said, that this House had always extended its indulgence to hon. Members who desired to explain any circumstances or any observations which they might have made, and he had now to call for their indulgence. He had received a communication that morning from a noble and learned Lord in the other House, who complained of certain observations which he had made on the previous evening in that House with reference to a motion he had made on the subject of the capture of slave vessels. Reports of what he had said had appeared that morning in the newspapers, and he had seen The Times, and The Morning Chronicle; but in neither of them did he see any thing attributed to him which he did not utter, or anything with which he could at all find fault. The noble and learned Lord had sent to him the authentic copy of his speech delivered in the House of Lords on the 29th of January, which he had read, and he must say that he saw nothing which could induce him to retract. The defence of his brother officers had been founded on the speech of the noble Lord which had been published in the newspapers; and he must say that, if the noble and learned Lord had made that speech, all he had said was perfectly justifiable. He had not been bred to the law, and he was no special pleader, and in this instance he did not wish to employ any mental reservation; but if he had in the heat of debate used any ex- pressions which ought to be withdrawn, he was most willing to abide by the decision of the Speaker or of the House on the subject: but he believed that he was not frequently led into the use of warm language, and he was, besides, quite sure that if he had said any thing improper he should have been at once called to order. The noble Lord had given notice of his intention to bring the matter before the House of Lords that evening; bnt he thought, nevertheless, that nothing had fallen from him which he ought to retract.

said, that he too had received a communication from the noble and learned Lord, together with a pamphlet, in which the expressions used were even stronger and more offensive than than those to which he had alluded last night. The pamphlet suggested the cases of officers of the navy looking for head-money to be similar to those of police constables who waited until a person had committed a crime before they attempted to take him, saying that he was "not heavy enough," when they might have prevented the offence, and that they must wait until he was "worth 40l." He thought the pamphlet of the noble Lord confirmed all he had said, and he saw no necessity for him to withdraw or explain any thing that had fallen from him.

said, that he hoped the courtesy of the House would permit him to bring under their consideration a subject which principally related to himself. A report had appeared in the public press of what took place, he would not say where, in which his name had been mentioned—in which his conduct had been brought forward, and from which it would appear that he had attracted an amount of censure under which it was impossible that be should rest, without, at least, taking some notice of it. He trusted, under these circumstances, to the courtesy of the House to allow him to say a few words in his own defence and vindication, the more especially when the attack made upon him related to the regard he paid, or was supposed not to pay, to the solemn obligation of an oath. In the reported speech where the censure he referred to was pronounced against him, it was stated that the best criterion of the meaning and intention of the oath was to be collected from the animus with which the promoters of the Catholic Relief Bill brought that measure forward. Now, as it appeared to him, that animus was to be ascertained, not from any views that might at present be taken of that subject by the noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen who were concerned in passing that bill, but from the sentiments expressed by them at the time. Let it be seen what the Ministers of that day said on the subject. If they saw what the bearings of the question were, then they could now come to some conclusion as to what were the views of the Parliament of that day respecting the sense in which the oaths of the Members of that House were to be taken. The first notice of this subject he found was to this effect—that the oath was not to be considered as applicable to the Catholic in his legislative capacity, as the Speaker said, "that other, better, and more favourable notion was formed by an hon. Gentleman (as by courtesy he was styled), the brother of a noble Lord, he meant the hon. Mr. Langdale." For his own part, he was willing that the oath should be interpreted according to one criterion—namely, the animus with which it was introduced. The right hon. Baronet, whom he was glad to see opposite, introduced the bill with certain observations. He said, that if the measure were to be adopted by the Catholics, it would be in the sense in which be proposed it to the House. He would read from "Hansard's Debates" that part of the hon. Baronet's speech which especially referred to the Roman Catholics being in Parliament. The right hon. Baronet alluded to a motion made by Mr. Wilmot Horton. He (Mr. Langdale) would mention that the right rev. Prelate must have been aware of this before he alluded to it, yet he said it did not apply to the matter. The House would see whether it did or not. The right hon. Baronet said—

"Another proposal has been made, by a right hon. Friend of mine (Mr. Wilmot Horton), made from the best motives, and supported with an ingenuity, ability, and research, worthy of the motives and of the character of its author. My right hon. Friend has proposed, with a view to calm the suspicions and fears of those who object to the admission of Roman Catholics to Parliament, that the Roman Catholic Member should be disqualified by law from voting on matters relating, directly or indirectly, to the interests of the Established Church. There appear to me numerous and cogent objections to this proposal. In the first place, it is dangerous to establish the precedent of limiting by law the discretion by which the duties and functions of a Member of Parliament are to be exercised. In the second, it is difficult to define beforehand what, are the questions which affect the interests of the Church. A question which has no immediate apparent connexion with the Church, might have a practical bearing upon its welfare ten times more important than another question which might appear directly to concern it. Thirdly, by excluding the Roman Catholic from giving his individual vote, you do little to diminish his real influence, if you leave him the power of speaking, of biassing the judgments of others on the question on which he is not himself to vote; and if, by a jealous and distrusting, but ineffectual precaution, you tempt him to exercise to your prejudice the remaining power of which you cannot, or do not, propose to deprive him. I believe there is more of real security in confidence, than in avowed mistrust and suspicion, unaccompanied by effectual guards. For these reasons, I am unwilling to deprive the Roman Catholic Member of either House of Parliament of any privilege of free discussion, and free exercise of judgment, which belongs to other Members of the Legislature."^*

Such was the language held by the right hon. Baronet, as the Minister of the Crown, in bringing forward the great measure of Catholic relief. Now, he (Mr. Langdale), would ask if language such as that were for the first time heard there, would not the natural and necessary inference be, that in taking the oath, he did so with the full power to exercise his discretion as to its interpretation? There was one other point to which he wished to draw the attention of the House, and it was one point only. It appeared by the reports of the debates that after the introduction of the bill, an argument had been raised in the Committee on the subject of the Roman Catholic's right to vote on a question of the entire subversion of the Church; and Sir C. Wetherell, in replying to this had given his opinion of the oath. Let the House see the opinion of Sir Charles Wetherell, delivered on the third reading of the bill.

asked the hon. Member if it was his intention to submit a motion to the House? He had not yet mentioned any, and it was extremely inconvenient, as there was no motion before the House, to proceed with a subject which might lead to a protracted debate.

would, then, conclude with a motion, but he thought it extremely hard and painful to a Member if he were

^*Hansard (New Series), vol. xx, p. 758.

not allowed to justify himself when a direct charge was made against him. If a general charge were made as general charges had been, however painful it might be, he would not notice it; but when he was brought before the public by name—when his opinions were controverted, when they had not been fairly stated, it was a little hard that this attack should be circulated round the country, that he should not be allowed in his place in that House to vindicate himself. He would not detain the House for any length of time. He had been comprehended in a grand sweeping charge of perjury; and if even there were an occasion in which a Member should be allowed to justify himself against the charge, it was when the House had so recently recorded on its journals, that the charge of perjury was of so painful a nature, that the Speaker had been ordered to reprimand the person who made it. What was the opinion of Sir Charles Wetherell on this subject? He referred to some notice of motion of the hon. Members for Colchester and Montrose, for what was deemed the actual destruction of the Church, and what was his argument upon it? "Do you mean to tell me the Catholic would be acting against his Parliamentary oath if he sanctioned such a measure?" This was the recorded opinion of Sir Charles Wetherell. The second accusation in which his (Mr. Langdale's) name had been mentioned by the right rev. Prelate was in these words: "But there was another mode of construing the oath imposed by the Catholic Relief Act. It had been assimilated to the declaration made upon taking office, which was binding upon all Protestants. This, he believed, was also a notion of Mr. Langdale, who referred to the obligation which all Ministers were under upon taking office to declare that they would not exercise their influence to weaken the Established Church." Now, he did state this also, and he believed that it was a very statesmanlike view to take of the matter. It was only in the preceding year that the Dissenters' grievances had been redressed, and he (Mr. Langdale) thought that the right hon. Baronet had stated that the oath which was right for the Dissenters in one instance was to be recorded by the Catholic in the other. It was true that it was called an oath in one instance; but the words of the Dissenters' declaration were nearly similar; they were —"I do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify and declare that I will never exercise any authority or influence to injure the Church as established by law in England, or (and here the declaration went much further than the oath) to disturb the said Church, or the bishops or clergy under their charge, in the rights to which they may be entitled." Did the right rev. Prelate deny the right of voting on Irish Church matters to the Dissenters? He wondered whether the hon. Gentlemen opposite would support him in such a denial if he ventured to make it? But the right rev. Prelate would say, that they were only pledged to support the Church of England, and that the words did not extend to Ireland. The right rev. Prelate had said—"But Mr. Langdale did not advert to one particular, which was of great importance to his argument. It was this: that the declaration he referred to was expressly limited to England, and had no application whatever to Ireland. Their Lordships very well knew that the declaration, as far as it went, only bound the party making it to preserve the Church as it was now established in England. It did not bind the party making it to any peculiar tenderness towards the Church in Ireland." He (Mr. Langdale) would like to know whether it had not been represented, Session after Session, that what affected the Church of Ireland affected the Church of England also, and that what injured one injured the other also? And when the right rev. Prelate ended with preferring a charge of perjury against some of his fellow subjects, the rev. Prelate appeared to him to be endeavouring to get rid of the weight of the argument by a subterfuge which was unworthy the Established Church. It was admitted, then, that the declaration was binding as against alterations in the Church of England; but here he met the right rev. Prelate—if they were not to meddle with the Church of England they were in the same boat. Had there been nothing done to affect the Church Establishment in England? Had there been no alteration with respect to that church? There had been a diminution of bishoprics; there had been an alteration in the see of Chester. The suppression of some sees had been recommended by the heads of the Church itself, and the temporalities of the Church had been taken away; and all this had been done by men who, according to the right rev. Prelate, were as much bound by their oaths with regard to England as was any Roman Catholic. Were these accusations, however, new to them? Was this the first time that they had heard any charges about being bound by oaths? What was the case during the reign of George 3rd. with regard to the coronation oath and the relief of the Roman Catholics? George 4th. did concede the Roman Catholic claims, and either did or did not violate that oath. If Catholic Members were bound, was not the King bound by his coronation oath? The King swore by that oath "to preserve to the Bishops and clergy of this realm"—let the House remark that the word realm generally, and not England only, was used—"and to the Church committed to their charge all such rights and privileges as shall appertain to them." The right hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford had said in his place that it was a mockery to talk of Roman Catholics violating their oaths if the King could do this. It was so. On this point the right hon. Baronet was perfectly consistent when he maintained the same doctrine with regard to the Roman Catholics which he had held respecting the King. George 3rd would not sanction the claims; but George 4th did what a learned Member of the bar said he could not do without violating an oath. William 4th did the same; and an hon. Member had got up in the House and said that if he did it he would violate his oath. Were not hundreds accused of perjury under the same circumstances? The archbishop of Canterbury had sanctioned some of the changes referred to, and was he to be drawn before the public and to be at once charged with the violation of an oath? Was it not proper that each should be allowed to put his own individual interpretation on his oath, and to vote fairly according to what he in his conscience believed to be right? He (Mr. Langdale) would not detain the House longer. He hoped that he was not in the habit of using strong language towards any individual; if he were shown to have used an offensive word towards the highest or the lowest person, he would be the first to retract it; but he would be wanting in the feelings of a man if, when a question of this sort was brought forward—when he was publicly pointed at by name with having violated his oath, he did not refute it. He thought that he was called upon, in justice to his own character—which was as dear to him as was the right rev. Prelate's and as well as to those whom he represented—for, if the accusation were true, he would be unworthy of the confidence of his constituents to make the observations which he had done; and he considered that he had not trespassed unnecessarily upon the attention of the House. He regretted that charges of this description had been made by the individual—by any individual; but when they came from a person whose sacred character ought to be a pattern of charity to all, he must say, that he thought it indeed derogatory to the dignity which he should sustain. He bore willing testimony to the zeal and to the high character of many of the Prelates presiding over the Established Church. He might, as he did, conscientiously differ from them on religious points; but knowing some of them in private life, he roust say, that there was nothing in their character generally which did not produce in him the greatest respect; but when he found a right rev. Prelate raking up accusations the most painful, he almost blushed to bring them before the House. The answer to the charge was, that the Roman Catholics had been for years and years, through their respect for an oath, excluded from Parliament. The right reverend Prelate denied this, by saying that there were certain oaths which a Roman Catholic did not dare to swear; he did not dare to swear his disbelief of transubstantiation, and that he dare not abjure his religion, but that, with respect to anything else, there was nothing to exclude him, and that the only merit of the special oath was, that it contained a disbelief of transubstantiation. But what he (Mr. Langdale) had said before, he repeated, that the Catholics were conscientious in refusing the oath, and bore grievous disabilities on account of their unanimous feelings. The accusation which had been made against him, was in effect, that he had been guilty of "treachery aggravated by perjury," and he must say, that, considering the charge, and considering the individual, he could designate it by no other title than as "a falsehood aggravated by duplicity."

I suppose the hon. Member imputes falsehood to the arguments.

Of course. The hon. Member then moved that The Morning Post of the 2d March should be laid on the table of the House. The word falsehood he had used to show his utter detestation of the charge of perjury brought against him and others, and he had not the slightest intention of applying it personally.

felt bound to say a few words, in consequence of having been present when the right rev. Prelate made the observations alluded to. He could assure the hon. Member, from what he heard himself, that his impression was—that his own impression of the words was, that the expressions were used with marked and real courtesy towards the hon. Member. He must state that the hon. Gentleman had fallen—

thought that there should be some substantive motion before the House. The hon. Member had thought it necessary to enter upon some explanation, which the House had consented to hear, but if the matter were to be prosecuted further, they ought to have some substantive motion before the House.

If it had not been for the observations which had fallen from the Chair, he would wish to have said something with respect to that part of the right rev. Prelate's speech in which he had been referred to.

said, that he was in possession of the House, and wished to proceed.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman was undoubtedly in possession of the House, but that if it pleased the House to prosecute the inquiry some substantive motion should be made.

said, that nevertheless he should withdraw all intention of saying another word on the subject then, reserving himself for another opportunity.

begged to be permitted to say, that the speech of his to which the right rev. Prelate, the Bishop of Exeter alluded, had been delivered upwards of twelve months ago; and that if the right rev. Gentleman had any explanation to demand or complaint to make respecting it, he should have done so at an earlier period. What the right rev. Prelate stated was to him a matter of little concern, for he felt that his honour required no vindication or defence against that right rev. Gentleman's attacks.

wished to take notice of one statement made by the right rev. Prelate. It appeared from the paper alluded to, that the right rev. Prelate had quoted four questions as having been put to him (Mr. O'Connell), and four lengthy answers attributed to him in reply, and that the right rev. Prelate stated that he had no other authority for them than that of the Earl of Winchilsea, who had quoted them on a former occasion. He did not mean any disrespect to that noble Lord in saying that this statement which he had endorsed over to the right rev. Prelate was not to be found in evidence. He would be glad to know where that noble Lord had discovered it, for it was totally without foundation.

He hoped he might be permitted to say one word. ["Hear," and "No."] He had a right to say, that in the same speech of the right rev. Prelate expressions had been attributed to him as having been used by him in that House which were totally unlike any thing he had ever heard. There was not the most remote or faint resemblance to them in any speech he had ever delivered. The Morning Post was ordered to be laid on the table.

begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite a question relative to the Bills.

Is it relative to the Bishop of Exeter? [A laugh, followed by cries of "Order."]

replied, that it related to the five bills which the hon. Gentleman had on the orders of that day, which were marked down for second reading, although they were not yet printed. He wanted to know why?

he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had given him an opportunity of explaining. Before he asked for leave to bring in those bills they were drawn up; on obtaining leave he sent them to the printer, but from some circumstance or other, and to his very great surprise, for he had sent several times for them, they had not yet been received.

said, it was a very inconvenient practice to have bills which were not yet printed set down for second reading. He would take that opportunity of telling the hon. Gentleman (the Attorney-General) that he would decline serving on any Committee of which he was the guardian, and of requesting the hon. and learned Gentleman, whenever he should feel it his duty to address that House, or any Member of her Majesty's Government, on matters of public business, not to insult him by asking him across the table whether what he had to say related to the Bishop of Exeter or not. He desired that he would not take the liberty of mixing him (Sir E. B. Sugden) up with subjects which might press upon the hon. Gentleman's own mind, but which were totally foreign to that upon which he (Sir E. B. Sugden) rose to speak. He was referring to the property bills of the hon. Gentleman, when the hon. Gentleman asked him if his question related to the Bishop of Exeter, although the hon. Gentleman was aware it did not when he so interrogated him.

declared he had not the most distant notion of what the right hon. Gentleman's question referred to at the time. He regretted exceedingly that the right hon. and learned Gentleman could not consent to be a Member of the Committee; he hoped that when those bills should have received the consent of Queen, Lords, and Commons, the right hon. Gentleman would not on that account move that their operation be suspended for three months.

rose to move its omission from the Bill. He was convinced it would injure rather than assist the operation of the Bill. Emigration ought not to be carried on, if it were advisable to carry it on, by unions, guardians, or commissioners. For his own part he was more inclined to leave the labouring population of the country where they were, and engage them in the cultivation of waste lands—a course which he was sure would do more towards the furtherance of the measure than conferring such a power as this clause contained on guardians and commissioners. It empowered them to select any number of persons for emigration they pleased, and, in addition to the poor-rates, to tax the unions for the furtherance of that object. To that power he objected. He would not agree to give to the majority of guardians a power by which they might—he did not say they would—but by which they might contrive to relieve their own estates at the expense of the entire union. He had no objection to have his property taxed for the relief of casual destitution in workhouses, but he protested against this additional taxation at the discretion of the guardians in order to facilitate emigration. Let the noble Lord first bring the workhouse system into operation—let him perfect that system, and then, but not until then, let him see how far it would be advisable to carry on emigration, in conjunction, and after consulting, with the colonial Legislature. He thought the omission of this clause would tend very much to insure the success of the measure. The subject of emigration had better be altogether postponed until a general measure could be introduced with the consent of those authorities abroad, without whose assistance comprehensive beneficial results could not be expected.

supported the clause. As a general proposition he altogether repudiated the doctrine that emigration was remedially applicable to Ireland. There was no doubt great want of employment, but was there not also an immense tract of waste land to be cultivated? The great evil was the undue competition for land, and that he contended would be materially diminished by the effect of this Bill acting as a stimulus to the landlords and furnishing, as it would, important facilities for the employment of the poor. Thus there would be no great need for emigration. Still urgent cases might occur, and with respect to such he was willing to vest in the Commissioners the powers they would exercise under this clause. At the same time he was anxious to know precisely how the expense was to be borne—whether by the unions alone or partly only by the unions, partly by the public, and partly by the landlords, whose surplus tenantry it might be necessary to remove?

inquired whether the money to be raised under this clause by the boards of guardians, and which was to be applied, under the direction of the Commissioners, in conducting or assisting "the emigration of poor persons," was to be confined to particular unions or thrown into a general fund?

said, it would be applied to the poor resident in the particular unions; but it was perfectly discretionary with the guardians to avail themselves of the power of this clause or not, as they thought best. It was not proposed to throw any special charge upon particular landlords. Treating of emigration generally, the best way of conducting it he thought would be by the unassisted efforts of private individuals, who knew what was good for their own estates, and who might safely be trusted with the clearing of them, if they thought it advantageous to do so. He was, therefore, opposed to those who would raise a general public fund for any wide and comprehensive scheme of emigration. The absence of a law of settlement must detract very much from the efficacy of this clause, and from the temptation which any particular locality might have to disembarrass itself of its surplus population. At the same time there might be a special case, such as an unusual degree of dearth or famine, a contagious disorder, or a great change in the mode of cultivation, which might lead a district or union to avail themselves of this clause. And after any general settled and consenting system had been established, tending on the whole to assimilate the burdens over the entire surface of Ireland, they might also combine to give effect to this clause by ridding themselves of a corresponding amount of their superfluous and chargeable population. The clause was merely permissive; it might do some good, and he did not see how it could produce any inconvenience.

thought the expression "poor of the union" as it stood in the clause extremely ambiguous, particularly as there was no law of settlement in Ireland. He very much doubted whether it would be found to work beneficially.

observed, that objections had been taken to the clause, which had been in no wise answered by the Government. If emigrants could be sent to the Canadas for 5l. a-head, they could be brought back from thence to Ireland for the same money; and if, on arriving in Canada, they found their speculation likely to be unsuccessful, they could obtain 5l. by a month's labour. They would then come back to the same part of Ireland which they had left, and how were the guardians to get rid of those paupers a second time?

opposed the clause, because he could not see what benefit they were likely to derive from such a system of emigration. It was calculated that the population of Ireland increased 50,000 every year; and even if they were to send out from it 50,000 emigrants annually, they would only just leave the thing as it was at present, and would not relieve the country from one iota of the distress now existing. But was there any wisdom in such a plan? Had they considered what it would cost to send out 50,000 emigrants every year? It had been said, that this clause would only enable the Commissioners to send out labourers, but that was not so. But even supposing it to be so, if they persisted in sending out the labourers of Ireland, they would soon find that they were sending away from it its blood and its sinews, and were leaving the land without men to cultivate it. But did this clause enable the Commissioners to send out labourers only? Certainly not; it enabled them to send out the widow, the infirm, and the aged; and it would be easy to make them wish to leave the country by placing every kind of difficulty and hardship in the way of the relief afforded to them. The hon. and learned Member for Galway had contended that if they joined the workhouse system with the system of emigration, they would take away the competition for land now existing in Ireland? What likelihood was there of such a result being produced? According to one of the reports which had been laid on the table, the number of destitute persons in Ireland was 380,000, and of that number 365,000 were without a single acre of land. Out of this number, then, of 380,000, there were only 25,000 persons at any rate who could enter into any competition for land, the remainder did not enter into any competition for land, and therefore ought not to be described as competitors for it. To imagine that they could make the poor of Ireland rich by means of a Poor-law, and to pass this Bill as it then stood, appeared to him to be anything but wise policy. He implored the House, therefore, to get rid of this emigration system; for the power granted by this clause was a frightful power to put into the hands of any guardians of districts in Ireland, or into the hands of any single Commissioner in Dublin. It formed no part of the original plan of Poor-laws for Ireland, and was not even an amendment upon it. If they passed this clause, they must have a clause of settlement along with it. Last year the noble Lord (John Russell) had himself depicted in strong colours the difficulties which stood in the way of any system of emigra- tion. Emigration had been going on for years steadily in Ireland. Had it benefited that country? Every man who knew anything of the state of Ireland knew that it had not. He concluded by repeating his declaration that he intended to vote against the clause.

admitted that, in stating his opinion of the Poor-law for Ireland introduced last year, he had not laid any great stress on the advantage which that country was likely to derive from a system of emigration. Indeed, he did not even now think that such an amount of emigration could be practically commanded as some hon. Members supposed was necessary for the regulation of the labour-market in Ireland. In defending the clause as it then stood, he did not intend to defend it on the ground that it would produce great emigration, and that that emigration would be of advantage to Ireland. He only meant to defend it on this ground, that in certain cases it might be useful, and to meet such a contingency it was fitting to give the means of assisting emigration to the board of guardians of the district, and to the commissioner combined. Indeed, he should be ready to alter the clause so as to limit the power of the commissioner to facilitate emigration to the cases of such poor persons only as were recommended by the guardians of districts, in which certain sums had been raised by the union for the express purpose of emigration. The noble Lord moved additional words to give effect to this opinion.

opposed the clause on account of the frightful expenses by which this system of emigration would be attended, and also on account of the frightful power with which it invested the commissioner and the board of guardians.

expressed himself strongly in favour of granting extensive encouragement to emigration. He could not see that any of the evils which some hon. Gentlemen seemed to dread were to be anticipated from such a measure. The apprehension that the vacuum caused by emigration in a particular district would be filled up by an influx of destitute persons from other parts of the country, or that the price of labour would be injuriously raised by it he regarded as groundless. He thought it would have the ultimate effect of improving and extending the cultivation of land, and that it would re- lieve the country of a superabundant population, which prevented the development of its energies.

thought the clause, as modified by the amendment of the noble Lord (J. Russell), would be most beneficial.

said, that as the bill stood, a premium was given to those persons who refused to act as guardians without being paid; in other words, the guardians under the bill would be all paid officers, and it was material to bear in mind, that if the bill passed as it stood, these paid guardians would have it in their power to select whom they pleased for emigration, and send them out at the expense of the union.

observed, that the Government had postponed the clause for the payment of the guardians with a very strong inclination, to all appearance, to alter that part of the bill agreeably to the opinions of the Irish Members.

said, that when he was called upon to vote for this clause, he must declare, that he entertained very strong doubts as to the advantages to be derived from any system of emigration, and he was very doubtful whether they ought to adopt a measure of emigration at all in any bill for the relief of the poor in Ireland. He hoped the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, would consent to postpone this clause, as the bill would go to Ireland with a very great obstacle in the way of its popularity, if it should show that the House was desirous of deporting the best men in the country.

said, he would agree to the proposal of the noble Lord if it were not that he well knew that if the Government consented to withdraw the clause, the first thing they would hear from Ireland, would be, that they had withdrawn the only clause of the bill that was popular in that country.

said, he still retained his first opinion. He thought the total omission of the clause a matter of so much importance that he must persist in dividing the Committee upon it.

upon his legs, objected to that part of the 49th clause which renders every married woman liable to maintain her child, and every child of her husband. It might admit of a question, whether there ought to be such a clause at all. But as the clause was introduced, it was manifestly most unjust, as far as it imposed new and fresh liabilities upon married women, without giving them any corresponding benefit or equivalent. In strict principle, he thought the whole of the clause should be rejected, but he would not divide the House with that object, although he would support any hon. Member who was so inclined. He thought it unfair, he considered it even iniquitous, to call upon a married woman, while she was married, to maintain, not only her own children, but all the children which her husband might have had by a previous marriage. If a man married a woman, he became the father of their joint children, while those children were in a state of infancy; but a woman ought not to be compelled to adopt her husband's children. She supposed, in marrying, that the husband would maintain her children and herself. Nothing, in his opinion, could be more unjust, than imposing a liability where, at the same time, they did not give a right to relief. Looking at the working of the Bill, too, the woman might be subject to a severe penalty. The husband might abscond, and then the poor wretched woman would have the whole support of the children thrown upon her. The imposing of such a liability, he thought was altogether alien to the principles of the British constitution. He should be sorry to see the Bill go to Ireland with such an unnecessarily harsh clause. There was a subsequent part of the clause upon which he should divide the House. He alluded to that part of the clause by which it was provided that every widow should be liable to maintain her child. To this he objected on the same principle that he objected to the preceding part—namely, that it created a new liability without conferring any corresponding benefit. He objected, also, to that part of the clause by which the mothers of bastard children are rendered liable to maintain them. He supposed the object was to assimilate the law of Ireland upon the subject to the law of this country. By the law of Ireland, as it at present stood, there was no obligation on the father of a bastard child to maintain it. When the clause was introduced into the law of this country, where a totally different state of circumstances existed, and where such a degree of confidence was felt that intercourse was sometimes allowed under the expectation that a marriage would afterwards take place, it was found to work wonders, and to bring about a very great change in the habits of the people. That did not exist in Ireland. Why, then, he asked, was the woman now to be exclusively punished? If they were to give a premium to licentiousness on the part of the man, why should they not give the woman corresponding protection?

said, that if he thought the clause would have the effect stated by his right hon. and learned Friend, he should certainly oppose it also, because, as the Bill did not entitle to relief, it ought not to impose obligations such as his right hon. and learned Friend had referred to. But his learned Friend would see that the 49th and 50th clauses, taken together, meant only that this obligation should exist for the purposes of the Bill—that is, that where the mother was actually unable to support her children, or the children of her husband by a former marriage, and that they were relieved, she should be considered as in the same situation as if she herself had sought relief, and should go into the workhouse. Now, this was only for the purposes of the Bill. The same rule would apply to the husband, but it was only for the purposes of the Bill. He would certainly recommend to his noble Friend (Lord Morpeth) to omit that part of the clause which made the wife liable to the support of the children of her husband by a former wife. With this omission, the two clauses, taken together, were, he conceived, quite reasonable for the purposes of the Act. By the next (the 50th clause) it was declared, that the relief given under the Act to a wife or child should be considered to be given to the person declared by the Act to be liable to maintain such wife or child, and the said person should thereupon be deemed chargeable to the union in which such relief should be given.

wished, that Irish Gentlemen would understand the importance of the point which they were now discussing. The effect of the clause would be to prevent, as much as possible, the Irish labourer from coming over to England and earning wages. That, he assured them, would be its practical effect. If, under this clause, a man's family were in a state of destitution, and he was unable to assist them, and if he came over to England, and his family went into the workhouse, the first deduction that would be made from his miserable wages, would be the sum expended upon his family in the workhouse when absent. Now, this might be very right, but still it was a great alteration in the present state of things as regarded the labouring population in Ireland. Under the present state of things it was certainly true, that when a poor man left his family to try and earn wages in England, his family were thrown upon the charity of the world; but then the husband and father who was absent from them stinted himself of every enjoyment; he slept in the fields or the ditches, and was happy if he could receive the shelter of a barn. He made his way back, after living most miserably; he returned without almost expending a farthing, and was then able to indulge himself with his little family for several months. By the present Bill, this was to be entirely changed, and they even held out by their law a temptation to the man not to come back. It would break what had always been the boast of the Irish peasanty—namely, the tie of affection. And this law of charity and benevolence to Ireland was to have this practical effect. He thought that this was a frightful clause, and he was sure it would not have been endured as it stood unless the Attorney-General had yielded to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

said, it was his decided opinion that the clause, as it now stood, would make the parties liable to maintain their children, legitimate or illegitimate, and those of the wife. This was shown by the concluding words of the clause, which his hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-General, had read, for those words made the husband or mother of the wife or child relieved "thereupon chargeable to the union in which such relief shall be given." That might be very well if the law of settlement were allowed; but the Bill did not allow any settlement, and yet the clause made a man or woman chargeable to the union in which relief had been given to their child. This construction was further proved by the penalties enacted in the 53rd clause.

said, it was intended to make important alterations in that clause with respect to the penalties.

was glad to hear it, as it would improve it; but he contended that it would be a still greater improvement in the Bill to strike out the 49th and 50th clauses. They were not at all necessary to the working of the measure, and would prove injurious to it.

admitted, that there was no right of relief in the Bill, but relief de facto would be given, and he thought there should be a corresponding liability.

had no objection to the liability of the father for relief given to the child, and if that were the only object of the clause he should withdraw his opposition.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman's object would be attained by the omission of the 53d clause, which the Government were prepared to allow.

under those circumstances, was not opposed to the substance of the clause.

said, that the only persons this clause would affect would be the thrifty, whose wages would be attachable in the hands of their employers. It would be introducing a new principle into Ireland never yet heard of, and would interfere with the diligent in favour of the unthrifty. In the bill of last year this clause was struck out. After all, too, it was not worth while for the Government to retain it. He thought it was calculated to do a great deal of mischief, and, therefore, the better way would be to leave it out of this Bill also.

said, that last year this clause was, as he believed, not struck out, but only postponed for further consideration. He did not think that any great benefit would be derived from applying the clause to Ireland, although he was disposed to be favourable to the general principle it laid down, and therefore he was ready to postpone it for the present. He should certainly not think of pressing it, unless he found the general sense of the House was in its favour.

wished to call the attention of the noble Lord (J. Russell) to the wording of the first part of this clause, taken in connection with the 50th section. By that clause it was provided, that relief given to the wife or child should be considered as relief given to the husband or father. Now, the clause under discussion said, that if a person was relieved at the expense of any union, if he refused to be lodged, &c., he should be liable to be imprisoned for one calendar month. The noble Lord would see, therefore, that if a person were relieved in legal construction by relief being given to his wife or child, he would become liable to the penalties of this clause. He wanted, accordingly, to know whether it was the noble Lord's intention in every case to force a person into the workhouse, together with his wife and family. Suppose a labourer with his wife and three or four children, and one of them an incurable cripple. He did not see how, as the clause stood, the guardians could receive this child into the workhouse, without obliging the labourer also to come into the workhouse with his wife and the rest of his family.

said, that as a general rule, it certainly was intended that parents should not obtain relief for their children without coming into the workhouse themselves, if the guardians required it, but he saw nothing in this clause which would prevent the guardians, in a case such as that mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, from exercising a discretionary power.

hoped the noble Lord would introduce a vagrancy law into Ireland, without which this Bill, which he considered as introducing a system of police, would be comparatively ineffectual.

agreed with his hon. and learned Friend in thinking that there should be a law with respect to vagrancy in Ireland, and he had shown that such was his opinion by clauses which had been introduced into the present Bill; but he certainly considered that, whether such a law was passed now or at a future period, no good would result from it until the effects of the present Bill had been seen. He did not think that a vagrancy law would operate, unless the feelings of those who had to administer the law went along with it, and that was not likely to happen, until places were established where the really destitute might be provided for.

thought there was some difficulty in saying what was the meaning of the word "abscond" in this clause. It appeared to him that it must be interpreted to mean "not being within the workhouse." Now, if this were the case, the 56th clause would operate very harshly, for if a person was suspected to have brought himself under the penalties of the 63d clause, now under consideration, any justice of the peace might issue his warrant to apprehend him and bring him before himself or any other justice of the peace, to be dealt with as directed by the Act. What he would suggest would be, to let the guardians have the power of taking in part of the family, if they thought fit, and to do away with the liability of the parent.

suggested the words, "who shall have absconded out of such workhouse," which he thought, would be sufficiently specific to prevent any mistake as to the vagrants referred to. It was not perhaps generally known to hon. Gentlemen that Mr. Bolingbroke, in making an abstract of the Irish statutes, when he came to the word "vagabond," said, Vide Irish gentleman."