;Debates anti ifirOttebillgS in fiarlfament.

RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, Mr. STRUTT moved the order of the day for the second reading of the Railways Bill. He entered into a very long explanation of the bill; his speech not differing in many points from that with which he first introduced the measure, but he took new pains to show that the objections to the bill were not founded in reason.

Some had contended that when Gladstone's Act passed, in 1844, there was a tacit compact between Government and the Railway interests, that there should be no further legislation on the subject. That, however, is disproved by the de- bate that occurred in May 1845, when Lord Wharnclite moved a clause to be added to all railway bills declaring that nothing contained in such bills should exempt railways from the provision of any general act that might subsequently be passed; and an addition was subsequently moved, by Lord Howick, more spe- cifically alluding to the power of altering the provisions respecting rates, fares, and charges. These clauses were passed with hardly a dissentient voice. Mr. Strati contended that the provisions respecting engineering, by which surveyors are allowed to enter a property of a landowner, under security of compensation for damage that they might do, and by which the Committee examine into engineer- ing details, their report being conclusive though subject to correction on matters of fact, would facilitate the passage of railway acts. Mr. Strutt contented himself with reiterating several other provisions, together with the assertion of their equity. In the course of his speech he declared his decided opinion, that nothing Gould be more injurious to all parties than that any public board appointed for the su- pervision of railways should take upon itself even the appearance of interfering nt the management of railways. He went on to show, that the requiring of re- turns on the subject of punctuality, information desirable for the guidance of Par- liamentary Committees, or for the convenience of the public, &c., were not pro- perly to be called " interference," were not likely to be vexatious or troublesome, and were justified by the precedent of foreign railways. And as to the objection that disclosures of private or confidential matters might thus be made, he did not know what private or confidential matters there could be connected with a rail- way to disclose. There was not in the whole bill any provision which made rail- way companies liable to summary conviction before a magistrate, or liable to any penalty on information; all penalties being recoverable at suit of the Crown only by action at law in the superior courts. He bad said thus much to remove misapprehensions respecting the nature of the bill. It had been expected that the bill would pass at an early period of the session; but, under the pressure of Irish affairs, it had been postponed from month to month. Under these circumstances, it was scarcely possible that such a bill could undergo consideration without great delay, or could pass at this period of the session. Government thought, therefore, that they would act wisely by not entering into a long discussion upon a question of this kind, which could lead to no useful result1 and the course, therefore, which they had thought the best under existing circumstances, was to withdraw the bill for the present session.

Mr. Strutt moved that the order of the day for the second reading be discharged.

[This announcement was followed by expressions of surprise, mingled with laughter; which was increased at observing the excessive mirth of Mr. Hudson; Colonel Sibthorp being the only Member near him who remained perfectly grave.] - In the brief discussion which ensued, Colonel SIBTRORP denounced the Government for its excessive vacillation and trifling. Talk of bringing in a bill next session I—they dared not do it. Mr. ROEBUCK followed on the same side. Even the listening to this two-hours speech from Mr. Strutt, he said, was a waste of time. Mr. HUDSON expressed his acknowledg- ments to Mr. Strutt for having withdrawn the bill; an extremely wise course. He enlarged on the immense value of railway property, now amounting to nearly 200,000,0001. sterling. In reply to Mi. ROEBUCK and Mr. COLLETT, Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated that the Railways (Ireland) Bill would be pressed this session. The debate was closed by Mr. CARDWELL, with a caution to Govern- ment against attempting to enforce an authority in railway matters which was not necessary. The order of the day for the second reading of the bill was discharged.

REMOVAL OF PAUPERS.

Mr. Bankes's Poor-Removal Act Amendment Bill [repealing the act of last session] stood for a second reading on Wednesday; and the general policy of the measure was the subject of a close discussion.

On the one aide it was contended, that the act was a very necessary in- terference in behalf of the poor paupers not resident in the parish which is liable to their maintenance; they being subject to great hardship. More- over, the Poor-Removal Act was represented as having caused a large amount of litigation. This view was supported by Captain PECHELL, Mr. ROBERT PALMER, the Marquis of GRANBY, Mr. SPOONER, (who approved of the act of last year, but saw the hard working of the legal construction which had been put upon it,) Mr. EDWARD Rica, and Mr. MILES. On the other hand it was shown, by a considerable preponderance of facts and arguments, that upon the whole the operation of the bill has been advantageous to all. parties. Although some legal disputes have ne- cessarily occurred under the first working of the measure, the amount of litigation abolished, especially on the subject of settlement, is far more considerable. In the large county of Cheshire, for instance, as Sir JOHN Pes.firdrox mentioned,' there has not been a single appeal under the act. Some hardship has occurred to. the poor where Boards of Guardians, un- der a misconception, have refused to carry out the act; supposing that they could thus drive away the poor from certain districts, and save expense to themselves. But, upon the whole, the liability to removal occasioned far more extensive and painful hardships to the poor than any which had occurred under the bill; and as the local authorities become better acquainted with the real nature of the law, its operation becomes more effectual. To this view there was the testimony of Sir Jonw PA- KINOTON, Sir GEORGE GREY, Mr. VERNON SMITH, Sir JAMES GRAHAM, and Mr. CHARLES Bruxan.

Incidentally occurred a discussion on the conduct of the Select Com- mittee to whom the Poor-Removal Act had been referred. Captain PEC.HELL mentioned a report that the Committee had closed its labours without doing anything at all; and Sir JOHN PAKINGTON mentioned a ru- mour that the members of the Committee had adopted among themselves some resolution of an important character, but had determined by a major- ity not to report that resolution to the House. Sir GEORGE GREY, and more distinctly Sir JAMES GRAHAM, explained, that by an excellent regu- lation of the House, what had actually passed in Committee would be made known by the report of the proceedings in the Committee; and it would appear that there prevailed a general if not unanimous opinion among the members of the Committee, that the Poor-law would require a very extensive change: a considerable majority of the Committee thought that the law of re- moval ought to be abolished; next, that a wider area should be given to rating; and thirdly, that the power of revising the unions afforded the best field for the extended area Mr. CHARLES Brmum, Chairman of the Com- mittee, explained more in detail what it bad done. It had diligently collected a great amount ofevidence from men possessing the most practicalknowledge ; it had received a number of suggestions and plans, some of which it had adopted—Mr. Poulett Scrope, for instance, had .proposed a plan which was to be incorporated in the report of the Committee; and on the whole the report of the Committee would furnish ample materials for legislation in a future session. Government would not lose sight of the question.

On a division, the motion for the second reading of Mr. Bankes's bill was negatived, by 105 to 102.

POOR-LAW ADMINISTRATION.

On Thursday, Sir GEORGE GREY moved the order of the day for the third reading of the Poor-law Administration Bill.

Mr. WAKLEY moved as an amendment, that the bill be read a third time that day three months; and spoke at considerable length against the measure.

He objected to the manifest intention of retaining the Poor-law Commissioners, who have been condemned by all parties. He showed that the bill would confer very large legislative and executive functions on the new Commissioners. By the seventh clause, the President is enabled to act in all cases except making the general rules and orders; that President would be nominated by the Ministers of the Crown; he would be the servant of the Ministers of the Crown, sitting and voting with those Ministers in the Commission. The eighth clause authorizes such salaries for secretaries and clerks as might be approved of by the Lords of the Treasury—in other words, such salaries as might be approved of by the Ministers themselves sitting in that Commission. Ministers would decide in their executive capacity that upon which they would afterwards have to judge as Members of the

House; which must lead to embarrassment. Every question relating to the Poor-law previously decided in the Commission will be made a Government question; and it is easy to see that in such a state of things the interests of the poor must suffer. In 1834, the country never would have sanctioned the proposition to in- trust the power conveyed by the Poor-law to the Executive Government. Vir tnally, too, it transfers an immense amount of patronage; for if the bill passed into a law, an immense number of offices would be held at the pleasure of the

Government: there are 590 unions, each with its workhouse-master, its school- master, its clerk to the Board of Guardians; there are 2,000 relieving-officers, and probably 3,000 medical officers. One effect would be, that the clerk to the

Board of Guardians would endeavour to throw into the board as much political power as possible; and thus party strife would be mixed up with the interests of the poor.

Mr. Wakley contended that the Poor-law has not done what it was intended to accomplish—to raise wages, make the poor independent, diminish crime, and lessen the number of illegitimate children: and he entered freely into many of the old objections against the mode of administering relief,—the niggardly allowance, the extent of the unions, and the imperfect medical relief. On the subject of

illegitimacy he made some startling statements, [not reported,] to show the manner in which medical skill is defeated by those who are resolved that children shall he still-born; and the fact is that an enormous number of still-born children are now found dead in all the great towns of the kingdom. The amendment was seconded by Mr. FEERAND; who supported it with a very long and discursive speech, ranging over the whole subject of Poor-

law: the 43d of Elizabeth—the agitation out of doors against it—Mr. Lewis, and the prosecution against Mr. Ferrand—separation of man and wife, &c. ro &c.

In the course of his speech he condemned the small remuneration allowed to medical officers, which in many unions does not exceed 4d. or 6d. each case. He was once told by a medical officer in his own neighbourhood, that he had in hand the case of a man whose life he could have saved with ease, but that it would cost him more than his salary to do so, and therefore the man must die. Mr. Ferrand told another story to prove that the poor are "murdered." A woman was starving; her daughter applied to the relieving-officer; he refused to relieve her; at the inquest he produced an order from the Commissioners not to cross the line of a certain boundary to relieve any person who belonged to the union immediately beyond that boundary. In this case it appeared that the woman did not live a dozen yards from the boundary which divided the unions. The verdict was " starved to death": Mr. Ferrand said she was murdered.

Mr. ROEBUCK, in a plain and vigorous speech, replied to the two ob- jectors— The real question for discussion was the constitution of the Board : the real question was, whether by the bill that Board could be rendered more efficient and responsible: and therefore it was not the time to discuss the whole of the present. Poor-law, or the law of the 43d of Elizabeth. He contended that the bill would effect an improvement. The Commissioners had not to be charged so much with harshness, as with vacillation and yielding to clamour and cant, both in Parlia- ment and out of doors. If, however, there were one Commissioner in that House who might be questioned at all times by Members of Parliament, they would see that occur which had occurred with regard to the administration of Indian affairs.

The Indian Board was assailed just as the Poor-law Commission is now assailed —only it was by the magnificent eloquence of Burke, instead of by Mr. Ferrand: now they saw the calm quiet, the perfect peace of mind, with which Sir John Hobhouse sat smiling before them.

As Mr. Ferrand's statements derived some importance from being uttered in that House, he would condescend to answer them. Mr. Ferrand made two charges of " murder." One statement was, that a medical officer had contravened lux duty, because the medicine would cost as much as his salary: Mr. Roebuck demanded the name of the officer who had contravened his duty; for if he had said what Mr. Fernand reported of him, he had asserted a falsehood. The medi- cine is not paid for out of the salary, but out of the poor-rates. In the other case, Mr. Ferrand tried to prove that the Commissioners had "murdered" a wo- man: how was that case made out? The child of the woman appealed to the relieving-officer; who showed an order of the Poor-law Commissioners to justify his refusal. Now the House must remember, that the orders of the Commissioners are laid before Parliament, and if not overruled are tacitly sanctioned by Parlia- ment By this rule, relief could not be given beyond a certain district. It ap- peared, then, that the child applied to the wrong officer. Bat as hunger does not kill like the sword or prussic acid, even if she had gone to the wrong officer there was no reason why she should not afterwards have gone to the right officer. Was that evidence, then, to • ve a charge of "murder" against three officers of the Crown—they sitting in don, and the transactions in question having oc- curred in Yorkshire?

Mr. Roebuck replied to what Mr. Wakley had said on the bastardy clauses. From Mr. Wakley s own account it was evident, that the persons who had baffled medical skill were not paupers,—that in fact it was not the bastardy clauses which urged them to the crime, but the rigid rules of society, which brand with shame those who yield to the seducer. He had seen much of the administration of the law—much of women who had destroyed their offspring: it was not, how- seer, from want, but shame. He vindicated the bastardy clauses as doing all that was required by justice; and more briefly defended other parts of the law. At the proper time he should be prepared to move that out-dbor relief ought to be afforded to the aged and infirm.-

Mr. FERRAND, in-explanation, said that his authority in the former of the two oases mentioned was Mr. Guthrie, the eminent surgeon of London; who stated to a Select Committee, in May 1845, that a medical officer, even if properly qualified, would not be able to do his duty from the small- ness of his allowance.

The amendment was supported by Mr. Frursoutr, Mr. HENLEY, Cap- tain PECHELL, Mr. BORTHW/CK, Mr. GEORGE BANKES, and Colonel Commenting on the excessively discursive nature of the debate, Sir GEORGE GREY briefly defended the principle of the bill, as providing for the maintenance of a central superintending authority immediately re- sponeible to Parliament.

The House divided; and the third reading was carried, by 105 to 35.

Then followed several attempts to make material modifications of the bill by additional clauses. Mr. Sroowest moved a clause annulling any order of the Commissioners which may have prohibited out-door relief to the able-bodied. In objecting to the clause, Sir GEORGE GREY stated that the prohibitory order applies only to the able-bodied: it is not the usual practice to force the aged or infirm into the house. Mr. WAKLEY and other Members maintained, that in many unions it is the practice to do so. Eventually the clause was negatived, by 109 to 37.

• Mr. BORTHWICK moved a clause providing that married couples above sixty years of age, received into a workhouse, shall not be compelled to live separately and apart. Sir GEORGE GREY objected to a compulsory law on the subject. It is now the rule in workhouses not to enforce the separation against aged couples, if there is room; but a compulsory law might occasion serious inconvenience at times of great crowding into work- houses. Lord Joins RUSSELL proposed an amendment declaring that Boards of Guardians should be " at liberty " to adopt the clause. After a sharp discussion,—in which Mr. ROEBUCK and other defenders of the law supported the clause,—Lord John's amendment was negatived, by 70 to 55; and after more disputation, Mr. Borthwick's clause was adopted.

Mx ETWALL moved a clause directing that all meetings of Boards of Guardians should be open to the rate-payers. This, unopposed by Minis- ters, was adopted.

Some other amendments,—to annul the existing orders, &c. within six months after passing of the act; to limit the duration of the present bill to one year; and to vest the appointment of Secretaries directly in the Crown, so as to vacate a seat in Parliament,—were negatived by decisive majorities; and the bill passed.

BISHOPS IN THE HOUSE OF PEERS.

On Tuesday, before the Peers went into Committee on the Bishopric of Manchester Bill, the Bishop of EXETER took exception, pro forma, to a passage in the preamble, in which regard was had "to the circumstance that her Majesty's Government did not contemplate the issue of a writ to the new Bishops to sit and vote as Peers of Parliament, except as vacancies should from time to time occur among Bishops of England and Wales now so sitting and voting"— Now, there is a grave doubt whether that is consistent with the law, and the privileges of the House. Lord Coke and Sir Matthew Hale laid it down that the Crown was bound, ex debito justifies, to issue a writ of summons to Parliament to every Bishop qua bishop, not only in the case of bishoprics already existing, but of every one that might exist. The House having gone into Committee, clause 1 was adopted ; but on clause 2, enacting that the number of Lords Spiritual should not be in- creased, Lord REDESDALE moved to substitute the following—

"And whereas doubts may arise whether Bishops of the new sees to be esta- blished under the powers of this act may not demand as of right writs of sum- Mena to Parliament, be it enacted, pursuant to the declaration of her Majesty hereinbefore recited, that until her Majesty shall be graciously pleased to summon to Parliament any Bishop holding one of the said sees, no Bishop holding that see shall be entitled to demand as of right a writ of summons to Parliament."

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE opposed the amendment, as materially al- tering the character of the bill—

The second clause of the bill provided, that when there was a vacancy among the Lords Spiritual, by the avoidance of any of the sees of Canterbury, York, London, Durham, or Winchester, such vacancy should be supplied by the issue of a writ of summons to the Bishop who should be elected to the same see; but that if such vacancy was caused by avoidance of any other see in England or Wales, such vacancy should be supplied by the issue of a writ of summons to the Bishop who first did homage for his see, or for any other see in England or Wales of those who had not previously become entitled to such writ. The bill, there- fore, would not interfere in the slightest degree with the prerogative of the Crown.

The amendment was supported by Lord STANLEY and the Marquis of

BUTE. "

The LORD CHANCELLOR denied that the proposed regulation in the oils • ginal clause would violate the privileges either of the Crown, the Bench, or the House. A Temporal Peer possesses the right in his own person to assert the right of his successor; which is not the case with a Spiritual Peer. Nor is the succession of new Prelates by rotation to coats in the House without precedent; such being the arrangement with the Irish Bishops.

The Bishop of EXETER persisted, that, according to his impression, if Parliament created a new bishopric, it was not only the right but also thus duty of the Crown to issue a writ of summons to the individual nominated to that see.

The Bishop of LONDON supported the bill as it stood— The amendment might lay a Bishop open to injurious imputations, if he were to vote with the Government and afterwards to be summoned to the House; whereas the plan embodied in the bill would not be open to that objection. The new Bishops would have the great advantage of residing for some years in their dioceses, and of becoming well acquainted with their clergy, before being called away to attend in the House of Lords. Upon the whole, while he did not think that the interests of the Church could be adequately represented by a less number of Bishops in that House, he yet doubted much whether it would be for the real interest of the Church to increase that number.

On a division, the original clause was affirmed, by 44 to 14. The re- mainder of the clauses were adopted, and the House resumed.

INCREASE OF BISHOPS IN IRELAND. In the House of Lords, on Monday, the Archbishop of DUBLIN moved the second reading of the Church Temporali- ties Acts Improvement (Ireland) Bill. The object of this bill was to enable the Crown to appoint Bishops for any sees superseded or united under the Church Temporalities Act. More supervision was rendered necessary by the scattered state of the Protestant population in Ireland, and the consequent extent of the sees. The bill, however, would not compel the Crown to do so; nor would it need the reclaiming any part of the revenues which had been removed; provision being otherwise made for the support of the sees. For instance, if the Bishopric of Kil- dare were revived, it might be held with the Provostahip of Dublin University. The motion was supported by the Bishop of Exsren. The Marquis of LANS- DOWNE opposed it. The Protestant population of Ireland is scattered over a very wide surface, but does not exceed the Protestant population of t eo English sees which he could name. The Establishment of Ireland is fully adequate to the wants of that country; and he could not think that the House would be justified in reversing its past decision. The Bishop of SALISBURY suggested that the bill should be withdrawn for the present. And this was done.

RAILWAY ACCIDENTS. In reply to Mr. RICE, on Thursday, Mr. Srnerr stated,. that, under the provisions of the present law, the company on whose line an accident occurs must give notice of the occurrence to the Railway Commis- sioners within forty-eight hours. He stated what had been done with regard to the three important accidents that bad lately occurred—at the Dee Bridge, at the Wolverton station, and on the Brighton and Chichester Line. Captain Symonds • was sent down to the Dee Bridge, and made a report; on which the Commission- ers have come to the conclusion that further experiment is necessary with regard to the use of cast-iron in railway bridges. Railway companies throughout Eng- land have been requested to make a descriptive return of all the cast-iron bridges on their line, and to strengthen any whose stability is doubtful. With respect to the accident at the Wolverton station, the Directors have been requested to place Captain Symonds in communication with Captain Hindi, the superintendent of the line, in order to draw up regulatioes for the prevention of similar accidents; and Captain Symonds has prepared some rules accordingly. Captain Coddington and Mr. Murray, a gentleman recommended by the Admiralty, have entered upon an inquiry respecting the third accident.

DUTY ON COPPER. On Monday, Mr. RASHLEIGH produced a petition from Cornwall, signed by 11,000 inhabitants, against any reduction of the duty on foreign copper. It was of immense size, and the House laughed thereat.. Mr. MUNTZ then moved, "That the House resolve itself into a Committee of Cus- toms, to consider the duties upon the importation of copper (Act 5th and 6th Victoria, c. 47,) with a view to their reduction or abolition.' Mr. EWART se- conded the motion; which was also supported by Lord &Lvov's., Mr. SPOONER, and Mr. WILLIAM Snow's. Sir CHARLES LEMON anxiously pressed upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to commit himself to any opinion upon this sub- ject until it had been fairly inquired into. He deprecated interference in a law which was working well and beneficially to an parties, simply because incident- ally such duty did act as a protection. Sir CHARLES WOOD pleaded the state of the revenue as preventing him from making any reduction of duty whatever: he could not spare even so small a sum as 50,0001 The motion was also deprecated, as detrimental to Cornish interests, by Lord WILLIAM Ranuerr, .Mr. CAREW, Mr. RASHLEIGH, Lord GEORGE BKNTINCE, (who jocosely observed that the two Members for Birmingham seemed pro hdc owe to be "gemini,") Mr. EDMUND TURNER, Captain VIVIAN, Mr. NEWDEGATE, Sir GEORGE CLERK, and Mr. GEORGE PALMER. On a division, the motion was negatived, by 59 to 19.

THE SEDUCTION AND PROSTITUTION SUPPRESSION BILL passed through Committee on Wednesday. On the motion that it be reported, Mr. ROEBUCK objected to the principle of the bill; for the House was travelling out of the real province of legislation, into the province of simple morality. He also objected to the excessive punishments to be inflicted under the bill, and to the facility which it afforded for making any man the victim of the vilest conspiracy. He pointed out the mode in which conspiracies to extort money might be got up under the second clause. Sir GEORGE GREY defended the bill; but suggested that this questionable part should be revised. Eventually, the motion to report was carried, by 86 to 21; and the House resumed.

PROGRESS OF RAILWAY BILLS IN PARLIAMENT.

COMMONS.

PREAMBLES PROVED IN COMMITTEE. June 9.3d.—Eastern-Countles to Tilbury Fort, &c. June 24511.—York-and-Newcastle (main line improvement, &c.)

LORDS.

Pease's/se rewrap rN CosturrrEE. June 'M.—North-Staffordshire (alterations and branches). Ecittilittrgh-and-lialhgate.

June 2Ist.—Dun14.and-Newtyle. London-and-North-western (Newport-l'agnell- Olney-and-Welllngborongh branch). London-and-North-western (Atherstone-and- Whi(acre branch). Manchester-and-Birmingham and North-Staffordshire Junction. East-Lothian-Central. Boston-Stamford-and-Birmingham (Peterborough-and-Thor- ney line). Parkgate-Chester-and-Birkenhead Junction. Aberdeen-and-Great-North-or- Scotland (amalgamation or leasing). Swansea-and-Amman Junction, Derbyshire- Staffordshire- and - Worcestershire Jueetion. Glasgow -Knmarnock - and -Ardrossan (amendment, deviation, and branches). Glasgow Paisley Kilmarnock-and-Ayr (No.

2). Royston-and-Hitchin (sale or lease). „,

June 22d.—Waterford-and-Limerick. Glasgow-Domfries-and-Carllsle (No. 1). Pais- ley-and-Renfrew (sale and improvement). East-Lothlan Central.

June 23d.—Waterford-and-Limerick.

June 24th.—Caledonlan (branches to Canoble, Newport-Abergavenny-and- Hereford (extension to Taff Vale). Chard Canal and Railway (extension and amalga• mation) Birkenhead-Lancashire-and-Cheshire Junction (purchase or amalgamation)• EdInburgh-and-Northern (BurntIsland pier, Re.) South-Staffordshire (Carnock, Re. branches) Lynn-and-Ely (Lynn-and.Wormgay navigation). Lynn-and-Ely (devia- tion and King's Lynn Docks). ROYAL ASSENT.

June 25th.—Windsor-Stalnee-and-South-western (Staines and Ascot, and Wokingham branches). - Windsor-Stalnes-and-South-western (Richmond to Windsor COrk-Blael- rock-and-Passage. Wilts-Somerset-and-Weymouth (No. I.) Waterford-Wes.ford- Wleklow-wid-Dublin. Liakeard-and-Caradon. Wexford-and-Valencia. Lowestoft Hallway and Harbour (alteration near Reedhatn). Dundalk-and-Enniskillen. King's- Norton-Northfield-Deverley-and-Edgbaston.