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

NEW ZEALAND.

Mr. C. BULLER poqi oned his motion regarding New
Zealand.
In answer to a question from Lord HOWICK,
Sir 11. PEEL declined to give any other documents re-
specting New Zealand except extracts. It would not be
thought advantageous to the public service to furnish copies of
instructions to Captain Gray, the new Governor, which in-
structions had not yet reached the colony. He could only give
the extracts promised.
Lord HO WICK said he wished to know whether the ex-
tracts would enable the House to form an opinion as to the
policy pursued by the Government in New Zealand.—( Hear.)
Before Parliament separated it would be absolutely necessary
that it should know whether or not the Government meant to
pursue a different line of policy towards New Zealand than
that which had hitherto so unfortunately regulated the affairs
of that colony.
Sir R. PEEL said he could not say, but he thought the
extracts which he would give would hardly answer the purpose
of the Noble Lord. But if they did not, the Noble Lord
would be at full liberty to make any fu.ther motion on the sub-
ject. He wished to know what had taken place in New Zea•
land, and whether any difficulty was felt in giving the papers
to the House.
Lord HO WICK wished to know when the discussion would
take place, and on what night the Right Hon. Baronet pro-
posed to take the vote on New Zealand.
Sir R. PEEL saw no reason why the papers should not be
laid on the table of the House to-morrow or the next day.
The discussion on New Zealand might be taken on Friday or
Monday next. It was intended to go into Committee of Sup-
ply to-morrow, and the matter might then be introduced in-
cidentally.
Lord HOWICK thought that it was not necessary to press
the vote, and that it might be gone into after the debate.
Mr. C. BILLER wished the debate to be positively fixed
for Monday.
Sir R. PEEL assented to the proposition.
BRAZILIAN TARIFF.

Mr. LABOUCHERE wished to ask the Right Honourable
Baronet when the returns could he laid on the table of the
differential duties imposed on British commerce by the Bra-
zilian Chamber of Deputies.
Sir R. PEEL said, that he thought he should be able to
place them before the House to-morrow.
COAL DUTY—PORT OF LONDON.

On the motion that the Haute go into Committee on this
Bill,

Air. HUME wished to cask whether it was competent for
the Noble Lord to go into Committee on this Bill, as it had
the character of neither a public or a private Bill?
The SPEAKER replied that the Noble Lord was perfectly
entitled to go into Committee ; for though the title expressly
referred to the port of London, it in reality affected the whole
country.
Mr. HUME said that it was certainly stated in the Bill that
it referred to the port of London alone, and he could not,
therefore, understand how, under this title, the amendments
could be proposed.
The SPEAKER said, that as the amendments of course
partook of the customary character of the Bill, there could be
no objection to the consideration of them.
Sir. HUTT said, that as the Government had no objection,
he would then move the amendment of which he had given
notice:—" That it be an instruction to the Committee that
they have pow, r to provide that all duties now levied or to be
levied, by virtue of this Bill, on coals brought within the
liberties of the City of London, coastwise, or by inland navi-
gation, shall likewise be levied on coals brought within the
same district by railway or by any other mode of conveyance."
The aTrendment was agreed to.
The Howe then went into Committee, and after the first
class had been agreed to,
The Earl of LINCOLN moved a series of amendments,
the first of which proposed to provide a fund for opening
of poor an,l densely populated districts of the metropolis, or
for keeping; :paces in its immediate vicinity. Others were for
imposing the duty on other tracts of conveyance than the
Thames. The clause for providing for the improvements was
as follows:—" And be it enacted, that from and e'er the said
31st day of December, 1845, the said duty of one penny
per tin on coals, cinders, and culm so imposed and extended
as aforesaid, shall from time to time when and as received be
laid out or invested in the purchase of stock in some of the
public stocks or funds, or upon Government or real securities,
at interest, in the names of the Commissioners for the time
being of her Majesty's Woods, Forests, Land Revenues,
Works, and Buildings, to an account to be entituled, The
Metropolis Improvement Fund Account ;' and the said Com-
missioners shall from time to time lay out or invest the yearly
dividends or interest of the stocks, fends, and securities, so to
be purchased in their names on the account aforesaid, in like
manner for the purpose of accumulation in the meantime, and
until the said fund shall be required for and appropriated by
Parliament to the execution of improvements in the metropolis."
A Committee had been appointed in 1826, and the evidence
before that Committee, in conjunction with the results of the
Committee of 1826, would be now of admirable service in the
decisions of this Bill. The object of this clause was to secure
to the community a participation in the general benefits which
would result from the employment of the accumulated fund in
improving the different parts of the metropolis. He thought
the amendments he proposed would answer all the purposes
Honourable Members opposite had in view, and that they
would meet the objections which Honourable Members had
raised against the Bill. To meet the objections of which he
had heard, he had prepared a clause which he believed would
be sufficient to satisfy the Honourable Gentlemen who were
opposed to this measure on the grounds which had been
alleged.
Mr. WILLIAMS objected to the continuance of a tax upon
the poorest population of the metropolis, and upon all the in-
habitants of the Vale of Thames, for improvements which
would add to the value of all the household property in London.
Hear, hear.) The tax was one as oppressive upon the
working &asses as a tax upon bread.
Mr. BRIGHT—We have all that to pay.—( A laugh.)
Mr. WILLIAMS thought that the tax upon coals was one
pressing upon a most important necessary of life, and that
it ought not to be imposed upon those who were the least able

to bear it, and that too to give an increased value to the pro-
perty of the wealthy.—( Hear.) He was by no means opposed
to the improvements, hut he thought they ought to be effected
at the expense of those who would be the greatest gainers by
them.—( Hear, hear.) Why was not a tax laid upon houses
for the purpose ?—( Hear, hear.) The city of London had
sufficient resources to effect all the improvement that were
needed. But within the last two years upwards of 'a million of
money had been raised for the benefit of the city by means of
this oppressive tax upon the poor.—( Hear.) He would offer
all the opposition in his power to the continuance of the tax.
Mr. HUME said the Noble Lord at the head of the Woods
and Forests had rested his case upon the reports of the sana-
tory commission, and upon the admitted facts detailed in those
reports, as to the want of ventilation and cleanliness in the
habitations of the poor in the metropolis, and the imperfect
drainage of the districts which were chiefly inhabited by the
poor. But, surely, it was not the best means of relieving the
poor from those acknowledged sufferings and privations, to in-
crease the price of an article of necessity almost equal to the
necessity of food, and quite equal to that of clothing.—( Hear. )
The proprietors of the districts which would be benefited by
the improvements ought to be taxed for the expense of making
those improvements.—( Hear, hear.) Besides, he did not like
to leave a "nest egg " of 12,00 W. in the bands of the Board
of Woods and Forests to be made use of when they thought
proper to find an occasion.—( Hear, and laughter. )
Air. MASI ERNIAN, who wss very indistinctly heard,
would give every opposition in his power to the continuance of
the tax.

Lord LINCOLN was surprised at the opposition of the Hon.
Member for London. Fur he himself had been assured by an
Hon. Member connected with the City—( A laugh)—that if
the tax were taken off, no one would he benefited but the coal
dealers—( Hear, and a laugh )—and that it would be a pity that
so much money shruld be tort to the public, whilst there re-
mained so great a necessity for improvement in the
streets of the metropolis—( Hear, hear)—and especially
in the dwellings of the pt.or, who would be the very last to be-
nefit by any small reduction in the tax upon coals. The Noble
Lord continued by saying he had heard his Hon. Friend say
that he'could not see of what use th.s penny duty on coals would be;
yet he (Lord Lincoln) had before him a document, by which
it appeared that his Hon. Friend had advocated a duty upon
the same article to the amount of 18d.—( Hear, hear)—and
for what ? Why, for the sole purposes and benefits of the city of
London.—( Hear, hear.) Well, then, he ( Lord Lincoln) next
found that his Honourable Friend and another Honour-
able Member of that House, who was an Alderman of the
of the Corporation of London, had said at a public meeting,
that this tax would be of ne benefit to the city of London,
yet, when it came to a vote it was found that there were four to

three against the motion of the Hon. Member.—( Hear, hear. )
Then, a short time before the question came to he discussed
before that How e, his ( Lord Lincoln's) Hoi. Friend asked
him what proportion of this tax would be devoted to benefiting
the city of London, am' he (Lord Lincoln) told him the City
would ben, fit by it to nearly the amount of a million and a half
sterling pet annum, and that heretofore very material benefits
had been conferred, from the same tax, upon Whitechapel and
Lambeth, and other districts; and, therefore, on those grounds
alone, and without having any recourse to what might be called
a subterfuge, he would support this measure.
After a few words, in explanation, from Mr. BIAS-
TERMAN.

Lord 1-10 WICK said it appeared to him that the cnly ques-
tion for the House to consider in reference to this tax was,
whether it was one which a rrajority of the Pouse would deem
beneficial, or the contrary, to the purposes for which it had been
hitherto applied.—( Hear hear.) And here he would beg
leave to say that it did appear to him that there never was a tax
which he conceived was more opposed to justice or com-
mon sense than this, as a tax levied for purposes
of finance.—(Hear, hear.) Now, what was the real question
they had to consider ? It was this : they were going to con-
sider whether it was necessary to continue the levy of a tax
upon the valley of the Thames for the transit of coals along its
banks, which coals were intended for the use, in a great part,
for the consumption of the poorer classes of the community.—
( Hear, hear.) Now, he knew something of the part of the
country over which these coals were carried for consumption.
aid he begged to tell the Right Hon. Baronet oppnsite, and the
Noble Lord also, that this tax on what he migiA one of the
first necessaries of life, had hitherto been felt as one of ihe
greatest grievances under which the labouring classes could be
oppressed, because it tended to increase to a still higher amount
the present very high price of fuel.—( Hear, hear.) He had
heard the Noble Lord opposite defend this proposition upon the
ground that it was a very law tax ; but that was an argument
which cut two ways ; for it argued either in favour of the tax,
inasmuch as that another additional peony would not be felt ;
or that, because it was so small and trifling, it should be at,o..
fished altogether, which be (Lord Howick ) conceived Wes not
the ►eal argument against it.—(Hear,•hear. ) •
Sir ROBERT PEEL begged to assure the Noble Lord
opposite and the House. that the sole object of this tax was to
improve the condition of certain classes in par's of the' City,
and the fund propo•ted to be raised in this way could not be op-
plied without the sanction , f Parliament, and, therefore, no ap-
prehension need exist as to the mode in which the fund wou•d
be applied Hear, hsar.) Last year this subject was brought.
before Parliament, and it was then fully diseased. lie did not
propose now wearying the House with a detail of what was said
then ; but, notwithstanding the objections he had heard urged
against the impost this evening, he would just call the attention
of the Mouse to a tew specific remarks illustrative of the uti-
lity of this tax. The Right Hon. Baronet then read an ex-
_

tract from the VI ork of Mr. Seaford Smith, in which
was stated the unhealthy nature of the localities of
Whitechapel and Bethnal-green, and other districts of the
city, into which it was absolutely necessary to introduce some
means of preventing the recurrence of fever and other diseases,
arising from such causes as a pestiferous atmosphere; and
having concluded reading the extract, he then asked, would it
be of no moment to have those wretched lanes and alleys re-
moved, and wider' and healdhy and open streets built instead of
them ?—( Hear, hear.) A tax for an indefinite period was
proposed on coals. Thirteen-pence was the original tax. to
last till 186:1, one penny of which was about to expire. It was
intended that the penny should be continued for the same
period as the twelve pence, for the purpose of constituting a

' fund to build infirmaries for those parts of London called the
fever districts. Loo'ol4g to the purposes of the Bill--namely,
the alleviation of the distresses of the poor—and the good
which would result from the expendituri of 11,0001.
per annum for the mitigation of their ills, he was of opinion
that an actual amount of positive good would preponderate.
Those were the general principles on which he would give his
cordial support to the motion of his Noble Friend, which would
be the means of lessening, in some degree, the distresses of the
poor in the fever districts.
Mr. Alderman HUMPHERY said the improvements now
going on in London.were a great benefit to the working classes,
but he did not think that the putting a duty on coal could
add to their comforts. He was rather desirous that the duty
should be taken off altogether. The poor would not derive
any benefit from relieving them from a tax of only one penny,
for there was not a single poor family in London that consumed
more than one ton annually.
Mr. HAWES wanted to know whether it: was.possible or
not for the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the matter,
to find out a substitute for the proposed tax. What was there
at present in' the tax that recommended it? A little more in.
vestigation would have shown that it was a tax on the poor,
and not on the rich. The benefit from the tax woald result
to the rich, whose property it was intented to improve.
After a few words from Sir CHARLES LEMON,
Mr. EWART said he bad considerable reluctance in

opposing a Gentleman who, in that House, had always
conducted himself with unusual fairness. • He complained of
the manner in which the subject had been brought under the
consideration of the House. Neither the Noble Lord, nor the
Rii,ht Hon. Gentleman near him, had undertaken to defend the
principles of the tax. It was a proposition to levy a tax in
opposition to every measure of sound policy. He was apposed
to the principle of the tax, and not to the amount. In the city
of London the amount of tax was twenty-five per cent. on the
first price of coals. Other duties were levied at other places,
and the country looked rather that all these taxes should be
taken off than increased. He trusted that the House would
act on sound principles, and refuse the Bill proposed by the
Government.
After a few words from Mr. BARNARD and Mr. Alderman
HUMYHERY, who explained,
The House divided, when there appeared,
For the amendment
Against it 42
Majority —27
On our return to the gallery we found the Earl of LIN-
COLN moving the following amendment :—That from and
after the 31st day of December, 1845, the duty of one penny
per ton on coals, cinders, and culm, so impowd and extended
as aforesaid, shall from time to time when and as received be ,
laid out ( r invested in the purchase of Stock in some of the
public Stocks or Funds, or upon Government or Real Securi-
ties, at interest, in the names of the Commissioners for the time
being of her Majesty's Woods, Forests, Land Revenues,
Works, and Buildings, to an account to be intitnled, " The
Metropolis Imerovement Fund Account ;" and the said Com- '
missioners shall from time to time lay out or invest the yearly
dividends or interest of the Stocks, Funds, and Securities so to
he purchased in their names on the amount aforesaid. in like
manner for the purpose of accumulation in the mean time. and
until the said Fund shall be required for and appropriated by
Parliament to the execution of Improvements in the Metro-
polis..
.

A desultory conversation then ensued, after which,
Mr. HUME wished to know how the tax was to be ga
thered?
The Earl of LINCOLN—in the same manner as formerly.
The clause, as amended, was agreed to.
Clauses 3,4, 5,6, 7, and 8, were then agreed to.
The remaining clauses of the Bill were also agreed to.
Mr. HUME wished to know if a Bill were not to be intro. .

_ .....
doted this session to carry out sanatory improvements in the
metropolis ? He was well aware there were great difficulties,
but the evil in London was a crying one, and required an imme
diate remedy.

Lord LINCOLN said that no such Bill would be introduced
during the present session. _ _

The Bill was then ordered to be reported to•morrow.
POOR LAW (SC'ITLAND) BILL,
On the motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, the House went
into Committee on this Bill.

Clause 56 was agreed to, as was clause 57, and all the clause.
IIPP? 641.

Mr. PRINGLE believed they would never impose the ap-
plication of this clause on Scotland. If any Gentleman
hail read this Bill, he would find that the effect would be to

throw the inhabitants of many districts, especially in the High-
lands, into a state of positive idleness. He would, therefore,
caution Hon. Members that it would have the effect of changing
the habits of the whole population.
Mr. HASTIE explained that the able-bodied poor in Scot-
land had now the right to relief, and the Lord-Advocate had
not denied the position. If the Learned Lord meant to take
away this power he should introduce a clause for that purpose.
Mr. AGLIONBY wished to know whether the object of
the Bill was to take away the principle, for he thought that
if a working.than were to be thrown into distress
he ought to be kept from starving without going into a work-
house. Till within the last few years, at Maxwell Town, there
had been no assessment whatever, and the poor had only been
relieved by a voluntary subscription of the heritors. In the
county of Kirkcudbright certainly there had been no poor-
law whatever, and therefore he thought that it would be better
for the Learned Lord to settle the point.
Mr. P. BORTHWICK saw that he said with extreme re-
gret that there was any necessity for a poor. law at all, and he
trusted that the House would not introduce the workhouse test
into Scotland. It was altogether opposed to the habits and
independence of the people. But he thought that it was cer-
tainly desirable that the heritors of Scotland and the poor
should know whether there was any right whatever to relief
in cases of distress. The clause, as it stood in the Bill, stated
that the relief was for the poor, and unless they intro-
duced an express definition as to what was meant
by poverty, the able-bodied poor man out of em-
ployment was entitled to relief. The statute of Elizabeth
provided for three things—either that a poor man ahould be
provided with sustenance, or removed to his native parish, or
to the parish of his settlement; and if the Hon. Member did
not move for the exclusion of the section, he would.
Mr. EWART said that it mattered but little what was the
opinion of this or that Government respecting the law of Scot-
land ; for he understood the Learned Lord-Advocate to say,
that the able-bodied poor man was not entitled to relief, and
be agreed with his Hon. Friend the Member for Cockermouth
( Mr. Aglionby) that the clause should be explicit. If no otl er
Member did so, he should move that the proviso be expunged.
Mr. P. M. STEWART said there was much doubt at pre-
sent as to whether able-bodied paupers were entitled to relief,
and the effect of this clause would be to increase that doubt.
Lord DUNCAN believed that no able-bodied person had
ever received relief under the present system. He should
s-pport the clause, as it would still have the effect of preventing
able-bodied paupers from obtaining relief.
Mr. P. BORTHWICK objected to the proviso in the clause,
and moved that it be omitted.

The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
For the m0ti0n.........
Majority.
On the re-admission of strangers, we found
Mr. lIASTIE moving, according to notice, an addition to
clause 64, to the effect that it shell he lawful for the parochial
board of every parish, or combilation of parishes, to allow out
of the funds, raised by assessment or otherwise, for the relief of
the poor there();' such relief to able-bodied persons within such
parishes, or combination of parishes, as the board may deem
necessary, during the existence of temporary distress, arising
from the inability of such person to obtain employment, pro-
vided always that such relief to the able-bodied has the appro-
bation of the Board of Supervision. He hoped the Lord-
Advocate would not oppose this addition to the clause.
The LORD-ADVOCATE opposed the proposed addition.
He thought it would lead to false expectations on the part of
the able-bodied, and it would place the Board of Supervision in
an invidious position.

-52

Mr. A GLiONBY said that there was no evil found in this
country from an excessive provision for the relief of the able-
bodied in the time of great distress. Some such means of relief
as existed in England ought to exist also in Scotland. It
would be a stain upon the Legislature c,f the country, if the case
of a man willing to work, and unable to get work, was not pro.
vided for in a Bill of this nature.—(Bear. )

Mr. ROSS said that in Ireland the able-bodied pauper had
no right to demand relief; yet the parochial authorities had
the power to grant it under extraordinary circumstances. He
could not fee any reason wt,y the parochial authorities in
Scotland should not have the same discretionary power.
After a few words from Mr. BAINE.
The Committee divided, when there appeared,
For the amendment 3l
Against it
Majority agenst the amendment —36
The clause was then agreed to, a. was also clause 65.

Clause 66 was agreed tO, with a few verbal amendments.
Clauses 67, 68, 69, and 70, were then agreed to, without a
discussion.

On the proposal of clause 71,
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD moved, that the proviso
at the end of the clause be expunged.
Mr. P. M. STEW ART did not think that the working
of the clause would be judicious or just. The poor man would
be prevented by it from obtaining that amount of relief, or
that period of relief to which he would be entitled, or to
which he ought to be. He hoped the Lord-Advocate would
explain this clause upon constitutional grounds.
The LORD-ADVOCATE defended the clause, on the
ground tbat it would have the effect of affording more real
means of defence to the poor man than he ever could have
hoped to have had within his means. because it gave
him the power of sueing in forma pauperis, which he
never had before by any previously existing law. In fact, he
had now the power, by the simplest means, of ensuring inquiry
into his case, because the Act compelled the Board of Inquiry
to enter instantly upon the consideration of the case of each
poor man who al plied for relief, and if they did not do se, the
Bill gave the power to the poor man to enforce an inquiry into
his case without any expense, because he still sued in forma
pauperis.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. AGLIONBY could not but regard the speech of the
Lord-Advocate as that of an interested advocate. (Cries of
" Oh, oh !") He was very glad to find such provisions as
enabled the poor man to appeal against the rule of the Board
of Supervision in forma pauperis, hut then he ( Mr. Agli,mby)
would still contend that the latter part of the clause contained
a clause which was against the poor man, and there-
fore, that part of the clause should be struck out. The
poor man was the one virtually shut out from redress by this
clause, for did they think a pauper would go to a lawyer while
he was allowed 'to sue in forma pauperis, or that any
attorney would undertake' a suit for a man without money
wherewith to fee him ? For these reasons, believing that the
practical effect of the clause in connexion with the proviso was
to create a fallacy, and virtually deceive the poor man with a
shadow of relief, he trusted some explanation would be given
by the Government, whether that proviso could be retained or
modified.

Lord DALAIENY thought the quarter sessions were not
sufficiently open to the grievances of the poor, and believed
that the court (,f supervision would obviate this anomaly, and
quoted Dr. Alhon t 9 confirm that opinion.

Mr. HASTIE regarded the principle of the clause as that of
legislating for the rich and oppressing the poor.
Jr.N 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 elastics
of that country. But he now believed that the Government
were not actuated by any motive but that of continuing to op-
presl the poor; and as to the clause in quest,on, it was cruel
and oppressive, and he should now oppose the measure in all its

suh.erinent stages.
when there appeared—
-45
The Hou.e then divided,
For the amendment .
Apinst it
1 Aißjority !unjust the amendment —34
The clause ,ca., 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 she amendment ..,,,„ , .. 8
Against it ... . : ................................. 108
Majority lOO
The gallery was :immediately after cleared for a division on
an amendment propsed by the Lord-Advocate, the purport
of which could not be ascertained in the gallery, when the
numbers were—

For the amendment
Against it

88
25
Majority —(33

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 CLEMENTS 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 beets 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. Gentlems's seemed to
wish, it would be no credit to him or the hospitality of the
country which be 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 settling in the south of Ireland ; and from his expe-
rience he felt bound to express his belief that if
an Irishman 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 Scotehman in preference to the Irishman.
He was sorry the Noble Lord (Duncan) had thought fit to in-
troduce religions differences in a debate on the Scotch poor-law.
Lord DUNCAN said that if he had made any allusion to
religious differences, he regretted it, and it arose from bis being
unaccustomed to Parliamentary speaking.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE expressed his satisfaction at the
disavowal, and would withd-aw 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 was then agreed to.
Mr. BROTHERTON then moved that the Chairman re-
port progress.
The galleries were cleared, but no division took 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.
On 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.