the understanding that it is to be committed pro formâ,
for the purpose of introducing several amendments;
and that it be referred to a select committee.

The Earl of Hardwicke asked the Earl of Aberdeen
whether it was true that The Reform Bill had been
Abandoned; and he further inquired upon what grounds
that course had been taken?—The Earl of Aberdeen,
in reply, said the reform bill had not been abandoned,
though it had been withdrawn for the present session—
not in consequence of any change of opinion respecting
its importance or its character, but because, in the
interests of the measure itself, the present clearly was
not a time when it could be prosecuted with any hope
of success. Although the existence of a state of war
was not, in itself, a sufficient reason for not proceeding
with the consideration of measures essential to the
interests of the country, he admitted that if it indisposed
parliament from giving attention to such a subject
as reform, it was quite impossible to press it. Under
these circumstances the government had withdrawn the
bill for the present session, reserving the full intention
of renewing either this or some equivalent measure, as
might be thought expedient, in the course of next
session.—Lord Campbell, as a friend to reform and a
supporter of the government, rejoiced at this
determination.—Their lordships then adjourned till Thursday,
the 27th instant.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, March 27,
Lord J. Russell brought down the same Message from
her Majesty as Lord Aberdeen had presented to the
House of Lords, and, as in that house, it was ordered to
be taken into consideration on Friday next.

The order for resuming the adjourned debate on the
Settlement and Removal Bill having been read, Mr.
Packe moved that the debate be again adjourned.—
Mr. Walpole, in supporting this motion, observed that
the bill proceeded upon two principles—first, that the
poor man was entitled to make the best use of his
labour; secondly, that destitution, not settlement, was
to be the ground of relief. Now, if the English poor
were to be allowed to make the best use of their labour,
wherever they could, the same power ought to be
extended to the Irish and Scotch poor, who should be
entitled, in common with the English, to the benefit of
the second principle. The house ought, therefore, to
be in possession of full information upon the whole
measure, and to know what were to be the details of the
regulations respecting the Irish poor. The principle of
this measure lay very much in its details, and he
objected to imperfect and incomplete legislation.—
Mr. Baines did not consider the substitution of
destitution for settlement as a ground of relief to be a
principle of the bill; at the present moment destitution
gave a title to relief. He thought no reason whatever
had been assigned for postponing the bill, and it was
desirable that the decision of the house upon the second
reading should be given as early as possible. Sufficient
materials had been obtained for the decision of the
English question; and, as to the other question, there
were no materials. He must meet the motion for
adjournment of the debate with a direct negative.—
Mr. R. Palmer and Mr. H. Herbert supported the
amendment.—Sir J. Pakington thought it was the
duty of the government either to have grappled with
the Irish difficulty from the first, and brought in a
measure embracing the Irish portion of the question, or
have confined the bill to the English portion, and
carried it forward without any notice of the Irish
question.—Lord Palmerston did not see the logic of
the conclusion that, because the government had not
sufficient materials with respect to Ireland, it should
not read this bill a second time. Great misapprehension
prevailed with regard to Irish paupers. It was desirable,
therefore, that there should be time for consideration, in
order that unfounded prejudices might be removed. It
was feared that there would be a deluge of Irish paupers
in England; but how were they to come over, and who
were to send them? It was not likely they would come
at their own expense. Some might, perhaps, be sent
by subscription from towns in Ireland, near the coast,
to lighten their burdens. While, therefore, on one
hand, the Irish labourer should be protected from
arbitrary removal, means should be adopted, on the
other, to prevent abuses; and it struck him that, if
parliament were to say that to entitle an Irish pauper
to be irremovable he should have been engaged for a
twelvemonth in industrial occupation in the town where
he sought to obtain relief, it would tend to prevent the
abuse of sending over Irish paupers. After all, the
number of removals of Irish paupers was much smaller
than was generally apprehended. Further information
was, however, necessary; but this was no reason why
the house should not proceed with the second reading
of this bill. Before it was committed the government
might be able to state the nature of the measure they
proposed.—Sir J. Trollope and the Marquis of Granby
supported the amendment.—Sir G. Grey saw no reason
for the postponement of the bill. It was not necessary
to mix two questions essentially distinct in their nature,
which might risk the loss of this bill. The Irish and
Scotch paupers formed no part of the English poor law.
After some further discussion, the house divided, when
the adjournment of the debate was carried (against the
government) by 209 to 183.

The House went into Committee on the Church
Building Acts Continuance Bill, when Mr. Hadfield
moved to limit its operation to one year; but the motion
was negatived, on a division, by 153 to 49, and the
limit of two years was agreed to.

On Tuesday, March 28th, Sir W. Smith presented a
petition from the firm of Sturgeon and Sons, of Grays,
Essex. The clerk commenced reading it from the table
as follows: "Your petitioners observe with extreme
horror the condemnation to which they have been
subjected without trial and without inquiry, and the
manner in which their names have been mentioned in
your honourable house."—The Speaker here interposed,
and said that such a petition could not be
received.—Mr Bright asked whether under the peculiar
circumstances the statements it contained should not
be heard.—The Speaker said that, though this
petition could not be received, it was quite possible for
the petitioners to present another which could.

The nomination of the committee of inquiry on
Conventual and Monastic Institutions having been
made, Mr Bowyer moved as an amendment that the
order should be discharged. The hon. member enlarged
on the insult which the appointment of the committee
inflicted on the catholics of Ireland, and the sense of
injury and wrong which it would implant among them
at a moment when it was most important that all classes
of the community should be satisfied and united.—Lord
Lovaine viewed the question as relating not to
religious faith, but to the liberty of the subject. So long as
it was possible for persons to be forcibly incarcerated in
any establishment, investigation was indispensable.—
Lord J. Russell doubted whether any sufficient cause
had been shown for the appointment of the committee.
Such a machinery should not be set in motion merely
upon vague suppositions. But at present vagueness
prevailed on every point. The evils it was sought to
suppress were vague, the mode in which the inquiry
should be prosecuted was vague, and the remedy that
could be provided was vague. As for the secondary
object of the committee—the discovery, namely of some
means to bring monastic institutions within the scope of
our legislation—he objected to any endeavour in that
direction. The alternative from that proceeding must
be to suppress monasteries or to legalise them. Setting
before the house the disadvantages attending either
course, the noble lord urged them not to meddle at all
with the matter, believing that the narratives which
had been related by the supporters of the motion
belonged to the category of "cock and bull stories."—
Colonel North questioned the justice of this definition,
and detailed an instance bearing in his opinion a much
graver aspect.—Mr Drummond believed that popish
aggression was still rampant in the United Kingdom,
and that the conventual system was used as one of its
instruments.—Captain Bellew supported the amendment.
—Mr. Crossley and Mr. Newdegate defended
the appointment of the committee.—Mr. Fortescue
was convinced that the evils which must follow the
inquiries of the committee would far overbalance any
advantages that could accrue from them.—Mr. Spooner