The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-30 00:00:00

IMPERIAL ,PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, IJABea 29.
CASE OF LORD WALDEGRAVE.
After the presentation of a few petitions,
Laid DENMAN said he rose for the purpose of
justifying himself from a charge made against him, in
les capacity of C ief Justice in the Court of Queen's
Bench. From ono who hell the high station
which he had the honour to fill, it could not be ex-
pected that he would notice every complaint which
might be made against his administration of the law.
But when he found it stated, as a grave reason for the
adoption of a particular legislative measure,' that there
had been a very scandalous proceeding on the part of
the first criminal Judge of the land, for which he ought
to be exposed to severe censure, if it were well-
founded, he thought he owed it to himself —he
owed it to their Lordships and to the administration of
justice, having a clear and complete answer to the
charge, to state what that answer was. It was
6upposed that in some case which had come
1 eore him at the last Nisi Prius Sittings held
fer the county of Middlesex, that he (Lord Denman)
for the base purpose of screening
some defendants who
1 appencd to be persons of high rank and station, one of
them a Member of their Lordships' House, brought that
proceeding to an end, and prevented it from being
carried further, and suggesting a eezuaiary coin
peesation, instead of making that public example
of the offenders, which the nature of the case
was said to require. He should certainly have thought
That without strong and clear evidence of the fact the
whole history of his life would afford sufficient refute-
t• on to the enarge.---(Heae, hear.) But it had been
ited in such a' winner, with such authority, that he
felt it was but right of him to bring the case
before their Lordships ; not so mucle
fur the purpose of explanation, as, in order to make
a simple statement of the truth, because •he .be-
bevel that such a statement would put an end to
every imputation that had been cast upon him.
On the day in que eion a case was brought before
him, in which Lord Wel legrave and another gen-
tleman were charged with having committed an
assault on a policeman ; and it was said that he (Lord
Denman) had directed the parties to enter into a corn
promise, and stop any further proceedings in that way.
In the first place, he had given no such direction—he
had no power to give such direction. The proceedings
had not been stopped—the proceedings were now actu-
ally going on, and would, in the ordinary course of prac-
tice, be brought before the Court of Queen's Bench next
term. That fact was now discovered to he true, and it got
rid of great part of the charge brought against bins.
Tee case would come on before the Q teen's Bench in
tie next Term, but then it had been supposed, and that
was the position the case at present assume 1, that that was
no act of his, and certair ly it was not his act, but the
act of the kw. But it was said that the Corn-
unssioners of Police had done a great seiance
to the public in going on with the case, not-
withstanding his (Lord Denman's) recommendation.
Tue answer to that vies that no such suggestion was
ever made, no such recommendation, and no such
oeinion had bees at ell declared by him, and he had a
in st accurate account of what passed on that occasion,
which ho weal take the liberty of reading to their
Lordships, and which was corroborated by the account
which appeere I in the Times newspaper of the follow-
ing day. He would observe that cases which were re-
moved by certiorari from the inferior Courts were
brought before the Court without any previous know-
ledge of the facts on the part of the Judge. No
depositions were laid before him, and in point
of fact he was wholly ignorant of all that had occurred.
His Learned Friend Sir F. Pollock, who was Counsel
for the defenda :t3, applied to the Court for permission
to withdraw their plea of not guilty, and plead guilty.
They also expressed their regret, for what had occurred,
and their anxiety to make every possible atonement and
apology. Now, it was impossible to mistake the meal-
hag of the word " atonement ;" it meant to make some
pecuniary compensation where a public outrage
was committed, and t' at a public example was
.necessary. No such compromise ought to take
place ; but where the only punishment that could
be inflicted on the defendants was a pecuniary fine, it
was impossible to deny that it would be much more ad-
visable that such a compensation should go to the in-
jured party than to the Treasury, where he could de-
rive no benefit from it. That observation having been
made by Sir F. Pollock, he (Lord Denman) had said,
At least they act right now ; let their plea be with-
drawn, and a Leese of guilty be recorded. I hope the
ease is of such a nature as to admit of its being settled
by private reparation." That was the extent of his
(Lord Denman's) observations, and that had been con-
strued into a suggestion on his part to screen great
public offenders DA prevent a public example being
inade.—(Hear, hear.) He did fl suer himself that
wherever that simple statement was heard, it would at
once relieve him and the administration of justice from
that one of the many attacks which certain persons had
lately thought the:es:lves justifiel in making upon it.
He was aware of what had beee said ia the public
papers, of which it did not become him to take the
sbghtest notice ; but when he found that it was made
the subject of general accusation copied from one
paper into another, and repeated by an Ho-
nourable Member of the House of Commons,
on an occasion to which he need not now allude, and
also stated that it was the grossest impropriety, and that
the whole public were exclaiming against the monstrous
in. quality of the sentence, when Mr. Justice Erskine,
at Salisbury, bad ordered a man to be transported
for ;fifteen years for a much less heinous
offence, he (Lord Denman) thought it necessary to
bring forward this statement before their Lord-
ships. He must say he thought this exclamation a
most extraordinary one. flow could any man know
which was the most heinous offence althea the one had
been tried and the other had not ?—( Hear, hear.) He
(Lord Denman) was at a loss to conceive what right
any man had to publish a statement made in ignorance
of the facts of the case. Was this the mode to secure
the free administration of justice? Was this the
mode in which prejudice was to be excited against the
Courts of Law ? To t iko for granted every ex-parte
statement, and use this case as a proof of the inequality
with which justice was administered, on account of the
sentence in the case of a felon who had been tried and
found guiity, and on whom Mr. Justice Erskine had
pronounced rentence ? He (Lord Denman) with in-
dignation had seen it stated that one man had been
punishe I with 15 years' transportation for a less heinous
offence than the one to which he had alluded. He did not
mean to defend Mr. Justice Erskine. He did not
know that any attack had been made upon him, but it
might be said he had punished a man because he was
poor just as another Judge had favoured another men
because he was rich. He was sure the Learned Judge
needed no defence or panegyric. A more honourable
d upright Judge never appeared upon the Witish
Bench. He believed be might appeal to his Noble
Friend at the head of the Home Department. that in
that case, justly jealous as the people were
that justice should be impartially administered, there
had been uo application at the Home-office to com-
mute ti e senteece ; but what a notion it was
to take sentences at one plece and another, and
apply a kind of foot rule to them—(Cbeering)—
to regard them as a sum in addition or subtrac-
tion, and to say there is so much heinousness in one
case and only so much in another, and, therefore, there
was clearly an inequality in the administration
of justice. Such a course was more likely to
secure contempt for the law than any other.
He abstained with some self-restraint from entering
upon any other observation on the present occasion.
Bat with regard to the notion of the disparity of
punishment to the sentences pronounced upon the
ministers of the law by those who cannot
have the means of judging of the circumstances
upon which they judge, or whether or not the
sentences were prvortioned to the several crimes ;
On this subject he could not help dwelling for
one moment, because on a recent occasion in the
Central Criminsl Court, one of the most upright,
humane, and Learned Judges that ever graced the Bench
he melt it Mr. Justice Pattison, had been attacked by
one of the leading papers of this capital, in a manner
which ought to have driren him from the Bench. if the
accusations had been well-founded, on account of some
difference in the sentence which he had passed
upon two criminals. That Learned Judge had the
kindness te call on him (Lord Denman) and ex-
plain why these different sentences were passed ;
and he (Lord Denman) would venture to say that no
man of common sense or candour could have found the
slightest ground for such observations if he
had been really acquainted with the circum-
stances.--(Hear, hear.) He would make no other
ple truth should be unveiled,
observations on the present occasion. He was much
obliged e
he
eato s
tttrhteasittretaLh
eo rtdshsiembiirps foro r thedsh i
ps attention which they
had been pleased to give to his statement. His only
sh
d
and the people
woul I be of opinion that nothing had been done on the
occasion to which so much animadversion had been ap-
plied
at all unworthy of a Member of their Lord-
ship's performing his duty
fa
his Queen and country.—(Loud cheers.)
itltull Houseto or of a Judge
Tho Noble and Learned Lord then presented a peti-
tion from certain individuals, whose names or designa-
tions he did not giei, Praying that the evidence of per-
sons who had consc'entious scruples against the taking
of oaths should be received in Courts of Justice upon
their affirmation. d NORM AN BY was happy
thatTliiis ANiaorlreisand Learned Friend had taken the
opportunity of explaining the
circumstances of this
case, but. he thought the Noble and Learned Lord
might have left it to his high character to satisfy their
Lordships and the public as to the course hich he had
pursued.—( Hear, hear-) But he (the Marquis of Nor-
manby) wished to say a few words as to the
part taken by the Commissioners of Police.—(Hear,
eenssee tee eepoe tecys ought it
of esivset their
duty
munerationdis or
hear.) They had alwh th
,:.• of 'duty by police
officers, because it Wight hold out improper tempt a-
tions, or lead to injurious suspicions in cases in which
to -

they had to give evidence in Courts of Justice.—( Hear,
bear.) He cordially concurred in all that had been
said by his Noble and Learned Friend in so-
ft:reties: to the character of Mr. Jthfce Patti-
son. In one of the cases ntuded to by the
Noble and Learned Lord, Mr. Justice Paulson had
netually applied :or and obtained a commutation of the
sentence, at the very t'me when those public statements
were hale respecting him.—( Hear, hear.)
Toe E rl of H ADDINGTON then pre ested a
petition from Thttersea in favour of the abolition of
toll on the nietropohtan bridges.

The Marquis of DO WNIIIRE presented several
petitions from places in the North of Ireland against
Church patronage in Scotland.

Viscount MELBOURNE presented a petition from
a place in Lancashire on Church-rates and Eceles;a,ti-
cal Courts.

In reply to a question from the EArl of MOUNT-
CASHELL.

The Marquis of NORMANDY said thet he could
not take it upon himself to give a legal opinion as to
the I_,;r4 interpretation of the Act of Parliament re-
efing to -vaccination. But he thought that the most
natured construction of the Act was that a power to
the guardians of the poor to pay for vaccination out of
the rates, was cither given or implied. If there were
any doubt in the interpretation of the law it could
easily be set at rest.
The Earl of MOUNTCAS HELL said that
there was no power in the Act to esahll the
guardians to apply the funds of the unions t, the pur-
poses of the Act. Ho did not crill upon the Noble
Margins for a definite answer,' but he had thouaht it
his duty to bring_ the matter before their Lordships,
as the question aticcted the whole of Iriltnd.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH lied no doubt that the
Act would be found sufficient to warrant the board of
pilule is in levying a rate for such a purpose.
The Turnpike Acts Bill, and the East India Rum
Bid, went through Committee, and were ordared to be
read a third time ta-morrow.

POOR-LAWS (IRELAND).
Mr. Hawley, the Assistant Poor-law Commissioner,
was nen called in and re-examined.

By the Earl of GLENGALL—He is an Assistant
Poor-la s Cornmistieeer. He was in Clonmel in Fe-
hruery, 1839. On the 16th of February, the first day
altor his arrival in Clonmel, Mr. Butler came to him,
and solicited to be appointed Returning Officer for
Lee Union. He wrote to Dublin on that day,
recommending Mr. Butler to the Commissioners for
that othee. He made application to several persons in
Clonmel respecting Mr. Butler. He forgot at the
moment who many of them were, but he could mention
who recomended Mr. Batter ; it was Mr. Bianconi.
He had nos been previously acquainted with Mr.Bianconi
He made inquiries relative to Mr. Butler of several
ether parties but he could not then remember who
they were. He bad not known, but he had heard of
the party to which Mr. Bienconi belonged..
He had been instructed by the Commissioners
that it would be belt cr in all cases where it
could be done, to obtain persons to fill the office of re-
turning officer who were not intimately connected with
clay party. He had made some inquiry in Clonmel re-
specting the Barony eess-collector, Mr. Fennell, but he
did not remember of whores. lie dare say he might have
made inquiries on the subject of Mr. Bianconi. He did
not doubt but he had heard that Mr. Fennell was a very
respectable person, and fit for the office he solicited. He
had not however recommended Mr. Fennell, because be
thought he had already duties enough to occuu
his time. He bad nevertheless appointed three
col cams to a similar office in Tipperary. for he
thought they were competent persons. He had
then less experience than when he refused to ap-
point Mr. Fennell. The business of a returning
officer did not occupy more than two or three days a
year, but that business had to be discharged during the
Assiz cs, when the Barony-colleztor was otherwise en-
gaged. He was not aware that a collector had only to
attend one day for the purpose of swearing to his account,.
Believed he had seen the net: upon Mr. Hancock's
letter at the office since these inquiries had been
commenced. They had made no direct com-
munication to Mr. Bagwell, the chief proprii tor
of the union, having taken many opportunities
of communicating with the whole of the gen-
tlemen of the county. He had never inquired
into the re tgious or political opinions of any
one whom he had recommended under the Poor-law
Bill in Ireland ; that would have been against his in-
structions. But had any one stied that Mr. Butler
was a partisan, he would have been the last
whom he would have recommended. His in-
quiries led him to understand that Mr. Butter
was a respectable roan who had retired from business.
He did not think it necessary to make any further in-
quiries in consequence of Mr. Bagwell's letter, because
it contained no specific accusation.
To the Earl of WICKLOW—He was quite
aware that the situationr of returning officer was one of
much responsibility. He having seen Mr. Butler,
and formed a knowledge of his abilities,he made numerous
inquiries respecting bite, he thought he was peculiarly
quelifle f for the office. lie had forgot the names
of the parties to whom he applied. He con-
ceived, from Mr. Bagwell's letter, that he did not wish
to mix himself up in this matter.
To the Duke of WELLINGTON—He had never
heard from any one that Mr. Butler had been a bankrupt.
Did not think in the answer which he gave t. Mr.
Bagwell, he cast any imputation upon that gentleman.
It was the impression upon the mind of witness at the
time when he wrote the reply to Mr. Bagwell, the only
reason which the latter bad for saying that Mr. Butler
was a most unfit person to fill the office of returning
officer, was because Butler was a relative to a Roman
Catholic Archbishop.
To ese E srl of WICKLOW—When witness went
down to inquire into the characters of persons reaom-
mended to fill the office of returning officer, mode in-
quiries along his route as,to the persons who could best
give him information as to the fittest men for the office.
Could not at this time say whether or not he took notes
of the names. He might or might not, and although he
knew he was to be examined upon the subject here to-
night, he had not taken any measures for refreshing
memory.
To Lord MELBOURNE—Witness had a very
large circuit, through the counties of Limerick, Clare,
and Tipperary. He had to inquire respecting a great
number of persons and facts, and be had discharged all
from his memory, as soon as the unions were finally
settled.
To the Earl of RADNOR—Wit less made all the
iuquiries that he considered necessary, and in the case
of Mr. Butler made minute inquiries as to that eentle-
tnan's character. Amongst others he examined Mr.
Butler himself.
The Earl of WICKLOW--As to his political cha-
racter ?
Tee Earl of RADNOR—I beg not to be inter•
rupted.—(llear, hear.) Did you attend a public meet-
ing at which Mr. Butler was present ?.—Witness did so ;
it was a large meeting, but (es we understood) Mr.
Butler took no part in it to mark him as a pol tical pare
tisan.
To Lord GLENGALL—Wrote the letter to the
Commissioners respecting Mr. Butler on the Saturday,
although be knew it would not reach Dublin until
Monday. Wrote it on that evening as a matter of rou-
tine, and could not say whether it was before dinner or
after dinner. Could not say whether it was before or
after six o'clock. It was his practice to write every
evening on the business of the clay, without reference to
the day of the week. If it was too late for post he wrote
the letter notwithstanding, and sent it by eeet post.
Witness would say that the persons of whom he in-
quired respecting Mr. Butler's character were not all
of the same politics as that gentleman. Made no inquiry
to ascertain whether Mr, Butler was a person of strong
political bias or not. Believed that most persons in
Clonmel were of some political party or other. Sup-
posed Mr. Butler to be a Catholic from his being re-
lated to the Archbishop. Heard of persons called
Pacificators in Ireland. The first meeting referred to
was held in Clonmel during the sitting of the Special
Commi,sion for the trial of certain individuals for mur-
der. The other meeting was be'el some months after
the first. Was not aware that Mr. Fennell had applied
for the situation when witness went to Clonmel.
The witness was here ordered to withdraw, and Mr.
Phelan called in and examined by the Earl of GLEN-
GALL—Knew Mr. Butler intimately for twenty-seven
years in Clonmel. Knew of several individuals being
indicted at the Clonmerassizes of the year 1932 for
having illegally assembled and by force of arms resisted
the payment of tithes—they were sentenced to four
months' imprisonment. Knew that certain parties plca.ded
guilty to that indictment, but could not say for certain
that Joseph Butler, a Mr. Hackett, and a Mr. O'Brien
were those that did so. Did not exactly recollect who
the persons were that pleaded guilty—thought that
Butler was one After no doubt on his mind of
his being so. e knowing that Butler pleaded
guilty to that charge gave him a letter of introduction.
Was not aware •of Butler's goods being sold by the
sheriff for a debt of 381., due to Messrs. Wright and
Stanley, the hatters of Dublin.
The short-hand writer's notes of Mr. Phelan's evi-
dence were here referred to, and his answer to a ques-
tion on the subject of the debt to Wright and Stanley
corresponded exactly with that given above.
Examination resumed—Was not in Clonmel in Oeto-
her 1838. Did not know of the sheriff having pos-
session of Mr. Butler's house at that time under it writ
of execution issued on account of that debt. Had
not the slightest idea of that circumstance.'
The Earl of GLENG ALL asked whether, in.the
few letters put into the hands of the witness, he could
point. out any such want of promptitude and alacrity
on the part of Mr. Fennell, as the witness, on a former
occasion, attributed to that person?
The Earl of Radnor objected ..to the question,
and the witness was ordered to withdraw, when, after
some discussion, it was resolved, on the motion of the
Earl of Glengall, that the letters should be read to the
v, iees, at length, by the Gerk at the tal le.
bite E.srl of Ci LENGALL tiest tee fiat of
the letters was one from the Commissioners .to Mr.
Fennell,
•

x.'i 1

c..4

The Earl of RADNOR asked, was the paper abcut
to be read the original letter, or a copy, and by whom
was it furnished ?
Tne Earl of GLENGA LL replied that the paper
in his hand was a copy of the Commissioner's letter
and was furnished by Mr. Fennell himself.
The Earl of RADNOR objected to its being read
under such circumstances. The proper course would
he to move for a return of the original document.
Ho did not suppose that. Mr. Fennell would forge a
document. Bat if the inquiry was to be carried on in
this minute way, it would be necessary that it should
also he formal and correct.
After some further discussion, the Earl of GLEN-
GALL waived, for the present, this part of the in-
quiry, and the wit .ess was recalled, and the examina-
tion renewed.
Witness—Had scan the correspondence between the
Commissioners and Mr. Fennell, and from that corre-
spondence formed the opinion that the Board were not
satisfied with the conduct of . Mr. Fennell. Believed
that Fennell was one of the persons formerly appointed
by the agitators of the Corn Exchange as a " Pa!ifi-
cater." Considered a " pacificator" a political partisan ;
bet when he recommended Mr. Butler he had no re-
collection that the letter had been sent, for he him elf
hal never t .ken any part in the proceedings of those
persons. Did not. believe that Mr. Butler ever made
a composition with his creditors. It was not a compe-
sition or a proof of the insolvency when a man retiring
from business gives bias of long dates to satisfy his
creditors , those bills being for the whole amount of
twenty shitings in the pound, and not by way of co►n-
poeition. Hal made inquiry as to the alleged tr'a)
between Butler and his brother. There had
Lean family disputes between them, which
$ were settled by arbitration. Witness bad in-
quired since his Tart examination from some of the oldest
and most respect ‘131.1 inhabitants of Cionmel, who as-
sured him that there was no truth in the statements re-
specting Butler's insolvency or bankruptcy, or as to a
trial baween him and his brother. Tile statement of
witness to the Housa, on another evening, as to But-
ler's being a freeholder, had been impugned. He ❑ow
wished to state that Butler was a 501. freeholder under
the Earl of Giengall himself.—(Great laughter )
The witness was then ordered to withdraw.
On the motion of the Marquis of NORM ANBY,
Mr. Hawley was discharged from further attendance.
The House then adjourned to Eleven o'Clock to.
morrow.

ROUSE OF COMMONS, MA c& 29.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.

Sir. DE LACY EVANS presented a Petition
From the parish of St. James's, Westminster, against
;he Middlesex Sessions all.

Mr. EROTHERTON presented a Petition from
Merchants and Saipowners of Liverpool against the
Liverpool Duties Bill.
Mr. BERNAL brought up the Reports of Com-
mittees on the Eccleshill Enclosure, the Derby Gas,
the Ilminster Reads, and Bogden's Nwuratzation
Billy.
The Wishaw and Coltness Railway Bill,—and
Heynes Naturalization Bill were severally read a third
time and passel.
The Rhynnacy Iron Works Bill, the Scubster Har-
bour Bill, the Dovenby and Papcastle Inelosure Bill,
and the Newry Navigation 13111, were severally read a
second time.
Mr. GREEN prosented a petition from Lancaster
against the present system of Import Duties.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS presented a petition from
the Chancellor, Master, and Scholars of Oxford Uni-
versity, complaining of the spiritual destitution cx
isting in England and Wale,. Aho a petition
from the Archdeacon and clergy of Canterbury,
and from places in the counties of Lancaster, Derby,
Durham, Berks, and Gloucester to the same effect.
The Hon. Baronet gave notice that he should call the
attention of the House to the subject after Easter.
Mr. T. EGERTON presented a petition from the
Taff Vale Railway Company against that part of the
Railways Bill wi.ich vests the power of making regula-
tioni for Railways in the Board of Trade.
Mr. BROADLEY presented a similar petition
from the Hull and Selby Railway Company.
Mr. VERNON SMITH presented a petition
from the Mayor and Corporation of Northampton
praying for the removal of disabilities upon the election
of Jews to civil offices. _ _

Mr. G. PALMER presented a petition from a
Poor-law union in Essex, praying for certain alterations
in the PoorlAws.
Sir C. B. VERE presented a similar petition from
a plane in Worcestershire.
Mr. E. TENNENT presented petitions from places
in the counties of Down and Leitrim, against Cnurch
Patronage in Sect!and.
Mr. W. FATTEN presented a petition from Lan-
caster, praying for increased church accommodation.
Sir W. FOLLETT presented a pi taloa from medi-
cal practitioners in Exeter, praying for alteration in the
Poor-laws, so tar as they affected the medical profession.
Also a petition from clergymen and other tithe owners
in the county of Sussex, praying for alteration in the law
respecting tithe.
Mr. T. DU NCOMBE presented a petition, praying
for a Committee of Inquiry into the circumstance of
persons connected with schoels of aneterny, beim,: diallers
in human bones ; also a petition from the city of Hereford,
conillaining of ceit kiss measures adopted by the Poor-law
Commissioners, and praying the House to institute an in-
quiry into the subject of complaint ; also a petit:on
from Wandsworth in favour of the people's charter, and
another petition to the same effect, from a person lc-
siding in the Edgeware-road.
S:r W. FOLLETT presented a petition from an in-
dividual, praying to be h: and by Counsel before the
House, against the Lurgas Navigation B:11.
Sir GEORGE STRLCKL AN D presented a pcti.
t;on from an individual in Leeds, complaining of the
Post-office system, and praying for a repeal of the
Corn-laws, and an increase of the salary of Prince Albert.
Mr. LASCELLES presented a petition from
Wakefnld against the toleration of idolatrous practices
in India.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from an indivi-
dual in Bangor in Carnarvonshire, complaining of the
want of a proper system of auditing the accounts in
the Poor-law unions. The petitioner stated that he
had been informed that the existing evil could not be
redressed by the Commissioners, as the power of au-
diting was entirely vested in the Guardians. He
(Mr. Hume) had ascertained that that state-
ment was a correct one. The Hon. Gentleman
also presented a petition from the Universal Rational
Raligionists of Arbroath, in Forfarshire, complaining
that their doctrines, which they stated were well cal-
culated to advance the good of mankind, had been
comp'e'ely misrepresented, and praying for an in-
quiry with regard to them ; also a petition from the
Christian Chartist sect, complaining of the imprison.
mew. of Mr. Hetherington for an alleged blasphemous
puhlicaaion, and praying for his release ; also a petition
from the Chartists of the Tower Hamlets, praying for
the release of Mr. Robert Peddie ; also a petition from
Westminster, praying for the release of Mr. Feargus
O'Connor ; and petitions from Walworth, Wands-
worth, and London, in favour of the liberation of
Frost, Williams, and Jones ; also two petitions
from Dissenting Congregations at Brentford, praying
for the abol t'on of Church-rates, the extinction of Ec-
clesiastical Courts, and the release of Mr. Baines ; also
a petition from a public meeting, and a petition from an
individual in Perthshire, praying for Universal Suffrage,
annual Parliaments, and no property qudification ; and
a petition from three individuals in the county of Done-
gal, complaining of the provisions relating to apotheca-
ries in the Medical Reform Bill.
Sir R. PEEL presented a petition from the Peer.
law Guardians of the Tamworth Union, stating that
they for the most part approved of the principles of
the Poor-law Bill, and were desirous of carrying them
late effect, but they made an exception with regard to
the bastardy clauses, the effect of which had been, on a
comparison of the three years during which the pre-
sent lieu was in operation with the three years previously
to that period, to double the number of illegitimate
children.
Mr. ELLIOT presented a petition from Roxburgh,
praying for an abolition of Church patronage.
Mr. DENISON presented a petition from the
Guardians of the Dorking Union, praying that the
rates might be paid by the owners and not the occu-
piers of small tenements.
Mr. SHAW presented a petition from Dublin against
any further grant to the College of Maynooth.
Mr. KEMBLE presented a petition from Surrey
against the Poor-law Bill.
Mr. GOU LBU RN presented a petition from Queen-
street, Cheapside, praying that the toll might be taken
off Southwark-bridge.
Mr. C. LUSHINGTON presented a petition from
Ashburton against the Medical Reform Bill.
Mr. HOPE presented a petition from a place in
Gloucestershire in favour of Church Extension.. e
on
Mr. PALMER gave notice that, in Committee _
clause 3
the Poor-law Bill, he would move the omission of
issue Sir frror. theFR Ee
lAele At
i oNn Tolf Ea
Kr nal gv
county of Antrim, in the room of t H
eh it that
thheaes
hw_i rroietn.f.sob
jrootuhili tole
O'Neill, now Earl O'Neill.
ob'ection to 1.
mr.B.CIO.EPNYNREIGNHTThoDpeEdSthIeGNNoSbIeBLILorLd.
opposite
(Lord J. Russell) would have noc p}
.
moving the second reading of the dopy right Designs
8.11, before the other orders of the day.
Lord J. RUSSELL had no objection.
The Bill was then 'read a second time, and ordered
to be committed en Wednesday next
NEWFOUNDLAND.
Mr. PAKINGTON said he understood the Noble
Lord opposite gave notice that he should to-night, on
the order of the day being read for going into Com-
mittee on the Poor-law Bid, move that that
Bill take precedence of all :notions on to-morrow
night. He '( Mr. PAin7,teu) entia c ,i
i no such metlon on
din Oide s of tho Da.), ,o-1 t',A;;etore l.: would al
what was the course of proceeding which the Noble
Lord proposed to adopt ? lie would remind the

Noble Lord that he (Mr. Pakington) had given
notice of a motion for the appointment of a
Se!cet :Aflemmittee, to inquire into the state of
the Colony of Newfoundland on to-morrow ; be
would, therefore, feel obliged by the Noble Lord's
stating the course he intended to pursue in this matter.
Lord J: RUSSELL said that he had given notice of
a motion, that the Poor-lter Bill should take precedtnce
of the notices of motion for to-morrow. It seemed to
him a Bill of such importance—one of which the
House had already discussed so many provisions—as
also its general principle, that it was desirable they
sk ould go on with it in Committee for as many succes-
sve days as possible. With regard to the motion of
the Hon. G ntleman, if he meant to discuss it, it would
certainly put tom (Lord J. Russcli) in a difficult situation
with respect to the motion itself, independently of the
Poor-law. He (Lord J. Russell) bad not yet received
sufficient information on the subject from the Governor
of the Colony of Newfoundland, and therefore any state-
ment that he might moke on to-morrow would be ne-
cessarily imperfectit would, in fact, be impossible
for him to state at present, as well as be could do in
three or four weeks hence, the course which the Go-
vernment intended to pursue. He trusted the Hon.
Gentleman would not seek to embarrass the Govern-
ment by pressing the consideration of his motion.
Mr. PA KI N GTO N repeated that he had no wish
to embarrass the Government, but, if the Noble Lord
should press his oration, he should divide the House on
the subject.—(leer, hear.)
Lord STANLEY said the course the Noble Lord
proposed to take was one that bore very hardly upon
individual members.—(Hear, bear.) He was quite
aware the Noble Lord said last week that he
wished to press on this Bill, but on all former occa-
sions ample notice had been given of the intention to
take precedence. If the question was decided in
this manna persons who brought forward these
motions would be placed in an unfavourable
or rather in an unfair position.—(Hear, hear.) The
Noble Lord had not placed on the votes of the House
any notice upon this subject. Te Noble Lord had stated
he wished to go into Committee of Inquiry, and if
so he asked the Noble Lord, whether he thought,
when an Hot. Member brought foiw ird a motion
tor an inquiry into the whole state of the colonies
of the British Empire, it should be set aside without
a single ward ofiseplanatim ? He (Lord Stanley)
did not think it right to the House or to the country,
or that there was any reason to justify such a course.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he had no objection
to the appointment of a Committee, or to go into
the whole question when the matter was ripe
for discussion. But he thought it would be
most inconvenient and uncair to the parties concerned for
the Hen. Gentleman to bring forward a motion on that
subject at a time when his st,itements could not be met.
In answer to a question by an HON. MEMBER.
Mr: HAWES stated that he did not intend to bring
forward his Medical Reform Bill, No. 2, until after
Easter.
Sir G. CLERK objected to the course proposed by
the Government with respect to the order of proceed-
ing for to-morrow. It was a most unusual proceeding.
When it was first moved that even i n Mondays and
Fridays the Government business should take the pre-
cedence of all other business, it was strongly objected
o, as an infringement of the undoubted privilege of the

House.
Lord J. RUSSELL believed the course which he
had proposed was one which had been already pursued
on special occasions with regard to important Bills be-
fore the House. He remembered that on one occasion
the Hon. Member for Montgomery, wishing to move
that the Orders of the Day should take precedence of
motions, .strongly advocated that view of the case.
li,en the Hon. Gentleman opposite had not said that it
was not proper in any case to tike the course which
had been proposed.
Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL complained that the
Hon. Geetleinan proposed to introduce his motion in
the absence of sufficient information. He thought the
Hon. Gentleman should adjourn it till he could obtain
a-full Howe and the subject be fairly discussed.
Sir R. PEEL thought the question, whether or no
his Hon. Friend should proceed with his motion by a
speech upon tie siate of Newfoundland, was quite dis-
tinct from that whether the House sl,ould supersede
his notice by foregoing the order. It was, to say the
least, a dangerous precedent, and should only be resorted
to in cases of strong necessity. A Government with a
majority might at any time take that means of getting
rid of inconvenient motions ; and the greater the
majority, the more dangerous would be such a precedent.
The Noble Lord had better try and obtain the
concurrence of Honourable Members whose names
stood on the motion paper ; then there could not
be any doubt upon the matte-, but Le did not
think the House would be contented to esta-
blish a precedent so dangerous. With respect
to We luesday did the Noble Lord mean to super-
sede ell the Orders that stood before the Poor-law
Amendins nt Bill ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL.—No.
Sir ROBERT PEEL—So then an Honourable
Member who had charge of a Legidetive. Enactment
was to have his day, but the Member who
might have a motion of the utmost importance was to
be stopped isy an order of the House agreed to on a
Monday, and without notice. That was a motion that
would establish a most dangerous principle—one that
would be more dangerous the stronger a Government
was, and he trusted his Hon. Friend would resist it by
bringing on his motion at five o'clock, and pressing it.
Tee Order of the Day for going into Committee on
the Poor-law Amendment Bill was then read.
On the question that the Speaker do lease the
Chair,
POOR-LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
Mr. JOHN FIELDEN rose to move that it
be an instruction to the Commttee to intro-
duce a clause repealing the Poor-law Amendment
Act. (The Honourable Gentleman spoke' in so
low a tone of voice, that although he addressed the
House from the opposition bench near the table, it was
impossible to hear a single sentence of what he uttered,
and at times the noise occasioned by Members con-
versing together was so great as to drown his
voice altogether.) The Hon. Member was under-
stood to condemn the Poor-law Act as imposing
burdens upon the,country, in addition to those occa-
sioned by the Corn-laws and the bad state of the cur-
rency. He also contended that the House ought not
to delegate the power of making laws to any junta at
Somerset House, and that the Poonlaws, in order
to become effectual, ought to harmonise with the feel-
ings of the people, which the present laws did not.
The subject was one to which the House ought (ae
we understood) to pay more respect than it then
seemed is ilng to do.— (The noise in the House was
so great at this time as to render the Hon. Mem-
ber quite inaudible in the gallery). The Hon. Gentle-
man here proceeded to read extracts from " Cobbett's
Legacy to Labourers," to show the relative proportions
of the Poor-rates and Government taxes at different
periods. In the year 1776 the Poor-rates amounted
to os.e million nineteen thousand and ninety-six pounds,
the Government taxes to three millions. (The other
extracts we were unable to catch.)—(Hear, hear.)
The House ought to be careful how they tampered with
the fe:lings of the English people. The people of
England were the best people on the face of the globe
—the most honest and the most industrious and
he knew of no one in society more deserving of
sympathy than the honest able-bodied English labourer.
Yet if he could not obtain labour, and asked for relief
he was seat to a prison. Was not that enough to
make men violate the law ? Was it not enough
to drive men to steal, when they saw their wives and
little children perishing with hunger. If this inhu-
man law was continued Chartism would apread.
If the House wished to suppress Chartism they must
repeal the Poor-law Act. If they did not re-
peal the Poor-law Act the people
em. Oise argu-
would yet one clay be too strong for supporters of England
ment which had been urged by
atrocious law for its continuance was.
reduced. If a ere really
the
thatun der oi
its
s thisa
ministration the rates had been
feat the people had not
had only augmented
hadde
ri
vbeen a
nany b reductionsenefit
from
Ti?i•tef,
Ccirn-laws were continued ;
the rents of landlords.
taxation. was still continued,
and a high rate
such treatment
must come . into a prison
theypoo
d lie repeated, as .he had before
rlrcaeowu.
notivd adcoear
vgdisgrace
labourt o
the
orh e
nwaatgi
oens
)01
ierl
et
ydwi
elwlcenroe thewtoa
want.
f
stated, that . such
boyu
the
et to
neglectdo s o
tbe repealed. Petitions had year after
y
year the.law mgt be
against it. The great Chartist pe-
year been pree.entteit
Would they V
tition wag "gls . Isten to the prayers of
did
Tne,English
tie
upon is
theynot, the English people would,
.with Sow
which
wPcolPldi°.nwever petition the House'
again. The
their petitims lel been treated that nurnte-sofgi
gusted
et
o bad ;se Icepeepaila,
becomean d e
themde-
clared
Hen. Memlaer concluded by movinte th • • t un-
at It be an ins.r
tion to the Committee to int dro uce a clause to repeat tilt
Poor-law- AMendment Act.
they
General JOHNSON seconded the motion; lie had cc
wish to recur to the old law but he di-a °leder( the uncoil-
stitutionalpower with which the C "Letter were invest.
=MUSS,
ed. They had usedcoercion instead ti He ob-
of Cenetal on.
jvet'...d to
making poverty a critic, -which was the cas:
under the pre ent law. He thought the tastardy clauses
were provisions for seduction, -and those clauses at all
events ought to he repealed. With Tespect to the power,.
Vim to the Poor-law Commissioners, he thought it wat
impossible that the Commissioners could issue an.order to
meet all CM?. Ina manufacturing distrint, if a „tip
stopped, 500 people might be thbroowwneruepe:anbtshisetiparish, fo:
it was impOssible that thosothw g
in for the Zay ofnagd upon
mire pittance could save anyhvoersity.
ei given to parties
There ought to be
polwcircumstences, to afford we"
acquainted death the loca such re.
bt proper. But objecting to the Poor-
Lef as they tboug he should
law Act as be
:did altogether, support the motion
of bit Hers. Friend.
Ihe:spEAKER then put the question, and stranger
were • edietely ordered to withdraw.
' imea
The House divided, when there appea.red—
Forthe motion
Against it
:Majority cgainst the motion —l46
On our return to the Gallery we found
Mr. WAKLEY referring to the medical clauses of tho