The Express.
London, England, 1847-02-09 00:00:00

of Ireland; and that, though they would take care that for
the future Irish property should perform its duties, they
' would not now hesitate until every tittle of past blame was
raked up, while the Irish people, who had done no wrong,
were starving. (Hear, bear.) Such, he believed, were the
feelings of the English people at the present moment, and
hr hoped Irish members would not suppose that the hots and
learned member for Bath represented truly and faithfully
the sentiments of the great mass of the people of England.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. ROEBUCK remarked that the noble lord forgot that
a large section on the noble lord's aide of the house held
opinions similar to those he (Mr. Roebuck) had advaneed.
Similar sentiments had been expressed by hon. gentlemen
sitting higher on the • tme bench with the noble lord.
Dr. BOWRING said that be was quite willing to forget
the past conduct of the Irish landowners, but he could not
forget that the house was now legislating for the future. It
had been confessed (and the coefession was an instance of
the honesty of many Irish landlords) that it was a delusion
to suppose, that, of the grants which were to be made under
this bill, a great portion would never he repaid. Again, it
was stated by Irish members that the money so granted
would leave Ireland still suffering and unrelieved. These were
points which English members were hound to consider in all
their gravity. He for one was willing to deal liberally
towards Ireland in her present distress ; lint he had • right
to ask whether these great sacrifices would accomplish the
object in view ? Why did the government not at once meet
the great question of the Irish church, and legislate upon it
according to the views and seutirneuts of the majority
of the Irish people ? If not, he could not feel surprised at
the desire manifested for Repeal, upon which the feeling in
England was increasing daily.
Sir C. NAPIER observed, that whether the landlords of
Ireland had or hod not done their duty, he did not pretend to
say ; and, more than that, he thought that many gentlemen
who were so violent against the landlords of Ireland, knew
just as much about them as he (Sir C. Napier) did.
(Laughter.) Of this he was quite satisfied, that if they had
not done their duty, the government were to blame for not
having forced them to it long before the existing calamity
appeared. (Hear, hear.) Had the English proprietors who
had large estates in Ireland done their duty ? He would
like to see those gentlemen and noblemen who passaged
enormous property in Ire land sacrifice their own pleasures,
and instead of living abroad in luxury and comfort,
go and live upon their estates during the existing
distress, and in person administer to the wants of the
suffering and starving people in Ireland. It was not
enough to tell him that their agents were doing
all in their power, and he maintained that the
presence of such men as the Duke of Devonshire, the
Marquis of Lansdowne, and other large landed proprie-
tors upon their estates in Ireland, would do much to relieve
the people. However, wit- n two millions of men, women,
and children were actually starving, he, as a Christian, held
that the imperial legislature was bound I. do all in its power
to mitigate the evils, and he was ready to give his consent to
every assistance possible being afforded. (Hear. )
Lied CLEMENTS repeated that he had not the slightest
doubt of the inclination of the Irish people to repay any debt
they might incur, but thought, besides these greats, the go-
vernment ought to come forward with measures more cal•
misted to develope the capabilities of that country.
Mr. BERNAL expressed his regret that the hon. and
gallant member for Marylebone (Sir C. Napier) should have
thought it necessary to express sentiments calculated to excite
odium and animadversion upon the noblemen and gentlemen
usually designated absentee proprietors. He must take leave
to Pay that many of them expended the whole income arising
from their estates for the benefit and advantage of their
tenants, and one gentleman, whose name he had not liberty
to mention, did not draw one-twentieth of his annual rental
of 30,000!. He hoped the house would now proceed with
this bill, without further charges on absentees or more recri-
mination. (Hear, hear.)
Sir C. NA PIER repeated his former opinion that it would
be better fur Ireland if such proprietors av the Duke of
Devonshire, the Marquis of Lansdowne, and others, were at
the present juncture resident upon their Irish estates.
Mr. ROSS (Belfast) rose simply to thank the noble lord,
the member for Newark, (Lord J. Manners) for the defence
he had offered for English members, and to express a hope
that without any more attacks on Irish landlords it would
be remembered that the people were starving, and that the
of the bill should not be further delayed.
Pr°4l7:lause (16th) was then, after a few words from Mr. P.
SCROPE and Mr. LABOUCHERE, agreed to, as were
also clauses 17 and 18 without any discussion.
Clause 19, after a few words from Mr. Shaw (who suet-
;Ta verbal amendment), Mr. F. French, Mr. J.
oten, and Mr. Milne., was agreed to, as were clauses
20 and 21.

On the latter clause being put,
Mr. HUME wilted if government had made up their
minds as to the period when the repayment of the advances
should be made.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was
impossible to fix soy definite period.
Sir R. FERGUSON asked if there would be any objection
to introduce a clause empowering the guardians of any union
to borrow small sums of their treasurer or hanker ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
guardians had already power to borrow, but no power to
pay interest. He thought the power suggested not an un-
&arable one ; but it might be considered on the bringing up
of the report.
Mr. E. DENISON moved an addition to the clause of
which he had given notice, " That in no case shall the sum
so advanced by the commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury
exceed the sum raised by rate or voluntary contribution
within the union or electoral division." It was important
to cherish a epirit of co-operation amongst the owners and
occupiers of land; and this proviso would have the desired
effect. He regretted that, amidst all the statements that
had been made with reference to Irish distress, no
general estimate had been given of the amount of the
whole circle of Irish produce. lie understood that
one-half the land in Ireland was grazing land : this was
borne out by a letter addressed by Captain Markham to
Mr. Trevelyan, of the Gth of October lost ; and this was a
most important fact to consider in entertaining the question
of a poor-law for Ireland. lie was most anxious that uncon-
ditional grants of money should net be made ; and if the
statement of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer
was correct, that there were large districts in Ireland which
could not be expected to meet the call upon them in the form
of a rate, how could they give the required security for any
advance that might be made ?
Mr. LABOUCHERE reminded the house that this was a
temporary measure, having for its object to relieve the
people from destitution. Admitting the excellence of the
general rule laid down by the hon. member who had just
spoken, the government claimed the right of exercising a
discretionary power in such a measure as the one now before
the house. In many cues they had every right to expect
that local means of meeting the distress would be forthcom-
ing; and it was but fair to calculate that such means would
supply half the required relief. But, remembering that there
were large districts of the country where the people were
densely congregated together, and were rapidly dying off
from famine and disease, how could the legislature contem-
plate the collection of rotes in such districts, where the inha-
bitants were almost w holly of the pa.reet class ? The dis-
cretion now asked would tie a great relief to the Irish govern-
ment, and he hoped the house would not fetter the hands of
the executive in the way proposed by his hon. fiend.
After a few words from Mr. GRAINGER,
Mr. V. SMITH expressed his intention of supporting the
amendment, if it were pressed to a division. Ihe people of
England wereanxious to know where was to be the end of this
sy..tem of relief. If it was necessary now, would it not
be equally necessary when the permanent poor.law was
enacted ?
Mr. J. O'CONNELL said that the amendment must
have been conceived in utter ignorance of the state of Ire-
land. Government had only one alternative, either to
sanction advances of money in the way proposed, or to cast
off the Irish people to perish. (Hear.)
Mr. E. DENISON said, that as government appeared to
think the discretionary power now sought was essential to
the success of the measure, and as he had no wish to incur
the responsibility of rendering the bill inoperative, or causing
it to operate injuriously, he should prefer to withdraw his
amendment.
. . .

The amendment was withdrawn accordingly, and the
clause agreed to as it stood.
Some additional dawn haring been agreed to, the house
resumed, and the sport was ordered to be brought up to-
morrow.
BREWING FROM SUGAR BILL.

On the motion for going into committee on the bill,
Mr. W. MILES said he wished to make • few oteerva-
tions on this bill, and on the Distilling fiom Sugar Bill.
With respect to the bill immediately under dieewaion he
would assume 1801bs. as the equivalent of a quarter of ;ult.
Then, taking the price of good malting barley at from
325. to 405., and 'dewing 21.. fur all the charges of
malting, it would give a price of ii6s. and 64..
If he took the price at 66.., the relative price of sugar, if it
was to come as an antagooi.t against malt, must be so low as
31s. Ild., which was not likely to be the case. Taking the
price of malt at 61s, the relative value of sugar must be
395. 9d. But, from the experiments of theexcise authorities,
he found that when sugar was 47.. 3d., it could only enter
into competition with malt when the price of malt was 765.,
so that there was na CALM for apprehension on the part of
the agriculturists with re.pect to the use of sugar in breweries.
But it was different with respect to the use of sugar in dis-
tilleries, both as regarded the agriculturists and the
colonies. In the first plat.., it was bringing a
manufactured product against • British raw article.
In the next place, what would he its effect in respect to the
, act of last session ? It appeared that three kind. of sugar
had been used in the experiments made by the excise—
Jamaica sugar which cost 47..0d. per cask, Mauritius which
cost 48a., and Cuba sugar which cost 49.. The Cuba sugar
paid but 7e. more duty than the Jamaica, and its cost was
only 24. more, so that it was evident it would enter is com-
petition
with the Jamaica sugar in the British market. But
its relative value in distilling was 3j more than Jamaica
sugar, so that it must entirely supenede the we of
colonial sugar, and thus slave-grown sugar must
have ahnued complete posseasion of the home market.
What he complained of was, that they were proceeding in
the dark. It having been determined that the corn-duties
should be abolished in 1849, and that the sugar duties should
be equalised in 1861, they were now asked to pass • meager°
which must produce a similar elkct on the colonies and the
British producer. He regretted that the measure had not
been made temporary. The expeiiinent was a fearful one
and, though all inquiry had been refused there, he hoped
the colonists and the agriculturists would have fair play in
the House of Lords. He should not divide against the
measure. . . .

W-a.
Mr. JAMES was opposed to th• policy of restricting the
owners of colonial property in the disposal of their produce,
in the manner most beneficial to themselves and to the con-
sumer. The rich man was at present allowed to
brow his nwn beer from linear ; but the poor
man WWI prevented by exc.wc re,iulations from ob-
taining a similar advantage. 1: was well known that •