The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-17 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JULY 17, IM6.

my Hon. friend. It is now endeavoured to ascertain
my opinions with regard to the Protestant Church, and
with regard to the Catholic endowment. Ido not think
it is necessary I should regard those opinions at the pre-
sent moment. But that what I must confess at the pre-
sent moment to be my unalterable belief is, that with
regard to what some men propose, namely, the destruc-
tiOn of the Protestant Church in Ireland—l believe no
worse or more fatal measure can be adopted ; or one
less calculated to better the condition of the people. I
believe it would be exceedingly injurious, because I be-
lieve that many of the most loyal in Ireland—many of
those who are not attached to the connexion with this
country—would be alienated by the destruction of that
Church to which they are fondly attached. I believe, in
a religious point of view, it would be the commence-
ment of a religious war ; that there would be that
which at present does not prevail—a most violent and
vehement attack upon the Roman Catholic reli-
gion ; and that the Roman Catholics themselves would
be the first to blame the destruction of that Church. Well,
then, Sir, can you endow the Roman Catholic Church ?
Mr. Pitt was of opinion, as is quite evident from
his speeches and from memorandums which were left to
his friends, that it was possible to endow, or to make
some.provision for the Roman Catholics by the state.
ly belief is, that if Mr. Pitt had carried that measure,
he would have carried a measure which would have been
conducive to the welfare of Ireland.—(Hear, hear.)
Conducive to the maintenance of the union.— (Hear,
hear.) Conducive to the peace of the United Kingdom.
—(Hear, hear.) Now, in conformity with that opinion,
I gave my vote in 1825, twenty-one years ago, in favour
of tile motion of Lord F. Egerton, now Lord Ellesmere,
which was to the effect that a provision ought to be
made by law for the maintenance of the Roman Catholic
priests.—(Hear, hear.) But what do I find at this
moment? What I find at this moment is, that generally
speaking, the Church of England, the Dissenters of
England, and the Established Church of Scotland, and
the Free Church of Scotland, the Established Church
of Ireland, the Protestant Association of Ireland, and,
lastly, the Roman Catholics of Ireland themselves—
(Loud cries of " Hear, hear")—are all vehement in op-
position to such an endowment.—(Cheers.) Why, Sir,
I received a notice this morning—l know not whether I
have it with me—but I received a placard from Edin-
burgh, in which the Roman Catholics at Edinburgh
declared that they would resist to the utmost of
their power any plan for the payment of their
priests by the state. Why, Sir, I cannot say that
that is a meaeure which I am bound consistently

with my duty to bring under the consideration of the
House, until I see some signs of a more favourable dis-
position towards it on the part of the Roman Catholics.
—(Hear, hear.) I should say if that measure, or any
measure, .were urgent, that although it were impracti-
cable. I might still be found to urge it in the counsels of
the Sovereign, and resign if I could not carry it. But

I must confess, with respect to that ecclesiastical ques:

tion of Ireland, there is not that emergency that Could

induce me to propose any such measurei and I do say
that there are measures which may be beneficial—which

may be highly beneficial to Ireland—(Hear, hear)—and

which are practicable—(Hear, hear)—and I do not see
the necessity of urging forward those which I confess to
be impracticable.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, if any Members
of this House choose to express, or feel, or act upon a
want of confidence in my Administration, on the ground
that I am not disposed, in their opinion, to deal satis-
factorily with the present condition of ecclesiastical
affairs in Ireland—that I am not disposed to say that that
Church is consistent with all justice, and must be kept
up in perpetuity on the plea of maintaining the endow-
ment principle for a Protestant minority, and the volun-
tary system for the Roman Catholics—that if any persons
are disposed to declare a want of confidence in me on
that ground, I really cannot help them forming that
conclusion. I cannot, in my mind, see that I am per-
fectly satisfied with that conviction.—(Hear, hear.) I
cannot pledge myself, if I found the people of England
and Scotland disposed to what I think a more just and
useful arrangement, I- will not pledge myself to be the
opponent of such a scheme.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, my
Hon. Friend went on to ask whether I should promote

.
an extension of the franchise in England. He alluded
to that word which has been often thrown in my teeth,

by those who wish to diminish any reputation I might
have in the public, namely, " finality."—(Hear, hear.)
Now, the word " finality,' be it remembered, was no
word of mine,—(Hear, hear.) It was a word invented
for the purpose of expressing a system to which I never
gave, I think, any countenance. What happened was
this, that my Lord Grey and my Lord Althorpe—the
one in the other House of Parliament, and the other in

this House of Parliament—had brought forward a great
measure of Parliamentary reform ; and when they were
asked by many persons, who said, we shall be ready to
support this reform if you intend to stop here, but we
cannot support it if you mean it to be a step in some
other scheme of Parliamentary reform which this is
made to accomplish, and they said, " No, we do not
intend any other scheme than this. We consi-
der this as a final measure ; this is the only wee-

sure that we propose." (Hear, hear.) Well,
Sir, I repeat to this House that such has
been the language of my Lord Grey, and my Lord Al-
thorpe, and that I did not entirely concur with what
they then said. I sat with my Noble Friend Lord Al-
thorpe, and in consenting to his language I did not think
it would be consistent or honourable in me to support
that large scheme of Parliamentary reform, although I
did not express myself as opposed to the expression of
my Noble Friends. I never said that the whole of the
Reform Bill was perfect or practical in all its parts. I
said I could not be held to any particular scheme of re
presentation. I said that the people of England differed
from me ; they might wish to have a new Reform Bill ;
they might wish to have household or universal suffrage ;
they might wish to have triennial Parliaments or annual
Parliaments. If that is the case, I think it far better

upon the opinions which I have stated from 1841 to this
time—upon the subject of free trade or the subject of re-
strictive duties. It will be for the Heuse to consider
whether that measure is suited to the interests of the
country.—(Hear.) It will be for this House to con-
sider whether there are any reasons which will induce
them to withhold their approbation from that measure.
Bat this I am determined upon, that I will act as I have
ever considered it my duty to do ; and this I say with-
out wishing to give the least offence, but I must say
plainly and decidedly, that I will act according to the
principles that I have professed—(Hear, hear)—accord-
ing to the principles upon which I acted when I sat on
the opposite side of the House—upon which alone I could
consent to take office in the present situation of affairs.
I am determined, whether I sit on this side of the House
or upon the other, to act according to those principles
which I think most for the benefit of the country. I have
not sat for more than thirty years as a Member of this
House, proclaiming and declaring my opinions upon
almost every occasion, that they now need be a secret
to the House.—(Hear, hear.) They are principles, as I
think, tending to increase the commerce and set free the
industry of this country, promoting a union not merely
of
by a legislative Act, but a unionheart and affections
between this country and Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) They
are opinions which, as I think, tend to promote the
maintenance and widening of principles of religious
liberty, which, together with its civil liberty, have made
this country conspicuous as one of the greatest nations
of the earth.—(Loud and protracted cheering, in the
midst of which the Noble Lord resumed his seat.)
Mr. OSBORNE said that although he did not
participate in the opinions of the Honourable Member
who had put these questions to her Majesty's
Government. Yet, in his opinion, the House and the
country owed him great obligations for being the instru-
ment of obtaining from the Noble Lord at the head of
the Government a declaration as to the policy which he
meant to pursue.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had
made certain declarations as to his policy. How these
declarations would be received in and out of that House
he was not prepared to state ; but he must distinctly tell
the Noble Lord this, that if those declarations had been
made when he sat on the opposite side of the House, the
party who had retained their seats on that (the Minis-
terial) side of the House, would have preferred the Right
Hon. Baronet whom he had supplanted.--(Hear, hear.).
He (Mr. Osborne) for his own part, did not see the diffe-
rence between the "tweedle-dum " and "tweedle.dee."
The Noble Lord had said, " I will not touch the Irish
Church until the pressure from without compels me."—
(Cries of " Hear,.hear," and " No, no.") Well, then,
why did not the Noble Lord boldly come forward and
say that he intended to redress the grievances under
which the Roman Catholics of Ireland laboured? The
Irish Church, as it at present existed, he considered to
be a monstrous disgrace to this country.—(Hear, hear.)
Was the appropriation clause again to be brought for-
ward? What was the meaning of the Noble Lord pro-
posing to give office to three gentlemen of the late
Government? If he believed in the prudence and talent
of the late Government why did he not take office under
the late Prime Minister? It appeared that the country
was merely to expect a code of sanitary regulations.—
(Laughter.) The Noble Lord had in his opinion done
well in keeping the repealers out of office, but he
thought that he had not acted in a very honest way with
regard to Ireland, for he had appointed to office gentle-
men who had given to the Irish Coercion Bill their
cordial support.—(Hear, hear.)
THE LORD LIEUTENANCY OF IRELAND.

Mr. HUME said with respect to the notice which
stood in his name on the paper, he wished to ask the
Noble Lord if he intended to bring forward any mea-
sure on the subject of the office of Lord Lieutenant of
Ireland. Considering, as he did, that one of the first
steps of improving the social condition of the people of
Ireland would be a complete union with that country,
and the abolition of such useless and expensive offices as
Lord Lieutenant and all the subordinate offices ; be-

lieving that Ireland had a right to be governed on the
same principles by which England and Scotland were
governed, he thought one of the first steps towards
uniting that country would be a complete abolition of
the office in question. He had long maintained a
strong opinion—and that opinion had been justified by
many of the first Irishmen that he had had the honour
of being acquainted with—that the continuance of the
office of Lord Lieutenant made Dublin the Castle of
faction—(Laughter)—and did more mischief, and pro-
duced more differences in that country than any other
cause. lie had before submitted this question to the
consideration of a former Government, and he found a
very strong opinion at that time prevailing that that
office could not long continue. He had given notice of
bringing the same subject now before the House, but
after the declaration of the Noble Lord he should be
unwilling for the present to give the House any trouble,
being anxious to give the Noble Lord full time to con-
sider the question ; and he would, therefore, with the
permission of the House, withdraw the subject, which
was to the effect that an address be presented to her
Majesty, praying her to take into consideration the pro-
priety of abolishing the office of Lord Lieutenant of
Ireland, and all the subordinate offices, as that step
would go a great way towards completing the union be-
tween the two countries. He, therefore, wished to know
from the Noble Lord whether he was prepared to take
this subject into consideration ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was understood to say that
he was not at present prepared to give any opinion
upon the subject, which was then allowed to drop.
_

hat that scheme should be brought forward by some

interest had learned so bitter a lesson that they had
determined to attend to their own interests.

persons who think that scheme will be beneficial, and

not by me, who made no declaration ou that subject.
Sir, with regard to that subject, I am of the same mind
still. I am for improvement. I am for any improvement
that can be made. I am for an improvement with regard
to such subjects, but as to intending to bring forward
any new scheme of Parliamentary representation, and of
introducing either household suffrage, or what I believe
my Hon. Friend favours—the five points of the Charter
—(Laughter)—l will give no such declaration.—(Hear,
hear.) If I lose my Hon. Friend's confidence, I am
sorry for it, but if he brings forward the five points of
the Charter, I shall think it my duty to give my decided
opposition to such a measure.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. DUNCOMBE—The extension of the franchise
—not the five points.—(Laughter.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—But my Hon. Friend says
he has alluded simply to the extension of the franchise;
but such a motion he once brought forward, founded
upon a petition called the Charter—(Hear, hear)—a
petition most numerously signed; but that was a specific
petition, which, I believe, he brought forward, and of
which he was the advocate. As to the extension of the
suffrage, that was ostensibly my Hon. Friend's proposi-
tion on that subject, but I know what it is that he pro-
poses under this very vague and indefinite phrase—for it
is a very vague and indefinite phrase—
Mr. DUNCOMBE—The extension of the franchise!
—( Laughter.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—It is a very vague and in-
definite phrase—(Continued laughter)—and while I my-
self, at the time that I made those declarations upon
which I was so much attacked, did state that

Mr. WARD said, that as he had been pointedly al-
luded to by the Hon. Member for Finsbury, he would
state that no visions of office had blinded his views, or
induced him to alter his opinions upon the Irish Church
question. It had been arranged with several Hon. Mem-
bers, who held similar views with him on the Irish
Church question, that he would not bring forward the
question again that session. When that question should
be brought under the notice of the House again, he
should be prepared to act perfectly consistent with the
opinions he had always expressed on the question.
Mr. HORS MAN could not reconcile to his sense of
justice the speeches which had been made in the course
of this debate. He thought the Noble Lord had given a
statement quite satisfactory to nine-tenths of the House,
and to the public at large. The Noble Lord had not
sought office by any factious vote, or course of conduct.
He had been, if he might use the expression, forced into
office.

there were certain matters upon which I
thought it consistent with the Reform Bill
that other reforms might be introduced. I do not
say whether those schemes were wise or not, but I was
quite opposed to any new scheme of sepresentation
which was directly opposed to the Reform Bill. Sir, 1
must confess myself anxious that my Honourable
Friend may take that declaration. If he looks to the
great measures that have been under the consideration
of Parliament—whether you speak of the Reform Act
of Lord Grey—whether you speak of the Roman
Catholic Relief Act—whether you speak of the repeal of
the corn-laws which has only passed the other day—
whether it is wise in this House, and whether it is wise

Lord LINCOLN desired to know whether it was the
intention of the Government to press the progress of the
Bill which be had introduced, with respect to rateable
property in Ireland ?
Mr. LABOUCHERE said the Government intended
to proceed with the Bill, which they considered most
valuable.

Mr. GOULBURN wished to know what was the
course which would be adopted in reference to the Joint-
stock Bill.

Sir GEORGE GREY said, it was the intention of
the Government to proceed with the measure.
Mr BORTIIWICK said, he would very much desire
to see the Poor-law Removal Bill entirely remoddled
and recast.
POOR-LAW REMOVAL BILL. .

On the motion that the orders of the day be read,
Sir GEORGE GREY said, that he was quite willing
to go into Committee pro forma on the Poor-law Removal
Bill, as it seemed to be the wish of the House —(Hear,
hear.) He considered that the general im-
pression new was, that a material change in
the Poor-law was rendered indispensibly necessary.
The Bill brought in by the late Government, stated that
a five years settlement gave a title to relief, so that the
principle of irremovability was established in the first
clause. The part of the Bill which was introduced when
it went into Committee was that of union settlement.
The present Government now took the matter up, and,
looking at the differences which prevailed with regard
to the law of settlement and of union settlement, and also
to the lateness of the session, they proposed to abandon
that portion of it which related to the law of settle-
ment, his Noble Friend having announced his intention
to move, next session, for a Select Committee to con-
sider that subject. With regard to the remainder of the
Bill, the Government did not censider, looking to the
expectation raised on the question at the beginning of
the session—looking to the great benefit which some
portions of it would confer—they did not think it right
to abandon the clause relating to irremovability.

With regard to the sth, 6th, 7th, and Bth clauses, they
did not think it right to abandon them. The effect of
the alteration therefore would be not to leave the law of
settlement untouched, but to suspend the question of
settlement for the present. With regard to the trial of
appeals, and the orders for removal, he did not purpose
to propose their adoption, as it would involve protracted
discussions and complicated considerations, which it
would be better to avoid at present. He resolved to
postpone their consideration. There were two clauses,
however, with which they proposed to proceed. The
11th clause, with regard to fraudulent attempts for
removal of the poor, so as to deprive them of the
benefit of their residence ' • and the 13th clause, would be
retained. He now stated generally, and as briefly as he
could, the alterations which the Government proposed
to make in the Bill. He was not aware that he omitted
any alteration which the Government proposed to make.
He was aware that the Bill did not go so far as some
desired, but he hoped that as it bore directly on the in-
terests of a large class of the community which had pe-
culiar claims on their regard, the House would re-
ceive the Bill in the spirit in which it was brought for-
ward.—(Hear, hear.) He proposed, therefore, with the
consent of the House, that they should now go into
Committee pro forma, that the clauses might be re-
vised.
On the question that the House should go into Com-
mittee,
Mr. J. PAKINGTON said, that looking into the
difficulties which beset the question of settlement, and
at the late period of the session, the Government acted
wisely in postponing the consideration of the question of
settlement, as also the complex proceedings relating to
removal. He hoped, however, they, would not
be lost sight of, but that every exertion would be
made to simplify the law, particularly as regarded irre-
movability. He must say that he thankfully accepted
the period of five years' residence as giving a claim to
relief. His opinion was, that it should be limited to
three years, or even to one. He would refer to the
ninth annual report of the Poor•law Commissioners,
pointing out three years as the necessary time, and they
subsequently, on their own authority, recommended the
same period. There was another clause in this Bill to
which he would call the attention of the Right Hon.
Baronet. He meant the fifth clause, which related to
the removal of widows. On the notice paper of the day
he would find a notice of his own (Mr. J. Pakington),
for an amendment to make widows irremovable. In the
parish in which the woman was made a widow, she had
the benefit of being known, and also the chance of em-
ployment ; but if she were to be removed to a distant
parish, she would have simply to depend upon the pit-
tance given to her by the poor-laws. That law was a
harsh one, and he appealed to the House to make it more
free from that harshness, and less calculated to do illjus-
tice to the poor.
Mr. PACKE said that he had listened with great at-
tention to the Secretary for the Home Department, with
regard to this Bill. This measure was brought forward
by the late Government as a sort of compensation for
the passing of the Corn Bill. In the county in which
he resided there were many people who came from town
and who had work, and the whole benefit of that work
went into town. He should say that, with respect to
the counties of Leicester, Derby, and Nottingham, it
would be absolute ruin to many villages in them if this
Bill were passed. There was no law which afforded so
many opportunities for quibbles, for in one case a short
interruption might arise during the five years, and that
circumstance might afterwards give rise to a great deal
of discussion and trouble. There were an hundred
ways in which injustice might be done to the poor.
Mr. SPOONER said that he did not at all regard this
Bill as; the one to be given to the landlords as a sort of
compensation for the Corn Bill. Justice to the poor
ought to be the first object of such a Bill. It was very
hard that any man, who might be attached to a distant
parish by any peculiar trade, should, after he had
lived the best of his life there, be sent back to his old
parish when he was incapable of work. He was sure
that the manufacturers did not dissent from the Bill, for
they were of opinion that it was only just that a man
should have a claim upon the place where he had spent
his life in labour. But there was one fact to which he
wished to call attention, as one of peculiar hardship,
namely, the removal of widows. In case of the death of
her husband a widow was removed, not to her own
parish—not to the parish where her friends and connec-
tions were, but to a parish which, perhaps, she never
saw before, and where she was not known, merely be-
cause it happened to be' the parish in which her husband
was born. He wished to call the attention of the Right
Hon. Baronet to the clause, as it was one calculated to
do considerable injustice to many of the poor.
Mr. VERNON SMITH quite agreed with his Hon.
Friend opposite, but he was sure that he would be doing
him no injustice in intreating him to give up the
Bill for the present session.—(Hear.) He said, with
those difficulties before them it was proposed to go
into the subject this session. The question of residence
seemed to be argued as one between agriculture and
mat ufacture—for such a tendency had grown up in the
House, that all matters were argued in that view. lie
might tell them, however, that the measure would very
much affect the agricultural parishes, for there were
close parishes and open parishes, and he was certain
that those in the one would throw in their poor upon the
other. He believed that no greater curse afflicted any
country than the law of settlement. He asked them
what would be the advantage of proceeding with the
Bill? The Hon. Member for Dorchester tbought that
the poor man would receive benefit from it, but in this,
he (Mr. Smith) thought he would be disappointed.
What they wanted was industrial settlements. But this
was left out of the Bill proposed by the Right Hon.
Baronet, who moreover had changed the principles of
his BiPs on this subject, oftener than once.

Mr. B. ESCOTT said, that he had felt it his duty,
during the last two sessions of Parliament, to watch
the conduct of the Noble Lord, at the head of the
Government, and he always found that his opinions
and votes had been in accordance with the feeling of the
people, and thought his Government should have a fair
trial ; and if there was any reason more than another,
why he thought so, it was the course the Noble Lord
adopted with reference to the Coercion Bill. That Bill
was a grand blunder, and he honoured the Noble Lord
for the course he took on that occasion. He could not,
however, profess an acquiescence in all the Noble Lord
had said that night. The Noble Lord had a very diffi-
cult task to perform. He hoped that in his future con-
duct, he would conduct the affairs of that country with
that discretion which would prevent him from falling
into those errors into which other Ministers had fallen—
the error of making public their professions, and by that
means stirring up opposition to their measures. The
Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government,
which had lately seceded from power, owed his character
as the greatest practical reformer, to his keeping his
measures close to himself, and watching the opportunity
for introducing them, and thus secure their being car-
ried into effect. He hoped the Noble Lord would take
a lesson from him.

Mr. WAKLEY was perfectly bewildered with the
present state of affairs. His Hon. Colleague (Mr. T.
Duncombe) had asked the Noble Lord at the head of
the Government for an explanation as to the course he
intended to adopt, and he had heard in reply that the
Noble Lord intended to act upon his well-known prin-
ciples. He had been in Parliament thirty years. They
all knew his principles, and there was no necessity for
his making any declaration of what course he intended
to pursue. He (Mr. Wakley) had had some experience
of those principles. They were the principles of
old Whiggism.—(Cheers.) During part of the thirty
years that the Noble Lord had sat in that House, what
was the Hon. Member who last addressed the House
doing? Why, if there was one man more than another
in the west of England—if ever there was an effective
or eloquent opponent of the Whigs, it was that Hon.
and Learned Gentleman himself. If there was ever a
meeting to be got up in opposition to the Whigs, and
the question was asked, " Who shall we send for?" the
answer invariably was, " Let us send for Escott; find out
where he is, and he will give 'em the most terrible
thrashing they ever had."—(Laughter and cheers.) He
was the life and soul of the Anti-Whig party, and was
cordially greeted at meetings held all over the country.
Who, then, had changed their opinions? The Noble Lord
said his principles were well known; and, without stating
specifically what was to be done, said he would act ac-
cording to his principles ; and the Hon. and Learned
Member was delighted at the announcement. There
was certainly some curious change somewhere.—(Laugh-
ter and cheers.) He quite agreed with those who won-
dered why it was that the Right Hon. the Member for
Tamworth was out of office. The only answer that he
could get was—he was out of office because he brought
in the Coercion Bill: What had they done? Who had
followed him? Why, the first thing they did was to
ask the Noble Lord the late Secretary for Ireland, who
had introduced this very Coercion Bill, to join their Go-
vernment.—(Cheers.) The whole affair seemed to him
to be one of most extreme bewilderment.—(Laughter
and cheers.) The speech of the. Noble Lord should have
been made a month ago ;if it had been he would not
have the trouble of crossing the House to his pre-
Ilse.enrtepaotsiatigonre.—at(
rosseari hear, and laughter.) The people
o know why the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet was not in his place. They said, at great personal
sacrifice, and loss of friends, and at immense personal
risk, he had carried a measure which, in his conscience,
tespndeeecdhtowas
he believed good for the country. He (Sir R. Peel) could
not be charged with corrupt motives ; but in
been made ? He would tell the
car-
rying out that measure he had lost his place. Were the
principles which were to regulate the present Govern-
ment the same as those of the late Ministry ? If so,
whysatisfactory.
b eh aLd o therd
carry a measure,
by no means
he should have the boldness to announce them. He be-
lieved the Noble Lord had that boldness. What, then,
did he infer from his announcement ? Why, that there
were no great measures to be introduced for the benefit
or. the country.
i
of either the people
that,c hI If
nafgo:r one,n,ste
rh
intended
This statement,
with reference to the Irish Church,
would be mot t unsa-
tisfactory in Ireland. What did the Hon. Gentleman,
the Secretary to the Admiralty, say to that statement,
who had so frequently brought forward the question of
the Irish Church ? He was of opinion that the Right
Honourable Baronet,
lately at the head of the
Ministry, had retired from office, and had given his
situation to others, who were scarcely prepared to
carry out those liberal principles which he professed in
his last speech.—(Cheers.) Hon. and Learned Members
who last addressed the House thought it wrong for the
Ministers to make professions or promises. Why the
Right Hon. Baronet, who had left office, had by an-
nouncing his opinions fairly and openly, and acting up
to them, made himself the most popular Minister
that ever conducted the affairs of this country; he was
beloved, aye, even adored by the masses of the people.
—(Cheers, and counter cheers.) They believed that be
had made great sacrifices on their behalf, and if the
Noble Lord would not act upon the principles he laid
down in his last speech to that House, his continuance
in office would be but of short duration. If he were
content to act upon their old principles, of making very
small reforms, and to govern by their do-little policy,
he would soon share the same fate as he had previously
shared, and the Right Hon. Baronet would be returned
to power upon the shoulders of the people, and he
would then be able to hold office as long as he pleased.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said he had heard no complaints
elf the constitution of the present Ministry. The landed

in Parliament to rest satisfied with the settlement which
has: been made after long deliberation by Parliament—
(Hear, hear) —that there is not a gain to be acquired
by the people equivalent to the stirring up of agitation,
the consequences of any revival of a subject which has
been seettled after great consideration. And now, Sir,
with respect to the factory question. I have already
stated what I think on that subject. I have given my
vote in favour of the shortening of the hours of labour.
I stated, I believe, on the last discussion on that sub-
ject, that I should be in favour of shortening the time of
labour in factories to eleven hours a day by law.
—(Hear, hear.) Sir, if that measure was intro-
duced again, I should give my vote in con-
formity with the votes that I have previously
given.—(Hear, hear.) My Right Hon. Friend the Se-
cretary of State for the Home Department (Sir G. Grey)
is, I believe, of the same opinion. Every statement I
have ever heard from him agrees with my opinion on
that subject.—(Hear, hear.) My Right Hon. Friend
who sits near me, the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr.
Labouchere), has studied this subject likewise, and he
has studied it very attentively.—(Hear, hear.) He has
formed a deliberate and conscientious opinion that such
a law would be injurious.—(Hear, hear.) I do think
that an Administration can be carried on usefully with
regard to the general interests of the country—usefully
with regard to the many topics an Administration has to
deal with, although every member of it does not hold
identical views on every question.—(Hear, hear.) I
mean to give my vote in favour of such a Bill, if intro-
duced. I shall not expect my Right Hon. Friend who
sits near me, or others who differ from me, to vote with
me on that subject.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, I have now
stated what are my opinions with regard to the questions
that the ion. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury ad-
verted to. He has mixed a great deal of pleasantries
with those questions, in which I certainly have been un-
able to follow him. I consider that I have undertaken
a very grave and deep responsibility.—(Hear, hear.) I
consider that I was bound, not being able to make up my
mind that the t'rotection of Life Bill, introduced by the
late Government, would be efficient for its purpose, or
that it wouldcontribute to the protection of life in Ireland
I felt myself compelled, being asked whether I would
agree to that Bill, to answer " no," upon the second
reading of that Bill. I was compelled to decide one way
or the other upon that subject. It was brought forward
by the late Government. They considered it was their
duty to bring it forward. I could not avoid my duty
in forming an opinion upon it, and I opposed it accord-
ingly, to the best of my ability. Well, Sir, the Right
Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government resigned;
and after having given that vote—after being a party to
that opposition—her Majesty called upon me to endeavour
to form a Government in the place of that which had re-
signed their power into her Majesty's hands ; and I con-
ceive that it was my duty to endeavour to see if, in con-
junction with others, we could carry on the public mea-
sures for the benefit of the country. On Monday next
I shall have an opportunity of stating to this House the
measure that we propose to introduce with respect to a
very important subject--that measure that is founded

Lord 11. VANE did not expect but that very little
objection would have been made to the proposal of his
Hon. Friend—modified as it had been—for he had modi-
fied it, and introduced it this session to Parliament with
a view of going into the law of settlement next session.
He thought, that to defer the whole question to next
session would be most unfortunate, after so much ex-
pectation had been excited throughout the country by
the Administration which lately quitted office. Indeed,
the objections made were so few and frivolous, that he
hoped his Hon. Friends would not persevere in their
opposition. On the matter of open and close parishes
he admitted there were difficulties, and with those before
them he expected that the House would yet have to
consider the entire abolition of union settlements al-
together, with a view of having a uniform rate for the
support of the poor.
' Mr. STRUTT understood that the Hon. Member for
Dorchester had said the other night that he considered
any Bill, unaccompanied with a law of settlement, would
be prejudicial to those whom it would affect,
and yet the Honourable Baronet said h. e was
prepared to support the present Bill, modified as
it was. He certainly did not expect that any
such Bill should be brought in at this period of the ses-
sion. The Noble Lord who last spoke referred to an
intention to go into the whole question of the tenor of
settlement next session, and yet he urged his Hon.
Friend to go on with his present Bill, introducing an
entirely new principle just upon the eve of going into a
large inquiry into the whole question. He (Mr. Strutt)
was opposed to doing anything at this period of the ses-
sion, as they might only rgret that they had at all in-
terfered with the question.
Mr. HENLEY said he would not be induced, by any
cry for the poor, to jump into a measure which, in his
conscience, he believed. would be injurious to them. It
had been said that night, that if the word residence
were defined, it would throw great difficulty in the way
of the measure. There were already three different
definitions of what was meant by residence, in as many
different Acts of Parliament; there was the forty nights'
residence, under the Law of Settlement Act—there was
residence, as connected with the franchise of towns—am
there was residence under the Poor-law Unions Act. It
they could not agree then upon the meaning of the word
residence, it would but embarrass the poor to insert it
into this Bill, if it should pass. As long as the Irish
I poor were treated as they were by the English Govern-
ment, he did not wonder that so many of them wandered