The Sun. — London, England, 1851-04-09 00:00:00

Old de 0. ,ur bring a ie 4 ' 11 0 ' be of The . TtlE SUN, LONDON, Meat of a tax on the - .r property wlich rover ranoucted e ( t i c' more than 21 53. a year, and lied by th e means nen ered necessary th e unseem l y eceee whites :he Gentleman had selves-ed. He (Sir R. IneeH) should have resisted that m ot i on if i t h a d assumed she form of e resolution; and even in its present SligpP he could Not Rive to i t his appreval. The only ground on which such a Committee could be considered necessary was, that is would be desirable to put an end to SUMO uncertainty in th e law upon the subject. But no such uncertaiete at present existed. The law upon the point, after basing been brought under the consideration of several inferior c ourts, had been finally settled by the highest court of judicature in the kingdom, which had decided in favour of the legal existence of church-rates for the repair and Maintenance of parish churches. At the present moment church -rates differed from tithes in this respect only, that they Were fluctuating in amount from the very nature of their case. He should grieve to think that that question Ivav Y l anY way to be unsettled by the inquiries of a Pa rliamentary Committee. He could not understand why there should be such a Committee, towards which should gravitate all the complaints and ell the plans of all Dis t;eters in the ki ng d om for the removal of a charge Le h Was a positive obligation on them, not as Dis lenters, but as owners of property. He certainly thought would have been 'wiser not to have raised the question. et, at th e same t i me, as t h e mot i on was no l onger a re solution pledging the House to a particular course of f t `en, he sho u ld no t mee t it by a dir ec t n e gative. He aruestly hoped, however, that her Majesta's Govern tent, whil e they assented to the proposal, would take tare that the Committee should be a fair and impartial o ne, and s h ou ld not con A st o f M em b ers pre -d eterm i ne d !II arriving at a conclusion unfavourable to the Church six% the subject. „2 4 r- BRIGHT sa id h e did not think the Hon. Baronet "" 13 had just addressed the House had made out a good Case with regard to the Bishopsgate-street aggression. th 6 Hon- Baronet was aware that the church for which o. e:se benches and seats had been seized was placed in C e i mmediate neighbourhood of the Friends' meeting ieese which had been so despoiled. It might be true Oat th ose effects had . not been seized immediately l a . the meeting-house, but they had been „ v , l , ze d in the adjoining premises, and that was not hold that there was anything oc sacred in seats or te:riiis, and in their view there was no such crime as ge in connexion with places of worship. He would the Hon. Baronet himself whether he t hought, that hie country and at the present day, such a state of m g , as that of which he himself bad admitted the estlstence, ought any longer to be tolerated—that on one shoe, of a street they should have a large place of wor m connexion with the Church of England, and that e t e l the other side of the street they should have a place ;:( worship erected by the voluntary contributions of a ew hose members, while they professed essentially the mime n e t th religious doctrines , were compelled to contribute :'"'" Maintenance of the church of their more favoured tel"bours? He said that such a system was inconsis toat with the general laws of a country which professed an have long ago done away with persecution, penalties, add di sabilities, on the ground of religious differences. He witted that there was the sanction of an Act of Parlia ent for such proceedings as those which had taken place the ease of the Friends' meeting-house inthe Bishops ,restreet district; but he complained that such an et " Parliament should exist, and he thought that it fliought at once to be repealed. He believed that the in ction of church-rates was unjust to Dissenters, and that 11„ W as a disadvantage to the Church itself. The Hon. t r ,' 4 °, ll et had said that that question had of late been C a rY settled. It was true that a majority of the judges garis h, decided that any minority, however small, in a etti v !sli, could strike a church-rate; but some of the most ine at of the judges had arrived at a contrary conclu sion,That church-rate law, as it stood at present, was Ver o ,, e like what the Duke of Wellington had said the a r day of martial law—it was no law at all. It gave to r t ight of taxation to a minority in a parish such as was anenjoyed by a m i nor ity o f th a t H ouse . H e believed at all t h e b est Churchmen regretted the content i ons c hurch -r a t es sc andalous scenes to which the exaction of those rece ive gave r i se. T hat system m i g h t a wh the a pp rova l o f t h e p o liti ca l Ch urc h men l so used the Church for party purposes; but of sincere, high-minded, and charitable members thethe Church must deeply regret the consequences of .. Present law upon the subject. And let it be remem !ered that the whole amount of those tchurch-rates was ! 0 t more th an b etween 200,000 1 . and 250,000/. a year. ~4 Manchester no church-rates have been collected dur ing the last fifteen years; the parish church there was n ai ntained by the voluntary contributi o n s o f the mem :era of the Established Church, and by that system much contention, violence, and animosity had fortunately bee n avoided. In Rochdale the same system was pur ,llllo, and with the same happy result. He• believed that church-rate system had long been undermining the uhurch of England in the affections of the people. The r a esent was a very peculiar time for the Ch u rch of Eng u& They had heard speeches from Hon. Gentlemen u Pposite, which showed that among the members • of the Church very different feelings prevailed with re gard to many of those questions from those which had prevailed in former times. He should advise the Hon. zaronet (Sir R. H. Inglis) to try to " set his house in Order." —(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) If there was to be a stress of weather for the Church, it would be better that it should be prepared to meet it, than that it should .have all that damaging lumber en board. He hoped the Proposed Committee would sift that question, and when they should have presented their report the Noble Lord Would not allow that report to be laid idly on the shelf %mil he should again come into office. He believed that no Minister could adopt a wiser measure than one which Would put an end altogether to those church-rat e s, and ' remove a system which was an injustice to Dissenters and an injury to the Church of England.—(Hear.) Mr. A. B. HOPE said he did not share in the appre• 'U niversity of Oxford (Sir IL H. Inglis) had expressed • °f the f the conseq uences o f th e p ro p ose d i nqu i r y. I t s h ou ld b remembered that the system of church-rates h a d b een imposed at a very different period irom the present. T had been imposed at a time when the people of this country had all professed but one religion, and when the ?stem was not liable to the same objection which could at Present be urged against it. He thought it advisable net when other rights were inquired into, the question `4 church -rates should not be considered as the immu table foundation of the faith of the people of England. ..-(Elear, hear.) But, as a Churchman, he should say rat he did not think a Committee of that House would ,7 like ny ly to be the tribunal to best adapted to investigate queation which related the ecclesiastical affairs of T ember. of all religious de n ominations, because, as all eeuonsinations were represented in that House, it was still, unfit to l eg i s l a t e f or an y one o f them in particular. ta, however, on the broad ground that church-rates should not be considered immutable, he should not ob tct to that m o ti on . Th e proposa l, h oweve r, of the Hon. tlernan the Member f or Manchester, like the pro pnesil al of the Solicitor-General last year, was open to the gr eat obj !t ection that it would attach a pecuniary ad si;itage to reli g i ous i n diff eren ti sm , by exempting from the6 contributions for the maintenance of churches all reuse who did not pr o f ess t o 'b e l on g to a ny particular of 'dg as o denomination. He was aware of the difficulty eatin judiciously with that question. But he had heardstates of a scheme which existed in one or two of the 00 t r of America, and which bad some broad advantage d tide face of it, although he could not undertake to ec e a couch whether or not it would be found applicable to this strh Y• Under that scheme a " religion rate" was ei Ceiat then a schedule was sent round to each ratepayer d e ° was required to enter himself under some religious e o; e n:dilation or another• and after that, a sum was g'led, which was handed over , to the hierarchy or the h s yvv ning body of each sect. After all, the members of • to C hurch of En g l an d, th oug h eve ry day most desirous t o Sr c's(' fair play to their fellow-citizens not belonging tilhhutletocr°ltinsunion claimed that liberty of conscience be accorded' to themselves, which he feared, from of legislation which bad prevailed of late, they We re not very likely to obtain. th e v ' HEYWORTH said the argument used against j ust reraoval of church-rates might be urged with equal m ight against the window-tax or any other impost, for it tag gat be argued that a man had bought his house know hat it was subject to the window duties. theittr- LENNARD thought some legislation requisite on e_u a subject, for there was nothing which caused more ertburning in the community. The law had not been Quito fairly stated, for the decisions had only gone to this :gent, that if the vestry met and refused to make a theurch-rate, the churchwardens ,might make one for em, inasmuch as th ey were supposed to have abdicated duties. But if, i nstead of utterly refusing to make e - rate, they made one of 6d instead of 9s suc h a rate W til o e uld be perfectly good, t h ough the result might be that church would get a littl e out of repair. He quite agreed Wi th the Hon. Member for M anchester in thinking that th e enforcement of these r ates was prejudicial to the Ch urch itself, and he believed t h at the Church was not ren dered more wealthy by it. Indeed, if the rate were v oluntary many Dissenters would contribute. that Edinburgh and li tln COWAN expressed a hop© ontrose would he included in the investigation. I P. MAULE could not agree with the Honourable 7.-(ember in thinking that the state of Scotland should be `aelferred to the same Committee. Inquiries had been already made, and Government had endeavoured to ne gotiate between the parties. These negotiations had to terminated successfully; but hopes were still enter ned that they would be brought to a favourable issue. ST. ALB AN'S ELECTION. lio T he Sergeant -at-Arms appeared at the bar, and an- Writ of d to the House that he had made a return to the t of habeas corpus which had been served upon him t he case of William LYnes- LOD GING-HOUSES FOR THE WORKING- LordCLASSES. d uce ASHLEY, in rising to move for leave to _intro ho a Bill to encourage the construction of lodging ' 147 the working classes, • observed that whatever he ees have.been the case 20 years ago, it was not now the n ary to make a lengthened statement in support of 4 0 Motion, Still he was anxious briefly to set before the oth Use the results of his own experience and that of y ear s 4011 the subject. He had - studied it for several geve:iand thought measures might be devised to remove 11 00 I`,:' many of the evils which oppressed a large por the S2i the labouring community. Ho would not detain th e Souse by any lengthened statement. He would divide 10 i Jeets of the Bill into two classes—the stationary and Sgratory o old je .P or- With respect to the stationary class, he Zt . oe u his hand a return in reference to the parish of Quirt' „vege, Hanover-square, and the result of the in -6f the! as that there were in that parish 1,465 families 01 4 , s abouring c l asses who occupied 2,174 rooms. Of fe w , l ansilies 999 had but one room, in which a whole 17 1 2 resided; 408 h a d 2 rooms, 94 had 3 rooms, ro o t s 4 rooms, 8 had 5 rooms , 4 h a d 6 rooms, 1 h a d 7 ta us : and 1 had 8 rooms. He referred to this parish be coudiolt was a fav oura bl e i ns t ance; an d it this was the -Le ado i n ll of the families in one of the best parishes in DON ' what must be the condition of those in the over %l and more wetly g 64,1195 in the eastern districts of London, such es Whits chapel end Shoreditele? This retern eesid noteine of the condition rater est Teeny of the residences of the workintt people, in which there was not one family in a room, hut two, three, foie - , etel, spa he himself hal seen, fere families in a single room, four occupying e corner each, aid oao in the middle. Paysi nothie could be worse; but what was the moral effect? In these 'leases, or rattier single rooms, many grown males and females, of cliff-rent Families, and of the same families, were crowded t igerher, and all de cency and any kind of education were utterly impos sible; for even supposing that that the desire existed to impart education, it would be absolutely nugatory on account of the number of vicious examples which the children would have constantly before their eyes. What wonder, then, that in these receptacles nine tenths of the great crimes, the burglaries and murders, and all those scenes of violence which desolated society, should be first conceived and hatched? Let any one picture to himself the physical state of so many persons, 9, 10, or even 20 or 25 living together in one room. Bear this also in mind, that there was no one principle which produced so evil an effect upon the sanitary con dition of the population as-overcrowding within a limited -space. He laid stress on the sanitary condition of the people, because every person who had the least ex perience of the matter must see its intimate connexion with their moral state. He held in his hand a report from the London Fever Hospital in 1845, which gave a very fair sample of what he had stated. In this a room was described, 33 feet 9 inches long and 20 feet wide, in which 50, and sometimes 90 or 100, people were crowded together, with no more room for respiration than was al lowed in the hospital for three patients.—(Hear, hear.). Observe the consequence. Considerably more than one fifth part of the number of cases admitted into the fever hospital in that year were received from that room alone. —(Hear, hear.) They had abundant proofs of the effects of over-crowding in the investigations instituted by the Board of Health. Such was the condition of what might be called the stationary population? But what was the state of the migratory population? The report of one of the commissioners stated the case of one of the receptacles for this class, in which there were eight rooms, all let separately. In one of these, which was 18 feet by 10, beds were arranged on each side, com posed of straw, shavings, and rags, and in this room slept 27 grown males and females, 31 children, and two or three dogs. In another room there were 32 human beings, all breathing the same pestilential air; the beds being so close together that there was no room to pass between them. This house was never cleaned or venti lated, and literally swarmed with vermin. This, no doubt, was one of the worst instances. He hoped the House would forgive him for entering into these details, but it was a case which could not only be proved lay.ar guments, but by facts.—(Hear, hear.) This state of things was not confined to London, but pervaded many parts of the kingdom, particularly the great towns and populous districts. One of the inspectors of the Board of Health quoted a letter from a clergyman who described Fulham, Maidstone, and Dorsi. as being in a state of great demoralization; Birmingham, Manchester, and Leeds were in a similar state. Of Birmingham he could speak from his own personal knowledge. But mark the effect on the labouring man, who might be earning, per haps, 155., 205., or even 255. a week. It was necessary that he should lodge somewhere near his work, and he was driven to some one of these re ceptacles. What was the consequence? He had known hundreds and hundreds of instances in which a man came up in the prime of life, capable of earning not only a livelihood, but something beyond, and soon came on the parish and sank into his grave, leaving his wife and children permanently chargeable. From Leeds he had accounts stating one instance in which no less than eight persons were found sleeping in one bed, and another in which thirty-one persons occupied three beds. At Brad ford twenty persons were found occupying one room, some in beds, and some on the floor, and it appeared that out of upwards of 60,000 inhabitants, 15,000 were lodged in this way. He would mention one other instance in London to show the necessity of taking some steps. When they opened the great thoroughfare from Oxford street to Holbora it swept away a vast number of small houses and wretched dwellings; but while they were thus increasing the beauty of the town, they were ex aggerating the misery endured by a large part of the population. There was a street in the Bloomsbury dis trict called Church-lane, a wretched neighbourhood, and the abode of fever. In a room in one of the houses in this street a family was living, consisting of eight males above twenty,five females above twenty, four males under twenty, and five females under twenty. On inquiry , this overcrowding was found to be caused by the clear ance made on the formation of New Oxford-street. He called their attention to this fact, in order to show that when great improvements were in progress it was a matter of grave consideration whether some precautions were not necessary to prevent the overcrowding of the poorer classes and the engendering of typhus. The number of places examined and reported on by the in spectors was 161, with an aggregate population of 1,912,599, and he might venture to say that hardly a single instance could be found in which the dwelling houses of the working people approximated to decency. His intention was to make the Bill merely permissive. The Bill was, to a great extent, a transcript of the Baths and Washhouses Act, which, if it had not affected all the good that was expected, had worked extremely well— it was coming slowly into operation, and he thought he might say that when it was more generally adopted it would confer upon the country a benefit it was impos sible to estimate. It was first provided that the Act might be adopted in towns and boroughs; next that the council might adopt it; third, that the churchwarden, on the requisition of ten ratepayers, might convene a vestry to determine whether the Act should be adopted, two-thirds of the vestry being in favour of it, and then the overseers would be authorised to levy such a rate as would be required to carry it out. The vestries of two or more parishes might combine for the purpose of erecting lodging-houses, and by-laws were to be made, subject to the revision of the Secretary of State, and no person receiving parish relief should be allowed to be a tenant. Having had some experience of these lodging-houses, he could state some of the good effects that had resulted from their establishment. Nothing could be more remarkable than the cheerfulness with which the rent demanded was paid, the regularity and correct ness with which it was collected, and the system of al lowing no arrears. Then, again, look at the freedom from disease, particularly all contagious and epidemic disease, in these lodging-houses. That was a matter of great importance, because it showed that they met the evil and placed the working people evidently in a better sanitary condition. Dr. Duncan, of Liverpool, stated that even the registration of the existing lodging houses in that town had had a most desirable effect. There had been 150 cases of fever during the preva lence of the late epidemic, and since the re gistration only ninety cases had occurred, and the deaths from cholera had been reduced one half. In the model building that had been erected in St. George's, Bloomsbury, for single men, and which is within a stone's throw of Church-lane, where the cholera committed such ravages, not one death had occurred, and only one case of diarrhoea—(Hear, hear) —which had speedily yielded to medical treatment. It the people themselves were questioned, and were asked the history of their past life and present state, it would be found that the advantage they enjoyed from the model lodging houses was, that the wages they earned they kept. They were induced to remain at home, and it had been the means of reforming many. He had heard the same ex pression frequently repeated—" The wages we earn we now keep;" they were full of the liveliest expressions of gratitude for the accommodation, were afraid only that they might lose these advantages, and were hopeful that those benefits might be extended over all parts of the metropolis. Another advantage that had resulted from the pile of buildings in Stretton-street was, that there was a large enclosed court in which all the children were allowed to congregate, by which they were kept from the contamination of the streets. One of the objections urged was that these people were charged a rent that they were unable to bear. Assuming that to be the case, he was convinced that the working man would be able to meet that increased rent by the superior health and the greater energy and diligence he could devote to his calling. He had seen many instances of that. On a fair calculation, the working man lost 30 days from, ill ness in the course of the year, and estimating that at only ls. 6d. per day, there was 21. 55., but which was a great deal more than any increase of rent he now paid. But he denied that there was any increase of rent ; on the contrary, there was a positive diminution, with more than adequate profit to the speculator. Now, in Snowe'a rents, Westminster—a most horrible place—the average rent of each room was 2s. 4id. per week. Single men were charged ls. 6d. a week for half a bed, and often several persons sleeping in the same room. The London Duck labourers paid, it was ascertained, from 2s. to 4s. per week, the average being 3s. per week. Now, what was the average of these model lodging-houses? He would first take St. George's, Bloomsbury. There every man had a compartment to himself, and for that he paid 4d. per night, and yet there was a clear profit upon the building of 6i per cent. In the model lodging-houses they gave every accommodation, a constant supply of water to each house, and for the same rent exactly as was paid for one in those wretched hovels. The rents were from 3s. 6d. to 7s. per week. It was then said that all these things should be left to private specu lation; but that was generally directed to small houses and of the cheapest description, as being likely to leave the largest profit. These parties did not like to under take building model lodging houses, because they feared the responsibility of the superintendence and super vision that was required. Now, the reduction of the duty on bricks had greatly facilitated the erection of these houses.—(Cheers.) The abolition of the duty had effected a reduction in the cost of erection of 15 per cent, But when they brought into operation t h e use of , I .culo'sv bricks, which were not generally come into use, the reduction would be equal to 25 per cent. Then a great advantage had been derived from the reduction of the window duty. —(Ch eer s.) Take the pile of building s in Stretton-stre e t. All the rooms being under one roof the window annum, addinugtyaws o l u ea ld st am 2s o s r p t e t r o a f n r n om um 6o o l. t h t o e 7 r o e / per e . tef each room. The window dutyd reduce being removed would en able them to let thes w e o h u o l houses without that great in crease of rent, and th e y the 7s. rooms to 6d., and the 6s. rooms snso.t6de.f an These eleemosynary ous e , it s h ou ld be remembered, were character, but would afford an adequate return for the capital invested. The object the association had in view in setting up these lodging-houses was to afford models for imitation, and to show that they were likely to prove fully remunerative as investments for capital. That res.ilt had been established.—(Cheers.) The sum that had been expended on these buildings was 20,7501., and 2,2501. in improving, adapting, and fitting up three ranges of old dwelling - hou ses. was T 6 ha p t er m e a e d n e t.— an th e e n n t e ir w e expenditure of 23,000 L, and the return, including. a ll the expenses of managemen t, buildings brought 5i per cent., and the old ones about 12 per cent. One house they had kept as a curiosity and an illustration of the exorbitant and intolerable profit that was levied on these low lodging-houses. Some of them realised not less than 30 per cent., and 11 most of them he was convinced reaped a very consider able I ; profit. In many places met' the knocking down of a hotue at the end of a cul de sac wee the means of letting in light and ventilation to e whole district. The House would be encouraling associetions for that pur pose if it only reduced the cost of these charters, and gave the members limited liabilities. It should be remembered thst to carry out these sanitary results they must destroy as much as they built up. They would be doing little if they loft those abominable nests of filth and disease—they must be swept away before the new lodging-houses could do all the good they were calculated to effect. He was extremely anxious that the House should take the matter up, becauss the question had excited the greatest sympathy and attention, and the association had received letters from all parts of the United States, askiug them to forward plans and estimates. He believed there were few towns, either on the continent or in America, in which a similar state of things did not exist; and he trusted that that country would give an example to sur rounding nations, and show that it became a matter of consideration with the Government. He did not think that they could hope for any amelioration of the social or moral condition of the people until their domiciliary condition was, if he might so term it, Christianised. (Hear.) Until they put an end to a system which gene rated disease, which crippled the energies of the work ing classes, and filled their workhouses with widows and orphans—(Hear, hear)—it would be impossible to im prove the condition of the people. He was satisfied that if this system was more generally acted upon, a large proportion of the rates would be reduced. Look at what had occurred in the time of the cholera. In the model lodging house of St. Pancras there were 500 persons living under uue roof. In a court called Peahen court, Bishopsgate-street, there were 150 persons re siding. The inspector of the association, Mr. Grainger, went over that court, and said he was satisfied if the cholera broke out, it would be sure to commit great ra vages in that court. In three days afterwards it did break out. In the model building at St. Pancras, where there were 500 persons, there was not a single death, and in Peahen-court there were seven deaths, and two being heads of families, twelve orphans were thus thrown upon the rates.—(Cheers.) In 95 unions he had ascertained that there were 2,317 widows and orphans created by the cholera, all of whom became permanently chargeable upon the poor-rates. In Bradford, Leeds, Lambeth, West Bromwich, and Wolverhampton, the increase of the rates from that cause was very considerable. Now, the cholera had done its work openly, but fever was, in those low and ill-ventilated lodging-houses, doing its work slowly but surely. Cholera killed its thousands, but fever was killing its tens of thousands. His prayer to the House was for leave to bring in a Bill to remove some of the impediments to the energies of the working classes. They had never yet tested properly the capa city of the working man, because hitherto he had been placed in a disadvantageous position for the development of his energies.' He saw no reason why the working men of that country should not surpass their bethren of the United States—their wages were enormous, but their expenditure, owing to the circumstances of their condi tion, was wild and ruinous in the extreme. Mr. Porter, in a remarkable paper, termed Self-imposed Taxation, had pointed out the expenditure of the working classes in three articles alone, all of which might be dispensed with, or at least much more moderately used—spirits, beer, and tobacco. The sum of money expended by the working classes in these three articles was no less than 57,000,0001. per annum, and he believed that estimate to be correct. Imagine that sum expended in clothing, education, and the improvement of their dwel lings, and would any one hesitate to say that by such means the moral, social, and religious condition of the people would be greatly elevated? and he felt assured that God would bless the efforts that would be directed to the advancement of the moral and intellectual well being of so large a portion of the human race.—(Loud cheers.) The Noble Lord concluded by moving for leave to bring in his Bill. Mr. SLANEY felt that he should weaken the force of the Noble Lord's statement by any lengthened remarks; but having been a visitor of the dwellings of the poor, as one of the Commissioners of the Board of Health, he could corroborate the testimony of the Noble Lord. He had heard a statement made respecting one court in Wolverhampton, that the party had seen all the residents in that court twice over transported.—(Hear, hear.) So much for the moral character of the persons living in these houses. He sincerely trusted the House would sanction the passing of the Noble Lord's Bill, as it was calculated to produce the most beneficial effects upon the condition of the working classes. One great d ifficulty arose from the law of partnership, which would require the interposition of Parliament, and he did not think they would hesitate to give it their sanction. He would only observe that the health of the working man was his only property, and the Government was bound to give that all the protection in its power. Mr. HUME thought the statement of the Noble Lord ought to make them ashamed of themselves for allowing such a state of things to exist as had been detailed in the course of his speech. That state of things was caused mainly by the bad legislation of that country. The masses were brought up in the greatest ignorance, and as a matter of course became vicious. The state f the labouring classes in the United States, where every man was educated, was a reproach to them. Were we taking any means to remove this great evil? Improvement in the physical condition of the people would lead to other improvements. Was it possible to believe that such scenes as those described by the Noble Lord could exist in England? Foreigners would hardly credit the statement, and yet it was too true. He feared that Leeds, Manchester, and other great towns would afford similar scenes. But where was the Government all this time? He was not to be told that Government could no interfere; he was quite aware Government did interfere sometimes, and that when they did interfere it was only to do injury. There must be a general move to abolish that system which long misrule had created. All par ties, including the leaders of the people, must join to give education to the masses, for without this it would be impossible to expect permanent good. He entreated her Majesty's Government to bestir themselves. He was aware of the difficulties of the question; but if some such plan as that recommended last session were acted upon, he could not doubt that much real good would be effected. The object of the Noble Lord was good, but it was superficial. It was necessary to look to the cause of the evil, and then to lay the axe to the root of it. He considered the diffusion of education was the best means of curing the evil. Sir G. GREY fully agreed with the Noble and Learned Lord that the system which produced such overcrowding was most destructive to the people—not only physically, but morally. As to the proposition for a measure framed on the model of the Baths and Wash houses Act, much good might no doubt be expected by such means; but this must not be depended on as a suf ficient cure for existing evils. Other means and mea sures for improving the condition of the people must be resorted to. A great deal of good had already been done by the construction of dwellings for the poor, and he thought if associations of individuals were formed for constructing such dwellings, more good would be done than by Government interference. If the principle of the Baths and Washhouses Act were adopted, he hoped means would be taken to prevent the scale of rents from being raised too high in the event of the establishment being placed in the hands of commissioners. Not only in towns but in the country, also, this subject was of great importance. The evils of the country, from the same causes, were quite as great as those in town, and he was glad to find the subject had already attracted so much attention that dwellings were being constructed in some country districts for the accommodation of the poor, without reference to the profits of those who con structed them. With respect to the education of the people, he approved of the exertions which were making to diffuse education; but he again considered that indi vidm.l efforts and combinations of individuals must be looked to as the main means of diffusing education rather than by the help of Government. He hoped what the Noble Lord had stated would induce every one in his own individual sphere to promote the great object that all had in view. Mr. STANFORD agreed with the principle laid down by the Right Hon. Gentleman, that Government was not the proper power to effect the objects contemplated by the Noble Lord; but if individuals or associations were to attempt the task, they would not succeed unless they were protected by an Act of Parliament. He begged to express his gratification to the Noble Lord for bringing the subject forward. He was certain that until the people were well housed and well clothed it was impossible to expect any high moral or intellectual standard—it was impossible to elevate the character of a people if they were subject to privation and to insufficient ammo dation. He again begged to thank the Noble Lord for bringing this important subject forward. Mr. W. J. FOX said persons coming to London to seek employment were compelled to house themselves in those filthy dens, the cheap lodging-houses. By this necessity the very minds of persons became debased, and the advantages of previous education were annihilated. One of the great sources of the evil was the conversion of old houses by speculators into :these lodging-houses, which wus found to be one of the most profitable occu pations in the metropolis. So long as this and other similar evils existed, it would be impossible to grapple with the evils and the difficulties. The Noble Lord's proposition, therefore, would not effect entire good—it would only very gradually do away with the evil. He considered that the subject matter did:call for the powers of the Legislature, and it was not unworthy the attention of the Legislature to see that they who speculated in low lodging-houses did not increase and perpetuate an evil of such magnitude. Lord C. HAMILTON considered that the Right Hon. Gentleman had laid down the strict and proper limit for Government to adopt in this important question. One of the main difficulties of the case was the expense of commencing work. In one recent instance of a build ing company he knew that it cost them 1,2001. to obtain a charter. If this expense was lessened he had no doubt much of the, present mischief would be remedied. Mr. LABOUCHERE, referring to the expenses of the charter to a building company, said it was true the expenses amounted to a great sum, but that was owing to the peculiar nature of the charter—its great length —and the legal mistake in its construction. But ordi nary charters were not so expensive, though he ad mitted those expenses were higher than they ought to be, and he should readily turn his attention to the best means of reducing them. He considered that a charter ought not to be encumbered with a heavy fine. If im proper to be granted, that ought to be a consideration for Government. He again said the expenses of charters were too high, and ought to be reduced. Leave was then given to bring in the Bill. STATE OF IRELAND. Sir W. BARRON hoped the House would bear with him while ho attempted to describe the painful position in which the great majority of the people were placed at that moment. He would first describe the position of Ireland in 1845, and compare it with her position at this !IMAM. }le took the period of 1845, because imme- WEDNESDAY diately after 1845 the three great causee to which the i : present condition of Ireland was attributed took thAr rise ; the first cause was the fareine in 1816, the change in the poor-laws, and the disastrous change in the corn. : laws inflicted inimediately on that coantry. He P701.11C1 commence eiith the poor-law and the state of the poor. 1n1845 the poor-law taxation of Ireland amounted : to 310.000/. He.found in 1840, according to official returns, that the poor rate amounted to 1,500.7101., an increase of taxation on that head alone of more than 1,200,000/. He knew he should be told that 90,000 persons less were receiving relief, but ho was in a condition to show this was the grossest delusion that had ever been practised on the people. In 1849 Government were urged to limit the out-door relief in Ireland by forcing the workhouse test on every man on the books. When a Bill to that effect was passing through the House, he moved a clause to the effect that out-door relief should cease after January, 1851. Every Member agreed in the opinion that the principle of the Bill of 1537, where no out-door : relief was given, should be returned to. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland pledged himself that the principle should be adhered to, and he withdrew his clause. The Right Hon. Gentleman had kept his pro mise; and the boards of guardians had been impressed with the necessity of providing workhouse accommoda tion, and adopting the workhouse test in all cases. The boards of guardians had put the test to all the paupers on their hats, end the consequence was that 90,000 persons fewer received relief. But thin was no proof that the poverty of the country hid been le:laced to that extent. He denied that poverty had been reduced to that extent; for if out-door relief was again introduced, there would not only be 90,000 on the hooks again, but 120,000 would be within the limit. There had been an increase of the in-door pauperism of Ireland, and the tax for the relief of pauperism had in creased upwards of 1,200,0001. since 1845. The county rates since the same year had increased 300,0001. Ac cording to Captain Larcom's report, the land under cul tivation was 1,139,000 acres less in 1840 than in 1847. There had, therefore, been a loss of the produce of those acres, which could not amount to a less sum than 6,600 000/. The importation of swine from Ireland to this country had decreased in value since 1845 at least 1,000,0001., and the decrease in the importation of sheep imported was not less than 500,0001. What hope was there for a country in which such an increase had taken place in the taxation, and such a decrease in its produc tion? The sales that had taken place under the En cumbered Estates Act showed that landed property had fallen from 21 years' purchase to 14 years' purchase. In Waterford the value of household property bad fallen 60 per cent. In fact, its trade was vanishing, its shop keepers were all but bankrupt, and the farmers in the neighbourhood were in such distress as not to be able to employ one labourer in place of four they employed before 1845. In a letter of Dr. Murray, Catholic Arch bishop of Dublin, to one of his clergymen on the subject of a collection for the Catholic university, he stated, that in the present impoverished condition of the city of Dublin, he could not bring himself to call on the poor labourer and struggling artisan for any contribu tion. In a free-trade newspaper—the only newspaper patronised in Ireland by the Government, the Dublin Evening Post—there was a paragraph in which it was admitted that the agricultural distress of the country was a formidable evil, and one for which there did not appear any hope of a remedy. Since 1845 there had been a great decrease in the number of coaches and other public conveyances in Ireland. In Waterford, previous to 1845, there used to be forty pairs of horses kept for coaching, and now there were but sixteen pairs. Of the two steamers that used to ply to and from Bris tol, one had been given up and the other was about to be given up for want of support. A correspondent of his, a Whig gentleman, who had made great sacrifices for the party, writing to him on the 24th February, stated—" The report of the resignation of the Ministers has just reached this, and I regret to say that it has been received with unusual satisfaction.—(Laughter.) The Whigs have been very unfortunate in the govern ment of Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) Trade has been smashed.—(` Hear, hear' from the Irish Members.) The landlords were ruined.—(Hear, hear.) The tenants were broken.—(' Hear' from the same quarter.) The labourers were in the poor-house, and such of the people as had the means were flying out of the kingdom by parishes." The Irish nation, totally wrecked, was left to be devoured by its own paupers. The cities, towns, and villages were half deserted. The cottages of many of the peasants were levelled to the ground, and their former tenants were wandering about the country as beggars and thieves. The emigration that was going on proved the miserable condition of the country, and he was alarmed when be considered the class who were leaving the country. The pauper was left behind, but the farmer, with capital, was taking his leave. He fully agreed with what Lord Stanley had said on this subject, when addressing his friends a few nights ago. He be lieved nothing but extreme misery, or the prospect of it, could drive an Irishman from the land of his birth. Another, and perhaps the strongest proof of the wretched state of Ireland, was the amount of offences against pro perty without violence. In 1845 the number was 6,686, but in 1849 it wes 23,179.—(Hear, hear.) He perceived from the newspapers of that day that a deficiency had occurred in the Customs revenue of Ireland to the amount of 87,0001. In this country the Customs re venue had increased, but in Ireland it had diminished. In the last month there had been in Ireland a deficiency in the circulating medium of 120,000/. Did not such a state of things demand inquiry ?—(Hear.) He hoped Government were not unwilling to grapple with the subject. If they admitted what he had said, and should tell him that they had no remedy, they would confess their impotence to govern the country. He begged to move that a Select Committee be appointed to in quire into the present condition of Ireland, with a view to suggest some remedy for the distress existing there. Sir L. O'BRIEN said it was little known to the House what was passing in some districts of Ireland. The case of Kilrush had been brought under notice the other night; and though he objected to the slur cast upon the chairman in that instance—as a more honourable man did not live—it was the truth that lls. in the pound had already been paid for poor-rates, and now another rate of 4s. 6d. further was added to it. But this was not all. In the Callan union 15s. was paid in the pound, leaving 4s. 6d. only for the landlord. The consequence was that the farmers threw up the land and went to America, leaving the landlord to pay the rate. The estimate for the support of the poor was 16s. 10d. in the electoral division with which he was connected; and in the Kenmure union it was 1/. 6s. He asked the Government how did they mean to deal with the question? They had got 68,0001. from the rate-in-aid this year. What w o uld they do next year? The multiplication of grime was awful. One gaol built :or 169 prisoners had now 600 within its walls, and its annual cost was increased from 1,0001, to 6,0001. The workhouses were equally crowded as the gaols: in the city of Limerick alone there were 7,000 people in the union, living on the poor -rates. The landlords of Ire land were driven by the terrible pressure to demand the workhouse test. He called upon the Government to give more weight, in the administration of the law, to the local authorities; and he was satisfied the country gen tlemen would administer it better, and at less expense. Last year the poor-law Btu* cost 17,0001.—more than a third of all that was spent on the poor; all of which might be saved if his proposition ware adopted. Ile supported the motion for a Committee. Sir W. SOMERVILLE said the Hon. Baronet who introduced the motion had introduced it in an ingenious manner. He said he attributed the distress of Ireland to the famine, the corn-law, and the poor-law; but he attacked, the poor-law alone, and left the impression that it was to that law alone the present misery of Ire land was to be traced. Sir W. BARRON—No, no. Sir W. SOMERVILLE—The llon.Gentleman seemed to refer to 1845 as a period of prosperity in Ireland; but he (Sir W. Somerville) referred to the Member for the University of Dublin, and also to the report of Lord Devon's Commission, to show that in this year the condi tion of the labouring population of Ireland was the most wretched and most miserable imaginable.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentlemen drew a comparison between the amount of rates in 1848 and 1851, omitting the interme diate periods; but the returns of all the years would show whether there was such an increase in the rates and in the number of paupers. There were the ex penses of the poor-law in three years, and the numbers relieved : Cost. Numbers relieved. 1848 ... £425,000 ... 555,000 1849 ... 302,000 290,000 1850 ... 247,000 ... 200,000 He (Sir W. Somerville) did tot mean to say that Ireland was in a prosperous state, but he did assert that the com parison of the lion. Gentleman was not accurate. The Hon. Gentleman said ho had moved the omission of out door relief in the amended poor-law, but that he (Sir W. Somerville) had opposed it. But the Hon. Baronet was obliged to admit that the poor-law board had acted up to the spirit of the law in every respect, and he cen sured that board for doing that which he did himself. The Hon. Gentleman proved from Captain Larcom's re port, by some process he (Sir W. Somerville) did not comprehend, that there was a decreased quantity of land cultivated in Ireland; but as he (Sir W. Somerville) read that report, he came to a contrary conclusion. Captain Larcom's report did not exist in 1845—not until 1847. This was the return:— TOTAL ACRES UNDER CULTIVATION. 1847 ... ... 5,238,575 1848 ... 5,108,0E2 1849 . . 5,543,000 Sir W. BARRON said the Right Hon. Gentleman had misapprehended him. What he said was, that in corn —including peas and wheat—Captain Larcom's returns, in 1847, gave 8,313,579 acres under cultivation, while, in 1849, 2,174,480 acres only were under such cultiva tion, leaving a deficit of 1,139,000 acres. Sir W. SOXIERVILLE.—It did not signify what was the cultivation, so long as the land was cultivated; and he thought green crops were all the better. The mean result, however, was, that more land was under culti vation in 1849 than in 1847. There was the subject, too, of the export of cattle. In dealing with the statis tics of that question also, his Hon. Friend had only taken as much as suited his purpose. One useful description of animal might have fallen off; but there were documents on the table of the House to show that the exportation of horses and other cattle had increased since 1849. Now, he might urge from these that Ireland was in a state of prosperity, bill he did not want to do any such thing, although ho wished he could avouch as much; all he wanted to say was, that which he thought—namely, that within the last two years, as compared with the two miserable preceding ones, there was some improvement and some amelioration in the condition of the country. — (Hear.) The Hon. Baronet had then branched off to his own locality, and had told them that the county cess paid by the City of Waterford was less than it was years ago. Now he (Sir W. Somerville) did not mean to say from that that the city was in a flourishing condition; what he meant to say was, that picking out statements after that manner was not the mode of furnishing the real facts of the me, and arguments founded on such ought not to EVENING, APRIL 9, 1851. have any weight in that House. His Hon. Friend, who was at times somewhat fanciful in his vituperation of the Government, had on one occasion attacked the Ministry because a Bill which he (Sir W. Somerville) had in:roduced had contained, as hit lion. Friend suppose (1, some clauses which had been already inserted in a Bill of his Hon. Friend's. He could assure his Honourable Friend that not a single clause of this Bill had been used. His Hon. Friend had referred also to the emigration which had been going on, as a proof of the great misery at present existing in Ireland. He (Sir W. Somerville) was afraid it was not a very healthy system; but it was only a session or two ago, as they would all recollect, when they had motion after motion in that House, not for the purpose of check ing, but of encouraging emigration.—(Loud cheers from the Protectionists.) The Hon. Gentleman had also al luded to the amount of crime. There again he was at issue with the Hon. Baronet, for, by the constabulary returns on the table of the House he could notice a de crease. He was not going to 'compare the year 1845 with 1851; the Hon Baronet, if he pleased, might do so, and lly the result before the House. He would compare the years 1849 and 1850. The number of outrages stated up to the end of January, 1849, were 1,820; Febru ary, 1,017; March, 990; while in 1850 the numbers were, in January, 1,686; February, 1,124; and March, 960. ( Hear.) Having. then, referred to all that had been said by his lion. Friend the Member for Waterford, he would next briefly advert to what the Honourable Baronet the Member for Clare (Sir L. O'Brien) had said. That Honourable Gentleman had found fault with the poor-law ;because he thought the power of the Commisssioners interfered too much with the local boards. He did not think the Hon. Member would get many in that House to agree with him on that point. With respect to the allusion made to the Kilrush union, and the statements made by the Rev. Mr. Os borne in reference to it, he would only say on that occa sion that the Poor-law Commissioners had called for full information on the subject of that Rev. Gentleman's let ters, and when they shall have made their report, he would lay it on the table of the House. The remarks of that Rev. Gentleman on other unions had not been disre garded by the Poor-law Commissioners, and when the answers to their inquiries from the various inspectors to whom they had applied were duly made, ho would lay them all before the House.—(Hear, hear.) There was one remark of his Hon. Friend to which he had not al luded. He had said that the affairs of Ireland were not cared for here. Now he had just taken the trouble of reading a list of the different commissions which had been appointed to inquire into matters relating to Irish affairs, and he found that since 1840 they had amounted in number to 13. He had also looked at the number of Committees of both Houses of Parliament which had sat from 1840 to 1851, whose inquiries embraced every subject connected with the social and political condi tion of Ireland, and had found them no less than 63. (Hear.) But there was nothing tangible in the proposal of his lion. Friend; there was no intimation of what in quiry that Committee was to enter upon, supposing it formed and sitting. He hoped the House would nega tive the proposal of the Hon. Gentleman, which was only calculated to raise false hopes which never could be realised. He opposed the motion simply because he thought it would not do any good, but rather the re verse, and not from any indisposition to do anything to benefit his country in every possible way; and, in con clusion, he trusted the House would not sanction the proposition before it, because it was only calculated to mislead, and create expectations which could not be sa tisfied.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. REYNOLDS said the Hon. Baronet had stated that there was nothing tangible in the speech of the Hon. Baronet the Member for Waterford; he could say he had listened to the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland with much attention, and had the very same fault to find with him.—(Hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet had told them about thirteen committees bad been appointed to inquire into the state of Ireland. Sir W. SOMERVILLE—I said 63. Mr. REYNOLDS thanked the Right Hon. Baronet for having multiplied the number by thirteen.—(Much laughter.) He saw he was wrong in his multiplication —(Laughter)—but had the Right Hon. Baronet in formed them what good these sixty-three Committees and their inquiries had done for Ireland? It was always the mode of shelving a grievance on Ireland to appoint a Parliamentary Committee to inquire into it, and no thing more was heard of it. He would vote for the mo tion of the Hon. Boronet the Member for Waterford; but he wished to guard himself against being bound by the Hon. Baronet's speech.—(Hear.) If that speech were good for anything, it was good for this—that we were to repeal the poor-laws, go back to the system of protection, and increase the power of the landlords. Now he was not prepared to do any one of these things. In deed, be would perhaps have given a silent vote upon that occasion, but for something which had fallen from the Hon. Baronet the Member for Clare (Sir L. O'Brien) in allusion to a most honoured. and estimable Protestant clergyman—he meant the Rev. Mr. Osborne. The Hon. Baronet bad said his statements ought to be received with caution; now that was as much almost as doubting his veracity. Mr. Osborne had undertaken to prove all his statements relative to the Kilrush union; but his challenge had never been accepted. The Hon. Baronet had endeavoured to vidicate Colonel Vandeleur, who, no doubt, might be a very estimable private character; but there were statements made before a Committee of that House which would go to bear out the charges made against him. The Hon. Member here referred to the report of the Committee of inquiry into the state of the Kilrush union, and read a considerable portion of the evidence. One witness had stated that in that district 1,950 families had been sent adrift, whose houses had been levelled, 408 families were there who were turned out of their homes, and 341 families ad mitted again as care-taken). There were in all 2,359 families unhoused, representing no less than about 12,000 persons. Colonel Vandeleur was chairman of the Kilrush union, and some of those evictions were stated to have taken place on his property. Three fourths of the mortality, great as it was in Kilrush union, arose from the want of food. It was said that prospe rity was reviving in Ireland. Was that so? Did the condition of their gentry show reviving prosperity? The Encumbered Estates Act answered the ques tion. Had they manufactures ? Had they com merce ? No. The country was in the most im poverished state, and the inhabitants were flying from it in thousands. What had that House or the Govern ment done to remedy such a state of things? Why, literally nothing. He should be glad to know, then, what objection the Government had to inquiring on the subject as proposed by the motion. If no other result were derived from such an inquiry than to ascertain the causes of the fearful mortality in the Kilrush and Ennistymon union, it would be of the greatest utility. He would say no more on the matter, as the motion, of which he had a notice on the paper, would afford him another opportunity of referring to it. Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL said it was most unfair to attribute the distress which prevailed at present in Ire land either to the free-trade system introduced in 1846, or to the poor-law established in 1847. Any return upon their steps on either of those questions would be ruinous to the most necessitous portion of the population of Ireland—the working classes. The distress existed long prior to either of those measures, as was shown by the report of the Devon Commission in 1845. He re gretted, however, that the Right Hon. Secretary for Ireland had opposed the motion. Admitting, as he did, the great prevalence of distress, he (Mr. O'Connell) thought the best remedy would be to reform the stand ing orders of the House, which impeded the progress of Bills for promoting private enterprise. But for the obstructions thus offered:capital would flow into Ireland to stimulate and develop its industrial resources. Mr. S. CRAWFORD traced the existing distress in Ireland to the disordered state of the relations between landlord and tenant—(Oh, ohl)—and ho should move to add to the end of the resolution the following words:— " More especially to consider the best means of amend ing the laws relating to the relations of landlord and tenant." Sir W. BARRON had no objection to the addition. Lord J. RUSSELL—Sir, the House would not have any clear remedy before it if it went into Committee of the whole House on the motion submitted to them. The Hon. Baronet proposes that we should go into Committee of the whole House to consider the state of Ireland ; and he refers more particularly to the famine, to the laws ad mitting the import of foreign corn, and to the poor-law of Ireland; and it appears to hiss that if we were to re store protection, and repeal the poor-law of Ireland, we should be in a fair way to remedy some of the distresses of Ireland. Ai Hon. Gentleman gets up and supports the motion, and is remedy is not to repeal the poor-Jaw, but rather to give it greater laxity—to give a more liberal system of relief—in fine, to extend the poor-law further than it now goes. lam afraid, then, that we shall hardly arrive at any direct conclusion by going into Committee. Then with regard to protection, the Hon. Member for the city of Dublin is entirely opposed to the views of the Hon. Member for Waterford ; and that, of course, is a question which, if gone into at all, must not be with respect to Ireland only, but the whole kingdom. The Honourable Gentleman who has just sat down proposed a further subject of inquiry—namely, the state of the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland-0;a . most important subject of inquiry, certainly, and upon which it might be most desirable that weeashhnoaulldd legislate. But lamat a loss to conceive how h w aah jent in come to any satisfactory conclusion upon t we went into Committee on the motion a Committee of the whole House. I am af.hraeid Honour- if 11nh h gi o sh le ep H rme g il e hn s tt able Gentleman we should only find tho‘i!tf yre m m a e d d e y h w y h m a ty shuapv supporters o t r a t ers propose, would a i immediately e h d e i a c t e a l m y m o i p t p t e o e s e o f a n ge La w l e w v o e u r. would Nowfin find itselfwtwith r e unable oto the a ad op statement an Illight must H onoobusrearvbele tFhraitendhathedidSe.cnroettaryropforreselnrte, a Ireland the Honourable Member for the city of Dublin would seem to imagine, that the p Ire land was a state o f prosperity. sat starting from the point of 1845, from which my Right Honourable Friend started, it certainly appears that at that time Ireland, although she did not suffer the same calamities she has since had to endure, was placed in this unhappy position. She contained a population far greater than that for which she could find employment; the wages throughout the country were wretchedly low; the abodes of the peasantry were miserable beyond those of any other peo ple in Europe; and their food was not pro cured by wages, but they were compelled to subsist al most exclusively on the potatoes which they raised from the soil. When there came upon a country so situated the dreadful calamity of a famine, and of a famine not of one year but of a succession of years, it was inevit able that those painful scenes we have beheld should have occurred, that we should have beheld many per sons driven from their homes unable to pay the rent they had previously paid during the flourishing state of the potato crop; others emigrating to distant shores in the hope of procuring there a subsistence they could not procure at home; while the property of the country was compelled to a certain extent to support its poverty, and great numbers of persons crowded to the workhouses as a last resort in a state of weakness and disease which led to a very great mortelity. These are the consequences that we have seen—the consequences, not of any law of Parliament, or of any act of the Goverment, but the consequences of the state of society which existed in 1845, and of the dreadful famine which followed that year. Why those consequences were as certain as that when an earthqu a k e h appens i n a coun t r y y ou w ill find buildings thrown down, as that when you have a dread ful pestilence in a country you will find there a dreadful mortality, or as that after a dreadful hurricane you will find trees torn up by the roots. These are not conse quences for which the Government and the Legislature can immediately provide; they are the consequences which have followed the calamiti es I h ave ment i one d. We now find, according to the statement of my Right Hon. Friend, that although Ireland cannot be said to he in anything like a state of prosperity, yet there are symptoms in that country of a less aggr avate d di stress than that which prevailed in former years. We have seen that, although out-door relief was never refused when absolutely necessary, that relief has been di minished to such an extent that during the last three months of the last year the whole cost of the outdoor relief in Ireland did not amount to more than 1,000/. ; and since that time it has amounted at the utmost to 2501. a week. That at least is a symptom that there are not so many persons re quiring relief as there had been in former years. Theo with regard to crime, we find that the number of crimes and outrages returned to the constabulary in Ire land has diminished. There are various other circum stances which tend to show that the country is some what less distressed than in former years. That is the state of Ireland at present. It may require a remedy from the Government and the Legislature; but we are hardly likely to find that remedy by going into the pro posed Committee of the whole House. My Hon. Friend the Member for Kerry says that a relaxation of some of our laws with respect to the application of capital would be found of great use in particular cases, and he men tioned his reasons for entertaining that belief. But if that case requires the attention of the House, let it be brought before the House as a separate question. Again, if the state of the relations b e t ween l an dl or d s an d tenants requires the consideration of Parliament, let the Government or some Hon. Member bring that subject under our notice. But we should hardly in a Committee of the whole House be able to decide upon any one of those questions; and neither should we have before us any plan for dealing with them. I, therefore, trust that the House will not adopt the proposal of the Hon. Baronet the Member for Waterford.—(Cries of " Divide.") Mr. F. FRENCH, who was very indistinctly heard amidst the noise in the House, and the impatient cries for a division, was understood to say that the evils of the famine in Ireland had been greatly aggravated by the poor-law. Sir IL W. BARRON replied. He distinctly and em phatically denied that ho had stated that he wished to have the poor-law in Ireland repealed. Ho had objected to the out-door relief system, and to nothing else. In the next place, he denied that he had said they should return to the old system of protection. He bad merely stated the real condition of Ireland, and had left the House to draw its own inferences from that statement. The House then divided, when there appeared — For the motion . . ... 129 Against it... 138 Majority against the motion ... --9 The announcement of these numbers was hailed with considerable cheering from the Irish Members and the Members on the opposition side of the House. Mr. FREWEN moved for a Select Committee to in quire into and report to this House on the advantages to be derived by the establishment of a mail train betwen Great Yarmouth, in Norfolk, and Leicester and Rugby, to meet the mail trains at Rugby, going to and return ing from Liverpool and Holyhead. Mr. C. LEWIS said that the question to which the Hon. Gentleman's motion referred possessed no na tional interest, and did not concern any of the great lines of communication, as, for example, the transmission of the French mails between Dover and London, and the Irish mails between London and Holyhead. He pro mised that the subject should be fully considered by the Government and the Postmaster-General, with reference to the public revenue and the local interests concerned; but it was hardly a question which required the appoint ment of a Committee of Inquiry. Mr. FREWEN, upon the assurance of the Right Hon. Gentleman that the subject should receive the serious consideration of the Post-office authorities, would not press his motion to a division. He might be permitted to observe, however, that the Right Hon. Gentleman was mistaken in supposing that it was not an important national question, inasmuch as all the letters connected with the shipping interest on the coast of Norfolk in tended to go to any of the northern ports—such as Hull and Newcastle on the eastern, and Uverpool on the western coast—had now to be sent by way of London. The motion was then, by leave, withdrawn. On the motion of Mr. SCULLY, were ordered— Copies of all correspondence, since the Ist day of December last, between the Clogheen board of guar dians, the Poor-law Commissioners in Ireland, the Poor law board in England, and the Lambeth board of guar dians, relative to the alleged illegal removal of a pauper named Margaret M'Carthy and ber two children from the Lambeth to the Clogheen workhouse last November. A return of any bill or bills of costs lodged in the proper office for taxation in the Court of Chancery, Ire land, in any cause in which George Matthews was a re lator, or one of the relators, and A. J. Macrory, Esq., the solicitor for the relators, since 1830. Also, a return of the names of the 39 principal mari time and internal markets of Ireland from whicn Mr. Griffith constructed the average scale of prices ap pended to his letter to the Lord-Lieutenant on the 23d day of December last; with the prices of the different articles of agricultural produce mentioned in the said scale in the several markets, on the Ist day of every month during the years 1348 and 1849. MURDER (IF:A BRITISH OFFICER NEAR ADEN. Colonel K. TYNTE wished to inquire of the Secre tary of the Board of Control if any official intelligence had arrived relative to the murder of a British officer near Aden, and if so, what steps the Government in tended taking in consequence of the outrage? Mr. WILSON concluded the Gallant Colonel referred to the report of the murder of Captain Milne& No accounts had been received beyond those in the public prints, but in all probability would be by the next In dian mails. The Small Tenements Railway Bill was read a second time, on the motion of Mr. J. A. SMITH. Lord ASHLEY brought up his Bill to encourage the construction of lodging-houses for the working classes, which was read a first time. The remaining orders of the day having been disposed of, the House adjourned at Half-past Twelve o'clock. TO THE SECRETARY OP THE BRADFORD REFORM ASSOCIATION. (IVEZY MONDAY AND WEDNESDAY.) Sin,—On Monday the 7th, was the rather pompously announced onslaught on the Ministerial proposal on the Income-tax. It finally solved itself into very little. An anxiety to protest against alluding to any connexion the question might have with Free Trade, called to me mory the popular tradition, of the man at the bar who told the judge ho desired to let the matter drop; while the imperfect manner in which the proposal was adhered to by the party that made it, tempted to recollection of the lady who, " Saying I will ne'er consent, consented." In spite of an affected shyness in the use of terms, the " interests of British industry," meaning the suppression of your industry to divide the proceeds among somebody else, came out upon us in ex press words. And what I had thought to be the for lorn and abandoned mystery, of " adding taxation to price," figured prominently in the speech of one of the ablest and newest recruits of the Anti-commercial party. What has come over the spirit of the Free Traders and their dream, is more than can be expected of me to tell; but in all this contest between the two antagonistic principles of raising a tax from the wealth of the rich o r the bread. of the poor, the accredited organs of Fr ee kept Trade aloof from the debate. Surely this is not the way in which human affairs are managed. If the Fre e Tr_ aders are not beaten at the next general elec tion, it w il l . bein spite of human means taken to ensu re it. Nothing can make me conceal from myself or anybody the conviction, that the three sessions of Parliament which have gone by, were the seed-time in which should have been se cured the permanent triumph of the Free Trade cause; —that no folly or fallacy on the part of the Protec- Protec tionists should have been perm it ted to pass,without receiving the same prompt and fearless castigation it would have had in the Free-Trade Hall ;—that there ought to have been established a system of watch and watch, by which a certain number of the men who have taken the Free Trade enlisting-money by being sent to Parliament, should have been continually on duty; bound to reply wherever the enemy would pre sent himself. Instead of which, with the exception of the members of the Government, who are the only men by whom any good thing hangs, the course of the Pro tectionists has been one scene of parliamentary triumph, with hardly an opposition except on rare occasions a flashy speech, meant to be seen in a newspaper, and not directed with either point or vigour to the movements of the opponent. Why those who served you so well when the contest was in Temperance Halls and meeting-heuses, should servo you so feebly when they have got into the Com mons House of Parliament, is what history must look at, and possibly will solve. On Tuesday Lord Ashley moved a Bill to encourage construction of lodging-houses for the working•classes, which was agreed to without a division. I was sorry to hear him instance Bradford as one of the places in want of aid. If wo can only prevent the stopping our trade in foreign corn, the thing will mend. I am, Sir, yours very sincerely, AN OLD REFORMER. London, April 9. 1851. BRICKS AND BRICK-MAKING.—The removal of the duty off bricks has occasioned many [ingenious m inds to occupy themselves with the means of economising the labour thereon, and the 'consequent reduction of their cost. One of the most complete machines for this purpose has recently been exhibiting at Bath. By it, and the assistance of two men, a lad, and two horses, at a charge of say 15s. the day, of ten hours, 10,000 bricks, surprisingly. .compressed, sha r p and square, may be per feasted. Pram tiles of . every form, and pipes and parts of pipes of any complexity, may b e thrown off with equal facility. Messrs. R andell and Saun ders are the patentees, who p ur p ose placing their invention in the Exposition. [ADVERTISEDIENT.]—THE EARL OF ALDBOROUGII AND lioLLoway's PILLS.—An astounding cure by this • al medicine, after every other means had failed. see extract miraculous rac ous Lordship's letter, dated " Villa Messina, Leghorn, Feb. from his Professor Holloway—Sir : I beg to acquaint '2l, 1845 Youth t ;Our pills have ve ef fected a cure of a disorder in my liver and stomach a which all the most eminent of the faculty, at home and all over the continent, had not been able to eff ect ; nay, not even the watersofCarlsbad or Ma rienbad. (Signed) " ALnaoaot:GH These wonderfulpills will cu re any disease of the liver or stomach.—Sold Ointment) at Professor Holloway's Establ ishment, (also Holloway's li Dy a modlain Toonthrguguat the ei ent, we 2 ri t,. strituo, And PARLIAMENTARY nIVI (From the V tes and Proceedings of the House TUESDAY, APRIL 8. STATE OF IRELAND. Motion made and Question proposed, " Th do resolve itself into a Committee, to take into the state of Ireland, with a view to relieve the existing :" Amendment proposed, at the end of the Ques tion, to add the words, " and more especially to consider the best means of amending the laws relating to the relationship of landlord and tenant :" Question, " That those words ba there added," put, and agreed to :—Main Question, as amended, put. The House divided : MINORITY-AYES, 129. Anstey, T. C. Floyer, John Mailings, J. IL Arkwright, George Forbes, William Naas, Lord Bagge, W. Forester, G. C. Napier, Joseph Begot, lion. W. Fox, S. L. Neeld, John Baillie, H. J. French, F. Neeld, Joseph Baird, James Frewen, C. H. Newdegate, C. N. Bali - lock, E. H. Fuller, A. E. Newport, Visct. Bankes, George Gaskell, J. M. Norreys, Sir D. Barrow, W. H. Gilpin, R. T. Nugent, Sir Percy Bateson, Thomas Gooch, E. S. O'Brien, J. Bentiuck, Lord If. Goold, Wyndham O'Brien, Sir Lucius Beresford, William Gore, W. R. 0. O'Brien, Sir Timothy Berkeley G. F. Grace, 0. D. O'Connell, John Bernard, Viscount Grattan, Henry O'Connell, M. J. Blake, M. J. Greene, John O'Flaherty, Anthony Blandford, Marquis Grogan, Edward Packe, C. W. Blewitt, Reginald Guernsey, Lord Palmer, Robert Bolder°, George H. (lwyn, Bowel Ponson by, C. F. Brereridge, Richard Halsey, T. P. Portal, Melville Brooke, Sir A. B. Hamilton, G. A. Repton, G. W. J. Bruce, c. L. C. Harris, Captain Sadleir, John liruen, Colonel Henley, J. W. Scully, Francis , Buller, Sir Y. Higgins, G. G. Sibthorp, Colonel Burghley, Lord Hildyard, T. B. T. Spooner, Richard Burke, Sir T. J. Hill, Lord E. Stafford, Annan, Castlereagh, Vis. Hodgson, W. N. Stanford, J. F. Chichester, Lord J. Jones, Captain Stanley, Edward Christopher, R. A. Keating, Robert Stanley, E. H. Clive, H. B. Keogh, William Stuart, H. Cobbold, J. C. Knightley, Sir C. Sullivan, Michael Colvile, C. R. Knox, Colonel Taylor, Thomas E. CuballY, M. E. Lennox, Lord G. IL Tenison, E. K. Crawford, W. S. Lock hart, W. Thompson,Waerniall Devereux, J. T. Mackenzie, W. F. Tollemache, John Disraeli, B. , Macaghten, Sir B. Tyler, Sir G. M`Callagh, iv. Dod, J. W. Vyse, R. 11. Megan, W. H. Duncombe, A. Waddington, H. 8. Dundas, George Meagher, Thomas Welby, G. E. Dunne, Colonel Mahon, O'Gorman Willoughby, Sir H. Du Pre, C. George Mandeville, Viscount Wodehouse, E. Edwards, Henry Maunsell, T. P. Wynn, 11, W. Fagan, William /deux, Sir Henry TELLELS. Farnham, E. B. Monsen, William B arron, Sir H. Ferrer, James Moore, George 11. ReYnolda. John MAJORITY—NOES, 13 S. Abdy, Sir Thomas Greenall, Peto, Samuel G. pilkingten, JamesAeland, Sir T. D. Grenfell, C. Pascoe Adair, R. Shafto Grey, Sir G. Pinney, WiMani Aglionby, H. Grey, Ralph W. Ricardo, Osnrla Ashley, Lord Grosvenor, Lord R. Rice, E. R. Baines, M. T. Hallyburton, Lord Robartes, T. J. A. Baring, Sir F. Hanmer, Sir J. Romilly, Colonel Bass, M. T. Hardcastle, J. A. Romilly, Sir John Bellew, R. M. H as ti e , Alexander Russell, Lord J. Berkeley, Admiral Haste, Archibald Russell, E. Berkeley, C. L. Hatchell, John Rassell,F. C. It. Bernal, Ralph Hawes, Benj. Scholefield, W. Blackstone, W. Heald, James Seymour, Lord Boyle, Colone. Heathcoat, Johß. Shafto, R. D. Bright, Jelin Henry, Alexander Sheridan, R. B. Brocklehurst, John Hepworth, Lawrence Blaney, R.".L.: Brockman, E. D. HindieyiCharles Smith, J. A. Brotherton, Joseph Hobhouse, T. B. Smollett, A. Brown, H. Hodges, T. L. Somers, J. P. Caulfeild, J. M. Howard, E. G. Somerville. Sir W. Cavendish, C. C. Hutchins, E. J. Sotheron, T. H. P. Cavendish, G.H. Jackson, William Spearman, H. J. Cavendish, W. G Kershaw, James Stanton, W. S. I Childers, J. W. King , P . J . Stuart, Lord J. Clay, James Labouchere, Henry Tancred, H. W. Clerk, Sir G. Lewis, G. C. Thicknesse, R. A. Cockburn, Sir A. Littleton, E. R. John Trelawny,-J. H. Thompson, Colonel I Collins, William Locke, Joseph Tollemache, F. J. Cowper, W. F. Mackie, John Townshend, Captain Craig, Sir W. G. Train, George I Deedes, W. Denison, J. E. I. l‘ i t : :1, z G r e e l 1 1 o , r Duncan, Marshall, William Vesey, Thomas Douglas, Sir C. Matheson, Colonel Villiers, Viscount Drummond, Home Morris, David Watkins, Colonel Duncan, Lord Mostyn, E. Westhead, J. B. Duncuft, John Mowatt, Franc!' Willcox, Brodie Dundas, Sir D. Mulgrave, Earl Williams, John Ellice, E., jun. Norreys, Lord Williamson, Sir H. Ellis, John Ogle, S. C. Wilson, James Evans, William Oswald, Alexander Wilson, Matthew Foley, J. H. Owen, Sir John Wood, Sir Cherie! Fordyce, A. D. Paget, Lord A. Wood, W. P. Forster, Matthew Paget, Lord Clarence Wortley, J: S. Fertescue, Chichester Palmer, Roundel! Wyvill, M. Freestun, Colonel Palmerston, Vis. MUM. Glyn, G. C. Parker, John Hayter, W. G. Goulburn, Henry Perfect, R. Hill, Lord M. ANALYSIS OF THE DIVISION ON ME. HERMES' MOTION. Majority (tellers included) — Liberals ... ... Conservatives ... ... ... 228 ... 52 ••• ••• ••• - 280 Minority (tellers included)-- Conservatives Liberals 197 ... 35 0.M., 982 Absent— Liberals (including pairs) ... ••• 7 °, Conservatives (including pairs) .. ••• 60 Seats vacant— Aylesbury, Coventry, Enniskillen, Leith, Lon don, Longford, Somerset (West) ... .• 7 Speaker 1 656 Sir W. Molosworth paired off with Mr. Whitmore against Mr. Herries' amendment. Mr. Traill, M.P. for Caithness, paired against Mr. Harries' amendment with Mr. Thornhill, M.P. for the county of Huntingdon. SMITHFIELD MARKET. (From the Morning Advertiser.) We must own that we feel somewhat surprised that the nhabitants of the metropolis should regard with so much seeming indifference the Bill now before Parliament, for erecting a new cattle-market in the neighbourhood of Horn sey,—which is intended to supplant the cattle-market which has stood for so many centuries in Smithfield. We can only account for this indifference, on one of two suppositions, — either that the population of London have no definite notions as to how far they will be affected by the contemplatod transfer of the metropolitan cattle-market to Hornsey, or that they are making sure the measure will never receive the sanction of the Legislature. •- With regard to the latter assumption, has i lever oc curred to the inhabitants of London that their inactivity and seeming indifference are more adapted than anything else that could be imagined, to bring about the very result which we know they would deprecate did they suppose it to be probable? Will not the very fact, that they are so silent and inactive on the subject, be pleaded as a reason why the Bill promoted by a parcel of private speculators should be passed? If that measure is to be opposed in Parliament with any chance of success it is clear that the inhabitants of London must raise their voices to the loudest pitch in oppo• sitien to it. It is right they should know that unless they adopt, without delay, some energetic measures to oppose the Bill, there is too much ground to apprehend that it may re ceive the sanction of Parliament. There are, we know, some persons who think that any ac tive efforts, on the part of the metropolitan public, to oppott the Bill for fa cattle-market at Hornsey, are unnecessary. because Sir George Grey, speaking in the name of his col• leagues, has intimated that it is the intention of Government to oppose the Bill. No doubt the Home Secretary meant what he said. But then it is to be remembered, that Cs? - vernments, as well as individuals, sometimes change tll . opinions. And even when Ministers do not change th e ir minds, they are sometimes themselves made the .subjectsusoef change. The Whig Ministry can speak feelingly' it is experimentally, on the subject. They to be out of office as well as in office. s w ey ill Cattle marketreniain weeks ago, and the odds are that they T iii y be out again be ,,,joiToo knowwe er , e t o h u e t r a f f o ew re, fore many more weeks have elapsed. on t a h e t e h t e to t i r h i es:t on a broken that they were to on the opposition of Government dt Bill, for its rejection, would reed. Besides, even were in office for a little while longer.. . that their opposition it cert e ar d know, have we, on would be op pose the measure with all their might, what . certainty, we should like to successful ? They are no strangers to minorities. That is a destiny to which' the y have :been a good deal accustomed of late. They are getting so much used to it, that it mast by this time come to them as a matter of course. If the measu re is to be succe ssfully opposed, it can only be by the population of London adopting some energetic mea sures, with the view of knocking it on the head before the private adventurers who have got up the project, proceed farther with it. We rather suspect that the metropolitan population have not any very distinct idea as to the way in which they will be affected by the measure. It is doubtful, indeed, whether the mass of the population have any idea that they will be, in any way, affected by it. We are disposed to ascribe their indifference to it, to the assumption that it is of no import ance to them. It is only because they are ignorant of the provisions of the measure, that they could have come to this conclusion. Is it nothing to them, that the tolls on cattlf , are to be raised from twopence to eightpence per head, and those on sheep in the same proportion? Surely, no one wk) is cognizant of this provision of the Bill, can be simple eno?..g e Th r to suppose that the increased tollage will fall on arly. S, party than the consumer. They will have to pay , ' D t h e shape of an increased tax on all their butcher's _ vr cattle enormous sum meant to be expended on this ,t . n beasts, market—this huge site for the sale of living and u s 7,„ ut if u i with which it is meant to deform one of the In° spots in the neighbourhood of London. and lament the We have never hesitated to acknowledg e with Smithffela evils which have been so long associatedtween the retention Market. And were the choice to lie between site, and its of the metropolitan cattle market on hseyi,taotretoinansayYjnotgh—er I p e l t am it , transfer to Hornsey, we should not o B u at . that alt ernative r ill evils,es not lie th ie e b e e r t ec w t een ion by all means, be transferred to in the neighbourhood of I L: e n not placed before us. Smithfield. Market and its enormousSmithfiela an of a new market at Hornsey. Market is stamp e_.o. An d , what is more, the CorPo" tible of great improyem.xfig dgoiuvie;_"ti 1 to make such ' ts as ration are ready And wobviate te ob* impro v ements may be necessary to s e before ar h ._ jections usna y • it. Their Plan .t against e public. They are tiO most, if net ll comprehensive, that a , the objections which d e to the present metropolitan market will be ob• may be ma viated in the app rehension of e very person of unprejudiced mind. deem it rieht t Still we - -t ) express oar conviction that the plans o f the Corporation for very greatly enlarging the area of Sinithfield, and mak :_ g in such erections in connexion with the m arket, as may obviate existing evils, are, though good, Do t all that they might be. They are susceptible of great improvement. A still wider area might be embraced. We pointed out, in our paper of Thursday last, how this might be done. If the space proposed to be devoted to lodging" houses and baths were to be appropriated to the nar: market, th e l atter wou ld be made one-half larger th:r d l d l ll . at present intended. This would be an p imp' eße ob tional improvement. It would remove every c9nceiv awalled jection to the metrop thi s olitan cattle market .heing e where it is. And what is to prevent iinprov emen our suggstion t? ? What is to hinder the adoption o f _ last week, bates It is not too late. As we remar k e d .. gs in their and lodging-houses are excellent because no journal turn way. W e can say this the more freely, has devoted so much space to their a dvocacy as our own. a i But other sites can be had for long-houses a nd baths. Ae _g. h aving a sufficiently en larged area for the metropolitan compared with the importance or cattle mar e . k t they are tni• worthy a moment's considration. to the corporation, in the hoe We throw out these hints ell to remove, by their content that as they have done so u vi the weightiest _g ei htiest objections to the plated new market, Lon . , t h ey may do still better, by ea site remaining where it , s to reconcile to the retention of - efee improving their plane as all those who are not pereonaliy cattle market where i n t eres ted in the suc ces s of the Hornsey speculation. • Si n ce t 1 . n ty p e, we have received & commun.'• h e above was e l sew here insert, consisting of a declaration, signed by e cation, which we e citizen electors of London,. and which her been N 7 'd dto Lord John EllMell and th e other City ?Om ora S v lc I \ -11 w. - i*; ,Of Comme y. is4- - :' , :?4 z.k-- „. --/ - - , k. , .. - • 1121 hat this Hous ‘'Ye,-, aist!ess there 'A it lia D OW% A— ~~'" , I