The Sun.
London, England, 1841-09-29 00:00:00

THE Su N, LONDON, .WEDNESDAY, Sf_IPTEMB_ER 29, 1841.

mission, he did not ask any Member of that House to
pledge himself to the maintenance of the Poor-law Act
in its integrity.—(Flear, hear.) As he had said last
night, be would carefully reserve the discussi ,n of all
tae details of the measure, nay, even the decision
of its principle, until the next Session of Parlia-
ment ; and all that he now salted the House to do woe
to pass a measure for the continuance of the C rnmission
without whose superintendence during the next sit months the
management of the law would be involved in inextricable diffi-
culty. He only asked for the inte:•val, in order to enable the
Government to consider the shipe in which they would pre-
sent the Bill to Parliament, with such amendments as they
might consider necessary early in the next Session.—( Hear. )
Now, in the first place, he should observe, in reference to what
had fallen from the Honourable Member for Knares
borough, that what they were that bight discussing, Whether
the Poor-law Commission should be continued for the next six
months, the statement which he had brought under the consi-
deration of the House allorijed a proof if they had been accu.
rarely detailed—and he was sure the Right Hon. Gentleman
believed them to be well-founded—of groat mismanagement
among the local authorities. They did not tend to show the
necessity of abolishing the Commission ; on the contrary, they
went very far to show the danger of leaving the local manage-
ment uncontrolled, and they appeared to him ( Sir J. Graham)
to furnish a strong and striking argument in favour of the ne-
cessity of some such superintending authority as that of the
Commissioners, whose continuance in office he proposed by
the Bill then before the House. Passing from the Hon.
Member for Knaresborough, he would next turn to the
Honourable Gentleman who Lad brought forward the
motion then under discussion. He should observe,

that it was quite unnecessary upon the part of the Hon. Gen-
tleman to vindicate the purity of his motives, or the kindness
and the generosity which prompted him to bring forward his
amendment. He ( sir J. Graham) had always thought the
the characteristics of the Hon. Gentleman's conduct, both here
and in his native country, were sincerity of purpose and honesty
of intention. The Hon. Gentleman need not, therefore, have

offered any vindication of the course he was pursuing. But
without any offence to the Hon. Member, he (Sir J. Graham)
would call the attention of the House to this remarkable fact,

that the Hun. Mover of an instruction which would bear more

immediately upon England and Wales, was a gentleman not a
resident in this country, who could have no adequate experience
of the working of the system he sought to internipt, and who
also, by an odd coincidence, was not practically conversant
with the English system of Poor-laws. It so happened that
the Hon. Member represented one of the few places in Eng-
land, namely, Rochdale, to which the presemt system had not
been extended. The Hon. Member had said that to prove a
case there was nothing like resting upon facts, and the state-
ment of particular cases. Now he ( Sir J. Graham) ad-
mitted that when any one rested upon facts, there
was nothing like adducing particular instances. But
the Hon. Gentleman, from the very circumstance of his
having no personal knowledge of the matter, and his consti-
tuents having no experience upon the subject, did bring for-
ward a string of cases, presented, as it appeared to him (Sir
J. Graham), in a most suspicious form, not resting upon his
personal authority, or coming from parties who, he could be
assured as their representative in the House of Commons,
were well informed. They were ex parte statements, and
being ex parte statements they could not be tested by inquiry,
and until a facility of inquiry had been given, such statements
were more likely to mislead a popular assembly upon :a ques-
tion of that kind than any other course which could be
devised. The instruction was moved last night upon a secondary
portion of that great question, and in an accidental manner;
but the instruction moved that evening went to the very
essence of the measure itself. What were the two questions
which these instructions dealt with ? The power of extending
Unions, which was a preliminary step to bringing the Act
into operation ; and the second instruction touched upon the
power vested in the Commissioners, of refusing relief out of
the workhouse, which was the very essence of the Bill. If last

.
night he had been unwilling to follow the Hon. Member for York
in his instruction, because he wished to leave the main question
untouched till a future discussion, he was sure the House
would at once see that it would that night he impossible for
him, without a dereliction of his duty, and without a depar-
ture from that reserve which his position imposed upon him—
it would be impossible for him to follow the Honourable
Member in the discussion with which.he had entered. But

he might be allowed to ebserve, that without giving any
pledge whatever on the part of the Executive Government
as to the course which they might hereafter deem it their
duty to take, he only asked upon that occasion for the con-
tinuance of the controlling power vested in the Commission.
He would also point out to the House, that under the law as
it now stood, no power whatever was placed in the hands of
the Commissioners to touch the Gilbert Union Acts, without

the consent of the Guardians of the district. Then, again,
with respect to the Local Acts ; there was no direct power
vested in the Commissioners of superceding these Acts. He
admitted that indirectly some interference did take place.
But he should add, that he would give no pledge whatever
upon the part of the Executive Government, which would go to
demonstrate a want of confidence in the Commissioners, or which
eouldraiv a prejudice against the principle of the measure which
it would be their duty to consider, and to bring under the notice
of the House next Session. He did conceive that such a pledge,
extracted under the pressure of present opposition, would
seriously prejudice the kdue consideration of the measure. He
would give no such pledge ; and he did say, that the question
at the present time, and under the present circumstances, was
a question of confidence. If they believed that the Commis-
sioners, controlled by the Executive, would act so imprudently

as not to merit their confidence for the very short time whicFi
would intervene before the measure would be reconsidered
upon the responsibility of the Executive, then, he said, let them
not deal with the law in the shape of an instruction, but let
them refuse the passing of the Bill. But, if they placed that
limited confidence in the Government and the Commissioners,
then, he said, let them deal with the law itself, but let them re-
ject ad instructions, and pass the measure before the
House.—( Hear, hear, hear.) He knew not whether it would
not be inexpedient that he should call the attention of the House,
and through the House that of the country, to one or two re-
markable circumstances which ought not to be .overlooked.
First of all, with regard to the Commissioners; the Commis-
sioners had yielded to public opinion, and had yielded, as he
(Sir J. Graham) thought, most judiciously, and quite in ac-
cordance with the spirit of the original enactment, as he under-
stood it, in its capability of being adapted to peculiar circum-
stances. He said that tit,. Commissioners had within the last
six weeks marked their sense of the pressure of public opinion,
and had taken a step which he moot highly approved of. Com-
plaints-had been made that the Commissioners had been evad-
ing the original enactments of the law, by multiplying special
orders to an immense extent, and thus evading the provisions
of the Act, which required that general orders should be sub-
mitted to the Secretary of State. Now within the last six
weeks the Commissioners had colleetel al their special orders
relating to out-door relief into one general order, which
had been submitted to the consideration of the Secretary
of State, and which had, therefore, been brought under
the consideration of the Executive.—( Hear, hear.) In
that order they had yielded to public opinion by. relaxing the
regulation, prohibiting out of door relief in several most im-
portant particulars. Out of door relief might new be given,
first, in all cases of sudden and urgent necessity. Second, in
cases of illness or of accident. '1 hird, in cases in which it

might be required to pay the expenses attending the burial of
any member of the famuy of the applicant. Fourth, to widows
with legitimate children, who were incapable of earning a live-
lihood; so that widows with legitimate children could receive
relief without limit as to the pet iod of their widowhood. Fifth,
to the families of persons confined in gaols or other places of
safe custody. And sixth, to the wives and children of soldiers
and sailors in her Majesty's service. These were most im-
portant relaxations, and the whole subject of out-door relief
was thus brought under the control of the Executive, as by the
16th clause of the Act any general rule of the Commissioners
might be altered by an Order in Council. He thought
that this was ample security to the public against the
law being administered with harshness.—( Hear, hear.)
Without meaning at all to reflect on the Hon. Member for
Knaresborough, he could not but express his regret at hearing
language used which would have the effect, although it had not
the intention, of exciting angry feelings in the manufacturing in-
terest against the agricultural.—(Hear.) He would frankly
admit that one of the main sources 4 the prosperity of the
country watt the manufacturing interest.—(Cheers.) As an
instance of the manlier in which the Commissioners exercised
their powers, he would mention the case of the Irish hand-loom
weavers who had no settlement. The law empowered the
Commissioners to send them hack to Ireland, if they received
a single farthing of relief. Now, what had they done ? They
had actually sent down an assistant Commissioner to Manches-
ter, with directions to use: his authority with the Board
of Guardians to have relief given to the Irish hand-
loom weavers, not in the workhouse, but out of doors,
and that no attempt should be made to remove them.
lie, felt it his duty to remove;any false impressions which might
hate gone abroad as to these matters, and he hoped that would
plead his excuse for having slightly deviated from the line
which he laid down last night not to enter into discussion on
the subject. He did not, however, think it his duty to go
further, As he had resisted the merriment of the Hon.
Member for York last evening, so lie should on the present
occasion resist the amendment of the lion. Member for
Rochdale, and he trusted the House would not refuse to give
him the limited confidence he asked.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr M. PHILIPS would not have troubled the House had
is not been for the personal nature of the speech of the Hun.
Member for Knarelliorough. If bold declamation constituted
argument, then had the lion. Member made a very argumen-
tative speech. Ile would not allude to what had fallen from
that Hon. Gentleman with respect to the manufacturers with
any angry feelings. He (Mr. M. P. 1 had never exhibited
any angry feeling in that House, and he trusted he never
should be tempted to follow the example of the Hon. Gentle-
man in that respect, but he felt it his duty to reply briefly to
the charges which he felt the lion. Member had most unjusti-
fiably brought against the manufacturing interest.—(Cheers.)
The Hon. Member seemed to think that a manufacturer must
be a man without feeling, one who sought his own aggrandize-
ment, regardless of every consideration. If those were the
opinions of the Hon Gentleman he ( Mr. Farrand) had lived
in the neighbourhood of manufacturers for a number of years
without estimating them truly. Me did not mean to contend
that the raanufatiturers had no defects, Lilt when he heard
them charged with a dereliction of duty to their la-
bourers, when he heard it stated they had no
sympathy for the poor, he must characterise such
assertions as a libel upon their ch tractors, which svaa not
borne out by teas. He did not know what the amount ex-
pended for the relief of the poor in Manchester was at present,
but he knew that the rate levied for the year ending March 25,
jail, was double the amount of the rate levied for the year
en:44lsth March, 1840. Now, that did not look as if the
manufacturer* were anxious to escape froa their share of the
charge for the relief of the poor. He would also, as a proof
of the disposition of the nsantrescturers, relate what he per
knew to be a fact. He knew ono mantsfactUrer who
never worked ahnrt time, until his losses had exceeded the
amount of 10,0001. a yek.e. Many o her manufacturers adopted
the same system, some of then} plating the scale at 7,0001. a
year, and that before they began even tp work short time ;
and he could assure the House that none of them turned their
labourers out:esf emplyrnent, until their losses were so great
that bankruptcy must be the inevitable consequence of their
continuing to work ea a less. The manufacturers were not
backwissi in relieving the distresses of the labouring population
amounting to between 3,0001. and 4,0001.
alitZie:t
hilaClts ye
eeern suistser4ibillesi in ill} incredibly short space of time, and
had been expended hi a manner' vetleEtrnw.the highest credit on
those who had the managenient of the eithsPription, and pro-
hdauacti re
eohf thecou
egertocaL.estanbednewfihtoto,
buti nfobrJeestascrf
tujiyibprisp
ance, must have disposed otfhtehireircioil7hdeds,ing.Tthheeirmoi antnouirtaubrlee,
ill 'WI' personallyinstances,
to'hirn (Mr. Arark Phillips)
sion last e ening on
He had been advisedly absent from
and,liem
the motions
.Member had entitled
• relating to the separatian of man anti wife, because
Manchester, before the
aduPtd'idd innot wish to condemn the
aushitohhaht
nistyishteemen hie: al
mbeeedna,
i
practice ; and also be
having ssrious 40014 as to the
practicability of
ect. With respect to the
general measure, he had never
nastily to commit himself
shrunk from avowing his opinion
cabrercyi:lnfsgoenotuhte
stuhbej clause, he slid not wish
pro-
ductive of great berrefit—(Chears)—
i algreater opportunities of
that in its general operation, the Poor-lawre Bpaiirltilicaudlabrleyenintheagrienlsural districts, where he
studyingßart.tbe I si operation.itisgutost
o p p 0
be made a party question ; hp had himself
sitHione.
the subject at the last election. liil ttriVt? 5
felt that this ought not to
been attacked on
wohlHuaelidnot offer the Right Hon.
I 3p, no csls not
testimony to the 000 d effects of the .a:ii, .. ~..
..
to be drive!) fr"orn his purpose by idle deeiawatumf
stood ilit,o bear his

From his knowledge of the workings of the law,he thought it I
might require some alterations. The Right Hon. Baronet
had pointed out soveral most important relaxations, and which
would, no doubt, meet with general approval. He thought it
important that these modifications should be introduced into
the new law, because the law, as it was now administered,
was not, in tact, the law of 1834, but that law modified by the
orders of the Commissioners. Now, he was desirous of seeing
those modifications introduced into the new law, in order
that persons might see what the law really was, and he thought
the time of the House could not be more profitably employed
than in reconsidering the Bill.
Mr. WAKLEY understood that the Executive Government
adhered to the principle of the existing law.—( Hear, hear. )
The Right Hon. Baronet, with a candour which slid him credit,
admitted that such was the fact ; and it therefore appeared
that the Whig aristocracy and the Tory aristocracy were
pledged to the existing law. '1 he Right lion. Baronet the
Member for Tamworth, when. on the 16th of the month, he
had made a statement to the House that it was his intention to
propose a fiat for continuing- the Commission for six months,
had given no indication of his intention of maintaining the
existing law. He (Mr. Wakley) had put a construction on
that conduct which circumstances had not justifies'. He
had been deceived, and the causes were simple and
clear. Although the Right Honourable Baronet had ac-
ceded to the principle of the Bill in the last Session,
yet he had then proposed to continue the Commission for five
years instead of ten, as proposed by the Noble Lord ; he natu-
rally thought that as the Right Hon. Baronet had not proposed
this Session to continue the Commission for five years, he had
yielded to the expression of public opinion against the law, and
when he saw that the Right Hen. Baronet the Member for
Kent and the Noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lan •

caster, both of whom were opposed to several most important
provisions of that law, were Members of the Cabinet, he
thought such a supposition not unnatural, notwithstanding the
presence in the Cabinet of the Right Hon. Baronet the Mem-
ber for Dorchester and the Noble Lord the Member for North
Lancashire, both of whom were Members of the Government
which had originally introduced th 3 measure. The Attorney
and Solicitor-General had neither of them ever uttered one
word in favour of the present law ; therefore he felt that he
was justified in forming the opinion he had done. He had ex-
pected that a different course of conduct would have been
pursued ; he had been deceived, but the deception he had
laboured under would be useful to him, because it would
enable him to understand the position which he, as an inde-
pendent Member, occupied, and the course which the people
ought to pursue. If the Hon. Member for Rochdale pressed his
motion to adivision, he should divide with him. He had felt that
the motion of the Hon. Member for York last evening was s•
imperfect, that he could not vote for it, for he doubted if it
could be carried into effect. He, however, entirely differed
with the Hon. Member for Rochdale as to the propriety of
pressing every motion to a division, and thus forcing Members
to express an opinion, for he really . thought that Members
ought to have an opportunity of investigating before they were
called on to decide. He had frequently left the House with-
out voting, because he really had not known on which side he
ought to decide.—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. Hawes.) The
Hon. Member for Lambeth said " Hear, hear." Now, if he
(Mr. Wakley) possessed the sagacity of the lion. Member for
Lambeth—the acuteness of conception of that Hon. Member—
he might, perhaps, without difficulty be able to determine at
once upon the most abstruse subjects.—( Hear, hear. )
He (Mr. Wakley), however, was not so highly gifted, and
he was sorry fur it.—(Loud cheering and laughter. )
He understood the principles of the law to be this—that it
took from the rate-payers of England the power to administer
their own funds, and placed it in the Commissioners of Somer-
set-house.—( Hear, hear.) That was the principle of the law,
and he did not think that human ingenuity could devise a
worse one. But the Member for Bath hit on something
worse. He (Mr. W.) regretted he was not present, though
he could not regret he had not submitted his proposition to the
House.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. W.) could not conceive
anything worse than that the interests of the people should be
placed at the mercy of a Secretary of State.—( Hear, hear. )
l'he Right Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) would understand
that he was not referring to him.—( Hear, hear.) He was
only referring to the principle of such a proposition ; and of all
men in the world who could make such a proposition, he
thought the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath would be the
last, because when he advocated the case of the Canadians, he
told them what he experienced from the Secretary of State,
and the Noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire must
bear the fact in recollection. He (Mr. Roebuck) said he could
get nothing but injustice—nothing but insult from the Secretary
of State, and that he had been spurned from the door. Could
the lion. and Learned Gent. suppose that more courtesy would be
shown by the Secretary for the Home Department than by
the Secretary for the Colonies ? or that he would be more
humane or more ready to lend his ear to the complaints which
would be made to him ? However cruel the decision of a Home
. .

Secretary may be, he would be sure to find a majority of his
colleagues to agree with him. He now came to the discretionary
power of the Commissioners—to the leading principle of the law.
There were two subsidiary accompaniments to the law, by the
first of which the poor were deprived of the application for re •
lief, and by the next were tortured while in receipt of that re-
lief. These were the principles that were carried into effect by
the Commissioners. He should like the House to understand
the question. The mobility and the middle classes had a law
for their protection. They had the Judges of the land to ad-
minister the law. But what was done with regard to the poor ?
Did they receive protection? They had by this law outlawed
the poor. He defied any Member to say the poor had any
law for their protection, as under the law of Elizabeth.—
( Hear, hear.) That law gave the poor a right to
relief.—( Cheers.) The House ought not to forget the
origin of that law. They should not forget that the poor
before that law had religious houses and monasteries to sup-
port them ; and that the monks were ever ready to extend
the hand of charity and benevolence to the suffering poor.—
(Hear, hear.) But when the change in ecclesiastical pro•
perty took place, then that noble Act cf Elizabeth, the
brightest of her reign, came into operation—( Hear, hear)
—and it gave the poor the same right to relief as the Noble
had to his property under the law.—( Cheers.) What was
the case now ? The poor were placed under the tyranny of
Somerset-house, and had not the power to administer their
. .

, .
own funds. Thank God 1 he was not in the House when
that law was enacted. He would ask Hon. Gentlemen who

supported this law how they would like to be placed in a
similar position with regard to their own property.—
(Hear, hear.) How would they like to be obliged
to go to a Government authority, and be in doubt
as to bow they would be received—whether with kindness or
otherwise ? He (Mr. W.) said the poor had a right to the
protection of the law, though the two aristocratic parties said
the poor should be deprived of that protection. Was that
Conservatism? Was that the way to maintain the institu-
tions of the country? Was that the way to uphold the mo-
narchy and render more secure the property of the country?—
(hear, hear.) He said such was an unwise course—that it
was p:egnant with danger, and could not be persevered in
with impunity. He declared, if it was resolved to abide by
that law, that in his opinion the face of the country would be
stained with blood. He was intimate with the feeling of the
poor on the subject, and he knew their sentiments, and that
they considered it an impious law—an Anti-Christian law—
( Hear)—and had its origin in selfishness—the vilest feeling
of the human mind. The Right Hon. Baronet said the Commis-
sioners had relaxed several rule ;with regard to out-door relief;
but may not the local guardians of the poor find many other
rules which may be relaxed, if they had the power of doing its?
Why should the discretionary power be taken away from those
who lived in the locality of the poor ?—( Hear, hear.) He
was, therefore, against the continuance of the Act, though at
the same lime of such importance did he consider the interests
of the poor, and so wound op were those interests with the
welfare of the nation, that he thought a Court of Appeal ought
to be established for the benefit of the poor. He considered
that a Court of Appeal ought to be established, and a man of
character appointed its Judge, and, having done this, that a
poor man's Advocate ought to be appointed. The Queen had
her Advocate, tied her Attorney and Solicitor-General, and he
did not see why the poor should not also have their Advocates.
—( Hear, laser.) He hoped the Right Hon. the Home Secre-
tary would consider the subject. The poor at present were
under no law but that of the Commissioners, and he would
show they were unfit to be entrusted with that law. In page
29 of their Report for December, they say, " They consider
the receipt of public relief as the due of the poor man." But
surely if a law had been passed which entitled the poor to re-
lief, the Commissioners had no right to use such language.
Could men using such language be fit to execute the powers
entrusted to theta ?—(Bear, hear.) They must have
misunderstood the feeling of the House on the matter.
He now came to the subject of medical relief, and he found that
in the old times such relief was administered to the poor in his
own parish. His neighbours, who knew his worth and wit •
nessed his deserts, administered to the unfortunate without ap-
plying tot the Commissioners—( Cheers)—and if they wished
for the happy days of Old England again, theywould resort to
the old mode of administering medical relief. ( The Hon. Gen-
tleman here read a letter from a gentleman regarding the
Raseworth Union, stating that the medical practitioner of that
union had to attend two districts, consisting of twelve different
parishes, and including a population of 12,410 persons, and
that in visiting his districts he hail to pass through a parish of
3,000 persons, which had a meilittal gentleman of the highest
respectability.) Was it a fit state of things that the medical
attendant should have to go a distance of eight or nine miles in
cases of inflammation and fracture, where life or death was
consequent on delay ? Could it be pretended that a suitable
remedy was not to be found for such a state of things ? The
Act produced the evil, anti was no remedy to be found? There
were abuses, it was true, in the f• rmer system, but they could
be put an end to. The Right FlOll. Baronet was aware that
the subject had been frequently investigated, and in the
Second Report of a Committee that inquired into the matter,
Sir Astley Cooper gave evidence (and whoever knew(him must
be aware of the value of Isis opinion) against the system of
tenders, and told him (Mr. Wakley), in private, that it was
nothing less than murder. He said a mare disastrous state of
things could net exist for the poor. The Right Hon. Baronet
was aware of the calculations that were made of the expense
per head. The Comm ssioners, in their Seventh Report, partly
agreed with what he ('lr. Wakley) thought would be
the proper remedy. lie considered that all the re-
cipients of relief should be entered in a list, and
so much per case paid to the medical attendant.
What he took the liberty of proposing to the Government was,
that the medical orders should be made out, and placed in the
hands of certain persons in every parish—in the hands of the
clergyman, the churche arder., the overseer, and the relieving
officer—and that a person, who was admitted by the authorities
re be entitled to medical relief, on snaking application for an
order, and receiving it, should ,be allowed to take it to any
practitioner whom he might desire to w tend him. He would
thus have an opportunity of taking it to the_. practitioner who
lived nearest to his home, and in whom he could place the
most confidence, and that without the addition of a single
farthing of expense to the parish. Under the present system
it frequently happened that a poor person, who was afflicted
with sickness, had to send some miles before he could obtain
medical assistance, Such a system involved a sacrifice of human
suffer ins, and tended to aggravate the sufferings of the poor; and he
was convinced that if the House would only attend to the evil it
would not long be suffered to continue. A case had occurred
last week, where a medical man, not one attached to the union,
was sent for to visit the father of seven children. When he
arrived he found him suffering from a disease of the lungs,
wi.h but faint hopes of recovery. On being asked why he
had sent for the medical man in question and not the union
doctor, the patient replid that the foemee lived at a distance
of seven miles, and that he had no money to pay a messenger.
He (Mr. Wakley) was convinced this instance was only a
specimen of thousands. He did hope that the Right Hon.
RargllPt Weeld take the subject into his serious coosideration.
He calcolated that under tits nrcposed eiteratiort the expense
would he fenrn 6s. fd. tet 9s. ash*, Nqw, with respect to
the size of the unions. It had been stated by many Ho-
nourable Members that whore the unions were small the law
worked much better than where they were large—that
the poor man could make application for relief more easily,
and that the eireunistences of each case were better known.
Then, with respete,t to thg Cliwdiana,del I qt Gentlenten syho
called themselves Reformers—for instance, did the Hen.
Member for Lambeth—approve of the mode of eleeticin?
How were they elected? In the first place, there was no
public meeting. There was a quelling of popular spirit at
once. What was the system of voting ? 'The poor occupant
of premises who paid the rates gave one vote, whilst the absent
owner of the same property gave six. In one electiqn one
mess had nqt in I ; goo proxies. potter the old law every rate-
h •
payer ad , a cote—lle sYsss 'sicealsing Of thQ praCtiCe under the
Act of Elizabeth before the modern innovations.—(Laughter.)
It was an innovation when Sturges Bourne's Act passed that
; House; still the power of voting was restricted to the occu-
piist, This iFstf however was a more scandalous innovation—

it was a greater infringement of the rights of the rate-payers
li had been said that the medical arrangements were not per-
fected What, he would ask, had been perfected ? They had
an authority established for the purpose of securing uniformity;
it having been stated that the ancient practice was one of ex-
treme diversity ; but he looked in vain for uniformity. He
had oven heard it stated that the first object of the
Bill was to increase the independence and raise the
wages of the labourer; because it was said that if they
could not get good wages, the poor would fall bad,
upon the workhouse. Of course the first inference
trom such language was, that these workhouses would be very
excellent places, containing every thing to gratify the heart
and soul of the poor labouring man, and if the Commissioners
had really provided good accommodation for. the able-bodied.
man, who did nut obtain fair remunerating wages, he would
have acknowledged that to he a benefit. He admitted that in
a locality where wages were high, the workhouse ought to
have no charm for the labourer. By belonging to a club, or
by saving his money, he would avoid the necessity of ever ap-
plying for relief. But the case was very different in a locality
where wages did not exceed 6s. or 7s. a week. In such cases
it was most unjust not to provide satisfactory relief. On this
point he thought very grave charges might be brought against
the Commissioners. He begged the House to attend for a
moment to what was contained in two dietary tables in refe-
rence to the weekly allowance of food. In the London Union
the weekly allowance of bread was I leoz., in the Cirencester
98oz. ; in the London Union each man had 21oz. of beef or
mutton ; in the Cirencester Union each man had soz. of
bacon. In London the vegetables for each man were 2ilbs. ;
in Cirencester 61bs. of potatoes. In London soup four pints
a week ; in Cirencester two pints. In London I4oz. of
cheese ; in Cirencester 7oz. In London 10i pints of milk-
porridge ; in Cirencester seven pints of gruel. In London 16oz.
of suet pudding ; in Cirencester none. In London
eleven pints of beer ; in Cirencester not a drop. Was
that uniformity ?—( Hear, hear.) If it were, give him
London.—( A laugh.) Such a state of things was disgraceful
to those who administered the law. What did he find ap-
pended te the two dietary tables? At the bottom of the Ci-
rencester table he found that infirm persons, and those above 70
years of age, were to be allowed one ounce of tea with milk,
seven ounces of sugar, and three and a half ounces of meat in-
stead of gruel, and twice a-week the men fourteen ounces, and
the women twelve ounces of pudding. Children nailer twelve
years of age were to be dieted at discretion ; the sick at the
discretion of the medical man ; the refractory were to be
allowed sixteen ounces of bread and water per diem. In the
London Union for supper one pint of gruel might be allowed.
instead of two ounces of cheese; to the women, one-half pound
of sugar ; to the sick and infirm such wine as the medical man
should direct. Then followed an instruction that roast beef
or veal should be allowed at Easter and on Whitsunday—one
would imagine that provision was being made for au alderman
—(laughter)—and roast-beef and plum-pudding on Christmas
Day. In Kensington, the Guardians had been obliged to pay
561.0ut of their own pockets. The Commissioners would not
allow the item. It was also stated that weights and measures
should be provided, and to it the paupers should have access
at all times, in order to satisfy themselves that they were sup-
plied with the proper allowance. Now, what was the effect of
such an unequal system ? The effect was to prevent the
honest labourer who was really distressed from applying for
relief. Why should not the House take upon itself the responsi •
bility of settling the dietary table 9 Let them determine for
themselves how the poor should be fed, and not sanction a system
so full of injustice. There was another point to which he
begged to call the attention of the House. A practice existed
which he might as well notice, for the information of the
younger Members, of introducing, at the end of the Session,
little Bills, merely for powdering or shaving a mouse, or some-
thing of that kind.—( Laughter. ) Some discussion arose on
the subject, and if there were any objectionable point, it was
struck out, and sent tip to the Lords. When it returned from
the Lords, that very thing had been restored, and, it passed in
its original shape. Now, there was a Bill of this kind passed
at the end of the Session of 1835 ; it did not receive the
Royal Assent until the 9th of September. It was a Bill au-
thorising the Commissioners to sell parish property. He re-
collected perfectly well that he understood it to relate to parish
workhouses, and to the ground on which they stood. What
had been done tinder that Bill? Why, all the small tene-
ments belonging to parishes, as well as the workhouses, hadbeen
brought under the operation of the hammer. It appeared to be
the intention of the Commissioners that the poor should have no
place of dwelling except the workhouse, and these tenements were
to be razed from the ground. The transfers of property, ac-
cording to their own acknowledgment, already amount to 3,900.
He thought it would turn out that a very large portion of the
property sold would be found to be of the latter description.
He believed that a vast amount of property consisting of tene-
ments, belonged to the poor. He would not say that there was
any trust—any written trust—but he had no doubt
that custom had created a trust, arid that the
property belonged to the poor. Now, what had the
Commissioners said on the subject in their Report of
1839 ? Why, that a large amount of property, consisting for
the most part of small cottages and tenements, had been dis-
posed of, the greater part of which had been represented as
being dilapidated and ruinous. It appeared to him to be the
object of the Commissioners, that parishes should have the
property to be called parish property, that there should be no
tenements belonging to the parish, because, if there was, the
poor would make application to dwell in them, they being
anxious that all the paupers should be sent to the workhouse.
Supposing these tenements had been retained, and not sacri-
ficed, under the present law it appeared to him that
they might have been appropriated to useful purposes.
They were trying by their law to force the labourer into the
practice of virtue—the Bill was, in fact, a measure of coercion
against the poor. Now, he would ask, did they not think
that they might, without inconvenience to themselves, bring
another principle into operation ? Did they not think that there
was another mode than coercion to improve the human mind ?
—( Hear, hear.) He would have Hon. Members weigh the
subject well, because he thought a little reflection would in-
duce them to adopt another line of policy.—(Hear, hear.) He
was of opinion that much of the profligacy and vice of the
people was owing to no rewards being given for good conduct.
—( Hear, hear.) Would it be costly for the parishes to ap-
propriate those tenements that had been sold to deserving men
in their old age ? Would it not be more gratifying to see
them so placed there than to send them to gaols miles distant?
—(Hear, hear.) He was convinced, if they were to hold out
rewards to the labourer, they would soon see a new race of
men in the different parishes of the country. He regretted
that the Executiee Government had determined to adhere to
the principles of the existing law, principles which, he would
venture to say, were obnoxious to the best feelings of human
nature, and dangerous to the institutions of the country. In his
opinion there was no portion of the law that deserved commen-
dation, and if Hon. Members would only visit the cottages of
the poor instead of sitting at Boards of Guardians, in a very short
period they would enter that House with widely-different views
with respect to the Poor-laws.—(Hear, hear.) He was satis-
fied that Hon: Members were not aware of what was passing
in the minds of the labourers with regard to this odious statute.
He apologised to the House for having detained it so long. He
had thrown out statements which he trusted the Right Hon.
Baronet the Member for Dorchester would take into his serious
consideration, as he was convinced the feelings of the poor were
growing more violent every day on the subject of the Poor-
laws. When he stated that he did not speak as a visionary,
but from what he had actually seen, no Administration
would stand in this country who supported the Poor-laws, be-
cause the millions would not endure it.--( Hear, hear.) Look-
ing at the whole subject, he believed the difficulties connected
with them would be overcome if the House would go hack
and legislate upon the just principles of the statute of Eliza-
beth. They ought to approach the subject in a kindly and
Christian spirit, and ought not to be governed by a dogmatic
Hear, hear, hear.) The flaw had been intro-
duced by utilitarians, who, he had no doubt, would, if
alowed to grind the bones of the poor, and make them manure
if they thought it would enrich the land of the country.—
(Cries of " No, no.") Let them legislate in a proper spirit,
and he would venture to say that the greatest good would he
effected.

Mr. WARD would 'make no apology for addressing the
House after the extraordinary speech tkat had been addressed
to the House by the Hon. Member who had just sat down.
He was not one of those who was disposed to sit quietly under
the imputation of giving a vote from selfish motives, neither
was he disposed to abandon a measure which he thought a
good one, merely because the Hots. Member had chosen to state
that it originated in wickedness and fraud ; still less was he
inclined to adoptthe principles laid down by the Hon. Member,
who was aintudaeious in his statements as he was cowardlyoin
his 'political' acts.—(Hear, hear.) The speech of the Hon.
Member surprised him the more, because upon the former oc-
casion he told the House that he had arrived at the conclusion
that the measure was one of the deepest importance, and ought to
be discussed with calmness—( Hear, hear)—and yet he had
come doWn that night and accused.those who supported the
measure of doing so from selfish motives. He had also told
them that they were prepared to grind the bones of the poor
if they thought that would enrich the land. Now what, he
would ask, were the accusations against the Bill which the
Hon. Member had substantiated? What was the first ground
of attack ? Why, the Hon. Member had told them, in the first
place, that the law was for the purpose of taking from the rate-
payers the management of their funds. It was for no such pur-
pose ;it was to restore the true principles of the noble Act of
Elizabeth.—( Hear.) Ilad the Hon. Member never heard
muter the old law of men and women dragging carts and violating
every human law, and indulging themselves in every species of
idleness, without a single motive to good:conduct ? The Hon.
Member then said that the law put the poor out of the pale of
con-titutional rights. It did no such thing; but it established
a direct responsibility from the Poor-law Commissioners to the
Government, and from the Government to that House—there
was not a single violation of the law that could not, under its
provisions, be immediately brought before that House. The
Bill was admitted to be the best Bill that had passed since
the time of the Reform Bill, and he believed that its
provisions had been productive of great good in the country.
One of the guardians said, if the boards of guardians had
more power, all the evils of the old system would instantly fol-
low. He said they would have a Nlr. Wakley at every bo ird,
and they would soon have the union-house burned over their
heads. It was within his own knowledge, that in some parishes
the new law had acted most beneficially upon the habits, and
feelings, and situation of the working classes, Then as to
medical relief, he felt bound to believe the Hon. Member had
not read the Bill, for the 2d clause provided for every case of
sudden emergency that could possibly happen. Then as to the
dietary tables of the union. He would not defend tho tables
of the London Unions. He wished they could afford to give
their poor beer and plum-puddings, but so long as the labourer
could not afford to feed himself upon such diet, it was impos-
sible that they should do so. It would be the worst principle
that could be laid doWn, that the rate-payers should maintain
the paupers in the workhouses in a greater degree of comfort,
and in a superior situation; than that of the labourer. He had
heard with much pleasuie the manly statement made by the
Right Hon. Baronot,the Secretary for the Home Deparment.
It did him much honour, and he had gone as far as a person in
his situation could, He highly approved of the course pro-
posed to be pursued-by the Government, and would give them
his cordial support. Considering the manner in which the
Right Hon. Baronet had spoken out, and the manner in which
he had been attacked, he would have considered himself as un-
worthy of his seat in that House had he not come forward and
taken his share of the odium attempted to be thrown upon the
supporters of the law. Then with respeet to what had fallen
from the Hon. Member for Knareshosoug,h. he did not like to
say much, for the Hon. Gentletisass was but a young Member,
but he would say that hp admired and respected a man who
backed his opinipso
by his votes, and did not meanly skulk out
of the House when the question was about to be tested by a
division. He would only say, further, that he disbelieved that
all the humanity was confined to one class, and the Honourable
Member would find as much distress and misery among the
underpaid agricultural labourers of Bucks and Wilts as among
any of the manufaeturinis districts in the country. He trusted
when the measure was brought forward in the next Session of
Parliament, both for the dignity of the 11(1114i8 and the welfare
of the poor', the whole tplestion teeing meet with that calm de-
liberation gOodstoniper that was duo to one of such im-
mens,e magnitude and importance.
Mr. S. WORTLEY' was most anxious tQ approach that
last night, he
calmimportant
isubject
The in‘truetion wh,ich W4.smoved
thought, opened vestson ryas absolutely ne-
cessary.
a great principle, and his opinion was that
into
eth
the
ee uv‘thmeolset calms:mess, for a clear and
he saw no objection: aild if rested to a
it was mere for the dignity of the House, as well as for the
piecemeal but as a whole. But the instrnetiors !leaved now,
that no more unions should be fornWl, At least until they knew
benefit of the quesion, that it should not be discussed by
what the new system war to be, was in his opinion one that
coivaldsionneorts,inat:'n4to that
impede the proceedings of the Corn-
m

division, he would have weed for it had it stood alone. But
to that part of the instruction which went to forbid the Com-
missioners interfering to prevent out-door relief throughout
the winter, that would be an interference with the law which
he could not approve of, nor could he vote for it. He hat
heard with much pleasure the speech of the Secretary for the
Home Department; it proved to him that he would watch over
the working of the law in a spirit of humanity—( Hear, hear)—
and it was evident that he would give way to the fully ex-
pressed wishes of the country that the law should be amelio-
rated. He thought it was necessary in order that he should not be
misrepresented on either side, to state very shortly what his opi-
nions on that important subject were. He had at all times scrupu-
.ously abstained from party topics when discussing that robject.
The Hon. Member for Halifax last night talked of the war-
cry made of the Poor-laws during the late election, but he
would ask, was there not another war-cry of "No Corn-laws,"
and " Cheap Bread ?" He believed the war-cry of "No Corn-
laws " and "Untaxed food" was made by parties to support a
Government which had proposed a tax of Bs. on corn, and
which had brought forward measures, after having done nothing
for five years, which were calculated to produce the most bane-
ful effects upon the trade and commerce of the country.—
( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Liskeard had last
night, in a speech which he meant to be facetious, charged him
(Mr. S. Wortley) with having out of doors denounced the Poor-
aws, and when he had come into the House, sitting down quietly,
without offering any objections to the measure, lest he should
embarrass the present Government. He trusted he might be
allowed to state that he had never said anything cut of that
House which he was not ready to maintain in his place in Par-
liament. He had not denounced the Three Devil Kings of So-
merset-house—he had said nothing of bastiles, but he had
pointed out certain defects in the law, which he concluded
should be altered, and which he would use his best efforts to
have amended.—( Hear, hear.) He could not say less upon
the matter, and he hoped the House would pardon him for hav-
ing said so much. He would now say a word with regard to
the power of the Commissioners, and without going the length
of finding fault with the constitution, of the board, he must be
allowed to say, that, notwithstanding the control exercised
over it by the Secretary of State, the power entrusted to the
Commissioners was too extensive and almost unconstitutional.
It was a power which should not be entrusted to them one mo-
ment longer than could be avoided, and nothing would give
him greater gratification than to see them recurring to that great
principle of local self-government which was so intimately
bound up with the Constitution of the country.—( Hear, hear. )
I That principle had been recognised in various States on the
Continent, and America, and no one could deny its
importance and value.—(Loud cheers.) Under these
circumstances he did not think they were bound
to confer these unconstitutional powers upon the Com-
missioners one moment longer than was necessary. One
word now with regard to the manner in which the law was
administered by these gentlemen ; and one of the great ob-
jections that struck him was the great extent of the unions.—
( Loud cheers.) He would take the case of the parish of
Alarylebone, which Lord Althorp, in that House, had said
was of such an extent that it would be quite absurd to form it
into a union with any other parishes.—( Hoar, hear..) The
Lord Chancellor, in the House of Lords, had also observed,
that ,unless the Commissioners were deranged, they would
never think of forming these large and populous parishes into
unions. Hon. Members knew that at the present moment
they were forming unions in the North' of England of vast
extent. There was Manchester, which in the last Report of
the Commissioners it was stated, was about to be formed into
a union. It contained a population of 140,000, and one
would suppose that it was so large as to be almost unmanage-
able if not divided. Instead of doing that, however, they had
added eleven townships, containing a population of 22,000, to
that of Manchester --(Loud cheers.) He thought that in
taking such a step they were entirely mistaking the spirit and
intent of the Act of Parliament. The next point he should
refer to was the workhouse system, and he would merely
repeat what he had stated in his address, namely, that he did
not think the workhouse should be made an ingredient
in relief in all cases, but only in cases where persons
were unwilling to work, and who were thrown upon
the charity of the public. He must say, that when the subject
was first discussed in that House, he understood that it was
not intended that the Act should be compulsatorily introduced in
every part of the country.—( Hear, hear.) Lord Althorp bad
said that it would not be a part of the duty of the Commis-
sioners to include all the parishes of a county in unions—they
should have the power of terming unions where they deemed it
proper, but there was nothing in the Act which made the
formation of unions imperative.—(Hear, hear.) Now, in the
part of the country with which he was connected, there was no
single class of the population which ,desired the introduction
of the Bill ; and, he thought, under such circumstances, they
were entitled to exemption. The only argument he had heard
in favour of the introduction of the measure was uniformity,

but although that might be a good plea in some cases, he
thought it extremely injudicious to effect so great a
change, and one so repulsive to the great bulk of a
population, upon such a pretence.—( Hear' hear.) There
was another subject on which he wished to offer a few
remarks. He meant the bastardy clause. If they looked to
the argument of the Commission of Inquiry, on which was
founded that part of the law, they would see it was wholly de-
void of meaning. The Commission stated that the bastardy
cases were a great source of hardship ; but that the object of
the law was not to punish but to prevent bastardy. Now,
that sounded a very plausible sentence ; but if they considered
it, they would find that when this Commission said the law
was not to punish, but to prevent that crime, it was saying
what had in fact no meaning at all. The argument of
the Commissioners on this head fell to the ground, and
was no support whatever to the provisions which they recom-
mended to be introduced into the Bill. His conviction was,
that the operation of that clause—not, perhaps, in the agri-
cultural districts with which he. was not acquainted, and could

not, therefore, speak of them—but in the manufacturing dis-
tricts the operation of that clause was in the highest degree
pernicious. It was, in fact, considered to be a free charter
for the crime, which had greatly increased in consequence of
that clause. When the Legislature were dealing with that part
of the subject, it was but fair that they should consider the dif-
ference that existed between the states of society in
the manufacturing and agricultural districts. In the
latter, the young female was, in some degree, fortified
against temptation, by reason of the secluded part of the coun-
try in which she resided. In the manufacturing districts, she
was thrown upon her own conduct at a very early age. Those
were a few of the principal points on which he wished to make
known his opinions. In the course they were likely to adopt
respecting this Bill, he thought they ought, as had been well
expressed by an Hon. Member, take as their guide anxiety and
tenderness for the poor. As to the accusation of some Hon.
Gentlemen respecting himself and others, of their taking up
that question to serve an occasional purpose, it was an imputa •
tion that nothing they had done could justify.

Mr. YORKE rose amidst cries of " Question, question,"
" Divide, divide." He said he rose not for the purpose of
answering the Hon. Member for Yorkshire. He did not mean
to trespass on the House. He should wish to say, however, that,
touching the speech of the Hon. Member for Yorkshire, he
had heard a portion of it to which he readily acceded. There
was a second portion of it to which he would say nothing, and
a third portion he had not exactly a facility of understanding.
But what he (Mr. Yorke) wished to call attention to was this,
that since the meeting of Parliament statements had
been made to the House which were either true or
false. If the statements were true, they should be
instantly attended to ; it false, they should be instanly exposed
as such. He alluded to the statements concerning the vast
distress said to exist in the country—not that sort of distress
which was incidental, and he feared inevitable in every state,
but that sort of distress that in a peculiar degree formed an
epoch in human misery. If the statement were true, they
ought to relax those laws which under happier circumstances
might have a happier effect. So thinking he should give his
support to that clause which gave to Guardians en the Board
an opportunity of assisting the immediately pressing cases of
misery.
Colonel SIBTHORP begged to state, in answe to the Hon.
Gentleman opposite (Mr. Ward), that he was happy to in-
form him that in the very parish in which he (Colonel Sib-
thorp) resided, and in several other parts of the county of
Lincoln, the independent labourer had such wages given him—
namely, from 12). to 155. per week—that he could afford to
have meat oftener than on Christmas Day. if the Hon. Gen-
tleman would do him (Colonel Sibthsrp), though he differed
from him in politics, the honour to visit him—( Laughter)—
he would show him the truth of what he had stated. With
respect to the immediate question before the House,
though Ise gave credit to the Right Honourable Gen •
tlarnan the Secretary for the Home Department
for the course he adopted since the Govern-
ment meant to adhere to the principle of the hill, yet he
(Colonel Sibthorp) had ever opposed the Bill, and would con-
tinue to do so. He was ever opposed to Commissions, and
he would continue his hostility to this.
The House then divided, when the numbers were--
For Mr. Crawford's motion... 49
Against it l3l
Majority ... —S2
On the re-Omission of strangers we found
Mr. SHARNIAN CRAWFORD moving that it be an in-
struction to the Committee to insert a clause to the effect that
the Commissioners should not have the power of disallowing
out-door relief when granted by Boards of Guardians.
Mr. WAKLEY, who rose amidst loud cries of " Divide,"
said that the Hon. Member for Sheffield had attributed words
to him which he did not use. 'l•he Hon. Member had also
used language which might perhaps be allowed in the latitude
of debate, which ha was by no means desirous to restrict, but
the Hon. Member for Sheffield was the last person who had a
right to read hire a lecture upon cowardice in not voting as
boldly as he spoke—( Hear, hear)—for, at the commence-
ment of the Session, on the motion of the Honourable Mem-
ber for Rochdale, the Member for Sheffield was the first to
, take a cowardly flight—( Hear, hear, and great laughter.) If
the conversation which that Honourable Member stated as
having taken place between him and a member of the Board of
Guardians did actually take place—( Hear, hear, and laughter)
—it was incumbent on him (Mr. Ward) to give the name of
the guardian —(A laugh.) The Hon. Member reported the
guardian to have expressed the wish of the board to be that
they should have no responsibility, but should have the Com-
missioners to fall hack upon. What a valiant crew I—(Great
laughter.) For his own part he was willing to leave the mat-
ter as it was.—(Hear, hear.) But he would say, that if the
House wished the guardians to do their duty, it would make
them responsible 'an penalties for the discharge of their duties
to the poor.—( Hear.)
Mr. WARD had not intended to use the words " political
cowardice" in an offensive or unparliamentary sense, and if he
was supposed to have done so, he could only express his deep
,•egret.—( Hear, hear.) He did not think he should be jus-
tified in giving the name of the guardian with whom he had
had the conversation alluded to by the Hon. Member opposite.
After a few words from Mr. DARBY, the House divided,
when the numbers were—
For Mr. Crawford's m0ti0n....... 32
Against it 146
Majority
The Bill then went through Committee.
On the motion that the Bill be reported,
IL. FIELDEN, who was inaudible, put a question, in an-
swer to which,
Sir J. GRAHAM said that he would move the third read-
ing on Friday.
On the Motion of Sir G. Clerk, the Exchequer Bills Bill,
and the Funded Exchequer Bills Bill, were severally read a
first time.
The House then adjourned at Half-past Eleven o'Clock.

COLBURN'S NEW MONTHLY MAGAZINE.-
EDITED BY THOMAS Hoon, ESQ.—The October Number of
Colburn's New Monthly Magazine and Rumorist, edited by
Thomas Hood, Esq., contains the yellowing interesting articles :
—Memoir of the late Theodore Hook, Esq., with a striking
likeness—A Tete-a-Tete with the New Editor--A Sketch off
tie Road, by Thomas Hood, Esq.—Graduates and Under-
Graduates ; or, The Proctor's Note-Hook, by the author of
Peter Priggins." No. I.—Phineas Quiddy ; or, Sheer In-
dustry, by John Poole, Esq., author of " Paul Pry." Chapter
VII. Sheer Industry prospers. A Digression for the Benefit
of Younger Sons. A very Confidential Communication.
Chapter VIII. Ingenuousness versus Cunning. Chapter IX.
A Touching Incident. Our Hero's disinterested Concern for
a " Maiden all Forlorn." A Magnificent Proposal Rejected.
Chapter X. The Reading of the Will. A Job's Comforter—
Fathers and Sons, Chapter XX., by Theodore Hook, Esq.—
A Tate of a Trumpet, by Thomas Hood, Esq. (concluded)—
A Visit to Gerbe, by the Hon. and Rev. Charles Bathurst—
The Country Town, by .Mrs. Gore—A Reminiscence of an
Irish Squire—Foreign Sporting, by Nimrod—Memoirs of Ma-
dame Laffarge, written by Herself—Charles Chesterfield, the
Youth of Genius, by Mrs. Trollope—The Suicide's Burial.

AMERICAN NEWS.
(Further extracts from de, ric LllPaler'.)
GREAT EIRE AT ST. Jolts, N. 11.—A dustruetiv;. fire
recurred at St. ;John (in the parish of Portland) on the
26th instant. It broke out in a ship-yard, caused by the
dropping of a spark from a red-hot plate, which a boy
was carrying from a blacksmith's shop to a new ship just
finished, and which was to be launched in a few days.
The flames spread rapidly, and soon communicated to the
,hip, which was entirely destroyed. The fire soon com-
.nunicated to houses in front of the ship-) ard, spreading
with great rapidity, and before it could be subdued, about
fifty houses were destroyed. The loss of Owens and
Duncan is estimated at about 10,000/. During the fire,
a soldier, while running to prevent a man passing with
his cart, ruptured a blood vessel, and died instantly, and
a sailor, who was assisting, was smothered in the flames.
Boston Transcript, Aug. 31.

TEXAS.'

We have received some very important intelligence
from Texas. There appears to be a strong war feeling
breathing throughout that country against Mexico,
which, in connection with the following order, may bring
on a rupture in a very short time.
" War Department, Austin, July 14, 1841.
"To Messrs. Roman, Price, M'Donald, Cunningham,

O'ltiely, and Newcombe.
" Gentlemen—Your communication by express has
been this moment received. I regret that the President,
in the discharge of his public duties, has been called to
Galveston, and cannot, therefore, take the prompt action
necessary to the emergency that has arisen. The Cabi-
net have, however, ben assembled, and unanimously
agree that no time should be lost in repelling the inva-
ders
of our soil and violaters of the rights of our citizens.
We, therefore, authorise you to assemble such force as
you can command for the expulsion of the enemy, re-
garding the war as fairly opened by this late outrage by
the Mexican forces; volunteers to any number necessary
for the accomplishment of this object, we authorise you
to call out. You will of course use due discretion in dis-
tinguishing between traders and soldiers of the enemy,
taking care, however, to possess yourselves of traders and
their effects as an indemnity for the loss of our citizens,
and treat soldiers as the rules of war direct.
" I have the honour to be, very respectfully,
" Your obedient servant,
(Signed) "B. T. ARCHER,
" Secretary of War and Navy."
This was issued in consequence of the acquittal of
Kinney and Aubrey, charged with having been the
means of the capture of Captain Demitt, and the proof
therefore that the Mexicans alone are responsible for that
high-handed measure.
We think an order of the nature of the above, which
of course must be followed by fights and what not, and
the election to the Presidency of General Houston, who
entertains no very friendly feelings towards the Mexican
Government, must inevitably lead to war between the
two countries. This war will either end in the subver-
sion of Mexico or the full acknowledgment of the inde-
pendence of Texas by that Government.
There had been no further intelligence from the
I Santa Fee expedition.