said, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether it be the intention of the Government to introduce any measure to alter or amend the Bankruptcy Bill of last Session?

said, it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce any such measure as that referred to by the hon. Gentleman. The chief difficulties which had been encountered in the working of the Bill of last Session arose from the irregular attendance of three of the five London Commissioners. A Return would be shortly laid upon the table of the House, by which it would appear that one of those gentlemen had attended only thirteen times since the 11th of October, and that the two others attended only twice a week, and that for very short periods. There had been also some inconvenience experienced from the want of a sufficient number of Registrars. Directions had, however, been given by the Lord Chancellor for the correction of those evils, and also with respect to the attendance of the Commissioners. It was hoped that those instructions would have the desired effect; but if they had not, undoubtedly a Bill would be introduced in the present Session on the subject. He might mention that the number of Petitions in Bankruptcy in London lodged since the 11th of October was from three to four times as great as for the corresponding period of last year.

said, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he has any objection to direct the Emigration Commissioners to report upon the expediency of establishing Depôts in the Ports of London, Liverpool, and elsewhere, for the reception of Emigrants awaiting embarkation?

said, that if the hon. Gentleman would address a letter to the Colonial Office, specifying the information he required, the noble Duke at the head of that Department would direct the Emigration Commissioners to furnish it, and it could then he laid upon the table of the House.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the attention of the Government has been called to the reported capture in Mexican Waters of the British Vessel Labuan, laden with cotton, by a cruiser of the United States?

In reply, Sir, to my hon. Friend, I beg to say that the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the capture of a vessel named the Labuan in the port of Matamoras. The circumstances of the case have been brought under the notice of Lord Lyons, who has made a representation to Mr. Seward on the subject. I am unable at present to state the course which will be taken in the matter, but I may mention that the Government have considered it right to order a vessel of war to proceed to the port of Matamoras for the purpose of defending British interests there.

said, that before Mr. Speaker left the chair he wished to take that opportunity of bringing under the consideration of his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland a matter of considerable importance as regarded the administration of the Poor Law in Ireland. As notice had been given that the Poor Relief Bill was to be discussed that evening, there was a large attendance of Irish Members, many of whom had been chairmen or members of boards of guardians in Ireland, and he might appeal to them whether the maintenance of the central authority—namely, the Commission—was not of the greatest importance to the carrying out of the Poor Law. That being so, it was their duty to do all in their power to prevent any collision between that authority and the guardians. But there was one stumbling-block of offence and cause of dissension which every body who was conversant with the administration of the Poor Law in Ireland must be aware of—namely, the mode in which Roman Catholic chaplains were dismissed from their appointments. He was not going to offer any opinion as to the course pursued by the Commission in dealing with the chaplains. No doubt, in a great number of instances the Commissioners were right and the chaplains were in error. On the other hand, it was a notable fact that in the last session of Parliament the House of Commons declared that in one instance a Roman Catholic chaplain was in the right and the Commissioners were decidedly in the wrong. His object was, if possible, to remove a cause of dissatisfaction, and the removal of which, he believed, would render the working of the Poor Law infinitely more satisfactory in Ireland. Fortunately, that cause of offence might be taken away without the slightest sacrifice of principle. He would propose that on all occasions when a Roman Catholic chaplain was to be remonstrated with or dismissed, a communication should be made in the first instance to the spiritual authority by whom he had been virtually appointed. Every body acquainted with the discipline of the Roman Catholic Church must know that no chaplain could hold office for one moment unless he had the sanction of his spiritual superior; and it was also well known that when a chaplain was dismissed by the Commissioners the bishop was subsequently applied to, to name the person whom he wished to have appointed. That was the principle, he believed, which was observed in the administration of the English Poor Law. He did not, however, propose to take away the ultima ratio of the Commissioners, for in case of their being dissatisfied with the decision of the bishop, he wished to leave them free to take whatever course they might please. If that recommendation were adopted, he believed they would remove one great source of dissatisfaction that now impeded the working of the Poor Law. Roman Catholic bishops felt themselves in a false position. According to the practice of their Church, they could not recognise the removal from a spiritual appointment by secular jurisdiction. They found themselves consequently obliged to maintain a chaplain, or rather to object to his dismissal; whereas, had the case come before them in first instance, they would not have hesitated as to his dismissal. His right hon. Friend knew very well from two cases that had lately occurred, when a Roman Catholic bishop had been appealed to in reference to the misbehaviour of one of his clergy, that in each such case the prelate at once took cognizance of the charge. and punished the offender. If such an arrangement as that he (Mr. Gregory) suggested were made, there could be no doubt that the working of the Poor Law in Ireland would go on much more smoothly than under the present system. He had no wish to introduce any clause into the Bill, but he hoped his right hon. Friend would make arrangements with the Poor Law Commissioners that in all cases where it was proposed to visit Roman Catholic chaplains with reprehension application should be first made to their spiritual superiors.

said, that he was anxious, seeing the right hon. Gentleman the chairman of the Select Committee which sat last year on the administration of the Irish Poor Law (Mr. Cardwell) in his place, to ask him for some explanation of the circumstance, that while the Committee had given a very voluminous blue-book and a short report, it had wholly omitted any mention of or explanation of a most extraordinary phenomenon attending Poor Law legislation. That phenome- non was, that while the number of persons receiving parochial relief in England was one in 23 of the population, and in Scotland one in 24; in Ireland, on the other hand, (according to returns that had been published) the proportion was only one in 140. If those figures represented the true state of the case, he wished to know why so extraordinary a fact was not mentioned in the Report of the Committee?

said, the question brought before the House by the hon. Member for Galway was one of the most serious character and importance. It had been put to a Member of the Government who was responsible for the due administration of the law in Ireland, in such a manner that the public, if not the right hon. Baronet, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, might naturally assume that the authority of the House was in favour of the principle urged by the hon. Gentleman who made the suggestion, if the matter were passed over in silence and no objection were raised. Now, what the hon. Member for Galway asked the House to recognise was the authority by which the Roman Catholic bishops stated that they felt bound, inasmuch as they stated that they were bound by oath to the head of their Church to refuse their assent to the removal of any chaplain of any poorhouse who had not incurred the censure of his spiritual superior. He did not think that the House would be prepared to go to such a length as to admit that the legal appointments of chaplains to workhouses in Ireland made under the authority of the Crown should be subject to the authority imported into these dominions by a foreign power. Let it be mentioned, to the honour of several Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland, that they resisted that foreign authority until Legate Cullen arrived in Ireland, as the plenary representative of that authority, and arrogated to himself, after convening a Synod which was his mere instrument, the right of interfering with the constituted authorities of the Queen. These prelates paid due allegiance to the Sovereign of these realms. No formal and public attempt had previous to the Synod of Thurles been made directly from Rome to supersede the legal authority of this country. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman, in his reply to the question put to him, would manifest every disposition to treat the Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland with all courtesy and deference due to their spiritual functions, but at the same time that he would decline to commit himself, as the representative of the Crown, or by implication assume the consent of that House, to such a proposition as that any of Her Majesty's subjects could be held bound by an oath to resist the legal authority of Her Majesty in the removal of any officer appointed by Her authority, however much he might have misconducted himself in the performance of his functions.

said, that in reply to the hon. Member for the King's County he had to state that the Committee had not, perhaps, been of opinion that it was a reproach to the Poor Law when it did not extend to a particular amount of population, or, on the other hand, they might have thought that it was a recommendation of the Poor Law when it did not extend to a large proportion of the population. But the Committee did not think it was necessary to enter into that part of the subject after it had been recently discussed in Parliament and in the Report of the Poor Law Commissioners. That part of the subject was only the preamble to a conclusion, and the point on which the Committee had to arrive at a conclusion was whether the Poor Law now in force in Ireland was in such a state that important changes ought to be made in it, and whether larger powers should be given for granting out-door relief. If the hon. Gentleman should be of opinion that the Committee had failed to give due attention to the subject, or if he supposed that the House was not fully possessed of the opinions of the Committee, the best answer was to refer him to their resolutions, the first of which stated that the present powers possessed by the guardians for granting in-door and out-door relief were sufficient, and that an alteration of the statute was neither necessary nor desirable. The second resolution was that the administration of the Poor Law guardians had been such as to justify Parliament in conferring the powers upon them which they possessed, and that it was not expedient to give to the Commissioners or to any other authority compulsory power to control them in the exercise of their discretion. The hon. Member was entitled to differ from the opinion expressed by the Committee on the subject of the Poor Law in Ireland, but he was not at liberty to assume that the Committee had not most plainly given to the House all the information which they obtained in reference to the administration of the Poor Law in Ireland.

observed, that he could not understand the conclusion to which the Committee had come, when the fact was apparent that in England only 16 per cent of the children of the poor received in-door relief, while in Ireland the proportion was 27 per cent. It was also notorious that mortality amongst the children in the workhouses in Ireland was something extraordinary, as compared with what it was in England. He was sorry that the system of poor relief in Ireland should be different to that followed in England. If out-door relief were permitted in Ireland, the cost of each pauper would be very considerably less than at present.

said, the Bill of the right hon. Baronet had been circulated throughout Ireland, and had been carefully considered. The first clause had received the general approval of the ratepayers in towns, who were suffering from a continual influx of poor from the rural districts. The clause as originally printed would have been an improvement on the present law, but now it appeared that the right hon. Baronet intended to propose an Amendment which would completely alter the character of that clause. Such a proceeding seemed almost a breach of faith, and if the Amendment were persisted in, he would prefer the withdrawal of the Bill.

said, he thought that the details of the Bill might safely be left till the House went into Committee. There could be no doubt of the excellence of many of the clauses; but as the administration of the Poor Law depended upon the Poor Law Commission, it would be well before the Speaker left the chair to consider the constitution of that body. Of the three paid Commissioners two were importations from England, and both were of what was termed the "Reformed religion," while the third, the medical commissioner appointed in 1851, although an Irishman, also professed the Protestant faith. He did not complain of that, but in dealing with a country like Ireland he thought the House would agree with him that at least one member of the Commission ought to be acquainted with the feelings of that Roman Catholic population who formed nine-tenths of the recipients. In 1848, when the Board of Charitable Bequests was formed, one-half of the members were Roman Catholics, and that was a good example to follow in a country where the last census showed that 4,500,000 of the population were Roman Catholics, and 1,300,000 of different denominations. The head Commissioner of the Poor Law Board was an Englishman and a Protestant. For nine months Mr. Ball, an Irishman and a Catholic, was a. member of the Board, but on his resignation another Englishman, Mr. Senior, was imported. Having got rid of Protestant ascendancy in so many other forms, he thought it ought not to be revived in this instance. In England and in Scotland the Commissioners were Englishmen and Scotchmen respectively, and professed the national faith. In Ireland, however, not only were the members of the Board Protestants, but the head clerk was also a Protestant, and a large proportion of the clerks were also of that faith. Now, a Poor Law could not be successfully worked in a Roman Catholic country when the Commissioners were Protestants and Englishmen. If one Roman Catholic gentleman were placed on the Commission, he believed that they would escape a great deal of conflict with the authorities; and, however excellent in other respects the Bill might be, it would fail of its effect unless the administrators were men who knew the feelings and the prejudices of the people.

said, the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory) had asked, in reference to the Roman Catholic chaplains in workhouses, that the Roman Catholic bishop should be communicated with before their removal in any cases of misconduct. Now, in his experience, he had not found that great dissatisfaction existed on that score. He should wish to pay every respect to the religion of the great majority of the Irish people, but he did not think it implied any disrespect that the Commissioners should act towards Roman Catholics exactly as they acted towards Protestant chaplains. Protestant chaplains were removed without reference to the Protestant bishop, and no complaint had been addressed to the Government on that account. He must, therefore, beg respectfully to decline to accede to the proposal of the hon. Member. The hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell) had stated that the insertion of an Amendment in the paper amounted to a breach of faith on his part. Now, he did not think that by proposing the omission of the word "continuous" he had been in any way guilty of a breach of faith. That Word had been introduced in error; it was not recommended by the Committee of last year, and it had no particular sense. He therefore thought that it would be very properly withdrawn; and it was his intention on going into Committee to propose a more explicit clause referring to that very subject, which he hoped would meet the approval of the Committee. He was surprised to find that his hon. Friend (Mr. B. Osborne) entertained so unfavourable an opinion of the working of the Poor Law Commission; but he had not accurately stated the facts connected with the constitution of the Board. Mr. Ball was appointed under the Lieutenancy of the Earl of Carlisle, not because he was a Roman Catholic, but because he was then the most efficient inspector, who stood next for promotion. His successor was appointed by the Earl of Eglinton, who selected Mr. Senior, not because he was a Protestant, but because he was the most efficient inspector who stood next for promotion. It would be very injudicious to try to introduce sectarian feeling in the selection of the members of the Commission; and, whether they were Protestants or Catholics, he was sure they would discharge their duties with fairness and impartiality. As to the personnel of the office, there was, a few years ago, a large majority of Protestants, but now a majority of the clerks were Catholics. He did not put that forward by way of excuse. It was simply owing to the fact that the Roman Catholics had proved themselves the most efficient men that could he selected. The hon. Gentleman had asked, why not do what was done in England and Scotland? But the hon. Gentleman, when he asked that question, should have been sure of the facts of his case. Why, in Scotland, the President of the Poor Law Board was an Episcopalian, and so, too, was the Secretary to the Board. [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: They are Scotchmen.] No doubt; but they were appointed not because they were Scotchmen, but for their especial fitness for the office. So, in Ireland, he had no doubt that if the next candidate for a vacancy was an efficient man, even though he were a Roman Catholic, he would receive the appointment, whatever Government held the reins of power. From his own experience of Mr. Senior and Mr. Power, he could say he had never known two officials who had shown a more lively desire to ferret out every case of distress that might require relief and assistance. He entirely dis- sented from the observations of the hon. Gentleman.

said, he rejoiced that the question had been raised by a Protestant Member of that House, because if a Roman Catholic had done so, it might have been said that it was all owing to bigotry. The right hon. Baronet was quite wrong when he spoke of the question as not worth raising. If the right hon. Gentleman had known what had transpired before the Committee of last year, over which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Cardwell) had presided with so much fairness and ability, he would he of a very different opinion. The Roman Catholic bishops, priests, and laymen who had been examined before that Committee were unanimous that there was a strong feeling of dissatisfaction in Ireland upon the subject. In the first place, nothing could be more unsatisfactory than that a law which dealt with so large a proportion of the people should be administered by men who were necessarily ignorant of matters on which the people felt a deep interest, who had no sympathy with the people's feelings, and who charged them with bigotry when they were merely asserting principles which they might consider sacred. He confessed that, as a Roman Catholic, he looked upon the administration of the Poor Laws by those gentlemen as a badge of slavery. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh; but if they were Roman Catholics, they would understand his feelings. He considered the present system as, to some extent, a perpetuation of the odious Orange ascendancy, which had excited the hostility of the population of Ireland. Where three-fourths of the population were Roman Catholics he contended there ought to be at least one Roman Catholic on the Board; and if that were so, many of the difficulties which had arisen with the Board would have been smoothed away. The hon. Member for Galway had drawn attention to a matter of very considerable importance—the removal of chaplains without regard to the wishes of their bishops. But, beyond this, he would say the Commissioners endeavoured to override the spiritual power, by appointing chaplains to workhouses against the will of the Roman Catholic bishops; and there had been instances in which en deavours had been made to thrust disgraced clergymen into those places.

said, he rose to order. The hon. Member had asserted that the Poor Law Commissioners had endeavoured to thrust disgraced clergymen into the workhouse chaplaincies. He begged most explicitly to deny that such was the case.

said, he would ask whether he had been out of order. The right hon. Gentleman, who held so high an office, ought to have been better acquainted with the rules of the House, or ought to have consulted the Speaker. He would repeat what he had stated that the Commissioners had attemped to force into positions in the workhouse clergymen upon whom lay the ban of their bishops—it might not have been for a very weighty cause, but who were pro tanto disgraced, and consequently not in a position to administer the rites of their religion. Every Roman Catholic gentleman to whom he had spoken felt that an insult was inflicted upon his co-religionists by not having a Roman Catholic on the Board.

said, that as a Roman Catholic Member of the House, he wished to disclaim all feelings of sectarianism in connection with this question. He thought, however, that if there were a Roman Catholic on the Board, many of those matters which had excited much odium and bad feeling throughout the country would never have occurred, because a little explanation given in private would have removed much cause of misunderstanding.

said, that as he had known Mr. Senior for many years, he wished to defend him from the charges which had been made against him. Upon the formation of the Irish Poor Law Board, Mr. Senior, who had been already employed under the English Poor Law Board, was transferred to Ireland that he might give to that country the benefit of his great experience. During eleven or twelve years he travelled all over the country, and no man, of whatever politics or religion, who was brought into contact with Mr. Senior but must have acknowledged that he was a man of great fairness and ability. When a vacancy was caused by Mr. Ball's resignation, Mr. Senior, to the surprise of himself and his friends, was chosen to succeed, and it would be admitted that there was no more fair or honest officer. He could speak to the fact that the class of rate-payers who paid poor rates in Ireland were a very different class to those who paid such rates in England. There were many small farmers in Ireland in a struggling state, and who, by a slight ex- tension of the provisions of the law, would almost become eligible for the receipt of relief themselves.

said, that he did not suppose that any one desired to impugn the manner in which Mr. Senior discharged his duties; but he would suggest that, as a matter of feeling and a mark of respect to the great majority of the Irish people, there should be a Roman Catholic on the Poor Law Commission. It was desirable that the Government should take an early opportunity of showing that, on that point, they were not insensible to the feelings of the Roman Catholic prelates and people of Ireland.

said, that he had understood the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland to tell the House, that the removal of Protestant chaplains could take place without the concurrence of the Protestant bishops, and he believed their appointment could also take place without the concurrence of the Protestant bishops.

said, that generally the chaplains must have the consent of the protestant bishop to their appointment. There must generally be a licence.

said, he believed the licence was sometimes dispensed with. But when the right hon. Baronet had argued from that that the appointment or removal of a Catholic priest could take place without the consent of his bishop, he had fallen into error. He (Sir. G. Bowyer) would state, for the information of the House, that such a a thing could not be done in the Roman Catholic Church, as a priest could not officiate in a workhouse without "faculties" from his bishop.

said, that being acquainted with the feelings of the people of Ireland from a long residence there, he differed from the right hon. Baronet, who said that the matter was not worth much consideration. What would the people of England feel if the English Poor Law Board were composed of Irishmen and Catholics? He thought that the Irish people were entitled to have at least one Roman Catholic on the Poor Law Commission.

said, he wished to ask whether it was desired that a Protestant Commissioner should be dismissed, in order to make room for a Roman Catholic, or that a Roman Catholic should be appointed as an additional Commissioner, or that, when a vacancy occurred, a Roman Catholic should be nominated to fill it, simply because he was a Roman Catholic. When the Poor Law system was introduced into Ireland, it was absolutely necessary, for its successful working, to get gentlemen who were competent in every sense of the word to regulate the intricate provisions required for the conduct of the business, and he asked whether, at that time, any Roman Catholic gentleman was qualified for the task? The real point at issue was, whether the law of the land was to be made subservient to the canon law of Rome, and whether the Commissioners were to be precluded from carrying out the intentions of the Legislature unless the previous assent of the Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops in Ireland were obtained. It was not until recently, he might add, when those dignitaries began to issue their pastorals, and to meddle in the working of the Poor Law, that the complaints to which attention had that evening been called had arisen.

said, that the hon. and gallant Member for Longford (Colonel Greville) had asked whether there would be dissatisfaction in this country if the Poor Law Commission were exclusively composed of Irishmen and Roman Catholics. He (Mr. Whalley) would reply, that there would be no dissatisfaction. There would be no dissatisfaction with regard to the present question if the Roman Catholic bishops and archbishops had in view merely the religious education of the people, and there was not involved in it that system of canon law which left nothing at rest, either social or political, in any country. [Cries of Oh!] Living in a country where there was a larger proportion of persons dissenting from the Established Church than was the case in Ireland—he alluded to Wales—he could assert that the fact of the Poor Law being administered by members of the Church of England never gave rise to a single complaint. In such cases Protestants deemed it to be their duty to act in obedience to the law, while the Roman Catholics interfered, not with the view of satisfying any consientious scruple, or bringing about an improvement in religious education, but simply with the object of extending their power. Their desire was, as had been justly observed by the hon. Baronet who had just spoken, to extend the canon law of Rome, and the House knew what were the doctrines which that law laid down, [Cries of Quote, quote! Read, read!] He would not trouble the House on that occasion. There was only one allusion he wished to make. Some three or four years ago that House appointed a Commission to inquire into the action and operation of the Roman Catholic system in Ireland as administered in the College of Maynooth. [Laughter.] He was not going to say anything in particular about Maynooth at that moment; he merely wished to illustrate his argument by a reference to the fact that there were on the Commission two Roman Catholic gentlemen, and that one of them not merely set at defiance the Royal Commission, and treated with contempt the power and authority of that House, but by his connivance a copy of the report found its way to Rome, where it was rewritten and altered. If one Commissioner could do that [Name, name!]—hon. Members would find the matter recorded in Mansard, with all the circumstances, and he hoped he should not be obliged to name the hon. Member—he would ask if he were not justified in saying there was something more in the question than merely the putting at the Board persons of different denominations? If Roman Catholics were placed in these posts of trust, they would be under the influence of the canon law of Rome, which would set everything at unrest, and militate against the social and political interests of this country.

said, he wished to say a few words on the subject which had—but he thought not very wisely—been broached by the hon. and gallant Member for Liskeard; although he would admit that the subject of the constitution of the Poor Law Commission had been a good deal discussed in Ireland during the last few months. When Mr. Senior was appointed, the selection was made for departmental, not sectarian, reasons. The question considered was simply who was the most experienced and efficient person that could be found to administer the Poor Law. Prior to the appointment numerous applications were made from political friends to the then Government in favour of the claims of many gentlemen. The Earl of Eglinton, then Lord Lieutenant, disregarded all such applications, and appointed Mr. Senior, on the sole ground of official fitness, and on those grounds alone. He (Lord Naas) contended that it would be most injurious to the public service, as well as most unfair to Mr. Senior himself, to pass over his claims on the ground that he was a Pro- testant. He would also observe, that before the Committee which had sat last year not a single instance had been adduced by the bitterest opponents of the Poor Law as administered in Ireland of the display of sectarian bias on the part of the Commissioners in the discharge of their duties. It was further shown before the Committee that no change in the policy of the Commission was consequent upon the resignation of Mr. Ball, but that the policy continued to be precisely the same as when he held office. It would, of course, have been a question deserving the consideration of the Government whether, if a gentleman equally well qualified as Mr. Senior to take Mr. Ball's place had presented himself, the fact of his being a Roman Catholic might not have been an additional recommendation in favour of his appointment; but, as the matter stood, the man who possessed the highest qualifications had not—as he thought was perfectly right—been excluded from advancement on the score of his religion. He repeated that the administration of the Poor Law in Ireland could not fee justly charged with the exhibition of any sectarian bias, and he was sure that it was the desire of each successive Government to avoid such an evil. He felt persuaded that it would be found that every decision of the Board had been made irrespective of any particular religious prepossession; and be might add, that if it had been otherwise, the Commission would not have commanded the confidence which was extended to it from every portion of the country.

thought that the noble Lord had completely vindicated the Government of which he was a Member, supposing that any charge had been brought against them for appointing Mr. Senior; but he (Sir George Grey) did not understand his hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Bernal Osborne) as at all objecting to the appointment of Mr. Senior. The noble Lord had laid down the rule which ought to govern those official appointments—namely, that of official fitness. When the Poor Law was about to be introduced into Ireland, gentlemen who were perfectly familiar with the law in this country were sent over there with a view to bring it into operation in that country. Mr. Power was one of those gentlemen; and he (Sir George Grey) could testify that it had been Mr. Power's desire to discharge his duties with the most perfect impartiality in all respects, and in a manner quite irrespective of any national or religious feeling. He was sure that the same testimony would be borne by all those who had watched the administration of the Poor Law in Ireland. The rule to be laid down in all these cases was to appoint the most efficient person that could be found; but he readily admitted that it was desirable, so far as it could be done without violating that principle, to pay every deference to the wishes of the people among whom that law was administered. He did not think it likely, however, that any Government would select a man, simply with regard to his religion, and without reference to his official fitness, and he hoped Parliament would never expect any Government to act upon that principle. He had himself been guided by the principle of official fitness in an appointment which he made under the Fisheries Act, adopted last session. He had transferred a gentleman—an Irishman—from Ireland to England with an increase of salary, simply on account of the experience he had gained in the administration of the fishery law in that country.

said, the hon. Member for Galway did not wish that the Roman Catholic bishops should have the power of dismissing or continuing in their offices Roman Catholic chaplains who might be complained of by the Commissioners. He merely desired that, before proceeding to extreme measures, the Commissioners should communicate with the ecclesiastical superiors of the offending chaplains, in order that disagreeable circumstances might be prevented from arising. If the bishop should refuse to accede to their wishes, then, of course, the Commissioners would be at liberty to follow their own course, as at present.

said, that he had several Amendments to propose in the clause, and although they did not alter its spirit or terms, yet for clearness' sake he had drawn up a new one, which would, he thought, better express his intentions. He would, therefore, propose that the first clause should be postponed till the other clauses of the Bill had been gone through.

said, he hoped they would have an opportunity of considering the new clause in Committee.

Certainly.

and other Members were of opinion, that as the first clause was one of the most important in the Bill, it would be better to discuss it then, as they were prepared to do.

said, that it being a new clause, it must be brought up after the other clauses had been considered.

said, he wished to propose the insertion of words, the effect of which would be to preserve those useful institutions, county infirmaries, in their present status as infirmaries of the entire county. The Amendment proposed would effect this object in an indirect manner; but practically that would be its result. If the clause passed in its present shape, there would not be a county infirmary in Ireland two years hence. The workhouse hospitals would be no adequate substitute for the county infirmaries, the latter being, as a rule, much superior in point of healthiness, medical treatment, and efficiency, to any possible state to which the former could be brought. Moreover, the industrious poor in Ireland had an insuperable repugnance to seeking relief of any kind within the workhouse. If his present Amendment were rejected, it would be better that the clause should be entirely omitted from the Bill, because it would be inflicting a grievous injury upon the poor of Ireland to deprive them of the county infirmaries, and merely offer them in their stead workhouse hospitals, which the vast majority of them refused to enter. His Amendment would amount to little more than the confinnation of an existing Act of Parliament, because the 64 Geo. III., c. 62, provided that no second public infirmary should be established within ten miles of one previously in operation. He would, therefore, move to insert in line 39, after "workhouse," the words "of all unions except those in which a county infirmary is at present established."

said, he should oppose the Amendment, as he feared its operation would be to make the entire county pay for institutions which only a few of the population of the county comparatively could avail themselves of.

expressed his intention to support the Amendment. Great care should be taken in bringing within the walls of a workhouse that class of patients which new received medical relief in a manner much more agreeable and satisfactory in the medical establishments of the county.

said, he could not consent to the Amendment, which would render the clause quite impracticable. The object of the clause was to afford to the poor residing in distant parts of counties the means of obtaining medical and surgical assistance. It had been founded upon a recommendation of the Committee of last year, and it was one of the most important provisions in the Bill. If the Amendment was carried, there would be, in addition to an hospital in every union, an infirmary, for which the whole county would have to pay, while its benefits would be mainly restricted to the population resident in the immediate neighbourhood, it being found that 80 per cent of the patients treated in the infirmaries were resident within a radius of ten miles. According to the present law, £1,400 a year might be voted for each infirmary. The total sum paid by presentments was £24,255. The country at large paid over £24,000 a year for institutions which only provided in the whole 1,689 beds. The distribution also was unequal, for Galway, with a population of 315,000, had only 50 beds in the county infirmaries; while Carlow, with 68,000 inhabitants, had 40 beds, These facts proved that some alteration in the law was requisite, and he thought that the clause as now proposed would be found a beneficial provision for the destitute poor.

said, he feared that workhouse hospitals and county infirmaries could not exist together, and it was for the Committee to choose between them.

said, he did not doubt that the effect of the clause would be to diminish subscriptions to the county infirmaries, and that ultimately those institutions would disappear, but he thought that the destitute poor would be gainers, because more convenient and better institutions would be provided. He would suggest the adoption of an Amendment which would recognise the existing infirmaries, and also provide that as they died out the act should come into effect.

said, he would have preferred the total rejection of the clause. He thought the right hon. Baronet was in error in stating that the clause was based upon the recommendation of the Commit- tee. The seventh resolution of the Committee was to the effect that it was expedient in cases of sickness and accident to extend the powers possessed by the guardians in regard to fever cases, under the 15th and 16th sections of the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 92. Under the 15th section of that Act the guardians had power to remove destitude poor from workhouses to hospitals or infirmaries, and the 16th section gave them power to grant out-door relief to destitute persons suffering from fever. The proposed legislation was not for the relief of the destitute, but would include the non-destitute poor, such as members of the constabulary, artisans, and others. It was proposed that there should be a general hospital annexed to the poor-house, and into that every person who wished it was to be admitted, paying the average cost of maintenance. Now, such legislation struck at the root of the Poor Law system, which was founded for the relief of the destitute poor alone; and it was at variance with the law of England; whereas the great object should be to assimilate the law of the two countries. It appeared to him that the great object in view by the promoters of the Bill was to discourage and destroy the utility of the established county infirmaries. In the Report of the Commissioners of 1854 that object was indicated when they proposed that so soon as a union was declared to be provided with an efficient general hospital, it should be exempted from contributing to the support of the county infirmaries. Ever since that period the idea had been kept alive, and was now sought to be realized in the present measure. It was difficult to understand the reason for that course, because the county infirmaries, so far from being a failure, had surpassed the expectations of even their most sanguine founders. There was abundant evidence to prove that amongst the poor Irish artisans there was a strong repugnance to enter the workhouse. Nevertheless, the measure was framed for the purpose of compelling such persons to enter those establishments. He therefore called upon the Committee to strike out the clause, which was totally at variance with the very principle and object of the Poor Law. It was said that the power of giving relief in county infirmaries was limited to a radius of ten miles. That, however, was not a fact. To prove how untrue that statement was, he might refer to a return of the Tyrone Infirmary, from which it appeared that the relief given within a definite period numbered 6,184 persons within the ten miles radius, and 6,990 beyond the ten miles radius. He should support the Amendment, believing that the proposed legislation was unnecessary and uncalled for.

said, if the county infirmaries were animated beings, and could be brought in bodily presence to that House, they would be ashamed of the character given of them by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Now, he (Mr. Maguire) would give a description of one of those magnificent establishments in the county of Cork. The population of that county in 1841 was 830,000, but by the last Census it was only 550,000. For the last five or six years there was a wretched but on the roadside of Mallow which was dignified by the title of an infirmary. That grand establishment had fifteen beds to accommodate the whole population around, them. He believed in its best days it had never more than twenty beds. He thought that the hon. Member for Cork had rendered a great service by proposing to do away with that miserable humbug of a county infirmary in Mallow, and in obtaining the assent of the grand jury for the erection of an hospital in Cork, with at least 150 beds. He thought that the clause under consideration was one of the best provisions of the Bill, and was dictated, not only by expediency, but by the best feelings of humanity. By the existing law, if a poor man fell sick, and his disease was not infectious, he could not obtain admittance into the hospital unless every member of his family consented to enter the workhouse. Could anything more inhuman be perpetrated under the cover of giving relief? He repeated the clause was the most valuable clause in the Bill, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be firm in resisting its exclusion.

observed, that he concurred in thinking the clause one of the most important in the Bill.

said, he objected to the principle of the clause, which for the first time applied a tax levied for the relief of the destitute to another purpose. It was true that in many counties the county infirmaries did not effect as much good as they ought to do; but the reason was, because of late years an opinion had prevailed that the Government were about to discontinue the aid given to them, and through the medium of the Poor Law machinery to create rival institutions. If, however, it should be made known that it was not the intention of the Government to press these clauses, not only would the present infirmaries be well supported, but new ones would arise, and a great amount of relief would be given to poor persons, not being destitute, through the medium of private charity.

said, he should have voted in favour of the clause but for the observations which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Peel); but having heard those observations, which he considered a death warrant to county infirmaries he could no longer retain the favourable impression the clause at first had made upon him. The county infirmaries Were the most valuable class of institutions in existence, and the clause was evidently intended to compass, in course of time, their entire abolition. He should therefore oppose the clause; but he was also opposed to the Amendment, because it did not in his opinion sufficiently relieve the clause from the objections which he felt existed to its adoption.

said, that the object of the clause was to extend the utility of the workhouse hospitals to a most urgent class of cases, and to give relief in those instances in which the present system of out-door relief was not sufficient, as administered under the Medical Charities Act. The clause ought not to be rejected. It was proposed in no spirit adverse to the county infirmaries; and the aid it extended was of a kind not liable to the same abuses as other descriptions of relief from the poor rates. He thought that the Amendment which had been proposed would not assist the county infirmaries.

said, he should support the Amendment. The consequence of the Bill would be that the Government would next year introduce a short measure to levy fresh sums of money from the counties to defray the expense of that novel plan. Did the new plan, he would ask, apply to England, and were poor persons in this country called destitute persons? According to the definition given, poor persons were translated into destitute persons. The real meaning of the clause was—first, to translate the word "destitute" into "poor;" next, to increase the expense of the Poor Law administration; and, finally, to destroy the county infirmaries.

said, he must deny that those who were in favour of the clause had any wish to injure the county infirmaries. The only thing they had to consider was the condition of the destitute poor. It was a very desirable object to bring medical and surgical aid within reach of those who required it, instead of their being compelled to go a distance of twenty or thirty miles to the county infirmary.

said, that the destitute poor were already amply provided for, and the question at issue really was, whether the whole system of poor relief in Ireland was to be changed; and whether the same medical relief was to be extended to poor persons as to those who were destitute. The Government apparently meant by their proposal to make the hospitals the means or relieving all classes of suffering humanity, and he regarded the clause as a departure from the original purpose of the Poor Law. The experiment was perilous, and would lead to the destruction of the county infirmaries, introduce a system of centralization, and eventually involve the county in a large additional expenditure, It would also discourage that spirit of independence which induced the people to do anything rather than accept public aid, What would be the consequence of passing this clause? Why the Government would have to build new hospitals for this class of patients. No one had petitioned for such a change, nor did anything of this kind exist in England. Such a system would not be tolerated in a country where the people managed their own affairs. The poorhouses of Ireland were rapidly becoming little more than lying-in institutions. Let the House pass this Bill, and the only check upon the unlimited increase of such cases would be removed.

said, he did not believe that the Bill would have the effect of abolishing the county hospitals of Ireland. He looked upon the extension of medical relief to the poor, as the greatest boon that could be conferred on the people of Ireland.

observed, that he entirely agreed with the hon. Member who had last addressed the Committee.

said, he would express a hope that there was no intention to do away with the infirmaries in Ireland. They had been of immense benefit to the country, and had been a means of raising the charac- ter of their medical practitioners to a very high degree. He thought that no cases of chronic or permanent disease should be sent to the poorhouse hospitals. The Committee ought to lay down a rule defining what class of cases should go to the poorhouse, and what to the county infirmary. His own opinion was that only sudden and urgent cases should be sent into the workhouse infirmary; and that the clause should contain some such limit as "Provided always that there shall be room in the hospital over and above what is required for the poor."

said, he would admit that the county infirmaries had done great good in Ireland; but there were many cases in which those institutions did not meet the wants of the people. It was therefore the duty of the Committee to sustain and encourage the medical officers of the various unions.

said, he thought it would be more convenient to take the division upon the clause itself.

said, he wished to move the insertion of the following words after the word "Ireland," in the 21st line:—

"Provided also, that if such poor person deny his or her ability to pay the cost of his or her maintenance while in the hospital, or such portion of his or her maintenance as the guardians may demand, it shall be incumbent on the guardians, in seeking to recover the same, to bring satisfactory proof of suck poor person's ability to do so."

said, he could not agree to the Amendment. It would be an extremely difficult thing for the guardians to bring satisfactory proof of a poor person's ability to pay the costs. He hoped the hon. Member would not persevere with his Amendment.

said, he should support the Amendment. He could not understand the objection to it, as he thought the guardians could easily ascertain the circumstances of life of these poor persons.

remarked, that he thought that the Amendment was unnecessary.

said, he was of opinion that the matter might well be left to the guardians in each case.

proposed the introduction of the word "domestic" into the clause, so as to make it include domestic servants.

said, he would propose to add, after "daily maintenance," the words, "and establishment charges." The constabulary ought to pay the entire cost connected with their medical treatment, and not merely a part of it.

said, he thought the object of the Amendment would be attained by the clause as it stood, as the word maintenance included establishment charges.

said, that it would be impossible to apportion the amount of the establishment charges; and therefore he could not agree to the Amendment.

said, he believed there would be no difficulty in fixing a proportion of establishment charges payable on account of the class of patients referred to.

observed, that inasmuch as there were no additional officers, no additional expense for warming and lighting, &c., he was at a loss to see on what ground an additional charge was to be made on the establishment.

said, he would not dispute the legal interpretation of the word "maintenance" with the hon. and learned Member for Belfast, but it was not understood in Ireland by those who had the carrying out of the law to include establishment charges.

said, he should support the Amendment.

said, he would suggest that, to remove all doubt upon the point, it should be distinctly provided that the latter words—which recurred in several other clauses—should be taken to embrace "establishment charges" as well as any others.

said, he would adopt that suggestion, if the right hon. Baronet, the Chief Secretary, would assent to it.

thought the best plan would be to adopt the words "medi- cal and surgical treatment," included in another clause. There would be considerable difficulty in ascertaining the amount of establishment charges.

said, he entertained doubts as to the equity of the proposal. It would be perfectly reasonable to pay for the maintenance of constabulary patients, but establishment charges were a fixed quantum, which those patients did not in any way affect.

said, the Bill as it then stood, included the cases not only of constabulary patients, but of poor persons not destitute. According to the right hon. Gentleman's argument, those persons, however numerous, or however much they might swell the establishment charges of hospitals built out of the county-rates for the maintenance of the destitute poor, ought to defray none of the extra expenditure incurred on their account.

observed, that his argument was not refuted by an extreme case. If the numbers were doubled by the admission of the police, so that the building had to be enlarged or the staff augmented, then the objection would apply; but as the charges under these heads remained fixed, it would be unreasonable to require repayment on account of them.

remarked, that it was the first time he had heard the Irish constabulary were under the protection of the Secretary at War. He would remind the Committee that the district which had the greatest number of paupers in it had to bear the greatest proportion of the establishment charges.

said, he thought the hon. and gallant Member was in error; the payment was made in proportion to the property valuation of each union.

said, that taking into account the very moderate pay of the policemen, he was willing to make the cost of their relief during illness as light as possible.

said, he must press hon. Members to bear in mind that irresistible claims for increase of salary by all the existing officers of these establishments would inevitably attend the increase of business thrown upon the institutions.

said, there was a distinction to be drawn between those who paid for relief and those who received it.

said, he wished to know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman intended his Amendment to refer to the whole establishment charges, or solely to the hospital charges?

said, he meant the whole charges of the establishment.

suggested, that it should be left to the guardians to assess the average cost of relief.

said, he hoped that the Committee would state their own intentions, and not impose the duty of interpreting them on the guardians.

said, he would then propose the addition of the following proviso to the clause:—

"Provided always that the medical officer of such union be paid for medical and surgical attendance by the constabulary authorities as if such attendance had been given out of the workhouse."

said, he thought it impossible to adopt the Amendment, especially after the decision at which the Committee had just arrived.

said, he would move as an Amendment the insertion of words providing that the register containing the names of those who had received relief without payment should be open to the inspection of such persons as desired to examine, or take extracts from it free of charge, and that a copy of the entries, under the seal of the guardians, should be legal evidence of the facts stated in it.

would assent to the Amendment; but he would suggest that the hours for inspection should be specified.

had no objection to the addition of the words "between the hours of ten and four o'clock."

asked, whether the provision was meant to apply to paupers only, or to other persons as well?

replied, that it would apply to all classes of inmates.

said, that it would be dangerous to extend the provision to persons not paupers, because the previous clauses had given power to recover the cost of their maintenance in the workhouse only and not in other hospitals to which they might be sent. He would therefore move the insertion of words to restrict the operation of the clause to cases where special treatment was required, or where the union had not special hospital accommodation.

assented to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The term "inmate" included the poor as well as the destitute.

said, that the word "inmate" in the clause was rather indefinite. If the guardian sent a constable, for instance, from the workhouse to another hospital, there should be some means of recovering the coat to which the union would be thereby put.

said, the amendment of the hon. Member would meet the difficulties of the case.

observed, that the clause authorized the guardians to give up the child to any relative. He thought that such relative should not be allowed to have the child unless he took upon himself the maintenance.

said, if a relative took a child out of a workhouse, he thereby became liable for its maintenance.

said, he thought words should be inserted to render such intention clear.

said, he would propose these words to meet the difficulty—

"Any relative who in the opinion of the guardians is a fit person to be intrusted with the custody of the child and of sufficient ability to maintain it."

said, he would print the Amendments which he proposed to introduce in the future clauses before the Committee on the Bill was resumed.

said, he would move the omission of the next clause, which provided that no harbour for pier shall be constructed below high water mark without the consent of the Woods and Forests. There had been many disputes lately between the Crown and private persons as to the property in the foreshores, and the clause seemed to be inserted in the Bill for no other purpose but quietly to establish a claim on behalf of the Crown.

explained, that the clause had been inserted for convenience, and that it could not be acted upon without the consent of Parliament. However, it was not necessary, and therefore he was quite ready to omit it from the Bill.

(St. Andrews) said, he objected to the clause on the ground that it gave extraordinary powers to the Board of Trade; by its provisional order the Board could supersede or virtually repeal an Act of Parliament. He should oppose the clause.

explained, that the provisional order only did away with the necessity of coming to Parliament for special powers. The order would have no force unless affirmed by the House of Commons. There was no reason for omitting the clause altogether.

said, he thought it would be better to omit the clause.

said, there were many precedents for giving the power to make such provisional orders; they were intended to obviate the expense of private Bills. Such an order was always embodied in a Bill, to be affirmed by Parliament, but it was not necessary for it to pass the preliminary ordeal of going before a Committee upstairs.

said, the real objection to the clause was that the full notice required by the standing orders would not be given. He spoke from some experience of these things, and he could say that the only notice that would be given to repeal an act of Parliament, affect- ing perhaps valuable private property, would appear in the Gazette, and 99 out of 100 would not be likely to see it. When a Bill was brought in by a public department there was a long schedule of 70 or 80 pages, embracing those provisional orders which nobody would take the trouble to read, and the whole force of the Government would be brought to bear in support of the measure. Except with regard to the Board of Health there was really no precedent for conferring such a power on a Government Board.

said, there was a clause in the Bill which was to the effect that in case any petition should be presented to either House of Parliament against any provisional order made in pursuance of the Act, that petition might be referred to a Select Committee.

(St. Andrews) said, there was no doubt that such notice would not be given as would be sufficient for the parties interested.

said, that the clause was not printed. He should be glad to know its meaning.

said, that the clause was merely intended to reserve the rights of the Duchy of Cornwall. It was not meant to confer any new rights on the Crown.

said, that the rights of the Crown were saved already, by previous clauses in the Bill. The clause was unnecessary, and he should oppose its insertion.

said, he would move that the Chairman report progres; and, in order to justify himself in dividing the House on the last clause, he wished to state that last session a clause of the kind had been introduced, and between the passing of the bill and the Royal assent three suits were instituted by the Duchy of Cornwall against the owners of as many properties in Cornwall, although it was understood that no suits would be instituted previously to the Bill passing. It was things like these that brought the Duchy of Cornwall into disrepute.

said, he wished to move the omission of Clause 22. which authorized flogging in the army. He thought it worth while to mention that flogging in the army, to which he had much repugnance, had very considerably diminished since he last had the honour of bringing the subject forward. He would not detain the House, but would jump at once into figures. The flogging during the year 1860–1 was—the Infantry, in 40 regiments, 96 men were flogged; the Cavalry, in 28 regiments, 29 men were flogged; the Royal Artillery, 41 men were flogged; the Engineers, I man was flogged; and the Military Train. 12 men were flogged; total, 179. In 1858–9, no flogging in 65 regiments; in 1859–60, no flogging in 34 regiments; in 1860–1, no flogging in 19 regiments. In 1858, the lashes given on an average per man were 42; in 1859, 44; and in 1860, 48. The men flogged in the army and militia, in 1857, were 112, and they received 5,240 lashes; in 1858, 218, and they received 9,338 lashes; in 1859, 512, and they received 22,565 lashes; and in 1860, 179, and they received 8,597 lashes. The Committee would perhaps be struck by the great discrepancy between 1859 and 1858. It was believed out of doors that that was owing to the interpolation of two words into the Mutiny Act. He had referred to Hansard, and taken some pains to inquire into the matter, and he was forced to the conclusion, that if the Mutiny Act of that year was managed in the same manner as that of this year—that was to say, no printed copy laid before the House till about two hours before going into Committee—it was quite possible that at the instigation of the military authorities words might have been interpolated providing for an augmentation of punishment. He was encouraged in that belief by the Returns. He found that in the Returns for 1857, desertion did not appear to be punished by flogging; in 1858, there were floggings for desertion in four cases; in 1859, 257 cases for desertion out of 512 flogged; and in 1860, 43 cases for desertion out of 179 cases of flogging. He would not trespass longer on the time of the House. Sixteen years ago the Duke of Wellington said that he felt confident the time would come when punishment by flogging would be abolished, and he hoped to live to see the day. It was, however, still continued, and was, he (Mr. White) believed, detrimental to the discipline of the army, degrading to the national character, and subversive of Christian feeling. He should move the omission of the clause, and as long as he was honoured with a seat in the House he should do the same.

observed, that while the number flogged in the army was, is the hon. Gentleman correctly stated, 179 in 1860–1, it had amounted to 512 in 1859–60; so that a material change had taken place in that respect within a period of two years. That change, he added, was due to the Order in Council which had been issued in November, 1859, and which was to the effect that all persons entering the army were to be exempted from the punishment of flogging until they happened to have been degraded, by the commission of some serious offence, from the first, in which they were placed on their entrance, into the second class. He might further observe that, although a soldier might be reduced to the second class, he might, after a certain period of good conduct, be restored to the first class, in which case he would again become free from liability to the punishment of which the hon. Member complained. It was quite clear, from the figures he had quoted, that a material diminution in the number of men who were flogged had been the result of the change to which he referred. He might also state that the maximum number of lashes which would be inflicted was reduced to fifty, as set forth in the clause which the hon. Gentleman sought to annul, and, looking at the necessity that existed for maintaining discipline, which could not be done without some such sharp discipline, he thought the Committee would not be justified in abolishing it altogether, however much they might be disposed to take that course on the ground of humanity. He hoped that the General Order which had been recently published would receive a fair trial and that the clause would be retained.

said, he was convinced that flogging was not necessary for the maintenance of discipline. He would support the Amendment,

said, he objected to Clause 26, which provided that when an offender was dismissed from the army he should be branded upon the right breast with the letters "B. C." He supposed that meant "barbarous custom." He should move the omission of the clause.

said, the letters "B. C." stood for "bad character," and the object was, when a soldier had once been discharged for bad conduct, to prevent his being re-enlisted. The branding was not a painful operation. It used to be done with a hot iron, but the mark was now made with gunpowder.

said, he understood that the letters were formed with a needle steeped in gunpowder. The custom was a brutal and demoralizing one, and ought not to be tolerated in a civilized age.