begged to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in conformity with the recommendation of the Commissioners in Lunacy in their last report upon Haydock Lodge, the magistrates of the county of Lancaster, on the renewal of the license this year, had required the proprietor, Mr. Coode, to reside on the premises; and also to provide a competent medical assistant; also to reside in the asylum? The recommenda- tion of the Commissioners was in these terms:—

"At the same, we are strongly of opinion, that in case the justices of Lancashire be disposed, on consulting with the local visitors, to grant the application, which must shortly come before them, for renewing the existing license, they might most properly insist that Mr. Coode, the individual who is most largely interested in the prosperity of the institution, and who, whatever he may be in form, is virtually the principal proprietor, should be associated in the license by name as co-proprietor with his sister, and that his residence upon the premises should be made an indispensable condition of the renewal; and we would, moreover suggest, that care should be taken upon the same occasion to enforce the immediate appointment of a competent medical assistant, to be also resident on the spot, and relieve the present medical officer from a portion of his duties."

said, a correspondence had taken place between the Commissioners of Lunacy and the visiting justices in Lancashire on this subject; and the license was granted for a short period, in order that it might be decided what course should ultimately be adopted. At the end of four months that license was renewed; but Mr. Coode's residence was not insisted on, the license being granted in the name of Mr. Jenkins, who resided in the establishment. With respect to the second part of the question, he could answer it in the affirmative. Mr. Green, a gentleman perfectly competent, had been appointed.

wished to ask a question of the Home Secretary on the subject of the vast influx of Irish paupers into Liverpool, which had been represented in a petition to that House from the select vestry of Liverpool, from which petition he would read the statement of facts:—

"That, by official returns, the number who have come into the port from Ireland since the 1st of January is 150,750; that of these only 48,188 have emigrated, leaving 102,564 who are either wandering about the town of Liverpool and the neighbouring villages, or spreading, as mendicants, throughout the whole kingdom. That, in addition to these numbers, officially returned, your petitioners believe that 27,218 have arrived since the 1st of December, to which must be added the multitudes who have come into Glasgow and the seaports of Wales. That 250 persons have recently been sent over to Liverpool by the mayor of Wexford, the cost of whose passage was defrayed by a public subscription raised by the inhabitants of Wexford, and 130 of whom immediately became chargeable, and demanded and received parochial relief; and that your petitioners are informed by authority, that such proceeding on the part of the mayor and inhabitants of Wexford was not contrary to any known law, and that the only redress your petitioners have is one which they would be reluctant to have recourse to—the removal of these poor persons under the provisions of the Act 8 and 9 Victoria, c. 117, which Act, moreover, from its complicated and expensive process, is found ineffective, and the local magistrates have not deemed it expedient to attempt to put it in force. That the number of immigrants has increased, is increasing, and, so far from diminishing, will, as your petitioners confidently believe, and as they were warned would be the case, increase more rapidly as the weather improves, and the facilities of travelling become greater, more especially as it appears that the wealthy inhabitants of Ireland may subscribe to send destitute persons over to England for relief without committing a breach of any law. That this immigration is a great and heavy burden upon the ratepayers of the parish of Liverpool, but that the pecuniary burden is comparatively trifling, and the least of the evils of which they have to complain. That some of the immigrants come over in a state of actual infectious disease, and a largo number of them so predisposed to it that they fall sick shortly after their arrival, and so spread and propagate disease and death among an otherwise healthy population. That the consequences are most disastrous and alarming to the people—dysentery, diarrhœa, smallpox, and typhus abound. Three of the relieving officers have already died of typhus fever, and two now he dangerously ill; one of the medical officers is dead, and another is ill; one of the nurses of the Lying-in-Hospital is dead; and another ill. 654 paupers have been buried in the workhouse cemetery within the last month, the average number of interments during the last twelve years being only 1,367 annually, so that in one month the interments have nearly equalled half the number they usually amount to in one whole year. That your petitioners deplore the miseries of the Irish poor, and are ready and anxious, by every means in their power, to relieve those miseries, and are of opinion that the inhabitants of Liverpool have exhibited a noble and generous sympathy in behalf of their suffering fellow-subjects But while they are most anxious to extend justice and charity to Ireland, they conceive that they are entitled to demand justice and charity for the parishioners of Liverpool, whom they represent; and for themselves, and with every the most sincere wish that the distressed pauper Irish should be relieved, humbly and earnestly petition that they may be relieved at home, and prevented from spreading sickness and death, and the moral contagion of degrading mendicancy amongst the towns and villages of England."

said, that statements precisely similar in substance to those contained in the petition of the hon. Baronet had referred to had been from time to time addressed to him by the municipal or parochial authorities at Liverpool, and by deputations who had represented the num- ber of immigrants from Ireland, and the consequent progress of disease. The last deputation he saw two days ago, and they stated to him that, since the 15th of January, when an accurate account was first kept, the number of Irish paupers that had arrived in Liverpool was no less than 180,000; of those 40,000 or 50,000 had emigrated; a large number had passed to other parts of the country, but that still from 60,000 to 80,000 remained, in addition to the ordinary population of Liverpool. A statement was also made, that cases had occurred of steamboats having brought paupers over from Ireland in a state of fever, whom they landed at Liverpool. In consequence of these statements, instructions had been addressed to the custom-house authorities at Liverpool, directing that two ships lying in the Mersey, which were employed during quarantine (though fortunately they were very seldom required) as lazarettoes, be used as hospital-ships, so as to prevent the spread of infection. A custom-house officer would board every steamer or vessel with deck passengers, and if he found any of them suffering from disease, he would hoist the yellow flag. She would then be inspected by a medical officer, and those passengers having fever would be taken to the hospital-ship, and kept apart, instead of being lauded at Liverpool. Notice had also been given to the owners of those vessels which brought over fever passengers, that if the practice were persisted in, it would be necessary to place the vessel under quarantine for a limited period. He had received a letter from the Mayor of Liverpool, acknowledging the receipt of these directions, and stating that he anticipated the most beneficial results from them. The greatest satisfaction had been given also to the inhabitants of Liverpool by the adoption of these precautions, which he believed to be indispensably necessary. With regard to other places, the same representations had not been made to him as from Liverpool. In reply to the application for pecuniary relief, he was not able to hold out any hope that the Government would be able to bear any portion of the burden thus imposed upon the ratepayers of Liverpool. An offer had been made, however, of tents, if places could be found outside the town where they could be fixed, and in which the immigrants would have a better chance of escaping disease. A building at Cardiff had also been applied as an hospital for the sick. Three weeks ago he had received a notice from Liverpool, that from 250 to 300 Irish passengers who were rescued from an emigrant ship and taken to Wexford were forwarded to Liverpool by a public subscription on the part of the inhabitants of Wexford, the Mayor of Wexford "recommending these parties to the justice and mercy of the inhabitants of Liverpool." An inquiry had been addressed to him (Sir G. Grey) to know whether the inhabitants of Liverpool had a legal remedy against the authorities of Wexford. He replied that the proceeding was not against any law that he knew of; and that the only remedy was the law to facilitate the removal of such destitute persons back to Ireland. It was not the intention of the Government to propose any alteration in the law of settlement in Ireland.

wished to know whether the right hon. Baronet intended to propose any law providing that the 6,000,000l. annually spent in this country by Irish noblemen, Members of Parliament, and other persons connected with Ireland, should be spent in that country?

wished to know whether the Government had received any complaints that Captain Robb, the senior officer in command of the English squadron at Oporto, had espoused with too much of partisanship the cause of the rebel junta there?

said, that no complains against Captain Robb had been received from Sir W. Parker, the admiral on the station, whose attention would have been called to any matter deserving of reprehension. It was, therefore, to be presumed that no just ground of complaint existed against Captain Robb.

wished to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether it were his intention to propose any measure to put a stop to the exportation of wheat now going on, 134,000 quarters having been exported during the last month, and large exportations were still going on. The price of wheat was rising very rapidly, and he understood a further rise of several shillings had taken place on that day.

I beg to inform the hon. Member that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to pro- pose any restrictions upon the exportation of wheat.

wished to inquire of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War whether it were the intention of the Government to increase the pension of the private soldier?

said, it had been stated by his noble Friend in another place that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to revise the warrant regulating the amount of pensions, and to increase the minimum pension to the sum of 8d. a day. In addition to this the soldier would also carry with him as pension the good-conduct pay which he had earned during his 21 years' service.

said: I am about to take a course irregular in point of form, but necessary, in order to enable me to take, on Monday next, a step which I think it most desirable should be taken in the present state of the monetary concerns of this country; and I hope the feverish anxiety that prevails, not only in the metropolis, but in the country generally, will justify me in occupying, for a short time, the attention of the House, to state as precisely as I can what are the intentions of Her Majesty's Government. I need hardly state to the House that this subject has occupied the anxious consideration of the Government. My noble Friend and myself more especially have received from day to day numerous deputations and representations from various parts; we have been in constant, I may say hourly communication, with those parties whom we believe most able to afford accurate information and the best advice on the state of the money market, and the steps it might be necessary to take in consequence. The complaints and representations which have been made to us may be classed in two great divisions. Parties coming up from the country have urged that various steps should be taken, either directly by the Government, or by the Bank of England, guaranteed by the Government, all of which, when sifted, amounted cither to a repeal or a suspension of the present law by which the currency of the country is regulated. Now, Sir, I do not wish at the present moment to raise any discussion on that point—there will be another occasion when that question may fairly be raised, if hon. Gentlemen choose. All that I think it necessary for me to say on the present occasion is, that this is a course which Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to adopt. Now, Sir, having made this declaration, I think it is only right I should state, that consistently with the maintenance of that law, we consider it most desirable that every facility should be given which can be legitimately and legally given to the public, and with that view that no demand on the part of the Government should be made which should possibly interfere with the accommodation to be given on good private securities to the extent the Bank may think itself justified in giving. It is just a week since I stated that I believed at that time the necessity for the stringent measures adopted by the Bank had ceased. I certainly was misunderstood when I was represented to have stated that the danger was over, for most un-undoubtedly I never used any expression that could bear that interpretation. I said, not as a matter of opinion, but of fact, that the necessity for stringent measures had ceased. In point of fact, on the two previous days the Bank had relaxed the stringency of its course; and it has, from that time forward, been enabled from its improved condition to continue giving facilities to the country within reasonable and moderate bounds. The last return shows a very much improved condition. Since last Saturday the Bank has received 400,000l. in gold and silver bullion, and the circulation of the country has been increased, nearly that amount of notes having been issued in exchange for gold and silver. Of course, I cannot interfere with the discretion which the Bank may think proper to exercise; but, so far as Government securities are concerned, it is desirable to place them in a proper condition, that they may be as available as they usually are for the purposes of those who hold them, and also to put the Exchequer in such a condition as to enable us to the utmost of our power to dispense with that extent of aid and assistance which, on all former occasions of quarter day, with a single exception, has been afforded to the Government by the Bank. Certainly, it does appear that the description of Government securities which at the present moment labour under the greatest depression are Exchequer-hills; and considerable anxiety exists as to the course Government will take as to that description of securities. I think it therefore desirable, al- though the usual time for making any announcement on the subject has not arrived, with a view to calm the anxiety which prevails, I think it right to state to-night, that I shall, on the proper day, the 18th of May, give the usual notice for the exchange of Exchequer-bills, subject to the usual conditions. I think it, however, indispensable to raise the interest on Exchequer-bills, now far below the current rate given on other securities with which they compete; and, from the day in June on which the exchange takes place, the interest on all Exchequer-bills—whether exchangeable then or in March—will be at the rate of 3d. per diem. It is well known that it has been usual for the holders of Exchequer-bills to borrow money on depositing their bills; but considerable difficulty prevailed as to this mode of raising money during the late pressure. I am happy, however, to state that the Bank has, within the last few days, found itself in a condition to make advances of money on Exchequer-bills. It was made known to the brokers that the Bank was prepared to do so, and it has had no difficulty in complying with the whole demand made upon it to-day to the extent of 170,000l. The Bank is prepared to make these advances, not for any lengthened period, for that probably might let loose the rein indiscreetly; but it has advanced money on Exchequer-bills for short periods, and that accommodation to the public the Bank is in a condition to continue. With regard to the Exchequer, it certainly is exceedingly desirable that it should not he under the necessity of calling on the Bank to make large advances, unless indispensably necessary, which I hope it will not be, for the next quarter. That must, however, depend on the moneys paid into the Exchequer. Although the payments into the Exchequer have, during the last fortnight, partaken of the general monetary depression, I am happy to say that my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Board of Customs informs me that for the last few days the payments have resumed their usual course. From other sources I learn that money matters in the city of London are much easier, and that the extremity of the pressure has passed off. The mode in which I propose to put the Exchequer in funds is by offering an inducement to those who have contributed to the loan to pay up their instalments. I have reason to believe that, in all probability, many of those who are contributors to the loan will be disposed, on the allowance of discount, to pay up the whole or a portion of the instalments between this and the 20th day of July. What I propose, therefore, to do is, on Monday next to move that the House do resolve into a Committee, when I shall submit a resolution to authorize, by Act of Parliament, an advance of interest, by way of discount for prompt payments on the loan. Any person who shall pay up previously to Friday, the 18th of June, any portion of the instalments due subsequently to the day of payment shall receive discount at a given rate, calculated from the day on which the payment is made, up to the day on which the instalment is due—that is to say, if anybody pays up early in May the June instalments, he will receive a months' interest; if he pays the July instalment on the same day, he will receive two months' interest; if the August instalment, three months' interest; and so on. I have reason to hope that a considerable sum of money will be paid up in this way. Of course, on the amount so paid will depend the condition of the Exchequer; but, from what I hear, I have great hopes that the balances in the Exchequer will enable us next quarter to dispense with the usual assistance from the Bank. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by giving formal notice of the course, as stated above, to be taken on Monday next.

said, he wished to ask the noble Lord whether he was prepared to assure the House that he would do all in his power to guarantee the passing of a measure which would insure relief to the poor of Ireland in the extremity of destitution? He believed, that if the Irish Poor Law Bill were to be cut down so as to be merely a temporary measure, to continue in operation for one, two, or three years, it would be perfectly worthless. He was convinced, that if the Bill was to be merely of a temporary character, neither the poor on the one hand, nor the rich on the other, would exert themselves as they would do if it were a permanent measure. In his opinion, the time had come when it was necessary that this principle should be adopted permanently—that the poor should be supported in the districts in which they lived, and in which their labour had been employed; and he believed the people of England were determined that this principle should be applied to Ireland. The people of this country were obliged to maintain their own poor; and they considered that it was not justifiable that a state of things should he continued, which would enable the owners of property in Ireland to refuse to discharge their duties towards their own poor, and, directly or indirectly, by the force of starvation, or the refusal of relief, to send them in hordes to this country, either to obtain that relief which they so much needed, or to come into competition with our own industrious population. He believed the English people and the Government were alike determined that this principle should be enforced—that the property of Ireland should maintain the poor of Ireland. He wished, therefore, to ask the noble Lord, whether he meant to press this Bill to-night? And if that was the noble Lord's intention, whether he could assure the House that he would take every measure in the power of the Government to secure the application of some permanent system of relief to Ireland, which should require the property of that country to maintain the poor?

My hon. Friend requires some explanation of my opinion with regard to this Bill. In answer to his question, I beg to remind him, in the first place, that I have always declared that, as the former Poor Law Act only applied to a certain portion of the destitute, and there were numbers who were not relieved under that Act; it was not just to deprive those who were not relieved, of the privilege of begging, and of getting what assistance they could obtain. I am still of the same opinion; and therefore I certainly should not attempt to ask the House to consent to the passing of this Bill, unless I believed there was a general Bill about to have the force of law which would give to all the destitute—to all persons in danger of starving, the means of obtaining their support from rates to be levied by law. I will say further, that if the Poor Law which is to give such relief is to be limited in duration, I think this Bill, which is of a penal character, should he limited in the same way. But, while I say this, I do not think the limitation of the duration of the Poor Law Bill would be a good reason for declining to enter into the details of this measure. It is quite obvious, that if the two Houses of Parliament were to show so much jealousy of each other, that the one were to say, "We will not pass the Vagrancy Bill unless a Poor Law Bill, satisfactory to us, has passed the other House," and the other branch of the Legislature were to say, "We will not consider the Poor Law Bill unless a Vagrancy Bill accompanies it," there would be great danger that, between the two, no progress in legislation would he made. I am therefore disposed to go into Committee on this Bill. Before it has finally passed this House, we shall probably be aware in what state the measure recently sent to the other House will be returned to us. At present, my hon. Friend does not seem to be aware whether the alterations made in that Bill, limiting its duration, apply to the whole Bill or only to certain clauses; and if so, to what clauses. I think, therefore, we cannot take into consideration what is passing in Committee in the other House of Parliament; and I hope that this House will go into Committee on this Bill, and consider its details, as if the measure which has been referred to, and which has passed through this House, were to be agreed to by the other House of Parliament. In the future stages of this measure we may think fit to limit its duration; or, if the measure to which I have alluded should not pass, we can refuse our consent to the passing of this Bill. I must say, with regard to the necessity of the Poor Law for Ireland, I am more and more convinced, both by the accounts I hear from day to day, and by the statements of persons for whose opinions I entertain great respect, that the Bill we have passed through this House is absolutely necessary for Ireland. I heard only this day (I will not mention names, for it may he one of those exaggerated representations we sometimes hear, though it seems to me to be a well-authenticated case) of a poor family, the head of which had been one of the 40s. freeholders formerly used as the serfs and slaves of great political landlords in Ireland, but who had now become useless, having accepted a small sum to quit their wretched holding, and being then left to starve. The persons employed in the constabulary found the woman and children dead; and they ascertained that relief had been refused by those upon whose land they had lived for so many years, and to whom the political service of the father had been useful. ["Name!"] I certainly shall not name; but I really think no one can he blind to the circumstances which are passing around us. I see a complaint in the newspapers, in reference to the statement made by my right hon. Friend, that in consequence of the relief works having been stopped in a certain district of Ireland, within a few days, a great number of persons have perished. Why, Sir, it does appear to me, that though persons possessing property in Ireland may be unable to sustain the destitute during a whole year, yet that during the interval between the cessation of the public works and the bringing into operation of an Act recently passed, the persons of property residing in the neighbourhoods in which there are numbers of destitute persons, and not the Government, are bound to maintain these poor people. I may say further, that two persons who formerly expressed very strong opinions against out-door relief in Ireland, and to whose opinions great value is attached—Mr. Nicholls, one of the present Poor Law Commissioners, and Mr. Gulson, an assistant poor-law commissioner—have expressed in writing their conviction that, in the present state of things in Ireland, out-door relief to the able-bodied is absolutely necessary. These statements confirm my own opinion with regard to the necessity of affording such relief.

considered that the House ought not to proceed with the Bill now before them until they knew what was to be the fate of the Bill to which the noble Lord had alluded in another place.

did not think any alteration in the Irish Poor Relief Bill which merely had the effect of rendering the measure temporary could be a matter of any great consequence, when it was considered that the object of that Bill was to prevent the people from starving.

said, it was not very regular to discuss in that House the different stages of a measure that was in progress in the other House of Parliament; he would therefore, only say on that point, that he had from the first maintained that the legislation to meet the present calamitous emergency in Ireland should be of a temporary rather than of a permanent character. As regarded the Vagrancy Act, the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) might recollect that, when the vagrancy clauses were introduced originally in the Irish Poor Law Bill in 1838, he (Mr. Shaw) objected to their passing, because the Poor Law Bill conferred no right to relief; and, of course, he should he of the same opinion now, if the right to relief was not provided by the other Bill; at the same time, he agreed with the noble Lord that it would be the more correct and dignified course for the House to proceed through Committee with that Bill, without reference to what was passing in another place. He had risen principally to express his regret that the noble Lord had thought it right to allude to the case he had mentioned of apparent neglect of duty on the part of an Irish landlord, without furnishing the name or any particulars, which might lead to an explanation. If the information the noble Lord had received was correct, he should deprecate such conduct as much as the noble Lord could; but experience had taught him to be very cautious in crediting such statements, until an opportunity of denial or explanation was afforded to the party accused; and his great objection to a charge of that kind being made without name or circumstance, and particularly under the high authority of the noble Lord, was, that it would be applied generally to a class which had already been indiscriminately and cruelly maligned—he meant the Irish landlords. He would repeat what he had over and over again said in that House, that, as a body, they were doing all that men could do to discharge their duty, under difficulties of overwhelming magnitude. They were, as compared to English landlords, few, and scattered, and poor—the very distress which increased the demands upon them rendering them the less able to meet the demands. Under the present Temporary Relief Act, they were in some electoral districts in Ireland, 40,000 persons claiming out-door relief, and in others a rate of 10s. in the pound voted for three months only. Let him, then, ask those who heaped charge upon charge on the Irish landlords, what men, circumstanced as they were, could do effectually to meet such a case as that?

thought the House would agree with him that it was most unwise, ungenerous, and unjust, to make accusations, without notice, against persons who were absent; and, above all, he thought it was most unjust to make an anonymous accusation of neglect of duty against a body in Ireland who, tinder the most adverse circumstances, were struggling to do all in their power to relieve the poverty and alleviate the distress of those by whom they were surrounded. This was done, too, at a time when many of the members of that body were not receiving one-tenth of the rents due to them by law. The fact was, that many of the landlords of Ireland were borrowing money at this very moment to enable them to afford employment to the poor, and to aid subscriptions for relieving the destitute. He was acquainted with some gentlemen in his own district who, at great inconvenience and expense, had taken this course. With respect to the question put by the hon. Member for Stroud to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, he believed that question to be very irregular; and he thought it was inconvenient to discuss in that House what was proceeding in the other, or to hold out anything like intimidation to any other body. He denied that the recent vote in the other House, which had been alluded to, was a complete upsetting of and a refusal of relief to the Irish poor. Had any hon. Member except the hon. Member for Stroud ever described the Irish Poor Relief Bill as anything but a great experiment, and a measure of uncertainty? It was, therefore, in accordance with common sense to make such a measure temporary, in order that they might hare an opportunity of seeing how it worked.

was afraid that the result of making the Irish Poor Relief Bill temporary would be, that a general combination would be entered into by those who disliked it, with the view of preventing the Bill from working well; and then the opponents of the measure would contend, in this case, that such a measure was not capable of producing good effects in Ireland. He, for one, deeply lamented what had passed elsewhere, converting into a temporary measure that which was originally intended to be permanent; for he feared that at a future period they would have all the work to do over again, and, in the mean time, Ireland would be placed in very unhappy and disastrous circumstances.

said, that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had that night made an important statement, to the effect that he would abide by his former speech, taking care that in the Bill introduced by the Government substantial means should be provided for the relief of the poor in Ireland, and for the purpose of preventing them being a charge on the people of this country. In addition to the Irish Vagrancy Bill, which they were now about to discuss, he was afraid that the noble Lord at the head of the Government would also have to introduce a Lunacy Bill, in order to repress the wild ardour of those who, in their opposition to the Irish Poor Relief Bill, seemed to be setting all common sense at defiance.

moved a proviso to limit this clause, by requiring that it should be first proved to the committing justice that such person had the power of earning a maintenance at home, or had been offered a maintenance in the union. If a man went to a distance in search of work, his family must go into the workhouse until he either returned or sent money to them, begging being now prohibited; but the man ought not to be punished for thus doing what he was really obliged to do.

thought it would be advisable for the Government to make inquiry into the provisions of the laws already on the Statute-book, so that they might be repealed, and the law of vagrancy made uniform. He had been told that there were laws already in existence which imposed transportation for seven years for the offence of vagrancy; and he had been informed also, that that most offensive law had in certain instances been put in force.

said, it was true that there was such an Act; but it was almost obsolete for any purpose, and had never been put in force or held applicable against a mere ordinary beggar.

said, it was true that the Act in question did not apply to beggars; but he had known it to be applied to prostitutes. He thought the Act ought to be repealed.

stated, that the object of the clause was to guard, amongst other things, against the wife entering into collusion with the husband, by which she and her children might become burdensome while the husband was in a position to support them.

was willing to leave his suggestion to the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

thought that this clause would be found exceedingly difficult, if not dangerous, in operation. In the case of those vagrants who feigned lame-ness and blindness, he thought the enactment would meet with general approval and support; but the reverse would be the case as regarded those persons who had known better times, and who were obliged to solicit alms from no fault of their own. He thought a discretionary power should be given to the Poor Law Commissioners to put the enactment in force in those districts where out-door relief was granted.

did not think that the clause would be put in force in the case of those who from misfortune were obliged to solicit alms from those who sympathized with them. The enactment was levelled at sturdy beggars.

proposed the addition of words intending to protect those persons who were travelling in search of work, or to a seaport for the purpose of emigrating, and who might avail themselves of the hospitable feelings of their countrymen on the way.

said, that the clause was framed on the model of that incorporated in the English Act; and under that Act no instance had ever been known where persons travelling, for instance, to the hay harvest, had been put in prison on their arrival in England. He really thought the gallant Colonel entertained a harsher opinion of Irish magistrates than their conduct justified. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Kildare, the effect of it would be to induce vagrants to flock into the districts which adjoined the one in which the enactment was in force.

thought the difficulty would be got over by making the clause operative within a certain distance of the districts where out-door relief was granted.

thought, that if they were to pass the law at all, they must declare the act of begging to be an offence; but he did not share the apprehensions of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. O'Ferrall) that there would be any attempt to enforce its operation with extreme rigour. It could never be intended to make charity a crime, or to prevent any extent of kindness by the poor to their friends and neighbours. You could not legislate for each particular case. A discretion must be vested somewhere; and he did not fear that the magistrates in Ireland would exercise it otherwise than humanely.

observed, that he could not justly he accused of undervaluing the importance of this clause, for he considered it essential to the Bill. It was said that first the habits of the whole people must be changed. His object, he confessed, was to change the habits of the whole people. He wished to transform habits which were injurious to the country into others which would prove beneficial. Those habits were not peculiar to Ireland, but had grown up in every country where no Poor Law existed, and the destitute poor depended on charity. In all such countries there was an active disposition to offer alms and hospitality from day to day, and two classes of people had arisen; the first consisting of impostors, who by every kind of contrivance, by feigned distress, by feigned deformity, by feigned misfortune of some description or other, practised on the credulity of others, and were relieved under a system of indiscriminate charity. The other class consisted of sturdy beggars, who did not ask but who demanded assistance, and whom the habit of the country in some degree encouraged, but who formed a class closely connected with the criminals of the country in many instances. When he had asked whether crime had not been produced by destitution, he had been told that it was not the starving people, but the mendicants of this class, that were the guilty parties. He wished to change those habits, but thought it impossible to change them, if, on the one hand, any persons were punished for seeking alms without, on the other hand, providing relief. It was not for one class only that out-door relief was proposed. It was proposed to offer it in all cases; that was, if an able-bodied person was destitute, and the guardians were bound to relieve him, they could relieve him in the workhouse. If there was no room in the workhouse, they could order him to be relieved out of the workhouse. That applied to a person who required relief. [Mr. SHAW; And to all infirm persons.] If a man sent his children out to beg, they would be relieved under the Bill. Those who enacted that relief should be given in such a manner as to secure destitute persons from starving, had a right to say that impostors and sturdy beggars should be subject to punishment; they were endeavouring to put an end to the practice, and change the habits of the country in that respect. He thought those habits had been changed in this country, for no country was more disturbed by men- dicants and sturdy beggars till an end was put to the system which encouraged them by a change in the law. Instead of bestowing indiscriminate charity, the disposition was to give alms only in certain deserving cases; but the people did not feel that, if they abstained from giving alms, a person really destitute would be left to starve. The change was of great importance, and if carried into effect would most materially affect the future destiny of Ireland. But it was a change which required a certain discretion to be exercised in applying the measure. Much would require to be done in the exercise of that discretion, according to the particular state of districts in which the law would have to be put in force; but he advocated the present clause upon the ground that it tended to improve the habits of the people.

was no advocate for vagrancy; all he was anxious for was, that its abolition should be effected gradually, and with caution.

entirely concurred with the noble Lord. The effect of giving the discretion as to the punishment of these offences to the Poor Law Commissioners would be to drive the poor away from the districts where the Poor Law Commissioners had jurisdiction.

shared the apprehensions expressed by the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. M. O'Ferrall).

thought, that however desirable it might be to change the habits of the people, there was much in what was said against the clause. In the first place, it was a Roman Catholic country with which the House was dealing, for almsgiving was regarded in a far different light by Roman Catholics than it was by Protestants. The object might be sufficiently gained if power were given to any two justices in petty sessions to commit offenders for one calendar month to the house of correction or gaol.

was afraid that that provision would be attended with hardship to the persons convicted, by causing delay.

said, that, in illustration of the mendicancy in Ireland, he might mention that beggars not unfrequently, when refused meal on the ground that there was none left in the house, offered some for sale at a low rate, and that they not unfrequently left their daughters considerable sums of money. If a man had applied for and been refused relief, it would be very hard that he should then be punished for begging. He had doubts as to the power of compelling relief under the Poor Law Act, and he was on that account more anxious for some such proviso.

said, that a man might apply for relief and be rejected because he was not destitute, and the hon. Member would then prevent him from being convicted under this clause if he were guilty of vagrancy.

owned he viewed this clause with considerable apprehension. He thought the state of the poor had not been laid before the Committee in its true light. There was one description of people whom he feared this clause would affect—persons who committed no crime, and who never contemplated the commission of crime. He lived in the neighbourhood of a large town, and he saw every day poor widows and other poor persons who went into the country to seek a few potatoes. He often inquired into the condition of these poor people, and he frequently found them to be mothers with two or three children—these children being educated by the monks, and by this means fitted for a better condition of life. These poor persons were unwilling to go themselves or to send their children to the workhouse. The noble Lord talked of "altering the habits of the people;" but it was impossible by their legislation to change the character of a people, or to extinguish the strong feeling of sympathy the Irish had for the unfortunate, and their charity towards each other. The farmers, so far from feeling almsgiving a burden, delighted in it as the performance of an agreeable duty, and would be anything but thankful for a Bill which made poverty a crime. He agreed that those who made a trade of begging, and exhibited disgusting sores for the purpose of working upon the benevolence of the rich, ought to be prevented from thus practising on the sympathies of their neighbours. But in a country where poverty was so general, and the anxiety to keep out of the workhouse so great, he could not help regarding a law which inflicted a severe penalty on vagrancy as a bill of pains and penalties against poverty. Reference had been made to the existence of the Roman Catholic religion where this law was about to be enforced. That religion furnished another reason why they should touch vagrancy with a lenient hand. It often happened to himself to have seen ladies stop beggars on the road, and having given them money, ask these poor crea- tures to pray for their souls. [Lord J. RUSSELL: There is nothing in this clause to prevent persons from giving alms if they choose.] Yes; but he greatly feared that persons receiving alms under such circumstances, could be punished as vagrants under this Bill. Almsgiving in Ireland could never be put a stop to, unless they succeeded in punishing the giver as well as the receiver of charity; and he, for one, considered this clause wholly opposed to the general feeling of that country in favour of almsgiving.

thought there was considerable weight in the observations of the hon. Member. He could not see that there was sufficient security against the punishment of classes of poor persons not intended to be affected by the Bill; and he should have preferred seeing the Poor Law in operation for a year, without any Vagrancy Bill.

said, it was quite true that Dr. Doyle had always urged that vagrancy was one of the greatest evils ever inflicted on the country; but he made a great distinction between classes of poverty. He denominated those persons vagrants who, from father to son, continued the practice of begging, and went about spreading vice and disease throughout the country. To put down this class of beggars, Dr. Doyle thought no severity could be too great; but he was quite certain that, under the present circumstances of Ireland, Dr. Doyle would have opposed a clause expressed in the general terms in which this was worded. If the clause were made to apply to sturdy beggars alone, it would be such as he was sure the great body of the people would be thankful for; but it would be doing the people a great injustice to confound poverty with vagrancy. What he wanted to see was, a discretionary power given to the Poor Law Commissioners to apply the Act to the circumstances of the different parts of the country.

was by no means particularly enamoured of a Vagrancy Act for Ireland; and, certainly, looking to the clause then under discussion, there did seem some ground for saying that it was rather stringent in its provisions. At the same time, however, he did not think that there was much weight in the objection which had been urged, that the justices who were to carry out this Act would take no notice of the circumstances of the country, and would inflict the same severity in the mildest case of begging as in that of a sturdy beggar. Such a case, he thought, was not very likely to occur, as the magistrates generally, he was sure, would exercise a wise discretion.

, in answer to a question from Sir D. Norreys, explained, that the term "resident in any union in Ireland" meant domiciled in any union; and that the object of committing persons who "shall go from such union to some other union in Ireland, for the purpose of obtaining relief in such last-mentioned union," was to prevent persons leaving a union where the workhouse was not full, and going to another where it was full, with the view of obtaining out-door relief.

moved the following addition to the clause:—

"Provided always, that it shall be proved to the satisfaction of such justice, that such person might have obtained relief in the union in which he resided, or that he could maintain himself and family by a due exertion of industry."

objected to this Amendment.

thought this addition would nullify the clause altogether. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State what would arise in this case—suppose a woman or a man, accompanied by four or five children, were found begging, and brought before a magistrate, and committed to prison, would the children be committed to prison also—for the children were part of the vagrancy? If this were done, however, it would entail a very heavy expense on the country; and, besides, the gaols would not be large enough to hold the vagrants that would be committed under the Act. As the House was aware, the maintenance of prisoners was more expensive than paupers. He begged to suggest whether it might not be advisable to commit such sturdy beggars to a ward of the workhouse, where they would be under the supervision of the guardians instead of sending them to prison.

had great objections to converting the workhouses into prisons. With respect to the question about children, he begged to say that they would be disposed of exactly as under the present law; they would not be sent to prison.

explained that the object of his Amendment was to guard against the possibility of any one being refused relief who really required it, to calm the fears of the poor of Ireland of being placed between the alternative of being punished with one month's imprisonment and hard labour, or of being obliged to go off to England to burden the people there with himself and family. He felt so strongly on the subject that he should press his Amendment to a division.

hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment to a division, but would wait and see in what shape the Irish Poor Relief Bill came back from the other House.

said, that assuming the Poor Relief Bill came back in its present shape, his objection to the clause was equally strong.

wished to ask what was the cause why this Bill was different from that proposed for England? There was a considerable difference between the two, and it did not tend to the improvement of the present Bill. One difference was, that the Commission in this Bill was made perpetual, whereas in England it was limited to five years.

said, that as to the perpetual duration of the Commission, the Bill had been drawn in conformity with the intention that was first entertained as to England; but as there had been an alteration made as to the latter Bill, the same alteration would be adopted in this, and its duration, therefore, would be limited to five years. Of course, it was impossible to make every provision exactly the same, as there were not the different Cabinet Ministers in Ireland to be appointed to the Commission that there were in England; but the principle of the two measures was the same. The President would be the President of the Board, to which there would be other persons attached, similar to the provisions adopted in the English Bill. There was certainly a great difference in this respect, that the President of the Irish Board would not sit in Parliament: he should have been very glad if they could have had an officer as President of the Board sitting in Parliament; but it was found impossible to effect that object.

said, he hoped that one of the chief offices in the Commission would not he conferred upon Mr. Twisleton, a gentleman whose conduct in the administration of the former law had given rise to such opprobrious remarks.

said, it would be very inconvenient to discuss such a question on the present occasion; but he might say that he considered the public were indebted to Mr. Twisleton for the manner in which he had performed his public duties.

was confident that whatever duties were intrusted to Mr. Twisleton they would be most zealously and ably performed.

said, that the hon. Member for Stroud had stated nothing that could be supposed to reflect on the character of Mr. Twisleton. He himself had never ceased, both in the time of the late as well as the present Government, to attack the manner in which the principal public appointments in Ireland were made. He had repeatedly stated that in twelve departments in Ireland the chief offices were filled by Scotchmen or Englishmen, although there were Irishmen as able and intelligent, and as perfectly cognizant with the circumstances and condition of that country as those who were appointed.

said, his hon. Friend (Mr. F. French) could not justly complain that the present Government had not appointed Irishmen to the high offices of the Irish Government. He was not personally acquainted with Mr. Twisleton, the resident Poor Law Commissioner in Ireland; but he had always heard the same high character of him that had been given that night by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Labouchere) and his hon. Friend near him (Mr. Young). With reference to the evidence of Mr. Twisleton, before the Poor Law Committee of the House of Lords, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud (Mr. P. Scrope) did not fairly represent it—for Mr. Twisleton rested his objection to out-door relief not so much on the injury to property, as on the demoralising effect on the labouring population that it would produce; and if a principle of exclusion were to be attached to that opinion, then it would be but fair to begin with the noble Lord himself (Lord J. Russell), and he believed it would he found applicable to pretty nearly every Member of the noble Lord's Government.

said, he had no per- sonal feeling whatever in the matter. He had merely wished to call the attention of the Government to what appeared to be the general opinion on the subject.

objected to the measure, on the ground that it would prove arbitrary in its operation, and would affect most unfairly the Irish poor.

said, that the Bill would not make the slightest difference as to the class who were to be removed. It would subject no one to removal unless he became previously chargeable. It would not have the effect of removing any one because he happened to be an Irishman. Any one who became chargeable must before removal be summoned before a magistrate, and an order for his removal must be made, and thus, by a simple process, the removal of persons chargeable would be accomplished. At present the numbers burdening some English parishes far exceeded the means possessed by those districts; they very much exceeded any relief that could be given in the workhouse. In the present state of the law, when a pauper became chargeable, a summons was served upon him, and he immediately went away instead of submitting himself to the legal process of removal. The law, therefore, became inoperative. He conceived it would be an act of charity to the paupers themselves, as it would be an act of justice to the parishes, to remove paupers at once. He repeated, that no person not now liable to removal could be removed under the Bill now before the House. It would only facilitate the removal of those who, under the previous state of the law, might legally be removed.

said, in giving his support to this Bill, the only observation he had to make was, that he greatly feared it would be found to fall far short of the necessity of the occasion. At his instance, Parliament had some years ago made a very grave alteration with respect to the removal of Scottish and Irish paupers from England. Until the year 1844, the burden of the removal was not a parochial charge, but a charge on the counties, and consequently there was much less hesita- tion on the part of the magistrates to carry that law into execution. Even now the burden of that charge, which had fallen on the parishes, was so extremely onerous, coupled with the other conditions required before the Irish pauper could be removed, that in the main that law was inoperative. Though this Bill removed one of the obstructions to the execution of the law, the necessity of the summons, yet still a very heavy charge would fall on the various localities, and the condition would remain that no Irish person could be removed to Ireland, except he were accompanied by an officer having charge of him. When the question was considered three years ago, there was at that time no provision for the relief of the Irish in their own country. Parliament was now deliberating on a law which would give to the Irish a permanent right to demand relief in their own country; and when they were so entitled, the time would come when it would be absolutely necessary to consider whether the Irish could not be removed to the country of their nativity in some more cheap and easy manner. At present it would be premature to enter into that subject. This Bill, though it removed some of the existing difficulties, by no means went so far as he thought it would be necessary to do with reference to the removal of the Irish. His right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department had at an early part of the evening answered a question with respect to the influx of the Irish into Liverpool, and mentioned to the House some very wise and salutary regulations which had been enforced with respect to steam vessels bringing over Irish paupers diseased, or infected with fever. If he were not much misinformed, the state of affairs at Liverpool was very anomalous. There was a stipendiary magistrate at that place, who entertained a conscientious scruple, arising from the present unhappy condition of Ireland, without reference to the difficulty of carrying the law of removal into execution, and he declined to grant a warrant of removal except upon mandamus from the Court of Queen's Bench. Thus the law was suspended by the stipendiary magistrate. Nor was this all. Measures were taken by the Liverpool ratepayers, suddenly distressed by the unexpected burden, to remove the charge in part from Liverpool and distribute it over the whole country; and thus they actually advanced money to pass the Irish paupers by cheap trains to the metropolis and other towns. There was not only danger that this would spread fever and disease, but infallibly, if this went on, the English labourer would be brought of necessity to the level of the Irish labourer. Disease, poverty, and suffering would rapidly spread in this country; and in the state of affairs about to arise, when on the one hand you provided means of subsistence and support for the Irish in their own country, self-defence would absolutely exact from the Government the taking of effective measures to return the Irish to their own country, who could not support themselves without aid from the rates of this country. He was quite certain that this measure would be found to fall short of the necessity of the case. He thought it went as far as in present circumstances they were entitled to go, whilst the fate of the measure for the relief of the Irish poor at home was still doubtful; but if that Bill should pass, the question must then come under the view of Parliament, and measures infallibly more stringent than this Bill would then seem to the wisdom of Parliament expedient.

quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that this measure would have little more effect in meeting the difficulties of the subject than a fleabite on the hide of an elephant. He thought the emigration of paupers from Ireland, for no other purpose than that of throwing themselves on the rates in England, ought to be stopped. At present a trade was springing up in the conveyance of paupers, by which cargoes of persons were tossed from one country to the other and back again, on the plan of battledore and shuttlecock.

said, that the burden of the song of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Scrope) had ever been "legislate for Ireland for the benefit of England." He regretted that on this occasion the hon. Member was supported by the right hon. Baronet opposite. The English would allow the poor Irish to come in and cut the harvest, or assist in the manufactures of the country, when anything could be got by using the labour of Irishmen; but the moment their crops failed, or trade became dull, they would throw them back for subsistence to their own country.

thought the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who last spoke an ill return for the assistance of England so liberally and cheerfully given to Ireland. The hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. French) must have forgotten the question befere the House. There was one town in the kingdom which had had the addition to its population of 100,000 Irish paupers. The number which had arrived was 150,000, but as 50,000 had emigrated, a permanent burden was imposed on that town of maintaining 100,000 strangers—a number equal to one-third of its own natural population. That burden, moreover, was coupled with every circumstance which could render it insupportable—contasrious disease and utter destitution—yet it was borne with the most exemplary patience. Every sort of kindness had been shown the strangers, both by the public officers and by the most extended private charity. Having now given the Irish the right to relief in their own country, what was the question? Why, that the Legislature should pass a measure to remove a technical difficulty which rendered the law they had just passed inoperative, as far as the Irish paupers at Liverpool were concerned. They asked the House to remedy that technical defect, and to take care for the future that the people of Liverpool and of other towns should have the full benefit of the assistance the laws could give them. It did appear to him, then, that the remarks of the hon. Member for Roscommon were perfectly uncalled for and unjustifiable.

did not think that the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Card-well) had himself read the Bill to which he had recalled the House. The object of the hon. Gentleman who commenced the debate (Sir J. D. Norreys) was to draw the attention of the House to the summary jurisdiction given by the Bill. What did the Act say? Why, that if a relieving officer "believes" a person ought to be removed, he might take him without a warrant before a justice of the peace. Was that a form of law? Was that a thing to enact in that House? Supposing he were taken up in the streets of Liverpool, and dragged before a justice of the peace, how could he bring his action against the assailant for his "belief?" Was that British law or British justice? Was it common sense? Was it not rather the sense and justice they might expect to find at Constantinople? The hon. Member for Stroud wanted a stringent law passed to prevent Irishmen from coming to England. Did he forget that Ireland was part of the British empire? Why did they not pro- pose a similar law for Scotland, for Yorkshire, or for Devonshire? The hon. Member suggested to the Government the necessity of a stringent law to prevent Irishmen from coming to England unless they could show good reason for it. Why, what sort of legislation was that? The noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Sandon) suggested, and the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. P. Scrope) supported him, that no Irish person should come to England unless under certain restrictions. A more dangerous, nonsensical, and impracticable measure never could be enacted. What! did they mean to say that they were to make a law to prevent Irish people from going to England? Were they to enact a law which in the worst days of the despotism of Napoleon he never would have dared to propose? Did they intend to enact a law which the autocrat of Russia would have blushed to propose? He believed the measure would have the effect of yet more estranging the Irish people from England, and he would feel it his duty to oppose it to the uttermost.

felt called upon to say a few words. He did not really think that any Gentleman in that House was favourable to a measure which would have the effect of preventing the people of Ireland from crossing the Channel and settling in England; and he regretted to see that the hon. Member for Walerford (Sir H. W. Barron) considered it necessary to indulge in such indignant exuberance of language in resenting what he supposed to be an insult to the Irish people. Great excuses were to be made for the language in which the people of Liverpool addressed that House, for really they had been very seriously aggrieved in a pecuniary manner by the great number of Irish paupers who had emigrated within the last few months to their town, and who had become chargeable upon it. He was sure the intention of the Government was merely to remove a technical objection, and not at all directed to prevent the Irish people from coming over to this country.

regretted that the hon. Baronet the Member for Waterford should hare so much mistaken the construction of the law about to be enacted. The hon. Baronet had denounced the measure as arbitrary, cruel, unnatural, and unjust, and had stated that the autocrat of Russia, with all his despotism, would not have dared to enact such a measure. Really the hon. Baronet could not have made himself conversant with the facts of the case, for it was not proposed to attempt the removal of any person until he had become chargeable to the parish, and had received relief, either himself, or his wife, or child. The present Bill provided that the person who so relieved the pauper (being a relieving officer) could take such a person before a magistrate, and so have him removed. The practical effect of the measure, which applied to all three countries alike, was to dispense with the necessity of summoning the person so relieved, and nothing more. It was repeatedly found impossible to serve a summons on such persons; and the object of this Act was merely to dispense with the necessity of serving that summons. It applied to all three countries. English poor in Ireland and Scottish poor in England would be treated in the same way.

had not expected so soon, after millions had been given to the poor of Ireland, to hear of an anti-Irish feeling existing in this country. Where did the hon. Member find evidence of the truth of his insinuation? The Irish people had themselves to blame; for, if Irish landlords and men of property had done their duty by their own poor, there would have been no necessity for the legislation that was now imperatively required. But they had not so done their duty. The poor of Ireland were, and had been for years, in a state of starvation. There was, perhaps, an appearance of harshness in this Bill, but it would not be felt practically; for he really believed that the Bill would be inoperative altogether, in consequence of the enormous expense at this moment of removals. With respect to actual removal, this Bill did not alter the existing law at all. Whence, then, the necessity for injurious language, and accusations that were so unjust? For twenty years he had been demanding a Poor Law for Ireland. He had always foreseen it must come, and now England was threatened with danger to which she ought not in justice to be exposed. He had no wish to alarm the public mind; but the fact ought to be stated, that typhus fever was rapidly spreading in some of our workhouses. He was not sure it was not in London; he knew it to be in some workhouses near London, and it had originated in the influx of Irish poor. Did Irish Gentlemen believe that the voyage to England was a pleasurable one for the Irish poor? Did they know how the unfortunate people were driven about from parish to parish, and what misery they endured, having no place of rest? Could Irish Gentlemen feel contented with this wretched condition of their own poor? Talk about confiscation of property! Why, he would rather all the estates in Ireland, and England too, should change hands to-morrow than that such a state of things should continue as now existed. He thought the Government had been most unjustly assailed in respect of their Irish measures. They had had a most difficult game to play, and great credit was due to them for what they had done. He believed they would have done more if they could. Why, but a few hours ago a Motion had been carried in another place, which deprived Irish paupers of the benefit of permanent relief. It was high time that the English voice should be heard on behalf of the Irish poor, if the Irish Gentleman would not do their duty towards the paupers of their own country.

considered the present Bill absolutely necessary, and thought the sooner it passed the better. He should not have risen on this occasion had he not been desirous that some Member should be found to stand up and defend the Irish landlords. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley) had been somewhat sweeping in his condemnation; but he had omitted to notice the exertions of the Irish landlords, some of whom, Mr. Blake and Lord Lurgan, had lost their lives in their attempts to mitigate the sufferings of the people. He would vote for the Bill, but he could not refrain from exonerating the Irish landlords from the odium cast upon them by the Member for Finsbury.

thought the power given to relieving officers was too great. It would be better to make a provision authorizing a relieving officer to apprehend a person immediately upon receipt of relief, than render a man who might be walking in the street and eating a crust of bread liable to be taken up, merely because he had an Irish accent.

said, that the provision complained of was merely to remove a technical objection; the objections to it should be made in Committee.

did not object to the principle of the Bill, for he considered some measure was quite necessary; but he objected to the extensive power given to overseers. There was one effect of the Bill which he wished to bring under notice. There was power to remove the paupers from the seaports of England to the ports of Ireland; but when there no power existed to compel their removal to the parishes to which they were chargeable. The Bill might, therefore, be described as a measure to benefit the seaports of England at the expense of the seaports of Ireland.

, on the Order of the Day being read for going into Committee of Supply, called the attention of the House to the state of Post-office accommodation afforded to the Hebrides. The islands of Skye and Lewis had been relieved of the expense of conveying the mails from the main land; but in the case of Long Island the old system existed. If the map was consulted it would be seen that Long Island was composed of three islands; but as at low water they could be communicated with by fords, they went under the common name of Long Island. The proprietors of that territory were Lord Macdonald and Colonel Gordon. Up to a late period the expense of the packet which conveyed the mails from the main land, and which was 300l. a year, was defrayed by these two proprietors and their tenants; but about four years ago Colonel Gordon objected to the payment of his proportion, on the ground that it was the duty of the Government to deliver all letters at a uniform charge, and the whole expense devolved upon Lord Macdonald and his tenants. In consequence of the heavy expenses to which his Lordship had been subjected from the calamity which had overtaken the island, he had been under the necessity of intimating his intention of withdrawing his contribution. He (Mr. Baillie) wished to know what course the Government intended to pursue under such circumstances? It was surely not intended that a population of 15,000 persons should be deprived of Post-office accommodation.

stated, that the subject to which the hon. Member referred, had been mentioned to him some time since, and he communicated with the authorities at the Post Office, from whom he understood that inquiries would be instituted in Scotland; but no official communication had yet been made to the Treasury as to their result. The question was still under the consideration of the Postmaster General; and he hoped that arrangements would be eventually made which would meet the wishes of the hon. Gentleman and those whose views he represented.

observed, that 200,000l. had already been spent upon this canal, and it never had been of use, it never would be of use, and it never could be of use.

said this was one of the greatest jobs which had ever been perpetrated. Although 1,035,000l. had altogether been expended on this canal, the returns for this enormous expenditure were scarcely enough to defray half the ordinary annual cost of continuing the navigation. He objected to any further outlay upon this canal. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel) had, some time before agreed to send down a commission to inquire into the progress of the works; and Sir Edward Parry, who was entrusted with this duty, made a report, which in his opinion was most unsatisfactory. The right hon. Member for Tamworth had stated that a contract had been made, under which all the works would be completed for 165,000l.; and he gave a most distinct assurance to the House that not a shilling more would be required. Instead of 165,000l. however, 205,000l. had been expended on these works since the statement to which he referred was made, he wished to know whether the sum required for the purchase of steamers for the navigation of the canal was included in this estimate?

said, the sum of 205,000l. including the vote now proposed, had been expended on the works since the period to which the hon. Gentleman referred; and he was informed that the estimates of the whole expense required for working the canal efficiently was 226,000l.

denied that the canal was a useless work; and mentioned that a vessel, loaded with guano find drawing about seventeen feet of water, had passed up the canal and was now lying at Inverness.

said, that the cause of the additional expense was an accident, which could not be foreseen, and owing to which tbe banks were broken and a considerable quantity of land laid under water.

thought the hon. Member for Coventry had been long enough in Parliament to place very little reliance on the promises of public men. He thought all these items ought to be investigated by a Committee up stairs.

said, that, the hon. Member for Montrose was willing to spend the public money, part of which was paid by the inhabitants of Scotland, on the British Museum and public picture galleries in England; and he did not see why the hon. Member should object to a portion of the public money being expended in providing the inhabitants of the Highlands of Scotland with the power of fertilizing and cultivating their land, by giving them the means of carrying there cargoes of manure.

If by some means one cargo of manure has passed through the canal, are we to pay 50,000l. for the chance of seeing another cargo of guano pass through?