The Sun. — London, England, 1849-06-09 00:00:00

when originally framed proposed. Unless this clause 1 Mr. F. O'CONNOR said that as there was no question which he hqd introduced stood, he would say nonecen- before the House, he would move that the House ad tent to the ilard reading. journ, which would make a question.—(Laughter.) Lord BROUGLIAM reminded their Lordships that THE KILRUSII UNION. this was the last stage of the Bill. As his Noble and Mr. P. SCROPE said he wished to ask of the Govern- Leareed Friend had proposed to introduce a very im- meat, whether they had read the report of Captain Ken portant clause, he hoped he wo u ld not press the third nedy, and whether they thought it incumbent on reading on the present occasion, but would give them them to take any proceedings to put a stop to the time to consider it. evictions going on in that part of the country? Lord CAMPBELL was understood to consent to post- The report of the inspector stated that during the last pone the third reading of the Bill until Monday. twelve months fifteen thousand persons had been driven Lord STANLEY said he understood that the second from their homes by this system of eviction, and the reading of the Incumbered Estates (Ireland) Bill was homes of twelve thousand more were in the process of fixed for Monday next. Now, that was a Bill which being razed to the g round.—(Hear. ) demanded their most serious consideration, both as re• Mr. J. O'CONNELL corroborated the facts stated by spects its principle and details. Although he thought the Hon. Member, but intimated that he had under that the third reading of this Bill should be postponed, stated them. A cowshed in which a woman afflicted inasmuch as it required much more consideration than it with fever had taken shelter had been destoyed, and a had as yet received, he hoped it would not be fixed for " wigwam" which a poor man and his family had erected a day when their attention would be occupied by other was set fire to and pulled down. It really, in such a important business. He was of opinion that this mea- state of things, behoved the House and the Government sure should be permissive, and not compulsory; and he to take some step to prevent the continuance of such a thought it excedingly desirable that the Government horrible state of things.—(Hear, hear.) should take further time to ascertain whether it was Sir G. GREY was not surprised that what had possible to adopt the permissive principle, and to amend occurred in the Kilrush Union had attracted the the Bill in the way suggested. He wished to know attention of the Honourable Gentleman and the House, whether it was intended to take the Leasehold Tenure since it was distinguished from what had taken Bill and the Incumbered Estates Bill on Monday, be- place elsewhere. He must, however, remind him cause he should protest against both being discussed at that last session an Act was passed for preventing the same sitting, both of them being mersures which re- evictions, but that those who, taking their stand quired grave consideration and ample discussion. upon legal grounds, were about to evict, that Lord CAMPBELL said it was his intention to take in every case notice should be given to the the second reading of the Incumbered Estates Bill on guardians, and that means should be taken to provide Monday, and, if time permitted, he hoped, considering temporary shelter for those who were evicted. It ex the present circumstances of Ireland, the Noble Lord pressly declared that no houses should be pulled down would not object to their going on with the second Bill. whilst the parties were in them, which provision, even The Marquis of NORTHAMPTON presented a peti- in Kilrush, he did not gather had been violated. If it tion from some agricultural society, praying the Govern- had it was in contravention of the law, and the parties ment to extend its assistance to those societies, to enable were amenable to punishment. Indeed the only remedy them to exhibit agricultural implements and improve- for such a lamentable state of things was in the hands of meats. those who were capable and willing to afford employ- Lord STANHOPE proposed to pestpone the preset- ment to the poor, thus enabling them to maintain Cation of the petitions of which he had given notice till themselves and to pay their rent. He was prepared Monday next. to say if the Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Scrope) Lord CAMPBELL said the Bills to which he had thought proper to call for a detailed account of the referred, being measures of importance, would take pre- number of evictions, the names of the evictors, and the cede nce. extent of the families of those evicted, that no objection petitions till would be offered by the Gov ern m en t. He was not pre- Lord STANHOPE then postponed his Thursday next. pared to say that the Government might not call for Their Lordships then adjourned. further powers if they found them necessary; but he reminded the House that the subject was surrounded with difficulties. Sir R. PEEL said he was quite aware of the difficulty that stood in the way of applying a remedy to the glar ing evils complained of, but it was quite possible that ' the indignation of the House of Commons might have some effect in checking such outrages—(Hear)--for he must say that he never heard of any country, civilized ' or barbarous, presenting materials for such a statement as that made by Mr. Kennedy. He asked, therefore, if the statement made by that gentleman was cor rect. It was an official document, presented by the Executive Government by the order of the Crown for the consideration of Parliament, for the guidance of their proceedings ; and that gentleman, too, was ' an officer in her Majesty's service and a man, he believed, of unquestionable veracity.— (Hear, hear.) He stated this fact—that in one of the unions at a period of famine, during one year, 15,000 persons had been driven from their homes; and he says, after this had been done in one year, it would he hardly credited that during the last month 12,000 additional persons had been driven from their homes. He then proceeds to detail incidental cases of the persons so evicted. The inspector stated three facts which appeared to be rather the creation of a heated imagination than a de tail of events occurrie:g in the present age. The inspector said he went to a ruined house and found it in possession of a father, a mother and two children, who were about to be evicted ; the father was a corpse ; the mother was dying of dysentery, and the two children were lying asleep upon the corpse of the father. In the second case he found a family located in a hut which had been surrounded by muck to drive them thence by the stt nch ; a hile in the third case he saw a hut set fire to, though it was still occupied by miserable beings whose ailments prevented their escap -1 1 ing. With these facts before them, he could not retrain from expressing his conviction that the time had arrived when some remedy ought to be applied to the evil. He knew not whether it was possible to stop the system by law, but he felt that a strong feeling of indignation on the part of the House might have some effect in mitigating the sufferings of these poor wretches.—(Cheers.) Mr. REYNOLDS remarked that by the returns it appeared that 160,000 beings had been evicted during the last three years. Colonel DUNNE admitted the atrocities that had been committed, but attributed them all to the working of the Irish poor-law. Mr. AUGUTUS STAFFORD said it was unjust to lock only at one side of the question; there were landlords in the districts which had been referred to with whom it was not a question how they were to obtain the luxuries, comforts, or even decencies cf life, but how they were to support their existence, for they were wholly deprived of animal food, and were reduced to two or three meals of Indian corn a day. The Government had compelled the Irish landlords, and he thought wisely, to pay the poor-rates for every tenant holding under 41., and, since the potato crops had failed, the tenants were utterly unable to pay any rent, and the consequence was that the landlords found themselves not merely without an estate, but actually in a worse condition, for they were liable to the heavy rates which the tenants could not pay. If that fact was not an excuse for the conduct of the Irish landlords, ho thought it might be considered as some extenuation of it. Two years ago he had warned the House not to place any temptation in the way of the landlords, which it was impossible for human na ture to bear, but to make it the interest of the landlord to improve his estate rather than to eject his tenantry. liis advice, however, had been entirely disregarded, and the consequence was that 15,000 tenants had been evicted. He therefore thought that the House should not content itself with blaming the Irish landlords, but ought to share a portion of the blame and responsibility which had bean cast upon them. The alteration of the area of taxation, which was at the root of the evil, the Govern ment would eventually be obliged to resort to, but if that measure Was driven off, it might perhaps be unavailing. Mr. ROCHE declined giving any opinion upon th e hobby of the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stafford), but he regretted that Hon. Gentleman had come forward to express their sympathy with the people who had been evicted, because all the sympathy in the world would not prevent landlords taking proceedings to protect themselves and their families from destitution. He wished especially to call the attention of her Ma jesty's Government to the system of colonization re commended by the Emigration Commissioners.—(Hear.) It was not the retaining of the present poor-law that was likely to give any relief to the immediate necessity nor any permanent removal of the distress which now so extensively prevailed in Ireland.— (Hear, hear.) He trusted, therehwe, that her Majesty's Government would not, neglect those recommendations in the statements of the Commissioners to which he had directed their at tention. Mr. H. HERBERT said that the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down hid affirmed that the question which was now before the House had never been fairly met.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") He feared that if' it had not been fairly met the circumstance was more owing to the Honourable Gentleman's absence from the House than from any other cause.—(Hear, hear.) If the Hon. Gentleman had been in his place as often as others, both on his own side of the House and on that which was opposed to it, he (Mr. Herbert) believed that he would have found no rea sonable cause of complaint of inattention to Irish interests. He had observed, indeed, that when ever Irish subjects were before the House that the Hon. Member had never been in his place—(Hear, hear) — and he was ashamed to say that whenever Irish ques tions w, re before the House Irish Members were among the last to take a practical interest in them. I Mr. GRATTAN—The question simply was, how the evils in Inland had been produced.—(Hear, hear.) It was not a matter of two, three, or four thousand years, but how the evils were to be remedied. The whole of the evils were the natural fruit of British legislation. He did not object to British connexion, but British legislation was an evil which appeared irremedi able. He saw a wretched party of Irish people the other day in Ireland, starving and in rage, who had been sent back to Ireland from Birmingham and Manchester, whither they had wandered in search of food and employment. That was the charity of the Honourable Member for Manchester, that was the bright hu manity of that Hon. Member.—(A laugh.) They took away the absentee rents, and that was the cause of much of the distress and want that abounded. It was all nonsense, the people could not live on the rate r t u h i e n I r n i f a h I p r :l e a r n - d i a . otv A w j a r s . op a.cssoinngn,eltihastaiitdwiofultdhebye in aid. He told th e H ouse over and over again w the en passed that Bill they might Ireland, and write upon every house all round in words " poor-house." Th at had actually it been e verified. It was Irish poverty th at was support ing Irish population. The House p asse d tha law, and then they followed it up by driving away all the honourable and high-spirited men from the country, and now they had nothing :left but famine and fever. He (Mr. Grattan) bad fled from a hest of beggars forty-eight hours ago, and he said for God's sake let him get away, for the very air was infected with famine and fever. It was not Irish landlords by charging the evil on that it could be remedied ; let them strike at the root of the evil, and send their 40,000 soldiers to drive back the absentees. They would not much longer recruit their army and navy with Irishmen. He had seen little children, the rising generation of Ireland, perishing and fading away. He saw the other day men from Roscommon, Limerick, and Tipperary; he declared to God he never saw such images of misery. in his life, and when he sat down to his dinner he said " take it away and give it to the poor." They were destroying the best portion of the human mind. Mr. O'i3(ien was wrong; he rebelled too soon; had he waited, it must have and would have exploded, and a real insurrection must have deluged the country. In Ire land there were land landlords who did not get 2 lbs. of meat a week. He implored them to do something to prevent the horrible state of destitution that now ex isted in Ireland. Mr. LAWLESS, while he considered that the discus sion which had taken place would do much good, as it would make known the amount of misery which pre vailed in Ireland, did not think that the system of evic tions now so prevalent in Ireland had been caused by the introduction of the poor-law into that country, as had been stated, for they did not commence with the introduction of that measure, but were practised befo re it was heard ofi He rose, however, more particularly to ask a question of the Hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland, in reference to the circulars which had been HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 8. The SPEAKER toNEW ok the Chair at Four o'clock. MEMBER. Mr. DICKSON took the oaths and his seat for Lime rick, in the room of Mr. William Smith O'Brien, con victed of high treason. LONDON - AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY. Mr. BROTHER lON moved that the report from the Committee on the Lancashire and Yorkshire and London and North-Western Railway Companies (Transfer of Interest in the Preston and Wyre Railway Harbour and Dock, and regulating Management of the Undertaking) (re-committed) Bill, be considered upon Monday next, provided amended prints be deliver. , d to the doorkeepers three clear days previously, and the amended breviate be !mid upon the table one clear day previously. Agreed to. THIRD READINGS. The following Bills were read a third time and passtd:— _ _ The Birmingham Borough Exemption from County Rates (No. 2) Bill. Hospital for Consumption Bill. Truro Turnpike Roads, Penryn and Redworth Turn pike Road (G)naolidation of Trusts, Alterations of Tolls, Formation of New Roads) Bill. CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS. The following reports were considered and agreed to : Binbrooke Sr. Gabriel and Binbrooke St. Mary Inclo sure (Amendment and Extension of Acts, Alteration of Awards, settling Titles to Lands, &c., and defining Parish Boundaries) Bill. Congleton Inciw.ure Act Amendment Bill. Sheffidd and Tinsley Road (Extension of the Tinsley and D3ncester Turnpike Road to Sheffield) Bill. S TOCKTON AND DARLINGTON RAILWAY. Oa the motion for the third reading of the Stockton and Daxlington (Cons°lidisticn of Acts Increase of Ca pital and Purchase of the Aliildlesberough Dock) Bill, Mr. HASTIE moved the insertion of a clause relative to the toil to be taken on the Shelbon Tunnel. Lord II AR itY VANE said the clause had been unani mously rekcted by the Committee. Mr. B. DENfSON said under these circumstance] it was a wiste of time to discuss the matter. Mr. STLTART supported the clause. Captain HARRIS said the reason the Committee did not insert the clause was, becatuio they felt they had not power to do so. - After some further discussion the amendment was withdrawn. The Bill was then read a third time and passed. LORDS' AMENDMENTS. The Lords' amrmdtments to the Kirkaldy Harbour, 'Docks, Ferries, and Petty Customs Bill were considered and agreed to. PETITIONS. Mr. BASS presented a petition from Derby praying for the extension of county court& Mr. WILLIAMS presented a petition from Aberys twith in favour of the Clergy Relief Bill. Mr. PLUMPTRE presented petitions complaining of agricultural distress. Mr. 0. DUNCOMBE presented petitions from York shire to the same effect. Mr. B. OSBORNE presented a petition from Surrey, praying the House to acknowledge the de facto Govern ment of Rome. Mr. COWAN presented a petition from Edinburgh complaining of the present system of keeping roads and bridges in Scotland. Mr. TRELAWNY presented a petition from Mr. Charles H. Green complaining that ho had been nearly ruined by church-rates. Mr. WYLD presented a petition from 2,000 persons employed in collieries, praying that some measure might be passed to obtain the better ventilation of mines. Mr. BANKES presented a petition from the county of Dorset, agreed to at a large public meeting, complaining of the present distress of agricultural interest, and praying for the re-imposition of a protective duty upon the produce of forei g n countries. SUCCESSION TO PROPERTY IN INDIA. __ Mr. 11U2sIE gave notice that on the 16th he would call the attention of the flousa to certain proceedings in India, by which the law of succession to property there had been superseded. LUNATIC ASYLUMS (SCOTLAND) BILL. Mr. CUMMING BRUCE gave notice, when this Bill cam , ' on, that he would move the exclusion of the county of Egin from it. NATIONAL EDUCATION. Mr. MILES moved for a return of all cnrrespondence which had tiken place between the Committee of Council of Education and the Committee of the Na tional Society upon the subject of the management claues, subsequent to the last publication of the minutes: copies of ihe management clauses, as amended: and of all conditions which are imposed, either upon Roman CaLholic schools, or..schools of Dissenting bodies, previ ously to the advance of any sum of money towards the buNling of the aforesaid schools by the Committee of the Privy Council of Education.—Agreed to. PALACE COURT.. Lord D. STUAR r gave notice of his intention to ask for leave to introduce a Bill to bring the jurisdic• tion of the Westmimter Palace Court under the opera tion of the County Courts Act. ACCIDENTS IN COAL MINES. Mr. HUME said an explosion had taken place at a coal mine on the sth of this month, by which 24 persons had been killed; and as such accidents were constantly t )king place, he wished to know whether the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) had taken any measures to ascer tain the cause of it ? Sr G. GREY referred the Hon. Gentleman to the report which had been laid on the table of the House. Mr. HUME trusted that some day would be fixed by the Government for the consideration of this question; and he gave notice that he should, on Monday, bring this question before the House, and trusted that the Government would fix a day for the settlement of the question which had so long agitated the public mind. Sir G. GREY said that it was impossible at present for the Government to take such a subject into consideration, but no opp,irtunity would be lost in bringing the matter before the House. issued under the Poor Relief Bill. In these circulars it was stated that no one could claim relief under the Act until they gave up their laud, with the exeeptien of a quarter of an acre; but that should the landlord refuse to accept of the property so given up, the families could in that case claim rlief. Ile wished to know whether these circulars hael been acted on? Sir W. SOMERVILLE was understood to say that, so far as he was aware, the circular had been issued under the authority of the Act, and acted on. Mr. SLANEY had supported the Government gene. rally, but he had not great faith in their measures as regarded Ireland. He rose, however, to ask a single question. He thought that however much the English people had already subscribed for the relief of Ireland, he had no doubt but that were a subscription got up, many would still be willing to subscribe again, and he therefore wanted to know from the Secretary for Ireland, or any one else, whether any Committee had been ap pointed fer receiving such subscriptions? He thought the Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Meath, was wrong in blaming the English Parliament for the evils which had befallen Ireland, as these is a great measure had been caused by a dispensation of Providence. He trusted, however, that from the measure already p asse d, an d these before the House, a better state of matters would be brought about. Mr. SCULLY said there was at present a Committee of the kind the Hon. Gentleman referedeto in existence in Dublin, presided over by the Hon. Memb e r f o r Kil dare, and which Committee would be glad to receive subscriptions from England or any where else. In re gard to the statement which the Hon. Member for Sur rey had called attention to, as to the evictions at the in stance of the Rev. Massy Dawson, he was not in the House at the time such statement was read; but he un derttood the facts stated in reference to the extent of those evictions were not denied. Having lately come from Tipperary, he could state as to the extent the system was carried on there, and until the area of taxa tion was narrowed add the landlord made liable for the support of parties so evicted, such evictions would pro ceed and multiply. It was said that those ejected by the Rev. Gentleman were rogues and vagabonds; but so far from that being the case, he believed a great many of them were honest and industrious people. Mr. DRUMMOND said what he complained of was, the bringing the private characters of gentlemen before that House in the manner that the Rev. Gentleman had been. have a Committee up stairs. With unions in Clare and other places paying 18s. 4d. in the pound, it was quite clear that the landed property of Irefeed was not enough to support the poverty of Ireland. He thought Ire land would have !Nen in a better state if the Poor-law had not been introduced; fur, although he did not mean to say that the Poor-law had entirely caused the evils under which that country was now suffering, he be lieved it had greatly aggravated them. He considered that the Government were bound to take care that relief was administered in the most economical way possible, but under the existing system the expenditure had been most wasteful. One of the burdens by which Irish pro perty was oppressed was the repayment of advance; for the works undertaken during the amine. In 1846 no less than 4,800,000/. was appropriated to relief works; but, from a calculation he lied made, he found that, sup posing every person employed received 10,1. a day (which was much above the average, many of the per sons employed being women and children, who received a less amount), and allowing ten per cent. for the ex. penses of administration, only about 3,730,0001, would have been expended, thus leaving more than 1,000,0001. unaccounted for. He said then that if proper care had been taken in the conduct of the relief works, and in the distribution of money under the poor-law, the property of Ireland would not have suffered from the burdens by which it was now oppressed. He considered that they ought to make an entire change in the present system, and to give up all thoughts of administering the poor-law in Ireland as it was administered in this country. Mr. OSBORNE said the Secretary for Ireland (Sir W. Somerville) had opposed the amendment because he thought it would have the effect of repealing the present Irish poor-law, but if he (Mr. Osborne) could believe that it would have that effect, he would support it with even greater good-will than he was now prepared to do. —(Hear, hear.) He was not opposed to a poor-law for Ireland, but he regarded the existing law as a piece of ill-digested legislation, totally unsuited to the habits of the people, and most prejudicial to the country. He considered the present law inefficient for its avowed pur poses, inasmuch as it did not support the poor, but " makes us poor indeed." The Right Hon. Baronet (Sir W. Somerville) had stated that Ireland W2S suffering from a three years famine, but would that Right Hon. Gentleman say that, in the event of the famine continu ing, as he (Mr. Osborne) feared it would do, the present poor-law, or, indeed, any poor law, would effectually meet the destitution which existed? The Right Ho nourable Baronet had said that they were bound to do all in their power to assist Ireland in her pre sent situation; but he (Mr. Osborne) maintained that neither that house nor the Government had done all they could do to counterbalance the great evils rife in that country—not, he was ready to admit, from want of dis position, but from want of knowledge of the real circum stances of the country. The Hon. Member for Water ford had endeavoured to show that the increase of crime in Ireland had been dependent upon the non-working of the poor-law, and to connect the evictions in that country with the establishment of the poor-law; but he (Mr. Osborne) thought that if he could show that a system was at present existing in Ireland under which crime had increased, the poor had been neglected, and agriculture had been debased, and that such a system was countenanced by that House, the House was bound to apply an immediate remedy. He believed he would be able to show them that there was a proportion of the rental of Ireland amounting to above 1,500,6001.—the rental of the whole province of Connaught—which was at present placed under a system that prevented money from being laid out in improvements; and if he showed them that land was worse tiled and that crime was most prevalent where that system existed, he thought they would have no excuse for not endeavouring to remsdy these evils. The Committee now sitting to inquire into the operation of the Irish poor-law had thought proper also to make an inquiry into the circumstances of the estates under the manage went of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, and he be lieved he could prove that there was an intimate con nexion between these estates and the burden of poverty which had obliged Parliament to pass an amended poor law for Ireland. Lie had no wish to undervalue the Bill which had been brought in this session by the able Seli citor-General, for he believed the principle of that Bill to be good, but he thought it was a delusi en to expect, that that Bill would have any immediate effect in reliev ing the property of Ireland or in setting the people to work. A very popular theme in that House was abuse of the Irish proprietors. All eves were open to the faults of that class, wEilo few hearts felt fur their misfortunes. Now, he thought it strange that persons who exhausted a copious vocabulary of abuse upon Irish landlords should altogether except the largest proprietors in Ire• lad— the Court of Chancery. Every gentleman who had been in Ireland, if he had passed through a district where unusual poverty was apparent, and asked to whom the property belonged, would, he had no doubt, state that he had been told it was " under the courts," the meaning being that it was under the management of the Court of Chancery. Only a few days ago the Right Hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel) had used these remarkable words:—" All your measures for drainage, for local improvements, for in crease of fisheries, for emigration—all will be ineffectual unless you can cure those monstrous evils arising out of the condition of landed property in Chancery. If you can relieve these estates from the control of Chancery, aa you will do more for the advancement of Ireland than by concurredan at other measuretha that opinion. o y p o i u n i c o a n. can ado Theyp t." w e H r e e (la ll fr. g Osborne) d or th n n e) t the social regeneration of Ireland did not depend upon a poor-law, but upon placing the people on the soil and giving them employ went. This was clearly seen by Sir E. Siigden, one of the best Lord Chancellors this country ever sent to Ireland; bat even he was defeated hi his attempts to rectify the system of the Court 01 Chancery. What was the system pursued in that court? Property was thrown into Chancery, and the ownership was vested in the Court, ostensibly for the benefit of the creditor, but actually to the disadvantage of the owner awl of the country. The Court appointed a receiver, who hal nothing to do but receive the rents. It was not expected that the receiver should have any knowledge of agriculture, or that he should even visit the estates. So long as be could screw the greatest amount of rent out of the tenants, he was qualified for hi s office. The tenants were served with notice to pay their rents to the receiver, who had a poundage of 5 p er cent. upon all he collected, and who was not obliged to account to a Master in Chancery till fifteen months after the passing of his last accounts. Indeed, the motto of the receiver was, "Rem ; quocunque mode rem." All references were made to the Master, and the ex penses were charged to the estate, to the great detri ment of the owner. When leases expired, or tenants were ejected, everything was referred to the Master, and a more fraudulent system than that under the courts it was almost impossible to conceive. The receivers, when appointed, were unable to lay out money on improve ments without referring to the Master, and then the the Master was unable to warrant such expenditure.-- (Bear, hear.) The Honourable Member here men tioned, in reference to the management of estates "under the courts," the particulars of a number of cases, with the view of showing the abuses which existed under that system, observing that it was intimately con nected with the poor-law, for as long as the estates remained under the present system of receivership, he believed that no poor-law could work satisfactorily to the landlord or to the tenant, In his opinion more than one sixth of the rental of Ireland was " under the courts," and the cost of obtaining permission to lay out money in improvements exceeded the amount of the money so laid out.—(Hear.) Thus the estates remained unimproved, and the poor unemployed. The poor-rates were always high where the estates were under receivers, and in one district where the system prevailed (we be lieve the Hon. Member mentioned Skibbereen), he stated as a proof of the extreme poverty which had existed, that GOO deceased persons had been interred without ly, under thi s v il e an d c in o i ffi q 3"Vsyo'st h oles. th e C l a o n n d s leogrudesn were •e re ruined an d t h e te un7aohtel nants were thrown, like dead dogs, coffinless into holes. The ilon. Member also referred to a return which had been presented to the House, by which he found that among the receivers therein mentioned connected with the Irish Court of Exchequer there was a certain num ber of farmers, shopkeepers, merchants, and 400 gen The subject then dropped, and the motion that the House at its rising do adjourn t.) Monday, was then agreed to. POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL. Lord J. RUSSELL moved that the House go into Committee on the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill. Sir W. H. BARRON said previous to the House going into Committee on that Bill, he had to submit to the House the amendment of which he had given notice, which was, " That the property at present rated to sup port the poor in Ireland is totally inadequate for that purpose ; that in England there are sixty-seven millions of property rated to the poor, the population bring about fifteen millions; whilst in Ireland there are only thirteen millions of property rated to the poor, with a (much poorer) population of about eight millions; showing nearly three times more property in England per head to support the poor than in Ireland; that, therefore, it is necessary to provide further means for support of the poor of Ireland, in order to remove the extreme pressure which is now crushing down the rate-payers in that country, and checking the energies of all employers and capitalists." It was impossible to apply the same law and expect that such law would be carried out in Ireland, on the same principles as it existed in England. They had nume rous complaints even here at the amount of poor-rates, and in Ireland, suffering the distress which it now did, was it possible that such a law which created so much dissatisfaction in England, could be at all workable in Ireland? A great portion of the property in Ireland had been almost annihilated already by this futile pro ject of an Irish poor-law. In 1846 Mr. O'Connell, who knew Ireland better than any man who ever sat for it within that House, prophesied that such a law would reduce Ireland to misery and destitution. His prophecy hid unfortunately proved but too true, as had been fully established by the evidence taken before the Committees of the House of Lords and Commons which had sat on the L ish poor-laws. It was there proved that lands had been abandoned, crime had been generated to an enormous extent, and the whole social framework of society had been almost stricken down by that law. He then (voted the evidence of Mr. Burke, Mr. Hamilton, Mr. De Vere, and Twissilton, before the Poor-law Relief Committee, showing that the property of Ireland was not sufficient to maintain the poor of that country, and that if persevered io it would make the landlords bankrupts, and ruin the farmers, and that the result of it, as tar as it operated since the passing of that measure, was extermination, emigration, and famine of the mast awful character. He was provided with returns showing that pauperism in Ireland was rapidly in creasing, of which a striking example presented itself in the number of inmates of the Dungarvon Union Workhouse, in which district he possessed some pro perty, and also in that of Carrick-on-Suir. The poor-law of the country was literally breaking down, because there was no money in the country to support the pau perism of the country. In many instances the relieving officers had bean received into the houses as paupers ; awl frequently the military, when called out for the pur pose of enforcing the poor-law at the point of the bayonet, the officers had subscribed the amount necessary to dis charge the claims to the rate against the poor cottiers. He could see no just reason for refusing to Ireland what was conceded to England, the richer country, with its vast and various resources, the advantage of charging upon the Consolidated Fund the expense of the medical and edto tional establishments existing under the poor-law. Ire land was a purely agricultural country, and had outfoxed much more than England had by the repeal of the corn laws, even to the extent of one-fourth of its beneficial value. They must look to other sources from whence to collect the means of administering the poor-law. He should recommend that for this purpose an immediate income-tax should bo applied to all lands in Ireland not at the present moment taxed to the relief of the poor. The operation of the present system of rating was to oppress the poorer classes, and allow the richer ones to escape, contrary to every principle of equity, religion, and justice. But beyond its tendency to pauperise the country, and to deprive the solvent part of the popula tion of the means of assisting the poor, he would warn the House that it was positively dangerous, and that un less it was speedily checked, they might soon expect to find its mischievous consequences developed in the still more aggravated and more general distress of the coun try. If Ireland, through the agency of this unjust sys tem of legislation, were dragged down into irretrievable revolution, they might rely upon it that she would not sink alone, but that she would draw England also into the gulf in which she was overwhelmed. The Hon. Member concluded by moving his resolution. Sir W. SOMERVILLE said that every Member of that House could not help feeling the deepest sympathy for the present unfortunate condition of Ireland, and therefore the length at which the last Hon. Gentleman had addressed them, needed no apology whatever. He had alluded to the great distress of that country in a manner which its melancholy character no doubt de manded, and -which showed the importance of a proper system of legislation.—(Hear, hear.) He thought the question might have been more fairly and more correctly answered by his H.,nourablA Friend (Sir H. Barron) after he had drawn so lamentable a picture of the social coalition of Ireland, in particular at the present moment, when they were in the third year of the most awful—the most calamitous famine that ever befel any country. His Honourable Friend had asked, what hid the poor laws done for Ireland ? But was it not desirable that the Government should do something to mitigate the great social and severely- trying evils under which the people of Ireland were suffering? He thought that they ought to do something to mitigate those calamities— (Hear, hear)—and therefore it -was that he was most anxious that the House should go now into Com mittee. He would not particularly allude to the evic tions which were taking place in Ireland, and which his Honourable Friend attributed, in the main, to the operation of the poor laws. He would not allude to those evictions with any view of evoking angry feelings or discussion upon them; but this he might say, that evictions had taken place in Ireland a long time back, and that they appeared to him to have been greatly increased, rot, he would say, so much by the operations of the poor laws as by the consequences of the famine that befel the country. His Hon. Friend had attributed the increase of crime also to the poor law, bu he (Sir William Somerville) was of opinion that the crease of crime was more owing to the famine. His [lon. Friend had advocated an income tax on that landed property in Ireland which was not rated to the poor, but he (Sir William Somerville) thought that the present was not the time best suited to the introduction of that measure.— (Hear.) lle, therefore, hoped, look • ing at all the circumstances, and taking the whole ques tion of the condition of Ireland into consideration, that the Hon. Baronet would ,not press his motion to a divi sion, and that he would allow the Government to go on; alleviateand, dis tr not es ea effect condition all thatof thewas p e desirable r Ire land, l au a a n arry d o , na t one o ntoe a wlh t je l e e ocu a t s s.N t p do all in their power towards so neces sary on the argument of a th n e o re contendedlase p ii r o e u vi s o e u lw sly as a t d o d d re e s c s id ed e t w h re e le hd not put the Right Hon. Col never meant to do away with Hou se.th I Hon. Baronet a correct w ho interpre tationhadthe contrary, his proposition h was Irishflal s i n Il plainly op this—that no.o poor-law. a i a w . d had t( 3h iie poor wa t s h s o u p ffi a n s i t en y t ea t r o largeiether the property rated to the ve the poverty of the country. During Ireland by private subscriptions sums had been collected in as every one knew, they proved al'indsuntyli other modes,but, mortality ensued, and nothing could insufficient ; enormous than that the property rated to the poo e r m w o a re evident a ?equate to the maintenance of the poor. was in authorities on the subject said that a portion of t e liC •cinl re lief ought to come from the national resources and from the resources of Ireland alone. But, if they made this demand upon Ireland, he hoped they would give back to that country all that it ought to have. If they took a large propor- tion of the Irish resources and applied them to the 1 wants of England, the poverty of Ireland ought upon every sound principle to be relieved out of the super abundance of England. The pov( rty of Ireland had been caused by the erroneous I,giilation of that House. I t was a fact well known that 64 per cent. of the popula. tionfpf Ireland WAS employed in agriculture. Everythi ng unfavourable to the landed interest was a deep injury to Ireland. The repeal of the corn laws might, perhaps, have been advantageous to the empire at large, but that was the very reason why something should be done for Ireland, for the Irish had lost their monopoly of the English provision market. He should not go back to the change of the currency, but be would say that every change which had taken place since the uni 3 u had p roved disadvantageous to the trade of Ireland. Again, the co lonial trade was a losing trade. lie really thought that, under all the circumstances of the case, they ought to , tiemen—the latter term meaning in Ireland Mill who,had no available way of getting their livelihood.— (Laughter.) It was no wonder, then, that " under the courts" the estates and the tenantry were in their pre ' sent deteriorated condition. Many of the receivers were of the feminine gender, but they appeared to be better receivers than those of the male sex, for though living from the spot, they allowed lcss arrears.—(Laughter.) Many, also, were clergymen, and of those one lived in Deventhire; and this was the way in which Irish estates were managed.—(Hear, hoar.) The Hon. Member also, as a' proof of the pernicious results of the receivership system, stated that some of the tenants of Mr. Roe, in Tipperary, assembled together and entered into a plot to murder that unfortunate gentleman, upon the speculation that as his next heir was a minor, the es tate would fall under the management of the Court of Chancery, and they might thereby avoid the punctual payment of the rtnt. This, then, was a plague-spot which required to be removed. The present system of receivership had been denounced no later than last April by thepresent able Master of the Rolls in Ireland as a dis grace to the country, observing that the country never would prosper until it was removed root and branch, and the management of the estates placed under some responsible department. He bad hoped that the Go vernment would have granted a Committee upon this subject of the management of estates " under the Courts' in Ireland, and he pledged himself that, if such a Committee were appointed, a plan should be submitted i fnogt outth e a removalbetter porfotshpeecetv forils h t t h %h a t d o,aud h to ol i d t pea santry, who were now placed under the horrible control connected with the present system.—(Elear, hear.) Mr..IIAPIER hoped he might be allowed to trespass tenantrydaert adverted for a short time u p on the attent i on o f the House—(Hear, hear)—with refer ence to a system which he felt was draggisk; down the country—(Hear, hear)—convinced as and pressing he was that the subject to which the lion. Member (Mr. Ire land by a simple and rapid Osborne) had addressed himself, while one of paramount opportenity of a the fr : c e t country, e t od ichattel importance, was one which presented the doing very great practical good for process ; and he had to im plore the 'Luse not to let this session pass without adopting alter a short inquiry—only a short one would be necessary—such a measure as would remedy the existing grievance.—(flear.) Upwards of 2.000,0001. of the rental of that country was now under receivers, and every week was addinc , to the proportion of the pro perty ofirdand placed under their hands. By a law passedia 1835, power was given to a judgment creditor to obtais the appointment of a receiver. Judgments now uwnhd e p : r lei o teeerrtay flies receiver; a u n p d c, n now, o ca lc, could r n cb c u h ep t by carcass, i fastened,lch toinlveoe)rt. tenant,merely tutretaiukfliztgetiunpg we n d a l s o rd hardlya i d could be estimated. Instead of this, without any ad vance moralthe relation and suchla of public money, and by the mere institution of a better cmtrol, that portion of Ireland might be an example to the rest.—(Hear, hoar.) The usual course of things was t! is year's into -ea being in arrear s a bill was filed by the creditor; after the answer was in there would come an application for the appointment of a receiver. The proprietor expecting, if nut certain ruin, never again to get into the property in any desira ble position, would stave off the appointment as well us he could, and, during that time, would be engaged in getting in all the rent he could; and the tenants often haying a feeling of respect for him and his family, and perhaps pitying his difficulties, would combine with him so that he would get accruing rents and promissory notes, end all sorts of arrangements made with him, and the receiver would come to a property apparently pros pering, without rents in arrear; but, in reality, he would find an embarrassed tenantry—a tenantry more or less demoralized, and ripe for hostile litigation.—(Hear.) Let the [louse mark the natural result. Every one was interested in the due management of property in Ireland, and the poor-1e w made a man more than ever interested in the management of his neighbour's property.— (Hear, hear.) The receiver's business was to collect as much money as he could. It' " property had its duties" who was to discharge those duties in regard to all this property transferred into Chancery? Under the osten sible plea of asserting the rights of creditors, in what a condition these estates were placed!—(Hear, hear.) When Lord Chancellor Sugden came to Ireland he was startled at this state of things; no man ever did so much in the way of introducing sourd reforms into the ad ministration of justice—(Hear)—but the rules which he framed had been more or less evaded.—(Hear.) To be appointed receiver, a party must give security for two years'rental,and when the estate was at all large this might be made a matter of great difficulty; but the plaintiff had generally some one whom he wished to serve, or there was some one ready to enter into an un derhand agreement with the plaintiff's solicitor; and a clever solicitorland a passive receiver could easily contrive to expend the rents in the management of the estate, and without laying out anything in improvements. —(Hear, hear.) The receiver had fifteen months to ac count in, and altogether it was about three years before the creditor touched a farthing of his interest.—(Hear, hear.) Now, surely the rights of creditors ought not to supersede the primary duties of property—(Hear. hear) —but this system delayed the creditor, injured at once the owner and the public, and did good only to those in terested in an expensive management of the estate. If a receiver did anything beyond the mere collection of the rents, it was liable to be overhau'ed; and there were al ways small creditors ready to go before the Master upon such matters, with the estate liable for costs.—(Hear, hear.) If so large a portion of the property of the country was to be taken for the sake of enforcing the rights of creditors, surely the Court of Chancery ought to have the powers of an owner, and this property ought to be managed as under a system of good private agency.—(l-lear, hear.) An act was passed to encourage leases by reducing the stamp to is., but it only applied to leases for a certain term, and every lease under the Court of Chancery was effectually excluded, nor could such a lease be obtained at a less cost than 71. The receiver had to give the two years' security because of his being allowed to hold ever the money for so long ; and an important part of' the profits of his office con sisted in his turning the money to his private purposes. —(Hear, hear.) A very experienced officers of the Rolls' Court was opinion that property under the Court did not upon an average yield more than two-thirds, frequently not more than one-half, what it paid under the owner's hands; and the Master of the Rolls stated that it appeared by returns that, from 1841 to 1843 (the amount would be larger if the return were carried later), an arrear of a quarter of a million of money had arisen from the bad management of estates by receivers.— (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Napier) trusted, now that the House had :got into this subject, they would not part with it until they bad done something a hich would encourage hope and confidence in Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable Member for Middlesex had mentioned that there were two classes of receivers, male and female, and that the properties under the latter were better mare-teed than the properties under the former. He (Mr. Napier) imagined that the latter cases would be found to be chiefly those either of' minors or lunatics. Those properties we re generally better manage d than other properties, because the Court of Chan cery had much more ample powers in such cases than in others He thought that what was wanted to remedy the existing grievances was to give the Court of Chan cery larger powers, and to introduce a new machinery for the purpose of putting those powers into execution. —(Hear, hear.) From all he had gathered from persons most conversant with this subject he believed the correct course to follow would be to appoint a person as master receiver, whose exclusive attention should be devoted to this particular subject, and to have under him a num ber of district receivers, wholly independent of the par ties interested, who should reside in the localities where the properties were situated, and keep a superintendence over and check upon the management of the particular estates. He thought it would be useful also to cause the district receivers to make a return every week of the money they had collected; that there should be an office where the books should be kept open for the in spection of all the parties interested; Gni that there should be half-yearly accounts rendered by the district receivers to the master receiver, who should also have power to make inquiries from time to time, so as by these means to bring the estates as nearly as possible into the same condition as they would probably be in if the inheritors were themselves invested with full power to manage the properties as beneficially as possible.— (Hear.) He (Mr. Napier) was very averse to encourage the people to look to the Legislature for everything; but still he held that, if they could, they were bound to remedy a great and practical evil like the one then under consideration; and, for that purpose, he con sidered that a short inquiry would be useful. He had no doubt, from all he had heard on the subject, and from the conferences he had had with various parties in Ire land, that if' a short inquiry were now instituted they would be c !tabled, before Parliament separated, to pass a measure which, under God, would greatly ameliorate the condition of Ireland, and help them to grapple more successfully with those scenes of misery which, if they could not prevent, they ought at all events, to do their best to mitigate.—(Hear.) Lord J. RUSSELL.—I rise for the purpose of' saying only a few words upon this subject, because I have no objection to make to the proposal of' the Hon. Member for an inquiry into this subject.—(Hear, bear.) I think it is a subject of the highest importance. I think that the evils which have been so ably pointed out by the Hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Osborne), as well as by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier) who followed him, are such as to make it most desirable to apply a remedy, so far as we can at least, to the evils which they have described.—(Hear, hear.) I should likewise say that the Lord Chancellor of Ire land has for some time past paid great attention to this subject—(Bear, hear)—and that it is certainly no fault of his that we have not introduced a measure on the subk ct. He has traced a plan which, if a Com mittee be appointed, would, as detailed by him, be a fit subject for inquiry by them. It is a plan which, while on the one hand we thought it of great advantage, on the other seemed to us to be liable to grave objections. It has, therefore, been under our consideration, with the - view trying to remedy these objections, and I thiek it would be a very desirable question to go before a Com mittee, because the reasons for and against the plan could then be properly sifted, and the objections to it, if possible, removed. The plan suggested by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland does not materially differ from that which has been sketched by the Hon. and Learned Gen tleman (Mr. Napier) ; but I can hardly go along with him in expecting from the appointment of public atd re sponsible receivers that we can obtain the benefit which is obtained by having proprietors residing on their own properties, and being able to attend to the improvement of those properties themselves.—([lear, hear.) I rather think, therefore, that one object of the Committee should be to inquire whether this system of appointing re ceivers to facilitate the charging of properties with debt has not beau carried too far under the law as it at present exists.—(hear.) I own I consider myself, that although it is a principle which appears perfectly just, and which no doubt is just, that if a person has incurred a debt his estate should be held liable for it, yet I think the princi ple is carried too far, and leads to the injury of all per sons living upon the estate, in cons quence of that estate becomiug the property of the creditor, and at the same time that creditor not getting the management of the estate. I think that no advantage that can arise from the Appointment of a public receiver can compensate for the disadvantage of not having a proprietor with his hands free and able to manage his own estate. However, that is a point which will properly come under the consider ation of the Committe, if appointed. I think that al though this subject does not immediately belong to the question before the House, yet it is so intimately con nected with it, and the House has received such valuable information from the Hon. Member for Middlesex and the Hon. and Learned Member for the University of Dublin, that I think there is nothing to regret in the discussion that has taken phice—(Hear, hear)—and if the Hon. should be the first parties to disclaim ney connexion by eleeur the acre referred to r: ore coin mitted.—(Cheers.) I assume that the repel' frern which I quoted is correct; I assume that Captain Kennedy, the author of that paper, would not make erroneous statements; and I presume that her Majesty's Govern ment would not lay papers upon the tahle of this !louse, for the guidance and conduct of our legislation, with out being convinced that they were not gross exag gerations.—(Hear, hear.) Did I make any attack upon Irish landlords in general ? Did I throw upon individuals the charges which may be justly thrown upon legislation? What I said was, that there were particular instances stated by Captain Kennedy which were such as that one day ought not to elapse without our attention being called to them.—(Hear.) It is very easy to say that the House of Commons is re sponsible; but I ask whether the House of Commons, or any other public body, is responsible for the pardon - Jar transactions to which I referred? Is the House of Commons responsible for this?— " In a cowshed adjoining this wretched cabin I found Eden Lynch, lying in an almost hopeless stage of dysen tery. She Lad been carried thither by her son when thrown out' of her miserable !edging, and was threat. ened with momentary expulsion from even this refuge by the philanthropic owner of it; her only safety rested in the fears of all but her son to approach her." Is it the fault of our legislation or of the House of Commons that a woman is ejected from her home, and, being attacked with dysentery, takes ref uge i n a tempo raryhut in the neighbourhood, and that the party who ejected her is about is evict her a second time from the wretched hovel, and is only prevented from doing so by the fear of a contagious disease, and that the only hu man being who approaches her is her own son, whose filial affection overcomes his fear of contagion? Is the House of Commons responsible for that?—(Cheers.) This House is responsible for bed legislation and its re sults; but do net make it responsible for acts of indi vidual inhumanity.—(Hear, hear.) Is the House of Commons responsible for this?— .„. " While inspecting a stone breaking depot a few days since, I observed one of the men take off his remnant of a pair of shoes and start across the fields ; I f o llowed him with my eye, and at a distance saw the blaze of a fire in the bog. I sent a boy to inquire the cause of it, and the man running from his work, and was told that the house had been levelled the day before; that he had erected a temporary hut on the lands; and while his wife and children were gathering shell-fish on the strand, and he stone-breaking, the bailiff or 'driver' fired it." What Irish gentlemen ought to say is this—they ought to say—" This is an individual act—don't judge a whole class by the act of an individual." That would be a better, a wiser, a more becoming course to take than to say that individuals are not responsible.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. FRENCH—I did not say so. Sir R. PEEL—You said that I ought to be the last man to take notice of such things, knowing that our legislation was responsible.—(Hear, hear.) There is only one thing more to deepen the colour of this case. He concludes with this emphatic sentence:— " I need not enter upon the financial condition of the union, which the estimates forwarded will sufficiently! explain. I need only remark that I anticipate a reap ct able collection this v: cc k, and for some weeks to come, but certainly not sufficient to meet more than half the current expenses of the union for food alone." It you want anything else to awaken feelings of sym pathy with those who are thus suffering, it ought to be the assurance that they are submitting to it with a for bearance and patience which exceeds belief.—(Cheers.) I did not think, Sir, I had deserved blame, or acted con trary to the spirit of justice to Irish proprietors, to say. on the first day after those papers were laid on the table of the House, that we should give a proof to Ireland that such facts shall not be stated in public documents and be buried in oblivion.—(Loud cheers.) Mr. F. FREZ - TCH denied that he had ever stated in dividuals were not responsible for such acts as those. His objection to the course pursued by the Right Hon. Baronet vies, that he endeavoured to attach to all Irish proprietors blame which was attachable solely to those by whom the acts were committed, but for which the Right Hon. Baronet's policy was really answerable. The gallery was then cleared for a division in the usual way. Immediately after the exclusion of strangers. Mr. J. O'CONNELL, we understood, addressed the House, after which the division took place:— For the motion ••• ... 144 Against it ... ... 30 Majority —ll4 On our return to the gallery we found the House in Committee on the Bill, and the CHAIRMAN in the act of putting the question that the preamble be postponed. EXCLUSION OF STRANGERS. Mr. J. O'CONNELL immediately rose and said:— After the specimen of the fairsiess which I experienced when I was going to express my opinions on the poor law, just before the last division, there is but one coursf left to me—either to insist on the House enforcing jus tice to its Members, in the matter of their privileges, or that they do away with an absurd practice ; end, there fore, Sir, I see strangers present.—(Loud cries of " Oh, oh I " and groans hollowed from all parts of the House.) Mr. BERNAL (Chairman of the Committee) — Strangers must withdraw. The galleries were accordingly cleared shortly after eleven o'clock. When the reporters had been excluded about half-an hour, a division took place on the question, as we under stood, that the Chairman do report prcgress. The numbers were— Ayes Noes ... 31 Majority The gallery door having been opened • as usual after the announcement of the numbers, the reporters entered, when— Mr. J. O'CONNELL again noticed the presence of strangers; and they were ordered to withdraw amidst loud laughter. We are indebted to an Hon. Member for the following report of what took place subsequently to the exclusion of strangers, the House being at the time in Committee on the Irish Poor•law Bill : Clause 1. Mr. MONSELL thought it would be ad visable to take a discussion on the maximum rate on the first clause, and he thought the discussion would be long and should not go on at so late an hour. Mr. ADAIR agreed. Colonel DUNNE thought no progress could be made that evening. Mr. STAFFORD had meant yesterday to raise this question on the words, " it shall not be lawful." Lord JOHN RUSSELL hoped the Hon. Gentleman would go on with his objections to-night. Mr. HERBERT thought otherwise. Mr. V. SMITH make a remaik. Mr. CLEMENTS said many Members were opposed to the maximum. Mr. ROCHE did not see why, if they were to pro ceed, they should not proceed- at once.: When every one complained of the poor-law it was a waste of time not to go on. Sir A. BROOKE thought it would be better to recal the gallery.—(Langhter.) Mr. GRATTAN had long been a Member of that House, and had never known a case when a Member whose speech tor five minutes was not reported had g ,, t up and deprived the public of a report of what took place.—(Hear, hear.) He moved the adjournment, in order to decide this question. When Mr. Windham was not reported he did not act thus; he proceeded with his speeches. Why punish him who meant to make a good speech on that question? Ile confessed he was a young man and vain and wanted his sp, ech reported. His lion. Friend might not care. Don't let us make ourselves ridiculous in the eyes of the country. Mr. O'CONNELL, in substance, said it was of inp portauce for the sake of others. If the House were satisfied, he could not help it. He complained of un fairness. He had seen messengers in the gallery speak ing with the reporters.—(Loud laughter.) It might be ridiculous, but be would stand up for the right of Members to be treated fairly. He must deprive his friend of the pleasure of seeing his speech in print. Mr. BERNAL put the question in a loud voice in these word -e It shall not to lawful."—(Leughter.) Mr. GRATTAN b egge d par d on; he had moved to report progress. M. BLACKALL proposed to go on without further waste of time. On matters of such vast importance they ought to go on without the reporters. Whether it would be advisable to support a maximum at all was a most important question. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, the principal reason for the maximum was, it would induce persons to oc cupy arid cultivate land, giving greater reason for sup port of the poor. Nor was this theoretical. One gen tleman gave evidence that he had tried this. He bad promised his tenants that when the rate came to ss. he would pay it. Mr. lIORSMAN said, the same gentleman said that this would not do without a diminished area of taxation. Lord JOHN hoped the House would go on. Lord C. HAMILTON was as anxious as any one to go on. He thought the Noble Lord should state when the sultjoct should be renewed, as it aas impossible to finish it et that late hour. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, he should take the Per liamentary Oaths Bill first on Monday, and this Bill second; if not, for Thursday. Mr. GRATTAN said, as to dividing, he would do what the HOUSE) liked. Ayes 31 Noes .• 163 Mr. BERNAL.—" It sh a ll not• be lawful."—(Loud laughtes, and cries of " Gallery, gallery.") A long pause followed. Mr. STAFFORD thought it unfortunate that this Committee on Irish Poor-laws should begin at midnight, when it could not come on again till Monday week, owing to the arrangement of the Government. At this moment strangers returned, and, Mr. O'CoN NELL having called attention to the fact, the reporters withdrew. Gentleman will 'Love at any time for the appointment of a Committee I will certainly be ready to support the motion; and my Hon. and Learned Friend the Solicitor- General, who has introduced some measures in respect to this subject, will be ready to give every assistance in his power in framing such measures as the House will be likely to approve ot. lam of opinion that we ought to aim not so much at one great measure, but at different measures, all bearing on the same object, namely, to rescue Ireland from the evils under which she is now suffering.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. F. FRENCH, after complaining that the question before the House had been evaded in this discussion, and that no answer had been given to the allegations con tained in the motion of the Hon. Member for Water ford, proceeded to say that the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth had laid great stress upon a statement relative to certain evictions which were said to have lately occurred in Ireland. For his own part, he (Mr. French) doubted whether those evictions had taken place at all, for it certainly was not the first time that reports had been spread of evictions by landlords which had turned out, upon inquiry, to have been a species of Lynch-law, executed by the people them selves, and which the landlords had had nothing to do with. Besides, even if the reports respecting evic tions were true, it was not fair to blame the landlords for what was more just attributable to legislation; and the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth ought to have been the last man to take notice of such things, knowing, as he must, that their legisla ion was responsi ble for them. Mr. STAFFORD resumed.—The Noble Lord said himself that the evening had not been by any means lost, as they had had a good debate. He (Mr. Stafford) had proposed to take the objection to the maximum on the words "it shall be lawful." If beaten, then they ' meant to fight on the worps " five shillings" in the four teenth line, and divide on a subsequent passage. It must be a subject of great importance to Englishmen to know whence money was to come from, when tlo maximum was attained. The Noble Lord said Mr. Marti❑ had tried this on his estate, promising to pay his tenants when the maximum was reached. The Premier was here Mr. Martin, and the Consolidated Fund was his estate. So that when the maximum was attained, the Consolidated Fund must be attacked. Whit stimulus was given to employment under the plan? The assump tion would be that the maximum rate would always be reached. So that, as the occupier was the only pi r son who could give employment, no stimulus would be afforded. The farmer would deal with his landlord on Sir H. PEEL—I cannot silently acquiesce in the un sure which has just been cast upon me by the Hon. Member. I have nothing to regret except it be that I believe I rather understated than overstated the C4Be.- (Hear. hear.) I certainly cannot charge myself with injustice to the parties to whom I referred, for on look ing; again at the parers I find that I p:iinted the case in faint and feeble colours.—(Cheers.) When I have thought the Irish landlords had had injustice done to them—and I think they have had injustice done to them in some respects—l h ave not been slow to do them jus tice—(Hear, hear)—but I must say that Irish gentlemeu this essumption. We hew) lied experience of this E t„ier d. Acts in En •I• i ("6 C • 111 cap. lo) e e TelM.,- •/ formed a precedent. He quoted the preamble.—(Crie r of "Gallery, gallery.") A maximum was established in this English Act. But then those gentlemen who hope there is any permanence in such an arranger:ea= would be disappointed. Another Act is passed to doubier the arrangement. Then comes the 52d George in , which abolishes the elan altogether. Agricultural prices in Ireland would fall, and the analogy with Englad was thus stronger. The Nob!e Lord said the maximum was an inducement to invest. Be asked how a cePi talist, leaking to English legislation on Irish Poor -lacy at airy, ( wild think it safe to invest 1001. in Irish pro perty, inless their legislation c intained the germs of better ay-tem? Do you think that a capitalist who br.a . , seen inch v cissitudes, suc h fresh burdens ou lend"' rope , ty, would t rus t t h at no furth-er charge would h° Provo, ed? What would prevent our doubling the mart" mum? When the maximum is attained, where would more money come from? You cannot diminish Pau pre:m; with'lri,h resources undeveloped, you cannot say to the tide of Irish pauperism, " Thus far shall you so and no further." The Bill had no g uaran tee that the. maximum would not b e excee d e d . It wuuld not tell we ll for English representatives to let it be understood that the remainder should come from English resources. Every statement showed that poverty was increasing' The expenditure exceeded by far 53. in the pound in the distressed districts. How were they to proceed ? Th ere ought to be more openness and plain statement in the Bill. It would be recollected that the law of settlement depended on the statement of the pauper and the alloca" tion of the guardians. The result of the maximum ra te would be to tempt great injustice to electoral divisions. One electoral division would be overburdened and others comparatively escape. The question is, would you or not make the law a stimulus to employment? If tar-fuel could thus shuffle off th e i r b ur d ens on others, how W°llll the end—employm en t—b e atta i ne d ? The Noble Lor' had refused to state whence the overplus of pauperism was to be relieved. There would be no security to the owners of property. The plan would mulct the indu r r trious for the sake of th e i n d o l ent and wrongful. 1•11,8 could not conceive ho v Parliament—beli ev i n g in, t duty of the rich towards th e p oor — cou ld pass the Bill. ll Yet, it would pass. The House had registered the w" of the Noble Lord througho u t. Thus he reluctantly warned the Noble Lord that the Bill contained a dan' gerous and fatal principle. Mr. VERNON SMITH had asked on the second reading what would b e th e f un d when the maximum was attained. The N o bl e L or d sa i d f i rst come on parish—then on the union—but afterwards there VVSS a blank. The country was to b e as i t was before t' , ' . poor law. In other w or d s , I r i s h poverty would have to " i : come on English prop er ty. A ga i nst that the Noble Lord sets this, that capit a l wou ld b e encouraged to ill" into Ireland. But what hopes of th,t? What said Mr' Aubrey de Vere —a very clear witness? The farme r would take no pains to keep down the maximum. The rate would jump up to th a t po i nt at once. Estates w ould ebe taken accrdingly, and p au p er i sm wou l d b e w h e re It was. Be (Mr. V. Smith) p roteste d aga i nst making" d laws to tempt capital into Ireland. In England all 1; 11) ' party is pledged to support the poor. Why n ot in ir e ; land? Another argument of Mr. De Vere was, til% the variety of valuati ons i n I re l and would make still more uncertain what liabilities a farmer would incur' The measure would n o t i ntro d uce eapital. wa merely an opinion —a th eor y — o f t h e Noble Lord ' s , an d would fail. e Colonel DUNNE sa id , t h e expenditure in several on electoral divisions h a d reached 203. in the pound. 0 said the maxim um rate was a good principle. No 111,40 could take land till li a b ilities were ascertained. d. English principl e was b ad, and ought not to be (ixteene In only two cases had tie 54. been exceeded. The 0 ,1 ( p c ; rity of otit- t • taxes in Irela n d on t h e farmer was. anoth er reason. Ni county cess would be paid, unless there" a maximum. Lard J. RUSSELL said, these who had argued the question hal proceed, d on the assumption that were ' 5. no call for money on the Consolidated Fund. A /thoug the western uninns were liable for th e whole 40.9 . , in i " h® a i pound incurred, y e t, as the rate was not collectA h good was s.uch u liability ? Did it not cause a p wric, prevent iniprovemen:? The farmer when told tfist the rate would only amount to 75., would calcii'llt° - - LortY J. RUSSELL next said he could not, c onceiv e that the farmer would assume t h at the rates woul d r ut up to 55., and even aid in making them run up, iao to get 2s. out of others.. This would be an übterls: Supposing, for exampl e , th e rates were naturally only le. or 2s. He would h ave t h e ord i nary interest in keePl'i; down the rates. The li on . G ent l eman had ask , sct w eer they were to come for money after the maximum sae obtained? Few of the divisions would reach %be s u be %e There would not b e 280 e l ectoral divisions in licit t. O rate would be exceeded. Things could not be, lef t n i e their present condition. Rents would fall: the P ° " to could not be relieved at all. If bad, the maximum r a a d, was better than doing nothing. He should obj ea; 'd. vaece out of the Consolidated Fund if the 7s. was ex ceede t. Ireland's condition would then be only the same :a 3 Se° e oluty land's. Till of late, 1837, the poor law was only tary-55. in every electoral division, 2s. on Vie O i l', would be a great burden to impose so soon. 7,:he e!„ . donee before the Committee was in favcur or the P l % l. Mr. Da Vero had evidently thought much on the gl e . r os question, and gave good evidence, but still b is 0 1" 31 . a h was that Mr. De Vero was a little influenced IWl ' 5 . to find fault with everything connected with glee po law. He (Lord John) believed this Bill would' be a use ,i ful auxilia r y t o t h e Bi ll for the sale of in crimhenr!i estates. If land was ma d e valueless, what mac, in a W. to facilitate sales. Mr. HERBERT would not speak long.— <Cries Of " Adjourn.") He thought the principle of a rhax i f eute rate would compensate for the vice of the Bill. Nothing remedial in the Bill. There would be future calls 013 the Imperial Exchequer. 4s. Id. was the laigast sou l ever collected in the di s t resse d un i ons. Thus itraPittal would never be s a f e . S ome h onest districts had Pal. more than the maximum. Had they stuck to the maxi mum, the poor wou ld h ave di ed. He only w i s h e d t i notice Mr. Vernon S m i t h' s remark. He thought he ha' adopted the spi r it o f E ng l ish Members on this hilt!' When there was a danger of an in roa d on the consult" dated fund he exclaimed against any change leaclil thereto. Only on e E ng li s h M em b er had agreed ye Irish Membe rs th a t t h e l aw of Ireland should, as I r ish gentleman wishe, be assimilated the Eng law. le ADAIR said more than 4s. to Id. had beenlish collectea in one union. In Clare 6s. 6id. had been collected. 11 1 Miltown division Bs. had been collected. He su pporte the maximum ra t e as an exceptional measure to give confidence to Ireland. Mr. HERBERT had quoted from a public paper. Mr. SIDNEY HERBE RT apprehended that t" Noble Lord would d es i re to get this Bill throug h ~s soon as pesale. Why not fix Monday? Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought Bills shou ld be d pissed at once w h en t h e H ouse had arrived at the third reading. He had agree d w i t h other Members, tot'', the subject. B es id es , t h ere were points in the poorJa_ still requirin g amen d ment. He would rather ad h e re Iv the old arrangement. re' Comm it t ee t h en reporte d , and the Speaker - r sutned to sit again on Monday. Charitable Trusts on Monday. The House ac/j-tirned at One o'clock. RAILWA AtARKETS. LIVERPOOL, JUNG 8. csea STocK ExcnawoE.—The share market was gloomy and depre— to-day, and few transactions going forward. Towards the close business prices had a downward tesuencY. The sales sera—LAlD cashire and Yorkshire, Filtll3, 4% dis.—Bolton, Chester, and Th I%,tte, Yorkshire (So. 1), 7—Lond on an d North-Western, 127 c.—isi New Quarters, 48s. 9d. p . —Di tto, Fifths, I,,p.—Midland, Halves , dis.—South-Eastern and Dover (No. 4), (A—York, Newcastle, an Berwick (U. N. IL Purchase), 765. 3d. dis. MANCIIESTER, JUNE 8. STOCK EXCHANGE.—The transactions to-day were AS fOIIO3VnV... Clithereo (No. 1), 70—Sheffield, Eighths, Grlinsby DoCkS:' . / 9 4), North Staffordshire, Preference (Canal Shares), 21—Dover (MI6 r. r.—Leeds, Fifths, 4 11-16 dis.—Caletlonian, Preference. 11 5- BIRMIN(411AII, TUNE 8. sTocK EXCIIANGE.—The transactions to-any have teen as foli oWS' —London and North-Western, 126—Midland, per cents , Shrewsbury and Birmingham (B), 41. 3a 9d. dis,— P Shropshire 1 " -- °° 565. 3d. dis. YORK, JUNE 7. fol; STOCK EXCIIANGE.—The transactions to-day have been - 1 ; ou. lows :—Great Northern, 9%—NorthlLritish. Thirds, 3%—T"' North Midland, 53;, . o f' A FACT FOR AVELSMI EN . —At the Board Guardians, on Saturday, Mr. John, the relieving offcer i stated in answer to a que.,tion from M r . B oo k er , t hat all the cases of ch o l era th at came under his notice, t'.,B wire rek ved or buried a t the public expense, there not ono W e l s h. Th ey were nkaily all Irish.—The Pri [ADVEnTISEMENT .] Chin Cured b y H o l loway's Ointment and Pills. — Bober —A dreadful Ab scess u nder th a t Davidson, shoemaker, of Anstruther, had suffered for or °re . than five y ears w i th a very dreadful abscess under his ch i l; during this time lie had been under the care of two surgeong e Anstruther an d one i n Edinburgh, without the least prosPilo-. of a cure. In this miserable condition he began to ufe q ° o way's Oint men t an d Pil ls, which, in the short space or this months, soundly healed the wound ; and he is now enjoYiog li t best of he a lth. Th ese fi ne medicines are admirable renieti4 tor king's evil, wounds of all kinds burns, scalds, pile?, fi i st o „,r, and bearings down. Sold by all ' Druggists, an d at Prole Holloway's Establishment, 244, Strand, London. BIRTHS. la d- of On the Ist inst., at the Priory, nea r T aunton, th e .1 11 -- , , J. Winter, Esq., of a daughter. On the 4th just , at Otn n h am , W orcestershire, the vv •fe o f the Rev. R. Lawson, of a daughter. On the 4th inst., at Kensin g t on - park-road, the wi f e 0 f G. G. Kirby, Esq., of a daughter. iOn the sth inst , at Arbour-t errace, Commercial-maw ale wife of the Rey. Richard Parnell, of a daughter. D. On the sth inst , at the Will ows, Upton, Essex, Ell . H. Fry, of a son. Oa the Gth inst., at B roo k- green, Hammersmith, the Wire of the Rev. E. Hunting, Td, of a son. On the 6th inst., IVirs. Frederic Webb, Clapham-road-place, of a son. RRIED. On the 6th inst., at Christchurch, Newgate-street, Tholvv, as third son of J o h n B arker, Esq., of Broadwater, Susseic, Frances, elde s t surv i v i ng laughter of the late Samuel W V ward, Esq , of Clapton, Middlesex. On the 7th inst at St. George's, Bloomsbury, the: Rene. ' John Philip G e ll , M.A. late Ward en o f Ch r i st ' s Coll r Tastnaria, to Elea-or Isabella, only child of Captain John Franklin, R.N. DIE. On the 4th in s t., a t Frognal, D Hampstead, aged 82, -li o ' beth, relict of the late J. Harris, Esq. On the 4th inst., at Leigh-house, Lower-heatb, youngest llB- stead, Frances Elizabeth, daughter of the lat e • Holloway, Esq., of E as t Leigh, Havent, Hants, aged 3 2 J ae ® a On the sth in t., at the Lod ge , W eymouth, aged 84, Young, relict of the late W. Young, Esq. !At Edinburgh, on th e sth inst., Amelia Marian, relic t ! the late George Robins, Esq., of Kensington-gardens-terrlL At Hanfo r d, on t h e 6th inst., Helen, daughter of a SeyTner, Esq., P. 44 i London : Printed and Published by MURDO YOIM of — l l 2, No. 112, Stra n d, P r i nter, at Th e Sun Off i ce, NO. : o f Strand, in the Precin c t o f th e S avoy, i n the counv Middlesex, Saturday, June 9, 1849. AUSTRALIAN BILL. Mr. LIAWES, in reply to a question from Mr. Disraeli, said that though the Government bad been much interrupted, he hoped to be able on Monday to introduce the improved Bill.-01.hr, hear.) TOO mEvr.tan: UNION. Mr. H. DRUMMOND said before the l'ouse went into the orders of the day, he would throw himself on its indulgence and its justice while he troubled it with a re futation of the persinal attack which was made on the Rev. Massey Dawson, a friend of his, the other evening, by the Hon. Member for Limerick. In so doing he by no means admitted the justice or the pro priety of any Member of that House making a charge against an individual in reference to his private pro perty, without in the first instance giving him notice of tis intention so to do. The Hon. Member then read a 14ter he had received from the Rev. Massey Dawson, to the effect that the persons ejected from his property happened to be two middle-men, named Murphy and Sawley, the former of whom owed him six years' rent at one time, and had only since paid a very small portion of his arrears, whilst Saviley owed him five and a half years' rent, and not content with owing him rent, he har boured all the bad characters in the vicinity, men who lived on roaming the country by day and plundering by night. Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL said the Hon. Member for Tipperary was not in the House at that moment, but be would venture to answer for him to the House.— (Hear.) The facts were not at all denied, of turning out 500 or 600 poor people to perish, and the levelling of their houses was not denied; and he (Mr. John O'Connell) did think it an aggravation to the people to be called a nest of thieves and murderers, without the least attempt to prove it. A great number of par ties got . unstamped r ece ipt s f or rents wh i ch they had paid from the ageht of that ge n tl eman , M r . R. E. Wilson ; and parties taking unstamped receipts could be turned out in a moment. There was no doubt in the present distressed state of Ire land a great number of poor p eop l e had been about the country to support life.—(Crie s of " Order, order," in the midst of A Litch the Hon. Member resumed his sen t . ) Sir W. SOMERVILLE said as his Hon. Friend the other evening had referred to the conduct of th e b oar d of guardians of the Nenagh Union, he (Sir Willi am Somervill-) had received a report from Captain Bowen, the inspector, who stated that the necessary notice s were served on the relie v i ng officers, in accordance with the Act of Victoria, in the case of the parties who had been evicted. Mr. P. SCROPE—Connected with this subject P— (" Oh, ob," " Order, order," " Char, chair.") THE SUN, LONDON, SAT URDAY EVENING, JUNE 9, 1849.