Debates ant 19 rocribings fit iparliament.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE POOR-LAW.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, Lord Joust RUSSELL moved the order of the day for the second reading of the Poor-law Administration Bill. This occasioned a string of questions from Mr. Fcintsien,—inter ilia, divers queries respecting Mr. Mott's dismissal from the office of Assist- ant Poor-law Commissioner. To which Sir GEORGE GREY replied, that Mr. Mott was not " dismissed," but ceased to hold the office in consequence of a reduction in the number of Assistant Commissioners; District Auditors are elected by the Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of Unions comprised in the district; Mr. Mott was so elected from among thirty-seven candidates, and there is nothing in the terms of the act which necessarily disqualified • him; the Commissioners have received no official or authentic allegations respecting the conduct of Mr. Mott in that office, which he appears to be now discharging with propriety. Mr. FERRAND then moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months; supporting his motion with an immensely long speech, which he prefaced by this programme-

" I shall first bring under the notice of the House what were the intentions of the original conmeters of this law; next, what have been the result of its opera- tion; thirdly, I shall notice the remedy now proposed; I shall then show that Parliament has no power to pass such a law; and lastly, that the poor have a Sacred, legal, and inalienable right to relief."

The intentions of the bill he traced back to Mr. Malthus; quoting the sup- pressed passage in Mr. Malthus's first edition about there being " at Nature's mighty feast no vacant cover" for the man who cannot get a subsistence; then the praise of Mr. Malthus by Lord Brougham, as " one of the most enlightened, learned, and pious ministers whom the Church of England had ever numbered amongst her eons"; next, the "dark document" brought out by Mr. Walter — whose services will be remembered after the Baronetcy of Hogg has ceased to exist,—in which dark document it was suggested that the Poor-law Commission- ers should gradually reduce allowances both in quantity and quality,. He quoted Lord Althorp's pledge that "the cruel provisions" of the bill should never be en- forced; the letters of Messrs. Ashworth and Greg, recommending home migration, in order to equalize wages; and the alleged assurances given by the Assistant Poor-law Commissioners that home migrants should receive the highest wages of the factory districts. To show the effect of the law, he referred to the necessity of enforcing it by military aid, and by the police armed with cutlasses; to the erection of immense " bastiles," in whichpaupers are immured; Mr. Mott's diet-tables; the separation of husband from wife, and of children from their parents—from whom they had been " stolen "; the choice of retired soldiers as workhouse-masters, to tyrannize over and persecute the poor; the size of anions,—in which, fur example, a man seventy or eighty years old had to travel twenty-four mike to plead his cause be- fore a Board of Guardians; the small allowance of 3d. or 4d. per ease, as remu- neration to the medical officer; the sufferings of the poor home migrants, who have been living on ld. a day in the manufacturing districts, for wb eh they were "kidnapped and sold"; the manufacturing distress of 1842 and 1848; the action commenced against the Guardians of the Dudley Union, in 1844, for having treated the poor to beef and pudding at Christmas; the starving of paupers in the Andover Workhouse, where they fought for putrid bones. These effects he contrasted with Lord Brougham's promise on introducing the bill, that it "would restore to industry its due reward, visit idleness with its appropriate punishment, reinstate property in security, and raise uporame more the character of the noble English peasantry to its proud preeminence." Pursuing his description of the areas, Mr. Ferreted cited a petftion from the Guardians of the Wakefield Union, complaining, in Artgust 1043, that the amount of poor-rates had alarmingly in- creased through the working of the new Poor-law. Adverting. to the proposed remedy, be said thstMinisters intended to esta- blish the samecrnel and unconstitutional *pa= wader another form; and he asked whether Sir George Grey eras going to tear parent from child, husband from wife, &c. As to the right of the House to pass the law, he declared that the poor man might appeal to the common law of England and to the British constitution, since the bill is null and void. In support of this position, Mr. Ferrand cited passages from standard authorities. Locke says, " The Legislature is empowered only to make laws and not to make legislators." Mr. Justice Blackstone says, " Whenever the legislative and executive functions are found together, there is-an end of public liberty." Lord Coke declared from the judgment-seat, that "when an act of Parliament is against common sight and reason, the common law will control it and adjudge it to be void"; Lord Eldon declared that there is " no au- thority in the Legislature to pass such a bill." In a similar way Mr. Ferrand cited Magna Charts, Lord Wynford, Lord Abinger, and "a working man." To prove that the poor have an inalienable right to relief, he quoted the written opinions of John Locke, Archdeacon Paley, and Judge Hale; the names of Pnffen- dorf and Grotius, whom he might quote, and who agree in this point; and Lord Brougham, for a quotation which he made of a declaration by-a judge in the time of Queen Elizabeth, that it is the business of the parson " pascere gregem, verbo, exemplo, cibo." Bacon, one of the authors of the 43d of Elizabeth, declares that "if a man steals viands to satisfy his present hunger, it is not felony nor larceny," because " the law chargeth no man with default where the act is compnisory," " conservation of life " being the first necessity. Blackstone, referring to this pas- sage, says, " This cannot now happen in England, where the Poor-law of Eliza- beth suffers no one to be in a state of destitution "; and the Pour-law Corn- missioners themselves, in one of their reports, affirm, that " to punish even depre- dation, apparently committed as the only resource against want, is repugnant to- the common sentiments of mankind."

After this point, Mr. Ferrand wandered to other subjects; and finally plunged into the case gaup against him in 1842, abbot the Keighley Union, and Mr. Mott's dismissal.

Mr. ROEBUCK answered Mr. Ferrand. It would be a compliment to call him a dangerous person; but as an idiot may set fire to a haystack, the dangerous language even of Mr. Ferrand might be productive of mis- chievous consequences. Mr. Ferrand had been talking about " inalienable rights," the 43d of Eliza- beth, the tyranny of the new Poor-law, and a variety of other things, without understanding anything of the subject. He is totally ignorant of the 43d of Elizabeth; he has never read it; a fact proved by the way in which he talks of it. It was that law which had been departed from, and the new Poor-law was a reaction to return to it. The intention of the 43d of Eliz ibeth was, to suppress the "sturdy beggars" who wandered about the country when the religious houses were put down. Before the new Poor-law, the 93d of Elizabeth was incident to the greatest abuses against the rights of the industrious poor as opposed to the lazy poor. To show the disorderly state into which it had got, Mr. Roebuck mentioned a case of childbirth in a cart at the workhouse, while the pariah-officers were squabbling about the poor woman's settlement ! The new Poor-law, by ap- pointing " the three tyrants of Somerset House," has concentrated responsibility, and made the administrators of the law amenable to public opinion; and he was confident that without such concentration the House would never have heard about the evils of the new Poor-law. He admitted that the Commissioners had deviated from the law; but where they had done so it was precisely in obedience to the sort of cry out of doors which Mr. Ferrand was repeating. The law does- not militate against the right of relief: Mr. Roebuck himself had vindicated that right for the Irish poor. The notion of common sense is, that if a man is desti- tute through misfortune, he be maintained by the state : but some test of destitution is necessary ; for that purpose the poor-house was establish- ed. Those who preach about the Poor-law are always opposed to giving the poor their political rights, to vindicate their own interests. " These canting hypocrites, who declaim so loudly about the poor, will refuse to give them the right to vote. But the poor know their real friends from those pretended friends who out of their necessities would carve their own way to fortune. The plan es- tablished by the law is, that the man who comes to the poor-house, being in need, and willing to take the relief offered by the state, should have that-relief provided. And now I come to the question of the right to relief. The honourable Member for Knaresborongh talks about the inalienable right to relief: For my life, I cannot understand this inalienable right to relief which.be speaks of. The honourable gentleman talked about Puffendorf; but I will stake my life he has never read Puffendorf. I will be bound that he has never opened Vatel; and as for Grotius, I do not believe that he knows whether Grotius lived in the time of George the Third, Charles the Second, Queen Elizabeth, or the Emperor Adrian. (Laughter.) Any child might talk of Grotius or of Puffendort; whose names he might have heard, but whose works he never read. I think very little of the authority of the honourable gentleman on any matter of learning, and still less on any matter of common sense. (Laughter.) The honourable Member for Knaresborough has talked about the inalienable right to relief; and he has quoted from Coke and Blackstone, into whose works, it appears he has been dipping. Dipping is a most easy thing; but I am not quite sure that be knows which of the two preceded the other: and I may here mention, that I find a pamphlet, written, I believe, by one of those who pretend to be in favour of tne poor, speak- ing about the revocation of the edict of Nantes and the consequent massacre of St. Bartholomew." (Laughter.) The Judges cannot be so fatuous as to maintain that an act of Parliament is not the law of the land. "Were I to find a Judge do so, I should call him to the bar of this House to answer for his conduct: but I never in my lifetime found one of the Judges adopting the language of the honourable gentleman. We may have heard a Judge complaining of the slovenly mode in which acts of Parliament are passed; but none of them ever maintained a doctrine so contrary to the constitu- tion as that which the honourable gentleman has broached. The Judges are ap- pointed to administer that which we and the other portions of the Legislature determine .should be law; and if ever one of them should be so audacious n5 to say that that is not the law, I would bring him to the bar of the House to answer for his transgression. What is the meaning of this inalienable right to relief? What the honourable Member for Knaresborough talks about is the right to relief under the 48d of Elizabeth; according to which, the poor were to be set to work. [Mr. WAKLEY—" Not in a gaol." The honourable Member for Finsbury says, not in a gaol: what does he mean? ] Has the honourable gentleman ever gone into a poor man's cottage? Does he ever employ and pay a poor man? If so, he must be aware that the cottage of the poor, honest, and laborious peasant, is, I am sorry to say, a far more miserable habitation than that which the beneficence of the law has provided for the indigent poor. In it there is no medical adviser— no cleanliness; in it there is neither that warmth nor shelter which the law has provided for the poor in the poor-house. I speak on this subject knowingly. It is my habit month after month, week after week, and day after day, to go into the habitations of my poor fellow countrymen. I employ a great number of them. I know their feelings and their condition. I know this also, and I defy any one to tell me the contrary, that the labouring poor at this moment in their own habits, tions are far worse off than in those habitations which the honourable Member for Finsbury has designated as Waffles and gaols." Mr. WAKLEY—" I did not give them that name." ROEBUCK—" Probably not. That was your want of imagination." (Laughter.)

There was one distinction which Mr. Roebuck wished to see drawn- " I object to the feeding of the idle and the vagabond, because that constitutes a bad dimple, and leads to the demoralization of the industrious population. But this objection does not attach to the maintenance of the old and the infirm. Therefore, the moment you have ascertained that the aged and infirm are unable to obtain the means of subsistence, do not apply to them any test, but give them those means to the uttermost necessary extent;'for, by so doing, you are not indul- ging bad habits nor creating a pernicious example. This will not in any way militate against the industrious habits of the poor, but will as much as possible tend to conciliate the kind feelings and good wishes of the poor towards those who by cir- cumstances are placed in u happier situation. If this distinction were established throughout the parishes of England, I think that the honourable Member for Knaresborough would be at an end."

Mr. Ferrand had talked of unhealthy occupations, crushing bones, and " devil's dust ": there are many regular employments in society which are painful and unhealthy-

. There is the type-founder, who seldom lives many years; there is the iron-filer, whose lungs are destroyed. Does Mr. Ferrand talk about that "devil's dust"? The surgeon has to dissect bodies. Mr. Roebuck admitted that there is no neces- sity for employing in these occupations the unfortunate people who are obliged to .ask the state for assistance. "But why ? Because society has the services of those who are willing to undertake these occupations. But then, mark: I labour all my life; born to nothing, I earn everything; and shall it be said to me, 'You are bound to maintain the vagabond outside your gate, who will do nothing!' 'Who has a right to come to me and say, Give me of your substance, for you are rich'? I say, I am not rich: everything I gain is my own—won either by my bands or my head; and you have no right to come to me but from necessity. That is what the labouring man has a right to say; and I am here standing up for the labouring man: I want that understood—it shall be understood before I have done. The labouring man says, work ten hours according to act of Par- liament; I have got a wife and children; I maintain them honestly; I live in a house for which I have to pay poor-rate; and what right has John Thomas to take of my earnings? That John Thomas there—he won't work; I know him well; I have known him from his childhood; he has been in the workhouse twenty times; he won't work.' Does the honourable Member for Finsbury say that that is an uncommon case? No; he knows it is not. Well, but then how am Ito know that the applicant is John Thomas the Idle vagabond, and not John Smith the honest labourer? Set him to work, says an honourable Member; and out comes the 43d of Elizabeth to prove it? To work at what T—Beating hemp. Where? —In a shed. Oh, but this is 'a bastile 1' Why, what is a poor-house? A well- :built, well-ventilated, well-warmed, well-cleaned habitation, out of which a man may walk at any hour of the day, and you cannot stop him. And are we to have :the honourable Member for Knaresborough, with all his vulgar rhetoric and mis- quoting Lord Chatham, talking about a place with all the winds of heaven blow- Jog round it? (A laugh.) God help the right honourable Member for Dorches- ter [Sir James Grab:mil too; what a stream of turbid and muddy rhetoric was poured upon him! (Laughter.) But the honourable Member must not come down and talk to us about poor wretches beating hemp under a miserable shed which he would not put his cattle in: the poor are not in a shed, but in a beauti- fully-built house. The last I passed this morning, about five o'clock, is situated 'in the midst of the New Forest, looking out upon its beautiful scenery on the one side and almost to the Solent on the other. 'Oh, but,' says the honourable Mem- ber for Finsbury,' that is a gaoL' A gaol ! how se? You do not keep the people in. ' Oh, but they are in a prison-dress.' • * • Why, you are obliged to dress them

to give them warm clothing; and it is more economical that it should be after one fashion; and really I should be glad to be assured of having all my life such comfortable clothing—a good coat, good trousers, a clean shirt, clean stockings, honest good shoes, and a felt hat. (A laugh.) At all events, that is much bet- . ter than many an honest man has out of the workhouse. I give away clothes that I call worn oat, and they are accepted with grateful thanks; but when the state offers a man a thoroughly good dress, up jumps the honourable Member for Finsbury and says, Holloa, here is aprison-dress!' Was there ever such an un- happy statement put forth tar any unfortunate people 7—unfortunate indeed, most nuserable in their wretched friends I"

Objections were made to the new Poor-law: he challenged Mr. Ferrand or Mr. Wakley to bring forward his plan— "Let us have no more criticism; do not be pullers down: there is a great deal of talk about destructiveness—do show your abihty now in constructing an act of Par- liament. What would I give for an act of Parliament propounded by the honourable Member for Knaresborough. (A laugh.) Conceive such a production I I dare say the honourable Member has some spice of kindly feeling in his nature. I. have no doubt, upon an extraordinary occasion, he would even go so far as to do me a good turn. He would give me inexpressible delight—and that is what he does not often do when he speaks—if he would only concoct an act of Parliament for the poor. (Laughter.) I think I could pretty soon rout him and his act of Par- liament. Or, if he likes, let him go to the honourable Member for Finsbury. (A laugh.) But really it goes beyond a joke: for I find everybody ready to criticize, and nobody ready to say what ought to be done."

Mr. Ferraud's amendment was supported at some length by Mr. BANKES. He objected to the powers which the bill intended to per- petuate, especially to that of making laws in private chambers; and until those powers were modified, he could not consent to the second reading of the bilL The measure was supported by Sir GEORGE GREY; who quoted the words of Lord Althorp to show that he had recognized " the sacred right of assisting the distressed," and had only directed his opposition to the abuses of the old law. Sir George glaLced at the varying exigencies of different districts, which need a central authority to apply the principle of the law BO as to induce uniformity of action; and he called upon Mr. Bankes to explain what kind of superintendence he should consider more satis- factory.

About midnight the debate was adjourned.

On Tuesday, the adjourned debate was opened by Mr. CHRISTIE. He defended the new Poor-law; referring at considerable length to the report of the Andover Committee, in order to show that all the points of censure made good in that report related to the practice of the Commissioners and the local administration of the law, and proved nothing against the law it- self; For example, the Master and Matron of the Workhouse were unfit for their duty; the Guardians were severe and negligent; the conduct of the Poor-law Commissioners in deposing Mr. Parker and Mr. Day came in question, and the Committee reported judgment upon it; the exclusion of Mr. Chadwick from recognized participation in the business of the depart- ment was irregular; the imputation against the Commissioners, of dis- couraginz the detection and report of abuses, was not satisfactorily rebut- ted: bat all these things did not touch the body of the law. Mr. Christie severely censured a garbled digest of the evidence taken before the Ali- dover Committee, and an anonymous pamphlet, both evidently published in the interest of the Poor-law Commissioners; and he observed that when Lord John Russell announced the reconstruction of' the Commission, the House and the public were led to believe that the present Commissioners would cease to be members of the Board.

Mr. ETWALL declared that be did not see the necessity of any central Commission. The Poor-law seemed to him to be too rotten for improve- ment; and the proposed alteration—such as the appointment of twelve in- stead of nine " Inspectors," the adoption of that title instead of " Assist- ant Poor-law Commissioners," &c.—to be quite inadequate for the irpurpose. Viscount COURTENAY, as Chairman of the Andover Committee, stated his own opinion on several matters disposed of in the report; with whicli he agreed in many respects, but differed in some, mostly in degree.

Captain PECUELL made a long speech against the Poor-law and the bilL Mr. MANNERS SUTTON declared his dissent from the report of the An- dover Committee, particularly in those parts where the Commissioners were censured. He thought the evidence clearly established that the Guardians and Assistant Poor-law Commissioners were the culpable and responsible parties. • On the motion of Mr. HENLEY, the debate was adjourned, at midnight,

till Thursday. —

On Thursday, Mr. HENLEY took up the discourse, with a long speecih on the interpretation which the Commissioners gave, in their writings and- practice, to the statute. He minutely discussed the provision in the act which provides for instant relief in eases of " sudden and urgent distress": this the Commissioners defined to be distress caused by fire, storm, inundation, robbery, riot, or other calamity that could not be foreseen; concurrently with this definition, it was the rule for the workhouse to be locked up after nine at night: subsequently, however, the Commissioners rescinded that definition, and declared that by " sudden and urgent necessity," they under- stood " any destitution that requires instant relief"; thus condemning them- selves. He minutely inscribed the excessive parsimony enforced by the Commissioners in the payment of medical officers---lirought down in some cases to less than 31. a year! He compared the treatment of paupers with that of criminals in gaols; showing, for instance, how much more attention and comfort would be allowed to a girl accused of murdering her child than to the mother of an illegitimate child confined in the workhouse. He objected to the bill, that it would introduce political motives into the administration of the Poor-law: a Minister in the Commission, for instance, anxious to retain his seat in the House of Commons, would not be very strict with a Board of Guardians comprising influential constituents. He argued for a more thorough change. [In the midst of Mr. Henley's speech, a Member moved that the House be counted; but forty Members showed themselves to the Speaker, and the debate proceeded.] Mr. PouLErr SCROPE agreed in many points with Mr. Henley; but con- tended for central authority, as necessary to control local abuses. But he condemned the existing law in many respects. It professed to restore to efficiency the law of Elizabeth; but that gave relief in return for labour, —a test by no means sufficiently examined. The Commissioners were prejudiced in favour of the workhouse test, and they tried to make it the sole resort; but the attempt broke down, and only entailed odium on the law. Mr. Scrope quoted a passage from the pamphlet by Sir Walter James, [incorporating the letters sent by him as " A Guardian " to the Spectator,] who advocated the principle of the law of Elizabeth—a labour- test; and Mr. Scrope concluded by proposing a combination of three tests; thus-

1. Relief in the form of public labour for the meritorious and industrious la- bourer, and also occasionally as a test of the willingness of the idle to work. 2. Relief in the workhouse to such cases as might be of doubtful character, and for which this mode of relief might appear the best test, though he thought they would be few. 3. The gaol for the habitual vagrant and mendicant. He thought they might trust to the local authorities a discretion in the application of these several modes of treatment to the uses to which they are best fitted.

Sir WILLIAM JoLLIFEE condemned the bill, and the system which it sought to perpetuate, as establishing centralization.

Sir JOAN Wsuse, as a member of the minority in the Andover Committee, vindicated his own votes and the conduct of the Commissioners, on ground similar to that taken by Mr. Sutton.

Mr: FLOYER supported Mr. Ferrand.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL, observing how the speakers had wandered into a variety of subjects, applied himself to two questions,—the amendment pf the Poor-law in 1834; and the administration of the amended law by the Commissioners—

The Poor-law Amendment Act of 1834 was intended to reform a system into which had crept very gross abuses; and unless the House were prepared to main- tain the new system in Its great outlines, he feared there would be a recurrence of those vicious practices. Ile stated his reasons for thinking so. At the close of last century prices rose to an unprecedented height, and the labourer felt much difficulty in maintaining his family out of his wages. Under those circumstances, in 1796, certain Berkshire Justices met, and resolved that the labourer should be allowed relief out of the poor-rates in aid of his wages; of which the amount was to be measured by the price of the quartern loaf and the number of persona in the labourer's family. Other counties soon followed the example. Those Magistrates meant well; but the result was that the labourers throughout the country were converted into paupers, and wages were lowered to the greatest possible extent. The Government of Lord Grey attempted' to reform those abuses. Lord Al- thorp foresaw the obloquy which they would incur in stopping the allowance sys- tem, seeming to deprive the Magistrates of a power to relieve the poor, and check- ing the corrupt patronage of Vestries. It was necessary also to give large discre- tionary powers to the Commissioners; and Ileum an outcry that the "three Tyrants of Somerset House," the "three Kings," were endowed with arbitrary power, with more such invective and exaggeration.

He now came to the complaints against the administration, and the resolutions of the Andover Committee. He had before said that if a vote of censure founded on those resolutions had been moved in the House, he should have resisted it. " The Andover Committee may have been right or wrong in various of those re- solutions. With respect to certain questions brought before them, I declare my- self incompetent to form an opinion on the correctness of which I could rely; and having general confidence in the character, attainments, and integrity of the Poor- law Commissioners,—character and integrity not, in a general sense, questioned by that Committee,—I am ready, confiding in those qualities, to suppose that the Commissioners acted with discretion in those particular instances; such as, I mean, requiring the resignation of the two Assistant Commissioners. With re- spect to the ordinary offices of the Government, I believe that it is absolutely ne- cessary to have the power, though it might be seldom exercised, of insisting on the removal of those who act under the orders of the beads of departments. For my party as Secretary of State, or head of a public department, if 1 were convinced

that any clerk was incompetent, or that he did not perfurm his functions to the benefit 4( the public, I should feel it my duty to require his removal; and I can- not understand that any department can be satisfactorily carried on unless such a power is vested in its head."

But there was more in the case, he was sorry to say, than he should wish to have had so completely proved. " It is, I am sorry to say, completely proved, that there was in the Commission such a division—such a jealousy of the Poor- haw Commissioners--sneh a wish to set up the Assistant Commissioners against thee under whom they were serving—that it was almost impossible that there should not arise causes of difference of opinion between the Commissioners and the Assistant Commissioners: and this is, I think, that part of the question on which, if I thought that Mr. Chadwick, the Secretary, was in the right, I should say at once that it would have been the duty of the late Government, as it would be of the present Government, at once to dismiss the whole of the Poor-law Com- missioners; because it is stated that it was the wish of the Commissioners to conoeal abuses, and it is stated that they would not countenance any Awdstatit Commissioner who made complaint of abuses under his notice. Now, I look for some proof of so grave a charge: but I confess that when I look for that proof, I find it to be of the most meagre character ima- ginable." It is said that Mr. Parker made complaint with respect to some work- Meese accounts, and that the Commissioners said that a general bill was to be kought in for which they would wait: but that was not setting their faces agaima the representation of abuses. At all events, it was not for Secretaries or Assistant Commissioners, entertaining. that opinion, to continue acting under the Commissioners, neither resigning their commissions nor making a complaint to the Secretary of State. "I mast say that there is no possible department, be it what it may, whatever may be its power and authority, which can be able to ;tend, if those who are its subordinates, instead of submitting entirely to their superiors—instead of making complaint when they have orders to perform to which they object—are undermining and countermining against those superiors. There is no department which undersuch a trial can be expected to act efficiently and henefieially. It is that kind of house which we are told upon the highest "iatherity will not be able to stand. I think, therefore, that while this charge is made, and made very loudly, there has not been any proof of it; and the Poor-law Commissioners are in my mind acquitted of this, the only grave charge against them"

Many charges against the Commissioners, such as their want of sound judg- ment in several of their decisions on the Andover case, and their mode of con- ducting business (apart), he thought very minor charges. Other charges, such as their conveying paupers to Manchester and leaving them exposed to destitu- tion, rested on so little foundation that they were not worthy of attention. Lord John now came to the real question of the evening—should there . be any central authority at all ? And the necessity of that, he argued, was shown by the very case of Andover; for it would be impossible to leave such local grievances as the negligence of a workhouse master to the chances of discussions and delays in Parliament. There has on the whole teen very little.complaint against the Commissioners. If some Boards of Guardians were harsh, others would revert to the allowance system; and we should ea a few years be handed back to that system of apparent in- . dulgence which ended in rural insurrection and incendiarism. He there- fore came to the conclusion that there must be some central control: and tie contended that the proposed alteration, by connecting the Commission more immediately with the Executive Government, and opening the way for direct explanation in Parliament, would obviate many inconveniences in the administration of the law.

Mr. DISRAELI made a speech of about half an hour's length, piquant and emu:jag; but it resolves itself-into two points. No one denied that a ' control over mere ptirochial authority might be advisable; but it does not follow that it ought to be a metropolitan control; or that Ministers ought to exasperate the difficulties of administering the Poor-law by drawing upon themselves, as actual participators in its management, the odium that ties attached to the Commissioners. Much was said about Mr. Chadwick's underhand conduct—much in which Mr. Disraeli agreed: Sir Franklaed . Lewis, who has hereditary notions of a Poor-law Commissionership and was succeeded by his son, denounced Mr. Chadwick as a "most dangerous 'man"; the Prime Minister had that night described him as the real cause of all the mischief: now, is that Mr. Chadwick still Secretary to the Poor- ; law Commission? If so, how is it? Of what terrible state secret is he -the depositary?

Mr. Burertinuow moved the adjournment of the debate. Lord Jonw _Rlt6sELL pleaded for a division; but, after a brief discussion, the debate was once more adjourned.

- OPEILkTION OF RELIEF MEASURES IN IRELAND.

On Monday, Mr. POULETT SCROPE drew attention to the administration under the Temporary Relief Act in Ireland- ' The'measure was pasted on the 26th of February; and in a large number of ,dietricts it has not been carried into effect. It is inoperative throughout Cork, elthongh the people are perishing at the rate of 1,000 a week; which would make 13,000 persons swept off to the churchyard since the act was passed. The Re- lief Committee of Bantry Union, comprising twelve men, professes to have been engaged for six weeks in preparing a relief-list; a task completed in six or seven days last October by two gentlemen. A letter to himself stated that two large p is had been dug at Lord Berehaven's gates, and six hundred and fifty persons who died of starvation bad been thrown in without a coffin. Meanwhile, Lord Iflerehaven, who had subscribed only 20s. a month to the soup-kitchen, withdrew Ma suoscription, because a list of the contributions was published. Ile had never been seen outside his demesne for a month past; and no employment had been given by him to the people.

- There are accounts of food riots every day in Clam, Limerick, Cork, Mayo, and ;Kilkenny.

'Mr. LAHOUCHERE replied— He was in personal communication with Lord Berehaven, and should be much our prised if the statements made against him were true. The report of the Re- lief Commissioners in Dublin would be laid before the House in a few days. There had been no want of zeal, ability, or energy, on the part of General Bur- goyne and his-colleagues of the Relief Board. " They have had to contend with greet obstacles-on the part of Relief Committees, which, I do not say universally, but in many instances, have shown an unwillingness to assist; and they have also been impeded by a very great unwillingness on the part of the people to accept of relief in the form new provided, instead of the wages which hitherto they have received. Those people are induced to believe, that by resisting the new system of relief, sometimes even by acts of violence, they will oblige the Government to resort to the old system of road-making." He trusted that the firm manner of the Governnifut would succeed in checking violence.

Mr.- Slum protested against the repetition of unauthorized newspaper - atatementa No man gives more attention to the poor than Lord Bereha- - yen. As to the Relief Committees, in some districts there iire"25.000 apt

Lsplioations -weekly; which the Committee'must investigate, or they would fse giving indiscriminate relief.

• - -

Mr. UsBoswa observed, that in fact out-door relief has broken down, It has been found impossible to supply the applicants.

The Poor-Relief (Ireland) Bill was read a third time in the House of Lords on Tuesday, with brief speeches in opposition from several Peers who had before expressed their disapprobation. On the question that the bill do pass, a few amendments were proposed; which were adopted or nega- tived according to the sanction of Government; and the bill passed.

SHORT TIME.

In the House of Lords, on Monday, the Earl of ELLESMERE moved the second reading of the Factory Bill; which be explained, and supported with the standing arguments in its favour. It sprung, he said, from the stern experience of the husband and the father, from the general feeling and opinion of the working classes, and from the tendency of steam ma- chinery to attract to its service the continuous labour of the weaker both in respect of age and sex. He maintained that it is not oppugnant to the doctrines of political economy, for they do not forbid measures to guard against want and physical evils; and he urged the adoption of the bill as necessary to fulfil the promises of those who agitated for repeal of the Corn-laws. He quoted a letter from Baron Charles Dupin, Peer of France, addressed to Lord Ashley, requesting information on the sub,;ect of what is passing in England; M. Dupin being engaged in preparing a report for a law to protect children in French factories. Lord Ellesmere cited a report obtained by himself on the state of manufactures in Spain—

The quantity of raw cotton imported into Spain for the consumption of the manufactures, principally in Catalonia, exceeds 25,000,000 pounds. He had taken the utmost pains to test the accuracy of this report, and believed it not to be far wrong. " The number of working days in the year does not exceed 260. Every saint's-day in the Roman calendar is strictly observed as a fiesta or holy- day. All the mills are closed; but the hands receiving weekly wages are paid for the whole six days of the week, though it sometimes happens that two fiestas fall between Sunday and Sunday. The condition of the factory hands is far su- perior to that of the same class in other countries; that is, whilst they do not work more than an average of five days per week, they are paid for six, at a rate at least 20 per cent higher than in Lancashire. I do not know if this explains the turbulent character of the Catalonians—I think not; certain it is, they are a spirited dare-devil set. At all events, it is better to have a well-fed easy-to-do

class of poor, though noisy and insolent, than the want and squalor often seen in Salford. The master spinners are in a brilliant position; ready sales and very large profits. The manufacture is greatly on the increase, and ere long Spam will count as many spindles as France. There never was a greater error than to suppose a want of energy in Spanish manufacturers, or anything approaching to

indolence ndolence in the workpeople. I am most anxious to point out to your Lordship, that notwithstanding the mills do not work more than five days, or sixty hours per week, wages maintain the highest maximum, and masters make large profits whilst competing with smugglers. Cotton-mills in France profess to work seventy-two hours per week—that is when on full time; taking the time really worked for the last fear years, them can be no doubt the average would be much below sixty hours per week. The condition of the workpeople there is engaging the anxious consideration of all in authority." Lord BROUGHAM opposed the motion. He said that he should do his endeavour, by Divine assistance, to lay before the House such views of the

question in its relation to the real good of the working classes as to show that the bill was not a measure that merited their support. There was no connexion between the bill and political economy, excepting that those doc- trines were founded on plain common sense and daily experience, and that the bill was an outrage on common sense and that experience—

The amount of cotton, silk, flax, and woollen manufacture exported,- is

37,000,0001. or 38,000,0001.: to abridge the time by one sixth, would be to di- minish the exports by a proportionate amount, namely, 6,000,0001.: there must be also a proportionate diminution of wages, and aproportionate stop- page of employment and of engines, to the great detriment of the manufacturer. It has been accepted as a fact, that working a mill ten hours a day, that is five days in the week, is just sufficient to pay the expenses of the establishment, the wages of the workmen, and the cost of the goods manufactured. The entire pro- fit made by working a mill is consequently derived in the other two hours, or the sixth day; and the whole of his profit they would completely sweep away by this enactment. If there were any doubt about this, let inquiry be made: it had not been denied elsewhere, and it was assumed on all occasions to be a correct cal- culation. Would they not pause before they ran the risk of doing this?

One of the arguments urged in favour of this bill was, that no harm could now

be done, inasmuch as at this moment the mills throughout the country, were work- ing abort time. His noble friend, of course, possessed some of the famed sagacity of Yorkshire, and could not have lost sight of the inference which every one would draw from such an argument so made use of. It was granted on all hands that our manufacturing population were in a state of great suffering; that the manu- facturers were half ruined; that they were turning 50,000 men at Manchester, and 25,000 at Nottingham, out of employment, as they could not afford to go on under present circumstances: and what was the remedy proposed? To belay there, as the sailors called it—to leave that as it was, to keep them precisely in the same condition at all times.

Lord Brougham ridiculed the idea of passing the measure fur the sake of mental improvement. After ten boors' work, a man is too tired; and if the Saturday were taken as a botyday, it would be spent in the public-house. He had been try- ing to educate the peasantry for these twenty-five years; and his constant com- petitor and antagonist, by which he had always been defeats', was—sleep. Lord Brougham ridiculed the varying opinions among those who supported the measure. Some wished to split the difference between ten and twelve hours: they went fur eleven hours. Some spoke of eleven hours and a half; and there were persons who bad spoken of eleven hours and a quarter, and bad recommended this idea in a way perhaps that did not greatly enhance the general respect for their characters and abilities. Mr. Richard (tastier, who with some 'peculiarities was one of the best and kindest men living, and whose perseverance in this question was worthy of a better cause, did not approve of an eight-hour bill; it was too much, too hazardous; it would take off one-third of the wages of the people and of the capital of the manufacturer at one blow: but striking off one sixth of the wages was only one half less hazardous. Lord Brougham glanced at the history of the bill in the House of Commons.

A year ago the bill was rejected by 297 to 159, being a majority of 138. In May 1846, the majority against the bill had dwindled down from 138 to 10. When he saw a plizenomenon he liked to trace it to its cause.' What was the cause of this sudden change? The same cruelty, the same hardships, the same want of instruction existed in 1844 as in 1846; but it did happen that in the in- terval the Corn-laws had been repealed. ("Hear, hear! ") It happened in the course of the severe contest that preceded that repeal, that the landed men were ranged against the cotton and wool men; the repeal was supported chiefly by the cotton men, and the spinners and millowners were constantly abused by the landed aristocracy. The manufacturers having beaten the land on the .corn question, the land said, " We will retaliates little on the subyet of mills"; 'mad it did so happen, that, in connexion with this quarrel between the land and the mills, the majority came down from 138 to 10. This yea ,r there had been a cm- tinuatioe of the same events, of the same conversions;_ the movement downwitd

bad been accelerated ; and the bill came up to their Lordships now backed by a large majority in its favonr, though two years only had elapsed, and all the cir- cumstances of the case remained precisely the same. He begged pardon of their Lordships for saying the circumstances were the same—circumstances were infi- nitely stronger against the bill now than ever they were before. This was the crisis, of all conceivable periods in the history of the country, when a prudent, conscientious regard for the safety of the people and the best interests of the country, above all for the best interests of the working people, made it an im- perative duty that they should show the utmost reluctance to change their com- mercial policy. While they were menaced with dangers like these—when the poor-rates of 6,000,000/. a year were likely to increase to one half more—when Ireland was suffering and bleeding from every pore—when they were obliged to send over supplies of food and money to prevent starvation from thinning the land—when the public peace was disturbed, and in one county, within the last three days, two hundred special constables had been sworn in, and the yeomanry called out, on account of food riots,—this was the time when they were called on, without experience, upon speculation, on assertion, on assumption, upon fantasy, to pass a measure which must affect every working man in the country in the four great branches of its manufacture.

Why interfere specially on behalf of the manufacturing operatives? Benevo- lence, to be practically good, must be practically useful; but by this measure the poor-rates would be augmented; and the people in other occupations—in agricul- tural labour, for instance—endure as much fatigue and misery as the factory operative. The peasant grows old before his time, and scarcely ever reaches the natural term of human existence. Why then stop at cotton-factories? why not legislate also for the peasant, for the brass-filer, and thousands of others engaged in the endless variety of other unhealthy employments?

He moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months.

The Bishop of LONDON declared his cordial assent to the bill before the House; deeming it necessary to guard against the effect of ignorance and of wilful neglect in our highly artificial state of society. He altogether doubted the efficacy of the delusions imputed by Lord Brougham to the factory workpeople. They are a very intelligent and sagacious body of Men, alive to their own interests, not easily deceived; and they call upon the Legislature with great earnestness to pass the bill.

The measure was also supported by the Earl of Fay-masa/at, the Duke of RICHMOND, the Bishop of OXFORD, and the Bishop of ST. DAVID'S.

The Earl of CLARENDON supported the amendment. He objected to the bill because it extended much further than it professed to do: it would affect adults as well as young persons, men as well as women; would limit Vie hours during which machinery must run, limit the quantity of mann- fictured produce, and proportionately reduce wages. All this would be done without any of the reasons for legislative interference formerly pre- sented by the excessive labour in factories and the actual torture of children— The labour is now performed in comfortable buildings, well warmed and well ventilated, and generally more healthy than tale houses of the workpeople. The lois in wages would not be the only cost. The act would reduce the amount of fixed and floating capital, and-would affect other trades. There would be less coal consumed, less oil, less tallow, less leather, less flour; less cotton, wool, flax, hemp, silk, indigo, madder, and dyes; there would be less shipping, less labour for the shipping: indeed, all classes would suffer for this apparently humane effort to lessen the hours of labour. The leases of factories are framed on the basis that the machinery is to run twelve hours: the leaseholders would suffer proportionably. Foreign competition already. .presses on this country: Russia imperts 15,000,000 pounds of cottonjarn; and for the first time last year she imported 55,000 bales of raw cotton. The duty on imports secures their own mar- kets—(Cheers front. the Oppositiond we shall lose their market. In the allverein, 43,000,060 pounds of cotton yarn, 20,000,000 pounds'

oands of raw cotton, ere consumed; in Switzerland, 50,000 bales of raw cotton; in France, 800,000 bales of raw cotton; in America, 450,000 bales. The average time of work in Austria, Russia, and France, is thirteen hours; in Germany, twelve hours; in the United States, twelve in winter and fourteen in summer. As to the desire of the operatives, they would not accept the measure except under the notion that they will receive twelve hours' wages for ten hours' work.

The measure was also opposed by Lord ASHBUItTON.

The House divided—For the second reading, 53; against, 11; majority for the bill, 42.

RAILWAY LEGISLATION.

On Tuesday, Sir Caratraus WOOD made the following motion— "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider whether it is expedient that any measures should be adopted for suspending farther proceedings in all or any of the Railroad Raisin the present session, and for enabling. the parties, under certain conditions, to proceed with the same in a future session of Parliament; and also, whether it is advisable that any further provisions should be made in the Standing Orders of this House relative to Bills for the construction of Rail- roads; and to report their opinion thereupon to the House from time to time."

He observed that he had purposely worded the resolution in very general terms. His own view was, that a permissive power only should be given to parties to suspend proceedings at a certain stage. He thought it right that some further security should be taken for providing that none but bona fide concerns should be admitted to the chance of obtaining Parlia- mentary power. He anticipated no opposition, having consulted with parties in the railway interest.

Mr. HODGSON HINDE believed he was right in supposing that these parties were three gentlemen whose names were to be on the Committee. Their interest obviously was to have new schemes strangled; and to con- sult them was like asking the wolves what was good for the sheep. He moved another resolution, in still more general terms, directing the Com- mittee " to inquire whether it was expedient that any restriction should be imposed," &c. But he did not press the amendment. The motion was agreed to; and the following Members were appointed as the Committee— Sir Charles Wood, Sir James Graham, Mr. Hume, Mr. Hodson, ir George Clerk, Mr. Charles Russell, Mr. Stratt, Mr. Chaplin, Mr. Ellice, Lord Seymour, and Mr. Pattison.

LIMITED ENLISTMENT.

In the House of Lords, on Wednesday, on the motion for going into Com- mittee on the Army Service Bill, the Marquis of LONDONDERRY replied to the speech in a former debate which he owed to "the graoiuus condescension " of Earl Grey; also expressing some dismay at "the most unexpected and rather complicated speech of his illustrious friend" the Duke of Wellington. The bill, he said, would convert the soldiers enlisted under the old plan into the Sepoys of the Army. It was a mere chance or surmise whether they would get the old soldiers to reenlist after the term of ten years. He begged the House to observe, that the bill was carried on its second reading by a very small majority, consisting of "a certain light political section who came to the rescue of the Government," and also by the aid of certain Bishops—the Bishops of St. Asapb, Worcester, Salisbury, and Durham: to those reverend personages and to that section the Army owed this revolution. The House went into Committee; and divers amendment/ were MOVEN but mostly without effect.

The Earl of Locear moved that twelve instead of ten years be the term in the Infantry, fourteen instead of twelve in the Cavalry. In the course of the discussion, Viscount COMBERMERB having called for the manias of the Commander-in-chief, the Duke of WELLINGTON avowed himself one of those who wished to see discharge from the Army come to be considered • a punishment; and be did think that the system proposed held out the prospect that such an object would be attained. The great point was to retain the old soldiers in the Army; that was the object of Lord Lucian, it was also the object of her Majesty's Government: there might be many modes of attaining that object, but the Duke recommended the House to adopt that mode recommended by her Majesty's Government— He begged their Lordships to observe this circumstance throughout the whole consideration of the question, that the law of the country was in favour of limi- ted as well as unlimited service. The law enabled her Majesty's Government to raise men for six, seven, fourteen' and twenty-one years' and also for unlimited service; and if they at any time had given an order to carry out that state Of the law, he, in the office which he held, must of course have obeyed that order. He believed, however, that the arrangement proposed under this bill was better than the periods of service allowed at present by law. Lord STANLEY admitted the cogency of that argument; though he con- fessed that it was a reason for which he was not prepared.

On a division, the amendment was negatived, by 38 to 30.

The Earl of Eat.aseCittocou moved a proviso, that men serving in India and the Colonies when their term of service expired, should nevertheless remain subject for a term to the Mutiny Act. Such a provision, he said, was particularly desirable in India, where the discharged' soldiers might settle if they were not brought home: the colonization of India would be its separation. Earl GREY opposed this amendment; but the Duke of WELLINGTON expressing his concurrence in it, Earl GREY withdrew his objection; and the proviso was adopted.

The remaining clauses were agreed to, and the bill was ordered to b. reported.

LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND.

On Tuesday, Mr. HUME asked whether Government had made arrange- ments for filling the vacant office of Lord-Lieutenant?

Lord JOHN RUSSELL, with an earnest tribute to Lord Besborough, said that the office would be immediately filled up- " Whatever may be the opinion of her Majesty's Government with respect to the general nature of that office, with respect to the policy Of maintaining it fur agy length of time as part of the govetumeot of the United Kingdom, we are clearly and unanimously of opinion, that the present circumstances of Ireland do not ad- mit of such a change of authority as would be necessarily effected by the legible.- five measures which would have to be introduced on a change in the mode In which the government of Ireland is administered. We have therefore thought it absolutely necessary to advise her Majesty to fill OP the office of Lord-Lieutenant.*

. .

Prtotirarrios OF Guars IN Diurratitants. On Monday, Mr. HENRY BAIIIAE asked whether Government intended to prohibit distillation from grain, in consequenceof the scarcity of provisiens? Sir CHARLES WOOD" replied in the negative. Such a course would cause great inconvenience. 'Nothing would give so great a stimulus to illicit distillation. ea the stoppage of the legal traffic. In Ireland, at this moment, where want.-might have been suppesed to arrest- it, illicit distillation prevails. At the present time- too; the measure could produce little effect. About 1,300,000 crarters are used in distillation every year: of that quantity 1,000,000 quarters is already used; only abent 300,000 inure would be used before the harvest, and 100,000 of these had bean already prepared; so that the utmost advantage that would be derived from stopping distillation from grain would only involve about 200;000 quarters, which had probably been already bought by distillers,-and which they would be compelled by such a coital to sell. Distillation from sugar was already carried on in Glasgow and other parts of the country; and notice had been given by some large distillers in the Metropolis that they were about to commence it on a large scale. Any obstacle that stood in the way of distillation from sugar would be removed; and he be- lieved it would be carried on to a very great extant, and would have a very con- siderable advantage in price.

EXCISE REFORM. On Thursday, Mr. MOFFATT moved that the House resolve itself into Committee to consider the propriety of assimilating the warehousing system for Home and Colonial spirits. He was satisfied that the revenue would not eventually suffer by the measure; which was unanimously desired by the Irish and Scotch distillers, and in England opposed only by two or three. Sir CHARLES WOOD said, that in the first instance at least the revenue would suffer; and if the Irish and Scotch distillers demanded the measure, they should be pre- pared to give up the differential duty on Colonial spirits. The motion was sup- ported by Mr. HUME and Mr. RARELY: but on a division it was negatived, by 56 to 51. Mr. Mosrarr again moved for a Committee of the whole Howse,- to permit British spirits to be rectified in bond, and warehoused, for exportation. Sir CHARLES WOOD objected, that, if spirits were to go from the distillers to the rectifier's, and duty were charged only on the quantity that left the rectifier's, the revenue would not be protected against fraud. Again supported by Mr. Hoax and Mr. BARELY, with Mr. FORBES, the motion was negatived, by 63 to 56. .

REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT LN THE COLONIES. In reply to Mr. Mintz, on Monday, Mr. Hawes stated, that a measure was in contemplation, be might say in preparation, to give the benefits of the British constitution to the Australian Colonies generally, which would undoubtedly comprehend Van Die- men's Land; though the relative proportions of free and convict labour occasioned difficulties in that colony.

ENGLISH FOOD Rims. In reply to Mr. Esoorr, on Monday, Sir GEORGE GREY stated that the authorities in Cornwall, Exeter, and Taunton, had taken very judicious measures to suppress the disturbances; and he hoped that there was no cause for alarm with respect to the future. On Thursday again, hie GEORGE GREY made a similar statement.

lantansatrata aim OXFORD JuNcrIoie. In the House of Commons, -es Tuesday, on the motion for considering the report of the Committee on the Bir- mingham and Oxford Junction, and the Birmingham, Dudley, and Welverhem ton -Railways Amalgamation Bill Sir FREDERICK THESIORR, moved that t bill be referred back to the Committee, in order that the petition of Sir

Verney and certain other shareholders of the Birmingham and Oxford Company against the amalgamation might be considered. The Committee bad refused to entertain the petition, and Sir Frederick contended for the rights of the petitioners to be heard; in support of which, he cited cases as if he were pleading at the bar. Mr. GM/LIMBS, as Chairman of the Committee, explained at length the reasons which had swayed that body in their decision —mainly, that indivi- dual shareholders had no locus standi againsttheir own directors. On a division, Sir Frederick's motion was negatived, by 214 to 62.

THE DERBY DAY. On Tuesday, Lord GEORGE Bus-mice moved that !At. House at its rising adjourn till Thursday: a motion which he supported:0 this speech—"Sir, for more than half a century the Derby has been a 113(.4 )g #0112 holyduy." Mr. Hums, and some other Members, showed a dispositiou to Welt

- to basinees; but, after a few words of discussion, the motion was adopted. Neither House sat on Wednesday.

THE WHITSUNTIDE ADJOURNMENT. The House of Lords adjourned on Thursday, till Friday the 28th instant.

PROGRESS OF RAILWAY HILTS IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

'snsASIBLEs Paovno tx oosimirree. May 17.—Colchester-Stour-Valley. Sudbu ry- and-Halstead Railway (extensions to Melford, Lavenbaw, and Clare). Ayrshire-and- Galloway (Stnithstownk to Daihnellingtow).

May 20.—Eastern-Union and Hadleigh Junction (sale to the Eastern Union Com- pany). Glasgow-Dumfries-and Carlisle and Glasgow Paisley-Kilmarnock-and-Ayr (No. 2). Caledonian (branches from the Clydesdale Junction to the Douglas and Les- mahagow Mineral Fields and to Strathavon). Caledonian (extension of Motherwell branch of Clydesdale Junction to Auchinheath Mineral Field, with branches to the Wishaw-and-Coltness Cauderdde-and- Hamilton). Caledonian (branches to Wilson- town, lauldhouse, Biggar, and Broughton).

PROGRESS OF RAILWAY BILLS LN THE HOUSE OF CODIMONS.

PlELMoims PaovnD ill Cconarrros. May 17.—London. and-Blackwell (improvement and branches). London-and-South-western (Andover to the Bishopstoke-and-Sells bury branch). Weymouth-and-Melcombe-Regis, Harbour and Bridge Trusts. Coven- try-Banbury and-Oxford junction. Newport-Abergavenny-and-Hereford Railway de- viations. Newport-Abergavent.y-and-Hereford (extension to Taff Vale). Eastern- Counties (Wisbesch to Spalding). Great-Northern (branch to Ring's Lynn), proved Ibr that portion of the line between Sutton Street and Mary's and Sutton Bridge. Manchester-Shediehl-and-Lincolnshire (South-liorneastle and East-Lincolnshire). Great-Northern (Eastern Junction, &c.) Great-Northern (deviations between Gains- boroNlt and Doncaster). London-and-North western (Lime Street, Liverpool, Ma tion, &c.) May 18.—Great-Northern (deviations between London and Grantham) (in part proved). Edinburgh-and-Northern (Burntisland pier, ferry, purchase, &c.) Nay 19.—Birmingham-Wolverhampton-end-Stour-Valley (No. I). Shropshire- Union, Jsc. Birmingham-Wolverhampton-and-Stour-Valley (No. 2). London-and- Noalk-western (Portobello branch. &c.) 4fay 20.—Eastern-Counties (enlargement of the London and Stratford station). East- ern Counties (Cambridge-Royston and-Ware, &c.) Royston-and-Meth Amendment Act (lease or sale of line). Midland (Gloucester-and-Stonehouse)unction). Great- Northern (branch to Hornoastle and at Brayford Mere, Lincoln). Leeds Central Rail- way Station. Dundee and-Perth (alteration and extension, and Inchture. Polgavie, and Inclunichael branches). Dundee-and-Newtyle. Airdrie-and-Bathgate Junction (ashendment and deviation). May 21.—Derbyshire-Staffordshire-and.Worcestershire Junction. Scottish-311411=1 Junction, branch to Laurencekirk.