, and
chapel, and grounds, only in the same manner as the
secretary or any other officer of the establishment.
JOHN HENRY TAYLOR, another surveyor, corroborated
the evidence given by Mr. Sibley.
A written application wars put in from the solicitors for
the Chelsea Church, chapel, and workhouse, for an ad-
journment of the OW of their traverse till that day fort-
night, sshich was agreed to by an unanimous vote, and the
Jury was discharged accordingly.
The SOLICITOR for the Hospital then addecssed the Jury,
assessed, was not an officer of the
and contelided that the presentment could not stand, be-
servant of the Board of Works at.
teHaacouhssiee) idtiallinb;huwet h%Hvoaosswp theai
tsa ; he occupied premises in the Hos-
pital for which he was rated to the poor and to the sewer
rate, but he was not in possession in any way of either the
wards or chapel, or one foot of ground around the Hospi-
tal; he did not pretend, for one moment, that he was a man
in possession of property to the amount of 7,0001 ; he was
not in possession, and according to all the cases he could
not be assessed. He contended that the premises assessed
in this presentment belonged to the Coroner, and if the
Jury would only find that it would greatly relieve him, for
then the duty of defending the case would devolve upon
the Attorney or Solicitor-General. However, he con-
tended that Richard Hall was not charged to the Poor-
rate for the premises he was now assessed to, therefore he
could not be liable for tue Sewers'-rate ; he was not in
possession, and therefore.he was not assessable ; and if his
goods, or those of any other person, were taken for the
rate, he or the owner would have good ground for an ac-
tion. If the Commissioners were determined to assess
some parsons for the premises they must go against the
pensioners, and he would prose that although they
were the only beneficial occupants the Judges had de-
cided they were not liable to the Poor-rate, and
therefore they could not be liable to the Sewei s'.
rate. He further contended that the Hospital was not as-
sessable, because before the Commission took-their private
sewers they had a perfect drainage. After going at great
length into the history of the Hospital, and citing many
cases to show that as a public Hospital it was not liable to
the Poor-rate, and, consequently, was not liable to the
Sewers-rate, he called
John Fessor, the chief clerk in the Secretary's office of
ChelscaHospital, who stated that there were 539 pensioners
and 26 nurses in the Hospital, who were lodged, fed, and
washed for at the public expense. They all met in the
common hall at stated hours to get their meals, arid all
slept in wards, and had fires in common. Richard Hall
was not a pensioner of the Hospital, nor was he an officer
of it at all. He was placed in his situation by the Board
of Works. He did not occupy any land in the Hospital,
nor had he anything to do with the chapel except to attend
to its repairs. The hospital was Crown property, and was
taken care of by the Commissioners. The sewerage was
perfectly sufficient for the purposes of the hospital before
the Commissioners of Sewers took possession of their ditch.
Cross-examined—The public sewer was certainly of ad-
vantage to the hospital, because it kept the approaches in
good order.
Re-examined—The Seljeant-major was as much an oc-
cupier of the wards and the chapel as Mr. Hall, and lied
the same access to them.
The Vestry Clerk of Chelsea produced the rate-books,
in which neither the wards or the chapel were inserted.
Stephen Maythorn was called to prove the sufficiency
of the drainage, previous to the making of the sewer by
the Commissioners.
This closed the traverser's case.
Mr. SNIITII, the Solicitor to the Commission, then replied,
The Learned ATSESSOE summed up, and left it to the
Jury to say whether the Hospital derived any benefit from
the Sewerage, because, if so, he was of opinion the build.
ing was liable to the rate.
The Jury retired to a private room, and after an abssrce
of a quarter of an hour, returned with a verdict confirming
the presentment.
The case occupied the Court upwards of ten hours.
At eight o'clock the Court was adjourned.

It is expected that Lord Aberdeen and the Duke
of Richmond will, early in the Session, introduce a Bill
into the House of Lords for settling the Scotch Church
question.w/Vorning Paper.

PROVINCIAL BANK OF IRELAND.

An extraordinary general meeting of the Proprietors
of the above Bank was, on Thursday, held at their es-
tablishment in Broad-street, for the purpose of electing
a Director in the place of John Wright, Esq., who had
resigned.
0. FARBER, Esq., being called to the Chair,
The SECRETARY of the Bank read the advertise-
ments which convened the meeting, and which also
stated its objects.
The CHAlRMAN—Gentlemen, you have heard the
advertisement. We are now here assembled for the
purpose of electing a Director in the room of Mr. John
Wright, who has retired. There is but one candidate
to fill the situation ; I will, therefore, put his name to
the vote. "Is it your pleasure, Gentlemen, that James
Helme, Esq., be elected a Director ?" it was unani-
mously carried.
FREDERICK READ, Esq.—l believe I shall now be in
order if I refer to a subject which appears to affect the
character of this establishment. It arises from a letter
which, in common with the other Proprietors, I have
received.from Mr. Baldwin, who has been a candidate
for the vacant Directorehip, but who has now with-
drawn. Yet he may again become a candidate when
another vacancy takes place.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
I have been struck with the manner in which that
letter is couched, and I wish to call the particular atten-
tion of the meeting to two points in it —( Hear.)
The first applies to what may occur at a future elec-
tion, and reflects upon the mode in which elections are
conducted. Mr. B.'s statement implies, that any re-
commendation coming from the Board in favour of
a candidate, as being best qualified to fill the situa-
tion, will be sure to secure his election. I believe
we passed a resolution binding ourselves to support
the best qualified candidate. If that resolution is
proposed to be rescinded, I would oppose it with the
same warmth which I showed in its favour, when it was
first proposed to the Proprietors. The resolution re-
ferred to is as follows—" that in future elections it
would conduce to the good management of the Bank's
affairs, if a recommendation should he made by the
Directors to the Proprietors in favour of those candi-
dates whom, alter due inquiry, they shall find to be best
qualified to fill the situation."—( Hear, hear.) The
next question is one or more importance, which, with
your permission, I will read. The paragraph in the
letter to which I refer, and of which I most complain,
runs as follows :—" The manifest disposition of dis-
couraging Irish gentlemen who come forward on simi-
lar occasions, is a subject which has for some time
occupied the attention and attracted the notice of my
countrymen, and is worthy of your mature considera-
tion, for it has engendered a strong spirit of jealousy,
which, though slowly, is working deeply to the injury
of your establishment. It is a fact which cannot be
denied, that this feeling mainly gave rise to a power-
ful opposition bank—more powerful than wealthy,
on account of its national influence—the effects of
which have been severely felt on more than one oc-
casion. The hest proof I can give of what I assert
is, that this was one of the chief arguments used by
the promoters of that Institution, when they applied
to me and other friends to co-operate with them in
forming the establishment." This has been sent forth
in a general circular, which I consider is calculated to
injure the present establishment ; an establishment
standing at present high in public estimation—( Hear,
hear, hear)—and upon which I should be sorry there
should be cast any imputation whatever. I therefore
rise on this occasion to give the Court of Directors an
opportunity to refute or explain what the worthy Pro-
prietor refers to in his circular ; and if he should be
present he will explain why he has cast upon the
Court of Directors a reflection which they do not
deserve.—Cheers.) I have no knowledge of the
gentleman, but this I know, that the same number of
Irish gentlemen continue at our Board, or indeed
more than were there when we were first established
—(Hear, hear.) I believe the whole Board of Direc-
tors to have displayed so much zeal, ability, and cour-
tesy in the general management of our affairs, that they
do not merit the imputation that has been by such a
course attached to them.—(Hear, hear.)
The CHAIRMAN—I am extremely sorry my friend,
Mr. Baldwin, is not present, which I presume he is not,
as I do not see him, and this will prevent my saying
many things which I should otherwise do.—( Hear,
hear.) From the way in which this question has been
asked, I shall feel it my duty to answer it. But ever
since this letter has been circulated we have felt our-
selves placed in a difficult situation, having to suffer
under a serious charge, which, if correct, we should not
deserve that which we have always received, the entire
confidence of the Proprietors.—(Hear.) If we had not
considered that a contest was about to take place, we
would have sought an earlier opportunity to rescue
ourselves from this charge ; but we felt that if we did
so, it might militate against one of the candidates.—
(Cheers.) I ern thankful to Mr. Reed for giving me
an opportunity to speak to the question ; at the same
tone, I am sorry that my friend Mr. Baldwin did not
first investigate the facts, which he might have learnt
upon both these points. I must think he was la-
bouring under sonic misapprehension.—( Hear.) I will
not criticise his words, however hard they may appear
to bear on the Beard of Directors, for we can throw
ourselves upon the Proprietors, who, I feel satisfied, will
not deprive us of their confidence.—( Hear, hear.) But
Mr. Baldwin is under a mistake when he states the
Court of Directors recommend a candidate to you.
Yet I will distinctly state, in answer to what appears
in that letter, that your Directors feel that your inte-
rests and the interests of the establishment both require
they should not flinch from so doing, whether such a
resolution had passed or not, for we do feel that as Di-
rectors of this establishment we are bound to uphold
the general interest of the establishment—(Chems)—
whether we receive the entire approbation of every
individual Proprietor or not—(Cheers)—for we conceive
your interests demand it. We do not hesitate in
saying the statement has given us very great pain,
for we must remember that the parties to which
it is addressed are, many of them, residing in
Ireland, who have warm hearts, generous spirits,
but a quick sensitiveness, and they may consider,
49 a body, that they arc slighted by the Directors.—
( Hear, hear.) I do not conceive that any proposition
could be put forward against the Directors of this
establishment, that would have a more prejudicial
effect, than that Irish gentlemen were discouraged from
coming forward as candidates for offices in it, and that
in consequence it was gradually sinking in their esti-
mation, and, if true, deservedly so.—( Hear, hear.)
Since that establishment had been formed there has
been but one instance where an Irish gentleman came
forward as a candiiiate and was not elected ; and what
was remarkable, the two candidates on that occasion
were both Irishmen, and of course we could not elect
the two to fill one vacancy,—(Hear, hear, and laugh-
ter.) This could not be considered rejecting an Irish
gentleman ; I am sure you have reason for rejoicing
in your choice, when I state to you that the gen-
tleman elected was Mr. Young, Member for Cavan.
—(Cheers.) The other gentleman withdrew his name
prior to the election, and as he did not reside in Eng-
land, and did not again offer himself, you could net
therefore elect him. On another cceasion an Irish
Nobleman wished to become a areetor, but he died be-
fore a vacancy took place. You will, therefore, see
that every Irish gentleman who has been proposed has
been elected. This will relieve the Directors from the
charge that they have discouraged Irish gentlemen from
coming forward as candidates for offices in this esta-
blishment.—( Hear, hear.) We are told by Mr. Bald-
win that we are losing ground in Ireland. We had
naturally expected that Mr. B. would have pointed out
where, for we do not find it among the Shareholders in
Ireland ; to prove which I will take their number at.
Christmas for the last three years. In 1838 they
were 355. In 1839, they amounted to 393 ; and
in 1840 they rose to 440—( Hear, hear)—being an
increase of 95 upon the three years, Timis does not
indicate any strong decline of confidence in this
establishment. Last year three-fourths o: the shares
disposed of in London were sent to Ireland—(Cheers)
—this is also satisfactory, giving us a stronger hold
upon the good opinion and affections of the Irish peo-
ple. If this establishment were so sinking in the esti-
matinn of the Irish public, would it not be felt among
the Grand Juries of Ireland ? but have we not been
appointed receivers by them ? Where the poison has
been dispersed, I wish the antidote to find its way.—
(Cheers.) But I have my doubts wilt: they we can pre-
vent the mischief which this letter may have done, as
it has gone to every Proprietor. Under a late Act of
Parliament the Grand Jury of each county were di-
rected to select a banker for county treasurer. It then
became a matter of competition among the Banks to
obtain the county treasurer's accounts ; yet out of 23
which are within the exclusive circle of the Bank of
Ireland, we have 14, and 9 are left for all the other
Banks in Ireland, in the south and west, as well as in
the north, where the local banks have numerous
branches, and partners intimately connected with
gentlemen who form the Grand Juries. This does
not indicate a decline of confidence in us. If we
refer to the Boards of Guardians of the Poor law
Unions, of which there are many yet to be formed, we
find that thirty-four of them have preferred this esta-
blishment, which has so sunk in public estimation.--
(Cheers.) I wish my friend Mr. Baldwin had taken
the trouble to inquire, before he brought forward his
statement, and it would have been much better for him
not to have said one word against the Directors to any
Proprietor, or any one intimately acquainted with this
establishment. Yet he hes done so ; and notwithstand-
ing this he becomes a candidate, from which, though
late in the day, he has retired. He perhaps thought
his circular would have secured him a few votes, but
I imagine he has been disappointed, or he would not
have withdrawn himself. I felt it was right you should
know so much. There is another fact I wish to
state to you ; you are aware that this was the first
Joint-stock Bank introduced into Ireland, to be carried
out on the principles of Scotch banking. It was, there-
fore, necessary to obtain men who were acquainted
with that system ; we therefore sought for persons
from that country, where the system bad been so
beneficially carried out. We employed Scotch and