The Express.
London, England, 1849-06-26 00:00:00

THE BUDGET.

Mr. SANDARS wished to correcta misrepresentation of
what he bad stated on kriday night when the budget was
before the home. What he stated was, that if a duty of Is.
a quarter on corn had produced a revenue of 250,0001, it
was to be regretted that there was not a duty of 4e. or 55.,
which would have produced a revenue of 1,2a,0001. no
stated from his experience that this would not enhance the
price to the consumer ; in proof of which fact he referred to
the month of March of last year, when the duty, which had
'seen suspended for 12 m •nths, was re-imposed, and when it
advanced at once from nothing to 75., whilst there was no ad-
vance in the price of corn in this country. He also stated that
the averaoe for the first week in Mirth was 60s. 10d., and tt at
in six weeks afterwards it was likewise 50s. 10d., but that
the price declined abroad equal to the advance of duty here ;
and, therefore, thst the duty came out of the pocket of the
foreigner and was not paid by the consume r here.
EXPLOSIONS IN COAL MINES.
In answer to Mr. WTLD, •
- - - • •

Sir G. GREY said the government had received no official
information respecting the explosion of a coal mine near St.
Hell n's. The papers relating to the inspection of collieries
would soon be teed on the table.

ENCUMBERED ESTATES BILL.
Mr. OSBORNE wished to know from the noble lord
(Russell) whether he could then name the thr‘e gentlemen
who were to be appointed as comminionen under the En-
cumbered Estates Bill, or whether he would name them be-
fore the session concluded ?
- - - - - •

Lord J. RUSSELL said he was afraid he could not give
their names that week ; he would do so, however, as soon as
he could.

THE IRISH CHURCH.
Mr. ROCHE wished to know from his hon. friend the
member for Montrose, who had a motion on the paper for the
sth of July, respecting British Guiana, whether Le would
Rive precedence to the motion of his hon. friend the member
for Middlesex on the subject of the Irish church, which was
flied for the same day, and respecting which there was so
much interest f.lt on both sides of the house ?

Mr. HUME said that no man in the house was more
anxious than he to have a full discussion of the subject of the
Irish church, and no person would more readily vote for the
notion of his hon. friend, but there was at that moment
questions of great importance pending respecting British
Guiana which it was most desirable to have settled. If the
government gave him a day, he would gladly yield prece-
dence to the bon, member for Middlesex.
Mr. REYNOLDS suggest d that the hon. member for
Montrose align bring on his motion to-morrow.
Mr. HUME said he would consent to discharge the order
which stood in his name—(hear, hear)—but would titke the
very first opportunity of brining on his motion reapccting
Guiana.
Lord J. RUSSELL said it must be understood that the
government was no party to any such arrangement.
The SPEAKER said that the hon. member for Montrose
haying fixed his motion for a particular day, it would be
quite Irregular to move it before that day. (Laughter.)
TRANSPORTATION FOR TREASON (IRELAND)
On the motion for the third reading of this bill,
Mr. NAPIER =teed that it be read a third time that day
three months. on the ground that it was an unconstitutional
measure, and sought to create by es post facto legislation •
new punishment for an offence after judgment had been pro-
nounced. (Hear, hear.) The bill was either totally unne-
cessary or totally unconstitutional.
Mr. SPOONER seconded the motion.
Colonel RAWDON objected to the measure as an ex post
facto one.
Mr. SPOONER looked urn% this as a great constitutional
question. It was to his mind en infraction of the constitu-
tion to pans an ex post facto law, the effect of which would
be to aggravate and not to mitigate the punishment.
Bir G. GREY said his hon. and learned friend, the At-
torney-General, had stated that in his own opinion the
power of transportation resided in the crown; but
that doubtt, trimmed in a quarter which the Lord
Lieutenant considered entitled to respect, had induced the
government to propose this bill to parliament. He denied
Wet the measure would enable the crown to aggravate, and
ant to mitigate, punishment. Let the house say whether or
sot imprisonment for life as a condemned felon was not a
severer punishment than transportation. (Hear, hear.)
Peaetieally the bill would not aggravate the punishment of
tie parties concerned.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR opposed the motion on the ground of
the haste with which it had been advanced.
Mr. 8. CRAW FORD opposed the bill as dangerous to the
constitution. If there were any doubts in the case they
ought to be solved in favour of the prisoners.
Mr. REYNOLDS said that as that was probably the last op.
portunity he • ould have of speaking on the subject of this bill,
he begged to deny the truth of the &merlon that members
who voted against it recorded their votes against an act of
mercy. The contrary was the fact ; they wished either
that these parties might be confined within the realm
during her Majesty's pleasure, or that some lesser punish-
ment might be inflicted upon them. If there were a dozen
more divisions he should feel it his duty to record his vote
against the museum, but he was certainly of opinion that no
faction+ opposition should be offered after that stage.
The house then divided.
Foe the amendment
Against it 169-132

Sir. ANSTRY then noted an amendment, the effect of
which would be to substitute for " transportation " "im-
prisonment daring the Queen's pleasure.'
The ATTORNEY GENERAL said that he ;lid not sup-
pose the house would seriously entertain a proposition which
so far from removing the doubt or obviating the difficulty
which the bill was intended to remedy, was designed covertly
to defeat that biU,.b restrict the prerogative of mercy, and
to comp:.) the crown to inflict in every case a punishment
which might, ander particular circumstances, be waited.

Dr. POWER hoped the government would extend mercy
to Mr. Smith O'Brien; he was a gentleman of excellent in-
tenioas, of the highest order of intellect, en ornament to
society, and upon whose words thowands of people in Ire-
land had hung.
_ _ _

After a few words from Mr. DIXON,
The house divided—For the amendment 2l
Against it
On the question that the bill be passed,
Mr. LAWLESS recommended to her Majesty's ministers
the expediency of pursuing a merciful course towards Mr.
Smith O'Brien.

Lord J. RUSSELL must take advantage of the present
occasion to my that much hod been urged during the debates
on the measure before the house wh,ch might have tempted
ministers to have described the offences therein dealt with

ae of highest degree of guilt. But nothing whatever had
been said by them in aggravation of the crimes of Mr. Smith
notwithstanding the temptation to do so. He be-
lieved that the advice given to the crown wu of a merciful
character, totally devoid of any vindictive feeling, and he
believed also that if a lighter punithment than that in-
dicted had been imposed on Mr. Smith O'Brien, the future
peace and safety of Ireland would be endangered, and for
that reason it was his determination to persist in carrying out
the measure.

Mr. C. ANSTEY hoped that mercy would still be held in
view by the government.
The bill then pared.
POOR RELIEF (IRELAND).
The house then went into committee en this bill.

On the clause establishing a maximum rate being read
from the chair,
Mr. AUGUSTUS STAFFORD said that the experiment
of a maximum rate had already been tried in England, and
had signs ly failed. A maximum rate of Is. in the pound in
Irelandwould never suffice to pay the actual expenses, and to
clear off the debt of 600,0001., which had been incurred by the
insolvent unions. It bad been pretended that the rate in aid was
to be only a tempirary measure. So it was said at the time of
the income-tax. But neither the ens tux the other would
ever be rescinded. Let members for Ireland reflect well
Wire they voted for the present . He would wivile
no man to invest money in land in Ireland on the faith of
the 6s. maximum poor rate, nor would he be a party to any
such delusion. He felt himself obliged to take the sense of
the bowie against the clause • and in justification of the
course he pursued, he would beg leave to read en extract
from the Daily News. " Local taxes," said a writer in that
able paper, "cannot be dealt with by parliament to any good
purpose, except by giving the ratepayers power to determine
the amount of the rate, to direct its appropriation, and to
control its expenditure," and believing that the noble lord's
bid violated every one of these true principles here laid
dswn, he should vote against the clause.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL said that the hon. member opposite
bad recommended the house to let the Irish landlords d- al
with their own poor, but when they had that power they
had misused it and, by evading every regulation, had caused
misery and death to ensue.
Sir J. YOUNG supported the clause, because he thought
it would tend to restore confidence towards the landed pro-
perty of Ireland, and to those who were at present afraid to
invest in land there. He thought that the advantages pro-
mised by the maximum rate were such as to warrant the
experiment being tried.
Mr. CLEMENTS li,lievod it was the general opinion of
government connected with Ireland that a maximum rate
of Is. with 2s. added on the unions would tend to ruin the
country. He did not are, therefore, how confidence could
result from the proposal of such a plan. It must be remem-
bered that the poor rate was only one recently known in
Ireland. He should give his cordial support to the amend-
ment of the hon. member opposite.
Mr. FAGAN said that, as a choice of evil', he was in favour
of a maximum rating; because he was aware, from Lis
knowledge of a portion of Ireland, that, owing to the enor-
mous amount of poor rates, wealthy farmers were quitting
the country, and the land was getting more and more out of
cultivation; and in such a proportion were the rat a in-
creasing. It was impossible that the Incumbered Estates
Bill could have any effect, mil. as there was& maximum rate.
Cat.italias would not purchase land subject to an unli-
mited rate as it at present existed. •

Mr. 11. HERBERT admitted that it seemed ungracious
in one who represented a large district, when security was
offered that taxation should net go beyond a certain limit,
to come forward and reject the proposition ; and he
ehoula be dicposed to accept the guarantee with thankful-
nee, provided be could see it was worth anything more than
the paper on which it was written. They had been told they
were only to pay to the amount of 7e. iu the pound, but the
noble lord never stated what was to be done when that
amount had been reached, or rather the noble lord said that
when the maximum bad been reached, the poor in Ireland
were to go back to the resources that existed previous to
1834; previous to the eistence of a poor law. Those re-
sources were the conacre. The conacre was gone; they
could not get back the conacre for many years.
The other resource was the charity of the farmer,
which, since the enactment of the poor-law, had been
exhausted. Them who lived in former days by begging of
farmers might now beg in vain. Another resource, viz.,
that of proprietors who resided on their property, was also
gone ; so that the promise held out by the noble lord was a
perfect delusion, and meant nothing mere than to tell the
people that, when the maximum was reached, they were to
starve.
Mr. GROGAN said that when the noble lord introduced
the measures, he hilly "greed in the principle of a maximum
rate, but when he saw the bill, and the manner in which
the maximum was proposed to be carried out, he became as
decidedly opposed 0 the proposal of the noble lord, as be
was before in its favour. He wished for no system different

from what prevailed in this country.
Sir D. NORREYS said that in 12 elcct'ral divisions there
were only 5 in which the expenses hid amounted to
ss. in the pound, consequently there was no danger of
seeing the 1,500 or 2,000 persons to whom the hon. member
had alluded being left to starve. This maximum rate
would prevent the lamentable course which he spine.
hended. There were 130 unions in Ireland; of these 130
there was not ore in which 71. in the pound was collected.
There were only 24 unions in which 5.. was expended
He believed that this measure afforded th^ only chance of
restoration for Ireland, and therefore he intended to give it
his support.
After a few words in explanation from Mr. 11. HERBERT,
Sir J. WALSH complained that ahhough many hon.
members had favoured the house with their opinions, they
had not been addressed by any members of her Majesty's
government during the present discussion. He did not mean
to intimate any intention of opposing the bill ; on the con-
trary, he was rather inclined to hail it as a step in a new
direction.

Mr. C. LEWIS reminded the hon. gentleman who com-
plained of the silence of members of the government, that
this was an adjourned debate, and that on a former evening
the First Lord of the Treasury had stated in great detail the
views of the goverumeat with respect to the clause immedi-
ately under consideration. Besides, although many Irish
members had spoken, he had as yet heard nothing like an
answer to the admirable arguments of his hon. friend the
member for Dublin county, the chairman of the poor-law
committee. The house should consider, in legis-
lating on this queetion, whether they were to act as if
the famine were to continue, or to presume that the
ordinary production would be restored. It appeared to
him that they should only legislate on the latter presump-
ti,n, as it wss more than probable that the ordinary amount
of potato food would be restored. If they did not Resume
that, it was impossible to say what amount of rate might be
necessary.

Mr. HORSHAM thought that this clones should not
be discussed by itself, but that the government measure
should be considered as a whole. It was proposed to levy a
bs. and a 2s. rate, but be asked, when both were ex-
hausted, what was intended to be done further ? (Hear,
hear.) The measure was not a maximum of rate
but of relief, and when the rate was exhausted the
poor were to fall back on those sourer, of casual
charity which bad been open to them before the passing of
the poor law. If relief was given—that was, if life was to
be preserved by public charity—on what principle was it,
that when the arbitrary point of 75. was reached,
that relief was to cease? The object of a poor
law was, not so much to relieve destitution as to give security
for life end property, and it was motives of public policy,
not motives of humanity, that had led to its adoption.
They professed to take the English poor law as their model
and they extended it to Ireland, without any of the pre-
cautions which existed in England. (Hear, hear.) Whilst
in England they had districts to be administered of a
moderate size, in Ireland they had districts of a perfectly
unmanageable size. Whilst in England they bad 600
workhouses, in Ireland they began with only 15, although
the pauperism in the one country was so much greater
and more extensive than in the other. (Hear, hear.)
They seemed to build the workhouses in the two
countries in an inverse ratio to the pauperism. (Hear,
hear.) Here was the root of the evil. What would be the
condition of England at that moment without an efficient
test ? Without it the poor law would not be endurable here
for a single day. If such would be the cue in England,
whet must the ease of Ireland be where the condition of the
country was st different ? In England the poor law was
associated with the feelings and habits of the peopk ; it was
the growth of ages. England was a rich country ; it pos-
soloed able and prelim' administrators of the law ; its pau.
perism was insignificant in proportion to its property ; the
labouring population were brought up in habits of industry and
self•reliance. And yet with all these advantages in England
the poor rates were increasing till the poor law became a
matter of anxiety to every thinking man. (Hear, hear.)
What was the state of things in Ireland ? The law was a
novelty ; there were no practical men who were acquainted
with its working, the pauperism of the country was exces-
sive • the population was of a very unmanageable character;
the iabouring population were not brought up in habits of in-
dustry and self reliance, and there was no fold for
employmeat. (Hear, bear.) It might be all %T../ well to
say that the property of a country should maintain its po-
verty. But that must depend on the relation of property to
poverty. (Hear, hear.) Where property was on the de-
crease, and poverty on the increase, to meet famine by a
poor law only was wholly to consign property to confisca-
tion and poverty to death. (Hear, hear.) The condition
of Ireland was socialism which no; ail the artifiees of a
maximum or a union rating would stop. (Hear.) But
the poor law being in Ireland, they must now ivicept it
as a fact aecomplishsd, and make the beet of it.
The question was how to do so. (Hear, bear.) There was
only one way, namely, re-establish the poor law en a sound
principle, and give to the pauperism of Ireland the same
securities, the same restrictions, the same advantages, and
the same limitations, which they gave to the pauperism of
England—that was to say, give employment to the able-
bodied. and to the destitute the stringent applies.-
Hen of the workhouse test. (Hear, hear.) All his

tory told them that there was nothing w
"the recoil of bad legislation, and they might depend on it
the Irish difficulty" would not be get rid of by prittin: it
out of sight for a dry. (Hear, hear.) He had hoped that
it might be dealt with suocessfully In the pecvnt year, bat
he owned he felt apprehension and almost despair when be
heard that evening that her Majesty's governmmt bolted
to the renewal of the potato culture se the means of extra.
eating them from the difficulties of Ireland. (Rear, hest)
lie must say that parliament even now, if poserued with
due sense of is responsibility with reeard to Ireland, had
an opportunity of applying a remedy to the evils of Wand
They might rest assured that unlit% they did so these Irisit
questions would return—would return, but he wu afraid
without affording them so excellent an opportunity ordeal.
ing with them u that which they had during the present
session. (Loud cheers.)

Lord J. RUSSELL said that in the earlier part of the
debate those gentlemen 'representing Ireland who spoke as
the subject before the house kept themselves to the queens
at issue, not indeed the question of a particular am,
imum of 65., but whether • maximum rate wee
just or not, and whether it should be extended to the unions
or confined to the electoral divisions. The hon. chairmen ez
the committee, who mode a very logical and able speech
gave his reasons for this proposition, and fairly stated the;
when it first came under consideration, he was indigo
to view it unfavourably, but that reflection and reormiss
had induced him to think it, was a measure which ought to
be adopted. But many gentlemen who repres nted paws
England, and entered an o the debate, had left the main
subject, and entered upon the discussion of other topics, se
doubt important is themselves, but which could not
help them to a decision on the question before than,
More especially the hon. gentleman, who had jun sat dews,
urged such considerations with great effect, for it war always
very easy, on subjects connected with Ireland, to say this
measure is defective, this measure of itself will not restate
prosperity to Ireland. (Hear.) But he must say that Use
bon. gentleman, notwithstanding his abilits, was mis'sken
in his history, and singularly incterent in his logic. With
regard to history, the bon. gentleman said that in England
they imposed a poor law with various chicks and park
whereas, an Ireland, the y adopted • poor law without any int
whatever. Now, the fact was that in the reign of Elnebetl
a short and simple act was introduced for giving the *lotto
poor relief and ordering the able-hoe led poor to be seat
work. It was rot till centuries alter, till in tact the near-laer
Amendment Act of 1834, that any effectual teat sgaims
indiscriminate out-doer relief had been given in Englud.
But in Ireland, on the contrary, no relief could be in (11.
cept in the workhouse and without the workhouse test. nil
history of the hon. gentleman was therefore comple ttly con.
trary to the fact.
Mr. HORSMAN said he spoke of the amended Fowls,
in England, and that when they extended it to Ireland they
comm, need with only fifteen workhouses.

Lord J. RUSSELL—Now, with regard to the question
before the house, the hon. member for II :dumdum tug
stated very 10gic..14 —though he (Lord J. Russell) did sot
agree with him—that the introduction of tee poor law into
Ireland was a misfortune ; but ye., tht,tigh con. dense it a
misfortune, he preferred that the rate should ke !ignited to
75., than that it should be 20s. in the pound. He could un-
derstand that feeling on the part of the hon. baronet. But
when the hon. gentleman who had jut epoken said that it
was a mistake to imp:Ate any limit, whether of 63. or %
that it wu contrary to the principle of a pire law—ad
then went on to say that it wu a mistake to introduce my
poor law fur Ireland it seemed to kiln not to be • logical
view of the position in which they stood at present. The hon.
(gentleman would take 20e. in the.p: und , but then he ssidthat
it wu a mieake to apply the poor•law at all to Ireland, that
is, he would reduce that 20s. to nothing. With regard to the
limitation of relit f, it stood very much on the ground in
which the hon. member for Cavan had put it. The hoe.
' gentleman said that with regard to Leinster an I Ulster Ms
limitation would have very lit:le effect, for that very few of
the electoral eiVibiOnli theee provinces would come under

the operation of the act, and therefore it was immaterial to
them whether the rate were mind frcm 2s. to 35.,4 e, or 7s.
In Ulster there were 17 electoral divisions, and in Leine*
17, in which a rate of es. was collected in 1848, and in they
provinces there was but -ne electoral division in which the
rate exceeded 75.; so that it was quite true, as the bon. be.
ronet argue.), that with regard to then two provinces no
practical effect would be proluced one way er the other
by the limitation proposed in the bill. Wall, th a, with re-
gard to those parts which they more particularly wished
to affect, he thought the question was whether they scald
obtain the advantages of a poor law better by g
limitation of the rate or ty leaving it unlimited.
(Hear, hear.) Ile agreed with the ton. member
for Cockermouth (Mr. Holman) that the advantages
of a poor law did not rest merely on humanity. (Meer,
hear.) There were objects of general policy, of civileution
order, acd security, which had at all times greatly influenced
those who were enacting a poor law. But it MIS eiident
that a poor law must ultimately fail if it impelled a tax
which had the effect of discouraging cultivation, and of pre-
venting the very means by which the poor should be *up-
ported. He did not wish to enter into the question of a
poor law generally. There had been many debates
already on that subject and there might be many
more; it was quite sufficient then to consider the clout.
under the col:actuation of the committee. That clause was
undoubtedly novel. He did not affect to place it on the
grouted of precedent, or to say that laws which hal worked
well were founded upon the same principle. But, then, he
must observe that the introduction of a pior law into lees
land was of itself a novelty. Ile agreed that the state of
Ireland at the thee when the law was introduced was en-
tirely different from the state of Ragland in the time of
Eliavbsth, when the poor law was introduced into this
country. He was net going is argue that the mea-
sure was the only one that could be introduced, nor
was it his purpose to argue that this measure alone
could give prosperity to Ireland, or very materially mitigate
the evils under which she suffered. It would be quite inap-
propriate to allude on that eccesion to other measures • but
he did beg the committee to recollect that there bad been
other measures unciar consideration in the present year, and
that in particular the government proposed advances which
would make the drainage and general improvement of the
land more extensive than they were at present. It had been
truly said by some of those who had taken part in t""-is
debate, that at was not by any one measure, much less by a
single clause of a measure, that they could hope to beatfit
Ireland ; and that if they wished really to do good to that
country they must pan a great number of measures ill tend-
ing to the same end. His belief was, that by imposing this
maximum they would make the poor law more anvintagesa
than it could otherwise be, and encourage the application of
capital to (the cultivation of the land ; and he therefore
trusted the committee won!'" adopt it. (Hear, hear )
Mr. lIORSMAN, in explanation, said that when he en-
pressed a doubt whether Ireland was ready for a poor law,
what he meant was this—he thought the population of any
country must be absorbed by one of three processes—em-
ployment, emigration, or death. When the popu-
lation was an abundant that it could not be em•
ployed, and when there was no extensive plan
of emigration—the case of Ireland—death must take place,
and at the same time the owners of property must be
ruined.
Mr. DRUMMOND said it was utterly impassible to re-
vert to the former state of things without incurring great
evils. The lash Roman catholic bishop. had distinctly
told Lord Clarendon that their object was the re-establish-
ment of religious houses and had made ell kinds of attack
on the poor law as whelly inefficient they had even &else.
tal that it was nothing but a conspiracy on the part of par-
liament to rid the lands of Ireland of the per, in order that
they might pass into the hands of Saxon specula-
tors. (Hear, hear.) Now, so long as that language
was held by persons who stated themselves to be
" the representatives of God" to a people who believed
the words and acted upon them implicitly, Saxon wisdom
and legislation would be en vain ; the priests and those who
believed them would never find anything in their legislation
but additional causes for reproach, and however money might
be expended up en them it would never do any good. (Hear.)
Mr. P. SCROPE said an exaggerated notion seemed to be
entertained as to the amount levied under this collimating
tax. (Hear, hear.) In Leinster there was levied last year
only ls. 11W. in the pound. in Ulster, ls. 90., in Munster,
3s. -3d., in Connaught, 2s. 7d. Confiscation existed only. in
the imaginations of those who used the term. As putting
an end, however, to a groundless but injurious panic
the proposed maximum might be beneficial. (Hear, bear.)
He contended that nothing could be more monstrous than
the proposition that a minority of Irish members in that
house was to govern Ireland.
Mr. R. M. FOX supported the principle of the maximum
rate.

Mr. MONSELL said it appeared to him that the scheme
for fixing a maximum rate was so absurd as net to be likely
to obtain the confidence of any person, mush less of capitalists
who had money to invert in Irish estates. He snout on every
ground of public policy and private interest oppose the chute.
He hoped the house would deal with the proposition as it de
served, namely, by ri jetting it summarily.
Mr. J. B ROCHE denied that the farmers were being
driven out of Ireland by the poor law ; it was through the
denial of leaves and tenant.right, and the refusal of landlords
to lower their tents so as to meet the times. Another remit
was the general belief that there would be a great depression
in the prices of agricultural produce, owing to the late free
trade measures. He considered that a maximum rate would
be a great improvement on the present law.
Mr. GROGAN said a fr w words in explanation as to the
emigration of farmer.. He had not attributed it solely to
the operation of the poor-law.
Colonel DUNNE said he should support the propoeition
of the government. For years put the complaint had been
that the taxation for poor-rates had amounted to cubes.
tion ; and he saes surprised to hear Irish members objectioi
to this evil being remedied.
Mr. SPOONER rose amidst loud cries of " Divide," and
" OD, oh." He said there was one point on which the En-
glish public had a right to be informed, and that was that,
having confiled Ire:and to a maximum rate, where was the
surplus to come from ? (Hear, hear.) By confining Ire.
lam. to a maximum rate he contended that England plielged
herself to make up any deficiency that might arise.
Sir A. BROOKE said the very point on which the hon.
gentleman said the English public had a right to be informed
was the reason on account of which he supported the prop,
sitinn of the noble lord. (A laugh.) At the same time he
thought that a maximum rate of di. was too low. (" Hart
hear," and " Divide.")
The committee then divided, when the numbers were—
For the clause
Against it

Majority 127
The clause was ordered to stand part of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and obtained
leave to sit again this day; upon which the house resumed.