The Express.
London, England, 1847-03-24 00:00:00

ADJOURNMENT OP THE HOUSE.

Lord J. RUSSELL said he rose to move the adjournment
of the house at its rising unto Thursday next. He might
state, at the same time, that it was the intention of the
Speaker to be in the heueo on Wednesday at a quarter before
eleven o'clock, in order to meet these hon. members who
might attend Divine worship on the fast day. It wee the
intention of the government, should there be any business
requiring it, to ask the house to sit on Thursday morning at
12 o'clock ; but they should not do so, unless the business
really required it. He might state, at the same time, that
it was not the intention of his right hon. friend the Secretary
for the Home Department to proceed on that day with the
two bills which had gone through committee pro form on
Tuesday (the Prisons Bill and the Custody of ()Renders
Bill).
Lord G. BEYTINCE asked if the noble lord intended
to persevere with the Irish Poor Law Bill on Thursday
morning ?
Lord J. RUSSELL hoped they might be able to get
through the committee that night ; tf not, there would pro-
bably be no objection to sitting en Thursday morning to
eomplete the few remaining clauses.
THE GENERAL FAST.

Mr. M. PHILLIPS askedl the 700,000 persons employed
on the public works in Ireland, and earning at the rate of Is.
a day, would be required to work on the fastday, and if not,
whether they would be considered entitled to their pay for
no consideration whatever. . . . .

Mr. LABOCCHERE said there had been already a fast-
day in Ireland, when the question was considered ; and as it
was not *ought right that the men should receive their
wages for nothing, or that they should be deprived of them
for one day, they had been continued at work, and paid u
usual. He concluded that an arrangement of the same kind
would now be made. . . .

Kr. 11. PHILLIPS said a very great injustice would be
done to the workpeople of this country, if a fast was im-
posed upon them, and not upon others. He wished to know
whether the working classes, by following their ordinary
avocations, would be .übjected to any ,penalty, or be guilty
of any infringement of the statute luw .
No answer was given to this question.
PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE NEW RELIEF
ACT IN IRELAND.

Lord 0. BENTlslCkniiiii;TnOening organ of the go-
vernment, the Timer—(a langh)—had stated that an order
had gone forth from the Irish government reetricting the
rations under the Relief Act, as follows:
Or ration may consist either of hen a pound of tweed, or one
pound of biscuit, or one pound of eel or flour, or any o=erzaln,
or one quart of soup, thketerd wilts portion of mw, g to
any known receipts, and cos queer ration of breed, re Mean, or
meet, in addition. Peeler above nine years of sae te have one
ration ; under Mos years, a half ration in the day.
He wished to know if it was • fact that the rations had been
so reduced.
Mr. LABOLICHERR said he bad net seen the document
referred to. All he knew was, that the question, a very
important one, as to the amount of food to be distributed
to the people in the way most conducive to health, and so
as to go the furthest, had hoes considered most maturely
by the hoard at large. They had gone very fully into the
subject, and had recommended some variety in the food, so
that the soup should not always be of the same description.
He knew that the Mak government had been in communi-
cation with the board of health on the subject, and he had
no doubt they hail adopted the course they thought hest.
Lord 0. BENTINCK said the right hon. gentleman
probably knew whether the amounts stated were correct.
Mr. LABOLTCHERE said he was unable to judge. He
had not seen the document; these things got into the
newspapers before they gut to the Ineh-offiee—(hoar,
hear) ;—but when he had seen the order, he should have no
objection to give it to the house.
THE GENERAL FAST
Mr. BRIGHT said he should be the last man to object to
any religious observances; but with respect to the fast
ordered for the following day, he woe at a loss to
know how that could be deemed a proper observance,
seeing that the order had no effect upon a very large portion
of the people of England—those not worshipping in the
Established Church; nor upon the people of Scotland who
were not in connexion with the Establi.hed Church; nor in
Ireland, aceording to wha' had just been stated. Had the
government, without reference to old precedents, drawn up
a proclamation, it might hive been done much morn wisely.
Instead of doing honour to the Deity, it Ira., much more in-
suiting to religon than one would have hoped such a docu-
ment would have hese. As regarded the people of this
country, on the one side it was calculated to engender
gross superstition; on the other, to strengthen infidelity. He
had conversed with many persons of all religious persuasions,
and he had not found anything like a feeling that the aver-
ment. of the proclamation were proved, or that there was
any reasonable ground, frost what we knew of scriptural re-
tee , to expect oi,.y advantage to this country from a fast
ordered by the civil power, and disregarded by nine-tenths
of the people. As the proclamation was supposed to be in
accordance with the optg as of that house, he could not
allow it to piss without etiterint hi. protest against it.
believing that it ot.i• a uselevi ceremun) , the remnant of a
lay gone by, sod not in accordance with the er.lightened re-
. igious opinion .4* the people of this country.
Sir G. GREY said he thought the house would not be
disposed to aster into a discus-ion on this subject. (Hear,
Pear.) MA own firm impression was that the fast which had
been ordered was in sceordance with scripture.
Mr. 0. P. HOWARD said that, in has opinion, the go-
vernment had act din conformity with the feeling of a large
portion of the pet pie of this country. Several of the Roman
Catholic bishops had eo far sanctioned the fast, that they re-
ugunanded tomorrow as a special day of religious observ-
ance. 'Hear, hear.) They so fat acceded to the national
will as to ne,,Nmand that a Miserere 003.14 h. said end a
jaw (And Ica Ike jos& (Chews.)

POOR RTAIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
The house drill resolved heed into • committee on
this bill.
On clause 3 Tieing moved,
Sir H. W . BARRON moved en amendment to it whereby
a pencil sliould be relieved by the pariah in which he fuel
resided for three year-, instead of the electoral division, end
providing that, where a parish exceeded 6,000 acres, it may
be divided into two sir more division+' at the discretion of
the poor-law commissiouen • and that the person relieved
should be charged on the division in which he may have re-
sided. In moving this amendment the hon. beewnet had
for his object the limitation of the sphere of taxation, so
as to bring directly on the laadlords the necessity of support-
ing the poor on their estates by affording them useful em-
ploymer.t. Thera would be no digieulty in carrying out the
plan which he suggeeted—of dividing the parishes in such a
manner no not to separate ors portion of one estate from an-
other. He thought that his proposition would lead to the
carrying out of the principle laid down by the noble lord (J.
Russell), that they should stimulate the Irish landlords to
employ the poor rather than support them in the workhouse,
or have them engaged in the public works.
Viscount SAN DON said that though he was not prepared
to say that the plan suggested by the hon. baronet who had
just sat down would be the means of arriving at the object
which he had in view, yet he agreed with the principle
which he now propounded. He was of opinion that those
who were ejected should be supported by the property from
which they were ejected. With these feelings he hoped that
some consideration would be given to the principle.
Mr. LABOUCHERE thought that the hon. gentleman
the member for Waterford had carried the principle to too
groat an extreme. lie must repeat what he had stated in
reply to a motion of a similar nature, brought forward by
the hon. gentleman the member for Nor'hampton, namely,
that he believed this to be a feudal principle, and directly
contrary to the genius of a free country. The member for
Waterford proposed to substitute parochial for electoral
rating. Noting was more clear than the inconvenience
that there would be in taxing parishes for the relief of the
poor, and particularly in subdividing them. The principle on
white they should act wu, that of dealing with communities,
and not with individual properties. The electoral divisions
were not at present so large auto prevent lusher& from hold-
ingsninterest in the welfare of the community. He could on
this account object to the motion of the honourable member
far Waterford.
Mr. Stafford O'Brien, Mr. V. Stuart, Mr. Bellew, and Mr.
Shaw, agreed with the principle of the hoe. gentlemen the
member for Waterford, but thought that the carrying eh el
it would be, under the circumstances, quite impracticable.
Sir H. W. BARRON persisted in thinking that his ph
ciple could be carried out, and in impressing upon the hese
the necessity of giving to the landlords a direct inane' in
employing their poor instead of feeding them In the
workhouse.
After • short conversation, in which Mr. Hamilton, Mr.
D. Browne, Mr. Fitzgerald, and Mr. Shaw took pert, the
amendment was withdrawn.
On clause 10 being read,
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL moved the omission of the words
from " that " in line 24 to " shall " in line 31, and insert
" all expenses to be henceforth incurred for the relief of dee.
titute poor persons in Ireland, whether under the provisions
of this act or of the said hereinbefore recited act of the Last
and 2nd Vic. e. 56." His object was to place the rating of
the poor upon the union at large. The hon. gentleman fur-
ther explained that his purpose was to rate the inhabitants
of sack mice, instead of rating the inhabitants el
each electoral ; and proceeded to show the un-
equal and unjust operation of the present mode of rating.
The plan now proposed by the government was an improve-
ment on the exii.law, bat it did not in far enough. He
did not expect to succeed incarrying his proposition, but he
considered it so important, and it involved interests of such
magnitude, that he should feel it hie duty to divide the com-
mittee upon it.
Mr. BELLEW was understood to emcee the amendment.
Sir R. FERGUSSON was opposed to the amendment of
the hon. member for Kerry, and =t that the area of
rating should be made as small as
Col. RAWDON said that the eloshiml kaiak& system of
rating pressed with the greatest haft oftteraa and lb*
pressure of local taxation in them was theady so great, that
if increased, it would become intolerable, end insupentble
difficulties would occur in collecting the rate.
Sir J. GRAHAM mid that he had given an unwilling and
hesitating support to the present poor-law for Ireland when
introduced by the noble lord, and was of opinion that no
material benefit would be conferred by it without a right to
relief, a right of settlement, and • power of removal. The
noble lord combated his ot jections, and he now confessed
that the noble lord was right, for he was of opinion that
greetpubliect c
it
was.
had been derived from
only
ym lihde
tmor-law,
impe great
advantage consist in what had been done, but in what the
noble lord abstained from doing, namely, in not introduc-
ing any law of settlement, or giving any power of removal.
(Hear, bear.) Subsequent experience led hint to think
that so far from its being expedient to assimilate the law of
Ireland to that of England, the time would shortly come
when they must review these points with reference to Eng-
land, and to consider whether it would not be expedient to
abolish altogether, or at least greatly to restrict, the law of
settlement in connection with the law of removal. (Hear,
hear.) With regard to the question raised by the hon.
member for Kerry, he admitted that it was but a choice of
sonflicting difficulties, be their decision what it would.
(Herz. hear.) Under the law as it stood at present, the
towns, he admitted, suffered great hardship, but, on the
other hand, the rural districts had a prima facie right of
complaint, and in the conflict of these rival interests, it was
difficult to come to a conclusion. But he had insuperable
objections to throwing the whole charge on the unions, as
proposed by the hon. member for Kerry. The objections to
that plan were ably stated in the letter of Mr. Gulston,
dated the 2nd of February, 1843, and in them he (Sir J.
Graham) entirely concurred. He was, on the whole, dis-
posed to support the clause as it stood in the bill, brat he
was not prepared to say that ante of Is. 3d. for the half-
year was the precise amount that should be fixed. It was
indeed very difficult to say what the amount should be, but
the value of the measure very much depended upon it.
(Hear, hear.) He saw objections to fixing the amount at
all, though they could not avoid it, because they thereby
gave an interest in spending the amount in the shortest pos-
sible time. There was a proposition, the converse of the
present one, which contained the principle of thrift, namely,
that affixing the amount of the union rate, and letting the
sum spent beyond that fall upon the different electoral divi-
sions. (Hear, hear.) He would not propose such an amend-
ment, but he saw strong arguments in favour of such an
arrangement. (Hear, hear.)
Sir G. OREY said that the present clause was an int-
portant one, and one to which the government gave every
consideration. In coming to a conclusion, they bad been
guided by what appeared to be the preponderating feeling
of the representatives from Ireland, at the same time that
they endeavoured to provide for the inequality of which the
towns complained. He admitted the difficulty of fixing the
amount, but he believed that • rate of 2s. Bd. in the year
exceeded the average charge.
Mr. F. SHAW said that unless there was something in
the nature of a law of settlement, the bill would amount to
confiscation. Even if there were a national rate, the whole
property of the country would not be sufficient to meet the
demands made upon it.
Mr. hfACARTHY mid that in the union of Cork then
were 14 electoral divisions. The valuation of the whole
union was 370.0001. Of that amount 200,000/. belonged to
the city of Cork, but in reality that city bore six-sevenths el
the entire rating of the anion, in consequence chiefly of
tenants being displaced, and afterwards proceeding to Cork.
At the last audit of the Cork Union, it appeared that 50,000
rations had been distributed since the previous Anglin, et
which number only 2,000 were chargeable to the electoral
division.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE supported the view taken by the right
hon. member for Dorchester (Sir J. Graham), and called
upon Sir G. Grey for his opinion.
SRC). GREY said the matter would depend on the amount
of the rate.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE had known instance, in England of
rates being as high as 16e. or 17s. in the pound, and he saw
no reason why a similar amount of rate might not be required
in Ireland. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. CALLAGHAN was in favour of a general system of
rating, as opposed to union rating.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD supported the clause.
Mr. ARCHBOLD said he lived In a district where there
being only six in the house, the sum paid was 300/.
a-year. (La ter.)
Mr. M. J. 'CONNELL replied, and
The committee divided—Against the amendment 120
For R 25-95

On our return to the gallery,
Mr. VERNON was urging the desirability of giving,
under this clause, some more summary power of levying a
rate. In Sklbbereen it appeared that up to December last,
whilst 4371. of poor-rates bad been collected, no lees than
1,243/. had been uncollected, and this was a sample of how
the system worked in Ireland.
On the question that the clause be agreed to,
Mr. STAFFORDO'BRIEN, penitent to notioe, proposed
that it be omitted.
Mr. LABOUCKERE resisted the motion, contending
that the government had pursued the wiliest course in adopt-
ing a compromise between the extreme propositions which
had been submitted to them relative to the mode of rating.
The avowed object of the hon. gentleman's motion was to
have the 'Teem of rating as it was at present, which had
prectically proved an el-ctoral district rating in 01l cases,
totally irrespective of the towns. (Hear, hear.) Such would
also be the result of that system in future, and how, in that
cue, were the paupers of towns to be provided fort (Hear.)
After a few words against the motion front Mr. 2. O'Corc.
HELL and Mr. CALIAItHAN, who said that, under the
I present system, the cities of Cork and Kilkenny were
ovesrun by the enuotry paupers.
Lord SANDON said he could not understand that the
contest was one between towns and the country, because it
was the interest of the towns to give to the lanillords every
porable inducement to improve their estates, and the fall
Weigh of their improvements. For that reason he would
support the motion.
Lord 0. BENTINCK also supported the motion. Me
denied that the cities of Cork and Kilkenny were eaten up
by the population of the agricultural districts, but rather
that those dietricte were the sufferers. Their object was to
have is control over the expenditure, and the only means of
obtaining that was by supporting the amendment of his
hen. friend (Mr. Stafford O'Brien I, and reducing the area
of taxation. _

After a few words from Mr. NEWDISOATX in support of

the motion,
The Earl of LINCOLN also supported the motion, on the
ground that this was not ■ question between Irish landlords
and the town. of Ireland, and that it was shown by return.
which had laid on the table of the house yesterday, that
rating by electoral division. woald sot necessarily throw the
aneplu pauper population on the towns. He was oon-

vineed, that as by either plan indivErual eases of hardship
would be inflicted, they mutt len!: to the in of the
country at large 1 and he wee me that by the adop-
tion of a union rating, they would supersede every incentive
to individual exertion; but if the electoral division rating was
adopted, it would eau..e n demand for labour in future. lie
should support the motion. He should have preferred that
the government had brought forward thin clause in the way
of revenue, and then he would have supported it.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that both the noble lord end the
hon. mealier fee Northamptonshire had argued On the as-
sumption that the proposal of the government was for a
union rating. wherein' it was of a totally different character.
The committee then divided—For the clause .... 118

Against it
The clause eras then agreed to. The Chairman reported
progress, and obtained leave to sit again at 12 o'clock on
Thursday neat.
The house adjourned at 12 o'clock.