The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-25 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY MORNING, JUNE 25, 1842.

spite of_ the working of the sy stem of centralisation, that,
hotviiihstanding that the relief ha been speedy and effectual ;
but, he would ask, how was it received by the people ? He would
w
tis,h to know whether they looked upon the measure as a pre-
il. ton to them. He really thought that such was not the case.
t afile.a.red to him that the nearer they approached to volun-
emetributions, the more they relieved the rich, and granted
e relief to the poor. The new system of Poor-laws in
..-cetland was under voluntary contributions. The Act of
34ettn" VI, in some respect, resembled the Act of Elizabeth ;
„If
the
o 1
there were assessments, the working
th system was by voluwary contributions. He took the
they
ertY of making these few observations ; he would not go fur-
linto the cues ion and upon these considerations he should
ose those clauses which he considered objectionable.
Ir. ROEBUCK, who spoke in so low a tone of voice as
I° be scarcely audible, said that the objection to this Poor-
fa'T 13111 appeared to him to rise out of party conflict, and not
rust its being
thoseof a dangerous experiment ;. not. because the object
who brought it forward was mischievous, or the cir-
Qttestences attending it were mischievous, or that the ma-
ehin
erY was altogether improper and wrong, but because the
PlltY, or the Administration who brought !ha Bi forward,
the parties opposed to gentlemen opposi te,t and therefare
attempt was to get up a vulgar prejudice against thim.
ne Administration he said, at that time—he was not
fork at . all inclined to favour or praise it —brought
its boldest, its wisest, and most humane act, when it
broughtw that Bill into the House. He thought this measure
tP a retribution on the gentlemen opposite for the manner in
(iiith they dealt with the party who brought in this. Bill.—
helt ear-) They might say" hear, hear," but he was not to find
wile the conduct of the ight Hon. Baronet; he said
that at the time at which the Bill was brought into that House,
those who
borwthaeir,,sroree;.aea spirit of irritation which had told upon Bill. He okf,aittine in the places of those who broeght in the
raid whether, during the recent election, if that cry was not
hand more especially by the Hon. Member for Knares-
whe ? He knew that the Right Hon. Baronet opposite,
eiouris call statesman-like stated that this wzs a humane, audi-
't nd act of the Administration who brought.
Itti. 4. He was certain that that was the opinion then in his
'onodn',..."(l the mind bf every well thinking man of the party who
ituf.,7L'ed Winn He knew it was not the opinion of the Hon.
the -"yr 'or Knaresborough.—(Laughter.) But he said that
ttli.oetlß,oriagnlidthHe.on. Baronet lead. always expressed his determina-
bad. 'flaking to the labouring population the declaration he
(Mr. Roebuck) only regretted that that declare-
Q 4 was rather late. But he was well aware of the feeling that
Ras Prevalent round about and behind ; he must have been well
mate of the feeling expressed by !gentlemen opposite.; -he
0:0114
oil;
111)i:hilt welliio. aware of the vulgar outcry, and it was
Y on that score tt at he would wish to recal to the recollec-
n. Gentleman opposite that it was a seri-
" great le-son for any men in the State holding a respon-
e situation not to tamper in the least degree with a vital
fiestion like the present. He did not say that the Right Hon.
tie
iltlenian opposite, or those who supported him, refused the
4,cn:e,'sion of their sentiments when called upon - but what he
-7P'alned of was the party behind him who had taken
of it of that vulgar outcry, and who made use
eilett for the purpose cf taking power from those
cOtiihen pes.sessed it.. The retribution was then coming
'ro'lein, and however insignificant the "iistrument it had
IltMenced with the infliction of a two houcieech that even-
,:(llear, hear, and laughter. Now he would ask the
the e, which was called to the consideration of that subject by
that Nlemfor Finsbury,
ber what was the principle of
11
' iil? He asked them, what then was in it to give
_to
trio us outcry of destroying a constitutional principle, by.
Hon they were assailed continually on this subject? The
l‘lernher for Finsbury said the poor had a right to be
tot atained. Now, he (Mr. Roebuck) was not going to guar-
bett'ut words, or as -to what he meant by the word right,
ere,ehtas about to say this, that the law gave the poor at this
It :moment that right. That right was the Offspring of the law
" regulated by the law for the benefit of the community.
awets, for the benefit of the whole community that the poor
eeurne
`destitute should be provided for. They were to dis
lief , by which the destitute should to receive re-
ti(ihse,ti industry should be fostered and idleness put down.
(Hp
ar' bear. ) The aged, under the present law, were
for•—( Hear, hear. ) And he would defy Hon.
heetsbers who were thus declaiming upon the matter,—and
h" rhae..ke., advisedly, knowing something more of the law,
e, than sonic Hoy. Gentlemen opposite—he would defy
lawrtitesriayea
ttohat the aged poor were not provided for by the
the New le wanted them to put their finger upon. that part of
admie. l'oor-law which altered the relief which should be
the the aged poor. The aged poor, according to
RearPeavis'ulls of .the present law, were provided for, and the
he d ns would receive the approbation of the Commission—
if they not altogether approve of that Commission—( Hear)—
,T 9 graiatecl relief to the aged poor, nut of the workhouse.
A2car hear.) That was the spirit—that was the principle—
.iitt HON. AIENIBER—What is the practice ?
He ROEBUCK—Aye and the practice.—(Hear, hear.)
Ilevewteould defy them to 'show
.otherwise. They should re-
ne poor so as to maintain industrious habits whilst they
the" not foster idle ones. The aged poor, who had gone through
only toils of life, could not be accused of idleness, and they were
Ishatf,ll,l6lling the laws of nature, by givin hell support for
"c ? had done. That lie did say was principle of the
tirev:rel)°or-law. Let them point out to him how, and
tee ee that was not done. It is a breachof the law if it was
ea;] re, and the' great benefit of this law was, that they could
hrs,„ketwe the public, which they could not do before, each
gentle of that great principle.—( Hear.) He wanted to bring
4t tsettien to particulars. Ile denied distinctly, positively,
:41Y, that there a; ose out of the New Poor-law any single
-etttlent which militated against that relief to the aged poor.
di,l he wanted proof. Being a hwyer he wanted proof. He
..i,4°t want any common vulgar assertion ; he had had., so
to''4l" of that, that he was. sick of it.—(Hear, hear.) Now
the gnat, the difficult problem, which every states-
-4't4l--ancl they
were all statemen in their several
see.posi-
How were they to provide for that
1:4144t-sinude:tt
destitution which was liable to fall on certain
tbk,l" of our fellow-Countrymen ? How in providing for
whilst preventing the evils which arose from the want of
hssauecessaries of life, they should prevent, those habits of idle -
tee Which were so detrimental to society. An Hun. Member
°fse'itkier night propOsed for that purpose a grant of a million
tl. -°,3'• The Right Hon. Beronet very properly said that
f4etee'''uld be impossible, because lie, acting as a statesman,
le?„Llw tbat if that plan were admitted as a. practice once, it
„'"lZke followed. generall. Therefore, if the enacted a
be the'S.4'elief of the poor, they must consider what would
spree that law if carried into effect generally. What
ip",`° 'Pen to do with the able-bodied poor, who fell
-eklizaae tth— distress. There was a Bill passed in the reign of
:"'ritael;'.whieh arose in the following way :—A great
appbdy of
V,4lnbe„ Institutions were suddenly suppressed, and large
virhat, (." eble-bodied paupers was thrown upoh the country.
vjecl feat t° be dOne ? They were to be set to work and pro.
e
(I;neriir:"t. however, by religious houses, but by the country
anr He was not one who thought highly of the wisdom
'43' Cestw's The necessity of the moment created a re •
,nd fOr it',(l. that remedy was the Act of Elizabeth.. That Act was
kiri‘log, not the poor, but those who contributed honestly
'eseltej to their support. A great many evil. consequences
tPgaen'"iro it, and it was necessary to amend it. The con-
e'illiseei-e was, that one of the first acts of the Reformed Par-
ew, a' to meet that Act boldly in the face, and he (Mr.
'1144--' was prepared to say, despite any unpopularity which
sktroattach to him in consequence, that the framers of the
11,.tinit"Tii Act were entitled to the highest renown, both for the
Redid of the conception and the wisdom of the performance.
tide
or, therefore, hope that those who led public parties on one
4'thith it,he other, would not give in to those vulgar opinions
ale) 4th. been been raised against the New Poor-law. —( Hear,
NVoliter e Was quite sure that those Right Hon. Gentlemen
fir'ut that stronger than he did the great benefits to be derived
-aw • fdegislation. They never raised the cry against that
ee!i'ne nowpressing on their shoulder the government
"'"gdoen ed it necessary to continue the law. In
tice.°ll4try, he y,
wn k how they could best provide for the
it4rditrluils.4tea.ieitrieenr,e:;totfhu as
'time not foster the mischievous and
ethaaeramean who might live next door to the
2ne?—( Hear, hear.) How were they to solve that
e'hese(llt•ar, hear.) It was very easy to come for ward to
1'; °thine " the misery in the workhouses.—(Hear.) He knew
It 41(14,
-ti bore easy. Here was a father of a large fami!v, honest,
s euedvc
hear
every
y a
s, ae n d thrown out" of work.
c " We will immediately
h(er:i. "14'3 and giveattitaj
Ys
support in our power." His
eye,
lioer neighbour, an idle dissolute vagabond, says, " Aye,
sutone .°l7 see what I'll do."—(A laugh.) Aye, it had been
"•(00k advantage o our nature, and said he would get
life
reef idilti,_°,te,nded for. te industrious poor, and would lead a
,741)uck •a and misery. These were things which he (Mr.
„.at it tope ever would sanction.—(Hear, hear.) Aye, how
were done ? That preblern had to be solved. They
ika'h Qt to meet hi with the cry, that he was working
,11:11113etstlir constitutional privileges of Englishmen. Re-
it:lttrae,
eue
demanded iven, in
and they the way
must that the interests of the
iete"'''Y de, give relief, because
triti he ats of the country required it. That was his view,
,l'e'unethi„wa' not to be put out of it. Then he was met by
we thee"g„frons the Hon. Member for Knaresborough, about
fikuelth -didmugs of Somerset House, who, having made a Report
not please the Hon. Member, the Hon. Member,
laa 1/eise legislator, said, he should oppose the Bill.—( Hear,
'h°l4Cebler,•) Having determined the mode in which relief
:6 'eft, u.urninistered the question was, how get to machinery
that tti:l9 Its administration best. They found that a Board
eget a'e'lans was liable to certain mischievous influences, and
`,eterta' fully demonstrated in 1829 and MO. It was then
thight L'xied that a centralpower, the term " centralization "
th''Y " gratifYing theears of Gentlemen opposite—that
°teen ebould has o e .tral ower, which should be
setinaele4ceed, by alocaal circumstances,cn_ and which should
14°,414 nuten,ly of party. He ( ler. Roebuck) thought it
e-"e ueen titl in other hands.—( Hear, hear. )
-4(143't- )4 was, that would have been better placed in the
th ut the
all Secretary of State_(Hear, hear)—but was he,
0 q el with the principle itself ? Not at
heft a believ°ecfutharart the three gentlemen were by far the
-eelti4it'Z''!`tn which had yet been made for the due adminis-
'l.enl at law. nis (Mr. Roebuck's) idea was only a
h:ttegie
and he was not at all certain of its results
kilow that great advantages had arisen from the
"etri,h Coramission and however great the outcry against
,i,""Pulatrbought more'advantagehadbeen done to the labouring
ottitin-Irlatt)ek
itheir clear understanding than by say other three
4tre wov,r f eguotn. However much libe.lled they might be
zie.tt_e_s_tnhoe
4,,o.u_etrei:i3i
,s
he would
denunciations against them—however
would say, that no one man—no three
4,:nueb f:,.‘11 nen in that House,. or out of it, had ever done
It' ware (1"' the honest, industrious man, as those sF three men.
bot Wes 'eciessi°ltn,. answer to that, if they could give him one.
th 6tinpi to grant relief to the destitute p00r..,
eam„ with regard to the demands of the it), 'es, but also with regard to the interests of th.e c 0...
ma-
th Renerall
wh cif }• And how could that be better am omptisn.
l'l'Nsinn. some restriction on the ranting of that relief
hone Wold render •
s, .'t
but
it not more agreeablegthan. the returns of
4a, tltute‘;"l y, but which should at the same time lend to the
4ftne te_ Means of relief—(Hear, hear)—alwa at the
the etollecting that the labouring aged poor, being out
ee'refet: n re ternptation to idleness should have a generous,
ru't cal' a.." ever watchful support with regard to their feelings
lath'ft")rt? That did not in any way militate against the p_rin-
e N
ew Poor-law. 'I hat being his view of the New
w, a 5 not 'r belt g his view of the institution of the Commission
ePurnent,
aZ", to vote for deferring its permanent este-
:4.e, was theirur the only. quarrel he had with the late Geo.terti-
41i. i?iithie._. putting it off from year to year, and not firmly
ettotsteriatc It.. He (Mr. Roebuck) would have perilled his _ n existence en that law and he would have left to the
;;,:,,t.lo:blilaw
tnysithenetnh.
el
atr;aroiaene(ti,. if he would have taken it, the odium of
otlftezesolution of making that. law the permanent,
The outer y which had been raised
had not been raised by the industrious poor,
',".r!thes ha, , for. party purposes. Certain parties in the
htssily foulactiL oren disappointed by the New Poor-law, and they
of Salle
cap to express these opinions. Those being
bill he`;sk s) sentiments, whatever was the feeling out
mess
and to`‘`, Prepared to take his share of the responsi-
a!aire.......„ vale for the continuance of a genuine and humane
Loud cheers
41il R. PEEL i • )
r, in the , n rising, said—He should first address him-
"eiel appeal which b ernan the ~ c had been made to him by the Hon.
~eeapres.,,, a
.niember for Finsbury, in the course of which
tonintt pa thoefr
intt
the
e"(‘;'s
t. hope that her Maeet's Government would,. in
I;4lttit,trie,ttpii_ato:l,t; a de by the other
e he n,80..,1„1 flat debate, signify theirsi
d of the intention
lloof
House
q:
tchs line!
j the I,isllt which related to its renewal. He
ima.te to the House that it was not in his power,
y's Government, to hold out the
tee'Y held e';", that, they V% ould acquiesce ( Hear, hear. )
give what opal'
it Dube that measure which they believed to be best for Lag "'crests, and they asked the House fairly to consider
ion on it they thought proper. To that

course be must strictly adhere He admitted that the oppo-
sition with which her Majesty's Government bad been met
during the present session in proposing important measures
affecting most extensive inte•ests, had been a fair opposition.
He mae no complaint of it whatever.—(Hear, hear. )
He had a confidence founded on experience, that notwithstand-
ing the declarations which had been made, no factious opposi-
tion would be given to the progress of the Bill.—(Hear.)
If the sense of the House was decidedly manifested as to the in-
convenience that would arise from the. postponement of the
measure from year to year, then he believed that the minority
would be content to acquiesce in the decision of the ma-
jority, and would not adopt a course that must necessarily in
terfers with that time which was devoted to the public busi-
ness, and which, if unduly persevered in, would be at variance
with the functions of a legislative assembly.—( Hear, hear.)
He spoke with perfect sincerity. He knew that menaces were
often thrown out in the course of debate which were not aLer-
wards carried into effect. The Right Hon. Gentleman wished
for time to have the opinions of the country expressed on the
subject. But was not the continuation of the Commission
proposed last year for five years; and had not the country a
full year to declare themselves on the subject?—(Hear. )
The same language was used on the subject of the Income-tax,
but he had that confidence in the people, and in their percep-
tions of the necessity of that measure, that he prophesied no de-
cided opposition would be manifested against it, and the event
proved he was right. It had been distinctly declared by the
leading political men in the )louse that they were disposed
to acquiesce in the measure for the continuance of the
Poor-law Conamissioeers for five years, and it being perfectly
notorious to the country that a similar proposition would be
made in the course of the present Session, he found that only
108 petitions, with 25,000 signatures attached, were presented
on the subject.—(Hear, hear.) He referred to those petitions,
which had express reference to the continuation of the Pour-
law Commission, and if the deliberate opinion, or even the pre-
judices of the country, had been against the present system, he
could not help thinking that a greater number of petitions would
have been presented to the House, after full notification that the
measure would be brought forward. But the Ilon, and Learned
Member for Bath contrasted his recent with his former conduct,
and said that he (Sir R. Peel) was now suffering the penalty
of the infliction of the eloquence of the Hon. Member—
(Laughter )—on account of his forbearance to declare his posi-
tive opinion on the subject. That infliction was unmerited by
him—(Laughter)—because he was satisfied that no person had
a right to misrepresent him, or say that he concealed his
opinions.—(Cheers.) But the Hon. Gentleman said, " Why
do you not compel all your party ?"—( Laughter.) That was
excessively difficult.—(Laughter.) He had not such influence
as to be able to drill the gentlemen of England into implicit
acquiescence.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) During the time
that he had the honour of leading the Conservative party, he
had received tolerably strong proof of their acquescence in the
advice he gave them, but he could not say that he ever ex-
pected, or could expect, to exercise the sort of censorship which
the Hon. Gentleman alluded to, over every person's opinions
with regard to the Poor-law ; nor ought it to be expected that
if persons expressed a different opinion from his with regard to
the Poor-law,' he should remonstrate with them on the opinions
they entertained.—(E'ear, hear.) He did not think the Noble
Lord opposite had been more successful in the situation he held
with so much ability, in obtaining an acquiescence in his
opiniens—(Laughter)--and, notwithstanding the ability of the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman, and his attempts to force
his opinions on the House, lie did not think he was more sue-
cessful.—( Laughter and cheers.) But such was always the
fate of public men.—(Laughter.) He could not be respon-
sible
for the opinioni which individuals held, and he was afraid
that if he attempted to force his own convictions on them, th. y
would revolt against him—(Hear, hear) —and though it might
be inconvenient on certain occasions he did not think that the
credit of Englishmen would be promoted by any such ac-
quiesence.—(Cheers.) On all proper occasions he had ex •
pressed his bwn opinions with respect to this measure. In 1834,
when the Poor-law Bill was brought forward, the Duke of
Wellington in the House of Lords, and he himself in the
House of Commons, grave the measure their most cordial sup-
port. He supported it at a time when it would have been easy to
raise a public clamour against the measure. He thought the then
Government acted an honest and manly part in bringing for-
ward that measure, and he gave them his assistance.
—( Hear, hear, hear.) With regard to the elections
if he had availed himself of the prejudices on the subject of the
Poor-law at that time for the purpose of acquiring political
power, he should be ashamed of the advantages he had so ob-
tained. In the year 1837, there was another general election,
and his election took place at an early period, and he was wised
his opinions on the hustings with regard to the Poor-law, and
why he supported that measure in 1834. He would read to
the House the answer he then gave in the face of his consti-
tuency, and he would ask whether it was possible for any public
man, at a critical time too, to have made a more explicit
declaration on the subject than he had? He was asked did
he not support the Poor-law, and in reply lie said frankly and
explicitly that he supported the Poor-law, and that his opinions
were not changed. lie did notsupport it for the purpose of making
a reduction in the amount of the rates, widen was one of the
smallest advantages derived from the law ; but he supported it
because he saw the moral condition of the labouring man
gradually lowered, and he wanted by an improved system
to elevate their character, and improee their comforts. He
supported the measure from real friendship to the poor, since
that it would be for their real advantage. These were the
sentiments he uttered in 1837, in the face of his constituents,
and he asked was it not a decided opinion?—( Hear, hear.)
In the course of last year he spoke and voted in favour of the
second reading of the Bill. It was. true that he slid the
continuance of the Commission for five years was better than
for ten years, and he also said something respecting the
burial of the poor, but he gave his cordial support to the
Bill ; and he explicitly stated his opinion on that occasion.
—( Hear.) On every occasion he had supported the law ;
in 1834, in 1837 he expressed his decided opinions
with regard to the law ; and in 1841 he gave his support to the
Government upon a division, and it was not his fault if Hon.
Gentlemen wished to excite hopes amongst their constituencies
as to the course he should adopt with respect to the measure.
As to the Bill itself be was surprised at the degree of forgetful.
ness— he would not call it forgetfulness—manifested by the op-
ponents of that Bill respecting the enactments of the Poor-law.
They had talked of the present Bill as if it deprived the pour of
the privilege they derived from the enactment of Elizabeth.
Such statements were made in ignorance of that statute.
He heard persons speak of the present Bill as being a
violent departure from the statute of Elizabeth, He heard
them speak of the statute as the bread-charter of the poor ;
and unfavourable contrasts were made between that enactment
and the present. What was that enactment, and in what did
it differ from, or correspond with the present law 2—( Hear,
hear, from r. Waklcy.) The Hon. Gentleman said " Hear,
hear." He must, .then' be unaware of the similarity between
the 43d of Elizabeth and the present law. Let him (Sir 11.
Peel) then appeal to his reason. By the 43d of Elizabeth, the
churchwardens and overseers were empowered to raise funds,
by a tax on wool, flax, &c., to assist the poor in getting
work. Here there was no absolute right of the poor to
relief, unless he worked. Let him take three classes—the
able-bodied poor, the children, and the impotent—and let him
compare the enactments of each statute. First, as to
the able-bodied poor, there was no statutable enactment
recognising a right on the part of the able-bodied men to re-
ceive parochial relief without work. The able-bodied poor had
no right to receive relief unless he. was prepared to give his
labour in return ; and there would be no stability for society if
a different law were recognised. Not only would property not
exist, but it would undermine it in a mariner most adverse to
the moral habits of the country if a different law were enacted.
The statute of Elizabeth then empowered the churchwardens
to levy competent sums of money towards the necessary relief
of the lame, impotent, old, and blind, and such other men, being
poor and not able to work. With regard to children, that sta-
tute empowered the churchwardens to take charge of and put
them out to apprenticeships at a mile distant, there to remain
—the boys until they were 24, the females until they were '2l.
That was the enactment with regard to apprenticeships. So
little disposed were those who framed that law to recognise an
indefeasible right in the poor, that they demanded from them
labour in return for their support—from the boys until they were
24. and from the females until they were 21 years of age,
with a power on their part to dissolve the engagements entered
into by the overseers of the poor. With regard to the impo-
tent, the churchwardens were empowered, with the consent of
the Lord of the Manor, to build habitations for them in waste
grounds, in which one or more families might be placed, and
there continue, while unable to work. Poor houses were pro-
vided, but out-door relief was not precisely given by the Act.
But observe a singular and conclusive proof as to the intention
of the statute with regard to the claim for relief on the part of
the poor ; for it was enacted that fathers and grandfathers,
and mothers and grandmothers, and children, and lame, blind,
and impotent persons, and others not able to work, who should
receive relief, were to forfeit 20s. every month.—(Hear. )
He had, on a former occasion, stated the grounds of his vote
in favour of the existing law, and that the existence of the
Commission would operate as a cheek on local abuses, and would
be a guarantee against those which prevailed under the former
system.—( Hear, hear.) If proof of that were wanting, he
might refer to the Report of the Keightley Union. —( Hear.)
He had listened to the eloquent parts of the lion. Gentleman's
speech—(Laughter)—in which he described the poor man as
traversing the green lanes, and reposing in the heat of the day
on the hill side in the neighbourhood: of Keightley. He ( Sir
Robert Peel) found it was ornamented by a certain building
for the reception of the poor. If the poor-house—for
workhouse it was not—was placed on the hill side, he
dare say that one temptation for reposing on it was that
they might be in sight of the poor-house--( Hear.) The
building was a mile distant from the town, and was not
very easy of access. On immediately getting into it, there
was a low room—he was now quoting from the Report of
Mr. Elliott-24 feet by 17, which served both for a dining-
room and sleeping-room. It contained dirty beds, occupied
by fourteen individuals, one occupied by an old man and his
wife, another occupied in a similar manner, and the other oc-
cupied by men and boys.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")
That was the manner in which the hill was occupied.e-- (Loud
cries of " Hear, hear," and cheers.) Another room had nine
beds, which were occupied by twenty-four male children, and
one of which was occupied by a woman with her baby, who
was still ill, and had to share her bed with another.—(Hear,
hear.) Would it be safe to return to such a system? But it
was said there was no necessity for returning to the old law.
It was said, trust the rate-payers—they know the character of
the poor, and will be ready to afford them relief ; trust
the people of England, and all that trash.—( Cheers. ) It was
to avoid such scenes as he had read that he was an advocate for
the central control. Now, with regard to education, what a
difference existed between the system as administered in those
unions under the operation of the Poor-law Commissioners
and those that were not. The Right Hon. Baronet then read
a further extract from the Report of Mr. Mott, in which it was
stated that "a wretched hovel adjoining the dung was used as
a school-room ; the schoolmaster was an old pauper, and there
was present in the school only one buy ; there was an adjoin-
ing gaol, to which there was an entrance let through the poor-
house yard; in one room there were two beds occupied
by four women, and in one bed was an old woman evidently
dying. lie had also been informed that it was not an unusual
thing, when a pauper died, to leave the dead the companions
of the living.—(Hear, hear.) Now, that was the state of
things which prevailed under the superintendence of local
guardians—
Mr. FERRAND said (as we understood) that that had
happened at a time when the workhouse test was about to be
enforced.
Sir R. PEEL—But the workhouse test had not yet been
applied. Now, he would ask whether, under the superintend.
enee of the Commissioners, such observations could have oc-
curred? What was there in these facts to show him that he
could trust to mere local superintendence, from which the pos-
sibility of inquiry could be shut out, when he remembered the
scenes which had thus taken place? And hew long, he would
ask, might not those things have gone on, if there had been no
change in the system ? He believed that the Commissioners
had brought to light a thousand abuses which remained covered
in oblivion in former times; and the reason why they could
not properly compare the abuses of the old law with the griev-
ances of the new, was, that in the one case the evils were silently
endured, tamely acquiesced in ; while under the present law
there was an active vigilance and superintendence, abuses were
brought to light, they were invidiously dwelt upon in the public
press, public indignation was kept alive, and a security was
thus afforded against the, frequent repetition of such scenes as
had formerly taken place. The present system provoked in.
quiry ; and his belief was that it had by this means materially
contributed to check the recurrence of abuse. He should tell
the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Knaresborough,
that if, instead of indulging in descriptions of the hills of
Keightley, if, instead of dabbling with green fields, he had
employed his time in investigating the abuses to which he
(Sir R. Peel) had referred, in making an earnest representa-

do to the Poor law Commissioners upon the subject, or in
inviting the attendance of the Assistant Commmissioners for
the purpose of aiding the Keightley Guardians—if the
Hononrable Gentleman had taken such a course he
(Sir Robert Peel) could not help thinking that, upon
the whole, be would have done more to advance the
interests, and to promote the comforts of the poor, than he was
likely to da by offering so vigorous an opposition to the progress
of the ne..v law. He could not but believe, from the declarations
of the Hon. Gentleman, from the earnestness of his manner,
that he must be a humane and considerate man; but he could
not held thinking, at the same time, that those facts must have
escaped his notice, although he was himself the Chairman of the
Board of Guardians of the Union. He could not help thinking
that the Hon. Gentleman who made such earnest appeals to
Christian charity, and who had so earnestly exhorted them to
respect the rights of the poor, must have been ignorant of those
abominations which had taken place under the old law. The
abuses which had been brought to light, suggested to him the
possibility that similar occurrences had taken place in other
unions, and he could not help thinking that many Hon. Gentle-
men were ignorant of the real state of the case ; and that the vi-
gilance and superintendence of the Commissioners were required
for the present, at least, in order to take cognizance of such
facts as he had adduced. These were the grounds upon which
he gave his support to the rew law. He did so, as
he had already said, in , the year 1837, not from
a consideration of the expense which it saved,
although he should say at the same time that to take from the
industrious the means of supporting the idle was an act of
grievous oppression, injurious in every respect, tending to pre-
jadice him who contributed to the poor-rate, and creating in him
who received an unprofitable and improvident relief, habits of
idleness, and destroying that feeling of self•dependere e, which
after all, and in spite of all their enactments, must be the great
security to the working-classes against abject poverty and dis-
tress.—( Hear, hear.) With these feelings he could not ac-
quiesce in the proposal for a further delay of a final settlement
of the question. He believed that the sense of the House was
in favour of the measure introduced by her Majesty's Govern-
ment. To the sense of the House her Majesty's Government
would look for support ; they would steadily adhere to
the proposal they had made.—( Hear, hear.) He would
repeat the hope with which he had commenced that,
after the feelings of the majority of the House should he de-
clared or a divis.on in favour of the law, the minority would
take the course which, in his humble judgment, it was always
the duty of a minority to pursue—that while they protested
against the decision, they would be ready to acknowledge that
submission to it was the only course which it was open for
them to adopt.—( Cheers. )
Mr. FERRAND wished to 'explain in reference to the ex-
tracts relative to the Union of Keightley, read by the Right
Hon. Baronet, that since the New Poor-law had been passed,
he (Mr. Ferrand) had ceased to take the slightest interest in
the carrying out of that law. He had neven takers any part in
the operation of the measure, unless when he happened
to be requested by' the poor persons to interfere in their behalf.
He had further to state, that he believed there were many errors
in the report of Mr. Mott, and he trusted that the Guardians
of Keightley would be able to clear themselves from the asper-
sions thrown out against them in the Report.
Lord HOWICK raid that he had heard with great satisfac-
tion the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the
Government, as well as that made by the Right Hon. Gentle-
man, the Secretary for the Home Department, at an earlier
part of the evening. The time was come, in his opinion, when
the House should decide whether or not they would continue
the powers of the Commissioners. He believed that those
powers were indispensably necessary for duty carrying out the
law ; and he agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet (the Secre-
tary for the Home Department), that the necessity for the
superintendence of the Commissioners was greater than ever,
at a time like the present, so hen such general distress prevailed
throughout the country. The arguments which had been used
in favour of a relaxation of the present law might be urged at
all times when employment was scarce, and the price of provi-
sions high. He agreed will those who contended that a great
reief would be felt from an ampe relaxation of the Corn-laws,
but he was still of opinion that no modification of the Poor-
laws could effect any great improvement in the condition of the
poor. Ile wished to ask, however, whether funds, to which
the Right lion. Baronet himself had been a contributor—he
spo:te of the Right Hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Trea-
sury—he asked if that Right Hon Baronet had not contributed
largely to funds for the support of candidates who made it the
greatest ground of their claim to popular support that they were
opposed to the New Poor-law? The Right Hon Baronet, the
Secretary for the Home Department.—( Loud cries of " Ques-
sion, question," and" Divide, divide.") He would riot take
the trouble of following the Right Hon. Baronet through all
his speeches. He would not follow the followers of the Right
Hon. Baronet into all the details of the Bill before the House.
He would remain satisfied with the declaration of the Govern-
ment that they would maintain the existing law, and he would
give them all the support in his power.—(Loud cries of " Di-
vide, divide."
Sir E. KNATBHBULL shculd not have delained the
House had he not been almost compelled to do so by the
speech that had been addressed to it. It had been stated that
he formerly opposed the measure, and lie was reproached with
being a Member of. the Government who promoted it. This
was an error; he approved of the principles of the Bill, and in
the discussion of the details he had acted independently ; gene-
rally, many voted in support of them, except on the clause of
out-door relief. It was clear the Noble Lord had cot risen for
the purpose of discussing th, question, but had introduced fresh
topics that had no reference to it. Such topics he had better
have avoided, and he regretted the course he had taken. He
had always given his opinion in favour of the general principles
of the measure.—(" Divide, divide.")
Mr. DARBY addressed the House amid much confu-
sion and cries of " Divide." He had been accused
of ceasing to speak on this subject. He had done so,
from wishing to see what the Government would propose ; the
Noble Lord had better look to his own side of the House, and
see whether there was not agitation on this subject there.—
(Divide, question.) He had always said that as the House had
sanctioned the principle of the Bill, they must maintain it,
or the whole system would be lett in contusion. The only dif-
ficulty he had was with respect to applying the out-door test
to labourers thrown out. of employ, and when a slight modifi-
cation of it was proposed, he had at once accepted it.—(Divide,
divide.) He should do as he had always done, vote for the
Bill, and reserve himself as to the modifications of details that
might be required.
Captain POLHILL would vote against the motion. The
principle having been sanctioned, any unnecessary delay was
unjust to the House, and to the country. There would be
_ _

plenty of opportunities of discussing the objectionable parts in
Committee, but he thought the sooner they got into Committee
the better.

Air. O'CONNELL said when the Hon. Member for Roch-
dale proposed his motion for postponing the Poor-law Bill for
six months, he was taunted by the Right Hon. Baronet, as if,
being an Irishman, he had done something not exactly correct
in taking so strong a part in opposition to it. He (Mr. O'C.)
was liable to the same reproach, and still more strongly than
the Hon. Member, for he represented an Irish constituency,
and what was still worse, the argument he was going to advance
to the House was entirely drawn from Ireland. It might,
perhaps, not be very persuasive with the House, but
the justification he should use for the course he was about
to adept. Ile should support the motion, because the Poor-law
in Ireland was an experiment ; that law was not recommended
by any abuses in a pre-existing law in that country, as it was
introduced there for the first time. He had then opposed it,
and stood almost alone in his opposition. But when it was
once passed he had endeavoured to give it every assistance by
his co-operation ; he had ventured to prophesy that it was a law
not suited to the situation of Ireland, and he feared that his
prediction would be unfortunately verified. He really felt
bound to say that he looked with great apprehension to
the future in that country from the operation of the law.
The moment they taxed the peasantry of Ireland and made
them pay in advance for their landlords, from that moment
he was convinced that they would see the spirit of resistance
awakened stronger than ever they had yet seen it. This might
seem exaggerated; but from his knowledge of the country he
apprehended an insurrectionary movement more violent in its
character than any that had yet occurred. Having this feeling,
he naturally wished that the Bill should be postponed for an-
other year, as by that time the experiment in Ireland would be
completed. They would then have the interest of England
bound up with the interest of Ireland on this subject,
and a more attentive consideration would then be given
to the Irish law, and the claims of Ireland, than it now re-
ceived. The experiment in Ireland had not been satisfactorily
made ;he felt dissatisfied with the Poor-law Commission in
that country. Their dtity was to preserve the strictest neu-
trality between the various divided interests and differences,
political and religious. The impression on his mind was, that
that neutrality had not been preserved. Even if his uttering
that expression here should act as a caution hereafter, he should
have done some good by giving that caution thus publicly.
It was on the ground of his anxiety that Ireland should have
the advantage of the discussion on the English law, to come
in aid of that on the Irish law, which must come on next
year, that he wished this measure to be deferred. Many per -
sons had taunted him with his opposition to the Irish law ; if
he had supported the principle that every destitute person in
Ireland was entitled to support, he believed that he should have
raised a much greater storm ; but he had not taken that posi-
tion. Those who were most violent against him for opposing
that measure at the time, had joined with him now, and had
expressed their regret for the manner in which they had
treated him on account of his opposition. They now agreed
with him that nothing could be more unhappy than that an
opinion should get abroad of the want of perfect neutrality on
the part of the Poor-law Commissioners in Ireland ; and with
this feeling he should vote for the motion of the Hon. Gen-
tleman.
Captain PECHELL said he wished to say a few words in
explanation. 'the Hon. Gentleman opposite had alluded to
what he (Captain Pechell) had said on a former occasion. He
made the charge that the paymasters of the forces were against
the commission. In support of that, he mentioned the circum-
stance, which he took from the "Westminster Review," that
in 1837 when it was proposed to extend the Bill to 1843 or to
1846, they voted for the shorter period. lie thought that was
some justification of his statement.
Lord ELIOT said he felt bound to protest against the very
unfair attack which the. Right Hen. and Learned Gentleman
opposite (Mr. O'Connell) had made upon the Poor-law Com-
mission in Ireland. The experiment, se far as it had been tried,
had in fact been eminently successful. It was predicted that
as soon as the workhouses were opened, they would be crowded
with able-bodied labourers. Now the fact was precisely
the reverse. There were few of the able-bodied-, but
a vast number of the aged and infirm. One hun-
dred workhouses were already completed, and the
whole number, one hundred and thirty, would be completed in
the course of the ensuing year. He gave full credit to the
Right Hon. Gentleman for not having shown a desire to defeat
the Poor-law. instead of opposing the law, he had used all
his influence in the contrary direction, and he hoped that that
influence would still be exerted for the purpose of affording it

a fair trial.
Lord SANDON supported the motion of the Hon. Member
for Finsbury. He thought it was very desirable that the
powers of the Commissioners should be continued for the pre-
sent under the control of public opinion. It was highly de-
sirable that that they should have another year's exper.ence of
the working of the system before they extended the Commis-
sion to five years.
Mr. COBDEN said he thought the House bad rather lost
sight of the Hon. Gentleman's motion. The lion. Gentleman
had alluded to the state of the country. Now he (Mr. C.)
wished to call the attention of the House to the fact, that,
though they had been sitting nearly six months, they had not
thought proper to devote one evening to the consideration of
the distresses of the people, with a view of finding a specific
remedy. He would ask don. Gentlemen, even in their most
reckless moods, whether they thought there was either safety
or policy in such a course.—(Cries of '• Oh, oh.") The Right
Hon. Baronet took (Ace with a distinct promise that he should
find a remedy far the distresses of the country.—(Expressions
of dissent.) He supposed those expressions were intended as
a denial. The. Right Hon. Baronet distinctly promised that he
would prescribe when he had got his fee.—(Cries of " Ques-
tion, question.") It was the question. The Right Hon.
Baronet took office with a promise that when he had time to con-
sider the distresses of the country, he would prescribe remedial
measures for them. Had he done so ?—( Cries of " The tariff.")
How many articles were there out of the 750 the reduction
in which would benefit the poor ?—( Loud cries of " Question.")
He could assure Hon. Gentlemen that he had no desire to ad-
dress the House, but as far as he was himself concerned it
would be utterly useless to a sail him with any of those noises.
It might be thought that a victory gained in that House in
argument or debate would settle the affairs of the country, but
it was far otherwise. He received accounts daily from all parts
of the country, stating that the distress which existed when
the present Government were coming into office had

increased at a constantly progressing ratio ever sine.
It was, then, their duty at once to take up the subject of the pre
sent condition of the country, and endeavour to apply a remedy.
He believed that some Hon. Gentlemen were incredulous as to
the accounts of the misery that prevailed in various districts.
He would beg to call the attention of those gentlemen to some
communications which he had received from the country. Re
had written to Stockport to ascertain the amount of poor-rates
paid at present in Stockport. He had asked the names of
a few of the principal rate-payers, in order to know
how those rates pressed on individual concerns. Many
thought that the manufacturers did not contribute their just
proportion to these rates ; but let those learn what was the re-
sult of his inquiries. The first of those concerns on the list
paid during nine months rates for the relief of the poor to the
amount of 343/. 18s. 4d. ; the second, during the same period,
paid 4761.25. 6d. ; and the third paid 288/.
An HON. MEMBER.—What rent?

itll. COBDEN—That was an important question. Did
the Luke of Northumberland with his broad lands, or any
other landowner, pay as much in proportion to his wealth as
one of those manufacturers? One of those mills, rated at
1,9041. paid 470/. in rates from the 16th of -June to the
25th of February. The account went on to say that distress
went on increasing, so that if things did not change they
should be eaten up by the paupers. A letter from a gentleman
of Leeds, Mr. Hamer S;ansfield, stated that 4,300 families
included at least 19,350 persons. In the county of Dorset, out
of 25 fires that had taken place in three months two-thirds were
incendiary. Such was the state in which distress placed the
country. He would then appeal to the Right Hon. Baronet,
to tell the House whether it was his intention to bring the pre-
sent Session to a close, without having first brought forward
the question—without at least giving an appearance, that they
should have an opportunity of considering this vitally impor-
tant question.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD said he could not let the question go
to a division, without saying a few words on it. A Noble
Lord had spoken of the Irish Poor-law, as being emi-
nently successful. How could that be the case, when that
country was in such a state as it now presented ? In
several large districts the people were starving without a possi-
bility of relief being administered to them ; for the Irish Poor-
law was of a more extreme character than our English law, in-
asmuch as it admitted of out-door relief under no circum-
stances. The Right Hon. Baronet had insinuated that he (Mt.
S. Crawford) had no right to take part in that debate, because
he was an Irish resident, but he knew the operation of
the experiment in Ireland. He thought that he was
beat se, ving the interests of Ireland by opposing the English
Poor-law. Another reason given by the Right Hon. Baronet
that he (Mr. S. Crawford) was the representative of a town
into which the New Poor-law had not yet been introduced.
It was true the Poor-law had not yet been introduced into
Rochdale, and the reason given by the Commissioners for its
non-introduction was, that they were afraid of the exci;ement
and agitation it would occasion ; but the Poor-law hung over
their heads like a sword suspended by a hair, and on their own
account, and on account of their neighbours, in whose affairs
they took an interest, their representative' was entitled to take
a part in the discussion. He regretted to hear the Hon. Mem-
ber for Bath advocate a law which upset the rights of the people
and gave to three persons the right of imposing boss upon them.
The poor had a right to relief. No relief was permitted to be
administered by the Commissioners until destitution had taken
plaee. A well-regulated Poor-law would give relief before
actual destitution had occurred. He did not deny that there
had been evils under the old Pcor-law, but they ought not on
that account to place in the hands of three individuals the
power of making laws for all the country.
General JOHNSON said the Act of Elizabeth never con-
ferred on any set few the power of committing.persons to prison
because they were poor. He objected to the size of the unions,
arid thought there ought to be some appeal' from the Board of
Guardians in cases where- they refused relief- He should vote
for the motion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury.
Mr. FIELDEN rose amidst loud cries of " Question ! ques-
tion !"—" Divide ! divide ! " to move the adjournment of the
debate.
Sir C. NAPIER seconded the motion.

Mr. FERII AND hoped the Honourable Member would not
press his moth,n. By the course he was pursuing he was
injuring the cause they both had at heart. Several would
nut vote for the Hon. Member for Finsbury because they
though'. it was factious. He (Mr. Ferrand) thought it
was a perfectly fair motion ; but if the Hon. Member perse-
vered in his motion for adjournment, did he think that the same
number of Members would vote against the different clauses of
the Bill as would if he did not do so? He trusted the Member
fer o;dham would withdraw his motion, for they were only
losing their time—(Loud cheers)--by such a course of pro-
ceeding.
Colonel .SIBTHORP thought the proposition was incon-
sistent with the character of that House. He thought it would
do more harm to the cause than it would do good. He would
never subscribe to anything but a fair and manly opposition:
Captain FITZROY said that he had voted against the
s: sand reading of the Bill, but he could not vote for the prepo-
sition of the lion. Member for Oldham ; and if their factious
opposition were persevered in, he should absent himself from the
House during the debate.
Mr. WAKLEY said that Hon. Gentlemen must take the
course they thought best, but to say that the course of the Hon.
Gentleman was factious, merely because he moved the adjourn-
ment of the debate that he might have an opportunity of ad-
dressing the House, was too much. He ( Air. Walcley) would
never, form any factious opposition to any party or pr,,position.
—(Oh, oh, and laughter.) Why—he would be very much
obliged if Hon. Gentlemen would not judge him by them-
selves—he had never none so, and he never would. He defied
any Hon. Member to refer to a period in which he had
done it. With reference to the Poor-law he said, that after
the speeches of the Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for
Tamworth, and the Member for Bath, he did think the debate
ought not to end without those speeches being answered, for he
never heard such staring fallacies as his Hon. and Learned
Friend, the Member fie- Bath, uttered. He was sorry he was
not in the House, but he hoped to tell him on Monday night,
that he knew nothing of the New Poor-law Bill. He never
heard a greater amount of ignorance with reference to the law
than he had heard from him that. evening. He hoped and trusted
that the lion. Member for Oldham would have an opportunity
of addressing the House.
Mr. FIELDEN said it appeared to him that the House
did not understand his reasons for .moving the adjournment.
Ile rose to address the House to answer the speeches of the
lion. Member for Bath, and the Right Hon. Baronet, but
he was met with loud cries. Under these circumstances and at
that time of night, the debate having lasted six hours, he asked
whether it was unreasonable to move the adjournment ? The
speech of the Hon. s Member for Bath, would most
likely be quoted by the Secretary for the Home Deparment
as a speech cf remarkable ability. Why he (Mr. Mr. Fielden)
could tear it all to pieces.—(Laughter.) He would go through
it although he was no lawyer. The Hon. Member could nut
have accomplished a better thing if he had received a high fee.
—( I aughter. ) No man could -deny this who was not as
' ignorant as an ass.—( Roars of laughter.)
Then House then divided, the numbers were
__

For the Adjournment of the debate 29
Against it
Majority against the Adjournment —268
On the question being put,
Sir C. NAPIER said he had no wish to give any factions
opposition to tl-e Bill, but when the Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
Fielden)got up to speak he was interrupted by persons who
had only just come into the House. He thought such a course
was an improper, one, and that the Hon. Gentleman was right
in moving the adjournment. He should now move the ad-
journment.
Mr. WAKLEY seconded the motion.
Sir R. PEEL said the House would recollect that though
the Hon. Member for Oldham rose for the purpose of speaking,
and moved the adjournment on the professed grounds that due
attention was not paid to him, yet the House would bear in
mind that he said his intention was to avail himself of the forms
of the House to prevent the passing of the Bill—(Cheers)—
till the 31st of July. Therefore, if impatience was manifested
by the House he must remind the House that the declaration
of the Hon. Gentleman was sense justification.—( Hear.) He
was aware that time spent in adjournment was unprofitably
spent.. And though he deeply regretted the course which
had been taken, he knew it was in vain to contend against it.
He had hoped to be able to bring the tariff to its last stage on
Monday ; and if the present course were persevered in, it would
delay the passing of that measure—( Hear, hear)—because, if
the debate were adjourned, he intended to postpone that mea-
sure, in order that the present one might have precedence, and
he should therefore propose that this debate be resumed on
Monday next. He hoped that the House would bear in mind
the declaration of the Hon. Member for Oldham, and that
they would, at least, do all that they could to prevent a prece-
dent which must be so fatal to the character of the House—

(Loud cheers.)—so destructive to the interests of the country, if
one or two gentlemen could avail themselves of the forms of the
House, for the purpose of obstructing the progress of public
measures.—( Cheers.)
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that so far as he was concerned
he had hoped the House would have come to a decision that
evening upon The motion he had brought forward. With re-
gard to the interruption of the debate, he should remind the
House, that when the Hon. Member for Oldham rose at half-
past eleven o'clock, he was met by a most tremendous yell
from Hon. Gentlemen opposite.—(" Hear, hear," and " No,
no.") He thought, too, that the Right Hon. Baronet might
have put a more charitable construction upon the words that
lied fallen from the Honourable Member for Old-
ham. The Right Honourable Baronet, on the con-
trary, seemed to justify the interruption which the
Hott. Member for Oldham had experienced. It seemed, too,
that because the debate on the Poor-law was adjourned, the
country was to be punished by having a stop put to the pro-
gre3s of the tariff. But the Government had stated on
former occasions their determination not to proceed with the
Poor-law until the tariff aas disposed of, and he did not see
why that course should not sin! be taken.
Colonel WOOD (Alidiileex) denied that the Hon. Mem-
ber for Oldham had met with any improper interruption, and it
was a libel on the character of the House to say that the lion.
Gentleman had met with unusual marks of impatience.
Mr. HAWES expressed a hope that after the debate on
Monday the House would proceed to a division on the question.
Sir R. PEEL hoped that was' the course which the House
would pursue.
Mr. WAKLEY said that he was still decidedly opposed to
the law. But if the House should decide byalnpeodviemrewnhteilnmihngis
majority, such as would renc'er opposition fruitless, in favour
of the measure, he should not persevere in offering an oppo-
sition which c,,uld lead to no useful result.
Mr. FIELDEN said he would not flinch from the duty
whichpo,.elire Ittdoee
btkretdepundertakend
hooefu
Bronffi
leel
d;r i
tnog every
Monday.
BRITISH POSSESSIONS ABROAD BILL.
impediment
British Possessions Abroad Bill went through Corn-
mittee.—Report on Monda Y
y.
S Be T
thirdLL reading of the Rail-
.
On the Order ofitAl
theLDNaVyAfor the

wills Bill,
S'ir HENRY HARDINGE moved the insertion of the fol-
lowing ch,we :—•`That whenever it shall be necessary to move
any of the officers or soldiers of her Majesty's forces of the
line, erdna, ce corps, marines, or the police force, by any rail-
way, the Directors thereof shall and are hereby required to
permit such forces respectively, with their baggage, stores,
arms, ammunition, and other necessaries and things, to be con-
veyed, at the usual hours of starting, at the prices contracted
for by the Secretary at War for the conveyance of such forces,
on the production of a note signed by the proper authorities."
Mr. CRAVEN BERKELEY opposed the clause, because
he had not been permitted to bring forward a clause which he
wished to introduce.
Lord ROWICK suggested the adjournment of the discus-
sion for a few days, till matter could receive more mature
consideration.
Mr. GLADSTONE objected, to the postponement of the
would agree to the suggestion,
measure, as it could serve no useful purpose. and there were
urgent reasons for passing it as quickly as possible.
Mr. LABOUCHERh. suggested that tiv; Right Hon. and
Gallant Officer should, under the circumstances, withdraw the
clause.
Sir HENRY HARDINGE
and being in a separate Bill, if such were the feeling of the
House, although the delay that would accrue in consequence
would be of detriment to the public service.
Sir R. INGLIS hoped the house would let the clause pass.
Sir R. PEEL trusted that the House would permit the clause
to pass. A delay of 24 hours had already occurred in the con-
veyance of troops to'lndia for the want of such a clause.
Mr. CRAVEN BERKELEY would, after these explana-
tions, withdraw his opposition to the clause.
The clause was then agreed to, and ordered to be added to
the Bill by way of rider.—The Bill was then read a third time.
' Oa the =Um that the Dill d° Pa"' :1,, 0.1,,,i1 A

Mr. S. O'BRIEN wished to know whether the, Beard of
Trade had made any communication with respect to. passengers
by third class carriages, and for the purpose of preventing per-
sons travelling outside the carriages.
Mr. GL ADSTONE said that such communication had been
made, and travelling outside railway carriages especially re-
monstrated against, on the Kingston and Dublin Railway.
The Bill was then passed.
The Right of Voting (Dublin University) Bill ecas read a
second time.