Star.
London, England, 1830-06-04 00:00:00

SUGAR DUTIES.

Mr. HUSK ISSON presentciaPeii;iOnfrom the Vast India Mer-
chants in Liverpool, for an equalization of the duties on East India
and West India Sugars.

BANKING STSTEM.

Mr. HL'SKISSON said he bad before the recess given notice t
his intention to move for a Committee on the banking system of
the country. It was now difficult to find en open day for so im-
portant a subject, and he should not bring it forward this session,
if his right hon. friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would
assure him that no new contract would be formed with the bank of
England before the next session of parliament. He moved for a
return of thenumber of bank notes issued during the last year.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he had no
intention of forming any contract during the present session, but he
was not prepared to bind himself up in the manner wished by his
right hon. friend.
Mr. HUSKISSON bored, that that being the case, an opportu-
nity would be afforded hint in bringing forward the question of the
system of banking.
The return was ordered.

VESTRY BILL.
Mr. EGERTON presented a petition from the parish of St.
James, against the Vestry Bill.
Sir G. COCKBURN presented similar peCtions from Plymouth.
RETURN.
Mr. W. PEEL presented a return of the Salaam and Emolu-
ments, &c. of the Justices of Chests.—Ordered to be panted.

LAW OF DIVORCE.
Dr. PHILLI MORE rose for the purpose of calling the atten-
tion of the House to a subject of much importance, and upon which
it was generally admitted that sonic change was desirable. The
law of divorce in this country was very different to the law ot
divorce in all other countries. In Roman Catholic countries, France
excepted, the canon law prevailed, and of all the Protestant States
we alone continued the law prevalent prior to the heformation and
built upon it some anomalies. So stood the law in those eourts
which were accessible to the generality of the persons interested :
but a r.ew practice had grown up, by which the wealthier classes
were enabled to procure a total dissolution of the marriage bonds.
He was reluctant to trespass upon the attention of the House, but he
thought it necessary to trace the law of divorce from its slender
beginnings up to the present time. The first case was that of the
Marquis of Northampton, who in 1347 obtained a divorce ; and
the question arising as to the nature of that divorce, it was referred
to a commission, in which was Archbishop Cranmer. The slarquis
married again before any decision was given. and in 1534 an act
declared that the divorce was fully valid. In the reign of Mary a
different opinion prevailed ; but in the reign of Elizabeth it was
held that a divorce pronounced by the Ecclesiastical Court was valid.
At the close of that reign, however, the question was mooted, and it
was held that the divorce of the Ecclesiastical Court was only from
bed and board. That was pronounced to be the law of the land,
and it had prevailed to this day. In the year 1692 the Duke of
Norfolk brought forward a bill fur a divorce from his wife, but it
was only in 1702 that he succeeded in his object. From that period
to the accession of the House of Hanover only fifteen divorce bills
had been passed; but from that time they had greatly Increased.
The inconvenience of the present state of the law had been long felt.
Two bills upon the subject had passed the House of Lords, and
been read a second time in that House, but had been lost in Cont.;
mittee. Lord Auckland had brought forward a bill fur making
adultery a misdemeanour, and the discussions upon it were impor.
rant. Lord Grenville had stared that the opinion of the great law
lords of the crown was that the proceedings before Parliament in
divorce bills were disgraceful, and that such was his opinion. Lord
Eldon too was of the same cpinion • and at a subsequent period
Lad Rosalyn spoke to the same ;feet. Such were the opinions
of those who were competent to speak upon the subject, and he
would ask the House whether the evils complained of had been
at all ameliorated by time? Did not the same abuses prevail :•
He would ask any honourable member whether he did not feel him-
self disagreeably situated when a divorce bill came before the House.
The House of Commons was incompetent to discharge such judicial
functions ; and in proof of this he referred to the recent divorce bill
ot lord Ellenborough. The proceedings in divorce bills wete hi
general but a mockery, and the sooner the house was freed front
them the better. The honourable and learned gentleman referred
to the standing orders of the House of Lords, to show that there
were great precautions adopted by that tribunal, but that all those
precautions were tacitly abandoned at present. It was not in human
nature that an assembly like the House of Commons should be corn.
petent to the proper discharge of such duties as were required to tie
performed in divorce bills. Matters for judicial investigation were
rendered party questions, and this had been peculiarly the case in
the bill of Lord De Row, and the Duke of Norfolk. But there was
another principle upon which the subject required alteration. The
laws of the land were upon other subjects equally administered to
all. In Scotland a perfect and entire divorce was to be obtained fur
less than 151. He thought he had stated enough to show that the
law required alteration. It ought not to remain in its present
anomalous state. He would not at that time go farther than to
submit to the House the necessity of sonic reform. Having made
out that case, the next consideration was, what ought to be the re-
medy. He should shrink from such a task, standing alone; and the
diversity of the opinions he had heard on the subject strengthened
his doubts. If, however, he spoke at all, he should say it was right
to enable the court which pronounced a divorce as to bed and board,
to pronounce the full and valid divorce. Such was Lord Thurlow's
opinion ; but Lord Auckland had considered that a special court
ought to be appointed with respect to final divorcee. Under these
circumstances he should not take upon himself to make any propo.
sitions as to what the change in the law should be ; but it happened
fortunately for hint that there was an ecclesiastical commission at
present in existence, which was peculiarly fitted to investigate the
subject. The :House would not be bound by the report of such
commission, but might act with respect to it as it saw best. The
honourable and learned it ember concluded by moving, that an
humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he would
be graciously pleased to give directions that the commission ap.
pointed to Inquire into the t eclesiastical courts should direct their
inquiry also ffiio the state of the law on divorce, and report as to the
expediency Ofestablishing a separate tribunal, with power to decide
finally in cases of divorce.
The question having been put from the chair,
Sir C. WETHERELL said Ite must i.ppose the motion of hi.,
bon. and learned friend. He did sot think that the best mode of hi.
andweing Reform, in t;tis or in any other branch of the Law, was to
elide ate inquirvio a Commission. I'e had carefully read all the
laparts of the Commissioners lately appointed, and that they did
salked at all to sl fr his opinion on the subject. The best way of
pursuing any object of legal reform was through means of both
Houses of Parliament. When Commissions were appointed, tt e
impression was very.suiturally produeed on the mind that. with re.
spect to the particular object into which they were directed to its
quire, the taw needed reierm, and must, whether necessary or set.
be altered. They accordingly presentul reports, suggsating alters.
tons, and upon these suggestions the legislature ssoceived it was a

41•1,

!,1

- •

•te f incumbent :•. stet. Ile was far these reasons i
el ewes opposed to the appo. talent of any commission, the object of
shirk was to propose alterations in the abated principles of law. It
nrPciltrd to him that the law of divorce, as it now stood, grew out of
the British Constitution. The legislature never delegated to any other
ti the. vi,tht of deciding in fans of divorce a rineu/o arairtiorsonii.
T't:s had been the case ever rime the Reformation and he could not
ennsret to a proposition far arming any other tribunal with such a
power. Ills best. and learned friend was correct in stating that, by
e canoe:law,ai.eltery was no guru nd nf divorce a vineuto malriinort
i.
s'erch a,s 'as ie.v at present in all homan Catholic countries. The
Holy t tffi-• Haim never granted a divorce on the ground of adul.
'try. Lod alfotied that remedy only in certain cases, which rendered
the Marriage null ab initio. Up to the time of Henry VIII. it was
enutta yeealio, whether or not a power existed in this country,
not only of granting divorce, a roam et thorn, but also a lineal°
nsatrimoaii. It was finally settled that no weer but the legislature
had power to grant a divorce a riseulo untoimortii, and so the law
continued up to the present time. The only remedy left in cases of
adultery was an appeal to the legislature. Though the Pope sonic-
iTlllo3 granted divorces on political grounds, there was no instance of
his granting one on the ground of adultery. Up, therefore, to the
resent time. divorces a vinculo inefrimonii were only legislative
divorces. When the Pope granted divorces on political grounds,
as in the case of Bonaparte, it was done in the exercise of some
extraordinary transcendental power he was ',opposed to possess.
His Hon. and Loaned Friend now proposed to introduce a
new court, with full and competent juriedietion in cases of di.
sorce. It appeared to him that this would be actieg upon a
new and a very latitudinarian principle, nor (lid he see that
any thing like sufficient grounds were established for so (vide a de-
viation from the established practice. His Honourable and Learned
Friend, indeed, add that in nine cases out of ten legislative
divorces were the result of collusion between the parties. He
did not believe that CAWS of collusion were so frequent; but
even admitting it to be the case, he did not see how the pro.
position of his Honourable and ',earned Friend would remedy the
evil. If a Court were established where the expense of obtain-
ing a divorce would not be more than from 15/. to 50/. it would
in his opinion operate rather ns an encouragement to adultery
Would this lessen the number of cases of collusion ? It would hold
out encouragement and facility in divorces which could not fail to
make cases of adultery more numerous both in the higher and
lower classes. He allowed that the law, as it now stood, was oper
to censure. lie could not, however, admit that nine casts out of
ten were cases of collusion. The standing orders of the lords re.
quilted that either the sentence of an Ecclesiastical Court, or the de-
cision of a Jury, should be the preliminary to a divorce. He could
tint agree to the principle that the House of Lords was not as capable
of detecting collusion as ether tribunals. He should have no objection
to have standing (inters on the subject established for the House
of Commons as well as in the House of Lords. He must on these
gr.tunda oppose the motion. In modern times he did not recollect
..ray case in which political motives operated in cases of divorce. lie
could rot consent to the proposition of his hon. and learned friend,
unless it could be more fully ahewn that the legislature was not
capable of investigating evidence so fully and satisfactory as to offer
sufficient guarantee against frequent collusion. Those two most
learnel and able persons, Lords Eldon and Stowell, pares, rot only
in point of relationship, but in talent, in virtue, in legal knowledge,
in every eminent quality, so much so that it was a matter of doubt
which was the greater man, were known to have differed in opinion
on this subject. He was willing to go into a committee on the sub-
yet. but he could not support any system or resolution which in fact
M,,1111 tend to promote adultery.
Mr. O'CONNELL said he fully agreed with the honourable and
Learned member (Sir Charles Wetherell), and in oppdsing the pro-
posed
resolution he had the whole tenour of the common law to sup-
port his views. Before the Reformation no marriage could be dis.
solved, and even In the Protestant church it could not be dissolved
unless in peculiar cases. He had also the authority of Bishop
Bancroft, who was also at his side of the question. No dim.
lotion of marriage could take place except in cases where the
marriages were invalid oh 101110; and as to the power of the Pope
in these cases, he had no more "powtr than any other Christian
bishop. In the MSC of Henry the Eighth, the Pope refused a
divorce ; and in the case of Buonaparte the first marriage was not
valid, because it was merely a civil contract, and therefore it was
competent in a Catholic priest to marry him to Maria Louisa, as it
was a marriage in faciem ecelesics. Buonaparte imprisoned the
pope, so good a Catholic was he ; but after all, could it be said
that the practice of granting divorces tended to improve the morality
of the higher orders in this country ? It was quite the reverse, for
it gave an additional argument to the Seducer. As a guardian of
morality, he would oppose this motion an& divide the house upon it.

Sir C. WETHERELL, in explanation, said that the power ex-
ercised by the pope was extra judicial, and besides he crowned
Josephine, which was some admission of a valid marriage.
4lr. O'CONNELL—Napoleon himself placed the crown upon
the head of Josephine; and that was a civil and not a religious act.
Mr. S. RICE could not concur with the opinion of the learned
member for Clare, that in all cases the marriage tie should be indis-
soluble. Ile could have no objection to any legislative improve-
meat in the present system ; but he thought the standing orders of
the house were a sufficient protection to defeat any collusion between
the parties seeking a divorce. There was not a Protestant country
which had not a judicial jurisdiction to try the validity of mar-
riages, and decide upon their being dissolved or not. It was said,
if divorce was made cheaper there would be greater habits of immo-
rality ; but the case of Scotland evinced a very different feeling.
lie did not consider that in supporting the motion he would be
adding to the number of divorces—so far the contrary, that it met
his full approbation.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL regretted that his hon. and
learned friend had brought forward this motion in its present shape.
It' the knowledge and intention of his hon. and learned friend had
been embodied in a bill, the house would be more competent to de-
cide upon its merits. He did not quarrel with the law of divorce
in Scotland as to Scotland, but he would not consent to give to any
Court in this country the power of trying divorces a vireert/o. If
such a Court were established it would lead to considerable evil,
altitotigh he admitted that it was hard to have one law for the rich
and anetner for the poor. If divorces were more extended, they
would, in his opinion, lead to the increase of adultery, and there-
fore he would oppose the present motion. There was great diffi-
ct,lty in bringing in a bill upon the subject, and upon this very
grm:nd he wished to see one introduced.
Dr. LUSHINGTON said that this and other ecclesiastical mat-

ten of importance had been referred to a commission, the result of
whose labours could not be at a very speedy day offeted to the public.
The ecclesiastical courts remained now nearly the same that they
were left at the Reformation. Times had since changed ; new diffi-
culties had sprung up; and, considering the many doubtful points
involved in this question of divorce, the greatest caution should be
observed. .He deprecated having Imposed upon him the consi.
deration of a subject which had excited the greatest diffierences
of opinion, although, as a member of Parliament, he would be
always ready to do his duty. In the last fifteen years he
was cognizant of all the cuts of divorce which were heard
before eithtr House of Parliament, with the exception of
some half dozen, and in none of them did he see collusion in
the applicants for divorce. He had supported the divorce bill of
Lord Ellenborough, and he would support it again if occasion re.
quired it. He felt it • great hardship that the law of divorce
should be extended to the rich and denied to the poor ; but still
he also thought that its extension would open the door to a greater
number of adulterous acts. He wished a Bill had been brought in
upon the subj.:et, for then the house would be better able to form
some decision on the subject. He hoped, under these circumstances
that hie hon. and learned friend would not press his motion to a
divison.

Mr. C.W.WYNN could see no difficulty nor incongruity in re-
ferring this subject to the present ecclesiastical commissioners, or to,
a new commission altogether. No reliance could be placed on the
law of Scotland in reference to this country. If a man in humble
life were guilty of bigamy, he would here be imprisoned or trans-
ported, whereas in the higher orders a divorce could be procured
without a dissentient voice in either House of Parliament. Surely
then such a state of the law demanded inquiry. The standing
orders of the house, if properly entorced, would prove a great check
upon the collusion of parties, but as exercised at present, they
were nugatory, or nearly so. He contended that a detailed report
from a committee of inquiry would be of much more advantage than
the introduction of a bill in the present state of information in
the house. _ _ . .

Sir R. PEEL said that when he considered the complicated de-
tailt of such a subject, he was not surprised that no legislative enact-
ments were sought upon it. He was sorry that the motion was not
more specific; and here there were two points for consideration;
first, was any case made out for alteration ? and, secondly, was the
mode proposed the best for attaining the intended measure for regu-
lating divorce ? With respect to the charge of collusion, he could
not admit that It was practised in nine cases out of ten; if it were
so, this house had neglected its duty. But he did not believe the
proportion to amount to any such extent. Next, as to the argument
that the law was now one for the rich and the other for the poor, he
could only say that be feared that imperfection of the law, much as
it was to be regretted, must still continue, do what this house
might to attempt n remedy. in all cases there must be expense
in procuring evidence, which would operate as a bat to the remedy
of the poor man. The abolition of the existing tribunals could not
improve the system now prevailing; for he considered, that viewing
the question upon the grounds of morality, divan% now less occur-
red than if there were a greater facility in procuring them. It would
be a premium upon adultery to hold out that fifties should have the
snatriage tie dissolved, in case of adultery, for the surd of 151. He
could not admit that the morality of Scotland was principally oeca
sinned by the law of marriage and divorce ; isdepended upon elements
of a different nature. The English law,as it at present, mid there
should be no divorce; and there was none, except in cases of peculiar
hardship, and nothing but a solemn Act of the legislature could give

the remedy which might be sought. The poor man, it was true,
might be released from the expenses of this House, but that for the
attendance of witnesses must in all cases be paid by the party seek-
ing relief. He did not wish to be forced to give an opinion upon
this subject on this occasion. He could not consent to refer it to
any commissioner however enlightened, nor did he think it would
be advisable, under the existing state of information, to come to any
premature discussion. The subject was one of very considerable
importance : its details, as he had before stated, must be very COM.
plicated ; but he could only consent to their being discussed within
the walls of Parliament—he meant, of course, as legislative mea-
' sures. It would not be fair to refer so important a subject to
gentlemen who were acting gratuitously. Ile doubted tea the
policy of loading Commissioners with such a multiplicity of 1-tsi.
nets. It was better to confine Commissioners to the explicit dee.ies
for which they were appointed, and not to embarrass them with
points which were somewhat connected in appearance with the sub.
ject for which the Commission was appointed. He thanked the
hon. and learned gentleman for the manner in which he had brought
the subject forward ; but under the circumstances he horeei the hon.
and learned gentleman would accede to the proposition 'LA to hint,
and not compel hint (Sir R. Peel) to meet the motion with a direct
negative.
Lord F. L. GOWER was obliged to the hon. and gent.
for the able manner in which ho had brought the stit;j:et forward,
but after what had fallen from hon. members, he could not but
think it would he most inconvenient to adopt the proposition of the
hon. and learned gent. He tEssented from the plan and arguments
of the lion. and learned member for Clare, and he thought the de-
sultory remarks which had been made full) 'hewed that there were
points of the nicest difficulty to be dealt with.
Dr. PH ILLI3IORE replied. He had not brought forward the
subject but at the instance of others. The hon. and learned Solici-
tor General asked why he did not bring forward a bill ? To that he I
would reply, that no person, not connected with government, could
hope to succeed with any bill. The question bred come to this point
—that something must be done. He contended that collusion did
exist to the extent he had stated ; but let the house look to the evi-
dence of Lord Thurlow, Lord Eldon, Lord Kenyon, and others, who
said that the law of divorce could not stand as it was. The right hon.
gentleman (Sir H. Peel) said divorce was forbidden by the law, but
that was not the case. It was forbidden only to the poor; the rich
could and did procure a divorce. The principle was had, anti made
an unjustifiable difference netween the rich and the other classes of
society. lie referred to the words In which the commission teas
appointed, anti contended that by them the subject was strictly
fittini for th-ir consideration. It was the very subject which the
commissioners ought to ece,sider in preference to almost all others.
Some remedy was evidently necessary, and he could conceive no
course more proper, under the circuntstat:ces, than that which he
had proposed.
The If ouse then divided, when there appeared.
For the motion

Against it . 102
Majority against the motion —37

Mr. SADLER said the subject he had to bring under the
consideration of the house was one of the greatest importance.
Considering the inquiries which had been made and wer making
upon the question, he could not but feel that he must draw largely
upon the indulgence and candour of the House in the cowrie of the
remarks, which nothing but an imperative sense of duty could have
persuaded him to offer. The proposition he had to mate was not
undigested, but had been long and sedulously entertainel by him-
self. They had arrived at that point that something must be
done with respect to the poor of Ireland, or the English soon laws
must be swept away. Assimilation of laws was coming into
vogue ; but if they meant to do any solid and lasting good,
they must begin at the foundation. He did not mean to
propose the introduction of our Poor JAWS into Ireland as they were
in England ; but he contended that it should be compulsory to sup.
port the poor. Nor did he travel beyond his subject in thus looking
at Ireland, for without something was done respecting the paupers
of Ireland, nothing efficient could be done for the poor of England.
Steam navigation and other alterations had virtually united Ireland
with this country. Ireland was nearer, for the purposes of la-
bour, to London, than our nothem counties. He drerecated
the system of absenteeism, and contended that it had caused
the greatest mischief. It not only prevented the natural tics
from springing up between landlord and tenant, but it under.
mined the best feelings of human nature and subordination.
How dreadful it was to see thousands cast from the homes of
their forefathers, and that too in a country in which there was no legal
charity ? Nor was this point unimportant to the English labourer ;
for in every town the English labourers found the Irish ready for the
loom, the field, and all occupations. He should present this tight of
the rish poor in language far better than he could employ. He
would not appeal to ancient authorities, but quote the authority of
the modern Jurists.—[Here the hon. member referred to the autho-
rity of Grotius, to prove the right of the distressed to relief, and to
chew that in the event of absolute wantof necessaries arising, the na-
tural right of all men to share in the produces and gifts of Nature re-
turned to them.]—Puffendorff and Montesquien recognised the same
right. He would now quote a still greater authority, that of Locke,
whose words were to this effect—" Religion tells us that men have
a right to subsistence In every country, and no right in property is
so completely exclusive as to shut out the needy from relief."—
Blackstone also said that a provision for the poor was inseparable
from civilisation ; and Paley said their claim was founded on the
law of Nature. The Irish poor bad a like right in common with all
others, and their right was still more strongly enforced by expe-
diency. In that country there was an excess of population, the most
effectual remedy for which was a poor law. Some, indeed, were of
opinion that it would be better to leave the poor to mere optional
charity ; but he trusted the poor of this country would never be left
to depend upon voluntary benevolence, and that they should not long
continue so in Ireland. It would be a gross injustice to leave the
poor to mere optional benevolence. The legal relief for the poor
should not be made a matter of disgrace, but rather, if possible, cre-
ditable to those who received a. There were various other atten-
tions, education in particular, which would be a source of great
comfort and relief to the poor. It was absurd to think that poverty
could be quite extirpated from any State. It was not desirable that it
should be so, fur the fear of poverty was the greatest source of human
exertion, and the greatest incentive to industry. If the whole currency
of the country could be transferred into the pockets of the poor, the in-
terest of it would not be enough to sustain them. It was said the poor
oublit to save, but how were they to do so if their wages were
barely sufficient to support them? It was &principle of political
economy that wages always accommodated themselves to that point
which enabled the labourer merely to sustain himself and family.
If this principle was correct, how could the poor labourer save unless
he denied himself the necessary food and clothing ? It was a mistake
to suppose there was no poor poor law in Scotland. There was the
71st of James VI. which, if acted upon, would carry the benefits of
a poor law into the remotest comers of Scotland. In all the free states
of antiquity, there was a provision for the poor. He had the au-
thority of the historian Milford, as regarded Greece. Moses also
made provision by law for the poor, as was proved by the learned
Belden. This legal charity, however, did not exempt from the
duty of voluntary charity. It was a mistake to suppose that
a provision for the poor was confined to England, and was un.
known previous to the Reformation. Though opposed politically to
Roman Catholics, it was but justice to admit that, both in ancient
and modern times, their establishments for the relief of the distress.
ed were munificent. The charity of the Roman Catholic Religion
was carried to such excess, that it almost became a crime. In some
of the States of Germany, in Denmark, in Norway, in Sweden la
the Swiss Cantons, even in poor Zealand, there we.a provision
for the poor. In America they very early made a provision fee
the poor, which White praised as the best regulated of any in
the world. The expense of maintaining each pauper was ar.Us• -
lated at forty-nine dollars ; and in New York it mnouhted to
200,000 dollars a year. (Hear, hear.) Was Ireland, which
most needed It, the only country to be left without such a provision P
He should quote on this subject the opinion of the late celebrated
Bishop of Cloyne, in,his work entitled " The Right of the Poor in
Ireland to Legislative Itellef."—Piere the hon. member read a long
from this work, stating a variety of circumstances which sm.
rassacedgedistress in Ireland, and pointing out the propriety of making
a provision for the poor, and the right of the poor to such provisos.
The representations this prelate made 60 years back, though not all
applicable now, were so in a grat measure. The late Mr. Curia
said that all the waters of oblivion would never wash out from his
memory the scenes of distress he witnessed in Ireland. How duo&
fully must their misery be aggravated when the produce of that amp
on which they principally subsisted failed, and was succeeded by all
the horrors of famine and disease ! On this subject he would refer
to the report of the medical commission, which, as a seer of old
said, was full, within and without, of woe. The report to which
he alluded was that on the fevers which prevailed in Ireland. Ac.
cording to the census of Ireland by Mr. Mason, the duration of
life in Ireland was shorter than in England. He found, at the
same time, that there was nothing In the climate of Ireland to re-
duce human life. By looking at the peerage, he found that the
peers lived as long in that country as in England. To distress and
privation they might attribute the depreciation of life in that court.
try. The demand for a standing police and a large army might be
saved by the introduction of the poor law he should propose. If
that house would give the people of Ireland some stake in their
country, they would respect the rights of Ireland. An objee-
don had been made to the want of machinery. This was an Insult.
It might be ready under the provisioneof the poor laws; and,
once introduced by charity, it would open wide prospects of in-
dustry. To say they had no machinery was representing Ireland
to be in a state of barbarity. When was machinery in Englead
when the 48th of Elisabeth was passed.? They had none ; and the
12:210rs of that day knew that machinery would follow the
11:ages produced by the poor law. Very soon after the poor
law was introduced Into this country, the cost of sustaining the
poor amounted to one-third of the public revenue. The last year
the pow rates amounted to one.ni:ati of the public revenue. The

poor had occasioned a diminishing expense, u proved by Eden, who
had written largely and wisely on the subject. It was a matter of
notoriety, that the returns to the house of the state of the poor
was incorrect. It was well known that part of the sustentation
of the poor was formerly derived from the religious houses of
the country, but those sources of relief had been taken away
under a system of spoliation. Means were taken to rid the coun-
try of Its poor population. The act of Elizabeth 'sewed—
that great and God-like measure, the 48th of Elizabeth, aas
passed, and the principle of charity well established. The
question was the propriety of applying the poor laws to Ire.
land. Those who conceived that the poor laws were injurious
were e'en ivcd. The claims of the poor requi.eti attention. The
I lieuse would consult its own honour in recording a TOL: of
humanity and O.:: i.y. The parliena nt weuld then do them-
selves justice, nett rec.. to tilt porn of England and Ireland that
they had heat ts to feel t r distress. Let the parli.tment of England
commence a meritorious work of that description. Let them do
jnstice and love mac-. 'I be honourable member observed that he
had omitted statements which he could have gone into and withheld
dceutnents which must have convinced the house, but having already
taken up much elute, he sheuld think he had done his best. He
concluded by proposing the following resolution for the considera-
tion of the house:—" Resolved., that it is the opinion of this house
that the establishment of a Poor Law in Ireland on the principle of
the 48th of Elizabeth, with such alteration and improvement as the
course of time and difference of circumstances in England and Ire-
land maw require, is expediem and necessary for the welfare of each
country .h
Lord GOWER assured the hon. gentleman that he had too much
respect for the attention the hon. gentleman had bestowed on this
subject to throw any blame on him for having introduced it, but he
certainly had to complain of an alteration in the form of motion. He
found the notice of the hon. gentleman's motion was for leave to
bring in a bill to better the condition of the labouring pour of the
British cmpite. Tl"st being the notice, he had not expected the
hon. member to make a speech on the expediency of introducing the
poor laws to Ireland. Such a proposition had however been made,
and the House naturally looked for the machinery by which the
difficulties in the way of the tuca,ure could be obviated. Was the
honourable gentleman ignorant of the labours of a committee
on the subject ? On the 11th of March it was moved by an hon
friend that a Committee be appointed to inquire into the state of
• the Irish poor. T.. it committee was still sitting, and when their
report was made he should support it. There was no difficulty in
putting the question whether hon. members would come forward to
relieve their fellow creatures, but the hon. member knew it was one
which required great caution. Charity was optional. It might be
tried, but care should be taken that it did not do more harm than
, good, by raising feelings and expectations which could not be grati.
fled. In the view he took of the subject, the noble lord considered
it his duty to move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. TRANT complained that the names of members disposed to
introduce the Poor Law to Ireland had been excluded from the
committee. The hon. member for Newark had brought forward an
important question, and lie should support It.
Mr. W. HORTON opposed the resolution. He was much asto-
nished that the hon. number in a speech of two hours, had not prov-
ed whether the poor laws would suit the manners and habits of the
people of Ireland.
Mr. S. RICE gala his honourable f,icnd knew, when the list
forming the committee was put into his hands, that every oppor-
tunity was afforded for making any alteration. The honourable
member for Newark was among the names of the committee,
and at his request it was withdrawn. The question, whether appli-
cable to h.ngland or Ireland, cculd not promise any hope of success
at that late period of the session. They certain!, should not touch
the poor laws with a view to introduce the law to Ireland, unless
they made previous inquiry.

31r. GRATTAN said if the honourable member for Newark
divided the House, he should vote with hint ; at the same time he
should say, al•en he came to the douse he did not expect the
motion dun under consideration.

Sir R. WILSON thought the Chairman of the Committee
adverse to the introduction of the poor laws to Ireland. The
introduction of poor laws was in his opinion indispersble, and the
sooner the house pledged itself to take the subject into consideration
the better.
Mr. DUNCOMBE vindicated the course which had been taken
by his hon. friend (Mr. Sadler), and said that he was not epen to the
censure which some lion. members had attempted to cast upon him.
Mr. MONCK thought the House deeply indebted to the hon
member for Newark, for the very able and luminous manner in
which he had brought forward this important subject, and he should
support the motion.
Dlr. SLANEY said, that in voting against the motion, he wished
to be understood as not denying that the time might come when a
modified system of poor laws might be introduced into Iceland with
advantage.
Mr. SADLER replied, contending that the principle of compul-
sory legal charity must sooner or later be adopted in Ireland.
Sir C. WETHERELL said, that he, could not agree to go the
length of the resolution, and recommended his bon. friend to with-
draw it.

Mr. SADLER said, that he should not press the motion to a di.
vision, against the recommendation of his hon. friend.
The previous question was then put and carried.
Mr. DOHERTY obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend the
law relating to banking partnerships in Ireland.