The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-15 00:00:00

to create a fallacy, and virtually deceive the poor man with a
shadow of relief, he truAed some explanation would be given
by the Government, whether that proviso could be retained or
modified.

Lord DALMENY thought the quarter sessio s were not
sufficiently open to the grievances of the poor. and believed
that the court of supervision would obviate this nomaly, and
quoted Dr. Alison ti confirm that opinion.
Mr. HASTIE regarded the principle of the c use as that of
legislating for the rich and oppressing the poor.
:11r. WAKLEY said that he had hitherto supported the
Bill, because he conceived it framed in a spirit of conferring
relief on the distresses which he understood existed in Scot-
land, and because he had been led to believe that no poor-law at
present existed to remedy the distress of the labouring classes
of that country. But he now believed that the Government
were not actuated by any motive but that of continuing to op-
press the poor; and as to the clause in question, it was cruel
and oppressive, and he should now oppose the measure in all its
subsequent stages.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment 45
Against it
Majority against the amendment —34
The clause was then passed.

On the next clause being proposed,
Lord ASHLEY recommended that the term " five years"
should be substituted for seven years.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment ...... ••• 8
Against it ...
Majority —loo
The gallery was :immediately after cleared for a division on
an amendment proposed by the Lord-Advocate, the purport
of which could not be ascertained in the gallery, when the
numbers were—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority —63
Mr. AGLIONBY then made a few observations disap -
proving of the 72d clause, which was then proposed.
The LORD-ADVOCATE explained that the operation of
the Bill would be such as to enable the poor man to receive
relief on easier conditions than formerly.
Colonel RAWDON considered that the Bill did not place
the Irish and Scotch paupers on the same equality as Scotch-
men in Ireland who, if destitute, received relief and permanent
relief,. and he thought that the same liberality should exist in
Scotland by the operation of the present Bill.
After a few words from Lord DUNCAN,

Lord CLENIENTS said that Englishmen and Scotchmen
were employed in great numbers in Ireland. A good feeling
was promoted between► them and the natives. He was asto-
nished that the Noble Lord was desirous of stirring up ill-will
between Irishmen and Scotchmen. The poor-law, after all,
was merely a public fund, out of which the public should de-
rive assistance when they stood in need of it. Many Scotch
farmers in the Lowlands of Scotland could not get in their crops
if Irish labourers did not come over from Ireland to aid them.
And if they encouraged Irishmen to come over it was their
duty to support them.
Mr. LOCKHART said he would give the Bill all the oppo-
sition in his power, as it had not undergone any alteration from
the state in which it had previously been presented to the House.
The Hon. Member said something about the number of Irish
paupers, and the difficulty of relieving them, but he was not
clearly audible in the gallery.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE said that if the Government passed
the Bill in the form which the Hon. Gentleman seemed to
wish, it would be no cre.lit to him or the hospitality of the
country which he represented.—( Hear, hear.) He thought
the Government deserved the warm thanks of every Irish
Member for placing the Irish on the same level with the
Scotch paupers. He must remark that the Scotch felt no
scruple in s.ttling in the south of Ireland ; and from his expe-
rience he felt bound to express his belief that if

•
anlrishman and a Scotchman presented themselves
before an Irish board of guardians, such was the generous
feeling of hospitality by which they were actuated, that they
would relieve the Scotchman in preference to the Irishman.
He was sorry the Noble Lord (Duncan) had thought fit to in-
troduce religious differences in a debate on the Scotch poor-law.
Lord DUNCAN laid that if he had made any allusion to
religious differences, he regretted it, and it arose from his being
unaccustomed to Parliamentary speaking.
Sir W. SONIERVILLE expressed his satisfaction at the
disavowal, and would withdraw any expression of censure upon
the words which the Noble Lord had, he now believed, inad •
vertently used.—( Cheers.)
After a few words from the Lord Advocate, Mr. Ross, Lord
Duncan, Mr. P. M. Stewart, Mr. Bouverie, and Sir G. Grey,
the House divided, when there appeared—
For the clause
Against it
Majority for the clause —79
The clause wa; then aereed to.

Mr. BROTHERTON then moved that the Chairman re.
port progress.

The galleries were cleared, but no division ton's place, the
Lord-Advocate having acceded to the motion.
The House resumed ; the CHAIRMAN reported progress,
and asked leave to sit again this day.
BILLS OF EXCHANGE BILL.

Vn the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
CHEQUER tbat this Bill be read a third time,
Mr. WILLIAMS said if the motion was urged at that late
hour he shouid move that the standing orders of the day be
postponed until this day.
After some conversation the third reading was postponed
until Thursday.