to the present measure, but was one which might fairly be discussed as an amendment upon the Poor-law Amendment Act. In regard to the particular proposition of the hon. Member, he did not see any reason why they should interfere on the subject. Orders had been given to relieve widows resident within the union; but with regard to those who were non-resident, he thought the general rule was, that they had no claim to relief. Any departure from that rule, he was afraid, would lead to very great abuses. It had frequently happened that those who were non-resident had come to the union and represented themselves as paupers, while, in fact, they were earning good wages in a neighbouring district. There was no mode in which imposition was more likely to take place than by relieving such persons. For these reasons the commissioners did not think it necessary to extend relief to such cases, and for himself he did not think it expedient to introduce any special provision on the subject.

noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) should object to the motion of the hon. Member for Norfolk on the ground of informality. If the House should support the noble Lord in that objection, there would be at once, for this Session, an end to every possibility of that control being exercised by the House over the proceedings of the Poor-law Commissioners which was originally contemplated, and which circumstances had shown to be absolutely necessary. As regarded the instruction moved, the reports of the Commissioners laid on the table of the House during the present Session, proved that it was imperatively called for. The committee of 1838 recommended strongly that widows, with families, should be, in deserving cases, relieved out of the work house. The Commissioners had not attended to that recommendation. On the contrary, in their reports presented this year, they referred expressly to the case of widows with families; they stated, that there were no less than 28,880 able-bodied widows (such was the expression of the Commissioners) with large families receiving out-door re

Mr. Hume had been informed, by different guardians of the poor, that they had not seen the assistant-commissioners, nor heard of them, for many months. He could not, then, see the use of the large number of commissioners proposed by the bill. He deeply regretted that the other bill on this question had not passed, as various complaints had been made of the want of powers in the commissioners to carry out what he believed to be a correct system of Poor-laws.

Lord Worsley said, that the guardians had, in many instances, received great assistance from the assistant-commissicners, but he was informed, that for some time past they had not been seen or heard of. He hoped, therefore, that as the necessity for their services was diminished, the assistant-commissioners would be discontinued.

strictly applied, and all out-door relief withdrawn, and that thus the country would be relieved from a great expense with which it was fraudulently burthened. To such a ridiculous extent, ridiculous, at least, if not attended with so much misery, did the Commissioners proceed in carrying out their favourite principles, that they complained that some of those widows worked for almost incredibly small sums, in order to eke out the small pittance received from the guardians. Instead of giving these poor persons credit for their industry, the Commissioners pointed it out as a serious evil, and stated gravely the low rate at which stays and shirts were made as an especial grievance. There were other instances of the manner in which the Commissioners had neglected the opinion of the House, as expressed in the report of the committee of 1838. That committee came to the resolution that, under the New Poor-law, relief to the aged and infirm had been administered more freely than under the old law, that relief in those cases was generally given out of the house, and the committee approved and recommended the continuance of this system. Had the Commissioners attended to this recommendation? On

Mr. Law Hodges hoped his hon. Friend would not, after what had fallen from the noble Lord, press his amendment.

Mr. Benjamin Wood was inclined to support the amendment, for he believed that the boards of guardians could carry the Poor-law into effect, as well without the aid of assistant-commissioners as with it. There was very little left for the assistant-commissioners to do, there being only 799 parishes throughout England that had not been incorporated with the unions.

Sir R. Price thought the hon. Member for Kilkenny ought to be satisfied with the declaration made by the noble Lord, that the Government would not allow more assistant-commissioners than were absolutely necessary to carry this great measure into effect.

Mr. Hume was as great a friend to the principle of the Poor-law as any man, and his wish was to make it popular, by rendering it as cheap in its administration as possible. What had been said by the noble Lord, appeared to him very fair, and was a good ground for him to withdraw his amendment.

Hon. Members would not allow the amendment to be withdrawn, and the Committee divided on the question, that the proviso be added: Ayes 11; Noes 61: Majority 50.

On the first clause,

Lord J. Russell said, it had been made a matter of complaint that the number of assistant-commissioners was too great, and it was supposed that these assistant-commissioners had nothing to do after the formation of the Poor-law unions. The Poor-law commissioners, however, asserted the contrary. The subject would undergo a strict inquiry, and if a reduction in their number could be made, it would be carried into effect.

Mr. Hume said, the present number of assistant-commissioners was seventeen, the original number having been nine. He thought that was a proper number for the House to adopt; he should therefore propose to add these words to the first clause" Provided also that the number of such assistant-commissioners shall not, after the 31st of March, 1841, exceed

Muntz, G. F. Parker, R. T. Pechell, Capt. Round, J.

Wakley, T.
Wood, B.

TELLERS.

Sibthorp, Col.
Hodgson, E.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.
Archbold, R.
Bailey, J.
Baines, E.
Baring, rt. hon, F. T.
Berkeley, hon. C.
Bramston, T. W.
Brotherton, J.
Buller, C.
Buller, E.
Busfeild, W.
Clay, W.
Cochrane, Sir T. J.
Darby, G.
Eliot, L.
Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Evans, W.
Gordon, R.

On the first clause,

Lord Colchester rose for the purpose of moving the omission of certain words in order that its operation might be more extensive. The object of the bill was to prevent the great loss of vessels employed in the transportation of timber from North America. In the last session a committee of the House of Commons had been appointed to inquire into the subject, and from the evidence adduced before that committee it appeared that the loss of vessels employed in this trade had for a series of years been lamentably great. The committee, in their report, state

"In 1838, eighteen ships are reported as wrecked on the shore, and forty-eight at sea; of twenty-seven of which there had been no accounts of the crews; of the remaining twenty-one the sufferings of the crews of two had been extreme; in one, the Earl Moira, four bodies only having been found under the maintop, all dead, with part of one of their comrades hung up like butcher's meat in a stall; and in the other, the Anna Maria, five bodies were found dead, with part of the leg of a woman by the side of one of them, who had evidently been feeding upon it; and one more, the Frederick, of St. John's, fallen in with by the Hope, with her crew lashed to the maintop, without the power of assisting them."

The noble Lord quoted other passages

73 ships, with crews amounting to 949 men, were lost in three years. The committee having thus stated their opinion. that the carrying of deck loads of timber was the cause of such a fearful loss of life and property, an act was passed, in conformity with their recommendation, confining to the summer months the liberty of loading the decks with timber, and excluding the winter months. That measure, however, only applied to vessels crossing the Atlantic to the ports of the United Kingdom, and he wished to extend it to vessels proceeding to the West India colonies. He should, therefore, propose to strike out the word "any ports of the United Kingdom," for the purpose of rendering the provisions of the bill more extensively efficient.

Viscount Duncannon believed, that the noble Lord had not exaggerated the extent of the losses sustained in this particular trade; and he also was of opinion that those losses were occasioned by piling up large quantities of timber on

the decks of these vessels. He was anxious to adopt any measure that appeared likely to check such an evil; but many difficulties presented themselves against adopting the proposition of the noble Lord. Last year, when the subject was under consideration, the strongest possible representations were made to the Government from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, all of them setting forth, that if the bill was attempted to be applied to the colonial passages of timber ships, it would, in fact, put an end to that part of the trade between North America and the West Indies, which was one of the most important portions of their traffic. He could not, therefore, agree to the amendment.

Lord Ashburton concurred in the observations of the noble Viscount: if the restriction, with respect to deck-loading, were extended to timber ships bound to the West-India colonies, it would immediately put an end to the trade in lumber. Amendment withdrawn, bill went through Committee.

House resumed.

TEETOTALERS (IRELAND).] The Marquess of Westmeath said, he saw by the papers of this day a proclamation, purporting to have been issued by the Lordlieutenant of Ireland, on the subject of