The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-24 00:00:00

ANATOMY ACT.

Mr,- HARDY gave notice that, on Monday next"he
would call the attention of the House to the morking of
the Anatomy Act.
BRIBERY BILL

Mr. SHIEL gave notice, that on the House going

into Committee on the Bribery Bill, he would move that
its operation should extend to intimidation as well as
bribery.

SYRIA.

Dr. BOWRING gave notice that he should, on ISlon-
day next, ask a question of the Right Hon: Baronet with
respect to Syria. _ .

IRISH- MAGISTRACY.

Mr. SHIEL rose for the purpose •of putting
a question to the Noble Lord, the Secretary for
Ireland, relative to the re- appointment of Mr. St. George
to the Magistracy of Galway. His Hoe. Friend the
Member for Perth had put a similar question to the
Noble Lord a few nights ago, and the -Honourable
Member had now gone- to Scotland. The question
was, whether it was, in point of fact, true, as stated
iu the public papers, that Mr. St. George had been
restored ? It was stated that he had some years
ago written a letter containing ofThnsivd" language,
to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, and on an applica-
cation for his restoration, it was intimated that the pro-
ceedings of Mi-• St. George were very improper, and
that it would be impossible to restore him, unless
an apology was made for the letter. He believed
no distinct answer was given by the Noble Lord on
that. occasion, but it was stated that • the papers
had not yet come over from Ireland. His. Hen. Friend
had now gone to Scotland, and nothing further had taken
place on the subject. He (Mr. S.) fat himself satisfied,
therefore, in a-king whether an apology had been made,
and whether the Noble Lord had any objection to give
publicity to the apology, in retractation ofa public offence.
Lord ELIOT thought the Right Hon. Gentleman
had misunderstood him in the answer be made the other
evening. He then stated that in 1837 Mr. St. George had
had written a letter, couched in disrespectful language,
to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He was in consequence
removed, arid the Lord Chancellor thought very pro-
perly. Shortly afterwards,. the Lord Lieutenant was ap-
plied to, to reinstate him. Ile refused to do so, un-
less Mr. St. George retracted his letter, or made
an 'apology, or gave some explanation of it.
After that the Lord Lieutenant received so many
applications from Fentlemen of the county of Galway,
of all political opinions, that the Lord Chancellor did
think htmself justified in communicating with Mr. St.
George, with a view of obtaining an. apology or ex-
planation. Mr. St. George did give an explanation,
but as he (Lord Elitit) stated before, he thought
it did not atnoarit -to an apology or retractation.
He distinctly stated that before. And he thought the
Lord Chancellor was' very much influenced in restoring
Mr. St. George by the wishes so strongly 'expressed by
the gentlemen of the country. There was no wish
whatever, as had 'been implied in another place,
to -offer any slight -to .the Marquis of Clanriearde,
but taking all the circumstances into consideration-
- that the Magistrates of Galway were of all political
nions, - the Lord 'Lieutenant did think himself_ justi-
fied in viewing the case leniently, especially after he
had been suspended for five years. He-(Lord
_did not feel justified in laying before the House any of
the correspondence.—(Hear, hear.) At the same time,
he Wished it to be distinctly understood, that no slight
1%;:1,3 intended to the then Lord Chancellor of Ireland or
the Marquis of Clanricarde.,
Mr. SHIEL then gave notice that he should move for
the papers.--(Lend cheers.)
POOR-LAW AMENDMENT BILL.-

On the Order of the Day for the House ;ing into
Committee on the Poor-law Amendment Bill being read,
Mr. LAWSON rose to move, pursuant to notice, that
it be an instruction to the Committee, that they
have power to divide • the Bill in to two parts.
He would feel justified in.giving to this Bill what would
les called a factious opposition. The Right Hon. Ba-
ronet had stated that he would introduce the measure at
the very earliest period after Easter that public business
would allow ; and a measure of such importance as the
Poor-law certainly ought not to be introduced at the
end of the session. On this ground he felt that he was
fully justified in the course which he was pursuing.
Sir J. GRAHAM said the Hon. Member seemed to
admit that he had embarked in a factious opposition.
The measure was introduced on the 11th of May, and it
had. now been before the House and the public for a
period of six weeks. A very large portion of the•mea-
sure was, indeed, introduced in the last session of Par-
liament, and many of the principal clauses underwent a
protracted discussion. The clause to which the Hen.
Gentleman objected was, he believed, that which affected
the Gilbert unions. Now the persons affected by the
Gilbert Union Acts amounted iu all to 400.000, whilst
those who'are under the operation of the Poor-law Act
amounted to fifteen millions. He put it to the House
whether they would exclude the whole people of Eng-
land from the operation of the Act, for the sake of a
comparatively - small portion. of the community. He
hoped the House would by the division give a decided
negative to the motion.
Captain PECHELL concurred in what had fallen
from the Right Hon. Baronet. However, the Right
Hon. Baronet would find that the Hon. Member for
Knaresborough (Mr. Ferrand) was not the only person
who was determined to offer this with then: ost constant
• and zealous opposition, and who would take advantage of
all the forms which the House permitted to obstruct and
protract the discussion of the Bill, in order to compel the
Right Hon. -Baronet to separate those 'parts of the Bill
which had been urged upon his-attention for that pur-
pose, and in doing which the Right Hon. Baronet would
exercise a sound discretion. He would read to the Right
Hon. Baronet a resoluticn on this subject, which had
been adopted by the people of Brighton, in public meet-
ing • assembled. It was to. this effect—" That the
members of this borough be earnestly requested to
carry out the recommendation of the Committee to vote,
against the Poor-law Amendment Bill on every occasion
and to oppose by every possible means which Parliament
allows every measure Which will have for its object the
continuance of the Poor-law Commissionese in .power."
That resolution was passed last night after *intelli-
gence- received in the borough relative to the divisions
that had taken pace in that, House before going
into CoMmittee on the Bill. It would be his justification
for following up those proccedine-s, and he should
not be diverted from the course he proposed to himself,
by any insinuations that Might be thrown out as to fac-
tious opposition to the Government.
Dr. BOWRING was one of those who certainly did
think that the original organization of this Commission
would have established a central control. which would
have proved of great efficiency and usefulness, not only
for the protection of the. rate-payers. but of the poor
and distressed population. No man had been more
strongly impressed than himself with a feeling of the enor-
mous abuses of the old law,audof the necessity ofapplying
something like a remedy to thee:. He confessed that
he watched with extreme anxiety sthe working of this
Commission ; he had had a great desire to ascertain how
far it had effected the great objects contemplated by it.
The Right Hon. Baronet was aware that on the last oc-
casion when this measure was diseussed, he (Dr. Bow-
ring) had done every thing to put the desired power
into the hands of the Government, and that he
opposed and voted against every motion brought.
forward which tended Id any impediment in their
way. He agreed with the plan of the Poor-law
Commission as originally concocted. He believed that it
was framed With a philosophical and enlarged
view, and with a real desire to ,administer to the
wants of the suffering, and to protect the rate-
payers ; he had certainly hoped that the Poor-law Com-
missioners Iv ould have given effect to their peremptory
powers in a kind, and generous, and humane
spirit. lie had occasion to see the working of the
Bill in the Borough he had the honour to represent,
and he had brought before That House, not one only, but
many cases of severe distress. He did not impugn
the conduct of the Guardians, nor did he bring any
accusation against the proceedings of the Poor-law
Commissioners, but he had thought it his duty to bring
under the consideration of the House, a state of things
which was disgraceful to the state cf society and civiliza-
tion of this country. The investigation then granted was
well and kindly meant, but the manner in which it
had been conducted had given the greatest dissatisfaction.
Neither the guardians, the rate-payers, nor the poor
themselves, were satisfied. The report which that As-
sistant Commissioner had made had given general dis-
satisfaction. A feeling had spread that the interests
of truth and justice had not been satisfied by
the proceedings of the Poor-law Commissioners.
Ile had entertained a hope that the Poor-law
missioners, knowing that their Assistant-Commissioners
had travelled out of his way to impugn the statements
• which had been made relative to the dreadful distress
existing in the district—statements which had
since been given in evidence statements to the
truth of which several Honourable gentlemen opposite_
had borne witness—he had hoped that the Poor Law
Commissioners would have put a bridle upon this
gentleman and would have ordered fairly and
faithfully to state the evidence submitted to him
so as to further the ends of truth and justice. Ile would
Confess that he had been disappointed in the
Poor-law Commissioners—grievously disappointed.—
(Hear, hear, hear) From the manner in which
the Commissioners had acted in Bolton and its
neighbourhood. From :he statement Of fueling
existing towards them in that neighbourhood, he
felt baund to say, that in that locality, lie thought
they had acted without discretion or humanity
He, was desirous of fully debating the question. He
Wished to discuss every clause. Ile was not desirous to
limit the-debate, but he could not lend himself to the
forms of the House for the purposes of obstruction.—
(Cheers.) He was willing to discuss eaery clause, but it
was not fair, nor could it be successful to use the forms
of the House for the purpose of obstructing public business.
He was willing to discuss every clause, and to improve
the measure. So far they should have his assistance ;
but he could not go with them iu that species of op-
position which was called factious, which availed
itself of certain forms of debate for an object which
after all must fail, and using an instrument which he
did not think on the whole should be employed on an oc-
casion like that.

Mr. O'CONNELL said, that having voted against
the Governtni nt upon every motion that had hitherto
come forward on that Bill, for reasons which were Ob-
vious, on account of the state of the Poor-law in Ireland,
“hich point had often been before the lieu e, he wished
to state why he should vote with the Go :eminent
on that motion. lie thought it more expedient
that the Bill should be but one Bill, as it would
then came better
.before the public. They could modify
or alter it in Committee, and they would have a more
unanimous vote against the third reading.
After sonic further observations the motion was with-
drawn.

(LEFT SITTING.)

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

- • HOUSE. OF COMMONS; -June 23..:.
AFFGHANISTAN.
Mr D'ISRAELI rose to seconl the motion. lie
thought the question was one of vast importance ;
and he trusted they would be wade acquainted