in moving that the Lords' amendments to this bill be agreed to, observed, that when the several railway acts were passed, a limitation was introduced restricting the weight of the carriages to four tons. This clause went from one bill to the other without opposition. It was, however, deemed desirable, for the security of the public, that the carriages should be of greater weight, and there was scarcely a railway in which the weight was so low as four tons. It was thought better, then, to repeal this clause, to which he did not anticipate any objection, as it was sufficiently in harmony with the object of the bill.

found a very large sum appropriated under the heads of police rewards and superannuation fund. One amounted to 7,045l., and the other to 18,280l. Now, as no estimate was taken of these sums, and as part of them was provided for by a compulsory assessment on the counties, he wished to know the intentions of the Government as to their disposal.

having had notice, he had written to Colonel Macgregor on the subject, and the answer was, that the present system of rewards had received the sanction of the late Government, and that though the scale of rewards was doubled, no person received any while in the service. Colonel Macgregor added, that if they were lessened, such a step would have the effect of chilling the zeal of the force.

said, he had that day had an interview with a deputation on the subject of the bill which had been introduced relative to the medical profession, and the result being to prove that his views were not sufficiently matured, he should postpone all further proceeding with regard to it till next Session.

rose to move the second reading of the Bonded Corn (No. 2) Bill. He felt confident that this bill would meet with almost unanimous concurrence. Before he made any observations on its provisions, he must say a few words to explain how it came into his hands, and to render an act of justice to an hon. Gentleman who sat opposite. During the present Session, the hon. Member for Gateshead had introduced a bill similar to the present, which bill was referred to a select committee, containing many of the staunchest friends of the agricultural interest. Among the rest, the Members for Berks and Somerset, and the noble Lord, the Member for Lincoln, and his Colleague. It was in consequence of the report of that committee that the present bill was introduced. The proceedings of that committee were conducted with the greatest harmony and satisfaction; and at a very full meeting of that committee it adopted the report on which the present bill was founded. He (Mr. Gladstone) could not claim the credit of having suggested this measure; on the contrary, he had to regret, that four or five years since, he had voted against one of similar import, although that bill proposed the grinding of corn under the lock of the Crown. However, when it became his official duty to examine into the merits of the question, he soon convinced himself that the measure was perfectly safe as regarded the producing interest of this country, while on the other hand, it promised great benefit to our commerce, and augmentation to certain branches of trade. The reason why the bill now appeared under his (Mr. Gladstone's) auspices was, that it bore somewhat on the safety of the revenue, and it had therefore been considered desirable to consult the officers of customs previous to its introduction in the House; but as far as there was any credit attached to the measure, and he considered it deserving of great credit, it belonged to the hon. Member for Gateshead, who had suggested it to the House, and with excellent judgment had conducted it to its present stage; and he trusted that the hon. Member would be able to congratulate himself on its beneficial results. The bill proposed that parties should be empowered to take foreign wheat out of bond on the proviso that they substituted a calculated equivalent either in fine flour fit for exportation or in biscuit of one of the three classes used in merchant vessels. He trusted that it would thus open to our millers and biscuit-bakers a considerable trade from which they were now excluded, by enabling them to export bread and flour to various parts of the globe. There was now a considerable export of flour from other countries to Newfoundland, to Australia, to Brazil, and sometimes even to the United States; and he did not see any reason why a considerable share of that trade might not fall into the hands of the merchants and manufacturers of this country. Another point to which he wished to draw the attention of the House was, the permission contained in the bill for the manufacture of ship biscuits. The House had already almost unanimously recognised the pressing necessity that existed for lightening the burdens that pressed upon our shipping interests, and with this view a provision had been introduced into the Customs' Act for the import of salt provisions. But it was said, when that provision was under consideration, that a similar advantage should be given with respect to the other main article of ships' provision, and the measure now before the House would effect that object. Trade would be otherwise benefitted by it, as the demand for foreign corn would be considerable, and independent of the fluctuations of seasons in this country. Another advantage likely to accrue from it would be a tendency to increase the supply of corn in bond, an object so intimately affecting the sustenance of the people in seasons of scarcity that it could not be too much encouraged by the Legislature. The main objection to the bill, and one in which he had himself concurred until more strict examination had made him better acquainted with the facts, was, that the permission given would open a door for frauds on the revenue. He thought that that objection was not tenable. But it should be recollected that this country was not the first to try the experiment. Belgium and France had at this moment a similar plan in operation, and, in France particularly, a large trade was carried on without causing any dissatisfaction. It was now twelve or fourteen years since the trade had been first permitted in France, and [now an annual amount of 250,000 cwt. of flour was manufactured for shipping and for export to other countries. He believed that the privilege was confined to certain ports, but if France, with her limited commerce, derived advantages from such a law, it was fairly to be inferred that a very great advantage must accrue to this country. With regard to fraud, the question was not whether some trifling fraud might not be effected under the bill; the question was, whether it was likely to be committed on so large a scale, and to be of frequent occurrence, so as to form a sufficient objection to a measure of this kind. In the first place, he believed that the persons likely to engage in this trade would not look to so disgraceful a mode of obtaining profit as fraud, but even if they did, any amount of fraud they could effect would have no serious influence on the agriculturist interest or the market* of the country. Two experienced officers in the Customs had been examined by the select committee, and had given it as their opinion, that inferior flour could not be substituted for corn taken out of bond without suspicion on the part of the Customs' officer, although he might not be able to decide to a nicety the exact amount or mode of adulteration. But, even supposing the trade to reach the amount of 100,000 qrs. of corn annually, the introduction even of that whole amount, which was not more than the two-hundredth part of the annual consumption of this country, into our markets could hare no sensible effect on the immense consumption of this country. He did not mean to justify fraud, and he believed that sufficient means would be provided by this bill for its prevention; what he meant to convey was, that even if it did take place, it could have no sensible effect on our producing interests. There were two or three modifications which he proposed to introduce into this bill. First, he proposed to limit its operation to three years, in order that Parliament might have an early opportunity for re-examination, while at the same time sufficient room would he given for fairly ascertaining its effect; Secondly, he proposed that the flour made under the bill should be admitted for home consumption under the same duty as foreign flour, although, at the same time, he did not think it likely that much would be taken out in that way, as flour for exportation was generally manufactured in a way which, while making it less liable to decay, rendered it unsuitable to the home market. Thirdly, he proposed somewhat to mitigate the penalties in the bill. At present it provided a penalty of 5/. a quarter on corn which should* be taken out of bond by the substitution of adulterated flour or inferior biscuit; but be thought that this might cause hardship in eases where the fraud had been caused by miscalculation or mistake in selecting the article, and not fraudulent intention. He proposed, therefore) to introduce words into the bill somewhat to mitigate the penalties in such cases. He trusted that, with these alterations, the bill would be likely to assist in the revival of trade, and to add to the comfort of the people. The right hon. Member concluded by moving that the bill be now read a second time.

gave the right hon. Gentleman credit for the best intentions but entertained serious doubts as to what would be the effect of the measure upon the agricultural interest. The hon. and gallant Member read some extracts from the evidence given before the committee with the view of showing that no precautions which could be taken would afford security against fraud, and concluded by moving that the bill be read a second time that day three months.

said that a bill, almost precisely the same as the present, had been introduced in 1837, by Mr. Robinson, then Member for Worcester, and had been opposed by the then President of the Board of Trade, on the ground that it would be conducive to fraud. The two predecessors in office of the noble Lord who now held that appointment, had opposed the measure on the same ground, and all the right hon. Gentlemen now below him had on former occasions voted against a similar bill. For his own part, he considered that none of the objections that had formerly existed to such a measure had since been removed. He did not oppose it himself as an agricultural question, that point he would throw aside altogether; his opposition was grounded on general principles, and on his belief that frauds to a large extent must be the consequence. He most cordially seconded the amendment.

felt it to be his bounden duty to support the amendment, although no one had more strenuously endeavoured to bring that party into power, which now had introduced, he regretted to say this, amongst other measures, highly injurious, if not absolutely ruinous, to the agriculturists of this country, He referred to returns already made before the House, to show that the effect of the measures of free-trade already adopted since Mr. Huskisson's time had been to depress agriculture, until the burden of the Poor-rates had become intolerable, and also to embarrass our commerce) and turn the exchanges against this country, The plan seemed to have been borrowed from a somewhat similar project relative to foreign sugars released from bond, for the purpose of refining, and being exported to foreign countries; but the author of that project, Mr. Huskisson, found that the law could be evaded, and the bonded sugar, by means of fabricated certificates, sold by the dealers in this market. He believed the plan to have been in this instance adopted without due examination, and he trusted it was not yet too late to persuade the right hon. Baronet to retrace his steps and to abandon the bill. He assured the right hon. Baronet, that according to the present system of transacting business in the custom houses of this country nothing could be more easy than to bring cargoes of foreign biscuit into this country, and to re-export them immediately, for the mere purpose of obtaining certificates of export of so much foreign corn, which certificates would entitle those parties so exporting the foreign made buscuit to release as much foreign corn from bond as was equal to the manufactured article supposed to be composed of foreign lour released from bond in our warehouses. In this manner, the bonded grain would constantly be taken fraudulently out of the warehouses, and enter into the consumption at home, to the prejudice of our own growers, and in direct contradiction to the spirit of the existing law relative to the import of foreign grain. This process must also hare the effect of influencing the returns upon which the Corn-law averages were struck; and when large portions of foreign corn were thus spuriously withdrawn from bond, the average must be very seriously depressed, to the great embarrassment and confusion of the corn market generally.

expressed his surprise that his hon. Friend having stated that for many years, he had been connected with the commercial and shipping interests of the country should come forward to oppose the measure. Those interests, differing as they did on other questions, were almost to a man unanimous upon this, and they acknowledged the benefit which they would gain by being allowed to purchase flour and biscuit in this country at continental prices. He would not advert to the distress of the country, nor would he excite their feelings by describing the sufferings which were endured by the people; but he was prepared to contend, that at any time, and under any circumstances, the Legislature was bound to provide, as far as possible, employment for the working classes. This measure would throw open fresh channels of industry, and would afford to the labouring population of England an advantage which had already been granted by every continental government to their people. The ships of this country— especially these that were engaged in the fishing trade-were, under the present state of things, compelled to be sent to the ports of the north of Europe to take in their supply of flour and biscuit, if they wished to obtain them at a reasonable price. The difference in the price of previsions obtained in England and those taken elsewhere had caused the reduction of the number of the fishing ships which entered into the English ports. He had not heard, and he could not conceive, any reasonable or sound objection to this measure. The alarm felt by the agriculturists was altogether unfounded. The existing prohibition injured the shipping interests, the commercial interests, and the labouring classes, and it did good to no one. He thanked the Government for producing so beneficial and so useful a measure.

merely rose to express his dissent to the proposition laid down by the hon. Member for Essex that this measure would lead to the fraudulent introduction of foreign flour. He felt confident that no such effect would be produced by it, and he should give it his hearty support.

had listened with great attention to the objections which had been urged against the bill, and they appeared to him to have been answered by anticipation in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, whose explanation with regard to fraud was perfectly satisfactory. With regard to the objection that had been urged, namely, that the measure would give to the commercial marine good biscuits at a cheap rate, that appeared to be, instead of a sound objection, a very strong recommendation. There was one argument which, more than any other, recommended it to his support, The right hon. Gentleman had said that the bill would open new sources of commerce to this country, which would be not temporary or uncertain, but permanent and secure. He hailed that principle most cordially as coming from the particular quarter from whence it had proceeded, and only lamented that it had not been permitted to take a wider range, than the present bill afforded. But as that principle had been laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, be hoped soon to see it more extensively acknowledged.

[cries of " Divide"] would not obtrude himself against the sense of the House, and would not make a speech; but this he would say, that it was meet unfair in the noble Lord to enter into the general question, when the House was not disposed to allow a debate.

wished to speak to the measure ["No, no! "]—aye, and be was going into the general question, too. It had been proposed by the Government, after a long discussion of the Corn-law, that there should be some minute relaxation in a part of the system. But the agricultural gentlemen had put forward a document in opposition to the right hon. Gentleman, and in their care for their interest they had put forward that which was not true, for the purpose of serving their own private interests in their peculiar position as landlords. Much had been said about fraud. What was the meaning of the word fraud? It meant that, by the provisions of the bill, means were given to introduce corn to the starving people. The fraud was a fraud upon their own improper law—nothing else. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, and the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, were bound to do what they were doing, and they would if they dared, relax the stringency of the Corn-laws: but knowing that to be at present impossible, they had put forth this little bill as a feeler. Every person who had listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman must have felt that every position he took up was a backhanded blow at his own Corn-law. Let them not be misled. The right hon. Gentleman had proposed his measure, and a sham fight had been got up upon it, disgraceful to the party from which it had emanated, public justice had forced the Government to undertake this bill, which was an answer to every measure the Government had brought forward for the last six months. [" Divide."] He was not to be put down. He knew the corner well from which that noise proceeded. He knew the meaning of those clamours for a division. Hon. Members wanted their dinners, But was that the manner in which the business of the country was to be conducted? He appealed to hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House: they, as the opposition, had a duty to perform, and were not to be frightened out of it by the attacks of popinjays. If gentlemen wanted their dinners, let them go. Cheap food for the people was the first proposition embodied in the bill, and all the arguments about opening fresh channels for trade were but round about enunciations of the doctrines of free-trade. The right hon. Baronet, if the phalanx behind him would have permitted, would have said, " exchange the manufactures of England against the corn of the world, and we shall have a trade grow up, which will not be for a year, or for two years, or for three years, but be a permanent acquisition to the manufacturing interest of the country." That was, in fact, the language which the right hon. Baronet had used in support of this bill, which was in itself so peculiarly and pitifully paltry that he would not say another word upon it. In one respect, undoubtedly, it might be regarded as of some importance, as exhibiting the weakness and paltriness of the party, which in spite of its own clear sightedness, was driven to pursue the wrong, although it saw the right, and approved it. He never, in the whole course of his life, had heard a speech so peculiarly calculated to show all the advantages of a free-trade in corn as that which he had that evening heard from the right hon" Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone). And what ground had the opposition taken to it. The object of the bill was to declare that under certain circumstances warehoused wheat should be delivered duty-free upon substituting an equal quantity of wheat flour or biscuit. That was the proposition contained in the bill. It was no sooner offered to the House than up rose a couple of the representatives of the agricultural interest to oppose it. Let the House mark that this was not the opposition of the farmer, but the opposition of the landlord—the opposition of the landlord, who wanted dear corn at the time the people were starving. That was the meaning of the opposition. He took the hon. Member for Essex as the representative in this instance of the landed proprietors. The hon. Member for Essex was afraid that, whilst the people were starving, by some legerdemain, which he could not explain, corn, under the provisions of this bill, would come into the market and be sold rather cheaper than the landed gentlemen wished. What did the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Trade say to that assertion? "Why really," said he, ' the quantity of corn admitted under the provisions of this Bill will be so small, so minute, compared with the whole consumption of wheat in this country, that it is absolutely ridiculous to consider it as having any influence upon prices?" "Oh," replied the sturdy landlord, " I don't believe it—it may lower the price of my corn a penny, or a farthing, or a half a farthing, or a quarter of a farthing; and therefore I adhere to my opposition, and will divide against the bill." If such a course had been pursued by any Member on that (the Opposition) side of the House, it would have been called a factious opposition; but because it came from those who, from prescription, were permitted to legislate as they liked, namely, from the representatives of the land, it was considered all right, and quite proper; and a clamorous cry was raised, because they were not allowed to go at once to the favourite diversion of a division and their dinners. That was the real state of the question; and it was right that the country should know and understand it.

I have simply one remark to make in reply to what we have just heard from the hon. and learned Member for Bath. He says that we wish to sacrifice the interests of the country, and that the only object we have in view is to raise the rents of our lands. I beg to state that that is not, never was, and I believe never will be the true motive of any English country gentleman; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman would devote one moment to a dispassionate consideration of the subject, instead of indulging the desire of making an inopportune speech, I am satisfied he would not remain of the opinion to which he has given utterance.

said, that every act of the landed gentry was calculated to keep up the price of corn, to maintain monopoly; and whatever might be their wishes and intentions, the result of their conduct was such as to justify the statement of his hon. and learned Friend. He was glad that his hon. and learned Friend had put the matter on the ground which he had taken. Now, that hon. Gentleman opposite understood from his hon, and learned Friend, the Member for Bath, the grounds on which they on the Opposition side supported this measure, he hoped these Members would agree to it. He should himself vote for it, believing it, as far as it went, to be a salutary measure.

would not waste the valuable time of the House by replying to the hon. and learned Member for Bath, whose speech was contemptible, and not worthy of notice. The fact was, that the grapes were sour. If the hon. and learned Member for Bath and the hon. Member for Montrose could get a few of the acres possessed by those whose conduct they so grossly misrepresented, he believed that the treatment of the tenant and of the labourer would be very different from what it now was. He would take no further no- tice of the hon. and learned Member's trash.

rose for the purpose of requesting the hon. Gentleman opposite to postpone it for the present Session. The report from the Poor-law commissioners on the sanatory regulations of the principal towns in Great Britain would be in the hands of Members before the close of the Session, and the information therein contained would be in circulation through the country during the Session. The subject of drainage, and that which was contemplated by the present bill, would, in his opinion, be more advantageously taken into consideration at the same time. The Government hoped next Session to bring forward a bill embracing the whole subject, and he trusted, therefore, that the hon. Members would consent to the postponement of the measure.

said, that after what had been stated by the right hon. Baronet, he had no other course to pursue but to postpone the committee on the bill, but still he thought it was a little hard on the parties interested, as this bill was brought in with the object of legislating for the poor in large towns. If the right hon. Baronet would take it up, he would be most happy to leave the bill in his hands, as it would then have a better chance of success. He should, therefore move, that the bill be committed that day three months.

brought up the report on the Poor-law Amendment Bill, which, with the ' amendments, were agreed to.

rose to move the insertion of the following clause, of which be had given notice:ߞ

"That it shall be lawful for all boards of guardians of the poof in England and Wales to grant such relief as in their judgment Shall be necessary to poor persons at their own homes, any order, rule, or regulation of the Poor-law commissioners notwithstanding."

The hon. Gentleman said, that the strongest and best founded objections Were entertained against the present system for relieving the poor of this country—a system which was not advantageous to the rate-payers, nor beneficial to the poor, although he believed that the Poor-law Amendment Act had been introduced to produce the very reverse of those effects. The Measure had failed to achieve those objects which its propounder's and supporters professed—and he doubted not that they really thought so—would be the consequences of its operation. After having listened with the utmost attention to almost all the speeches which had been made on both sides of the House upon this question, he felt that he stood in rather a peculiar position, one differing very widely from that occupied by nearly all who had addressed the House in reference to the Poor-law Amendment Act. When that measure was first introduced in 1834, he certainly felt that it never would attain the objects which, no doubt, its authors had in view; but since it had become the law of the land, he had always endeavoured to abstain from anything like violent and irritating language in expressing his opinions upon its provisions, believing most thoroughly that to be the best way of attaining the end they all had in view— namely, the practical amendment and improvement of the condition of the poor. He was convinced that it was only by a calm and dispassionate course of deliberation they could arrive at a satisfactory settlement of this great and important subject. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman, in proposing the continuance of the Poor-law commission, was actuated by as pure a spirit of philanthropy as any man, even the most strenuous opposer of this measure, and that he also wished to carry into effect a law for the benefit both of the poor and of the rate-payer. It was with the same feelings that he (Mr. Escott) ventured to address himself to the clause which he now submitted for the adoption of the House. His right hon. Friend had must wisely said, that there was not time in the present Session of Parliament to give the Mil that attentive consideration which was necessary for its final and satisfactory settlement. He agreed with his right hon. Friend most entirely in the propriety of postponing some of the clauses of the Bill. The commission, however, itself, which in the minds of many hon. Members constituted a very objection able part of the law, was to be continued for five years, and without those remedial clauses which, no doubt, would have been passed by the House, and so limited the powers of the commissioners. Was not, therefore, some such measure as he now proposed rendered absolutely necessary by the very fact that the powers of the commissioners had been prolonged for five years? Under the present circumstances of the case, the law as it was proposed by Lord Brougham in 1834 would still be the law until the next Session; and the commission being extended for five years it would be in the power of the commissioners to issue any rules and regulations which they might think fit for the government of the poor and the administration of relief to the poor for the whole of those five years, unless Parliament should order to the contrary. It might be said, and he apprehended that it would be said, by his right hot). Friend, though he was not certain of the course which his right hon. Friend intended to pursue, that his amendment, although a good deal might be said in favour of it; and although in some districts it might be highly expedient to adopt it, yet it would be in direct contradiction to the principle of the Poor-law as at present administered. He would beg of his right hon. Friend, now they were discussing this question again and before they separated, to tell the House what the principle of the Poor-law was? He had listened to almost every speech that had been delivered during the debates on this bill; he had read the great speech of Lord Brougham upon the introduction of the bill in 1834, as well as other speeches, and also a variety of pamphlets upon the Poor-law; but never yet up to that moment had he met With a definite notion of its principle. If the principle of the Poor-law were an economical and proper distribution of relief to the poor, which would also reduce the charges upon the rate-payers—if its objects were to teach habits if industry to the poor, and to make them depend upon extraneous aidߞif its object were to encourage the honest and industrious labourer, and to discourage the idle vagabond—then the measure would be one worthy of adoption and of all support. But if the principle of the bill were to deny relief to the poor save upon the condition of going into the workhouse, then it ought not to be adopted, and he verily believed that it was a principle which could not long be acted upon. First and foremost in the bill stood the commissioners—that was a great and important part of the Poor-law Amendment Act, Rut that point had been so fully discussed that he would not enter further upon it than to say that the continuance of the commission for five years ought to have been resisted, but he was not prepared to say, that when sanctioned by Parliament resistance should be carried further; but. it became absolutely necessary, for that very reason, that such a clause as he pro. posed should be added to the hill. Up to that moment, he repeated, he had not only not heard any definition of the principle of the bill, but he had never heard any statement in defence of the commission, more especially if it were intended to perpetuate that commission. He did most distinctly dispute the rightfulness, rather than the right, of Parliament, in establishing such a commission; and he should wish to know in what author of eminence who had written upon the constitution of this country— in what authority of eminence upon any question relating to the powers of Parliament, was there any opinion to justify its establishment? The powers of Parliament were and must be limited; and when they came to consider questions of this kind they would find that there was no tittle of authority whatever for such an establishment as the Poor-law commissioners. He wished the noble Lord the Member for London were in his place, because then he would have put the question to that great constitutional leader of the somewhat shattered phalanx of the Whig party, who had long been considered as an able, he had almost said an hereditary, expounder of the principles of the British Constitution; he would have asked the noble Lord whether there was any power or authority in Parliament to delegate to any three men the power of making laws, which power had been confided by the country only to the two Houses of Parliament and the monarch. He should like to hear an answer to that question. He should like to have his mind satisfied upon the point; because he fully agreed that when Parlia- ment and the Crown had sanctioned a measure, they had nothing to do but to submit, and to teach the people in their respective districts to obey the law. But he thought that such an act as this should not be drawn into a precedent; and therefore he wished to know the authority for establishing such a commission, and delegating to it such powers. He should be told, very likely, " It is quite true that Parliament ought not to delegate to a commission the power of making laws, but then the fact is, that such was not the case here, for Parliament had delegated nothing of the kind, the commissioners being empowered to make only a sort of bye-laws, or rules and regulations. That is not within the power of this commission only, but it is a thing of frequent occurrence, and it often happens that bodies constituted by authority of the two Houses of Parliament have power to make bye-laws under the act of Parliament by which they were constituted." Now, that was an argument which he could not designate by any other terms than as being a quibble upon words. The point to be considered was, what was the effect of the rules, or regulations, or by-laws, call them which they pleased, which the Poor law commissioners made? If the effect was of the paramount importance—if they were understood, as he was sure they must be by any man who ever turned his attention to this subject—to be adverse to the clause which he submitted to the House for giving out-door relief to the poor—if they had not, only the same effect as a law, but prevailed universally, and had the greatest possible effect upon the people of this country, as much as any law within the memory of man—if such was their effect, where were the authority, the reasons, the arguments, to show that Parliament should delegate such a power to these commissioners? He had heard it said in that House, over and over again, that the prohibitory order could not be enforced in the manufacturing districts. That was admitted; but in the agricultural districts, it was said, the benefit of the law was experienced in the reduction of the rates, and in making the labourers more industrious. From his experience in the agricultural district where he lived, a large portion of the year, and from constant communication with poor men and persons of all classes, and also from his own knowledge, he could state that the prohibitory order had been productive of the very worst consequences as respected both the rate-payers and the poor. What was the effect of it? A hardworking, striving, industrious man, with a wife and family, would be told, when he wanted relief, that he was able-bodied, and, therefore, under this prohibitory order, he had no right to relief unless he entered the house. That was the general principle. Now, he could state that he knew whole parishes in which every workman had ceased to be able-bodied under the operation of the prohibitory order. He could state from his own knowledge, that many a poor and industrious working man, rather than go into the house, rather than leave his wife and children, rather than see his little cottage goods sold, rather than leave that which was his home, and to which he was attached, and become an inmate of the workhouse, had gone on working upon those wages which were inadequate to afford him sufficient support. By these means industrious men had been brought down to a weak and low state of health, so that, though they might not be suffering acute disease, they were far from being able to do a day's work, and when overtaken by disease, they very soon fell victims to it and their previous hard living. But what was the consequence of this law with regard to the idle and dissolute? The man who cared not for his children, or wife, or home, would go into the workhouse, because there he could get lodged and fed in idleness; the man who had no good qualities, and who was of no value to society, was sheltered and supported, but the honest, industrious, and independent in feeling, were allowed to pine away and perish. Probably he should be told that the farmers ought to give greater wages to enable the labourers to live better. He thought so; but would any political economist tell him upon what principle the farmer ought to pay for labour more than its worth? It was one of the foolish and canting cries of the present day, that the farmers ought to raise the wages of their labourers. They gave as much wages as the labour was worth. The price of labour had been reduced, partly through the redundancy of the population, but much more because of the prohibitory order. No doubt that order was issued with the best intentions, but with an idea of raising wages, instead of which they had been lowered. [Mr. Hawes: "Hear."] If the hon. Member would go with him into Somersetshire, he would soon convince him of that, and would show him parishes where the week's wages did not exceed 6s. The poor man who formerly would have fought with the farmer for 1s; 6d. a-day was now compelled to take 1s;because if he did not take the 6s. for his week's wages, he would be threatened with dismissal and the workhouse, and his honest horror and excellent dread of the workhouse, accompanied as it must be with the breaking up of his home, and his separation from his wife and children made him submit. Thus the best were punished, while the worst were indulged; and that which it was supposed would be instrumental in raising wages had been I the means of lowering them, and of further impoverishing the poor. When the law was first propounded, the people in the rural districts were told that it would improve the condition of the poor, and lower the poor-rates. The honest labourers were told that the effect of the bill would be to raise their wages; and if they could not get higher wages, they were to throw themselves into the workhouses, and dare their employers to give so little. [" Hear, hear."] He heard an assistant-commissioner make use of that language. The farmers and the gentry were told that another effect of the measure would be to reduce their rates. Had these promises been realized? What had been the effect of the law in the part of the country in which he resided? In many parishes of Somersetshire, by the unequal operation of the new law, the rates had been raised. He had taken the trouble to examine into the state of nine parishes in that part of the country. In every one of which the rates had increased, whilst the poor were suffering for want of relief. It might be asked why the rates had been raised? He would inform hon. Members why the rates had been raised. They had been raised because the House had refused to adopt a regulation similar to that which he was about to propose. It was not difficult to define why the rates had increased. Cases similar to the one he was about to relate had no doubt conduced to raise the rates. A man with a wife and family of six children would entail upon the parish a large weekly expenditure if compelled to go into the workhouse. That sum which would be necessary for their maintenance in the house would have been considerably reduced had the guardians consented to allow the man for the support of his family a few shillings per week out of the work house. With this trifling allowance the man would have been able to support himself without there being any necessity for entering the workhouse at all In order to save a few shillings per week, the parish incurred the expense of 1l. or more per week, and on that account the rates had been raised. Was it just to allow a man, with his wife, and large family, to starve at home on a miserable pittance, or would you consent to allow him out of the parish funds 2s.6d. per week, and thus enable him to support himself and family, without being compelled to throw himself into the workhouse? In answer to this it might be urged, that if this principle were acted upon—if a man was allowed a certain weekly sum to assist him in the support of his family out of the house, it would be paying wages out of the rates. With regard to that objection he would say, that there was no man more alive to it than himself, He did not deny that the course he proposed would give rise to contingent evils He would ask, which system would give rise to the greater evil, that which he proposed or that sanctioned by the bill under the consideration of the House? Taking into consideration all the objections to his proposition, all the difficulties which, it might; be said, it would probably give rise to—balancing the evils against the advantages—for he did not consider his proposition perfect in its character—considering all these points, the good which was likely to result from the operation of a clause like that which he had proposed, and the few evils which it might give rise to, he did think, " upon the whole," it was the best course which could be adopted with reference to the principle for which he was contending,—viz., that of administering out-door relief under certain circumstances. He did hope that hon. Members, and the right hon. Baronet particularly, would take this matter into serious consideration. What was the question? Would it not be better to empower the guardians, who were personally acquainted with the feelings, wishes and condition of the poor among whom they were brought up, and among whom they resided—would it not be better to authorize those guardians to allow a poor man 2s. 6d. per week to assist him in the maintenance of his family, instead, for the mere support of what was called a principle, to drive him into the union workhouse? There was another point to which he was desirous of directing the attention of the House. He was afraid, after what had passed during the debate on the Poor-law Bill last night, that he should be told that such a clause as that which he had proposed would have the effect of mischievously interfering with the power vested in the hands of the Poor-law commissioners—that it would tend materially to diminish the authority which the commissioners ought to exercise throughout the country. That was not his object. He had no wish to produce such an effect. If he for one moment conceived that his clause would have the effect of interfering with, or injuring the useful authority of the commissioners, he would not press it on the notice of the House; but it would have no such effect. It was his firm conviction and honest belief that it would not in the slightest degree interfere with the useful discretion of the commissioners. It would only operate in such cases where the Poor-law commissioners could exercise no discretion. The commissioners could only issue a general prohibitory order, and they were prevented by act of Parliament from administering Poor-law relief in particular cases. What did the Poor-law Bill say with reference to the powers vested in the Poor-law commissioners? In the 15th section of that bill, which had a reference to the administration of relief to the poor under the control of the commissioners, after stating,

"That the commissioners may, at their discretion from time to time, suspend, alter, or rescind such rules, orders, and regulations, or any of them."

It concluded with these words:

"Provided always, that nothing in this act contained shall be construed as enabling the said commissioners or any of them to interfere in any individual case for the purpose of ordering relief."

It was clear from the act of Parliament itself, that the commissioners could not interfere in individual cases. In support of the commissioners it had been urged that they constituted a court of appeal to which the poor man could apply. Such could not be the case, for the act of Parliament distinctly said, that they should not order relief to the poor man. Such being the fact, he, by his proposed clause only interfered in cases in which the commissioners could exercise no authority. He did not, therefore, interfere with the useful authority of the commissioners. Such would not be the effect of his clause. He was aware that there were many unions in which none of the evils which he had des- cribed existed, where the administration of the Poor-law had been attended with advantage to the poor; but how had the measure been productive of such good results? He would inform the House, It was effected by neglecting the orders which had been issued with reference to the administration of relief, by acting in direct opposition to that order, by trampling upon the regulations of the Poor-law commissioners. He only asked the House to permit a." the unions throughout the country to do that by law which others were compelled to do in opposition to the law. A chairman of the board of guardians bad boasted to him that he never attended to the orders of the Poor-law commissioners. He knew another chairman who admitted relief in the shape of loans. Upon being asked whether he ever expected the money to be repaid, he replied in the negative. It was in this manner that men influenced by motives of humanity were compelled to evade the law. Was it not then in a shocking state when a man was compelled in the exercise of a public duty, to evade it? There were, no doubt, unions where the Poor-law Bill might operate advantageously. It was said, that if he could witness the effects of the Poor-law in many unions, his objections to the law would be mitigated, and that he should feel disposed to support its provisions. He had no doubt, that the Poor-law had met with the approbation and support of many gentlemen in consequence of its defects being removed or palliated by the course pursued by the gentry residing in the districts where it was in operation; but it was not every country gentleman who could exercise an authority over a large and extensive union. What could be effected in a union, thirty miles in length, in a mountainous part of the country? Under such circumstances, it was impossible for the operation of the Poor-law Bill to be watched, or the interests of the poor properly to be attended to. In an extensive union like that which he had mentioned, it was impossible to induce the guardians to attend at the board once a week—to ride, as they were often compelled to do, twenty-two miles for that purpose. He wished to refer to one point mooted by the hon. and learned Member for Bath the other evening, in his speech on the Poor-law Bill, That hon. and learned Member had put this question on a ground totally distinct from that upon which it had previously been placed. And the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government rather sanctioned the view which that hop. and learned Member had taken. The hon. and learned Member stated, that the poor had no right to relief. With every respect for the learning and ability of the hon. Member, he must say, that the argument consisted in a mere quibble on the word "right." The hon. and learned Member for Bath referred in his speech to the statute of Elizabeth, which authorised no relief to the poor until certain conditions were complied with. But under the statute of Elizabeth, the aged and infirm were provided for at their own homes. The same description of persons were now provided for upon a certain condition—and what was that condition? The condition was, that they were refused all relief unless they went into the union workhouse. There was a great difference between the present law and the statute of Elizabeth. Under the statute of Elizabeth, relief was distributed in various parishes, and distributed by those who were practically acquainted with the wants and condition of those who applied for and received assistance. By the present law, the power of giving relief in parishes bad been destroyed. The best Poor-law which he could conceive would be, that which repealed all those laws which overlaid the healthful provisions of the statute of Elizabeth; such an enactment would not only confer a great blessing on the rate-payers, but on the poor them selves. He begged to remind the House of what had transpired with reference to the Poor-law during its passage through the House of Lords. It was his belief, that if the Duke of Wellington had not given his support to Lord Brougham, the bill which he had introduced would never have become the law of the land. He thought, that a question of this kind should be considered without any reference to party feelings. But what did the Duke of Wellington say on that occasion? He said,—

"That the magistrates did not administer the law; the overseers were intrusted with its administration. It was true, that the magistrates had interfered with the overseers, and that one object of the bill before the House was to bring the law back from the hands of the magistrates, and place it in that of the overseers, according to the old system. There was nothing more important than to bring back the administration of the law to the old system. When that was effected, no one would be more happy than himself, to see the bill abandoned."

It was his belief, that when the Duke of Wellington uttered these words, it was his wish to return to the old parochial system. The first step to carry out the wishes of the Duke of Wellington, would be to place the power of administering the law in the hands of the Poor-law guardians, who stood as the representatives of the parochial authorities. He considered the question as one of deep importance, and he would perform his duty by dividing the House upon the clause.

said, the ability and evident sincerity of the hon. Gentleman, entitled all that had fallen from him to the fullest consideration. He felt the magnitude of the subject introduced by the hon. Gentleman, hut he must also say, that the discussions upon it were nearly interminable, and ought now to be left over till the next Session. The hon. Gentleman had frankly admitted, what every hon. Member present must have seen, that his clause was in direct, opposition to the principle not "only of the measure before the House, but of the law of 1834. The hon. Gentleman said, the principle of the workhouse test was not to be found in the act of Elizabeth. Now, most undoubtedly that was so, but by that act relief was not made a positive right, but it was made contingent upon certain works to be performed by the party receiving it. If the clause of the hon. Gentleman were adopted, it would not only defeat the measure then under discussion, but it would in effect repeal the act of 1834; indeed, it was at utter variance with the workhouse principle, which was contained in all the Poor-laws of late times. He must deny the assertion of the hon. Gentleman, that under the proposed measure, as well as that of 1834, the commissioners were not possessed of large and extensive powers They had those powers, and, although they were somewhat indefinite, it was not now uncertain how they had been used. The hon. Gentleman and the House must be aware, that several general orders had been passed by the commissioners, they had been laid on the Table of the House, and by the sanction of Parliament they had now become law. Those general orders having now all the force of law could not be revoked by the commissioners; they must administer the law according to the principles therein laid down. Any one who heard the speech of the hon. Gentle- man would have been led to suppose that the law was stringent in preventing any relief being given to the able-bodied pauper out of the workhouse. He would inform the hon. Gentleman that such was not the case, and that a very large discretion was given to boards of guardians under the orders issued by the commissioners. Under one of those general orders, relief in money, in food, in clothes, and in medicine might be given, not only in the illness of the head of a family, but in case of the sickness of any member of it, or in case of any suffering arising from accident—indeed, in all cases where the necessity for relief was sudden and urgent, the guardians were intrusted with those large powers. The hon. Gentleman had asked him to state what was the principle of the bill. Now, there was always considerable danger in giving definitions; but the definition of the principle of the measure he would say was, " Local relief to the poor, subject to a central superintendence and control." The hon. Gentleman seemed to say that the workhouse-test was so rigidly applied that no relief, or at least but little, had been given, except in the workhouse. To prove that such a view of affairs was entirely erroneous, he was prepared with some returns, from which it appeared that in 1839, out of 1,137,000 persons who were relieved, only 140,000 received that relief in the house, while 997,000 were relieved out of it, and at their own homes. In 1840, 1,199,000 were relieved, and only 169,000 received that relief in the workhouse, while 1,030,000 received it out of the house, and at their own homes; and in 1841,1,300,000 was the number of persons relieved in gross, only 192,000 of whom received relief in the workhouse, while 1,108,000 were relieved out of it. This proved that the workhouse-test was not firmly adhered to. Again, let them try the question by the relative expense. The sum total paid for the maintenance of the poor in 1840 was 3,739,000l. Any one who had heard the speech of the hon. Gentleman must have been led to the belief that all that sum had been expended in in-door relief. Now what were the facts? Generally speaking, all paupers above the age of sixty were relieved out of the workhouse, and in all cases of sickness either of the heads of families or of members of the family, relief was administered to the parties at their own homes. The hon. Gentleman had eloquently complained of the guardians being in the common practice of selling off the furniture of all persons applying for relief, and said that it was done under the authority of the law. He must deny that such was the law— he believed it was not the practice; but if it was, it was most decidedly illegal; no guardians or other authorities had power to do so. Well, out of the 3,739,000l. expended in poor-rates in England and Wales in 1840, 808,000l. only was expended in workhouses, while 2,931,000l. was expended in the relief of the poor at their own homes. Again, in 1841 the gross amount expended upon the relief of the poor in England and Wales was 3,884,000l., and out of that sum only 892,000l. was expended in the workhouse, while nearly 3,000,000l. was expended in the relief of paupers at their own homes. The hon. Member for Bradford asked him what proportion of these cases were able-bodied?—it was a very difficult matter to give an answer to that question, for he was not furnished with returns to that effect; but there was one class of persons who were relieved of which he had an accurate account, and from that it appeared that in 1841 there were relieved of widows, and women who had been deserted by their husbands, 165,000. Of the male paupers he was unable to say what proportion were able-bodied and had been relieved in the workhouse or at their own homes, but he could state, upon the best authority, that out of the 165,000 persons he had alluded to, only 13,601 were relieved in the workhouse. But the hon, and learned Gentleman made one admission which must prove fatal to his clause—he admitted that if he was successful in carrying it, it would necessarily lead to the payment of wages out of the poor-rate; that it must lead to a recurrence to the worst of the evils which existed prior to 1834. Everyone who had the slightest regard for the welfare of the labouring population must decidedly oppose the proposition of the hon. Gentleman. It was clear, even to the hon. Gentleman, that his success must prove a return to the old system, under which the farmer paid low wages to his labourer. Nothing could be more unfair, because it was only an indirect way of taxing other people for the support of his workmen. Nothing could be more intolerable, nothing more indefensible, than such a system. On the one hand it produced a servile pauperized population, while, upon the other, it produced much hardship and injustice. Every one who wished for a return to such a ruinous system might vote for the clause of the hon. and learned Member; but all who were of opinion that such a course would be a step backwards, and most detrimental to the best interests of the labouring population themselves, must vote against him. The hon. and learned Member had quoted some expressions which had fallen from the Duke of Wellington in 1834. He had caught the words that he wished to rescue the poor-rates from the hands of the justices, and to see the administration of all relief of the poor restored to the hands of the overseers. Undoubtedly, one of the most crying evils of the system as it existed previous to 1834 arose from the authority exercised by the justices over and independent of the parish authorities. Although he entertained a most decided objection to the control of the magistrates over the relief of the poor, as exercised prior to 1834, he considered the continuance of that control far preferable to the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman. By the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the local authorities—who were influenced by local prejudices and antipathies— would be intrusted with the sole and exclusive power of administering relief in their respective districts. He thought there would be no safety in such an administration. He considered that one great evil of the law as it existed prior to 1834 was the power vested in the magistrates; but he thought it was preferable to permit an appeal to the magistrates than to allow no appeal. The great advantage of the present law was, he conceived, the control exercised over the local administration of relief by parties who were free from local prejudices—who acted upon general principles recognised by the Legislature, and laid down by the Legislature, these parties being themselves under the control of the Executive, and their acts being open to discussion in the representative assembly of the nation. He contended that it was necessary, when the administration of relief was vested in local bodies, that some appeal should be afforded; and such appeal must be made either to some local tribunal, or to a central controlling department. He had perused a pamphlet, entitled Remarks on the Prohibitory Orders and Discretionary Powers of Guardians, addressed to the Thirsk board of guardians by a member of the board, in which the author stated,—

"The proceedings of local boards easily evade public attention. Their composition is continually varying, and there is no individual to whom the responsibility of any blunder attaches. Every act of the commissioners is watched with the utmost jealousy, and this fact furnishes the best safeguard that they will exercise the powers with which they are intrusted with due caution and discretion. Of this I am confident—no precautions can be too great, no jealousy too watchful, in committing to any party the discretion of bestowing outdoor relief on the able-bodied; for it is a power which may sap and destroy the very springs of industry by the imposition of local taxation. That such a power should be committed to any local board is most impolitic; and there seems no depository to which this power can be so beneficially and securely confided as to a central commission."

This was precisely the opinion which he entertained as to the principles on which the bill of 1834 was founded; and this was the principle on which the bill now submitted to the House mainly rested. His opinion was that, if the House adopted the clause proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman, not only would the commission be utterly useless, but the whole scheme of the enactments of the bill of 1834 would be nullified. He was, therefore, most decidedly opposed to the clause proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman.

thought the argument that labourers' wages were under the former law paid out of the poor-rates was most fallacious. The guardians had a discretionary power as to granting relief, and if employers could be compelled to give the labourers such wages as would gain them subsistence they would not require relief. He thought no answer had been given by the right hon. Baronet to the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. The right hon. Baronet had stated | that the poor man had the right to appeal, first to the guardians, then, if they did not afford him redress, to the magistrates,— then to the assistant Poor-law commissioners,—and, if they neglected his application, he could appeal to the commissioners at Somerset-house. By a proviso of the Poor-law Act, however, the commissioners were precluded from receiving any appeal in an individual case; but every appeal which could come before them must be an individual case. He thought the Poor-law was founded in injustice; it was an iniquitous measure, and the sooner it was torn from the statute-book, and burnt by the common hangman, the better.

said, the hon. Member for Oldham had expressed his opinion that the Poor-law was founded in injustice, and had said, that he would gladly see it torn from the statute-book. Now, if he thought this law to be unjust, he would willingly endeavour to procure its repeal; but he believed it was founded in strict justice, and that it had been a source of great advantage to the poor throughout a large portion of the country; and he was prepared to abide by that opinion. He was far from agreeing with the hon, Member for Oldham, for he thought the right hon. Baronet opposite had afforded a most complete and conclusive reply to the arguments of the hon. and learned Member, by whom this clause had been proposed. The statements of the right hon. Baronet were supported by facts which the hon. Member for Oldham had not ventured to question. The hon. Gentleman had said that, if the wages of labourers were eked out from the poor-rates, their wages were not paid from the rates; that if a poor man in the employ of a farmer did not obtain such wages as would procure a subsistence for himself surd his family, and receive relief from the overseers, his wages were not actually paid from the rates. But was this relief given from the pockets of the overseers, or from the pockets of the rate-payers? He thought, it was most improper that money drawn from the pockets of shopkeepers and other inhabitants of a parish for administering relief in, cases of emergency— of absolute want, should be applied to eke out the wages of persons to whom the farmers would not give a sufficient sum to obtain them the means of subsistence. In such a cage, it would palpably be the interest of the farmer to reduce the wages of the labourer, when it was known, that they would be made up from the poor-rate. He thought the present Poor-law afforded the labourer some means of control over the farmer, for if a poor man was compelled to work for 6s. or 7s. a-week, when he ought to receive 10s. or 12s., he might throw himself and his family into the workhouse, and thus by adding to the amount of rates, he might oblige his employer to give him such a rate of wages as would procure him subsistence. He believed he was making a correct statement when he said, that in the Andover Union a sort of conspiracy was entered into among the farmers to compel the labourers to work for extremely low wages. About twenty of the labourers applied to the board of guardians for relief, and, under the advice of one of the assistant-commissioners, the board admitted the men and their families into the workhouse. The consequence was, that the farmers were instantly compelled to raise the rate of wages nearly 25 per cent, and the men, instead of remaining in the workhouse, were enabled to realize wages which procured them the means of subsistence. he believed, that in the rural districts this had been the general effect of the Poor-law Bill. In the parish of Ware, when the system of out-door relief was pursued, 120 men in receipt of parochial relief were frequently employed in the gravel-pits, or were maintained in entire idleness. That union, under the exiting law, comprised seventeen parishes; and he believed, that since the Poor-law was adopted, there never had been at any one period seventeen able-bodied men out of employment in the workhouse. The right hon. Baronet opposite had shown, that the commissioners possessed the utmost power of relaxing the stringency of the law, and that the proportion of out-door relief already afforded, was so great that the clause of the hon. and learned Gentleman was wholly unnecessary. If the House adopted the clause of the hon. Gentleman, they would, in fact, revert to the state of things which existed prior to 1834. He thought the Government had taken a proper course with regard to this question, and he was glad to state his general concurrence in the principles they had adopted. If those principles were unpopular, he and a large number of hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House were as ready to share the unpopularity with (he Government as were some hon. Gentlemen opposite. He believed the principles on which the Poor-law was founded were sound, and that in operation the bill was most beneficial to the working classes; and his opinion had not been shaken by the bitter denunciations of a knot—a very small knot—of hon. Members on both sides of the House, who had united in opposing this measure. He gave his support to this bill because he conceived it was a measure which would generally be most beneficial to the labouring classes of the country, though experience might show the necessity of mitigating some of its provisions in the next Session. It had been the custom to talk of the stringency of this law, and of the extensive powers which it vested in certain parties, but he would remind the House that such powers were given in order that any necessary relaxation of its provisions might be effected. He defied the hon. Member for Oldham to show that, where a case of emergency had been made out, the commissioners had evinced any indisposition to relax the stringency of the law. He contended, that the Poor-law Bill was not in the slightest degree unconstitutional; the commissioners were strictly responsible for their acts, and if any grievance arose, the Secretary for the Home Department was called to account. He would, therefore, certainly vote against the clause proposed by the hon. and learned Member.

said, if the hon. and learned Gentleman pressed his clause to a division he would vote in its favour, because it asserted the principle of out-door relief, and proposed to intrust the discretion of affording that relief to persons who would be likely to administer it properly. The right hon. Baronet in his speech during this debate, had fully admitted the principle of affording out-door relief, and had shown that a great proportion of the relief recently afforded had been out-door relief. In Ireland the Poor-law had been introduced as an experiment, and there no out-door relief was given. In this country an aged person might receive out-door relief, unless he preferred becoming an inmate of the workhouse; but in Ireland no person could receive the slightest amount of relief without going into the workhouse. He thought the operation of the Poor-law in its present stale in Ireland was most dangerous; it created an enormous expenditure without affording any substantial relief. He was of opinion that out-door relief ought to be granted in that country as well as in England, and he would therefore support the clause proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman.

would support the clause of the hon. Member for Winchester. It was not his wish that the wages of labourers should be eked out in either agricultural or manufacturing districts by parochial relief; but if the rate of wages was so low that they did not enable a man to obtain a subsistence for his family, he thought relief might fairly be granted. He thought the commissioners sitting in Somerset-house could not decide on the relief to be given in individual cases; they must ultimately depend on the report of the Poor-law guardians. Why not therefore at once give the discretion to give out-door relief to the Poor-law guardians? Instead of this discretion being vested in the overseers of the poor of a parish, as formerly, twenty or thirty parishes were now united, all the guardians of which must concur in the relief to be given, and be thought that surely the decision as to the cases in which out-door relief ought to be given might be safely left to them. If they were not allowed to give relief they must report on the case to the commissioners, and how could the commissioners then refuse to give relief against the tenour of the report of the guardians? tie thought it therefore better to give the discretion to the guardians at once. He should support the motion of the hon. and learned Member.

did not see how the right hon. Baronet opposite, the Member for Kent, could oppose the motion. On a former occasion he, as chairman of a board of guardians, had represented in that House a case of extreme hardship which had come before the board of which he was chairman, and in which a complete case for a grant of out-door relief was made out; the board of guardians reported the case to the Poor-law commissioners, and they peremptorily refused the out-door relief; and the right hon. Baronet grievously complained of their conduct. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, as chairman of the board of guardians of the Longtown union, in the north of England, had applied to the commissioners for a relaxation of this rule, and stated, that be would not act as a guardian unless the discretion were granted; and in this case the Poor-law commissioners did not insist on uniformity. That was the first case in which his belief in the necessity of uniformity was staggered; and he was thenceforth convinced that the discretion might be safely left with the board of guardians. The only necessity for this uniformity appeared to be, that in case of pressure from without the guardians might be able to fall back on the Poor-law commissioners; but if the Poor-law guardians were too timid to carry out their own acts, they had no right to throw the odium on the Poor-law commissioners. The Poor-law guardians must be better judges of the merits of each case than the commissioners, and he should therefore support the motion of the hon. and learned Member.

certainly had made the statement alluded to by the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down, and still entertained the same opinion as he then did, that it was a case of peculiar hardship; but it did so happen that since he had made that statement to the House a general relaxed rule had been issued by the comissioners, and, according to the new order, the guardians were empowered to give relief in such cases for fourteen days, at the expiration of which time the case was to be referred to the Poor-law commissioners. That new order entirely met the case he had laid before the House, and justified him in the course he was taking.

was not one of those so strongly opposed to the New Poor-law as to wish to get rid of it altogether; but at the same time he thought that much of the Poor-law required to be mitigated. He thought that the object of the hon. and learned Member was completely carried out without this motion, when it appeared that in 1840 only 169,000 persons received relief in the workhouses out of 199,000 persons who had been relieved, and that last year only 192,000 persons received relief in the workhouses, while 1,108,000 persons received relief out of them. He would press on the hon. and learned Member not to divide the House on the question. As one of those anxious to mitigate the severity of the law, as all the other motions calculated for its mitigation had been withdrawn, he thought that a division now on this question, instead of advancing the cause they had at heart, would injure it, and weaken the power they might be able to show on some future occasion when the act should be fully discussed. If the hon. Member persisted in dividing the House, he should be under the necessity of adopting that plan which had been stigmatised by an hon. Member opposite as sneaking or skulking from the House, whatever imputations might be cast upon him for it.

hoped the question would go to a division, and hon. Members might " skulk" it, if they liked. He had heard the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, as a supporter of popular rights, with great pain. The result of the rule of the Poor-law commissioners was to take away discretionary power from the people. He thought it a degredation that the supporters of popular rights should vote for such a law in that House. If the people were not fit to be trusted to elect guardians to administer the Poor-law, they were not to be trusted to elect Members of that House to frame laws. As a friend of the extension of popular rights, and of the extension of the suffrage, he could not permit such observations to pass without comment. The facts which had been brought forward showed that the commissioners desired to maintain the principle of in-door relief in an extreme manner, and they had only relaxed their rules on this subject when their existence was in jeopardy, and the public voice was against them. He should support the motion of the hon. and learned Member.

would not yield to the hon. Member who had just sat down in his desire to support popular rights, or to see the people happy; but he was surprised he should advocate a course which past experience had shown produced evils that threatened to destroy society. He could only say that that man was not a friend of the working classes, or of the country at large, who would wish to return to that state of society from which they had been happily relieved by this law. He was anxious to support the power of the central commissioners. It was necessary to lay down general rules. Without the central control there would be as many different modes of administering relief as there were unions. If this motion were carried he should like to know of what use the commissioners would, be; for it went to prevent the boards of guardians from being under any direction. He begged altogether to differ from the hon. and learned Member when he said that wages had not been affected and raised by the operation of the Poor-law. By this law the practice had been put an end to of giving relief to help out wages. If the motion were agreed to the old practice would return, from the various unions being left to their own discretion; he, therefore, thought it better to adhere to the rule laid down by the New Poor-law, and he should vote against the motion.

said, the hon. and learned Member who had proposed the motion, wished for no return to the old law, but that the boards of guardians should have the power of administering relief as they thought proper where there was necessity for it. That boards of guardians returned by the voice of the people to administer relief to the poor of the district should not be intrusted to do so, appeared to him to be the strangest doctrine that ever was. He could not coincide with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Sheffield. He thought the proposition before the House a most reasonable one; he should be glad to put an end to this most unconstitutional power; and he should cordially support the motion.

said, he was very anxious to express his wish for the restitution of a clause (the 29th), which had been left out last night—he did not know why—and which empowered guardians to appoint local committees to receive applications for relief, to examine and report to the Board, in cases where the whole of any parish was situate more than miles from the place of meeting of the board. In districts such as he was acquainted with, of great length, where the pauper had to come ten or twelve, or even twenty miles to attend the board, it was very difficult and inconvenient for him to put forward his claim, and consequently he was obliged to trust to the relieving officer to get his claim heard. He had been very glad to see this clause, and he could not help hoping that the right hon. Baronet would grant this boon to the poor, by replacing the clause on the third reading, from which he could not anticipate that any inconvenience would ensue.

hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not attend to any such suggestion. If he did, they might have the Gilbert Union clause revived. If the hon. Baronet wished to effect the purpose he had in view, let him bring in a clause to diminish the size of unions. Such a clause, it might be expected, would obtain considerable support if brought up as a rider.

should be glad if the right hon. Baronet would adopt this suggestion, and reinstate the clause, which was not of a coercive but a mitigatory nature. But he would go further than this clause, and propose that the local committees should not only visit but relieve. If they adopted that proposition, it Would operate as a very great mitigation of the harshness of the Bill, and would be cordially welcomed in those districts where distress was almost universal.

opposed the grant, as one that was offensive to a large portion of the people of this country. He did not oppose it on religious grounds merely, but because the doctrines taught at the college had a tendency to the subversion of the allegiance due to the Crown.

remonstrated against the Course taken by the opponents of the grant to this Catholic seminary, which he considered essential to the religions instruction and spiritual welfare of the Catholic Stipulation Of Ireland. Why did not hon. members who were so attached to the Protestant doctrine arid faith, instead of taking ill-founded exceptions to the conduct of the Catholic pastors, exert themselves in the more praiseworthy and Christian duty of providing for the spiritual wants of the Irish Protestants? the riches of the established Church and its clergy was as notorious as the poverty of the Catholic Church and its exemplary priesthood. Why then was this petty grant in aid of a fund raised by Catholics for the education of their own clergy, and others who professed the Same faith, Carped at? Was this the proof of superior liberality in the professors of the reformed religion; or were these illiberal objections to the exemplary exercise of pastoral Care in the Catholic clergy intended as a set off against the notorious neglect of those flocks by the clergy bf the Established Church in many districts of Ireland. It was a circumstance which came under his own observation in parishes adjacent to that in Which he resided, that the parishioners of parishes from which the clergy derived a large income in tithe were totally deprived of spiritual instruction in their own parishes, and forced to resort to a distant church to attend Divine service. It would be far more prudent and more consonant with the Spirit of true Christianity, if the zealous advocates of the Protestant religion and its clergy were, instead of taking all possible opportunities of vilifying the Catholic clergy and Catholic laity, to endeavour to forget all party and religious distinction, and set themselves earnestly to devise an efficient remedy for the spiritual destitution of their Protestant brethren in those parishes of Ireland which were frequently some of the better class of livings in that country. The vote should have his most zealous support.

rose with much reluctance to detain the House at that late hour of the night, but feeling it his duty not to give a silent vote On the Maynooth grant, he begged the indulgence of the House while he made a few observations, and stated the reasons which prevented him from giving it his support. He knew that some hon. Members would consider that his opposition to it arose from narrow and prejudiced views. But he was sure that, if they were aware of the effects produced on Ireland by the present Maynooth system of education, they would pause before giving it their sanction. He could say that it was not from bigotry or intolerance that he Opposed it: for he looked upon liberty of conscience as one of the greatest of blessings, and religious persecution as the most intolerable of all tyrannies. He hated the spirit which breathes in the inquisition— he abhorred those feelings which rejoice at the imposition of penal laws. He said he would now only look at this question in a political point of view, and he would ask, if it was right, expedient, or politic for the State to Support an institution, if that institution, by the doctrines it teaches, by the principles it inculcates, by the conduct of its Members and pupils, tended in any way to lessen the loyalty or the obedience of the subjects of that State? Ought we to continue to endow an institution, established solely for the purpose at giving a sounder instruction, a more loyal and more British education than at the time of its foundation it was supposed could be obtained in other seminaries, if, having utterly failed for those purposes, it, on the contrary, fostered principles hostile to Our institutions, alien to the constitution. of the realm? It had often been stated that we were bound in justice to continue this grant, that it was a legacy bequeathed to us by the Irish Parliament, which we, its heirs arid executors, ought to pay. But he distinctly denied such was the case. J In the three acts of Parliament relating to Maynooth, no mention is made of a national endowment. Even were it so, why are We bound to make this an exception? Why not treat it as they did the other Parliamentary enactments? Though Parliament, for instance, made null and void what the Act of Union declared to be " one of its essential and fundamental" articles—viz., the preservation of the Irish Church Establishment. Though apparently no respecter of persons or of property, yet Parliament must, however, now halt in its career, and not dare irreverently to touch the liberal, enlightened, and unexclusive College of Maynooth. Rut what were the facts of the case? In 1795, Parliament considered it expedient to allow a college to be established for the education of persons professing the Roman Catholic religion, lest by a foreign education, when treason and infidelity ran riot over the Continent, the Roman Catholic youth should imbibe republican principles, and return discontented with the established order of things. But though Pitt proposed and the Irish Parliament sanctioned, a grant—and though the United Parliament afterwards thought fit to continue one—yet it was proposed, sanctioned, and continued, solely for a particular political purpose. He asked, had that desired object been gained?—had the Maynooth system been of benefit, either to the Roman Catholic clergy or to the empire at large?—or had it not rather defeated what ought to be the very end and object of education? Were the Irish Roman Catholic priests of 1842 better subjects, more enlightened, more loyal, more charitable in their opinions, than the foreign educated priests of the last century? The evidence before Parliamentary committees, nearly every writer on Ireland—Mr. Inglis, even Dr. Doyle himself—proved the contrary. Mr. Inglis, a staunch Liberal, one whose statements ought to have some weight with hon. Gentlemen opposite, thus writes,

"I entertain no doubt that the disorders which originate in hatred of Protestantism, have been increased by the Maynooth education of the Catholic priesthood. It is the Maynooth priest, who is the agitating priest; and if the foreign-educated parish priest chance to be a more liberal minded man, less a zealot, and less a hater of Protestantism than is consistent with the present spirit of Catholicism in Ireland, straightway an assistant, red-hot from Maynooth, is appointed to the parish. "

And again,

"I look upon it as most important to the civilization and to the peace of Ireland that a better order of Catholic priesthood should be raised. Taken as they at present are from the very inferior classes, they go to Maynooth, are are reared in monkish ignorance and bigotry, and they go to these cures with a narrow education grafted on the original prejudices and habits of thinking, which belong to the class among which their early years were passed."

Had the mind, continued the hon. Member, been enlarged and elevated by the instruction given at this seminary —had intolerance ceased—had superstition and spiritual thraldom been banished where Maynooth had had sway, where its influence had been felt—had it taught obedience to the laws, " To render to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due? " He was afraid such had not been the case. He must ask, who were they who excited the peasantry in the south against their landlords—who instilled into the minds of their flocks feelings, if not of hatred, at least of jealousy and suspicion, against the Sassenagh and the clergy of the Established Church?—Who drove voters to the hustings, and coerced them by the threat of excommunication—by the fear of being cursed from the altar, as outcasts from their neighbours and their God? He much regretted he was obliged to say they were a large body of the Maynooth priests. He appealed for confirmation to Parliamentary reports. Every page of the evidence taken by the committee on bribery and intimidation in 1838, showed that such was the case. He could prove from evidence he had then with him, the truth of every statement he made, but at that late hour would not trouble the House. Though he spoke of this tyranny and interference, he did so in a very friendly spirit toward his Roman Catholic fellow countrymen. [Ironical cheers from the. Opposition.] Yes, there were thousands and tens of thousands of Roman Catholics who felt as he did, but who, though they groaned under this system of terror, were forced to bow down in seeming humility. There were priests too who would break the bonds, but dare not; who when unwilling to agitate, are immediately saddled with a Maynooth curate who has none of those squeamish scruples. He trusted that the House would not sanction the present system which is fatal to the peace and tranquillity of Ireland—which perpetuates the great curse of that country, religious dissension—which will not allow Irishmen to do justice to their own naturally kind and social disposition—which changes their natural loyalty into abject submission to a demagogue, and their naturally strong religious feelings into superstition and gross bigotry—which instead of affording a loyal British education, for which sole purpose it was established, on the contrary, engenders a bitter sectarian spirit, and hostility, not only to the Established Church, but to the institutions of the State. He hoped hon. Gentlemen, representatives of English constituencies, who, perhaps, judged of the political and religious state of Ireland from that of England—who formed their opinion of the Maynooth priesthood in Ireland, perhaps from some of the liberal-minded, enlightened, most estimable, and deservedly respected clergy, whom they may have met with on the Continent—to pause and examine more carefully the effects of this Maynooth system of education—and then to say, where are the advantages and the blessings which have resulted to that country from it? On that answer he would be content to leave this subject to be decided; but he begged hon. Members, who had not examined this question, not to be deceived by cant phrases about liberality and the advantages of education—by declamations about the interests of seven millions of Roman Catholics. For their sake, as well as for that of Protestants, he now opposed this grant. He asked them to refuse it, or else to change the system. He spoke not as a political partisan—not even as a Protestant—but as an Irishman he would plead for the peace and happiness of his Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen—" protect them from political religion—save them from designing friends, who would plunge them into agitation and opposition to the laws." In conclusion he entreated hon. Members, who intended voting for this Maynooth grant, for the purpose of affording educational light, to take care they were not creating darkness—who would by it aid truth, to take care they were not disseminating error; who would by it encourage education, to take care they were not poisoning the sources of knowledge—who would by it promote peace, liberality, and mutual good will, to take care they were not ra- ther sowing the seeds of disunion and un-charitableness, the bitter fruits of which we have lately been too largely reaping.

considered that the objections raised to this vote involved an attack on the very first principles of religious liberty. The hon. Member for Kent had rested his objections on conscientious grounds, and said that nothing could justify the Government calling upon Protestants to pay for the education of Catholics. If this was a sound objection, why did they call upon the Scotch Presbyterian and the Dissenter to contribute to the maintenance the Established Church? The hon. Gentleman, to be consistent, should become a voluntary, and should not interfere with the consciences of others. The objection of the hon. Member was fatal to their calling upon the country to contribute to the State religion, as well as every other religion. The hon. Member who spoke last did not take the high ground of principle that had been adopted by the hon. Member for Kent, but merely dealt with the vote as a question of expediency, and had chosen to call the Roman Catholic priests educated at Maynooth preachers of disloyalty and sedition. The hon. Gentleman said that he had proofs of this: if this was the case, it was a pity that he did not produce some of them, for the satisfaction of the House. He could not conceive any thing more objectionable than raising such an opposition to a vote to provide for the instruction of the priests of seven-eighths of the people of Ireland. They, night after night, voted sums of money for the religious education of the people of all creeds in the colonies, without the slightest objection; and he was astonished at the spirit of opposition manifested to this paltry vote for the education of Irish priests. He did not pretend to say whether this or that religion was right or wrong, for he left such a matter to the determination of the hon. Member for Kent, in his infallible spirit. He must add that he wished that the hon. Member who spoke last, who so strongly declared that he was a Protestant, had called himself a Christian, for his speech certainly showed that he wanted something of the spirit of Christian charity. He was satisfied that her Majesty's Government would not be influenced by the spirit which was manifested in the speeches of the two hon. Members opposite. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had always given a consistant support to this vote, and he hoped that the milder spirit that had marked the right hon. Gentleman's course would actuate the House.

thought that this was entirely a question of expediency, and it was for Parliament to say whether the grant to Maynooth had succeeded or not, and therefore it was for the Parliament to determine whether or not it should be continued. If the principle of the grant was good, they did not give half enough; and instead of voting only 9,000l. a-year they ought to give 90,000l. a-year; by this means they might create a body of clergymen who would be a blessing to I the country instead of a curse. He, however, was opposed to any grant, for as a Protestant he could not conscientiously support a college for the education of priests of a creed opposed to his own.

having been subjected to some obloquy in his own neighbourhood for having used the expression "beastly' doctrine," with respect to Roman Catholictenets, and having been also twitted because of publishing a small pamphlet on the subject, trusted that he might be permitted to say a few words. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, that no improvement had taken place since 1795 in the conduct of the clergymen: educated at Maynooth, or in the horror or filthiness of the doctrines taught there. Dr. Crotty, in his evidence given before a committee of that House, admitted that Babin and De la Hogue were class books of the College, and any person who had read those books would admit that nothing could be more disgusting. He, perhaps, would have no objection to increase the grant, as it might be that an increase would improve the system of education at Maynooth; for his own part, he would be the; last to interfere with the religion of others, but he felt it to be his duty to defend his: own, and he was satisfied that religion was in danger when the right hon. the Lord Mayor of Dublin used the following words at a meeting of the Catholic Institute:

"I wish," said the right hon. Gentleman, "to see the day when high mass will be celebrated in Westminster Abbey; and, from the present appearance of things, that event must take place before long."

Surely, after such a speech as that, the Protestant religion was in danger. It was said that emancipation would render Ireland quiet, but in his opinion, it was the heaviest blow which had been made against the Protestant religion.

could not think that the country or the Church was in such a crisis as to make this vote at all of a dangerous tendency. The extravagant hopes of the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor of Dublin ought not to frighten the House from agreeing to the vote, if they were persuaded that it was expedient on general grounds. So far from believing the present spirit of theology in England was taking the direction of Rome, he believed that it had raised up a barrier against her encroachments stronger than any which had hitherto existed. With respect to the quotations which had been brought to show the objectionable nature of the doctrines taught at Maynooth, objections might be brought in the same way against classical education from the tendency of passages in Catullus and other writers. He felt that this was a subject which the House was not competent to discuss. As to the political question whether the English Government was, or was not, bound to interfere in the education of the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland, he believed that to neglect that duty, and leave them without any provision for education, would be most cowardly conduct. The greatest, perhaps, of the duties and responsibilities entailed on England by the union was the education of the people. The system introduced by the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, had at. least worked well in this way, that it had provided a very good education for the mass of the Roman Catholic population of Ireland, although it might have failed to do so as regarded the Protestants. The miserable pittance they were now about to dole out was far from being all they ought to grant. It was far from being adequate to the fulfilment of the duty of the Legislature; but he believed that under present circumstances the most ardent and zealous friends of the Roman Catholic body in Ireland would not think it safe to demand any increase of the grant. If the objection was that the priests were made too Irish at Maynooth, let the present Government endow a college for them at Rome. He would remind the House of Sir W. Raleigh's axiom,

"There is nothing so terrible in a state as a powerful and authorized ignorance."

asserted that there never was in any country—certainly not in England—an institution supported out of the public funds against which such strong charges had been brought, and which charges had been so weakly replied to, as the College of Maynooth. Those charges were founded upon certain doctrines which were taught in books that were acknowledged to be class-books in Maynooth. He would say that the Institution which allowed such charges to go forth, and which took no steps either to explain or contradict them, acted a most dishonourable part. With respect to this grant, he would read an extract from a work, entitled The State in Relation to the Church, by W. E. Gladstone, Esq., Student of Christ Church, and M. P. for Newark. The right hon. Gentleman said—

"In amount the grant is niggardly; in principle, it is wholly vicious; and it will be a thorn in the side of these countries so long as it is continued. If, indeed, our faith be pledged to the college, let us acquit ourselves of the obligation."

He, however, denied that the faith of Parliament was pledged to this grant. When the College of Maynooth was first established, the idea was that permission should be given to erect the college, and that those persons for whose benefit it was intended should support it. In 1808, when Sir Arthur Wellesley was Chief Secretary for Ireland, he expressed himself to this effect in the House of Commons, when the grant for Maynooth was under consideration:—

"The fact was, that when the Maynooth institution was first established, it was not intended that it should be maintained by the public purse."

He afterwards said in reply to Mr. Ponsonby—

"Whatever might have been the understanding between the Roman Catholics and the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member, Parliament did not stand committed by any pledge."

It appeared from a return of the amount of subscriptions raised by the Roman Catholics for the support of Maynooth, up to the year 1822, that the sum did not exceed 4,436l.; and he thought when the Roman Catholics themselves did not contribute, they came forward with a bad grace to call on the public for assistance. In a letter addressed to the Earl of Shrewsbury by the Lord Mayor of Dublin, he spoke of the Roman Catholic priests of Ireland in these terms:—Alluding to the dioceses of Westmeath and Armagh, the right hon. Gentleman said,

"There was not a single clergyman in those extensive dioceses who had not sent in his contribution to the Repeal Association. He believed that four-fifths of the priesthood were in favour of repeal."

said, he was about to give a vote which would be considered perhaps strange, or even inconsistent; but which would be the result of careful consideration and sincere conviction. He should vote for the grant because it had been for forty years continued, because, although there might be no specific pledge for its continuance, the long prescriptive right gave the Irish people something like a claim; and because the sudden discontinuance might lead to great embarrassment and some hardship to those now studying in the college. At the same time, he hoped the Government would take steps to inquire into the charges made against the college. He would take this opportunity of expressing his gratification at the entire disclaimer, on the part of his noble Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, of any intention to cast discredit on the Protestant clergy of Ireland, whom, the more the noble Lord knew of them, the noble Lord would respect and esteem.

confessed that he deeply deplored the revival of a discussion which partook more of the nature of a theological disputation than of a political debate. For forty consecutive sessions had this grant been sanctioned, and nothing in the speeches of to-night had in the least shaken his persuasion of its propriety, while the very men whose authority the gallant Gentleman (Colonel Verner) had cited as opposed to it were in fact the authorities of men who had themselves proposed the grant. The Duke of Wellington, for instance, had proposed it, and by Mr. Perceval it had really been increased, that statesman declaring, that though the principal was bad, yet the faith of Parliament was pledged. In 1795 foreign states had offered facilities for the education of our Catholic priesthood. But it was then deemed very imprudent to leave our Popish priests to receive what would have been a thoroughly revolutionary education, and the arrangement then made had up to the present time been sanctioned and supported by Parliament. It might be defended either on the ground of propriety or of pledge. It would neither be advantageous nor creditable to leave a large portion of our people wholly without religious instruction. Yet this would virtually be the effect of withdrawing the grant and affording no substitute. The charges made against the institution ought to be substantiated ere they were circulated. In 1825 a commission, after a close examination, reported that there was nothing disloyal or immoral in the instruction administered at Maynooth. Those prurient passages would never have been known had not some persons pointed them out for purposes of their own. He begged to say, however, without raising any invidious comparison, that no people possessed greater moral purity than the people of Ireland, where the priests were in the habit of instituting those inquiries which had been referred to. He should therefore much regret, both on Parliamentary and political grounds, the success of the amendment. He could conceive nothing more impolitic; and if hon. Gentlemen, who wished to maintain the connexion between this country and Ireland should oppose the grant, it would appear to him most extraordinary.

said, he had heard some part of the noble Lord's speech with great pleasure, but there was one expression which he would presently allude to, which had given him pain. The debate he was not sorry for; and if he were at liberty after the speeches that had been made to vote against this grant, he should do so on principle, because he thought no one set of Christians should be called on to pay for the religious establishments of another; and that he would apply to Protestants as well as Catholics. The hon. Member for Colchester was fortunate in his researches—

"How happy I, who was so studious, To catch thy lore at Cappoducius!"

He would advise him to take a journey to Oxford. He could produce the last number of the British Critic, and there he could find doctrines that would console the hon. Member for Pontefract, who thought he was getting so close to them (the Catholics) that he would be sure to keep away from them. He did not know what had become of the hon. Baronet, the Member for Oxford University; he should not say he had "skulked" away that was an unparliamentary word, and not true in this instance: but he should be glad to know whether he relished those doctrines. He was sorry the gallant Colonel was not in the House; one, at least, of the three colonels had gone away, though he had not fled. He certainly should have thought the gallant Colonel had come reeking from the battle of the Diamond. The gallant Colonel talked against the Catholic clergy; he would ask him what protection they got from the magistrates in the county of Armagh? Was not the town of Maghera sacked? Were not the furniture and property of the inhabitants consumed? Did not the people fly for their lives? And did not that take place in the presence of the gallant Colonel? And was there any human being convicted for it? When the gallant Colonel, then, stood in such a position before the House, the least to be expected from him was, to have treated lightly the Catholic clergy. They had many provocations; they had much to bear. Was it nothing, too, for the Irish gentlemen now to bring up their sons in bitter animosity and rancour against them? [" No, no."] He said, "Yes," using at the same time some flimsy hypocrisy to cover their malignity, but only to make it doubly dangerous. ["No, no."] Why, were not the foulest accusations made against the Catholic clergy? Was there a crime with which they were not charged? But then part was by insinuation only,—less courageous than by open accusation, "But," said the hon. Member for Londonderry, " I know it to be truth; I can prove them." There was not one of those calumnies but was as false as it was foul, as untrue as it was malignant. He who made such charges against the Catholic clergy was a miscreant, unworthy of civilization. He would tell the hon. Member to pack up his charges. He had begun life badly, he began by bringing charges against an esteemed clergy, a clergy beloved by their flocks, a clergy who, when pestilence was abroad, when famine threatened, when death was coming on, when every one else fled, stood by and gave consolation to the people. The typhus fever never appeared in Ireland but hundreds of the Catholic clergy died from their attention to the sufferers; and yet the hon. Member could make such charges against them. Shame upon those who educated him; and yet they were told that these doctrines were creditable! Was not the evidence of every committee which had sat on subjects connected with Ireland for the last thirty years to this effect, that there was no population on the face of the earth who observed all the moral and charitable duties better than the people of Ireland? They were a moral and a religious people. The hon. Member said he never stated the reverse. No. He had only stated that they were educated in obscenity; but it was only in his own filthy and beastly imagination. [" Order."] He begged pardon; it was in the hon. Member's reading, not his imagination; it was in his own study and literature only that he could have made such a discovery. He observed that some of the Gentlemen on the Treasury bench cheered the young Gentleman when he sat down. The people of Ireland would hear of this with surprise and no small disgust. The noble Lord (Lord Eliot) must perceive what kind of party in Ireland this was of which he was the head, but which he regretted that the noble Lord did not lead. He should be sorry to say one ungracious word of the noble Lord, for he was sure the noble Lord did not deserve it; but he wished the noble Lord were able to manage that party which was now seeking to control and govern him. It was an unhappy party. Why did they not attend to their own religion? Why did not they say their own prayers? The gallant Colonel stated that those charges had been made against the doctrines taught at Maynooth, and that they had never been answered. Why, they were the doctrines that were taught throughout the Catholic world. Every controversialist had made the same charges, and whether they were refuted or not, the Catholics had not diminished in the combat. The gallant Colonel said they were immoral. On this point he was ready to meet the gallant Colonel on any fine morning, and probably the hon. Member for Kent would be able to get the use of Exeter-hall for the dispute; but the College of Maynooth and its professors looked with a sovereign disregard, which did not rise to the dignity of contempt, at these charges made against the faith of an overwhelming majority of the Christians throughout the world, against the faith which had remained unchanged in Ireland, against the faith of the ancestors of every one now present. He had rather this sum of 9,000l. was flung to the dogs than that it should be made the subject of this discussion; but when the Catholics were challenged, it was not for them to shrink from the combat. He had heard no accusations, except such as were vague and general, and involved in indefinite terms. They could only be met with an indignant and contemptuous denial. Why, instead of general charges being made, were not attacks made on individuals, and then they could be refuted? He felt it his incumbent duty to fling back these calumnies against the Catholics with scorn and contempt. They might be assailed, but the time would never come when they would be conquered.

understood that during his absence from the House the hon. Member for Dublin had referred to circumstances which had occurred at Maghera, and insinuated that he had taken a part.

said, he would repeat his statement. What he said was, that the village of Maghera was sacked in the gallant Colonel's presence; but he did not say that the gallant Colonel had taken a part in the proceedings. Not a single individual, however, had ever been punished for the outrage to the present day.

said, that if no party was punished, that was no fault of his. He had risked his life on the occasion, and seeing a man about to burst open a door with a stone, he had placed his back to the door, though by doing so he ran the danger of being seriously wounded. For this he had been persecuted by the late Government for seven years, at the end of which he was deprived of his commission, which he had held for thirty-two years. He defied any man to say that there had been anything improper or discreditable, or any impartiality in his conduct as a magistrate and a justice of the peace.

said, that not one word of his charge had been disproved. He had not stated one syllable more than the gallant Colonel himself. But who were the parties that sacked the place? The Orange yeomenry of the north of Ireland, and the gallant Colonel held a high office, among them for many years, though at that time he had ceased to possess it.

It is most painful to roe to be thus obliged,—to be thus compelled, I say, to rise, and notice the coarse invective to which the right hon. Gentleman, the Lord Mayor of Dublin, has just given utterance. He has thought right to make a most uncalled for attack on a near relative of mine, lately a Member of this House, and he mentioned the word "miscreant." He has used most coarse terms with respect to the manner in which he brought me up. I will not take the trouble to contradict these imputations, for the House knows their value. And to the House I will leave the character of my relative. Neither will I tell the right hon. Member how I have been brought up; but I will tell him what my relative did not bring me up to be. He did not bring me up to become a cowardly blusterer, or a mendicant hypocrite; he did not bring me up to be one whose only arguments are appeals to the worst passions of the mob, or one whose abuse is the strongest praise.

said, he perfectly forgave the young Gentleman. ["Order."] In what respect was he out of order? Unless the young Gentleman's memory was bad, he would recollect that he had had ten times as much abuse poured on him, and he was never prouder than when he received it from the young Gentleman, who had given an admirable specimen of what might be expected from him. He had served his country; he had done his duty at a time when a calumnious spirit, and a spirit of unchristian malignity protruded themselves; and he threw back with sovereign disregard the imputations of those who calumniated his creed, and perhaps hated his country.

entreated hon. Members not to be led away by the unfortunate turn which the debate had taken. Credit had been refused to the hon. Member near him for making an honest and honourable speech; it was to be hoped that the noble Lord would take that as a specimen of the sort of maintenance which he might expect from the party who supported him on the present occasion.

protested against their proceeding with the bill at that hour in the morning. The hon. Member for Montrose was desirous of making some observations on the bill, and he was not then in his place. He must persist in insisting upon the postponement of the bill.

said, that he concurred in the motion of the hon. and learned Member, and would support.

said, that he hoped the noble Lord would press the bill. It would teach the hon. Member for Montrose a lesson. The hon. Member for Montrose ought to have been in his place, if he wished to oppose the bill.

thought that the opposition to the bill was most unfair. The bill had been introduced as early as seven o'clock the other evening, and had undergone a full discussion. Every opportunity had been afforded for the discussion of the measure, and he therefore must persist in proceeding with it.

Sir, I move the adjournment of the debate.