he did not know what machinery there | the House would express no opinion on existed in Ireland for carrying the English the merits of that most difficult question. Poor-laws into operation there. He was All he could say was, that he should be certain that if they introduced the system willing to act on the suggestion of the hon. as it at present existed in England into member for Armagh, and to give to the Ireland, if they established there overseers, condition of the poor of Ireland his full parochial vestries, and select vestries, that and deliberate consideration; but he could all this machinery would be converted not pledge himself to introduce any meainto a system of local jobbing. The in- sure on the subject. cursions of Irish paupers into England was Mr. Huskisson said, he should vote in undoubtedly a great inconvenience and support of the proposition for the previous hardship upon the people of this country, question, because he agreed with his right and its direct tendency was to reduce the hon. friend, that it would be most inexpelabourers of this country wherever such in- dient for the government to pledge itself cursions took place, as in the west of Eng-to any course on this subject; because, as land, to a level with the paupers from the hon. member for Armagh had in fact Ireland. While the Irish pauper could admitted, it might create unfounded excome over here for Is. or 1s. 6d., those in-pectations, both in the minds of the landcursions would continue; and there was lords and of the poor. Until the details more expense incurred, he believed, in of a plan had been prepared, on a full consending one of these Irish labourers back sideration of all the difficulties, he thought to his own country, than would be incurred it would be premature for the government if he were allowed to remain in a parish a to make any pledge whatever. Even when sufficient time to establish a settlement. those difficulties had been fully considered, But, how could they refuse relief to those he should say of this as of the Catholic Irish labourers in England, when they question, that it could not be better left would not refuse relief to foreigners? The than in the hands of the government. Irish pauper here was entitled to casual The evils of the present state of Ireland, support as long as he remained; and as they affected England, were greater therefore, to avoid that expense, the than they had been represented to be; for parochial authorities transferred him to not only did the influx of Irish labourers Ireland, and incurred a still greater ex-diminish the price of labour in this counpense in doing so. How could they refuse try, but the children of Irish parents, by relief to the Irish pauper, when they gave their birth in this country, acquired a setit to foreigners who might be casually cast tlement, and thus added to the burden of on our shores? Very recently a case had the poor-rates. Not only the west and occurred, where a number of persons from north-west, but every other part of the the north of Germany, who were emi- country, was affected more or less, by grating to South America, thought it con- these evils, and the true remedy for them venient to cast themselves upon our would not be merely in the introduction shores, and they were a great burthen to of Poor-laws there, but in the introducthe parishes in the district where they tion of that feeling of security which were cast. He would not pledge himself would invite and retain the employment to introduce the principle of the English of English capital in that country. It was system of Poor-laws into Ireland, without that feeling of security which had occahaving first given the subject the most de- sioned the greatness and wealth of this liberate consideration, as to its effect on country, and which alone could produce the state of pauperism in this country, and similar effects in Ireland. Parliament as to its probable result, in giving poor should well digest some plan, and prepare but able-bodied men in that country the all the details, before they pledged themright to demand assistance. He assured selves to any principle whatever. If they the House, that so far from having ex-neglected this too long, all the hopes. pressed any decided opinion on the question last session he had done all he could to show the enormous difficulties in the way of carrying it into effect. He still entertained that opinion, and did not know what machinery would be necessary for such a purpose. By rejecting the motion, which had been entertained as to the benefits to be expected from the termination of the Catholic question would be disappointed. Mr. Trant thought, that greater benefits would arise to Ireland from a well regulated system of Poor-laws, than from the concessions to the Catholics which had lately been granted. He denied the truth of what had been stated concerning the Irish landlords' treatment of their tenants. Lord Milton said, he doubted very much the policy of introducing any system of Poor-laws into Ireland at all analogous to that in England, and trusted that if any should be introduced it would be free from the manifold abuses of the boasted English system. It was absurd to argue that the principle of those laws was humane; that charity was their basis. Individuals might give voluntary charity, might be singly humane; but a nation was not to be made either charitable or humane by act of parliament. On the contrary, charity, ceased to be charity, and humanity to be humanity, when made compulsory by the legislature. The influx of the Irish poor into this country was the result not so much of the want of Poor-laws in Ireland, as of the greater wealth of this country; which therefore attracted the labourer by offering a better price for his labour. He did not think that the Irish landlords generally could have been guilty of the conduct imputed to them. Lord Palmerston said, he also doubted very much, whether the adoption of the hon. member for Waterford's proposition would not aggravate the evil it was intended to remedy. In the first place, Poor-laws under any system were a tax on industry, on production-thence a waste of capital--in favour of the idle and improvident in the next place, they tended, contrary to the statement of the hon. member for Newark, to diminish the wages of labour, by the stimulus they gave to population. It was absurd to argue, that the commercial greatness and general comfort of the working classes of this country were owing to the Poor-laws; or to suppose that the influx of Irish operatives into Great Britain was occasioned by the absence of Poor-laws in their own country. In fact, none but able-bodied labourers emigrate into England, where they ever would resort, while capital was so deficient as it unfortunately was in Ireland. The question involved so many difficulties, that he thought it ought to undergo the discussion of another session before any thing was done in it. The introduction of English capital would be a greater benefit to Ireland than that of these Poor-laws, which, if hastily put in operation, might make of that country one vast poor-house. Mr. Van Homrigh defended the Irish landlords from the imputations which had been cast on them. Mr. V. Stewart observed, that as he understood the subject would be taken into serious consideration by his majesty's government, he would not press his motion. Mr. Peel said, he hoped it would be understood that he had given no pledge whatever as to the intention of government to introduce any measure upon this subject. He admitted that the condition of the poor of Ireland required serious consideration, but he had not pledged government to the recognition of any particular system for their relief. Mr. V. Stewart observed, that he understood the tenour of the right hon. gentleman's remarks to be precisely as he had now stated them. The motion was then withdrawn. SILK TRADE BILL.] Mr. V. Fitzgerald moyed the third reading of this bill. He hoped, that the urgency of the occasion would be received as a justification for making this measure at so late an hour. To his certain knowledge, several masters of the first respectability meant to suspend their orders, until the bill had passed that House. Mr. Fyler hoped a bill which affected the interests of three millions of persons would not be pressed forward so hastily; but he would submit to the feeling of the House. Mr. Robinson having already expressed his hostility to the bill, and feeling that further opposition would be useless, would not oppose the third reading. Alderman Waithman would oppose the motion, because many gentlemen, who intended to deliver their sentiments on the bill were absent. Mr. Davenport also opposed the third reading of the bill. Mr. E. Davenport said, he had new facts and arguments to adduce against the measure, and should move that the House do now adjourn. Mr. P. Thomson thought it was not right to postpone the third reading of the bill. The hon. alderman had repeatedly delivered his opinion upon it, and the other hon. member who was going to adduce new facts and arguments, might have done so long ago, if he had pleased. 4 1 by legislative interference on that subject. Under the English Poor-laws, able-bodied men obtained parochial aid. It was not his intention to enter into the subject at present, but he must say that the Poorlaws now in force in England were not efficient for the purposes for which they were originally introduced, and that Ireland of all countries was the least cal Mr. Peel said, that the interests of the manufacturers, the interests of the workmen themselves, and the public tranquillity, called for the immediate passing of this bill. The outrages which had lately taken place, were, he knew, perpetrated for the purpose of intimidating the legislature against agreeing to this measure; and he was convinced that every day it was delayed, would add to the number of those out-culated for the introduction of laws which rages. Mr. V. Fitzgerald observed, that after a minister of the Crown had declared that the passing of this bill was necessary for the public tranquillity, if that tranquillity should be disturbed, those persons must be considered accountable for it who had prevented the bill from going through its last stage on this occasion. The bill was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow. HOUSE OF LORDS. Friday, May 8. POOR LAWS IN IRELAND.] The Earl of Darnley gave notice, that he would on Monday move for Returns connected with the Subject of Poor Laws in Ireland. It was a subject which he had much at heart, and which he had last session endeavoured to bring under their lordships' consideration. It was a source of gratification to him, that, notwithstanding his partial failure in that House, the sense of the other House was decidedly affirmative of the necessity that something should be done by the legislature in favour of the poor of Ireland. Their lordships might rest assured, that either they must provide employment for the Irish poor in their native country, or they must add to their English poor-rates to meet the increased demand consequent upon the increased influx of Irish labourers into this country. Either Ireland must be raised nearer to the condition of England, or the latter must be lowered to the deplorable state of the former. had been found from experience so defective. COURT OF CHANCERY.] The Lord Chancellor laid on the table a bill for Facilitating the Administration of Justice in the Court of Chancery. On the motion of the noble and learned lord, the bill was read a first time. He said, he should on Tuesday next, move the second reading of the bill, and on that occasion state its particular objects, the circumstances which gave rise to it, and how far it was connected with, and consequent upon, the report of the common-law commission, the suggestions of which commission he begged leave to say, the government intended to carry into effect, in their material points, as soon as it was possible. When he said that ministers intended to act upon the recommendation of the lawcommissioners, he meant not to allude to a bill that might shortly be before their lordships, relating to the regulation of the law terms. The bill, the details of which he would explain on Tuesday, related to far more important subjects. HOUSE OF COMMONS. DOVER RIGHT OF ELECTION COMMITTEE.] Mr. Ridley Colborne informed the House, that the Committee required the counsel for each party to deliver in to the clerk of the said Committee statements in writing of the Right of Election for which they respectively contended: that, in consequence thereof, the counsel for the The Marquis of Clanricarde said, that petitioner, John Halcomb and others, deif an attempt were made to introduce livered in a statement, as follows: "That the Poor-laws into Ireland, he should feel the Right of Election is stated to be vested it to be his duty to oppose it. If the in the freemen and free burgesses, inhabisubject was to be brought forward at all, tants of Dover, and in them exclusively :" he thought it would be better to do so at that the counsel for the petitioner William once, and the present was a time when the Luddington, on behalf of himself and imperfectability of the English Poor-laws others, delived in a statement, as follows: was made manifest. He objected to Ire-"That the right of voting is in the freeland being made the scene of experiments men and free burgesses, inhabitants of } thing of its contents until it was read; and it seemed to relate chiefly to certain exactions with respect to fees, which the petitioner alleged one of the committee clerks to have been guilty of. The petition contained three grounds of complaint; the first complaint was against the committee, with respect to the merits of their decision: that complaint the committee could best answer for themselves; the next complaint was, that a direct commu Dover, and that the non-inhabitant freemen, as well as the inhabitant freemen and free burgesses of the town and port of Dover, have voice in the election of their barons to serve in parliament:" that, upon the statement delivered in by the counsel for the first mentioned petitioners, the said Committee have determined, that the Right of Election, as set forth in the said statement, is not the Right of Election for the said town and port: that, upon the statement delivered in by the last-nication had been made by him, as mentioned petitioners, the said committee have determined, that the right of voting, as set forth in the said statement, is the right of voting for the said town and port. Ordered to be entered upon the Journals. Speaker, to the chairman of the committee, as to the right of the petitioner to be heard before the committee. Now, he had not stated any thing about the right; he had had no communication with the chairman; and, indeed, he did not recolLONDON BRIDGE BILL-COMMITTEE lect who the chairman was. The third CLERK'S FEES.] Mr. John Wood pre-cause of complaint was the exaction, by sented a petition from Charles Pitt, of the clerk, of certain fees. Into that Adam-street, Adelphi, surveyor, and charge he had examined with as much others, against the London-bridge bill. care as possible; and he could only say, Amongst other matters, the petitioner that there was no exaction of fees from charged one of the clerks of the House, the petitioner; no fees were taken from who attended the Committee on the Lon-him which it had not been the practice of don-bridge bill, with having exacted that House for many years to sanction; larger fees than he was entitled to. On and, in short, he might say, that whatever the motion-" That the petition do lie on was demanded from the petitioner was the table," justified by the practice ever since the inSir E. Knatchbull said, if he had the stitution of the private-bill office. Indeed, slightest doubt, with respect to the pro- so far from there having been an exaction, priety of the conduct of the individual less was taken from the petitioner than complained of by the petitioner-if there might have been demanded. Having were any grounds on which the charge stated these three points, it might not be made against him could be supported inconvenient to observe, that the table of he would be the last man to take the fees now on the papers of the House was course which, under the circumstances, settled two hundred years ago; and long he felt himself bound to pursue. If there since that table was so settled, legislation were any just foundation for complaint, not at that time foreseen-and above all he certainly was not the person who would in connexion with the Private-bill office→→ ask the House to pass it over: but he had grown up. Now it would be more must say, on behalf of the very respect- convenient that all persons to avoid makable individual whose conduct was ar-ing any mistake on the subject, should raigned by the petitioner, that he never met a more well-conducted man, or one who discharged more honourably or more correctly the duties of the situation in which he was placed. Believing the accusation brought against him unfounded, he should move, as an amendment"That this petition be rejected." have an opportunity of seeing what might justly be demanded from them on making application for that purpose; and if it met with the approbation of the House, he would offer this suggestion--that as soon as he was relieved from the pressure of business, he would look over the table of fees that involved every such demand, The Speaker observed, that before any by the usage or practice of the House, for thing further was said on the question the last two hundred years on account of now before the House, it might be proper any party who might be before the House. for him to state, so far as he was acquaint-He would do this, in order that the time ed with the subject of the petition, of what of the House might not be uselessly taken its allegations consisted. He had never up, and that the characters of individuals seen the petition nor did he know any who were occupied in carrying on the business of the House might not, from day to day, be liable to insinuations that were groundless, or to accusations which were improper, from any person prosecuting or opposing any private bill. The petition was rejected. IP 91 Jes TOCORN LAWS PETITION OF ANTIBREAD TAX ASSOCIATION,] Mr. Hume said, he had to present a Petition from the undersigned Wool-combers, members of an Anti-bread-Tax Association, at Kidderminster. They stated that they had carefully considered colonel Torrens' " Essay on the external Corn-trade" [a laugh]: "The Catechism of the Corn-laws;" and "An Essay on the Theory of Rent," by a member of the University of Cambridge; and they were astonished at the iniquities of the landowners, the mistakes of the farmers, and the unaccountable apathy of the public on the subject of the Corn-laws. Now, if instead of reading all these publications hon. members would only look at The Catechism of the Corn-laws," which they could procure for sixpence, and if, after perusing it, the reasons it contained did not convince them, that the Corn-trade ought to be a free trade, then he could only say that they must have some particular bias which prevented them from coming to a just conclusion on this subject. SMALL DEBTS.] Lord Althorp presented a petition from Andover, praying that some measure might be adopted to facilitate the recovery of Small Debts. The right hon. Secretary had, in the last session, brought in a bill for the purpose of effecting this object, but he had afterwards postponed it. Much anxiety was expressed for the introduction of such a measure. He therefore wished to ask the right hon. Secretary what his intentions were, and whether a bill would speedily be brought in, to meet the general feeling of the country? greater emoluments to be received by persons holding other patent offices, by which the public would not be benefitted. The commissioners for inquiring into the practice of courts of justice had made a number of inquiries on this subject, with respect to the effect which his bill would have on certain offices; and it was found that the provisions of his bill and the objects of the commissioners were very nearly connected. He thought that the only proper mode of proceeding would be, to grant compensations for all at one time, in order to prevent the evil which had arisen in Ireland from granting partial compensations. At the close of last session, he had called the attention of the commissioners to this subject, and they had succeeded in making many valuable inquiries. He therefore thought that until the whole question was introduced, it would be unwise to bring in this bill. He agreed with the noble lord, that some mode for the easy recovery of Small Debts ought to be provided; and as soon as the question of compensation was settled, it should be attended to. He could assure the noble lord, that no press of business should have prevented him from undertaking a measure of that kind in the present session, if that part of the question to which he had alluded could have been settled with satisfaction to the parties immediately concerned, and with justice. to the public interest. Mr. Baring said, the right hon. gentleman had admitted that a measure for facilitating the recovery of Small Debts, and for doing away with petty litigation, was one of great importance; but yet, for oue small reason, such a measure could not now be carried into effect. And what was that reason? Why, because a number of individuals held what were called patent offices. Now, as a question of principle, nothing could be more absurd than to see a class of public officers standing in the way of such an alteration Mr. Secretary Peel said, it was with being made in the laws of the country as very great reluctance that he had post-might be thought beneficial. Some step poned the bill for the recovery of Small Debts last session. The reason he did so was, because there were a considerable number of patent offices that would be affected by the bill; and it was necessary to grant compensation to those who held such offices. It was easy, he knew, to grant compensation; but this might make an alteration in the practice, and occasion ought to be made to establish the principle-which, he believed, prevailed in every other civilized country in the world namely, that office was not formed for the benefit of the individual, but for that of the public. The opposite principle had been too long acted upon in this country, and it was a most absurd one. Mr. Peel said, he was no friend to |