The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-18 00:00:00

13tOpe—i to allow to the Poor-law
their eyes, thought
Contniitsioners with respect to the salaries to be
given to those different descriptions of clergymen.
They knew that they had to legislate for
a country in which there were large
classes of inhabitants of one religious persuasion,
among whom there Were fortunately very few persons
who were likely to be paupers in a workliOuse-4hat
there were other classes, of another religions denomina-
tion, of whom it was probable there would be very large
numbers occasionally in workhouses, and that there
were a third class, of whom also fortunately there
would be but comparatively few individuals obliged to
resort to workhouses. The Legislature also knew
that these different classes prevailed in great va-
riety of numbers in different parts of the country,
and that one general rule would not apply
to all. They, therefore, left to the Commissioners the
power of exercising their discretion according to the
best of their judgment. Ile (the Duke of Welling-
ton) believed that that was a perfectly pro-
per and Ootind discretion to be allowed them.
The clergymen to be appointed to the situations in
question were the c!ergymen of the parish in which
the poor-house was. The duties to be performed were,
in many instances, very extensive, and in others
they were still more extensive. And what
was the rule the Commissioners laid down with re-
spect to these salaries ? It was this ; that the maximum
salary should be 651. a-year, and the minimum
251. a-year (as we understood the Noble Duke).
The circumstances of that Country rendered it
necessary to assemble large bodies of persons in
workhouses,. in order to administer to their re-
lief. It was desirable to afford them the benefit
of spiritual instruction, and the public were
willing to defray' a part of the expense which
might be incurred for that purpose. If there were only
one or, two individuals, it could not be expected that
the same sum would be expended as far a larger
number. Under these circumstances, though he did
not wish to treat the question of his Noble Friend with
disrespect, he trusted that it would not succeed.
I He would suggest to the Noble Lord that the best
course would be to bring forward a Bill for the re-
peal of the clause, when he would have an oppor-
tunity of stating the views he entertained upon this
subject.
The Earl of CLANCARTY explained.
The Marquis of NORMANBY said that consider-
ing the official connection which he had had with the
first working of the Irish Poor-law, he trusted
that he might be allowed to express the very
great satisfaction which he felt at the manner
in which the Noble Duke had met the motion
of his Noble Friend.—(Hear.) In spite of some
flattering expressions towards Mr. Nichols, any
person who heard that address must be con-
vinced that it would be, impossible for Mr. Nichols,
or any other person holding a similar office,
to discharge the duties which devolved upon . him,
unless .such motions were met in the manner which
"the present had been by the Noble Duke.—(Hear.)
The Noble Earl had not only moved for a repeal of
the Irish Poor-law Act, but he brought charges of
partiality and favouritism against those who had the
administration of the Irish Poor-law, and accused
them of disregard to the interests of the Esta-
blished Church. Ile did. not desire to comment
severely on the Noble Lord, because, as he said, he

was not accustomed to address their Lordships, but
he would say the Noble Lord should not make such
charges against individuals who were perhaps
'as much attached to the Established Church
as the Noble Lord himself. The terms of the
motion were in themselves novel, and in some
parts—the Noble Earl would forgive him for say-
ing so—perfectly absurd ; and he could not but
express his satisfaction at the manner in which the
motion was met by the Noble Duke.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord BROUGHAM begged to say one word on
the subject. The Noble Earl stated his case in
very strong terms ; and the manner in which
his motion was worded, was certainly very
novel. (The Noble Lord then quoted various
passages from the motion, and showed that it
would be impossible for a Protestant Bishop to speak
to a Protestant, or for a Roman Catholic Bishop to
speak to a Catholic, unless a minute was made of it,
and laid before their Lordships.) Upon the notice
he (Lord Brougham) thought that the motion of the
Noble Viscount should be agreed to.—(Hear, hear.)
The Earl of CLANCARTY said he well recol-

lected that the Noble Duke (Wellington) had not
only recommended the production of minutes of con-
versations, with reference to the Irish Poor-law Act,
upon former occasions, but the Noble Duke had in-
sisted even upon the production of private letters. The
Noble Duke insisted that letters which were entirely
of a private nature should be laid before the House.
The Noble Duke had already insisted also upon the
production of the minutes of all conversations.
Lord BROUGHAM—Those were conversations
with Bishops, not with Poor-law Commissioners.
Earl CLANCARTY thanked the Noble and
Learned Lord for that ; but the Noble and Learned
Lord seemed to have totally forgotten, that the
minutes of those conversations were already laid upon
the table of the House.
Lord BROUGHAM—Conversation with whom ?
—(Laugster and cheers.)
Earl of CLANCARTY—With the Commissioners.
—(lronical cheers.)
Lord BROUGHAM—But that is not your motion.
The Earl of CLANCARTY was understood to say
that it must have been quite clear to any one, that the
minute of the conversations he alluded to was
between the Bishops and the Commissioners.
Under those circumstances, he thought he was en-
titled to the production of the correspondence. That
part of the motion, of course, which related to the

minutes of conversation, must' be withdrawn. Per-
haps the motion had better be altogether withdrawn.
—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) With regard to what
the Noble Marquis had said about his remark rela-
tive to favour to the Established Church, he (Lord
Clancarty) thought he had a right to say that there
was no sincerity in their friendship to the Church.—
(Cries of " Order, order.") He was not out of or-
ler, for an Act of Parliament prohibited certain
Peers from voting on questions connected with the
Established Church, on account of their insincerity.
The Marquis of NORMANBY—What Act - •

The Earl of CLANCARTY—The Roman Catho-

lie Relief Bill.—(Laughter and ironical cheers.)
Surely, then, he was in order in attributing to them
incincerity in their friendship for the Church.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said the Noble
Peer was decidedly out of order.
The Earl of CLANCARTY was sorry for being
out of order. He should not have brought forward
this motion if the Noble Duke had not promised
to give him every information He had con-
sulted with the Government beforehand. He
',ad seen the Irish Secretary for Ireland that day
,n the subject, and they all alike adhered to this
practice, which he considered objectionable. If their
Lordships sanctioned the course taken by the Poor-
law Commissioners, they would be sanctioning a
.!ourse which was clearly illegal. lie withdrew his
motion, but regretted the information he required
was not aftbrded.
The Duke of WELLINGTON wished the Noble
Earl would explain to the House if he (the Duke of
Wellington) had told him that he should have the
information, after it had come to, his (the Duke of
Wellington's) knowledge what the information was
that he desired. Some months ago the Noble Earl
had asked him about information, without tell-
ng him what it was he wanted to know,
tnd he (the Duke) had referred him to the Irish Go-
.

vemment, and told him that they could gire him any
other information he might require. But when he
•atne to see the notice that the Noble Earl had given,
he felt that it was of such a description that it would
be impossible for the house to grant the informa-
tion, unless the Noble Lord moved for the repeal of
the law.
The Earl of CLANCARTY male a few observa-
tions in explanation, wljch were inaudible in the
gallery.
The Bishop of EXETER said he thought the
manner in which the'Noble Earl had brought forward
his motion deserved the thanks of their Lordships.
With respect to those Commissioners, he (the Bishop
if Exeter had heard with pain a principle §et forth
not quite in accordance with what they had heard
when the Poor-law Bill came before the House. Great
powers were given to these Commissioners ; and
when that was, mentioned, it was replied that what-
ever they did would be under the control of Parlia-
ment, they would be answerable for their actions,
tad returns would be constantly made. What
:lid the Noble Lord ask ? He had stated, and
he (the Bishop of Exeter) thought that he had
made out a prima facie case, that there appeared to
be an undue depression of the Church of England
made by these Commissioners, the smallest stipends
,pf 201. being almost invariably devoted to the Church
if England chaplains. lie (the Bishop of Exeter)
thought they were indebted to the Noble Earl for
bringing forward this motion.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE said, that this was a Bill

for the payment of chaplains, who were to be paid,
not according to their creed, but according to the
duties they performed ; and it followed that those
chaplains who had the greatest number of their creed
in the poor-houses performed the greatest services. If
ever there were a motion that ought to be rejected by
their Lordships the present was it. He, therefore,
quite agreed with the Noble Duke in opposing it.
Motion withdrawn.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented a
petition from a place in Wiltshire, for a repeal of the
duties on corn and provisions.
Lord MON'rEAGLE presented a petition from
Congleton, in Cheshire, signed by about 3,000 per-
sons, for a repeal of the Corn-laws.
Lord DUNCANNON moved for certain returns
relative to the appointment of deputy-lieutenants and
deputy-sheriffs in Ireland.
Their Lordships then adjourned.