in the relations following—marriages with a brother's
widow, 41; own aunt, 6; own niece, 19; wife's daughter, 6;
own half-sister, 1; father's wife, 1; brother's wife's
daughter, 1; son's wife, 2; uncle's wife, 3; wife's
niece, 11. The marriages with the wife's sister were
"almost without one exception" in the upper and middle
ranks of life; and the other marriages were mostly in
those ranks. In one of the marriages with an uncle's
wife, the parties were a clergyman and a peeress. The
cases of marriage with the aunt and the niece were those
of tradesmen, yeomen, and farmers, generally men of
substance. A lieutenant-general in the army married a
lady, and then her aunt; subsequently a third lady,
and then the third lady's niece. It was visible from
these cases that the grievance was not one that pressed
especially on the poor.—The bill was supported by Mr.
S. Herbert, Mr. Cockburn, Mr. Cobden, and Mr.
Milnes; and opposed by Mr. Roebuck, Lord Mahon,
Mr. Sheil, Mr. Goulburn, and others. The second
reading was carried by 182 to 130.

On Thursday, the 7th, Mr. Poulett SCROPE moved
for a special commission to inquire into the state of the
Kilrush Union. He gave the following description of
its present condition:—The extent of the Kilrush Union
is about 150,000 acres; its population in 1841 was 80,000,
and its rental in 1845 was about £60,000. From the
inordinate rents, the famine threw the entire population on the
relief works: £110,000—double the rental—was expended
on these works in 1846-7, and in August 1847, £133,000
of public money had been expended: but from favouritism
and other abuses the poor were still left to starve.
The Poor-law Amendment Act threw the Union on its
own resources; a rate was not struck till nearly two-
thirds of the population had perished, or been removed
by evictions; and, being chiefly due from the guardians
themselves, the rates were allowed to fall in total
arrear. The Union became bankrupt; out-door relief
was stopped, and the in-door paupers were left starved
and unclothed. The mortality from disease became
enormous, and verdicts of death by starvation numerous.
In three weeks relief was recommenced, and 12,500
persons received aid: it was discontinued again; and then
again it was renewed, to be continued to the present
time. The deaths from insufficient food were 21 in
November, in December 71, in January 140: poor
wretches travelled twenty miles for relief, stood all day
at the door, and had to go home at night with their
cases even unheard. Who (Mr. Scrope asked) is
responsible for this frightful state of things?—the
guardians, who accuse the Poor-law Commissioners?
the commissioners, who throw the responsibility on the
government? or the government itself? In England,
the administrators of the Poor-law have been declared
responsible for refusing relief. If the rates were not
sufficient in Kilrush, is that an excuse for government's
abandoning its declaration that no poor person
could be allowed to starve? They might have lent the
money to the guardians; or have undertaken the duties
of the guardians, and themselves distributed the relief.
From a commission the house would receive suggestions
tending to save vast numbers from the grave yawning
before them.—Sir William SOMERVILLE defended the
government for simply administering the law as they
found it; and opposed the motion, as being likely to
furnish no other information than that which is already
quite available to the house; and as being likely to excite
hopes which never could be realised, and to prevent self-
reliance and independent exertion. He added that the
Kilrush guardians were now exerting themselves with
satisfactory effect; that their proceedings should be
watched, and if they failed in their duty the government
would be prepared to act on their own responsibility.
—Mr. MONSELL suggested that this should be
treated as an exceptional case, by superseding the ordinary
operation of the law, and appointing some fit person
with full powers to reorganise the affairs of the Union.—
Lord John RUSSELL affirmed that such a measure
would be impracticable and mischievous, and objected
to making Kilrush a special object of special inquiry and
assistance, as setting a bad example to other distressed
districts. Eventually the motion was negatived by 76
to 63.—Mr. H. BERKELEY moved for leave to bring in a
bill for the introduction of The Ballot. A debate of
some length ensued, and the motion was negatived by
176 against 121.

On Friday the 8th, Mr. COBDEN moved a resolution
on the subject of the Public Expenditure, in the following
terms:—That the net expenditure of the government
for the year 1835, amounted to £44,422,000; that
the net expenditure for the year ending the 5th day of
January, 1850, amounted to £50,853,000; the increase of
upwards of 6,000,000, having been caused principally by
successive augmentations of our warIike establishments,
and outlays for defensive armaments; that no foreign
danger, or necessary cost of the civil government, or
indispensable disbursements for the services in our
dependencies abroad, warranted the continuance of this
increase of expenditure; that the taxes required to meet
the present expenditure impeded the operations of
agriculture and manufactures, and diminished the funds for
the employment of labour in all branches of productive
industry, thereby tending to produce pauperism and
crime, and adding to the local and general burdens of the
people; that to diminish these evils it was expedient
that the house should take steps to reduce the annual
expenditure, with all practicable speed, to an amount not
exceeding the sum which within the last fifteen years
has been proved to be sufficient for the maintenance of
the security, honour, and dignity of the nation. In
support of his motion, he contended that, though in
every branch of our national expenditure there was
great waste, ostentation, and jobbing, he did not object
to her Majesty's income, and he held in high estimation
her domestic virtues; but he considered that many of the
court offices ought to be abolished—that of the Master of
the Buckhounds, for instance, whose salary should pay
the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench. He compared our
diplomatic expenditure with that of America, and
protested against the payment of £10,000 per annum to our
ambassador at Paris, while the representative of the
United States had but £2,000; and he treated our judicial
expenditure in a similar manner, showing that
while the supreme judge at Washington, the head of
American jurisprudence, had but £1,200 a-year, a judge
in impoverished Ireland had £8,000. He deprecated the
expense of the new houses of parliament, and the entire
system of parliamentary business, printing, and management,
as grossly extravagant; and he then went into
every denomination of our armaments all over the
world; he declared his belief, that although the
importunities of the professions, which had already interrupted
the house with a debate upon the brevet, were very
urgent with ministers, they would be willing to reduce
the expenditure of the country if they were strongly
supported by the house.—Mr. LABOUCHERE, in reply,
maintained that the apparent increase of £6,000,000 had
had not been caused by a real augmentation. In the
naval and military expenditure, the apparent increase,
rather more than £4,000,000, was owing to such causes as
the accumulated excess of expenditure left from previous
years, the transfer of the Packet service formerly paid out
of the Post-office revenue, accidental demands, like the
payment of head-money for capture of pirates, construction
of great permanent works, dockyards, &c, involving
a payment once for all, with other causes as little coming
under a true comparison. Under the civil head, the
apparent increase of £2,478,000, was caused by charges
forced upon government by the house, under the
pressure of demands from constituencies,—such as
harbours of refuge, payments in aid of county-rates, &c.;
charges for unforeseen calamities, among which might
be reckoned the burning of the old houses of parliament
and the building of the new; charges transferred from
other accounts, such as official franking, quondam fees
replaced by fixed payment, &c. Mr. Labouchere
contended that many of these payments, such as those for
the improvement of Ireland, are dictated by a wise and
profitable economy.—Mr. Cobden was chiefly supported
by Mr. Milner GIBSON; Mr. Labouchere, by Lord
John RUSSELL. The other speakers were—for Mr.
Cobden's motion, Mr. SPOONER and Mr. HUME; against
it, Mr. HERRIES and Mr. HENLEY. Colonel SIBTHORP
declared that he trusted neither party, but should take
up his hat and walk out of the house; which he did
amidst laughter and cheers from all sides. Mr. Cobden's
resolution was negatived by 272 to 89.