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

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.

Lord Granville Somerset, Sir George Grey, Bart., James Loch,
Esq., Johr Wilson Patten, Esq., and Sir William Meredyth So.
merville, Bart., being five of the Members appolated by Mr.
Speaker to serve on the General Committee of Elections, and not
being objected to by the House, severally took the following oath :
Ido swear, that I will truly aid faithfully perform the duties
belonging to a Member of the General Committee of Elections,
without fear or favour, to the best of my judgment and ability. So
help me God.

Then the Petitions severally complaining of undue Elections and
Returns for the following places were referred to the said Com-
mittee, viz. :—(freat Marlow, Alexander Higginson and others.
Electors :—Nottingham Town, Francis Hardwick and Robert
Gray, Electors :—Weymouth and Melcombe Regis, Ralph Bernal
and William Dougal Christie, Esquires :—Thetford, Sir James
Flower, Baronet :—Clitheroe, Edward Cardwell, Esquire
theme, John Taylor and William Whalley, Electors :—Lewes,
Edward Monk and Gabriel Egles :—Harwich, Sir Denis Le Mer-
chant, Baronet :—Harwich, Sir Denis Le Merchant and Electors :
—Wigan, Charles Standish and Charles Pascoe Grenfell, Esquires:
Rutland, Viscount Campden anti Electors :—Longford County,
Anthony Lefroy, Esquire : —Wakefield, Jose Luis Fernandes and
Lawrence Hitchon, Electors :—Sudbury, John Warwick and
Joseph Martin, Eectors :—Bridport, William Pearce Stanley,
Esquire, and others, Electors :—lpswich, John Cobbold and others,
Electors.

Belfast—An objection being taken to referring the petition of
George Hamilton Chichester, Baron Ennishowen and Carrickfergus,
to the said Committee, the same being a petition of a Lord of Par-

lament, the said petition was read :

Sessional Order," That it is a high infringement of the liberties
and privileges of the Commons of the United Kingdom, for any
Lord of Pariiament, or other Peer or Prelate, not being a Peer of
Ireland at the time elected, and not having declined to serve for
any county, city, or borough of Great Britain, to concern himself

in the election of Members to serve for the Commons in Parlia-
ment, except only any Peer of Ireland, at such elections in Great
Britain respectively, where such Peer shall appear as a candidate,
or by himself, or any others, be proposed to be elected ; or for any
Lord Lieutenant or Governor of any county to avail himself of any
authority derived from his commission, to influence the e.ection of
any member to serve for the Commons in Parliament"—read.
Motion made, and question proposed, " That the said petition
being the petition of a Lord of Parliament, be not referred to the
said Committee :"—(Mr. Thesiger:)—Debate arising thereupon ;
debate adjourned till Friday.
Theft the petitions severally complaining of undue elections and
returns for the following places were referred to the said Com-
mittee, viz. :

Belfast, George Hamilton Chichester, Baron Ennishowen and
Carrickfergus, and Archibald M'Brair, an Elector : Cardigan
Borough, Pryse Pryse, Esquire: —Nottingham Tows, Joseph
Braithwaite and others, Electors :—Wakefield, Honourable Wil-
liam Sebright Lascelles:—Wigtown, &c., Burghs, James Blair,
Esquire, and Electors :—Rochester, Viscount Melgund :—Ro-
chester, George Jetterys and James Chesson, Electors :—Glou-
cester City, Francis Buchanan Hoare and Charles Frederick
Clare, Electors :—Blackburn, William Turner, Esquire :
Tipperary County, Honourable Cornwallis Maude and Wil-
liam Ponsonby Barker, Esquire :—Lichfield, Richard Dyott,
Esquire --Southampton Town, John Rushworth Keele and
others, Electors: Southampton Town, Joseph Lankester
and others, Electors :—Newry, Sir John Milley Doyle :
Newport, William John Blake and Thomas Gisborne, Esqrs. :
Elgin, &c„ Burghs, Thomas Abercromby Duff, Esq. :—Bewdley,
Robert Monteith, Esq., and Electors :—Reading, Thomas Mills,
Esq. :—Penryn and Falmouth, John White Dixon, Elector :
Thetford, William Watts Wickes and Edward Palmer, Electors:
—Nottingham Town, Richard Young Booker and Joseph Newton,
Electors :—Wareham, John Hales, Caicraft, Esq. :—Newcastle-
urt er-Lyme, George Cooper and Henry Broomhall, Electors:—
Lyme Regis, Richard Sellers and others, Electors :—Merthyr
T3dvil, Edward Williams, Elector :—Harwich, John Bagshaw,
Esq.:—Stafford Borough, William Holmes, Esq. :—St. Ives, Ed
win Ley, Esq. :—Rutland, Robert Hawley and John Arthur
Gardner, Electors : —New Windsor, William Frederic Fergusson,
Esq. : —New Windsor, Charles Stuart Voules and Joseph Brown,
Electors :—Flint, Sir Stephen Richard Glynne, Baronet, and others,
Electors :—Cork County, Nicholas Philpot Leader and Robert
Longfield, Esquires, and others, Electors :—Kerry, Arthur Bien.
nerhassett, Esquire, and Electors :—Louth, Lewis Upton and
William Sunbury M'Clintock, Electors :—Kinsale, James Francis
Comerford and George Dunn, Electors :—Downpatrick, Thomas
Dixon, Esquire, and Electors :—Waterford City, Thomas Wyse,
Esquire :—Shrewsbury, WilliaM Yardley and John Watton, Elec.
tons :—Stafford Borough, William Heath and others, Electors :
Dudley, William Adams Smith, Esquire :—Barnstaple, Robert
Budd, Elector :—Belfast, Archibald M'Brair and George Kennedy
Smith, Electors :—Waterford City, Sir Henry Winston Barron,
Baronet, and Thomas Wyse, Esquire :—Athlone, Thomas Glynn
and John Dowde, Electors :—Bridport, Joseph Bartlett and others,
Electors :—Sunderland, Cuthbert Vaux and George Reed, Electors.

Dublin City Election—Petition of Electors, complaining of
that Election (App. No. 1) ; referred to the General Committee of
Elections, and Mr. Speaker to issue his Warrants for persons,
papers, and records.

Controverted Elections—Viscount Sandon, one other Mem-
ber appointed by Mr. Speaker to serve on the General Committee
of Elections, and not being objected to by the House, took the fol.
lowing oath :

I do swear, that I will truly and faithfully perform the duties be.
longing to a MCmber of the General Committe of Elections, with-
out fear or favour, to the best of my judgment and ability. So
help me God.

Committee to meet at a quarter before Four o'clock to.day.

COURT-MARTIAL in the TOWER.

• On Tuesday the Ist battalion of Fusileer Guards quartered in
the Tower were assembled on the parade, to hear the proceedings
of a district Court-martial read over on private Stoddart, who had
been tried for unbecoming and unsoldier-like conduct while on
duty in the Bank of England. on the night of Saturday, the 29th
ultimo. The circumstances waich led to the trial were these :
The guard which attends the Bank every night is accompanied by
one of the officers of the regiment, who is allowed a guinea, and
a dinner prepared for him at a neighbouring hotel. On the
night in question the officer in command of the detachment had
a fine saddle of mutton cooked for his dinner, and waited for
some time in expectation of receiving a visit from a friend, who
had promised to take dinner with him. The officer, however,
was doomed to eat his mutton alone, and after making a hearty
meal and sipping a glass or two of wine, he left the remains
of the feast on the table, and went round the Bank to look atter
his men. On his return to the apartment in which he had dined, ,
he found the mutton and wine had vanished, and immediately
gave information to one of the Bank porters, who came to the con-
clusion that the robbery had been coininitteJ lif' three of the
clerks, who were detained until a late hour on the same night
making up some accounts of an important nature. The clerks
had beets eating their dinner in another apartment, and were
just leaving it, when the porter and his assistant charged them with
stealing the remains of the officer's dinner, and attempted to take
them into custody. The clerks, who are highly-respectable men,
indignantly repelled the charge, and the porter and,his assistant in
the scuffle which ensued, were knocked down. Two of the clerks
got away, but the third was not so fortunate. He was forced into a
room, and the key turned upon him. The affair soon reached the
ear of the resident cashier, who left his apartments, and ordered
the instant liberation of the clerk who was under arrest, and in-
timated to the officer that it was very probable some of hie own
men had made free with the mutton. The detachment were imme-
diately mustered, and a rigid search was determined on. No
sooner were the guard assembled than one man, a private, was ob-
served to remove something from his cap, and throw it behind him.
It provod to be some of the mutter,, and be was interrogated on the
subject, when he accused another soldier, and rgeneral crimination
and recrimination took place, which ended in Stoddart, and another
soldier, named Smith, being deprived of their arms, and placed under
detention. It appeared that Stoddart was the sentinel on duty op-
posite the building appropriated to the accommodation of the officer,
and it was suggested to him by Smith, after the officer had finished his
dinner, that there was a good chance of obtaining a "tuck out,"
and he took the other's post, put on his cap, and shouldered his
musket, while Stoddart committed the robbery. The mutton was
divided among several men, but ere they had finished their share
the plunder was discovered. Stoddart, in defence, pleaded that
Smith first smelt the mutton, and instigated him to commit the
rooliery. Smith, who had been in the service for eight years, and
had obtained one stripe for good conduct, was acquitted, but Stotl-
dart was found guilty, and sentenced to forty days' imprisonment
in the Penitentiary, where lie now is.

The porter who so injudiciously interfered in the matter, has
been suspended by the Directors of the Bank.

A-BRIDGING A TOLL.—A patty of "navvies,"
being at work on one side of the Thames, and lodging on the
other, hit upon an ingenious plan for reducing the bridge-toll.
They deputed one of their party to inquire of the collector,
how much weight a man was allowed to carry, and whether
any sort of a load was allowed. The collector answered,
" Carry what you choose, and as much as you car.." They
took him at his word, and assembling the whole force on the
bridge, they divided the party into two sections, and one
carried two through the gate, more to the merriment of tho
lookers on, than to the amusement or profit of the collector.
It affords us much pleasure in recording, that the
Captain
Tinghae,
:Schott Reignolds, of her Majesty's 49th Regiment, who if
especially mentioned for his conspicuous bravery at the capture of
General Sir Hugh Gough, is the eldest son of the late
Major Thomas Reignolds, of the Scots Greys, who was many yew&
on the staff at Brighton, and who gloriously fell at the Battle cf
Waterloo.—Brighton Gozette.

THE SUN, LONDON, FRMAY M

Watson,. W. IL—Kinsale
Wawn, J. T.—South Shields
Wemyss, Colonel—Fifeshire
Westenra, Hon. J. C.—King's Co
White, Colonel Samuel—Leitrim
White, Henry—Longford
Wigney, J. N.—Brighton
Williams, William—Coventry
Wilshere, Williatn—Yarmouth
Wilson, M.—Clitheroe

PAIR;
FOR THE MOTION.
A'Court, Captain—Tamworth
Brooke, Sir A. B.—Fermanagh
Burdett, Sir F.—N. Wiltshire
Cartwright, Wm. IL—South Nor.
thamptonshire
Castlereagh, Visct—Down Co.
Clements, Colonel—Cavan
Dugdale, W. S.—Warwickshlre
Eastnor, Viscount—Reigate
Henniker, Lord—East Suffolk
Irving, John—Antrim Co.
Jones, Joh n—Carmarthenshire
Ker, David—Downpatriek
Lindsay, H. H. —sandwich
Pennant, D.—Carnarvonshire
Planta, Joseph—Hastings
Peel, Col. Jonathan—Huntingdon
Vesey, Hon. T —Queen's Co.

ABSENT CONS'
Arbuthnot, General—Kincardine-

shire
Hotham, Lord—Leominster
ogestre, Viscount—Staffordshire
Jackson, Mr. Serj.—Bandon tsridgc

ABSENT LII
Archbold, Robert—Kildare
Bellew, R. H.—Louth
Callaghan,.—Cork City
Chaliners, Patrick—Montrose, &c
Crawford, S.—Rochdale
Denison, W. 1— %% est Sussex
Drag, J. S. W. E.—Wareham
Dundas, Frederick—Orkney
Ellice, Right Hon. E.—Coventry
Etwall, Ralph—Andover •
Grattan, Henry—Meath
Greenaway, Charles—Leominster
Hollond, Robert—Hastings
Howick, Viscount—Sunderland

Winningtoni
Wood, Ben
Woed, Cha
Wood, G.
Wood, Sir
Wrightson,
Yorke, H. I

1 Sir T. E.—Bewdley
min—Southwark
es—Halitax
.—Kendal
atthew—London
W. B.—Northallerton
I.—York
TELLERS.
'nry—Devonport
in—Sheffield

ITufaell,
Parker, .10:
S-34.
FOR THE AMENDMENT.
Wilde, Sir Thomas—Worcester
Butler, Hon. P.—Kilkenny Co
Cave, Robert Otway—Tipperary
Ainsworth, P.-=Bolton

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.—Preston
Clements, Visc...r.Leitrim Co.
O'Ferrall, R. M:—Kildare Co.
Ellice, Edward St. Andrew's
Seymour, Lord4Totness
White, Luke—Longford
Howard, P. H.—Carlisle
Listowelle Lord—St. Alban's
Maher, John— Wexford Co.
Lev eson, Loro
Pignt, David Richard—Clonmell
Feilden, W. J —l3ldekbnrn
Shelborne, Earl of—Caine

;ERVATIVES—R.
Kerrison, Sir E.—Eye
Palmer, George—Egret
Vyvyan, Sir It.—Helstone
Williams, T. Peers—Marlow

3ERALS-28.
James, William—Cumbe•land
Macnamara, Major- Clare
Martin, Thomas—Galway Co.
Norreys, Sir Denham—Mallow
O'Brien, Cornelius—Clare
O'Brien, J.—Limerick City
O'Connell, Daniel—Cork Co.
Power, J.—Wexford Co.
Roche, E. B.—Cork Co.
Rumbold, C. E.—Yarmouth
Shell, Richard Lalor—Dungarvan
Stock, Dr.—Cashel
Talbot, C. R. M.—Glamorgansliirc
Vane, Lord H.—South Durham

ANALYSIS OF DIVISION.I
Voted against Lord John Russell's Resolution (Tellers
included)
Voted for it (Tellers included)
Pairs (17)
klasent Conservatives
Liberals
Seats Vacant, Douhle Returns, &c. : Southampton,
Salop, Carnwall, Clackmannan, Cardigan, Thetford,
Bandon, and Meath
Speak

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS, Feb. 17.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the
Woolsack at Five o'Clock.

The Marquis of CONYNGIIAM presented a
petition from Donegal on the subject of Presbyterian
marriages.
The Earl of MINTO presented a petition from
Roxburgh, praying for a revision of the Provision-
laws.

On the motion of the Duke of RICHMOND,
several Noble Lords were appointed a Select
Committee to consider of certain matters relative to
the Library.
Lord BROUGHAM presented petitions from the.
Dissenters of Bromsgrove, from Lauder, and Forfar,
praying for a total repeal of the Corn-laws. Also
a petition from Antrim relative to Dissenter's
marrages.
POOR-LAW CHAPLAINS (IRELAND).

Earl CLAN CARTY said he rose, in pursuance I
of a notice he had given on Monday last, for laying
on the table of the 'House the returns connected with
the appointment of chaplains to the poor-houses in
Ireland, that information should be laid before
their Lordships, which might enable them to judge
of the soundness of the principle which the Poor-
law Commissioners had adopted in those appoint-
ments, whether they were of a religious character,.
or whether, as appeared to him (Earl Clancarty),
they were directly inconsistent with Protestant reli-
gion in Ireland. It would be unnecessary for him to
trespass at any length upon their Lordship's at-
tention, and he trusted he should receive some
indulgence, as he seldom addressed that House, and did
so now on the impulse of duty only.He feared the returns,
for which he moved, would show on the face of
them that there had been is disregard of the
Established Church in Ireland, and an undue
leaning to the. Church of Rome, as well as
trifling with the interests of the rate-payers in Ire-
land. He did not wish to impute anything to the
Poor-law Commissioners, Fe was well aware of the
difficulties with which they had to contend; of Mr.
Nichols especially, who was perhaps most implicated
in the question to which he (Earl Clancarty) was about i
to advert, he was far from being insensible of the ser-
vices
which that gentleman had rendered to Ireland,
as the author of the Irish Poor-law, and as the Com-
missioner
who had called it into operation, he de- I
served very great credit ; and much as the adminis-
tration was called before the attention of that House,
in the early part of that year, he (Earl Clancarty)
was aware that Mr. Nichols had evinced much zeal
and labour, and, with the exception of the _case to
which he now referred, sound judgment, in the man- ,
ner in which he had laboured to promote the success-
ful application of the law. Hitherto the law had been
most beneficial in its operations, but he (Earl
Clancarty) could not on that account acquiesce
in the use, or, rather, abuse, which he had
thought fit to make of powers vested in him for
the appointment of chaplains. There was nothing in
the Act to warrant him to grant to Roman Catholic
chaplains salaries more than double thg amount of
those he had allowed to Protestant chaplahis. They had,
by so doing, caused an unnecessary expense, and had put
a slight on the Established Church, which was aggra-
vated, by not having been contemplated till after the
communication with the Roman Catholic Bishops, in
which the Protestants were not consulted. Still less
did he (Earl Clancarty) agree that preponderancy of
numbers was to form a claim for the clergy of
any denomination for partaking of any endowment
granted by .the State, which was as much as to say
that numbers, and not the truth, should form tie
basis of the national religion. He was free to admit
that the circumstances of Ireland, with so large a
Roman Catholic and Presbyterian population, required
in the enactment of the Poor-law—on the principle of
administering relief only in workhouses,and preventing
them from going to their own places of wor-
ship—that the performance of divine service
in those workhouses should be in accordance
with the various tenets of the inmates. The
provisions under which the Commissioners acted,
authorised the appointment of one chaplain of each
persuasion, giving the preference to clergymen of the
parish duly qualified. The duties to be performed
were equal, the salaries then ought to be equal,
but the Poor-law Commissioners thought other-
wise—" Duo aliter visum." The Commissioners
thought that the Catholic chaplains ought to
be paid more than those of the Established
Church, as having more duties to perform in
the way of visiting and instructing, so they
consulted the Catholic Bishops on the subject.
The Catholic Bishops were thus associated with
the Commissioners in a manner which he
could not approve of.—(Hear.) He did not think
-that the Legislature, in passing the law, had
any intentions of the kind, or that they wished to
vest such a power in the Commissioners. If the law
were to have such an etrect, it was evident,
from the speeches delivered in both Houses,
that Members were perfectly unconscious of it.
The correspondence which had passed between him
and Mr. Nichols upon the subject had been laid, by
express desire, before the Government ; and the answer
of the Government was that they did not deem it ne-
cessary to interfere with the discretion excercised by
the Commissioners. lie would not trouble their
Lordships further, but conclude by reading the
motion which he intended to submit to the House :
—l, The number of chaplains that have been ap-
I pointed under the provisions of the Bth section of the
Irish Poor-law, with the dates of their several
I appointments, their names, their religious denornina-
tions, their salaries, and the names of the Poor-law
Unions, for which they are severally appointed ; also,
2d, copy of any minute or resolution of the Poor-
law Commissioners declaratory of the principle
upon which they determined the amounts
of the salaries of the chaplains so appointed, with the
date of the same ; and should the amount vary, as be-
tween the chaplains of different denominations, then
a statement of the basis of calculation for determining
the amounts of the several salaries ; also, 3d,
copies of all correspondence, or minutes of conver-
sations had with any Bishops of the Esta-
blished Church relative to the salaries to
be paid to the Protestant chaplains : also 4th,
sation had with Roman Catholic Bishops, rela-
copies of
the
remonstrances
copies of all corresponbdoenpca.eid otor.
the Roman
anof
ecaotnhvoelric-
tive to the salaries to
chaplains : also, sth,
copies of all correspondence
I made in writing, or otherwise, to t e oor-law '
Com-
missioners, against the irregularity of the..salaries to be
Commissioners and her
for Ireland, upon the
given to the chaplains of different. religious denomi-
-1
nations : and also, 6th,
between the Poor-law
Ma-
jesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department,
provisions of the Irish Poor
or with the Chief Secretary
said that in the few
practice adopted by .the Poor-law Commissioners in
regulating the salaries of chaplains appointed or to
be appointed under the
Relief Act.
The Duke of WELLINGTON
words which he intended to addrttss,, to their Lord-
shipsN
manyeav ourto
important avo avoid as
topicss rn
on the motion of the oVe.
adverting to the
rl, he should en-
d which the able Earl had in-
troduced to their Lordsilheihpsa.s P6l.l3sei the Duke of Wel-
liion})]al
could not
motion.—(4 augh.) The Noblet help calling the motion of the
Noble
Earl ought to have given notice/of his intention to
move for leave to lay upon the tble of the House a
Bill to alter the Irish Poor-law Act. 1 The whole of
his speech was against a particular clause in the Irish
Poor-law Act, and therefore he !ought to have given
notice of his intention to move for a repeal of that clause
in the Act. He (the Duke of Wellington) confessed he
1 found great difficulty in discussing this subject with-

out adverting to some of those important topics in-
troduced by the Noble Earl. He (the Duke of Wel-
lington) had been most anxious that the case should
be left m the hands of the Government ; and
the Noble Earl had been requested to do so, in
order that some inquiry might have been entered into
on the part of the Government. Instead of that
the Noble Earl thought proper to come forward, as it
appeared to him (the Duke of Wellington), for a re-
I peal of the Poor -law Act. He had shown no grounds
- whatever for his motion. The first part of the motion
was for a return of the number of chaplains; and
the rest of the motion was for correspondence
and even conversations respecting them.—(Hear.)
With respect to all these matters, no ground what-
ever had been laid before their Lordships for this mo-
tion, excepting the conversation the Noble Lord
had had himself in connection with the subject.
Let them look at the case as it stood ; in the English
Poor-law Act, which was the model of thii Bill, there
was a clause enabling the Poor-law guardians
to appoint a clergyman of the Church of England
to be the chaplain of the workhouse. The Legislature
had this Act fully before them, when the Irish Poor-
law Act was passed, and with that clause before them,
they inserted in the Irish Bill another, empowering
the Irish Poor-law Commissioners to apppoint, not
a clergyman of the Church of England, but three
clergymen, one of the Established Church, one
of the Dissenting persuasion, and the third of
the Roman Catholic persuasion, with the power also
of fixing their salaries as they thought proper, by
the 49th section of the Act. And not only
this, but the Legislature had before them, at
the same time, the Irish Gaol Act, under
which the. Grand Jury had the power of appointing
three chaplains to the gaol, and of giving them
certain salaries stated in the law. This had
been passed many years, and, its working had
been well understood long before the Irish Poor-law
Bill was passed. But this, too, was not all, with re-
spect to the provisions of the Irish Gaol Act, for, be-
sides their spiritual duties, the chaplains were required
to perform certain other duties in the interior of the
gaol, such as the inspection of the provisions, and
seeing whether they were fit for the consumption of the
prisoners, and other duties specified by the clause of the
Act. They would next come to consider the discretion
which the Legislature, having those two laws before
their eyes, thought proper to allow to the Poor-law
Commissioners •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 workhouse—that
there were other classes, of another religious 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. He (the Duke of Welling-
ton) believed that that was a perfectly pro-
per and sound discretion to be allowed them.
*The clergymen to be appointed to the situations in
question were the clergymen 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.
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. He 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 bail 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, unle.4s 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 recojr,
lected that the Noble Duke (Wellington) had,,not
only recommended the production of minutes of con-
versations, with: reference to the Irish Poor-claw 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 ?
—(Laughter and cheers.)
Earl of CLANCARTY.._ Pith 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 111ar'quis 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-
der, 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-
lic Relief Bill.—(Laughter and ironical cheers.)
Surely, then, he was in order in attributing to them
incincerity in their friendship fpr 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
had seen the Irish Secretary for Ireland that day
on 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
course which wa.§ clearly illegal. He withdrew his
motion, but regretted the information he required
was not afforded.

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-
ing him what it was he wanted to know,
and he (the Duke) had referred him to the Irish Go-
vernment, and told him that they could give him any
other information he might require. But when he

came 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 made a few observa-
tions in explanation, which 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
of Exeter had heard with pain a principle set 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 bd under the control of Parlia-
ment, they would be answerable for their actions,
and returns would be constantly made. What
did 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 thew Commissioners, the smallest stipends
of 201. being almost invariably devoted to the Church
of England chaplains. He (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 Nyho 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 MONTEAGLE presented a petition from
Congleton, in Cheshire,• signed by about 3,000 per-
sons, for a repeal of the Corn-laws.

Lord DURCANNON moved for certain returns
relative to the appointment .of deputy-lieutenants and
deputy-sheriffs in Ireland.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
HOUSE OF LORDS, Feb. 17.
The House sat to-day to hear appeals. The Peers present
were the Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham, Lord Cottenham,
and Lord Campbell.
HERNE V. THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAD replied to-day to the appeal, and
Their LORDSHIPS took time to consider their judgment.
ANDREWS V. WALTON.
The appellant, 111 r. Andrews, appeared in person to argue
the case, which was an appeal from the decree of the Vice-
Chancellor of England, dismissing the appellant's bill with
costs, and also from certain interlocutory orders pronounced
by the Lord and Vice-Chancellor. The defendant being
in the Fleet for contempt, was brought up on habeas.
A preliminary objection was taken to the hearing of
the appeal, on the ground that neither the decree
nor the order were enrolled, and upon their Lordships deciding
in favour of the objection, the appeal was ordered to stand over
till after Easter, at the request of the appellant.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, Feb. 17.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
BAANFIL V. RRYDGES.

The arguments in this part. heard case occupied the Court
the whole day.

(Before Vice-Chancellor Wiaßtm.)
MONK. V. TA IiKEAVILLE.

The defendant in this case had consented to pay to the
plaintiff the sum of 7,000/., the principal sum in dispute, within
six months.
His HONOUR this morning expressed his opinion on some
other motions in the suit, but reserved his final decision upon
them until he had an opportunity of looking into the papers.
( Before Vice-Chancellor BRU )
No case invelvaig any feature of general interest, was heard
in this Court.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Feb. 17.

( Sittings at Guildhall, before Lord Chief Justice DENMAN.)
THE BIRMINGHAM, BRISTOL, AND THAMES JUNCTION, ALIAS

WEST LONDON RAILWAY COMPANY V. HALL.
This was an action for the recovery of 1901., alleged to be
due by the defendant to the Company, in virtue of his having
become a shareholder fur ten shares, of 20/. each, but not hav-
ing paid the calls successively made upon him, in common with
all other shareholders, by order ot the Directors.
Mr. BUTT and Mr. PLATT were for the plaintiff; Mr.
COCKBURN and Mr. CURRY for the defendant.

The defendant pleaded that, at the time of making the calls,
he had not subscribed ; that the Directors bad not made the
calls ; that they had not made the calla according to the Act of
Parliament ; that they had not given notice according to the
provisions of the Act; that the defendant had been induced to
become a subscriber through fraud, covin, and misrepresenta-
tion by the Company. On all of these pleas issue was joined.
Henry Cassen, an accountant, from Bath, was called to prove
the execution of the deed by the defendant, but the witness
being a subscriber himself, though he had paid up no call, was
ordered to stand down for the present, until it was desided
whether or not he should be considered an interested party.
The subscription of Richard Hall to the Parliamentary deed
was proved, subject to a question as to his identity, which was
reserved.

Thomas Brook, a clerk, proved that the calls were duly made
Ind advertised. The Company had been authorised by law to
change their style from the Birmingham, Bristol, and Thames
Junction lialway to that of the West London Railway. • The
works had been suspended.
Air. tar RUN now said that the defendant had sold his shares
*before the calls were made, having paid merely the sum
first required, and they were registered in the name of
another person. Moreover, the works were.not going on; all the
money receiied since 1836, had been spent in law,; the Direc-
tors were ashamed of their old name, they had assumed a new
one, and had not even paid up their own shares. The regis-
tered Shareholders to whom the defendant had transferred his
ten shares had paid up all the calls. In fact, the Com-
pany now wanted to be paid a secon4 time for the same ten
shares, an undertaking that never would be carried on.
W. H. Cussens then proved that on the sth of July, 1836,
he purchased ten shares from Mr. Hall before the first call was
made. Since then witness had paid 1901. on the ten shares.
Defendant was at that time a Share-broker.

Henry Cassen was now called on to give evidence for the
defendant. Witness had acted at Bristol as agent to the Com-
pany, and some complaints having been made against the un-
dertaking, he was instructed to tell the subscribers that
they would not be liable for any responsibilities, unless
they paid up the calls and registered. He disposed of
about bOO shares at Bristol. In cross-examination by Mr.
Platt, witness said he sold ten shares to the defendant,
but was not sure whether he had paid the deposit. Witness cut
the counterfoils out of his book afterwards, but could not well
say why. The deed arrived in two sheets ; one containing the
deed, the ether seals for and places for the signatures of sub-
scribers. On this account some said afterwards that they did
not knew what they had signed.
Counsel for the defendant insisted that a signature in such
circumstances was not a proper execution.
It appeared, in the course of examination, that Mr. Hall had
sold ten shares for 2s. 6d. each ; but there was no proof that
those were the ten shares he had subscribed for, and finally,
a letter was handed in, signed by Mr. Hall himself, acknow-
ledging that he had subscribed the contract-deed, though
he had disposed of the ten shares.

Lord DENMAN, in summing up, condemned the irregular
mode of taking the subscription. Te have one parchment
holding the deed, and another holding the signature, and to
['say that signing the latter was executing the deed, was open to
very serious doubt. Mr.
Cassen was also very wrong in cut.
ting out the counterfoils to the certificates; but the Company
were not open to the charge of fraud and covin.
The Jury retired, and after considerable delay, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff, being of opinion that the deeds wire
attached at the time of signing.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Feb. 17. •
(Sittings at Guildhall.)
COVINGTON AND ANOTHER. V. FARLEY AND ANOTHER.
This was an action brought to recover the value of a crane
belonging to the plaintiffs, who are wharfingers, which crane
had been used by the defendants for the purpose of landing a
quantity of stone, and during the operation the crane was
broken down.
The' case possessed no feature of interest.