The Express.
London, England, 1849-06-30 00:00:00

LIGHT DUES BILL.

In answer to Mr. Foam,
Mr. LABOUCHERH said that on Monday next his
noble friend would make a statement with regard to the
public business. Hs trusted that on that day he would b.
able to state the precise day when he could bring the Light
Dues Bill tin& r the onnaid.rstion of the house. Tie ar-
rangements were such, however, that Ise could not bring it
forward next week, but he hoped to be able to do so the
week after next.

POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.)
Sir G. GREY stated that it they could not get this bill
through committee on this night, he thou d puepose that the
house meet at 12 o'clock so-morrow (this day.)
The house then went into oommittse on the bill.
On clause 3,
Sir G. GREY begged leave to suggest to his hon. friend
(Mr. Clement-) that he should postp -no the clause be in-
tended to propose, and that he should bring it up at the end
of the W.
Mr. CLEMENTS said he would at all events state the ob-
ject of the clause he meant to prop se, which was to make it
lalawful for the commissions re to make an order for eppropri-
sting any part of the workhouse accommodation of any ex-
isting union for any new union until sufficient workhouse
accommodation should have been provided for such new
melon, and also empowering them to 8: the sum which
should be paid by the new union for the maintenance cad
clothing of the paupers belmging to it. The clause further
empowered the commissioners, in case the guardians of the
new union neglected to make the payments according to the
terms end periods prescribed by toe commissioners, to re-
quire payment from the treasurer of the new union, such
payment to he made is the treasurer of tee existing union.
Bir G. GREY said the government were anxious that no
time should be needlessly lost in carrying into effect the se-
cemmenaations of the boundary commiesinners- but the
communications on the subject unavoidably involved delay,
He hoped the hon. gentleman would not press his amend-
ment to a division, especially pa under the circumstances no
real expression of opinion could be obtained.
After a short conversation the amendment was withdrawn.
Mr. STAFFORD said the house now approached the r' al
amendments in the Irish poor law. The third clause might
justly be considered as the first clause of a separate bill. For
the first and second clauses, let it be remembered, Ireland was
not responsible,finasmuch as majorities of her representatives
had repeatedly protested against the ministerial plan. (Hear.)
ilia mowed as ea addition . •. Provided always, that no such
dissolution or alteration shall take place, or he made, uolets
a majority of the guardians of the unions affected by such
change shall also consent thereto in writing."
Sir W. SOMERVILLE opposed the proviso, which was I
merely an attempt to revert to a state of things which had
been found to work most inconveniently and mischievously.
Mr. H. HERBERT said that by this proviso his boa.
friend was very desirous to return to the law of 1834, which
the right hon. baronet opposite had himself on a former oc
canton declared to be one of the leading means of restoriug
prosperity to Ireland.
Sir G. GREY was not prepared to give the board of
guardians a power of putting a veto upon any proposed divi-
sion of an electoral diehiqn, which woull be the effect of the
proviso. He must therefore oppose the motion of the hon.
member for Northampton.
Mr. W. FAGAN expressed his intention to sumort the
proviso.
Alter a few words from Lord C. Hesttitrox,
Mr. J. O'CONNELL r ppoerd the proviso, on the ground
that it would be imprud ut to interfere with the powers now
possessed by the commissioners.
Col. DUNNE thought that the guardians might safely
be entrusted with the powers of the proviso, and therefore
be supported the motion of the hon. member far North-
ampton.
Mr. CONOLLY expressed his intention to support the
proviso.
Mr. P. SCROPE would vete for the clause as it was ori-
ginally framed.
Sir 11. W. BARRON thought that local boards of
guardians were much better judges of the condition of their
unions than commissioners who were only casual visitors,
and therefore he was of opinion that the rower of vetoing a
proposed division ought to be given to them. He should
support the motion of the hon. member for Northampton.
Mr. E. B. ROCHE was of opinion that boards of guar-
dians were the very persons who ought not to be entrusted
with the division of unions. If the power of division were
left to the guardians, all the boards would be scrambling to
divide them in such a way as to leave the least possible cost
upon themselves.
Lord NAAS thought it extremely hard that highly re-
spectable boards of guardians should be deprived of say voii e
in a matter so materially affecting themselves. He believed
it was desirable to give as much power as possible to boards
of guardians, consistently with the due relief of the poor;
and for this reason he should support the amendment.
The committee then divided.
The numbers were—
For the proviso 24
Against it
Majority —44
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 6, rent charges by way of annuity and jointure
made liable to deduction fur poor rate,
Sir H. W. BARRON moved as an amendment in p. 4,
line 9, after the wofd "annuity,' to insert the words "as
also every interest payable on any mortgage, judgment debt,
or family charge.'
Mr. HAMILTON certainly did not see why the chute
should stop short where it did.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
clause originated with the committee on the Irish Poor Low,
who reported that it appeared equitable that persons liable to
pay any jointure or any other rent charge or annuity should
be entitled to make deductions from the poor-rate.
Mr. MONSELL looked upon the clause as a just one, but
he could not see how it could be carried out.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was of opinion that the
ease suggested by the hon. and learned member opposite
(Mr. Hamilton) was provided for by the 75th section. Sup-
pose an annuity of 1001. a year was paid on a farm in one
union on an estate of 1,0001. a year extended over three
unions. That part of the estate in one union (A) paid 6e. ;
in another (B), paid 3s. ; and lathe third (C), paid 2a. Then
the aggregate value of the whole estate extending over the
three unions being 1,0001. a year, and the aggregate rateable
value 10s., it followed that es 1,0001. a year was to the pro-
duce of 10s. a year, so was 1001. a year to le.
Mr. AGLIONBY opposed the amendment.
Mr. NAPIER was against the amendment of the hon.
baronet. He believed that the clause was framed with
a desire to make all who bad an interest in the land contri-
bate to the poor rate.
Sir A. BROOKE thought it was right to take into
consideration the ease of widows left only with a small
pittance to maintain them. Most of the settlements had
been fixed before the change in the currency, which made a
difference of eight per cent., to that where they used to re-
ceive 1001. annually, they now oaly received 921. He
trusted that this part of the clause would be r jested, and
that jointures would not be charged.
Colonel THOMPSON submitted that the great engines
don between mortgagees and other persons having charms
on an estate was that, in the case of a mortgagee, there had
been a contract.
Sir H. W. BARRON maintained that there had also bees
a contract in the ease of a widow when she was married.
The contract was the same as regarded the anauttant, and
yet it was said that au annuitant and widow must pay, bat
sot the mortgagee. This was an or post footo law as is
Irish proprietors.

Sir D. NORREYS said that a tax upon lenders wink'
make it more difficult to borrow the money. There was no
doubt that preperties had been diminished by the amount
of the poor rates. He held that the charges arising (ram
borrowing money and from family arrangements stool I
upon a different is.
Sir L. O'BRIEN said that a person who took a mort-
gage followed the fortune of the land, and if the land would
not produce enough to cover the interest of his mortgage, ke
must also suffer. The mortgagee, if he could not recover
the interest, foreclosed, and beams the poesissor of the es-
tate, and became liable ta the poor rate, and it might happen
that there was not enough to pay the interest of a former
mortgage and the poor rate. It appeared to him that the
propueitian of ministers was a very lair one ; and, therefore,
te would Rive it his support; but he thought the case of
smell jointures deserved the consideration of the house.
Mr. 8. CRAWFORD thought the principle of this clause
was per ectly just ; and if they retained the clause, it must
be carried to its full extent.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR said that it struck him as extraordi-
nary, from the commencement, that the mortgagees were
exempt from the charge for the support of the poor. It ap-
peared to him that the only reason they were exempt was
lest they should foreclose their mortgages. If the landlords
were to work out their own salvation, let the mortogees de
it also. Ireland would never be brought into a proper state
until the different mortgagees and landlords w.re in their
prt per position.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL thought that the object of the
honourable baronet would be more effectually carried out if
the clause were altogether omitted. A motion with that
object should have his (Mr. O'Connell's) support. One grave
difficulty which would attend the working of this clause—
, and there were always difficulties in the way of an injustice
—wee, that many. settlements, such as jointures, were made
chargeable on various denominations of land.
Ater a sheet conversation the committee divided.
For the insertion of the words l2
Against Bl-69
. .

Mr. NAPIER moved several verbal amendments, awns
others the folowing, in page 4, line 8, to leave out the word
" such." Line 9, after the word " annuity," to insert the
words " including ti'he rest charge." Line 14, to add
three words, " and not further or ott.crwise, anything is
sail recited act to the contrary in anywise notwith-
standing." The honourable and learned member t:-
planed that under the Mgt Tithe Commutation
Act the clergymen of the established church in that
country consented t, a deduction of 25 per oast. from
their then incomes, in order that they might be secured in
the receipt of the other 75 per cent. from the lacdlord. Now,
under this bill the landlord would pay only half the rate, the
other half being deducted from the tenant, which, by this
clause, unless the alterations he proposed were admitted, the
whole of the rate would be deducted from the clergymen.
His otject was to put both on the same footing.
Mr. E. B. ROCHE observed that the church had obtained
for the 25 per cent. of its nominal tithe certainty for the se-
meaning 75, and had at that sacrifice converted a meet
uncertain into a certain property. The hon. and learned
gentleman said that the church ought not to pay this portion
of the poor-rate ; but did he forget that originally one-fourth
of the whole property of the church was appropriated to the
relief of poor? No one would say that property in Ireland
general.y had not: fallen more than 25 per cent.; rents and
other incomes had fallen in far greater proportion, and were
b sides seldom paid with any certainty, while this 75 per
cent. composition for the tithe formed a first charge on all
er teeny, and was paid punctually. He hoped the govern-
ment would adhere to the clause as it was, and not add to
the already enormous riches of the church in Ireland.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER deprecated
the discussion of the church question on a bill for amending
the poor laws. (Hear.) He must oppose the amendment, i
as involving an alteration of the law, which was too impor-
tant to be dealt with by an amendment such as that the
hon. and learned member had proposed. He did not deny
that there were reasons for tome alteration in the law in
order to place the Irish clergy on the same footing as the
E glish clergy in this respect, and clauses had been passed
in that huuse, in 1847 and 1848,t0 effect it, but they had been
thrown out in the lords. The remedy, however, ehould be
brought forward in a distinct shape, and not by verbal
amendments which it was difficult to understand.
Mr. CONOLLY supported the amendment, and reminded
the house that the clergy, by the conditions of the Tithe
Commutation Act surrendered 25 per cent. of their rights,
on condition that the remaining 75 per cent. should be
secured, and he, speakirg as a landlord, did not think it just
that they should now take from them one half more than
they took from others.
Mr. HA NI I LTON said the object of the amendment was
to place tithe-rent charge on the same footing as that on
which her Majesty's government were now proposing to plate
rent-charge of every other description. Ile deniedthat tithes
were so regularly paid to the clergy of the established church
in Ireland, as the hon. member for Cork (Mr. Roche)
would endeavour to make out. On the contrary, one clergy-
man, who wee entitled to 3261. per annum, had only been
paid 501. during the last eighteen months; and, in conse-
quence, he had been obliged to withdraw his son from cal-
-1 hogs, to sell his gig, and in other was to diminish his ex-
penditnre.
Sir D. NORREYS said this question of the church in-
volved considerations of too important a nature to be dis-
cussed upon a mere clause in the present bill, and that the
tithe net-charge was not now rated to theamorlandithe occu-
pier. It was only rated to the landlord.
Mr. NAPIER consented to withdraw the amendment,
but intimated that he would propose it again upon the
bringing up of the report.
The amendment was accordingly withdrawn, and the
dense was agreed to.
Clause 6 was agreed to.
On clause 7 being read,—occupier not to deduct from rent
mere than one-half the amount of the rate paid,
Mr. ROCHE expressed a hope that the government would
not force the house to a division upon this clause, because, if
carried out in Ireland, a vast deal of mischief would be
caused. It would create a panic, and promote emigration
amongst the occupiers, because it would compel the latter, in
addition to their heavy rack-rents, to pay a larger proportion
ot poor rate than they did at present. lie should move the
omission of the chugs.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
object of the clause was to guard against an undue
1 .w valuation, which was now exceedingly prevalent in many
parts of Ireland. The msjority of the boards of guardians
who were themselves tenants, Appointed the valuers, and
rent and to throw the burden of the rates upon the la-
lords. It, for instance, a man paid 1001. a year rent, and
that his land was cnly valued at 501., the rate u ductat
501. at Is. in the pounJ, would be 21. 10s. Be dd
the half of the shilling from the actual rent (1001.), and that
came also to 21. 10a.; consequent!? the landlord in such a
case paid the whole of the rate and the occupier paid
nothing. (Hear.) The value was put in many cases
at present at less than half the amount of the rent.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL said the landlord had the remedy
is his own hands—he could lower the rent. (Laughter.) If
He valuation be rained toe proper standard, and that the
rents be found still higher, it was evident they were too
high, and ought to be reduced.
Mr. 8. CRAWFORD supported the motion for emitting
the clause, because he thought it would have the effect of
encouraging the letting of lands at rack-rents in Ireland. No
landlord who let at a moderate rent need fear the existing
law.
Mr. DL O'CONNELL voted for retaining the clause.
Speaking as a practical man and from his own experience,
he knew the existing law to be objected to by tenants, be-
cause it left them in so much uncertainty as to the amount
of rate they had to pay. The present clause would meet
that objection, and he therefore supported it.
Mr. FAGAN took a different view, and believed that the
clause would give rise to considerable opposition to the col-
lection of the este. He denied that the valuation was so low
as represented, for in most instances it was higher than that
of the Ordnance survey. He denied also that the ptinciple
of the present poor law was an equal payment of the rate by
landlord and tenant. The principle of it was to prevent the
practice of rack rents, and to make the tenant pay the rate
only in proportion to his rent.
Sir J. WALSH supported the clause, because it gave the
tenant a direct interest in the administration of the poor.law,
and in the prevention of frauds.
Mr. SCULLY oppoied the clause.
Tne committee then divided.

For the clause 125
Against it l9-106
On clause 9, providing that the valuation of land should
not be increased in respect of improvements made within
seven years,
Sir D. NORREYS said he thought the datum should
apply only to improvements made after the passing of
the act.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL observed that the clause
was analogous to clauses in other bills. It was well known
that reclaimed lands did not until after the lapse of a certain
period become liable to tithes. The velue of the improve-
ments cc ight be ascertained in the lame way as that of im-
yrovereents which had to be fixed as between the outgoing
tenant and the incoming tenant.
Mr. M. O'CONNELL complained that mills were not in-
c'uded in the exemption. It was of great importance that
mills should be erected as near as possible to the farm.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the question involved
was substantially decided when the bill for making advances
for the improvement of lands was under consideration. The
obvious distinction was, that the millowner made an im-
mediate proftt. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. FRENCH did not consider his hon. and learned
friend's observation entitled to any weight. The view taken
by him of mils was formerly taken by parliament of agricul-
tural buildings; yet the latter were now included in the
proposed exemption.
Sir J. YOUNG add that, as a member of the committee,
be was in a position to state that the distinction drawn
by the committee was that in the one case there was,
mad in the other there was not, a prospect of immediate I
profit. (Hear, hear.) That distinction he considered a valid
one.
Sir H. W. BARRON moved, as an amendment, to sub-
stitute " twenty-one years " for " seven years," as the pi clod
of exemption. The hon. baronet said that seven years
would not be sufficient to encourage the outlay of capital.
The entire valuation of the country would not be diminished
by that, or be encouraged by a large investment of capital.
Sir G. GREY said the reran why the clause had been
framed as it stood was, that a period of seven years was sup-
postd to be a reasonable time for the tenant to lay out his
i capital to advantage and secure a return. A more extended
I period would involve injustice to other parties. (Hear.)
Mr. GROGAN propeeed to substitute " fourteen years "
foe "seven years." (near, bear.)