The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-04 00:00:00

SLAVERY IN BRAZIL.

The Earl of ABERDEEN laid on the table a Bill to
give effect to the convention lately entered into between
this country and Brazil for the suppression of the slave
trade, which was read a first time, and ordered to be read
a second time on Monday.
BANKS (IRELAND).
_ .

The Earl of

RIPON moved the committal

this Bill. He said the Bill would place the banking
system of Ireland upon a perfectly satisfactory
footing, and prevent the people of Ireland from being
exposed to over-speculation through an excessive issue
in the currency.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE entertained no ob-

jeetion to the prin of the Bill. On the contrary, he
thought it was a Bill founded upon good principles, but
he wished to point (nit a defect in one of its (let-ills.
The present five banks in Ireland were permitted to issue
beyond their average circulation only on condition that
they had specie in their coffers to meet the additional
amount, He considered the Hibernian Bank and the

Royal Bank were entitled to the same privileges cn the
s tine security. Thoy were banks which had conferred
the greatest advantage on the community, and he saw
uu ryason why their circulation should be restricted.

lle considt,redit was a case of great hardship, if not in
justice, to do so. If the Noble Earl opposite (the Earl of
Itipn) would nut introduce a clause to that effect, he
should feel bound to do so himself when the Bill was in
Commitve.

Lord MONTEAGLE agreed with the general prin-
ciple of the Bill, but there were one or two of its minor
details which he should be glad to see altered in Coin-
roittee. The Bill gave to joint-stock banks, having
thirty or forty provincial branches throughout Ireland,
power to establish a metropolitan circulation ; and, in his
opinion, most unwisely so. He should not, however, make
any attempt to alter the provisi•ms of the Bill in this
respect, but he would advise the great joint-stock bank-
ing companies of the sister kingdom not to participate in
a metropolitan circulation, or they might rely upon it the
experiment would prove an utter failure, and give rise
to the existence of oo small distress in Ireland.

Tho Earl of RIPON spoke a few wordi in reply, and
their Lordships afterwards went into Committee on the
Bill.

The whole of the clauses were agreed to, and the
Hou.e having resumed, the Noble Chairman reported
accordingly.
Tha Mil was ordered to be read a third time to-
morrow.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY gave notice of his
ntention to-morrow to move for certain returns relating
the South Sea Fisheries.

ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE.
Lord DEN lAN moved the second reading of this Bill,
the object of which was to repeal that part of the crimi-
nal law which makes it imperative on the judge to pass
a particular sentence on convicted criminals.
Lord CAMPBELL highly approved ofthe three clauses
to which his Noble and Learned Friend referred. He
thought they would be a great improvement on thecriminal
law. With respect to one clause he must object to it. If a
man held no his hand, or committed the most trivial of
a diAcretiohary power existed even for that small
off,nce to imprison the criminal for three years, either
with solitary confine Went or hard labour He thought
that clause ought to be greatly modified, if not struck
out altogether.
After a few words from the Earl of DEVON,
Lord BROUGHAM thought that the present Bill
was a great improvement on the law. The meaning of
it was not that of a trivial assault, but that of a great
assault, which should receive an adequa•e amount of
punishment. He thought, however, that the amend.
ments could be introduced in Committee.
A desultory conversation thou ensncd, in which the
Lord Chancellor. Lord Broughon, Lord Campbell, and
Lord Denman, took part.
The Bill was then read a second time.

The WeNt India Islands Relief Bill was read a third
me and pasted.

S,.veral-Bills were advanced a stage, and their Lord,
Ships

Hi ;17SE OF CO !WON S, Jul!, 3.
SPEAKER t 001: eha:r shortly lefore Four.
rke Lwds' atnelidm,rA6 to Op!. N,o and Dar-
ington Railway 8,11 (BrApiliog Junction) were agreed
on the, motion of Mr. 1101)80N HINDU:.

'fbe Lords' arncrithntws k the Edinburgh and Glas-
gow Railway wf.re agr,ed to.

The Forth and (jiy,ie N4vigation and Union Canal
Bill was r::,7ld a third (line and passed.
c;-REAT IVES rEUN RAILWAY.

• ___.
On the motion that the Irish Great Western Railway
Bill he read c third time,
Mr. kV ARBUR PON said he had, on a former occa-
sion, ealkd tite attention of the Government to the fact of
the 11Jus- respect to this measure against th,:
opinion of the Orders Committee; and the First
Lord of the Treasury had declared that the House
ought to kreh a tight rein over this Bill. He had,
however, not peryeived that arty dilferenee had
been tnale with respect to this Bill tlhtti to others,
the prtyieedingA i t which had been regular. lle
had reminded the House of these facts, and in so doing
he !tall only done his duty, and having done that he left
the House to d t whit they thought proper with the (till.
L •rd G. SOMERAET was nit in the House wnen
the Bill was propose; Lr t s-c or h.- shouLi
has, (.9,11,1 the •!:" t%e t„;
eo»n,et-,1 Ow kne,sur, the egitt thitt
a very bad preeenLii; Otani set with respect to this
measure, and one that he lt,:pd the House would not in
future follow.

Mr. LABLATC HERE was in the Holm when the Bill
was read a see3nd time, but he believed that Lis worthy
friend who moved it, did it in so modest a manner, that
no 111,mber, with the exception of himself and the
Speaker, knew that it had been read a ,:e!cond time. He
hoped the eireurn4anee7 th.tt h d a; t.,:•11:1A the progrels
of this int,asure nev-r place again.
rtf, Bill was then r.,ad a Olin' time. _

Mr. F. FR t;:NCEI prep )se-: several &awes. which after
some short discussi,►n, were referred t,► the Standing Or
der Committee, and the further proceedings ou the 8,11
were postponed tiU to morrow.

The Bermondsey Improvement Bill was read a third
time and passed.
BRIDGEWATER NAVIGATION AND RAIL-
WAY BILL

The Lords' amendments to the Bridgwater Navigation
and Railway Bill were agreed to.
WATERFORD AND KILKENNY RAILWAY.
The Lords' amendments to the Waterford and Kil-
kenny Railway were agreed to.
The Bristol Parochial Rates (No. 2) Bill was repotted.
SOUTHAMPTON AND DORCHESTER RAIL-
WAY.
_ _ _

The Lords' amendments to the Southampton and Dor.
chaster Railway Bill were agreed to.
LUNACY.
__ .._

Mr. T. DUNCOMBEpresenied a petition from Capt.
Digby, of the Royal Navy, complaining of being forcibly
taken out of his house, and taken to a lunatic asylum,
where he was deprived of all communication with his
friends, and kept in confinement sixteen weeks. The
petitioner prayed that, before the Lunacy Bill passed,
a Committee might be appointed to inquire into the man-
ner in which persons were used that were charged with
being lunatics. The Hon. Member presented several
other petitions from different individuals to the same
effect. [The petitions were ordered to be printed with
the votes, the Hon. Member giving notice of his intention
to found a motion upon them.] The Hon. Member also
presented a petition from Dundee, complaining of the new
Poor-law Bill for Scotland, and especially that no provi-
sion had been made in it for the able- bodied poor ;
a petition from Edinburgh, which prayed also that a
clause might be added to the Bill, declaring that the able-
bodied poor in Scotland were as much entitled to relief
as in England ; a similar petition from Aberdeen.
MONEY GRANTS TO DISSENTERS.
Mr. BRIGHT presented a petition from 320 Baptist
congreg ,lions assembled in Leicester on the 27th June,
praying the House to withhold from Dissenting congre-
gations the Parliamentary grant, better known as the
Regiwn Donwn ; also a petition from a gentleman in
Cheshire, complaining that his servant, who had been
ordered to set traps to catch rabbits, was fined 101. on
the prosecution of the Rev. James Mannering. He
prayed the House that some alteration might be made
in the game-laws, in so far as private property was
concerned.
MEDICAL BILL—SHORT TIME BILL.

Lord J. RUSSELL presented a petition from the
practitioners of London in favour of the Medical Prac-
titioners Bill ; also a petition from the wool-combers of
Bradford, in favour of a short time Bill.
SPIRIT TRADE IN IRELAND.

Mr. ARK WRIGHT presented a petition from whole-
sale spirit merchants in Ireland, praying for such a
modification of the law as would put them on the same
fuoting with the trade in England.
FLOUR AND BISCUIT ACT.

In answer to a question from Mr. HUTT, as to whe-
ther a new Flour and Biscuit Act would be introduced
this session, before the present one should have expired,
Sir G. CLERIC said it would be his duty in the pre-
sent session to introduce such a Bill.
SPANISH COLONIAL SUGAR.
Mr. LABOUCHERE wished to put a question to the
First Lord of the Treasury relative to a dispatch of Lord
Aberdeen, on the subject of the admission of Spanish
colonial sugar into this country.
Sir R. PEEL, having had no notice of the question,
was not at that moment prepared to reply to it.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

Mr. DIVETT then rose, and said that he had to in-
troduce to the attention of the House a matter which was
considered in the highest degree difficult even by the
Right Hon. Baronet opposite, who more than once had
stated that great caution was necessary in its consideration,
and as such it was with extreme reluctance that he was
now compelled to bring the subject before the House.
The petition of his honourable friend Mr. Jasper Parrot
had been ordered to be printed, and he trusted that the
House, after due deliberation, would come to the conclu-
sion that the pirties commencing this action had been
guilty of a gross breach of the privileges of the House.
He considered that it was an essential point that the
House should take care that an individual should not be
immeasurably harassed by proceedings of this kind.
His friend had been summoned by the Noble Lord (Lord
Ashley) to give evidence before the Committee on the
Medical (Poor) Relief Bill, and he did there give evi-
dence as he (Mr. Divett) believed in a satisfactory and
truthful manner. Before he stated more on the subject
he should refer to a precedent which was ex-
actly similar. The case occurred in the year
1696, and he would now read it to the House.
The Hon. Member then read the minutes of the pro-
ceedings to which he had referred, and said that the case
he had read furnished a clear precedent for the course
he called upon the House to take. Mr. Parrot now
came before them by petition, and claimed their pro-
tection. He (Mr. Divett) was fully aware of all the
difficulties that would surround the course he advised;
but the time had come when it was necessary
to vindicate the powers and privileges of the House.
There was no use blinking the matter any longer.
In this case it was necessary, in the first place,
to protect the person of the party who had given evi-
dence before that House, and, in the second place, to
take such measures as would secure their privileges
against future proceedings of this nature. He would
not go further into the subject at present, but move that
the party who had brought this action, with the agents
and lawyers in the case, be summoned to attend at the
bar of the House to morrow.

Mr.WYNN, who spoke sitting, and also was very in-
distinctly heard in the gallery, said, that he could not
but be astonished, after all that had taken place, per-
sons should be found desirous of trying the ex-
periment, how far they might go in committing acts in
contempt of that house.--(Bear, hear.) He thought,
however, that before they proceeded any further, it
would be well to ascertain the truth of the facts
stated in the petition. He had not the slight-
est doubt as to the respectability of the peti-
tioner '; but it would be necessary to prove
that the words which had been complained of,
had been spoken by a witness as evidence before a
Committee of the House of Commons. The House had
two courses open to them to pursue, namely, either to
take the matter up immediately as a breach of the pri-
vileges of that House, or to allow it to proceed. It
would be a perfectly good answer to the action for the de
fendant to plead that he had spoken the words complained
of as evidence given before the House of Commons. The
House might commit the plaint►ff at once, but that course
would be attended with inconvenience, as the parties re-
sided in the country. If this were not the case, he did
not think there would be any objection to the motion of
the Hon. Gentleman.

Mr. DIVETT said the agents of the parties resided
in London, and could attend the House to•morrow. The
reason he had asked the house to proceed in this matter
at once was, that Mr- Parrot was obliged to plead to the
action to-morrow.

Sir R. PEEL said that the facts of the case appeared
to him these :—Agentleman had been called upon to give-
evidence as to the medical treatment of the poor. He
had been compelled, by a warrant issued from the
Speaker, to appear at the bar of the House, to give evi-
dence as to the medical management of the poor. He
appeared, and he (Sir R. Peel) had every reason to
believe he gave his evidence with perfect consistency.
In consequence of the evidence so given that gentleman
had been threatened with an action, and the result of
that action was that Mr. Parrott had thrown himself on
the House for protection, pleading, at the same time,
that the evidence he had given was in accordance with
the exercise of his duty to that House. If those were
the circumstances of the case, he could not conceive any
stronger claim for protection. He thought that, so far
as Mr. Parrott was concerned, he had every claim in jus
tice and equity to protection. He (Sir R. Peel) cer-
tainly could not conceive a greater encroachment on
the privileges of the House than the case that bad been
brought before them. He considered that delay in such
cases was dangerous. In the late case of Howard he
had expressed his doubts as to the policy of the plan
that was then pursued ; but he thought they
were now united as to the consideration of
the method to be followed.—(Hear.) He was
not to be deterred from taking that course which he con-
sidered best.—(Hear.) It was necessary to have the
principal before the House as well as the attorney.—
(Hear, hear.) It was necessary to have him before them
to state whether the charge was true as stated—to ex-
plain whether certain words were spoken or not. The
best course would be to call on Mr. Phillips to appear at
the bar of the House, and ascertain from his own lips
the statement that had been promulgated. The Hon.
Gentleman opposite had said that Mr. Parrott was to
app..ar in court to-ni, rrow, He should not like at
present to give any decision on that matter until more
opportunity had been given for further inquiry.
Mr. DIVETT observed that by applying to a judge
Mr. Parrot might obtain further time to plead.
Sir G. GREY said, the best way would be for Mr.
Parrot to avear at the bar of the House with his at-
torney, so that the House might be put in a position of
knowing whst had actually occurred.
Mr. WARMTH II)N quite agreed that the first per-
son who sliou!ti be called b,fore the House was Mr.
Parrott, in order that he might substantiate his de-
claration. Li his petition he had stated, that never,
upon any occasion, except that of giving his evidence
before the Committee, had he spoken or published the
words charged against him. For these words so uttered
he claimed their protection —( Hear.) Everybody
who knew Mr. Parrot must be glad to find that
he came forward—though not voluntarily—to defend
the Poor-law Commissioners. He was the representative
of the board of guardians when he gave this evidence re-
specting Mr. Phillips. He understood that Mr. Parrot's
attorney was in waiting, and he thought that they ought
to hear his evidence.

Mr. DIVETT moved that Augustus Henry Moore be
called to the bar of the House.
The motion having been agreed to,
The SPEAKER ordered him to be ,called to the bar
fs;rthwith, whereupon the Sergeant-at-Arms ushered
him in.

Augustus Henry Moore, in answer toquestionsput
r Jasper
Parrott, the Speaker, stated am .
att°rnserved
on fo
Parrott, and produce a copy °1
ao-
of r declarationijk
udnied. aln dd not
did vaed
v e
make thto; copy myself, but my cl, on that gentleman upon the 26
no doubt, Coat it it a correct copy of the ddaration.
The ;ligament bore date of the 26th of June, and the
copy w4s made in my office, but not in my preienco.
it wa4 'wade about six o'ckek in the evening, after I
had len; for dinner.
Mr. DIVETT—How much further time can you have
to plead ? Answer—Four or five days.
Mr. DIVE rr —State by whom was the declaration
filed, and whose signature it bore ? Answer—lt was
served in the name of Kettle, Baker, and Grant, of 34,
Lyon-street, for Edwards and Fry, solicitors, of To!n.,s.
Mr. J. WORTLEY—Had you received any commu-
nication prior to the service of the, declaration ?
Answer—None, whatever.
Mr. J. WORTLEY—Nor any overtures to effect a
compromise, and offer reparation ? Answer—None.
Mr. MOORE was then ordered to withdraw, and on
his departure

Mr. COLLETT moved that the declaration be read
lay the Clerk at the table.
This was met with cries of " No, no," and loud
laughter, amid which the Hon. Member withdrew hia
motion.
Mr. DIVETT moved that Frederick Kettle, Thomas
Baker, and Joseph Humphry Grant, together with Mr.
Phillips. be summoned to appear at the bar of the House
to-morrow.
Sir G. GREY suggested that Monday would be a
more convenient day.
Mr. DIVE rr having consented to adopt this recom-
mendation, the motion was passed without opposition.
POOReLAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On the motion for the committal of this Bill.
Mr. OSWALD stated that he had great objection to
this Bill. It appeared to him that the board to be con-
stituted by this Bill would ultimately resolve itself into
a paid commission. The board would not answer the
purpose for which it was iittt-nded. It would impede the
operation of the poor-law system, and greater difficulties
would be raised In the management of the poor than be-
fore existed. Believing that Lien tland had nut had time
SO make up its mind on this important matter, and be-
lieving that there was no necessity for this Bill this ses-
sion, he should move that the Bill be committed that day
three months. (The Hon. Gentleman was scarcely au-
dible in the gallery.)
Mr. SHEIL said he had a question to ask as to—
The SPEAKER said that if the question the Right
Hon. Gentleman had to put had reference to the Bill
now under discussion, he might put it, but otherwise he
could not.
Mr. SHEIL said it had not reference to the Bill, and
therefore he would not put it.
Mr. EDWARD ELLICE said he would make but ts
few observations upon this measure. If the Hon. Mem-
ber who had brought forward this measure was unpre-
pared to sustain it by a long speech, so also was he (Mr.
Ellice) unprepared to give the measure his support. The
measure of last year was supposed to contain provisions
for relieving the state of the poor of Scotland ; it would,
on the contrary, make matters worse, or leave them as
they were, or at any rate it would afford no real relief
to the poor of Scotland. His opinion was, that the pro-
per step would have been to improve the parochial
boards. It was necessary that some new authority
should be introduced ; but this new Bill does not do that
sotisfactorily. An attempt had been made by this Bill
to constitute a new machinery for the management of
the poor of Scotland. The condition of the poor was
different in different localities. The poor in the great
towns might he managed under the authorities which
at present existed—the poor in the manufacturing and
rural districts must be managed on a principle wholly
different, and the poor in the Highlands required a p-culiar
system of their own. He thought his Right Hon. Friend
would have done better by providing for these cases.
He ought to have, as in this country, local grants for
the wants of different localities. He did not approve of
that centralisation which this Bill promoted. Why could
not Glasgow, Edinburgh, Perth, and Dundee, be legis-
lated for by local Acts, and their large pauper popula-
tion thus provided for. The corporate authorities of
these towns and cities would, he felt assured, administer
to the wants of the poor in a proper manner ; but he
had no objection to their being restricted by any rules
and regulations which might be deemed advisable. He
entreated the Right Hon. Baronet to be cautions in his
appointments through fear of creating jealousy by se-
lecting incapable, indiscreet, or imprudent men. If that
course be practised in Scotland, a set of things would
arise which would render the poor-law inoperative. He
would ask him to postpone this measure, seeing that
there was an absolute want of some means of improving
it. The measure would only make the present confusion
in Scotland still more difficult.
Mr. S CRAWFORD believed that it was necessary for
him to say a few words, inconsequence of statements w hich
he made on a former night, and which were contradicted
by an Hon. Member on his side of the House. Since.
that time he had had an opportunity of referring to the
evidence of the Scotch Commissioners, and of inquiring
whether his statements were supported or not by that
evidence. It stated that there was au insufficiency of
relief in that country. The lion. Gentleman then re-
ferred to the evidence of Mr. Duncan Roes. the Rev. A.
M•Pherson, Mr. M'Kenzie, and several others in sup-
port of his own statements. The paupers to whom the
small allowances were given were those who were de-
scribed as being disabled, and incapable of work. This
description was given by the steward of the Duke of
Sutherland. The poor in Scotland were provided for by
being permitted to beg. Those who could not beg
themselves were supported by those who were capable
of going about the country seeking alias. This system
was opposed by the Duke of Sutherland, as ap-
peared in the evidence taken on this subject.
The Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to read extracts
from the,rninutes of evidence taken beh,re the Poor-law

Commissioners with respect to the effects of the clear-
ance system. According to the evidence of Mr. Donald
APDonald, of Lochinvar, who occupied 30,000 acres of
land, that gentleman employed only eleven shepherds.
This, continued the Hon. Gentleman, was one of many
similar cases which that report revealed, and which lie
would show to the House by other and most unexcep-
tionable evidence. _ The Hun. Gentleman here read ex-

tracts from the evidence of several clergymen in Suther-
landshire, showing the general prevalence of the
sheep-walk system, and the deplorable ends which he
contended it had brought upon the whole population.
With regard to the fishing village of Helmsdale, of
which so much had been said, it had fallen off to a very
great extent, and, at the present time, scarcely employed
any fishermen belonging to Sutherlandsbire. They
nearly all came from the neighbouring counties.. With
`regard to the rental of Sutherland, it had been asserted
that more than 60,0001. above the sum realised had been
spent in improvements from 1811 to 1833. If this was
so, it seemed that there was no proof of the improvements
for the rental in 1815 was 33,8741.; it was now only 35,5501.
It had been stated the morals of the people were im-
proved, and the proof given was, that illicit distillation
had almost entirely ceased. But there might he other
reasons for this change, for if the country was one entire
pasture field, where were the opportunities for illicit
distillation ? He should like to see an industrious po-
pulation as the proof of the prosperity of a country, but
the evidence in this case showed that the country had
been almost depopulated. It was, in fact, inhabited only
by sheep and shepherds. In 1801 the population was
53,117, and now it was only 24.718, and this, be it re-
membered, in a country counting 1,120,000 square acres.
It used to be stated that the paupers were well attended
to, but this bad been shown to be a delusion. He hoped
that the principle " there is no room for the poor man
would be discouraged in the county of Sutherland.—
(Hear, hear.) Would they then by this law place the
power of relieving the poor in the hands of the local
authorities there, or if they did place that power in
their hand., should they not at least take care to place
them sufficiently under restriction ? He did not in these
remarks wish to cyst the leait reflection on the Duke of
Sutherland, for by all reports his Grace was the vary
last person who would oppress the poor man. He would
conclude by supporting the motion of the llon. Member
for Glasgow.

Mr. Wen said that the view taken by the lion.
Gentleman related to the &feats in the county of Suther-
land in particular, and in Scotland in general, and he
would at once admit, that no man could be more sensible
than he, that the poor-law, as at present administered,
was most defective. having stated this, he would at
once proceed to consider the allegations which had been

advanced against those who n.d;iiillistered affairs in the

county of Suth-rland—and first, it had been alleged that
the Duke of Sutherland only gave relief to the extent of
6/. per week in each parish. This was not the fact. He
(Mr. Loch) would maintain that his Grace, under the
present system, administered charity to the poor in as
great, if not a greater degree, than any othor propri,,tor
He could state, with certanty, that no alteration hat.
taken place, with respect to the local settlements of the
men in Suth,rland for the last twenty years. He, how-
ever, did,not wish that this statement should he received

on his unsupported affirmation ; and ho would therefore
read extracts from the statistical accounts made

by the Reverend Mr. Kennedy, Minister 6f D.)rnoch.
The Hon. M*•tuber then read very considerable extracts

from the book in question to show, by th,-: evidence of
the clergymen in the different parishes, that the do-
mestic habits of the people had been greatly' irnprove4„
and that education had been greatly extended arong
them. He also read a letter from a gentleman of great
respectability in the county of Forfar, who, having
visited Sutherlandshire prejudiced against the manner in
which things were managed there, had been c mpelled to
change his opinions, and to acknowledge that a decided
improvement had taken place in the condition of the poor
in that country. Having read these extracts, he did not
think it would be necessary for him to add one word
more. He would but advert to the endeavours made by
his Grace to extend education to the people there. It
had been very difficult to get schools erected while they
'were distributed in small townships, but as they were
now collected in larger masses, his Grace had determined
on building twelve schools in connexion with the

General A—ssembly, at a cost of 2001. each, and he
also added 2001. in aid of the funds of the Ge-

neral Assembly, and, thcrefor., taking everything
in view, he contended that there was a foundation
laid in the county of Sutherland for improvement,
bothm
iignhtth emme
triaolnand
thatr
eliigniotuhs:(3l.teicaar 1817, when there
of the people.
He
was great destitution in the county, and when assistance
was given by his Grace, it was found that 408 families,
or 2,000 persons, had settled down without leave being
asksd, or rent paid ; but instead of turning them off the
land, they were assisted like the others, and the only
demand made was, that at the earliest opportunity they
should vacate the " crofts " of which they had thus
taken possession.
bn
ea nwt sa
nudnedreerr
sa, nominal eirnDetnetital,teii of
rmSd,
sae
srt htfeh.
ita„tnwl mightd eed bpyt thh iesntoet.
de-
sired result. He congratulated the Duke of Sutherland
on his being connected so closely with the moral and
physical improvement of his countrymen.
Sir J. 111•TEGGAN said that believing, as be did, that
at this late period of the session a Bill of this import-
ance could not obtain that cotisitictation which he deemed

n( eessary, he should vote for the motion of the IlOn
Member for Gla,trow.

The, LORD ADVOCATE trusted that they might be
allowed to go ) intn im this Bil!. There were

grc,at :natty erl'ickins offer,.4l on it whioh would be

taken enia eotisideratio7). H, th,•ught that they had had
plenty ~bf time since the first of April, when the Biil was
von!,ifier it,.

SHEIL said, that the most important clause is
this Bill was one which, if carried into law, would have

a most pernicious and a most fatal operation on Ireland.
It was provided that no Irishman should obtain a settle-
ment by residence in Scoland. They might tell
him it was because these hardships were imposed
upon EngliNburea. ancl -inhabitants of the Isk
of M proet f'i,:otelluien did not re
quire a v.-:itieniont ;n Ireland. In no sorb neat
they might say WrIS required by .S,oreltriren, thereibre
Irishmen, Ere,oklutren, ini",bitaiits of like 'tie of

Man, should have no settlenaeniinSentland by TCsi-
deuce. In Scotland, it an IrLininau had been residing