The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-19 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, PRIDAY -EITENINO, JULY 19, 1944.

course in the House of Commons. With regard to the
motion before the House-, he quite agreed in thestatement
that the House must choose between putting the Hon.
Member for Finsbury on the Committee. or allowing
him to examine particular witnesses himself.
Sir R. PEEL said, he really must say that he thought
it would have. been much more consistent with 'the
(hay of the Right Hon. Gentleman, if he felt any objec-
tion to the constitution of the Committee, that he should
have stated that objection at the . time when it was ap-
pointed,--(gear, hear.) If the Hon. Gentleman thought
that there ought to have been two Members of the pre-
sent Government on it, and two of the past, or that there
()tight to have been lawyers, it would have been easy for
him to have made a motion to that effect. The Right Hon.
Geteleman complained of the exclusion of the Hon.
Member forFinsbury. R hy, the Earl of Radnor' oho had
brought forward the charge in the House of Lords, had
been excluded by his own consent, although lawyers were
appointed. The appointment of such eminent lawyers in
the Rouse of Lords was a decided proof that the Govern-
ment had no wish to exclude lawyers.
.Mr. LABOUCHERE said that the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman had a little misunderstood the nature of his ob-
jection. He had expressed his surprise that the Govern-
silent in one place had attached the greatest importance to
the Committee being soconstituted as to exclude lawyers
and ex-Ministers, while in another place the Committee
contained two lawyers and three ex-Ministers.
Mr. V. SMITH said he had understood, when he
voted for the Committee, that no members of the Go-
vernment were to be concerned in the investi-
gation. The Government ought to have acted the
Same in one place as another. The Committee
Laid not placed the Hon. Member for Finsbury in the
beex, and said, " We will report you to the House if you
110 not answer, as they ought to have done—(Hear,
hear)—the public would now know that there was infor-
mation in the hands of a Member of that House which
lie had not been pressed to give. In the Committee on
election compromises the House had not scrupled to
put the accuser on the Committee and in the chair of
Its He should therefore move that the Hon. Manners
Sutton, and Mr. T. Duncombe be added to the Committee.
The question having been put,
The O'CONNOR DON referred to what had been
done• by the Committee with regard to the presence of
the Ron. Member for Finsbury. He did not think it
Would he right for the House to rescind the resolution
to which it had come when it negatived the proposition
that he should be a member of the Committee. If the
400- Member were allowed to be present it would be
Itrivalent to his being a member of the Committee.
e must say it was due to the Government to say that
no information which the Committee thought desirable
Was withheld. It was given to the greatest extent. He
trusted the House would withhold its opinion as to the
tesult till the Committee had made its report to the
Souse.—(Hear, hear.) He thought the conduct of the
Committee had been impughned.—(No, no.) But there
had been a degree of investigation which he thought
'would have surprised the Hon. Gentleman himself.
, The SPEAKER said that the proposition made had
laten Already- negatived, and it could not be put again.
Mr. FUME asked whether the same proposition
could not be negatived twice under different circum-
stances ?
The SPEAKER said that a proposition having been
trade which was negatived, it was not usual to renew
the same proposition in the same session, but it was dif-
n'rent with regard to orders for papers where amended re-
turns were required to be made.
, Mr. W. WILLIAMS rose to address the House amidst
teolli: cries of " Divide, divide," and much confusion. The
Ron. Gentleman said that it was most important that
the pubijc should be satisfied with the proceedings of the
~:oremittee. No charge had been brought against, the
"Mimittee, but it had been stated that they could not
conduct the inquiry as it ought to be conducted unless
- the Ron. Member for Finsbury were empowered to exa-
shine certain witnesses. Grave charges had been brought
igainst her Majesty's Government both with regard to
tr opening of letters and to the conduct of the Post-
-041,ce. Great excitement existed in the public mind on the
11').iee. The Right Hon. Baronet-the Secretary of State for
the Homo-Department replied that he had done nothing
more than had been done by his predecessors, and than
bad been the usual practice of his office. The Hon.
Member for Finsbury had called for a Committee of In-
quiry; and, contrary to the practice of the House, the
le etight Han. Baronet, who was the party accused, had
4noisele proposed the list of the gentlemen who were to
but
the Committee of Inquiry. He did not deny
'mit that the gentlemen constituting that Committee were
all most honourable men, but they were all friends either
43f the late or of the present Government, who were the
Parties
l implicated ; and however honourable their con.
"et might be in the management of that Committee,
litheir decision would not give satisfaction as they were at
rlesent constituted. Her Majesty's Government could not
!t see that they would be acting wisely if they were to
Fnopt the proposition of adding the Hon. Member for
ury to the Committee. It would give great satis-
-settee to the public. On a question of so much import-
ance •
aati„,lt was necessary that the public mind should be
the fled, and the country would not be satisfied unless
ereen. Member for Finsbury were on the Committee.
that'
STRUTT, as a member of the Committee, felt
111 u-e was placed in a very peculiar position. The
sekr of the Members of the Committee were,
th -`u• In the course of the debate it had been alleged
a at it was nessary that certain evidgnce should be ex-
el33ined in order to make the inquiry complete, but it
,48 not stated whether or not the Committee had
already had that evidence before them. The Com-
rittee were endeavouring. to pursue their duty faith
fully and diligently, and they had done so without re-
gard to either party in that House. They' had had
Most ample evidence placed at their disposal by her
Majesty's Government.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to
the proposal more immediately before the House, he
thought it would be a most inconvenient course to
adopt to admit any gentleman on the Committee on
.1!17 terms proposed. The Committee had already gone
l's'coough a great deal of evidence, and it would be a great
zoowiluvenience if any gentleman were to be admitted
lehieelT'athe Committee without knowing the evidence
ithetheir— been gone into already. He could not know
that evidence might not have proved or dis-
proved
bang the articular allegations which he wished te
forward. If any gentleman were placed in the
rosttton in which it was proposed to place the Hon.
sil_ en?ber for Finsbury, it would be necessary that h(
geld be acquainted with the evidence which had
adY been given before that Committee. He had
hitherto acted on the principle of not saying
one word, or giving one vote, as to the Consti-
tution of that Committee. On a former occasion when
e Hon. Afember for Finsbury had been proposed as a
member
oa of it he would given no vote, nor should he vote
If the present occasion. He merely rose to caution the
_ouse not to draw any inference from the silence of the
lneuabers of the Committeo,--(Hear, hear.)
• Mr. V.
SMITH withdrew his motion.
Mt- T. DUNCOMBE wished merely to say a few
w
ords- The Right Hon. Gentleman said it would be a
teat slur upon the Committee, if he were added to it in
the
way proposed—it would be a still greater slur upon
.3.: Committee, if he were added to it as a member.
r-,l`a't Noble Lord said that it would be tantamount to
'ong him a member of the Committee, if he were per•
Tait
te-. to be present during the examination of wit
tilt the
hear.) They might just as well say
tilt the counsel who proved the preamble of a private
h was a member of a Committee.—(Hear, hear.) All
41ei. asked was to be permitted to be present at the exalt
of certain witnesses, whom he was pre-
eh to produce to prove his charge. es- (Loud
ee"rs.) Would the Noble Lord say that that
itt,rge had been either proved or disproved.—(Cheerer
aquiwltnesses he would produce had not yet been called:
sem bY a recent and most searching inquiry, amounting
• k.,c'st to a persecution, which had been instituted at the
,vLtusee of the Government, in order to Ascertain who it
wu's that had given him (Mr. D.) this information, it
48 necessary that there should be a searching scrutiny,
retf the letter-carrier up to the opener and the sealer
x;oletters—in short, through all the rani cations of the
Atoffice. He would ask the Right Hon. Baronet a
st 4 question. Did he ever open or cause to be opened
er, letter of his (Mr. Duncombes)—(Laughter, and
bltes of "'ear, hear ")—since the Right lion. Gentle
insult ad been in office ? He considered it a very gross
that any letter of any Member of that House, hay-
tAt4ken the oaths of allegiance, and holding the posi-
The t,h,eY dideshould have their letters opened.—(Hear.)
ane. lii ht lion. Baronet could have no heeitation in
4ring whether or not he opened his letters; fore& they
hi re not opened by the Right Hon, Gentleman, or by
cge irections, they were opened by other hands.—
sepenr, hear.) Investigation was, therefore, most de-
ee.- The Committee ought to have allowed him to
Thetutue the list of witnesses which he held in his hand.
milleotonlittee should increase its authority in com•
deneeg the attendance of witnesses to give evi-
-11,,,'• Ile was willing, before a Committee of either
th'se, to substantiate his allegations.—(Hear, hear.)
fig:could thee have all the charges he had made hives-
to fa,4; The Committee had no right to say he refused
tigatalitate their inquiries, or assist them in the inves-
fakiii'2ll of these charges. He had offered them every
cliwe in his power. Some of ;:is witnesses were sabot,:
lap there
in the Post-office, and he wonld not wish to give
rte irte names, unless he were present to protect them.
of th 4.ew their evidence would compromise the conduct
leetae„': soPeriors, and their superiors would be most re-
e,hsoi-b le allow them to attend. He thought it was;
we, tit* necessary that some one should be present
cass,Was acquainted with all the circumstances of the
e3ta He told the House and the public that the
he sulatitftion—the labours of the Committee--would not
*ere s aetory, conclusive, or complete, if those witnesses
after nut interrogated. The Hon. Member concluded,
ahyin:?Peating the uestion to Sir James Graham, by
~%r he
T would persevere in his motion
'• GRAHAM must say that no gentleman in
t"llse was less accustomed (if he might use the ex-
-essio
to. iv, `el VilpOttrifig than the Hon. Member for Pins-
k/. Thb question which had been just put the Hon.
elber
knew that, consistent with his sense of duty,
b;:le,holles4,lnot answer.—(" Hear, hear," from the Tory
and ironical cLeeys from the Opposition.) He
hth4adt,alr'eandy stated to the' tiouse, firmly but respectfully,
an:stwdoeo,
s:utstt:nt with his sense of duty, he, could
sense
0,0, ; and he must be the judge of what his
was. He could not,er would not
that question. Whet& the appointment of a
tess •
eisguiTottlee had been moved for, he bed stated without
and without reserve the e 071,8,2 he meant to
Yaiense,'v.bavt,in_epreviously obtained the ;Gnat* of her
the utmost
the word and honour of a geetleman rte
'144 to'
tizil_eedegeo.nnlrit,ten!latirSt degree since then redeethed Out
been two Of three days examined before
:eels& lie aced his examination bed not yet con-
litiee,sstioin
the. elt that he should be suppwriad by both
House in hie veeolutien not to answer th"..
ru- Which the Hon. Gentieriaau bid put to him.
gl.l.'rer)t4lhei."P9-`l. said the Committee wee willing to
did rot
s,:etiiisite guarantee to the witnesses, and he
.`'ereteitte_ what " protection" any witnesses before their
zeembe_ ould rec.eive from the presence of the Hoes
fur Finsbury.© The witnesses would be per:
•

feetly safe in the hands of the Committee, -but the
Hon. Ifornber ought to furnish the Committee with such
facts as would enable them to test their veracity.

~.._ ..._ .
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it • 141
Majority against the motion —9o
UNLAWFUL OATHS (IRELAND) BILL.
_ . _.... . .

On the third reading of theßill having been proposed,
Mr. M. O'FERRALL rose to oppose it. During the
whole time this Bill had been before the House no mem-
ber of the Ministry had given any explanation or state-
ment.

Sir J. GRAHAM—In Committee it was discussed.
Mr. M. O'FERRALL—Yes, there was some discus
sion in Committee, but there had been no Ministerial
statement on the principle of the Bill, or the reasons
which induced the Government to press it on the House.
—lronical cries of " Hear, hear," from Sir IL Peel.) He
understood the meaning of the Right Hon. Baronet's
cheers. That the late Ministry had done so—(Renewed
cries of " Hear, hear," from the Ministerial benches)—
but it was proposed under very different circumstances,
lifter a Committee of the House of Lords had sat for four
nonths on the state of Ireland.—(Hear from the Opposi-
tion.) When the Government asked for a continuanceof a
stringent law he thought they were bound to prove a
case of absolute necessity for it. They. were bound to
show that heretofore they had exercised their power
leniently, and without injustice. They were bound to
prove that they could not with safety carry on the
public service without a continuance of this stringent
law. Such, however, had not been the case. The law
had been most shamefully abused. It bad been the
means of sending spies amongst the unfortunate peasan-
try of Ireland. These spies had induced the peasantry
to form combinations. And all this system of spies had
been carried on with the sanction of Government. He
admitted that this was a strong charge to make, but it
applied with double force to the Noble Lord the Secre-
tary for Ireland. When he (Mr. M. O'Ferrall) contrasted
the declarations which the Noble Lord had made 'on
taking office with his subsequent acts, he felt that
he had good ground of complaint. The Noble Lord
could not deny that such acts as those to which
he (Mr. M. O'Ferrall) had alluded had occurred within the
Noble Lord's knowledge. The Noble Lord could not
deny that such acts occurred in 1842, and that he per-
mitted them to be repeated in 1843 and 1844. He
would prove what he had statedt and the first case to
which he would allude was a prosecution which took
place at Armagh, in the spring of 1842. Several persons
were prosecuted under the provisions of the Unlawful
Oaths Bill. The principal witness against them stated
that he hsd made Ribbonmen by the hundred—that he
was in the habit of attending ribbon meetings, at which
he prepared the documents. This he had been directed
to do by the magistrates in the neighbourhood, The
next witness examined was a policeman named Fox,
who said he went amongst the peasantry, and by false-
hood induced them to enter into combinations. Mr.White-
side, than whom a more eloquent pleader did not live, was
the counsel for the prisoners. Judge Crampton, in sum-
ning up, said the conduct of G. Fox, the policeman, to
say the least of it, was uncommon, for he went about fa-
hrieating falsehoods. He went on to say that Mr.
Whiteside, the counsel, had preferred a charge which
was most disreputable to the Government. The news-
paper in which this case was reported did not state what
the charge was, but it was not difficult to imagine it.
The Learned Judge said he thought the charge had been
unintentionally made, but Mr. Whiteside gol up, and
said, " No, my Lord, and so far from retracting it, I re-
assert it."—(Hear,! hear.) This was a subject which the
Noble Lord ought not to have suffered to pass over
without investigation ; but no such step had been taken:
Here were a certain number of men employed by the
agents of the Government to seduce persons to enter into
this sort of conspiracies—giving them the signs and
pass-words—swearing them in to become Ribbondmen,
or members of some wicked society or other, and then
betraying them to the Government ; who, in their turn,
look upon them as most efficient officers, and promote
and reward them accordingly. Ho (Mr. O'Ferrall)
should not think of opposing t'he renewal of this Bill
if he could not justify his refusal of the powers it gave to
the Government by the statements he had made to the
House. The laws, he 'admittod, should be administered
with strictness, with energy, and with vigour, but at the
same time with justice ; and proof should be given to
the people that the law was not enacted for vengeance,
but for protection. The Government should, by the
enactment of their laws and the administration of them,
satisfy the people of Ireland, as the people of 'England
were satisfied, that the law was their best friend, and
that, so long as they kept within its pale, it would be
their never-failing safeguard. They should induce the
Irish people to have faith in it. But at present they had
io confidence in it, and they were justified ' • for when
they contrasted the trials of the Chartists and other per-
sons in England with the trials for political offences in
Ireland, they saw too plainly that justice meant a very
Efferent thing in one country to what it did in another.
—(Hear, hear.) In the trials in England every man, in
every quarter, was satisfied that the law was adminis-
tered with mercy and justice, and with the simple and
proper view of vindicating the law and maintaining the
institutions of the country - but he (Mr. O'Ferrall) was
satisfied that this creditable construction could not be
put upon the administration of the law in Ireland. But
it would be urged against him, that he had been a party
to the original enactment of this law. He admitted he
had. But the state of the country was very different now
to what it was at that period. Why, there was more pro-
perty destroyed in one month now in the two counties of
Suffolk and Norfolk, than had been destroyed in the
whole of Ireland for many months past—(Hear, hear)
—and yet they heard of no' such Act as this being
passed for the governing of the English people.—(Hear,
hear.) He (Mr. O'Ferrall) was at present sincere in his
desire for the maintenance of the union, and was willing
to bear, as best he could, the unpopularity which at-
tached to all those who held such opinions, and dared to
give expression to them. The continuance of that com-
mon compact was alike cherished-by large majorities of
persons on both sides of that House; but see what an
argument was furnished against them by the enactment
of such harsh, repulsive, and unequal laws as this.—
(Hear, hear.) The Government, by their conduct,
were daily taking from those friendly to the union the
strong and useful arguments they were anxious to re-
tain, and were putting most powerful weapons into the
hands of all who now thought, or who might feel it their
duty hereafter, to enrol themselves amongst the friends
of the repeal cause.—(Hear, hear.) With such opinions
as these of their conduct and its tendency, he (Mr.
O'Ferrall) felt it his duty to move that " the Bill be
read a third time that day six months."
Lord ELIOT said the Right Hon. Gentleman had
brought a charge against the Government, which,
coming from him, was most extraordinary—namely,
that they had brought forward this Bill without going
into any explanation of its provisions. Why, the Go-
vernment of which that Right Hon. Gentleman was a
member, had not only in the year 1839 brought forward
this very same Bill, word for word as it now stood, with-
out entering into its merits, but they bad passed it into a
law without inviting or entering into any discussion upon
it whatever.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") The Right
Hon. Gentleman, too, was actually one of the authors of
a Bill which, when the Government asked the House to
renew for only • a limited period, he now abused in a
most virulent manner.—(Hear, hear.) It was as well
known to the Right Hon. Gentleman, as to any one at
all acquainted with Ireland, that for fifty or sixty years
past secret societies of one kind or another, and under
one name or another—but all of them most abominable
and wicked associations—had existed in that country ;
and that`the members of them were bound by the most
horrible oaths to obey the commands, however horrid
and murderous, of the leaders of them. It was not ne-
cessary for hina (Lord Eliot) to enlarge on the evils that
had attended every step of these societies. It was for
the Right Hon. Gentleman himself (Mr. O'Ferrall), if he
apposed the Bill altogether, or desired any relaxation of
its provisions, to prove that these evils did not now
exist, and that if the societies did exist, they were at
least become powerless. But this he had failed to do—
or rather, he bad not attempted to do.—(Hear, hear.)
For his (Lord Eliot's) part, he should consider no mea-
sure too stringent which could, consistently with jus-
tice, put down these societies wherever they existed.
And how mild the Government effect this object, but
by Bills such as this, and by the occasional aid of the
approvers ?
Mr. M. O'FERRALL—But not of spies.
Lord ELIOT said surely there was a difference be-
tween an approver and a spy. Besides, the evidence of
an approver was rarely, if ever, relied upon, unless there
was eersoberative testimony to support it. The greatest
vigilance, and precaution were used, and whenever the
slightest suspicion of unfair play reached the Govern-
ment, the most determined measures were taken to bring
the offending parties to condign punishment. Why, in
the very case instanced by the Right Hon. Gentleman—
that of Ogle—he had been committed to gaol—he was
in gaol now—and was going to he tried on a charge of
subornation of perjury.—(Loud cries of f‘ Hear, hear.")
But the Bight Hon. Gentleman had drawn a parallel be-
tween the enactment of laws for England and Irelanfl
which would not hold. He (Lord Eliot) would ask the
Right Hon. Gentleman, in sober earnestness, if he really
meant to compare the state of Suffolk and Norfolk, with
reference to the Bill then under discussion, with the
state of Ireland? Were there any secret societies, ad-
ministering unlawful oaths, and binding men to the
commission of the most atrocious crimes in Norfolk and
Suffelk, or in any other part of England. No such
thing. A4d if there were such societies existing in any
part of England, be dare pledge his life that the con-
fidential Ministers of the Crown would come down to
Parliament and demand exactly the same extent of
powers as they considered necessary in the case of
Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) The Ministers felt it their
duty to ask for a renewal of this Bill, but
still .thei asked it only for a limited period.
The late Ministry would not, in 1839, have introduced
this measure, had they pot been convinced of its neces-
lofty, and the present measure v 54.4 nothing more than a
repetition of that Bill. He should, therefqrp, feel it to
be his duty to perfievere in the "motion, that the Bill
should now be read a third tin*
Mr. M. BELLEW supported the amendment. He
thought it was but fair that Hon. Members shonid draw
an Inference from the manner in which Government had
acted with respce4 to juries in Ireland, for the purpose
of showing how they would act in other cases. The in-
cautious manner in which the Attorcpy-General for
Ireland had made statements in that Holm, wou4-1 not
give much oocqdence to Honourable Members as to 'the
course he would pursii;,,i jf the present Bill passed.
There iym a great difference its g;ft administration
I Of justice in frelr_nd and this country; Irrt? "WALT;
was tf do from taint, but vas not the case in Lelantt.
In that country Darti,3s were loroygkit haore magistrates
of a different religion to 444PP.1.0'7 whR 911 til4t
account were prejudiced against diet% Old W9III.cI:PP
doubt be tried by ajury selected by a partisan sherift--1
(Hear, hear.) The House ought, therefore, to be more
cautious in giving power to the executive in Ireland
than in this country. This might be a small matter, but
it was one that showed the views and tendency of her

Majesty's Government. There never was, he believed, a
time when there were less private associations in Ire-
land, and he trusted, therefore, the Government would
not press the Bill. If they did he should feel compelled
to vote against the third reading.
Mr. SHELL had great objections to the present Bill,
because it would furnish to informers an opportunity of
carrying on their nefarious trade, which, but for this
measure, could not be carried on. , Whenever the Whigs
had brought in Bills that were calculated to extend
liberty, the present Government always selected them
as matter for avoidance, but when they brought in mea-
sures having a contrary effect, then they were taken as
examples.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Kil-
dare had asserted that the Bill was not only liable to
abuse, but that it had been productive of abuse, and
that too in a most serious degree. In 1842 a case oc-
curred in Armagh, where a person of the name of Ha-
gan, having incited parties to commit a crime, informed
of it. .He did not accuse the Government of being
party to such things, but they must know that such
things existed ; that informers took advantage of the
Act, and that the police had employed them had been
proved in a court of justice. Hagan, it was true, was
dismissed when he was found out ; but there were many
cases that might not be found out at all ; and that he
looked upon as substantiating their case, and, added to
this, it was well known that Ireland was a country
fertile.with informers. Had the House forgotten that,
in Kilkenny, a person, high in the constabulary, had em-
ployed a policeman to go to a printer, and induce him to
print a seditious ballad, in order that he might after-
wards prefer a charge against the man whom he had
induced to commit crime ?—(hear, hear.) Where they
had a knowledge of the people, and what was going on,
was it wise or prudent to insist upon an Act like
the present ? By the present Bill they were making
that a crime which ought only to be evidence of a crime.
The measure was only brought in from due necessity in
1839—it was not necessary in 1840, and it ought not to
exist in 1844. Let the Government follow the advice of
the Hon. Member for Kildare, and make as little distinc-
tions between this country and Ireland as possible ; he
trusted they would not avail themselves of a majority to
draw a line of demarcation between England and
Ireland.
Mr. T. B. C. SMITH (Attorney-General for Ireland)
complained that questions had been mixed up with the
present discussion in no way connected with the question
• before the House. Allusion had been made to the State
Thals, but he would not discuss the subject, except to
state that, he considered himself perfectly justified in the
observations he had made at the close of the proceedings.
With respect to the present case, the Hon. Member for.
Kildare had confounded the character of a spy with that
of an informer, although they were perfectly distinct.
After having received the information of an informer,
to make use of him. as an instrument to entrap others
into the commission of crime was unjustifiable, and no
man in that House would denounce it more strongly
than he would—(Hear, hear) —but in all prosecutions for
the administration of unlawful oaths, they were com-
pelled to prove that the words found on any person
were actually the pass-words of the particular society
.stated in the indictment, and this evidence could only be
given by an informer, who had been connected with the
society. It was impossible to prosecute without such
evidence. On this point be would read the opinion of
Lord Plunkett, who admitted the necessity of having the
evidence of the informer.—(The Hon. Gentleman read a
passage from a charge to the jury, by his Lordship, in a
trial for this offence.) He could also adduce the au-
thority of his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for
Clonmel, who, when Attorney.:General for Ireland,
conducted the prosecution in the case of " the Queen v.
Jones," in which he made use of evidence of this kind,
after stating the defects of the existing law, and the
necessity of some statute like the one under discussion.
To show that the evidence of informers was generally
admitted, he cited a case in which a man named Ken-
nedy was examined, who was proved to be of the most
depraved character, having even assisted in the comini,-
sion of murder. Having read this man's evidence, the
Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman said that no person
could be more sensible than himself of the impropriety of
employing what were properly called spies, but the dis-
tinction between one of these men and an informer must
be remembered. It must also be recollected that, in the
case of secret societies, it was impossible to arrve at any
proof, unless they got the testimony of some person con-
nected with them. With respect to the case in the
county of Sligo mentioned by the Hon. Member for Kil-
dare, the policeman's name was Ogle, and he suborned a
man to charge another with having administered an un-
lawful oath. Of that he might have been guilty under
the Act of George 111., and the present Act would pro-
vide no remedy for such a case. Under the whole of the
circumstances, he trusted there was sufficient grounds
for the present Bill.
The O'CONOR DON was glad that the Right Hon.
and Learned Gentleman had drawn a distinction be-
tvveen spies and informers, and he hoped the Govern-
ment would in future repudiate the assistance of the in-
former ; but, unfortunately, in Ireland the man who had
been employed as an informer, generally became a spy.
Being, an outcast, he was compelled to attach bimself to
the police of his district, in order to supply theno4 with
information. In the Sligo case, it was proved that the
man Kane was entirely supported by the police. The
Crown prosecutors were so ashamed of the man's testi-
mony, that they retired in disgust from the con ,an
when evidence was called to the character of th .pri-
/d-
-soner, the jury said they did not require any, a I ac-
quitted him. But the worst of these cases was, th bad
impression they left on the minds of the people. At the
previous assizes two men were transported on the evi-
dence of this man, whose testimony in this case was re -
jected. This produced a feeling of universal distrust and
suspicion, which was exceedingly injurious. In another
case, a clergyman, named Day, was fired at in the
county of Roscommon, and the parties having been
traced, it was discovered that the identical man who had
fired the shot was an informer, who had convicted several
men in the county of Louth.
Sir R. PEEL said he hoped the proposal of the Go-
vernment to continue this Bill would not lead to any
misconstruction as to their experience with regard to
the employment of spies. He did not believe there was
much difference as to the employment of persons; but
in this country, or in Ireland, to reject the evidence of
informers—of men, who, without any previous connec-
tion of the parties, who had been really and bona fide
concerned in crime, would be to defeat the ends of cri-
minal justice. He recollected that in some of the most
aggravated cases of murder, the conviction of the mur-
derer depended upon the evidence of the accomplice.—
(Hear, hear.) Look to the case of Mr. Baker. A per-
son named Keating had employed five or six persons to
murder him, and he was afterwards the person who
gave evidence against those whom he employed. He
received a reward of 2,0001., and he actually instituted
an action against the Government for not giving him
more.—(Much laughter.) The parties were convicted
but they were not executed. This wretch was con-
stantly complaining because he did not get more.
To reject the evidence of informers, therefore,
would be impossible. With regard to the employment
of spies, or persons who performed the functions of
what were called spies, be would say, that to send
men with authority to invite others to commit crime,
by entering into a secret society, and then for the Go-
vernment to avail itself of information as obtained—that
he thought that a Government which was guilty of
such an act ought itselt to be visited with a punishment
as severe as that of the guilty parties.—(Hear, hear,
and cheers.) Nothing could be more dangerous, dis-
graceful, or more calculated to bring disrepute on the
administration of justice.—(Hear, hear.) The Govern-
ment ought to be more cautious with regard to em-
ploying a man in future, who gave information of some
crime which was passed, because he would be likely to
incite others to crime, that he might make himself of
importance.—(Loud cries of " Hear," and cheers.)
Those were the principles of the Government, and the
subordinate agents of the Government in Ireland ought
to know that the Government would not countenance
any, person who incited others to commit crime ; and
that if they resorted to those acts, they would meet
with no encouragement from the Government.—(Hear,
hear.) That was the principle on which his Noble
Friend acted. Those who had once become informers,
had lost their ordinary occupation—their character was
blasted. They, therefore, wished to be able to bring
forward new cases, and on that account it was neces-
sary that the greatest caution should be used in giving
them employment in future.—(Hear, hear.) He was
sure that the convictions for the possession ofpass-words
required the greatest caution, and the Government
ought to watch the conduct of subordinate agents with
great care. The Bill would only remain in force for a
year, it would then undergo serious consideration before
it was renewed, and in the interval during which it re-
mained in force, the utmost vigilance would be exer-
cised on the pert of the Government. But he was sorry
that when her Majesty's Government came forward to
renew the :Act which was in existence when they came
into office, that that circumstance should be taken advan-
tage of in order to hold them up as enemies to the
liberties of Ireland.—( Hear.) Their predecessors brought
in the Bill, and when they were charged with indifference
to the peace of Ireland, they game forward and pointed
to this Bill which they passed for the suppression of un-
lawful assemblies. It was said that the Bill originated
in a Committee of the House of Lords, but the late Go-
vernment said was their own spontaneous act.—
(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.)" It remained in force;
and now that the present Government proposed to con-
tinue it for a year, Hon. Gentlemen opposite came for-
ward and charged them with being disposed to be tyran
nical.—(Cheers.) It therefore became necessary to tell
theitruth.—(Hear, hear,) Hon. Gentlemen opposite per-
mitted the Bill to go through the House ofCommons with-
out saying one word in opposition to it.—(Cheers,) In
the book which contained the proceedings of the Howse
on that Bill, he could not find the name of the person
who introduced it—the name of a single speaker was not
found,—(Hear, hear.) It was described, " Unlawful
Oaths (Ireland) Bill i', introduced, first reading, seoond
reading, Committee and report, third reading, and not
one of the gentlemen opposite opposed the continuance
of the Act when their friends were in power, or thought
it worth while to urge a single objection against it; and
when the Rill waq under discussion in the House of
Lords, those words, "Having an unlawfnl eacusp," which
were not in the Bill originally, were introduced lly one
who was a member of a Conservative Administration.—
(Loud cheers.) Ile read the Bill---s((sheers)—and took,
by the introduction of those words, tlap precaution
ainst the possible punishment of innocence.— (Hear,
1 nsay.) He suggested that addition, which had never
H occurred lo ou. qvgppnvn opposite—and if there
i were mitigation and secrecy evinced against the punish-
ment of innocence, that mitigation and that secrecy were
I 1 n ticreiat :t4sinagAtormonse who w.as, a illinister, ini al :o::7-
1 on.
pie.;)nn,esmeaenbyQ
YatiVO !.,-;46teinnient,—(Letid sheers.) Let them recollect
1 the imputiitiOni' they-bsstt utidn 0.4 Government, with
fs,g FV h . Bill. The Croyeininer4 r
Bill
ptphtsitvolopernac tohnetyoflOwhtihooh pihillup:ps.,
pwrhoevield, and now, when th.si Government came forward
this session to continue the. Unlawful Oaths (Ireland)
Bill, the credit of having introduced it being claimed by
. .

the Government who persuaded them, it was found out
to be an intolerable injustice to Ireland.—(Hear. hear.)
lie did not mean to say that Hon. Gentlemen opposite
might not have opposed the Bill for the welfare of Ire-
Lind ; but it was neither fair nor wise to add to the
excitement of Ireland, by imputing to the Government
intentions which they could hardly really and seriously
think they entertained.—(Hear hear.) He gave the
Hon. Gentlemen opposite all credit for the firmness with
which they had resisted the attempts made to' indnce
them to join in the repeal agitation, but, when they said
it was difficult to resist the cry for "rd peal, seeing that
there was a different law applicable to. England and Ire-
land, he begged to remind them that, in 1839, they gave
their cordial support to this very Bill.—(Cheers.) He
admitted that the criminal law of England and Ireland
ought to be substantially the same.--(Hear, hear.) He
would not contest that principle. All he complained of
was, that an attempt was made to raise what
.he called
unjust clamour against them for taking a course less
open to objection than that.which was taken by the
Government which they supported themselves.—(Hear.)
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL thought there was more of
ingenuity than candour in what had fallen from the
Right Hon. Baronet. The Irish Members supported
this Bill in 1839, when there was nothing beyond mere
conjecture that the provisions of the Bill would be
abused. Now they resisted its continuance, because
they had experience of its being abused. He }loped the
words of the Right lion. Baronet would be attended to
by the officials in Ireland, and that they would form part
of the instructions to the stipendiary magistrates. If
his Right Hon. Friend pressed his motion to a division,
he would vote with him ; but, after the speech of the
Right Hon. Baronet, he thought he would do better to
withdraw it.—(bear, hear, from Mr. Escott.) He (Mr.
M. J. O'Connell) thought the cheer of the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman was most unfair. He came down
to the House prepared to vote ivith his Right Hon.
Friend ; but he took the explanation of the Right Hon.
Baronet in the spirit in which it was given.—(Hear.)
Lord ELIOT explained.
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIN said that on his side of the
House there was every disposition to take the proposition
of the Hon. Gentleman in a fair spirit.—(Hear, heai.)
Mr. ROSS did not think there was any necessity .for
the Bill, but that there was not was owing to the exer-
tions of the Roman Catholic clergy, who set themselves
against secret societies, and the habits of temperance
wich they inculcated upon the people. •
Dr. BOWRING was ranch interested as an English-
man in this discussion. He thought.the Bill a harsh one,
but every credit was due-to the Right Hon. Gentleman
for the benevolent interprotationcwhich he put on it. He
though there was a good deal iiithe taunt of the Right
Hon. Gentleman against those- Irishmen who supported
the Bill under the late Government.

Mr. M. O'FERRALL expressed himself so satisfied
with the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet, which he
considered so much more useful than a division, that he
would not divide the 11.ouse.—(flear.) He would sug-
gest that the punishment of transportation should be
changed to two years' imprisonment.
Sir R. PEEL said it would be better to leave the mat-
ter to the responsibility of Government
The amendment was then withdrawn, and the Bill
was read a third time and passed.
POOR-LAW.

On the motion of Sir J. GRAHAM the House went
into Committee on the Poor-law Amendment Bill.

Clause 61 was agreed. to.
On clause 62 being proposed,
Mr. SCOTT objected to the clause, as an attempt to
give justices of quarter sessions power to act as judges
of assize, having to decide difficult points of law.
Sir J. GRAHAM said, that at present the board of
guardians were exposed to very unfair inconvenience as
'respected the debts due to them. The persons of the
guardians themselves were not responsible for debts in-
curred, and even when actions were decided in the cre-
ditor's favour, there was no property to be seized. Al-
though a novel enactment, it was a necessary one.
Mr. DARBY objected to the clause, because it gave
no power of appeal.
Sir J. GRAHAM postponed the clause, for the pur-
pose of taking the matter into consjderation.
On the motion of Sir J. GRAHAM, clause 63 was
struck out.

Clause 64 was agreed to.
On Clause 65 being proposed,
Captain PECHELL said he had yesterday called the
attention of the Right Hon. Baronet to a case in which a
woman, wishing tosee her relation, who was about to be
confined in a workhouse, was not allowed access to her.
lie wished to know whether the Right Hon. Baronet had
given that subject his consideration with a view to some
future regulation ? He also complained of the employ-
ment of the inmates of workhouses in grinding bones,
and hoped the Right Hon. Baronet would express his
disapprobation of such a system.
Sir JAMES GRAMAM said that, with every desire
to superintend the working of the poor-law, it was im-
possible for him to attend to every minute regulation.
Power was granted to the guardians, subject only to the
control of the guardians, and he was persuaded that in
every well-regulated workhouse, admission in cases like
that mentioned by the Hon. Gentleman would be granted.
With reference to the introduction of bone-grinding in
'workhouses, he had last year, he did now, and he would
occasions, express his dissent to the use of that
siiiitriclliv,employment.—(Hear, hear.)
•-The.clause was then agreed to, as were clauses 66
and 67. •

Schedules A and B were also agreed to.
Sir J. GRAHAM than brought up the following
clause to inserted instead of clause 14 :

" And be it enacted, that no owner of property shall
be entitled to vote as such, under the provisions of the
said recited Act, either in person or proxy, during the
year following the 25th day of March in any year, un-
less before the Ist day of Febinary next preceding such
25th day of March he bad given to the overseers the
statement required by the said Act, signed by him, nor
unless such statements contain a description of the nature
of the interest or estate he may have in such property,
and a statement of the amount of all rent-service (if any)
which he may receive or pay in respect thereof, and of
the persons for whom he may receive or to whom he
may pay such rent-service ; and no person shall be
entitled to vote as proxy until fourteen days after he have
made his claim so to vote in the manner required by the
said Act; and no person shall be entitled to vote as
proxy for more than four owners of property in any one
parish (except he be a steward; bailiff, or land agent, or
collector of rents for the owners of property for whom
he may be appointed to vote); and no appointment of
proxy shall remain in force for a longer period than
two years from the making thereof, excepting only in
the case in which an owner appoints his bailiff, steward,
land agent or collector of rents to be his proxy; in
which case such appointment shall remain in force so
long as the proxy may continue to be such bailiff,
steward, land agent, or collector, and while such ap-
pointment remains unrevoked."—Agreed to.
Clause to follow clause 14 :
" And the overseers of every parish containing a
population exceeding two thousand persons, according to
the last enumeration of the population published by the
authority of Parliament, shall, on or before the sth day
of the month of February in ,every year, enter in the
book to be from time to time provided for the purpose
the names and addresses of all persons who, before the
Ist day of the said month of February, have given such
statement or made such claims as owners or proxies as
aforesaid ; and such overseers shall allow any person to
peruse such book, without payment of any fee, at all
reasonable hours, between the said sth day and the 10th
day of February ; and- any
.person who has given
such statement or made such claim, or any ratepayer of
such parish, may, on or before the 15th day of the said
month of February, object to any other person as not
being entitled to vote as such owner, by delivering to the
clerk of the board of guardians of the said parish, or of
the union in which it may be comprised, and at the ad-
dress of the person objected te,•netice in writing of the
grounds of such objection ; and, on or before the 20th
day of such month of. February, such clerk shall send to
the overseers of such parish, notice of some day, between
the 24th of the said month and the Ist of March then
next, on which he will hear evidence in relation to such
objections, and of the place within the parish or union at
which he will attend to hearsuch evidence ; and such
overseers shall forthwith 'cause a copy of such notice to
be fixed on or near the doors of all churches or chapels
within such parish and at all the usual places of affixing
notices of parochial business ;' and such clerk shall at-
tend on the day and at the place so appointed, and shall,
in the presence of all persons who may think fit
to be present, 'hear any matter adduced in sup-
port of such grounds of!' objection, or in' oppo-
sition thereto, but none others ; and the overseers of
the said parish shall then and there attend and produce
to such clerk the rate-books of the parish for the whole
year preceding, and shall answer all such questions as
such clerk may put to thetn..or any of them, touching
the matter of any such objection ; and such clerk shall
retain in the said book the name of all persons to whom
no objection has been duly made, and of all persons ob-
jected to, unless the party objecting have appeared in
support of his objection ; and when the name of any
person has been duly objected to, suck clerk shall re-
quire proof of the right of such person to vote, as owner;
and in case any matter be adduced in support of the
objection, and the right of the person objected
to be not proved to the satisfaction of such clerk, he
shall expunge the name of such person from
such book ; and such clerk shall have power to adjourn,
from time to time, and administer an oath to the over
seers of any parish, and to all persons attending before
him, claiming a right to vote as owners, or objecting to
such right, and to all witnesses who be tendered or ex-
amined on either side ; and such clerk shall write his
initials against every name struck out, and sign his name
to every page of the said book ; and the persons whose
names as owners aro retained by such clerk in such book
shall be deemed to be the persons entitled to vote in
othery•ear
person follow-
ing the 4fourd tnhoe
shall be deemed to be so entitled : provided always, that
such parish,4th oarss.ofwanroeirlsnoefstprponpaeurhtlyg,,
the said Commissioners may, if they see fit, by order
anger their hands and seal, direct the guardians of such
Parish or union to appolat some person other than the
clerk to such guardians, as a paid officer, to. hear and
decide the matter of such obljectioes as aforesaid,"--
Aree4 to.
Second clause to follow clause 14:—
`f Arid whereas, by the said first.recited Act it is pro-
vided that no person shall be deemed a ratep,ayer, or be
entitled to vote, or do any other act, matter at thing as
such, under the provisions of that Act, unless he shall
have been rated to the relief of the poor for the whole
year immediately piecedin his so Nano or otherwise
acting as such ratepayer, and shall have paid the
parochial rates and assessments made and assessed upon
him for the period of one whole year, as well as
those due fromat the time of so piing or. Acting,
ei&pt 'such Its -shall' have Been made or-bor-become due
within six iiiontbsiiiiinediately preceding 'gticli voting ee•
g
acting ; be it enacted, that such pkrochlal rates and 07
sessinents sbail'be deerite4 to extend Only to rates made
for the relief of the poor:'—Agreed to.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM then proposed,_ thap Alter

clause 53 the following clause should be inserted:—
" And whereas by the said Act, passed in the 55th iear
of the reign of King George the Third, it is enacted that
if any person or persons shall desert, or run away from
any workhouse or workhouses, and carry away with him,
her, or them, any clothes, linen, or other goods, as afore-
said, such person or persons being thereof lawfully con-
victed, either by the confession of such party or parties,
or. by the oath or oaths of one or more credible witness
or witnesses, before any justice or justices of the peace,
be forthwith committed to the common gaol or house of
Correction, there to remain without bail or mainprise for
the space of three calendar months ; and it is further
enacted, that in case any person or persons maintained
in any public workhouse or workhouses established for
the relief, maintenance, and employment of the poor shall
refuse to work at any occupation or employment suited to
his, her, or their age, strength and, capacity,
or shall be guilty of drunkenness or other
Misbehaviour, every such person or persons, being thereof
lawfully convicted before any justice or justices of the
peace, shall 'thereupon, by such justice or justices of the
peace, be committed to the common gaol or.house of
correction, there to remain without bail or mainprize for
any period of time not exceeding twenty-one days, and
during such time to be kept to hard labour. And whereas
it is desirable that justices of the peace should have a
power to commit such persons as are first mentioned for
a period of leis than three months, and such persons as
are last mentioned for a period greater than twenty-one
days, in cases of repeated offences ; be it therefore
enacted, that it shall be lawful for any justice or justices
to commit any such persons as are first mentioned to the
common gaol or house of correction, to be kept there in
the manner provided -by the said recited Act for any
period not less than seven days, nor greater than three
months, and to commit any such persons as are last men-
tioned, in case such persons have been before convicted
of a like offence, to the common gaol or hbuse of correc-
tion, in manner provided by the said Act, for any period '
not exceeding forty-two days."
Captain PECHELL thought this was an excellent
alteration.

The clause was then agreed to.
Sir J. GRAHAM proposed to insert the following
clause after clause 63 :—" And whereas it is provided
by the said first-recited Act, that all rules, orders, and
regulations made by the said Commissioners, under the
authority of the said Act, shall be as valid and binding,
and shall be obeyed and observed as if the same were
specifically made. by and embodied in the same Act,'
but no sufficient provision is made for bringing such
orders to the knowledge of courts of justice : be it there-
fore enacted, that any copy of any such rule, order, or
regulation, printed by the printer duly authorised by her
Majesty or any of her royal predecessors or successors,
shall, after the lapse of fourteen days from the date
thereof, be received in evidence, and judicially taken
notice of, and shall, until the contrary be shewn, be
deemed sufficient proof that such order was duly made
and is in. force." The clause had been suggested by the
Solicitor-General to remedy a defect in the law.
The clause was agreed to.
Mr. SCOTT then proposed the following clause :
" Provided always, and be it further enacted, that
wherever overseers shall have, for the first time, been
separately appointed for any township or village, since
the 14th day of August, A. D. 1834, all persons who,
in case such township or village had been a township or
village maintaining its own poor from time immemorial,
would have been legally settled in such township or vil-
lage, shall be considered to have their place of settle-
ment in such township or village notwithstanding, at the
occurrence of the circumstances conferring any such
right of settlement, such township or village was united
with a larger district' for the maintenance of the poor ;
and every such person shall or may be removed to such
township or village, as to his or her place of last legal set-
tlement.' The clause was intended to remedy this evil.
Many townships had separated themselves from other
townships with which they were joined in the rate to'the
relief of the poor. The consequence was, that those
paupers belonging to the separated townships. who were
not resident in the parish at the time of the separation, I
could not be removed to them, and the. maintenance of
such paupers was thrown upon the other parishes. The
present clause would prevent such occurrences for the
future, and the object of the proposed clause was to
remedy the evils which had occurred.
Sir J. GRAHAM admitted the existence of the evil,
but the present measure would prevent its recurrence.
The evil, however, had as yet gone to a very small ex-
tent, and he thought that the litigation to which the
clause would give rise would be a greater evil than the
one it was intended to remedy. The poor could not be
injured, as they would have to be maintained as casual
paupers in the unions in which they were domiciled.
Mr. SCOTT knew of an instance in which forty pau-
pers were maintained by a township in which they had
no settlement, in consequence of their own township se-
parating in the manner in which he had stated. He
thought no difficulty could arise in carrying the clause
into effect.

Sir J. GRAHAM wished the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman to explain what the precise meaning of the
words " legally settled" was?
Mr. SCOTT said, settlement in a township from time
immemorial.

Sir J. GRAHAM said he would consider the matter,
and trusted they would arrange it in a satisfactory
manner on a future occasion.

The clause was then withdrawn, by consent.
Mr. R. YORKE moved the insertion of the following
clause:—" That the Commissional be not empowered
to enforce indiscriminate separation between man and
wife, and that in no instance shall they sanction or allow
separation when the application for relief shall be sub-
stantiated as arising from positive inability to obtain
work, or from physical infirmity, and not from idleness,
vice, or crime." Surely persons in a free and civi-
lised country should not be treated worse than
the slave, in a country where liberty was not so
jealously guarded, and yet it appeared from the regula-
tions regarding slaves (which the Hon. Member alluded
to at some length), that slaves were allowed to live with
their wives, and even with their concubines.—(A laugh.)
In a country which so much professed to observe the
tendency of the Bible, it was altogether anomalous that
the husband and wife should be separated by the law
under any circumstances.
Sir J. GRAHAM observed, in a jocose manner, upon
the phraseology of the clause. He did not understand
the meaning of the words " indiscriminate separation."
The Hon. Member should be aware that at present the
board of guardians had a discretion to permit man and
wife to sleep in the same apartment. He would not ad-
vocate the transfer of this power from the local boards of
guardians to Somerset-house, for the Poor-law Com-
missioners could know nothing about the particular facts
of each case, by 'which alone a just decision could be
arrived at. He did not think the Hon. Member was cor-
rect in making either the Commissioners or the boards
of guardians judges of the vice or virtue of paupers. He
must oppose the clause.
Mr. R. YORKE said he would give up the phraseo-
logy of the clause to the Right Hon. Gentleman, if he
conceded to him the principle for which he contended.
Mr. A. DARBY opposed the clause.
Mr. S. WORTLEY would also oppose it, though he
was certainly adverse to any restriction being imposed
upon man and wife in the workhouse.
Dr. BOWRING thought the clause would produce
greater evils than it was intended to remedy.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the clause
Against_it

96

Majority against the clause --90
Mr. BURROUGHS moved that the following clause
be added to the Bill, by way of rider :—" That, in the
case of any person being a widow, who shall have a legi-
timate child or children dependent upon her for support,
and no illegitimate child born after the commencement
of her widowhood, it shall be lawful for the guardians of
the union or parish to which such widow or widows may
have become chargeable, to grant relief, if they shall see
fit, to such widow or widows, although not residing with-
in the union or parish in which she or they may have a
legal settlement."

Sir J. GRAHAM gave great credit to the Hon.
Gentleman for the good feeling which dictated his pro-
position, and assured him that were he himself to be
governed by his own wishes he should not for one mo-
ment oppose it. But a good principle of the law was
at stake and his sense of duty compelled him to maintain
that principle. Relief of this sort to non-residents was
a wholly new principle—one never heretofore recognised
—and which the House should pause about before con-
senting to engraft it on the present Bill. In some cases
relief to non-residents was allowed, as in the first six
months of widowhood. A departure from the'principle
would entail boundless expense on the rate-payers.
Mr. SPOONER regretted that the Right Hon.
Baronet would not consent to the amendment, as the law
at present inflicted in many cases very grievous hard-
ship. The expense to the parishes was very much in-
creased by it.
Mr. HAWES said the law at present gave sufficient
latitude to meet such cases.

After a few words from Mr. BROCKLEHURST,
Mr. T. EGERTON said that these cases were found
principally in the manufacturing districts, and it fre-
quently happened that a small allowance from the agri-
cultural union would enable the widow and children to
support themselves.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that this was neither more nor
less than applying this small amount in aid of wages in
the manufacturing districts.
Mr. T. EGERTON explained that the children were,
enabled to support themselves ; the widow alone re-
quired the assistance.
Sir J. GRAHAM :still thought it amounted to the
same thing.

Mr. BANKES thought the recommendation might be
adopted without danger.

Colonel ROLLIESWIN supported the clause. He was
of (Ipiniou Ow a discretionary power should exist.
Mr. BROTHERTON thought the guardians might
have a discretionary power of giving relief to the widows.
After a short conversation, the Committee divided,
when there appeared—
For the clause

Against It

4S

Majority against Government —1
The announcement of the numberg was reeeived with
loud cheers,

The (law was then brought up, and ordered to be
made part of the Bill.
Mr. HAWES moved the following clause :—" And be
it enacted, that in every case in which a parish ',contains
more than twenty thousand persons, according to the
enumeration of the population then last published by
authority of Parliament, the cost, charges, and eNpenses
properly incurred by the officers of such parish in
malting out, preariag, printing: and collecting the lists
pertOiAs qualified serve on juries, according to tlAc
proyisicpS of the Act 6 Geo. 4, c. 50,, and wletti Thng
thereto shah be paid.and.all:owe4 to them out of-u
Aiinr,ZralAs cc On I;iud-patitsh,. together also with all
expenses properly incurred by the same officers, on the
perambulation of such parish, and -in setting up and
beeping in proper repair the -boundary stones of din.

said parish, -provided that such perambulations do not
Arise more than once in every three years."—Agreed to.
Mr. BROCKLEHURST moved the insertion of a
clause to the effect that persons of good character,
above sixty years of age, applying for relief, should not
be compelled to go into the workhouse, but should have
out-door relief granted to them.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM opposed the clause as un-
necessary. By the law, as it stood at present, the
guardians had full discretionary power to grant relief
in such cases.

Mr. TATTEN EGERTON hoped that henceforth it
Would be clearly understood, that guardians had dis-
cretionary power in such cases to grant out-door relief.
In the North of England the general opinion among
the guardians was that they had no such power.
Colonel ROLLESTON recommended the Hon. Member
to withdraw the clause, as it imposed greater restric-
tions on the boards of guardians than they were under
at present.
Colonel WOOD assured the Hon. Member, that in
the South of England, the guardians generally exercised
that discretionary power. Every magistrate in that
part of the country was aware that he could make an
order for out-door relief for persons above sixty years
of age.
Mr. BROCKLEHURST, on the distinct understand-
ing that the same system should be pursued in the
North of England, would withdraw the Clause.
The clause was accordingly withdrawn.
Mr. DARBY, in the absence of Mr. Alderman
Thompson, proposed the clause of which that Hon.
Gentleman bad given notice, empowering the Poor-law
Commissioner:, or the Secretary of State for the Home
Department, to detach parishes from one union, and
annex them to another.

Sir J. GRAHAM said he disclaimed, as Secretary of
State, all discretionary power, and preferred its being
vested in the Poor-law Commissioners, who were the
best judges, and who would beheld responsible for their
acts. Be would put
.a clause into the hands of the
Chairman—an amended clause—ronveying the purport
of that proposed. The Right Hon. Gentleman then
proposed the amended clause.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER opposed the clause.
Mr. S. WORTLEY supported it.
Sir J. GRAHAM explained the effect of the clause,
which, he said, would remove the restraints from the
discretion of the Commissioners with respect to the dis-
solution or unions, which at present required the assent
of two-thirds of the guardians. The relative rights of
parishes would remain the same as under the exist-
ing law._ .

. .
Mr. BANKES opposed the clause, and urged the im-
propriety of discussing such important provisions at so
late an hour of the night. In his opinion, the clause did
not go far enough.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he could assure the House he
had not brought up the clause until after the most
'mature and anxious consideration of the evil it was in-
tended to remedy. There certainly had been an original
imperfection in the working of the Bill, arising from in-
experience, and this was the cause of the too large
extent of some of the unions. The remedy, however,
must be applied with discretion and care, and he hoped
the present clause would prove a gradual, but adequate
remedy fur the evil complained of.—The clause was then
agreed to.
The preamble of the Bill was then agreed to amidst
loud cheers, several Hon. Members congratulating Sir
James Graham on the excellent temper and considerate
feeling he had shown throughout the whole proceedings
in Committee.