The Sun.
London, England, 1835-07-09 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, JULY 9, 1835.

Gentleman would read them. If they did read them, how-
ever, they would thrill with horror at the scenes of distress
which they described. He trusted, therefore, that Parlia-
ment would not be deterred by the representations of the
landlords, but that they would see the indispensable necessity
of some legislative interference on the subject. They had
been told that the poor laws had proved destructive in Eng-
land, but he denied that such was the case. In some of the
States of America„poor laws were in full force ; and where
they were not, charitable institutions supplied their places.
They existed also in Holland and France, on the same prin-
ciple upon which, for a century and a half, they had existed in
this country; aid if they had existed in Ireland from the pe-
riod of the Union, legislative measures for the relief of dis-
tress in that country would not now be necessary. If the
Irish poor were relieved at home, they would not come to
England-at all. The Hon. Gentleman bore testimony to the
accuracy of the statement of the late Mr. Inglis as to the con-
dition of the Irish peasantry, and which corresponded with the
statement of the Commissioner to whose pamphlet he had al-
ready referred. The Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland
must well know that he would be affording great consolation
to the resident gentry in Ireland, if he were to take a measure
of this kind into contemplation. He would suggest to the
Noble Lord to let the second reading of the Bill take place,
and then take it to a committee up stairs, so that they might
have the benefit of all the Reports and papers that have been
made on the subject ; and if the Committee did not ultimately
approve of the plan which he now held in his hand, he had
no doubt they would devise something analagous to it for the
relief of the poor of Ireland. With respect to the promotion
of public works in Ireland, he could assure the Noble Lord
that if be would advance two or three millions for that pur-
pose, they would find ample use for it ; and the Noble Lord
would find, in the course of a few years, that great benefits
would accrue from the application of such a sum—not to Ire-
land: alone, but to the empire at large; and that, under
his auspices, Ireland would be peaceable, prosperous and
happy.
The question having been put,

Lord MORPETH begged briefly to explain the course
which he felt himself compelled to take with respect to the
present motion. When his Hon. Friend the Member for the
county of Waterford was about to bring forward this motion
on a former occasion, he (Lord Morpeth) then asked him to
defer it until the Commissioners appointed to inquire into
the state of the poor in Ireland, and into the propriety of
adopting a measure for remedying the existing distress, had
made their Report, and until he had had an opportunity to
submit a portion. at least, of the evidence obtained by them
to the House, which he hoped to be able to do within a month
from that time. He had so far redeemed the assurance he
then gave to his Hon. Friend, as he believed it was this
very day month that he gave it, and he had this day
brought up a rather voluminous Report on the subject. But,
though it was manifest that the House could not be at all
the better prepared, within the hour since which he had
produced this Report, to enter into the discussion that
would ensue upon the motion of his Hon. Friend, yet
he was not disposed to ask his Hon. Friend again to
postpone that discussion, because he could not do so bona fide,
inasmuch as hese:mkt not hold out any hope of his being able
to renew the tootionahis session with a view to any practical
measure resulting from it. Though a large mass of evidence
was now before them, yet it was by no means the whole of
the evidence which the Commissioners were prepared to lay
before the Hottse; nor did it contain the opinions of the Com-
missioners on this complicated and most important subject.
He had reason to hope that the whole of the evidence and the
opinions of the Commissioners upon it would be completed
and laid before Parliament and the country early next session.
He conceived he should show how very ill he understood the
duty of that most important office which he had the honour to
fill, if he did not at once state his conviction that no subject
connected with Ireland approached (he might almost say) in
importance the question of the propriety of introducing a sys-
tem of poor laws into that country.—( Hear, hear.) But at
the same time he took no shame to himself for the avowal
(whatever handle for reproach it might be converted to against
him) that a legislative measure on a subject so wide in its
reach, so complicated in its bearings, and so important, whe-
ther for good or for evil, in its results, could not be beneficially
struck out at a heat by a Government newly formed, at the very
end of a session, and during the progress and before the com-
pletion of an inquiry by Commissioners to whom the Govern-
ment and Parliament had specially delegated the task or pro-
viding them with grounds for legislation ?—( Hear, hear.) De-
pend upon it that whatever the evils—and lie was the last man
not to feel them, or to attempt to palliate them—but whatever
the evils of Ireland might be, whatever might be the present
state of the destitute classes in' Ireland, any ill-conceived or
partial and premature attempts to remedy them would in all
probability increase those very evils ten-fold.—( Cheers.) His
Hon. Friend who bad seconded the motion had alluded to the
Committee now sitting on the subject of public works in Ire-
land, with a view to inquire into the practicability and facility
of carrying on those works on a more extended scale. He
sincerely hoped that the result of the labours of that Com-
mittee might be to admit of something being practically done
in the course of the present session.—( Hear, hear.) And
with respect to the large question of Poor Laws in general,
Le had no hesitation in repeating what he said in reply to the
Hon. and Learned Member for Tipperary the other evening,
that he felt convinced that the subject—the whole subject—
was one to which both the Government and Parliament would
be called upon to address themselves in sober earnest—( Hear,
bear)—in the course of the ensuing session. But then with
a view even to do that successfully and efficiently, until all the
information were before them, which they themselves had ap-
pointed Commissioners to collect—until all the means which
were thought proper to he obtained, preliminary to legis-
lation, should be at their disposal, he thought it better,
wiser, safer, and fairer, to reserve and suspend the expres-
sion of all opinion upon the subject. He bad every reason
to believe that the same Government which had not
shrunk from encountering the difficulties of the question
respecting the reformation of the English Poor Laws,
would also be in no way inclined to shrink from taking
that part with respect to the introduction of Poor Laws in
Ireland to which a proper sense of their duty might lead them.
Under these circumstances he would not pretend, for he did
not wish, to offer any opinion upon the measure which his
Hon. Friend the Member for the county of Waterford had
this night brought before the House. He only wished to ex-
press his gratitude to his Hon. Friend for having put the
House in possession of the results of his benevolent labours.
He was sure that a sense of gratitude would be felt at every
step that could be taken to facilitate the course of Govern-
ment and of Parliament in the attainment of their ultimate ob-
ject. But as he did feel that no good, but rather harm, would
result from any partial views, or merely experimental efforts
being made on this great subject, which ought to be well di-
gested before being introduced at all, and, in his opinion,
ought then only to be brought forward upon the serious re-
sponsibility of the Government intrusted with the executive
powers of the country, on whom the onus of so important a
measure ought to rest—he hoped that his Hon. Friend would
would not press the House to give any formal or any prema-
ture opinion on the subject. If he did, then he (Lord Mor-
peth) should be under the necessity (painful as it would be to
him, as he did not wish to do anything personally unpleasant
to his Hon. Friend) of moving that this Bill be read a second
time this day three months. He would say the same with re-
spect to the motion of the Hon. Member for Stroud. On the
whole he was inclined to look upon the circumstance of two
Hon. Members--one a Member for an English town, and
the other a Member for an Irish county—having brought
forward two distinct measures on this subject, as a happy
omen of tho ultimate course the Legislature would take. He
hoped, whenever a well-digested measure should be intro-
duced, that neighbours as well as natives, both Jew and Sa-
maritan-L( Cheers)—would be actuated by one feeling,
namely, to do whatever might be suggested by a wise, humane,
and enlightened benevolence, to relieve the distress, both
moral and physical, that now pressed so heavily on the great
bulk of the Irish population.—( Cheers. )
Mr. RICHA RDS next addressed the House; but it was some
time before the import of his observations could be heard in
the Reporters' Gallery. He should feel ashamed, he said,
to treat this as a party question : still he thought Government
might have given the House some assurance that they approved
of the principle of the Bill, and that they would, in the next
session of Parliament, be prepared to bring forward some defi-
nite measure on the subject. It was quite enough to contrast
the condition of the people of England, Scotland, and Wales,
with that of the people of Ireland, to enable the Noble Lord
to see that some legal provision was imperiously required for
the poor of that country. He attributed the existing evils of
Ireland chiefly to the want of poor laws. The Scotch, at the
time of the introduction of poor laws into Scotland, expressed
the same disinclination to such a step as was now manifested
by many persons in Ireland ; and it was not till after repeated
Acts of Parliament were passed, that the Scotch suffered poor
laws to be introduced at all. But they had the testimony of
Dr. Chalmers, who was opposed to the principle of the poor
laws, that in the course of only 17 years Scotland had, as
if per saltum, become changed from a state of disorganization
and misery, to one of peace, order, and prosperity.---(A
laugh from Mr. O'Connell.) I cannot help noticing, Sir,
the indecency of the laugh of the Honourable and Learned
Member for Dublin. I came down to the House, expecting
to see that Honourable and Learned Member bring his vast
abilities to bear upon this important question. I thought
he would have come forward, if :not to support the pro-
position before the House, at least to exert his eloquence
and power in the same manner he had hitherto done, and by
doing which he has acquired the high distinction he now enjoys
in the country—l mean by advocating the cause of his poorer
countrymen. I thought he would have been still their ardent
advocate. Sorry am I to see, that instead of doing so, he is
disposed to heal their sufferings as it seems to me with a sort
of indecent laugh.—( Hear, hear, from Mr. O'Connell, and
laughter.) I mentioned Wales, and I will relate to the House
an anecdote.—( Cries of " Oh, oh I" and much laughter.) I
beg to tell the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, that
if he has anything to say to me let him say it openly and pub-
licly, and not by a sneer and a laugh.--( Hear, hear.) The
Hon. Gentleman proceeded to say, that during his occasional
visits to Wales he was never asked for alms but once, and that
was by a Frenchman. He mentioned this to show the advan-
tages derived from a system of poor-laws duly administered ;
and yet on his own estate the poor-rates amounted to not more
than 13d. or 14d. an acre. Another advantage which arose
from poor-laws was the security they afforded to life and pro-
perty. In this country that security was enjoyed, while in
Ireland it confessedly did not exist. How could a country
wanting security for life and property, ever advance in the
arts of industry or even enjoy peace; or how could wealth
ever be expected to flow into it ? If, then, Honourable
Gentlemen were not prepared to give Ireland a system of
poor:laws oil the ground of justice or humanity, yet he
hoped they would do so on the ground of policy, and for the
sake of their awn interest and safety. He was not one of those
who would filly prevent the importation of labour into this

country, yet he would say, that if Ireland was to remain the
officina operum it now was, in course of time the competition
of Irish with English labour would be such as to reduce the
price of the labour of the two countries to a common level,
and that level would be the state in which we now found it in
Ireland. Therefore, for the sake of their own interests, for
the sake of the tenure of their estates, and from a regard to
their wives and families, and everything that was dear to them,
he called upon Hon. Members to support the proposition of
the Hon. Baronet ; a proposition which did him infinite ho-
nour, and he was sorry to see it so coldly received in this
House, and almost by empty benches.—[This allusion caused
loud laughter from the Ministerialists, from the circumstance,
no doubt, of the Opposition benches being almost deserted,
while there was a very fair attendance on the Ministerial side
of the House.] He did not mean to address himself particu-
larly to either side of the House. This was not a party ques-
tion, but one in which all parties were alike deeply interested.
It was a question, however, upon which the House was not
called upon to affirm a new principle. The Mendicity So-
ciety in Dublin, and other institutions throughout Ireland,
attested that the people of that country already supported
their poor. But this support was voluntary, and therefore
contributed to very unequally. Out of 11,500 houses in Dub-
lin, only 2,000 contributed anything towards the support of
the Mendicity Society. Now, what this Bill called upon the
House to do was, to legalize the principle, and to compel all
persons to contribute their due proportion. He hoped before
this debate came to a close, the Hon. and Learned Member
for Dublin would come forward and employ his mighty
powers and transcendant eloquence in support of so just and
humane a principle. If he did not, then he (Mr. Richards)
would say, "non equidenz invideo, minor magis."—( Laughter.)
He would not envy him his future character with his country-
men if he did not come forward as their advocate this night.
He bad heard the Hon. and Learned Gentleman express him-
self a convert once more—he ( Mr. Richards) would not say
renegade, though that was the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's
own expression on another occasion—but he had declared he
was a convert once more to the necessity of making some pro-
vision for the poor of Ireland. If so, he would again call upon
that Hon. and Learned Gentleman to come forward and ex-
ert those powers which natur3 had given him—(Laughter)
—and support the motion of the Hon. Baronet, or give them
some good, substantial, and valid reason why he did not at
this time give it that support.—(" Hear" from Mr. O'Connell.)
Mr. CRESSET PELHAM observed that this was a
most momentous question, and one most dangerous for Ire-
land to undertake, unless they had good grounds for speedily
carrying it into effect.
_

Mr. II U ME observed that he was as much alive to the mi-
sery and distress of the people of Ireland as any Hon. Member
from that country. The question, however, which was then
under discussion, was not merely an Irish question, but one
deeply involving English interests. The welfare f Ireland
must necessarily contribute to the welfare of this country, as
the distress of that portion of the empire must affect our
well-being. He had therefore, voted for every inquiry into
the state of that country, as well as for every measure which
he thought likely to extend the plans proposed to promote
the well-being of Ireland. If, therefore, he could make up
his mind that the want of poor-laws in that country had
led to the misery and distress which prevailed there, and
that adopting a system of the kind would alter the present
state of things, he would vote for them ; looking, however. to
the evils which must have arisen in Ireland from the misrule
and mismanagement that have hitherto existed there, and to the
oppressions that the p6ople had undergone, as well as to the
misapplication of capital in that portion of the empire, he
could not help feeling that the views taken by some Hon.
Gentlemen on this subject were by no means conclusive as to
the efficacy of the remedy now proposed ; and, above all,
when he recollected the mischief which had arisen in this
country from the mal-administration of poor laws. Hon.
Gentlemen, however, differed as to the nature of the poor-
laws to be adopted in Ireland, and this was the case on the
present occasion with regard to the speeches of both the
mover and seconder. The Hon. Baronet ( Sir R. Musgrave)
suggested that no person under the age of sixty years should
be entitled to relief. His Hon. Friend the Member for Wick-
low, who seconded the motion, called on the House to remove
the misery of the Irish people by giving them work. Un-
doubtedly the remedy. proposed by his Hon. Friend would be
satisfactory, if Ireland was in a state to allow the application of
capital, by inducing capitalists to remove their property from
this country with a view of giving employ to the people of
Ireland.—( Hear.) In some cases persons had embarked
their capital in manufactures there, but had been induced to
withdraw it in consequence of the state of the country. The
question, then, was, whether they were about to adopt a mea-
sure calculated to remove the root of the evils which existed
in Ireland ? He believed that the Government as well as the
House were at length determined to adopt such measures as
would get rid of those grounds of complaint which had for
such a long period existed in Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) They
might not do all that Wee necessary, but he believed that in
the first instance they should do all- that was necessary to let
the people of Ireland know that thej were to be fairly go-
verned for the future. He would only refer to the speeches
made on the Irish Coercion Bill to prove what was the present
state of the people of that country, and to point out the evils
that had arisen from misgovernment.—(Hear.) His Majesty's
Ministers were then about to endeavour to get rid of some of
the abuses of the Church Establishment ; and until the effect
of this measure was known, was it right to try an experiment,
the result of which—to say the very best of it—isas very
doubtful, and which, is hen once adopted, could not be re-'
scindcd ?—( Hear.) He had alwas contended that no man
should be allowed to starve in a country where there was the
means of existence ; but they should see whether they could not
get rid of much of the distress which prevailed in Ireland by
removing the abuses so justly complained of in the government
of that country, before they adopted a system of poor-laws.
He objected to impose a tax on the industry and capital of
that country for the maintenance, in many instances, of the
dissolute and the idle, until they had tried the effect of the
measures proposed by the Government. He implored Hon.
Members to consider well the result of measures before they
sanctioned them, or passed them into laws. He had no hesi-
tation in saying that he, for one, would be for having an as-
sessment for the maintenance of the helpless and infirm Irish
poor, if he did not firmly believe that he saw other means of
providing for it, namely, by getting rid of the evils of mis-
government in Ireland. He thought that they were pressing
too heavily on the Government in urging them to carry into
effect a measure of such importance as this at the present mo-
ment, when they were exerting themselves in other ways to
promote the well-being of the Irish people by getting rid of
the misrule which had hitherto existed there; He would
also suggest to the House that they should not anticipate the
Government in the course which it had taken. He would ask
also those Irish Members who had so strongly recommended
the adoption of poor-laws, whether they thought that they
would open the country to the influx and employment of ca-
pital ?—(Hear, hear.) He, for one, denied that it would be
case. Certainly it was not the case in this country. He
urged, therefore, Hon. Members, who wished to see Ireland
improved, to wait until they saw what was the result of the
measure which had been brought in with respect to the Irish
Church, and also to look to the results which would flow from
the adsoption of improvements in the administration of justice,
and also from selecting magistrates from a different class of
persons from those who at present presided in her courts. He
thought that the adoption of the change now in progress,
would be attended with the most beneficial results; and they
ought, in his opinion, to see what would be the effect of them
before they came to a decision on a measure of such vital im-
portance as the present.
Mr. PO UL ETT SCR OPE then addressed the House,
but in such an indistinct tone of voice, that the greater portion
of his observations were inaudible in the gallery. He stated
that he felt satisfied that the maintenance of the impotent and
the infirm Irish poor was not sufficient, but that one of the main
principles in any system that was adopted was, that employment
should be furnished to those who were destitute of at. The
latter he considered a principle of almost as much importance
as the former. It was not sufficient to state that they would
give food to that portion of the poorer classes that were
infirm, but they ought to prevent those who otherwise would
be able-bodied from becoming so. There were societies in
several parts of Ireland—and he would mention Reffart as an
instance similar to the Mendicity Society in London—
which supplied certain classes of the poor with food, but
they were wholly inadequate to supply the wants of the
people. He was satisfied that the first principle to adopt
towards improving the condition of the Irish people was to
give employment to the able-bodied poor. Capital would
not be safely invested in that country, 'nor would manufac-
tures be extensively established there until they adopted
this principle. The chief thing to improve the people
was to give them employment, and until this was done on
an extensive scale but little good could be done. Could
anything be more distressing than the present state of the
Irish poor ? They had evidence on their table to show that
crimes had been committed by many .persons with a view
of getting into gaol that they might obtain food. In the
greater portion of France, as well as in most of the continen-
tal States, some system or other of poor-laws existed. The
condition of the people of France was far superior to that of the
Irish people. In the former country, out of a population of
34,000,000, there were several hundred thousand landed
proprietors, while in Ireland the number was comparatively
small. He had no hesitation in saying that four-fifths of the
Irish population were the slaves of the landed proprietors.
If they offended the landlords they were turned out of their
miserable habitations to starve, as they could not get resi-
dences in other places. He would ask them was their condi-
tion superior to that of the slaves, when they could be deprived
of the means of existence at the caprice of the landlords ? As
long as the Irish landlords possessed the power they now did,-
it was not at all surprising that they exerted themselves to
prevent the adoption of any system of poor-laws in Ireland.
He contended that the property of any landowner in Ireland
should be made liable to the charge of providing for the main-
tenance of the poor as well as that of the owners and occu-
piers of the land in England. Similar powers should be given
to Commissioners in Ireland for the establishment of a system
of poor-laws that had been conferred on the English Com-
missioners. A great deal of misapprehension had prevailed
as to the state of the people in Ireland, and this had been in-
creased in consequence of the statements made in that House.
In the debate on the Union last year, the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman who was now Chancellor of the Excheqner contended
that there had been recently great improvements manifested in
the Irish manufactures, and among other places he referred to
the state of Kilkenny as a proof of his assertion. On refer-
ring, however, to Mr. Inglis's work on Ireland, he found that
the statement that had been made by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer was not borne out by the authority of that gentle-
man ; on the contrary, he gave a very different account of the
state of things in that place.—(The Hon. Gentleman then
read a long extract from " Inglis's Tour in Ireland," de-
scriptive of the distress of the people of Kilkenny, and the
falling off that had taken place 'in the manufactures of that

city.) One of the most powerful arguments that had been
urged in favour of the repeal of the Union, was the igno-
rance of the Legislature, with respect to the condition and
the wants of the people of Ireland—( Hear, hear)—and
yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer had quoted the improved
state of Kilkenny to show there was no necessity for the Re-
peal of the Union. He was convinced that the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, if he would look to the state of Ireland, would
find that the feeling in favour of a system of Poor Laws in that
country was daily increasing—(hear, bear)—and if some mea-
sure of the kind was not granted, the feeling in favour of Re-
peal would increase. The Hon. Member for Middlesex had
contended that the English Poor Laws were founded on a bad
principle, and led to the infliction of much misery ; but the
Commissioners appointed to inquire into their operation enter-
tained a very different feeling on the subject ; for they declared
that the principle on which they were framed was good, and
that all the mischief which had arisen from their operation had
resulted from the principle on which they were founded being
departed from. The mal-administration of the Poor Laws
dated from 1796, and until that time the original measure,
passed in the reign of Elizabeth, had been acted upon, and no
evil whatever had resulted from it. He had given notice of a
measure on this subject ; but he did not intend to persist in it,
but should give his support to the Bill on the table. It was
very well for the Hon. Member for Middlesex to ask the House
to wait to see the result of the measure respecting the Irish
Church before they adopted the system of Poor Laws ; but
arguments like that had repeatedly been urged on former oc-
casions : they had been asked to wait to see what the Govern-
ment would do, and in the meantime the interests of the poor
bad been neglected. Whatever, therefore, might be the fate
of the measure for affecting a change in the present system of
tithes, he should persist in supporting this Bill ; and he trusted
that the majority of the House would also do so. He admitted
that great advantages would result from the Bill introduced by
the Noble Lord; but they would not be of such a nature as would
justify the House in refusing to pass a measure for relieving. the
present condition and promoting the permanent welfare of the
destitute Irish poor.—( Hear, hear.)

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER never re-
collected, during the long period he had been in that House,
arguments assumed of a more extraordinary nature than those
urged by the Hon. Gentleman. He would be perfectly war-
ranted, adopting the tone of argument of the Hon. Gentle-
man, in making the assertion, that the Hon. Member, as well
as others who supported the motion, were rather influenced by
English than by Jrish feelings. He only mentioned this to
point out the impropriety of adopting this style of argument,
and at once to reject and repudiate it. In considering ques-
tions like that before the House, they should be swayed and
actuated by only one feeling—namely, how they best could
improve the condition of the great bulk of the Irish people—
( Hear, hear.) As he had been addressed almost personally,
he could not help observing, that the Hon. Member, in appear-
ing to think that an individual connected by birth with Ireland,
and residing there many years of his life, and also connected
with it by property, and having been for many years the Re-
presentative of a place of great commercial importance in it,
knew nothing of the state of the country, and of the matters
most deeply touching its welfare, did not exhibit peculiar
decency of address, but rather assumed a tone of dogmatism
than of courtesy, by no means common in that House. Let
the House inquire into the subject with reference alone to the
interests of the Irish poor themselves. He would put it on no
other ground ; he would not mention the interests of the land-
lords. He would assume that the exigencies of the case were
such, that even if the whole race of landlords were to perish
by one stroke of inadvertent Legislation, yet if it were possible
to restore the great mass of the population of Ireland from the
depressed condition in which they all admitted they were placed,
by one experiment, that experiment should be tried. Let
them now inquire whether the present measure was likely to
produce the desired effect ? The inquiry which had been
instituted into the subject had been a long time in
progress ; he had hoped some general Report would have been
made before; for that Report he was most anxious; and not-
withstanding the attack of the Hon. Gentleman, he should
wait until he had ascertained from its contents that the course
he proposed was justified by circumstances, or likely to suc-
ceed. The House had not even ventured to amend the Eng-
lish poor laws—a system which had been established since the
reign of Elizabeth—until they had laid before them all the in-
formation that could possibly be collected ; and yet now, with-
out any information or evidence whatever, they were called
upon to take a much greater and far bolder step—the affirmance
of a system of poor laws in a country where they had not pre-
viously existed.—( Hear, hear.) Hon. Gentlemen had asked
what the Government had intended to do upon this subject in
the course of the next year? Again be said that to enter into
any detailed account of what they intended to do, would be
to anticipate the result of the pending inquiry; but he
would tell the House what he for one was perfectly prepared
to do. Upon this point he wished to be clearly understood.
Hon. Gentlemen advocated poor laws in general terms, and
yet there were no two individuals who, if they were called
upon to define what they meant by that expression, would
agree in their definition of it. Ile could not have a better
example than that of the two Hon. Gentlemen who were
charged with these two Bills. One of them advocated the
compulsory support of the able-bodied : the other rejected
the principle altogether. This in itself was sufficient to show
that untii they arrived at sonic precise definition of what was
meant by the expression poor laws, they did not know the very
elements on which they were about to operate. Now, be-
cause he resisted the general principle, he was supposed by
the Hon. Member for Stroud, and others both in and out 131'
that House, to be indifferent to the well-being and good ofire-
land. What was the definition in the present Bill of the
classes of poor deserving and requiring relief? It enumerated
the helpless poor, paupers above the age of sixty, orphans
under the age of fourteen, the maimed, the diseased, the idiot,
the lunatic, the blind, and the deaf and dumb. With respect
to the maimed, the diseased, the idiot, the lunatic, the blind,
and the deaf and dumb, he was prepared to go the full length
of providing, to any extent that could be required, for the re-
lief of all such persons. Tax his property; tax the rental of
the country to any extent they pleased ; so far from remon-
strating against, so far from opposing such a proceeding, there
wis no in,lividual in that House who would be more disposed
to act upon the principle to the fullest extent than he was him-
self. Take another great element in the improvement of the
social condition of a people—he meant the education of the
young. There was no extent of taxation to which the landed
property of Ireland could be subjected with this view, to which
he, as a landed proprietor himself, was not prepared to render
hearty assent; believing, as he did, that it was a species
of taxation which could only be administered for the public
good. Where, then, it might be asked, was he prepared to
draw the line? The line was a plain and intelligible one.
He would afford relief in every possible case of distress, where
the relief given was calculated to remove distress, without
creating more distress than it was intended to remove—(hear,
hear)—he would consent to any legislative engagement the
State could perform ; he would be a party to any legislative
pledge the Legislature had the means of redeeming ; but he
would show just now to the Hon. Gentleman, that he pro-
posed a fraudulent and swindling obligation upon the part of
the Legislature—quite unconsciously, he was certain—for
he knew no man in the House more unlikely to lend himself
wilfully to any such proceeding. The Hon. Gentleman pro-
posed to bind the Legislature to a promise it could never re-
deem—he meant the interminable power of giving relief to
all classes of persons. With respect to the orphan, that might
be an exceptive case. If it could be shown to him that an
orphan had no immediate relative to take care of and educate
him as a useful member of society, then he admitted that the
State stood in loco parentis, and was bound to provide for his
necessities.—(Hear, hear.) To apply his principle, no per-
son would,die the more if provision were made for the relief of
orphans ; but did not the House think that many persons
would work the less, if the State, by undertaking to provide
for the orphans with whom they were connected, relieved
them from the moral responsibility which would otherwise at-
tach to them ?—( Hear, hear.) The condition of the Irish
poor deserved, he admitted, the most serious and searching
consideration. He did not mean to deny that the in-
troduction of cheap labour into this country had a tendency
to reduce the wages of labour; but he wished to invite the
attention of the House to the discussion—whether the intro-
duction of Poor Laws into Ireland would be likely to diminish
the periodical emigration of Irish labourers to this country.
First let him consider the provisions of the measure under con-
sideration. It contained a provision for the relief of the poor,
not being able-bodied, of every class. Now, if they under-
took to provide for the family of the Irish labourer, for every
young person, for every sick person, for every diseased person
of every class, by a compulsory assessment, as the Bill pro-
posed, he put it to the common sense of the House whether it
was likely that there would be a less disposition, on the part
of the Irish labourer, to come over to this country, and seize
upon the advantages held out to him by the English market?
—( Hear, hear.) On the contrary, was it not to all intents
and purposes certain, that if the
i State contracted the obliga-
tion of providing for his family n his absence, lie would be
much freer than he ever was before to come over to England,
for the specific purpose of obtaining the highest reward he
could in return for his labour ?—( Cheers.) It might be said
that his was not A fair mode of meeting the question ; he
might be referred to the alternative of providing for the Irish
poor, and teaching them to work at home. What effect had
the existence of a provision for the able-bodied poor on
the wages of labour in England ? Let the House compare
the state of things in the north of England, where that prin-
ciple was not known, with the state of things in the south,
where it was in full operation. In what part of England were
the wages of labour highest ? It was matter of perfect noto-
riety that they were higher in the north, where the able-bodied
poor had not been supported at the public expense, than in
the south, where the principle had been acted upon to the
utmost extent.—(Here some Hon. Gentleman on the Op-
position side of the House uttered the word "manufactures.")
Manufactures I Now his Hon. and Learned Friend should
not take that ground. Let the House compare the agricul-
tural parts of Northumberland in which manufactures did
not prevail, with any part of England in which the wages
of labour had been partly paid out of the poor-rates, as had
been the case in many parts of England, and especially in
one which was at no great distance from the manufacturing
districts—he meant the county of Wilts. They would find
that in precise proportion as a part of the wages of labour
had been paid out of the poor. rates, the rate of wages had
fallen. If the system had produced this effect in England,
must it not produce a similar result in Ireland ?—( Hear.)
Let them take either case. If they provided for the non-
effective labourers, did they not hold out a great inducement
for the effective labourers to repair to this country ; and if
they provided for the relief of the effectives, would they not
hold out an increased temptation to the non-effectives to glut
the English market? The objection might be removed by
merely raising the wages of labour in Ireland ; but if a Poor-
law Bill for that country passed to-morrow, would the amount
of capital in it be greater, or would the rate of wages be in-
creased ? The Hon. Gentleman had said that he would em-

ploy the fund to be raised by the Bill in labour. Did he
mean profitable or unprofitable labour ?
Mr. P. SCROPE—Public works.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Very
well; but to judge of the profitable nature of public works,
they must be discussed on their own merits—not considered
generally as an auxiliary on the question of poor laws ; and it
any such offered that would command a profitable return, if
stood to reason that a capital would be employed in it, without
any poor laws at all. —( Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman had said
it was impossible to introduce any effectual system of poor laws
without accompanying it with an alteration in the law of settle-
ment and the law of removal. To both there were the strongest
objections. The law of removal was open to this inconvenience
and hardship—if a man went to the north of Ireland from
any other ?art of the country, and behaved himself ever so
well for many years, immediately on his requiring parochial
relief through sickness or old age, the hard taskmaster—the
overseer—would be on the alert, and he would be at once carted
in some parish waggon to the place he had left years and years
before, to drag out the remainder of his existence in a place
where he had no ties, to which he was bound by no associa-
tions, and in which he could only regret the scenes he had left.
The law of settlement was open to the objection that it con-
fined labour within a certain and defined locality—a system
productive of evils, which he believed no one would be in-
clined to dispute. The Hon. Gentleman had announced
three points as the objects he sought to attain. The first
was, the suppression of mendicancy and vagrancy. To attain
this end, the Hon. Gentleman must enact the old penal
code against vagrants, and render it compulsory on them to
leave their abodes and repair to the parish workhouse. He
then proposed, by a compulsory assessment, to afford relief in
cases of sickness and helplessness. Let the Hon. Gentleman
define the cases in which this relief was to be afforded, and
he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would readily concede
the principle. The other object was the relief of the poor
able-bodied ; and to it he had already adverted. One provi-
sion of the Bill was, that in periods of general distress, there
should be a power vested in the Government to advance, for
the relief of the people, whatever sums they pleased from the
Consolidated Fund, to be afterwards recovered from the rates
and assessments to be levied by the Bill. This was the first
case in which it had ever been proposed to recognize, on the
face of an Act of Parliament, the principle, that in case of a
general distress, under any circumstances, or arising from any
cause, Parliament should have the power of taking frown the
public purse an unlimited supply for the relief of those who might
stand in need. A more fertile source of abuse' a more formida-
ble source of evil—a more fruitful and abundant source of job-
bing and corruption, even as it affected the poor themselves, could
not be conceived. Let them take the case of two landlords—the
one a grinding, hard, mercenary man; the other kind, and le-
nient to his tenants. The first, after grinding his dependants
to the very last penny, refusing to relieve their distress, would
be enabled to borrow of the Consolidated Fund to what
amount he pleased ; the other would be actually taxed to re-
pay the amount of the loan in exact proportion to the extent
of his endeavours to improve his estate and render his tenants
happy and contented. He wished, before he sat down, again
to call the attention of the House to the practical proposition
before it. If they were of opinion that cases of distress, sick-
ness, and all classes of infirmity were not likely to be in-
creased by providing the relief afforded by the poor-laws, he
was for them. He was willing, ready, and anxious to give
legislative force to the affirmance of that principle; but he
was not willing, prematurely anticipating information which
was not now before the House, to rush into hasty legislation
upon a subject from which he knew retreat to be impossible.
Attempts had been made for more than forty years to remedy
the abuses of the poor-laws in England. Mr. Pitt had shrunk
from the task ; Mr. Whitbread had failed to give effect to it ;
the benevolence of Mr. Sturges Bourne had proved of no
avail ; and they had existed and increased until the passing
of the Bill of last Session. If he could have produced the
effect desired, he would have been as ready to second it as the
Hon. Member for 'Wicklow ; but not being able to arrive at
such a conclusion, he completely and entirely acquiesced in
the amendment adverted to by his Noble Friend.
Mr. POULETT SCROPE explained.
Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN said that the Right Hon. Gentle-
, man allowed that the aged and the infirm should obtain relief
and he begged to say that that was the exact extent to which this
Bill was meant to go. All that was asked by those who wished
for the introduction of the poor-laws into Ireland was that the
principle of the right of the aged and infirm to relief should be
admitted. The lion. Member then called the attention of the
House to the petition presented upon the present distressed
state of the poor in the county of Mayo. That petition stated
that out of a rental of 7,0001. a-year, 3,0001. a year went out
of the country, which he contended would not be the ease if
there was a good system of poor-laws. And he declared, as a
landlord, that he did not consider that he would be entitled to
sit down to more than the common necessaries of life as long
as his tenanixy were in such distress as now existed in Mayo.
He declared that the present state of the peasantry of Ireland
was most disgraceful to this country.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. S. CR AWFORD entirely approved of the principle
of parishes being allowed to assess themselves for the relief of
the poor : but, at the same time, contended that a more exten-
sive and permanent system was wanted. Though he thought
that a more extensive system should be adopted, he thought
that no reason why the present Bill should be rejected.
. Sir EDMOND HAYES hoped even that the Bill would
not be referred to a select committee, as the House in that
case would not hear again of the Bill for a long time. Ifs
F thought that the discussion of the subject should not be
deferred.

Mr. G. F. YOUNG supported the I3ill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the difficulty was to say what would be considered a proper
system of poor-laws. If the Hon. Member thought that the
principle of giving relief to the aged and infirm was a proper
system of poor-laws, to that he (the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer) was pledged, and he would be most eager in support of
such a measure.

Mr. G. F. YOUNG said that what he considered a good
sytem was a measure upon the principle of the statute of Eli-
zabeth, but without its abuses.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. O'CONNELL said, that it was clear that the Hon.

Member did not understand the statute of Elizabeth. The
abuses of which he spoke flowed necessarily out of that statute;
for the principle of the statute of Elizabeth was, that the la-
bourer who had employment should contribute a portion of his
labour to the person who had no employment. The necessary
consequences of such a principle was, that abuses grew out of
it. He had come down to the House with the intention of
voting that the Bill be referred to a Committee, and he had
been determined in that intention not by the speeches which
he heard in favour of the Bill, but by those which he had heard
against it. The Hon. Member for Knaresborough had amused
him not a little. He had called upon him (Mr. O'Connell)
to give good arguments in favour of the introduction of poor-
laws in Ireland. Now the only reason which he (Mr. O'Con-
nell) would give for their introduction was this, that although
the system of poor-laws was a bad one, still they were driven
by necessity, not by choice, to do something for the relief of
the indigent poor of Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) They were
driven to it even at the expense of the property of the country.
The Hon. Member for Knaresborough by his speech drove
them to this.
Mr. RICHARDS did not know what the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman meant.—( Order, order.)

Mr. O'CONNELL said that no one had less right to in-
terrupt him than the Hon. Member for Knaresborough, for
the lion. Member had addressed almost all his remarks to
him (Mr. O'Connell.) The Hon. Member had addressed
him half with flattery and half vituperation. —( Hear, hear,
and a laugh.) For his (Mr. O'Connell's) part, he freely
admitted that he preferred the vituperation to the flattery.
The Hon. Member had spoken of him ( Mr. O'Connell) as a
renegadoe. Renegadoe, indeed! He (Mr. O'Connell) threw
back the insinuation upon the Hon. Member for Knaresbo-
rough.—( Cheers and laughter.) He talked, too, of Scotland
which he said had obtained tranquillity by means of the intro-
duction of poor-laws, and in supporting that view he even
made Latin quotations. The Hon. Member was as classi-
cal as he was consistent. lie said that Scotland had arrived
at her tranquillity per saltunz. Now the fact was that Scot-
land had arrived at tranquillity in spite of the poor-laws, for
it was proved that in some parishes in Glasgow, where the
poor-laws were in full force, that tranquillity was annihilated,
while in those parishes where they were not introduced, the
people were flourishing. Ireland was in a miserable condi-
tion, and it would seem that nothing was done to relieve her
but the application of the paltry quack remedies of the Hon.
Gentlemen opposite. The Hon. Member for Knaresborough
having dispos'd of his Welsh tenantry, proceeded with his
French mendicant to Dublin, and complained that he did not
find him among the supporters of the Mendicity Society in that
city, and that society cost him more than any system of poor-
laws could; he was a subscriber to that society though he did
not approve of the application of the funds, because the pau-
pers were employed at a rate of wages which deprived the
healthy and efficient labourers of employment. That Ireland
was in a wretched state no man could doubt who had read the
petition from Borrishull, and he would defy any set of political
economists to say the time had not arrived when something
must be done to alleviate the sufferings of the Irish people.
The fact was Ireland was now suffering from misgovernment, and
from the misgovernment of that party to whom the Hon. Mem-
ber for Knaresborough had recently attached himself. He
wished that party joy in having such a political economist as
the Hon. Member for Knaresborough at their back. The
people of Ireland had been misruled for the last 700 years ;
they had been misruled by the Tory party : and had the late
Government remained in office nine months longer, there could
be no doubt that their mode of governing Ireland would have
produced a sanguinary insurrection in that country. The Hon.
Member for Knaresborough would give to the peaple of Ire-
land a system of poor-laws, while he denied them justice—they
asked for bread and he would give them a stone. The people
of Ireland were by no means anxious to join with the Hon.
Member for Knaresborough in this experiment of poor-laws.
What they would have was the experiment of fair and regular
government in Ireland. At present the condition of Ireland was
terrific. There were to be seen persons desolating the land
by decimating the country of the tenantry. Landlords were
recommended by the Orange party in that country to get rid
of their tenants, and the result was, that the miseries described
in this Borrishull petition could speedily extend all over Ire-
land, if something were not done to arrest them. In consi-
dering this question he must confess that he had been obliged
to give up logic and resort to feeling. He therefore should
concur in voting to-night for going into Committee on this
Bill, but he would not do so if something worse even than
poor-laws did not exist. He wished them to go into Com-
mittee on the Bill in order that this subject might undergo in-
quiry by a Select Committee during the remainder of this ses-
sion, and entertaining a hope that they would arrive at
some proper course to be pursued. Looking at the history
of poor-laws throughout Europe, it was well known that
misery had increased wherever they were adopted. This
must be apparent to any one who read the book of that intel-

ligent but wrong-headed man, Mr. N. Senior. Before they '
proceeded to lay down any system of poor-laws for Ireland,
they should look at the example of foreign countries. If
there existed any system by which the tranquillity of Ireland
could be restored, how was it that it could not be discovered ?
—( Hear, hear.) He did not think that the Hon. Member for
Knaresborough understood anything of the circumstances
which led to Whiteboyism ; if he had, he would not have made
the observations he did on that part of the subject. Whiteboy
acts were for the most part perpetrated by sturdy, lazy,
fellows who were unwilling to work, and if poor-laws were
introduced into Ireland, and they were refused relief when
they applied for it, their next step would be to burn the work-
house. —(No, no.) No ! He asked whether such acts had
not been committed in this country, and whether, in-many
places, the poor population were not almost in a state of re-
bellion against the new Poor-Law Act ?—( Hear, hear.) He
asked whether they wanted to add to the other incentives of
Whiteboy acts that which would be given to them by a system
of Poor-Laws? Though averse to Poor-Laws, he still felt
that something must be done. But he would not proceed
blindly, or do more than he felt was inevitable. The state of
society in Ireland was such, that he did not think there could
be found there the materials for forming local societies. In
three of the provinces—in Leinster, Munster, and Connaught,
the chief part of the population were Roman Catholics ; and
the consequence would be that the funds would go into the
hands in which the landlords would not confide, and they would
be applied to purposes of which the landlords would not ap-
prove. This, he contended, would have the effect of throw-
ing an additional fire-brand between landlord and tenant, and
rendering them more hostile than they were now towards each
other. Talking of the North of Ireland—there were in the
province of Ulster, 781,000 more Catholics than there were
Protestant inhabitants, and even there all the objections he
had stated would apply, so that the result of the introduction
of such a system, would be to involve that country in one
scene of trouble and discord.—( Hear, hear, hear.) It was
said, however, that, though Poor-Laws might be inju-
rious to Ireland, they would be beneficial to England.
He would take his own parish for the purpose of illustration.
If a man had a wife and seven children, the course that would
be taken was this : The man would' have ten shillings given
to him to carry him to England, and they would tell him
that he should work for whatever he could get here, and in
that way endeavour to lighten the burden at home, while he
pressed on the labourers of this country. Thus, instead of
diminishing, they would increase the influx of Irish labourers
into this country. The petition from Borrishull proved the
country to be in a dreadful state. It was a shocking thing
that people should bd famishing, when the fields around them
were teeming with produce : but all this he attributed to bad
government. Ire concluded by saying, that if something-was
not done to ameliorate the political condition of Ireland, cer-
tainly something ought to be done to relieve the people
of that country from the starvation with which they were
threatened.

Mr. BENNETT thought that one great source of the
misery of Ireland was the refusal to extend to that country the
advantages of poor laws—in short, the refusal to assimilate
the laws of both countries. This was, a very pressing ques-
tion, and he would put it on higher ground than even the be-
nefit that would result to either England or Ireland. He would
regard it as a question of justice, and say that those born on
the soil ought to live upon it by their labour. This was the
principle by which the question should be tried. He did not
altogether approve of the Bill, yet as it went to establish the
principle for which he contended, he would give it his support.
Mr. A. LE FRO Y did not think that this Bill was likely
to accomplish the objects which it was skid to have in view.
Mr. SH EI L said, that by the admission of all parties they
ought to be allowed to go to the second reading of this Bill.
The Bill would not impose any obligation upon any party,
nor did it render it necessary that money should be raised ; it
merely gave a discretion to parishes to provide money for the
relief of the helpless poor. Though a Commission had been
appointed to make inquiries on this subject in Ireland, the
Commissioners were divided in opinion as to whether poor-
laws would be beneficial or not to Ireland, and he believed it
would be impossible to get them to concur in any general
Report. All that was before the House now was a mass of
evidence which left the matter precisely as it bad been. As
it was admitted on all hands that something should be done for
Ireland, and nobody suggested any thing better than this Bill,
he hoped the House would try the effect of it.

Mr. AG LIONBY was willing to support any proposition
that went,to provide for the relief of the poor in Ireland; but
he doubted whether this Bill would accomplish the objects
which its promoter had in view. One of the clauses would
bring; the Government into collision with the people of Ireland.
He would support a general measure, but not one affecting a
particular parish ; he was most anxious to mitigate the general
distress, but a partial measure he thought very objectionable.
It one or two parishes adopted this Bill, what a state that
would place the whole of Ireland in ! The other parishes
would flock into these two, and there would exist no power of
removal. He must give his vote against the motion of the
Hon. Gentleman behind him. He hoped it would not go
forth to the country that those who felt it to be their duty to
oppose 'this Bill, were opposed to a general system of poor-
laws in Ireland. He believed it was the intention of his Ma-
jesty's Government to introduce some measure on the subject
as soon as they could, after they had received the Report of
the Commissioners. He trusted that the Hon. Gentleman
would not press his motion to a division.
After a few words from Mr. MAXWELL,

Mr. BARRON protested against the principle of the Bill,
and should vote against his lion. Friend, but he hoped he
would withd-raw it.

Sir R. MUSUR AVE having risen to

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHE-QUER said he
sl:ould not obstruct the measure if the object of the Hon.
Member was merely to have it read a second time, and passed
through a Committee, in order that he might place it before
the country in as perfect a form as possible.
Sir R. MUSGIZ AVE would admit that he could not hope
to carry the Bill through during the present Session ; he
would, therefore, adopt the suggestion of the Right lion.
Gentleman. _ _ _

Mr. ATT WO OD wished the Hon. Gentleman had turned
his Bill into a resolution, stating that it was necessary to in-
troduce Poor Laws into Ireland, because then he would have
found a majority of the House in his favour. If a system of
Poor Laws were introduced into Ireland, this country would be
much benefited. The Irish peasants were not an idle body ;
they only wanted an opportunity of using their labour.—( Cries
of " Question.") He hoped the Hon. Member would with-
draw his motion, and substitute for it some such resolution as
he had described.
An Hon. MEMBER said the Irish landlords did not exact
higher rents then the English landlords ; if they adopted the
English scale they would be better off than they were at pre-
sent. He wished the treatment of the tenantry in Ireland were
once brought before the House; if it were, it would be found
that the Irish landlords were as just, as kind, and, perhaps, as
judicious as the landlords in England. He would be always
ready to meet that question when the opportunity offered.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be
committed this day fortnight,

ASSIZES REMOVAL (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion of Mr. O'LOGHLEN, this Bill went
through a Committee.
ENTAILED ESTATES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Captain G. FE RG U SON moved the Order of the Day for
the further consideration of the Report of this Bill.
The LORD ADVOCATE said that the Bill could not
pass in its present shape, and that there was not time to consi-
der it during the present Session. He, therefore, moved as an
amendment, that the further consideration of the Report be
postponed till that day three months.
Captain GORD 0 N regretted that the Noble Lord had not
had time to become fully acquainted with the measure. The
circumstance was rather strange, as the Bill had been before
the House for three years.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it
Majority for the Amendment
• SEAMEN'S ENLISTMENT BILL.

The House went into Committee on the further considera-
tion of the Report on this Bill.
Mr. C. WOOD, who moved the Order of the Day, said
that he did not expect any opposition would be made to the
Bill. Its object was to improve the condition of the service,
and render it more agreeable to the seamen. By its provi-
sions the seamen's pay would be made equal to that in the
merchant service. A provision also would be made for the
return of seamen to visit their families after a service of five
years • and if they were detained six months beyond that period
in a foreign station they should receive one-half additional
pay. In conclusion, it left the question of impressment pre-
cisely where it was, dependent, in a great measure, upon the
discretion and prerogative of the Crown.
Mr. BUCKINGHAM said he still maintained his opinion
en the subject of impressment, that it was neither legal, nor
just, nor necessary, and, moreover, that it was not successful
in forming an efficient force. Strong, however, as his senti-
ments on this subject were, he would not oppose the measure,
because he believed that the Government who had prepared it
were anxious to meet the wishes of himself and those who
agreed with him on this subject, as far as possible.
Mr. HUTT approved of the measure.
Mr. CHAPMAN spoke in favour of the Bill, and said it
would be hailed with delight and gratitude by all the wives
and families of sailors throughout the country.
Dr. BOWRING approved of the Bill. •
Mr. G. F. YOUNG also spoke in favour of it ; but declared
that he considered impressment both unjust and unnecessary.
After a few remarks from some Hon. Members the Bill went
through Committee.
STAFFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.

On the motion that the Stafford Disfranchisement Bill be
read a second time,
An HON. MEMBER moved that the further consideration of
the Bill be postponed. This Bill was a very important one,
involving serious consequences to a considerable body of per-
sons, and one likely to lead to discussion in which it would be
desirable that there should be a full attendance. It was then
too late to discuss such a Bill. The House at that moment
was very thin, and there was notice of two very important
amendments to be proposed; one was to give to a county in
Ireland the Members heretofore returned by the borough of
Stafford. From these considerations it was highly desirable
that the Bill should be postponed for a short time.
It was accordingly agreed that the consideration of the Bill
should be postponed till Wednesday next.
INNS AND ALEHOUSES BILL.

On the motion that the House go into Committee on this
Bill,

Mr. BROTHERTON moved, as an amendment, that the
House adjourn. It was then too late an hour, and the House
was too thin, as there was scarcely a sufficient number of
members to constitute a House to go into a Committee on a
Bill containing so many clauses, on which it was likely so

many amendmqnts would be put, and likely to lead to a pro—
tracted debate. It should be recollected by Hon. Members,
that by a late regulation, the House was to assemble again at
12 o'clock that day. It was then morning, and the Speaker,
if delayed to a late hour, would be physically unable to attend.
Besides, several Members then present could not, if so im-
portant a measure were to be now considered, attend the
sittings, in'the proceedings of which some of them would
feel an interest.—( Hear.) There was another important
consideration, too, that several Members, who felt an intereo,
and would take part in the discussion, had gone away, in the
expectation that it would not be brought on.—(Hear.)
Mr. TREVOR opposed the motion. Matters of import-
ance should not be postponed on the ground that Hon. Mem-
bers did not please to attend. If they considered the subject
of value, why not be in their places? These postponements
were injurious to the public service.—( Hear.)
Mr. BROTHERTON said it was clearly the wish of the
House that an adjournment should take place.—(Hear, hear,
and No, no.)
Mr. RUTHVEN and other Hon. Members supported the mo-
tion, on the ground that the hour was too late ; the House too
thin for the discussion of such a measure ; .and that neither
the Speaker, nor many Hon. Members could attend the early
sittings the next day at twelve o'clock.
Mr. PEASE said the public business would he better done
by one hundred determined men who attended in their places
than by a full House, when much time was wasted 513 idle dis-
cussion. That night, for instance, in a full House, the Irish
Poor Law Bill hung fire for hours.
Mr. WALLACE said if this system of adjournm Ont were
persevered in, public matters of great consequence would be
indefinitely postponed, and they would have to enforce a
call of the House in September next.
Mr. HAWE S opposed the motion, and said Members
should not be subjected to the tyranny of any one Member.
After some further remarks from Hon. Members on both
sides, the House divided, when there appeared—
. ..

For the Adjournment
22
Against it
Majority
The House then resumed, and went into Committee. Se-
veral clauses having been passed,
The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and the consideration
of the other clauses was postponed.
The other Orders of the Day were then gone througl, nd
the House adjourned at Half-past One o'clock.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.

NEWMARKET JULY MEETING.

_
Tuesday Night.
JULY STAKES.-FURTHER PARTICULAJitS.

After three or four false starts the lot got off in good order, Co•
runny having a slight lead, with Alumnus and The-Professor at her
side, brother to Glaueus and the others in a ruck, and all well laid
on, Corunna supported the running (the phrase is 3.ssociated with
painful reminiscences to an Englishman) for about half the distance,
when she declined and retired from the front to the revs. Alumnus
and The Professor carried on the running, the others still lying up,
brother to Glaueus so hemmed in that it appeared neat to impos-
sible for Robinson to extricate himself. In descending the hill
Alumnus looked so much like a winner that the " Duke of Grafton"
was the cry in all parts of the course ; at this point there was a
movement amongst the horses at his heels, in which El Pastor wag
thrown on his knees, fortunately without injury to himself or jockey.
A slight opening presenting itself at this moment, Robinson seized
it, shot through his horses like an arrow, passed the red jacket two
or three strides from the post, and won cleverly by a length. The
General's colt was beaten about two lengths from the second, and
ran in quite clear of the rest ; at the head of the second rank were
Dahlia and the Humphrey Clinker filly, and at its tail Waverer and
Corunna. The pace was moderate. Value of the stakes 1,0701.,
subject to the usual deductions.

BETTING IN THE EVENING.
GOODWOOD STAKES, P.P.
S to 1 agst Mr. J. Day's Diana—taken
GOODWOOD CUP, P. P.
900 to 200 agst Mr. Kirby's St. Giles—taken
5 to 1 agst Colonel Peel's Sylvan
8 to 1 agst Lord Jersey's Glencoe—taken
10 to 1 agst Lord Exeter's Beiram
400 even between St. Giles and Sylvan
DONCASTER ST. LEGER.
12 to 1 agst Lord Orford's Ascot—taken
12 to 1 agst Lord Derby's Verbena
20 to 1 agst Mr. Watt's Mamsel Otz—taken
2000 to 50 betted on 20 agst the field
THE DERBY:

Previous to the race 35 to 1 was taken that brother to Glaucus
won thii race and the July Stakes.

WEDNESDAY.

Renewal of the SweepstalieSOlTOso;;. each ; for three yrs old,
6st. 91b ; four, Bst. lib ; five, 6st. 101 b ; six and aged, 9st.
T.M.M. 5 subs.
Sir M. Wood's Amesbury, 6 yrs Robinson 1
Mr. Pettit's Observatory, 3 yrs
Mr. Ridsdale's Veronica, 3 yrs :, ..... ... ' 3
Mr. Bloss's Matilda, 3 yrs
• Mr. Goodwin's Florin, 3 yrs . 5
Betting-5 to 4 agst Veronica, sto 2 agst Observatory, 4to 1
agst Amesbury, sto 1 agst Florin, 7to 1 agst Matilda. Amesbury
won by two lengths. ..
501. for three yrs old, 6st. 111 b ; four, Bst. 21b; five, Bst. 101 b; six
and aged, 9st. D. I.
Mr. Pettit's Chantilly, 5 yrs
Duke of Grafton's Clarionet, 3 yrs
Sir M. Wood's Becassine, 3 yrs . 3
Mr. Hunter's f. by Tramp Ridotto, 3 yrs 4
Mr. Turner's Lady Albert, 3 yrs
Lord Berner's c. by Oscar—Schiedam, 3 yrs 6
Lord Exeter's Bodice, 4 vrs 7
Betting-7 to 4 agst Lord Berner's c., sto 2 agst Clarionet, sto
1 agst Bodice,k6 to 1 agst Chantilly, sto 1 ast Becassine. Won
in a canter by two lengths.

THE MARKETS.

COAL MAR.
Per Ton. s d
Adair 's
Chester 11. in l6 11
Holy well lB 3
Ditto Reins l6 9

Ord s Redhugh l6 6
Pontop Windsor l7 6
Russell's High Main
'Canfield
West Hartley
Wylam
Hallbeath
Llangelinech Coal
Neville's Llanelly
Ships arrived since

cErn—July 8
Per Ton. s. d.
Walls End Bewicke stnd Co 20 :2
Walls End c lark and 17
Walls End Hotspur lO 3
Walls End Newmarch...
\Valls End Northumberland lB 15
Walls End 20 9
Walls End Hetton '
Walls End Lambton tiO
P
Walls End Stewart a .....
Walls End Adelaide
Wags End Gordon 20 0
Walls End South Durham._ 19 9
Walls End Tees
last market-day, 38

COUNTRY CORN MARKETS DURINI

THE WEEK.

Wheat. I Barley. I Oats. Beans. Pease.
Per Quarter. s. to s. s. to s. Is.to s. a. to s. s.
Abingdon.—..... 54 60 30 34 22 30 38
Andover 35 49 28 34 28 33
irmingham— 56 58 30 40 16 22 -- 33
Br:dport . 33 50 32 36 '26 30 39 .
Cirencester 34 48 24 32 23 27 40
Faringdon, • 54 66 36 40 26 34 40 --
Guikitord . 38 54 '2B 35 20 30 46
Henley. ,
42 58 26 32 23 26 43 --
Hereford „ 50 56 20 32 24 27 46
Highwortb 42 60 32 42 23 34 sfi
Maidenhead 56 68 34 44 22 30 36 37 •••••
M0nm0uth......... 33 42 29 31 22 30 31
Reading „ 3O 59 22 36 28 32 40
Salisbury, ~
36 50 30 33 Z 3 28 36 4.9
Southampton 54 58 33 40 28 32 —. 42
Stroud _ 35 44 28 36 20 24 46
Tewkesbury 36 26 22 32 40
Uxbridge 40 48 28 32 17 28 40 42
30 57 '24 30 19 32 34 42 "'—
Warminster 32 52- '2B 36 24 27 34 40
Windsor. 59 21 22 35
W.ireester„ 33 49 30 32 24 29 40 J.

HULL MA R KET —July 7.
Wheat, Old 36s 335. 4.1 s New 341. 335. 42. i.
-- Foreign „ s In bond... —s. --s. —a.
Oats, Poland . 2'2:. 245. 25s Old 2ls. 225. 255.
--- Small or Feed.... —s. 18s. 20$ —s. —s. 20a.

Foreign
Barley, Norf. & Suf.
Foreign

_ .
Beans 345. 38s, 40s.
Pease, White 335. 3%. 40s.
Tares
Rapeseed. in bond none .

Foreign -S.
Grey —8.305.
Foreign --s.
Free, i+er last POI. 3.5/.

CHELTENHA

Per Bushel, s. d. to s. d.
Wheat
Barley
Oats
Beans
Pease
llay

➢i MARKETS
_ Pet lb.

Beef --
Mutton
Veal
Pork
Limb
t 41. 10.. 1.4.1„ ywr ton.

d. to
6 7
61 7
7 8
6 7
0 0

BIRTHS.

On the 6th inst., the lady of Henry Perronet Briggs, Esq.*
8.A., of Chat les-street, of a son.

On the 6th inst., Mrs. Joseph Anderson, of Compton-terraner
Islington, of a son, still-born.
On the 3d inst., at North Court Lodge, near Brandon, the lady
of Henry Collins, Esq., of a daughter.
On the 7th inst., in Gloucester-place, Portman-square, Mrs.
Twyford, of a son.
On the Bth inst., in Sloane-street, Mrs. Wm. Lee, of a daughter.
On the sth inst., at Grappenhall Lodge, Cheshire, the lady of
James 11. Leigh, Esq., of a son.

R R IE D.
On the Bth inst., at St. Marylebone Church, George Dobson.
Esq., Commander Royal Navy, eldest son of J. Dobson, Esq., of
Mortimer, Berks, to Eliza, eldest daughter of Joseph Bond, Egl',
of Edward-street, Portman-square.
On the 6th inst., at St. Thomas's Church, Winchester, Captain
W. Keats, R.N., to Augusta Maria, youngest daughter of Giles
King Lyford, Esq., of that city.
At All Saints Church, Northampton, Mr. Durst, of Lower
Tooting, Surrey, to Miss Strong, of Hardingstone, near Nor"
thampton.

At-Paddington Church, William Richardson, A.M., surge)°,
Bayswater, son of the late Patrick Richardson, Esq., of Flatfield,
N. 8., to Louisa, daughter of William Capps, Esq., Porehester•
terrace, Bayswater.
On the 7th inst., at St. Mary's, Islington, Robert Johnston,
Esq., of Aberdeen, to Mary, third daughter of George Haddon,
Esq., of Highbury-terrace.

DIED.
On the 9th inst., at Peoyer Hall, Cheshire, Sophia, eldest daugh'
ter of Sir Henry Mainwaring, Bart., and niece to Viscount Com"
bermere.

On the 7th inst., Mr. Charles Sharp, of Albany-street, Regent's"
park, aged
On the sth inst., at Dorking, Surrey, Elizabeth, the wife of Mr.
Berrey, of Pentonville, and the Six Clerks'-office.
On the 6th inst., at Matson Cottages, Kingsland-road, aged 34,
Susan, wife of John Matson, Esq., formerly of Bridlington-quoit
Yorkshire.

_
On the 6th inst., in Charterhouse-square, Mr. William Thorer
son, solicitor, late of King's Arms-yard, Coleman-street, Londol2-
On the 4th inst., at Hammersmith, Mrs. Keane, aged 46.
On the 6th inst., in his 4th year, Arthur, the second son of 11fr.
John Harris, Clapham-common.
On the 6th ult., at the Achada, Madeira, William Penfold,
On the Ist inst., in John's-terrace, Hackney-road, Mr. William
Simpson, in his 71st year.
On the 7th ult., at Besthorpe, Newark, Mr. Thomas Cook!
aged 87 ; Hitching, aged 97. They were two of the oldest
inhabitants in the place.

London : Printed and Published by MURDO 'DUNG, of N•
112, Strand, at The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand, in the county
of Middlesex,