The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-04-06 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—TuintspAy

The Ordnance Survey Bill was comnLiiited7;;;;iormci, in
order that some amendments might be made. It was or-
dered to be printed, and to be reported on Monday, on the
understanding that the report should not be taken into con-
sideration until after April, in order to give time to consider
some amendments suggested by Lord G. Somerset.
The house having resolved itself into a committee of the
whole house upon the Poor Law Amendment .Bill, the 18th
clause was read by Mr. BERNAL. Its object was to give' the
unions power to contract with the guardians for the mainte-
nance of their poor.
Lord G. SOMERSET was opposed to the clause altogether,
but before voting against it Irz would move as an amendment,
in order to make the clause as good as such a clause could be
made, that paupers should not be moved away from the
workhouses of their district against their consent.
Lord .1. RUSSELL suggested that the objection might be
obviated by limiting the distance to which the paupers should
be sent. He could not, however, agree that the consent of
the pauper should be necessary, for that would render the
clause nugatory.

Mr. WARD suggested the withdrawal of the clause as beinz
utterly irrecoucileable to the feelings of the country.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he would withdraw the clause, and
this was done accordingly.
On the 19th clause being proposed, the object of which was
to render wives liable in certain cases, such as the husband
being in custody, or transported, or a lunatic, to maintain
their children, notwithstanding coverture,
Mr. WAKLEY said the clause was possesses of the same
savage character as the one which had just been withdrawn.
They were told they should not make use of exciting language
in discussing this measure, but the measure itself, in all its
parts, was such an outrage upon all our feelings of humanity,
that it was impossible to refrain from speakinc, of it in strong
language. As the 18th.clause had been withdrawn, he hoped
this would also be withdrawn, or if not, that it would be re-
jected by the, house.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that humanity was to be shewn to
those hard working people who bad the burden upon them
of maintaining those persons.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL being called upon to give an
explanation of this clause, did so, and from his elucidation
it appeared that the clause not only threw the maintenance
of children whose father was beyond the seas, no matter
whether for mercantile purposes or otherwise, upon the mo-
ther, but actually threw the like burden on the mother, in
cases where the husband was not away, but where he had
either refused or neglected to take care of his family.
Lord G. SOMERSET said that a clause like this should
meet with his most strenuous opposition. In cases where a
father refused to support his family, they sought, instead of
compelling him to do so, to punish the innocent mother by
this severe clause. Instead of alleviating the misery of a
wretched mother under suc'o circumstances, they sought to
add to it, by giving an interest to the parish to fasten on the
mother, and take no care or pains to search after the profli-
gate father.
Mr. FRESIIFIELD said the clause was a cruel one, for if a
woman's husband was an idiot or insane, which would be to
her a sufficient misfortune in itself, she was to be forced into
the workhouse, even though able to maintain herself, unless
she could also maintain the children.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE also contended that the clause was in-
human, and hoped it would be expunged: _

Sir C. GREY-said that the bill: was humane and moral in
all its tendencies.

Capt. PECHELL was opposed to the clause.
• Sir T. ACLAND thought the house was not ripe for a de-
cision upon a clause of such an extensive nature as this, and
recommended its postponement. _

Dr. LUSHINOTON thought the clause was full of hardships,
and more particularly towards those who went to sea, either
in our naval or commercial marine—persons who should be
rather favourably considered than otherwise in any enact-
ment which might pass that house.

Several other hon. members expressed themselves in terms
of strong disapprobation of the clause.

Lord J. RUSSELL said the clause certainly required amend-
ment, and as the feeling of the committee appeared to be so
strong respecting it, he would propose that it should be
postponed with a view to its alteration.
Lord G. SOMERSET suggested that the noble lord should
strike out the clause altogether, and introduce a new one
with such limitations as he thought proper.
To this suggestion L'ord J. RUSSELL assented, and the
clause was struck out accordingly.
The 20th and 21st clauses were agreed to.
On the 22d clause being proposed, the object of which was
to empower guardians to enlarge and alter workhouses within
the district of the metropolitan police, and to charge the ex-
penditure to the poor-rates,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved an amendment, the effect of
which was to render necessary the consent of the rate-payers.
Mr. WARLEY hoped that this clause might be either post-
poned or rejected, and invoked the assistance of the right hon.
gentleman opposite (Sir R. Peel) to procure such rejection.
Sir R. PEEL could not allow himself to be cajoled by the
hon. member into opposing a clause which he really thought
very reasonable.

Mr. HAWES supported the clause.
Mr. W. Arrwoon hoped, if this power were granted, that
it would be used with great discretion ; for it was a very large
power indeed to entrust to a board of guardians.
Mr. GROTE, in supporting the clause, declared that the
unpopularity of the new poor-law bill in the city had subsided
since it had become better understood.
Mr. WAKLEY said that the diminished hostility to the bill
in the city was owing to the fact that the city unions were
unrestricted in the administration of out-door relief.
Mr. DUNCOMBE, after some further discussion, pressed
his amendment, which was lost on a division by a majority of
216 to 11. The clause was then agreed to.

On the 23d clause being put from the chair,
Lord J. RUSSELL said its object was to enable the com•
missioners to decide upon the trades to which poor children
should be apprenticed. Tradesmen in difficult circumstances
were frequently anxious to obtain parish apprentices, with a
view to the premium, although their trades might be already
overstocked.

Lord HowicK supported the clause, which would prove
most salutary in correcting very great abuses.
Sir E. WILLMOTT thought the clause should be rejected
altogether.

SIBTHORP moved that the clause should be expunged.
The committee divided, and the clause was carried by a
majority of 143 to 74. _ _ _ _

The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and obtained
leave to sit again on Friday.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-FRIDAY

The Population Bill was read a second time, and the
Borough Improvements Bill passed through a committee,
and the report was ordered to be received on Friday, the 23d
instant.

The Duke of WELLINGTON complained that some returns
he had moved for, respecting the poor law guardians of Naas,
has not yet been returned. He was the more anxious to have
these returns, owing to the fact that the returning officer of
the board of guardians had been tried and convicted of an
offence which he would not further advert to. The noble
duke concluded by moving for a return of the record of the
trial of Bartholomew Casey, in Dublin, on the 7th of July,
1839, before Chief Justice Dogherty and Judge Johnson.
The Marquis of NORMANBY said he had reason to think
there was in that case some mistake as to the identity of the
party. The papers were very voluminous, but they should
be laid upon the table as speedily as possible.

The Metropolitan Drainage Bill, and the Metropolitan
Building Regulation Bill passed through committee, and the
reports were ordered to be received on Friday, the 23d instant.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-FRIDAY

Mr. BLACKSTONE moved that a copy of the proceedings in
the case of the St. Alban's election committee be laid upon
the table. The hon. member complained of the unsatisfac-
tory character o f election committees, and referred to a rumour
that a compromise had taken place, by which the proceedings
in the St. Alban's and Canterbury election committees should
be_simuitaneously abandoned.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE treated such a rumour as, a calumny,
although he must admit that there was prima' facie evidence
to countenance such a report. He would move as an amend-
ment that the evidence before the Canterbury election com-
mittee should be also laid before the house.
Mr. SANFORD (the chairman of the St. Alban's election
committee) expressed his satisfaction that this motion had
been brought forward. The hon. gentleman defended the
committee, who were, he said, most nervously anxious to do
their duty, though they were not a little perplexed by the
arguments of two clever lawyers, and the more so because of
the absence of any legal authority. He was of opinion that a
legal assessor should be appointed to decide such points, or
the house itself should lay down rules as to the evidence that
should and should not be received.

Mr. CLIvE (the chairman of the Canterbury committee)
repudiated all knowledge of a compromise. He could not, of
course, know what had been done amongst the lawyers ; but
the committee were only anxious to do their duty conscien-
tiously.

Lord HowicK knew from experience how difficult it was
to determine the points presenting themselves to a commit-
tee, without having had the advantage of a professional edu-
cation. The counsel on both sides invariably presumed QII
the ignorance of the committees, and raised most vexatious
questions, thus rendering the committee-room almost a
scene of wrangling. There was so much difficulty in esta-
blishing agency in cases of bribery, that he saw no other re-
medy than that of authorising committees to examine both
principals and agents. If something like this were not done,
it would be better at once to repeal all the laws relating to
bribery, leaving every one to do the best he could. There
was in the present case very strong suspicion of a compro-
mise, and lie was rather surprised that no one had risen to
give to such a supposition an explicit denial.
Mr. JAMES said he was exceedingly surprised at finding,
on the close of his election for Carlisle, that thousands of
pounds had been given by his agents for the purchase of
votes. The only remedy for this was, he contended, vote by
ballot.

Sir R. PEEL defended the election committees under the
present system, and could not see any advantage to be de-
rived from the production of the evidence.
Mr. INAKLEY moved for the production, also, of the evi-
dence taken by the Walsall committee.
After some further discussion, the evidence taken before
all three committees was ordered to be produced.
The house then resolved itself into committee upon the
poor law amendment bill.

- The 2-Ith clause was struck out.
After considerable discussion, the 25th clause, relating to
the burial of paupers, was agreed to.
On the 26th clause being proposed, which provided that
the casual poor should be chargeable to the whole union,
Lord G. SOMERSET moved that the clause should be
omitted.

On a division, the clause was carried by a majority of 115
to 66. _

The 27th clause, which provided that notices of removal
might be served by post, caused considerable discussion, but
it was carried on a division by a majority of 130 to 59.
The 28th clause was withdrawn, and the 29th was postponed.
The 30th clause, after a long conversation, was withdrawn,
as unnecessary,, and the chairman reported progress and ob-
tained leave to sit again on Monday, pro formd, in order to
have the amendments printed.

, between W. H. C-rke,
An affair of honour came off early on Monday morning, in
Cambridge, and a respectable
amt. Both parties were attended
hairdressertheE sq n., e
oi gf h bs ot
0.0
fr
Johns
ndj,
John
hf
CnC,osal
es
tbgrerld
by their respective friends. After a harmless exchange of
shots the parties returned to Cambridge to breakfast. This
meeting was arranged in consequence of the former gentleman
sending a friend to demand satisfaction from the latter for
some supposed imputation upon his character as a gentleman,
relative to some private transaction between them. A rumour
is afloat that the best precaution to, prevent danger was
adopted by the respective friends of the parties. The former
gentleman distinguished himself, in the Senate House; on the
occasion of the late election for High Steward.