The Express.
London, England, 1849-07-10 00:00:00

lie said he was luducad to propose this dense in mew
queues of the di•mimsl sf the Rev. Mr. Ryan from the chap.
Misty of a ludas is Team, for an il. pd ocarlorformaaes
of his spirited fsections towards the poor.

Mr. FAGAN seconded the motion.'
Sir W. SOMERVILLE opposed the clause, on the ground
that it would do a‘ything but promote an effective sdeal-
nittration of the law: for it would brine into every work-
holm: in Ireland a collision between two distinct authorities,
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. STAFFORD said that In the diocese of Dr. Ryan
there was no difficulty arising from sectarian feelings.
In reply to a question from
,ffir...l3cru.v,

Sir W. SOMERVILLE said the poor law commiseionera
had now clearly the power of laying down roles for the
guidance of the conduct of the ckaplaiae, and it was solely
for thee to judge whether or not those rules were observed.

Mr. N. J. O'CONNELL hoped hie hon. friend would not
divide the house. He regretel that there had been a dulli
Ilion between the commissionen and the er-clesiarical power,
but he thought th • remedy would be worse than the disease.
Sir H. W. BARRON joined in the recommendation not
to divide, coosidetiig the grounds stated for interfering
imufileient.
The house then divided.
For the motion
Against it
Hr. GROGAN propaeeda clause provi lin; tor the forei-
I3'.e delivery up of powers:on to the landlord, in cue of no.-
payment of rear.
Sir G. GREY objected to the clause that it had no direct
reference to the ebj.ct of the bill. It was a clause to facili-
tate ejcetments, wb the bill related solely to the relief

of the poor.
Alter • brief dismission the clause was negatived.
Mr. GROGAN then per pmed a clause to the effect that.
in the ae of a tenant who occupied more than a quartsr of
an scrod land having apposed for and received relief, a certill
cate to that effect should be furnished to the owner by the
beard of guardians, and that such mrtifizate should entitle
the owner to take forciole possession.
Sir G. GREY said that the case already provided for in
the statute law, and he did not see what benefit could arise
from adopting the clause.
Captsio JONES said that, notwithstanding the fact men-
tioned by the right hon. baronet, practically, many tenants
occupying more than a quarter of an acre had hitherto
obtained relief without delivering up possession,
_ _

Sir 11. W. BARRON stated a ease within his own know.
ledge, of a tenant who bad given up all the land in his occu-
pation buts quarter of an son, and who, when the land to
resigned had been cultivated and cropped by the landlord,
had claimed the crops, on the ground that he had not legally
parted with his lease.
Mr. B. B. ROCIIE opposed the clause, on the ground of
hardship lathe tenant.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL observed that those who dwelt
so much on the hardship of restriction Irg to consider the
evils which would have arisen from the recognition of an
nelimited right to relief. (Hear, hear.) It was most in.
peetant that the doubts at present existing on that subject
should be removed.
Mr. P. fiCROPE said there scald be no doubt that this
claims was as ejectment clause ; and he really thought the
samba of evicsions was quits sufficient already. It must
be borne in mind that besides giving up the land over a
quarter of an acre the tenant was often compelled to give up
even that swill quantity, and his dwelling into the bargain.
This clause seemed to be designed to compel such a sur.
reads.
- - - -

Bir L. O'BRIEN deprecated the mune taken by the
hoe. member foe Stroud (Mr. &rope). That hon. gentle-
men's speeches were repeated in the newspapers in Ireland,
end it was made to appear that the telemetry were always in
the righr, and the landlords always in the wrong. These
were questions width the pvernasent should take into their
most serious consideration, for loath they were settled on
seen satisfactory principles, then would be no end I. the
Woking system of ejeetsmate.
Mr. I. CRAWFORD rid the hoe. member far Stroud
might to some eases have been misinformed; bat he was
ready to amen that in the math he was correct, and that the
pauperised condition of the people of Ireland arose from the
conduct pursued by the landlords. The exaction of enor-
mous recto compelled the people to subsist upon the lowest
species of food, and that in the very smallest quantities.
Bir G. GREY repeated that the clause as proposed would
he inconsistent with the principle of the biil, and he felt
bound therefore to oppose it.
The house then divided, when the numbers were—
For the clause 23
Against it • 97--74
Sir A. BROOKE rose to propose a clause to alter tho Ha-1
bility of lessee for rates, in respect of tenements not ex-
ceeding the value of 41. to a value not exceeding 21. His
opinion was, that if the liabLity of lesson was fixed at 41. the
consequence would be to prevent the improvement of waste
land. There were throughout Ireland a rut number of
tracts let to farmers under a 41. valuation. The msjori yof
these we re mountainous tracts, let to tenants with a view to
the improvement of the land; but ion feared, if these tene-
ments were charge 1 with the liability proposed by the
clause, the effect would he that all those lands would remain
barren and maultivided.
Sir 0. GREY said he did n•it quite understand the nature
of this clause as it had sot been printed. He understood
that it proposed only to substitute 21. for 41.; but belted bun
informed that it effected something snore than ttua object.
The subject had been fully discussed the other day ; and he
must say that he thought the arguments of the hen. gentle.
man went rather in favour of repealing the clause altogether
than of the substitution which he proposed. On the whole,
he thought it would he better to adopt the decision come to
by the house upon a former ocessioa.
The clause was thee negatived without a division.
Mr. NAPIER, then moved the following clause:
And wherein It hit= and reassonable that the deduction for Poor
Bate claimable by the pees= Immediately table to payer the rent
=erre, should not =mei the deducts= by law allowedthe case
es any lie farm rent or other rent charge chargeable alma and paya-
ble out of the rents and pronto of the rateable property charged
with such rest and rent charge, Be it therefore enacted,that it shall
no' be lawful Ica any peonesimmediately liable pay tithe rent
shame to deduct Licretrom for every pound in 'value thereof, any
further or greater um than one-half of the poundage of any rate
made after the punting of this Act, foe the relief of the Poor : Pro.
aided always, that nothing herein contained shall be taken to affect
er otter the right of dedwutm of the entire poundage of any rate
made before the pawing of this Act.
Sir 0. OBEY said that there was a great of &Meaty at-
tending this subject of the payment of tithe. Is 1437,
there was a proposal made that the tithe owner should be
placed in the same state as the tithe owner in England, hat
daring the progress of the bill the clergy expressed set
opinion that they preferred the existing state of the law,
and the clause was withdrawn. He thought there
would be an unfair advantages given to the tithe owner
by at once tsking off half the rate he paid. He thought
that as between landlord and tenant, said not as between
land owner and tithe owner, the alteration of the law
ought to take place. There could be no objection to placing
the tithe owner in Ireland on the same footing as the tithe
owner in England ; to the present clause he thought there
were very serious objections.
Mr. NAPIER said that this was not a question betweentlut
clergy and the poor at all. Whether his clause passed or
not it would not maks one farthing difference as to the
amount of the poor rate. The mode proposed by the right
hon. gentleman would defeat the p they of the Tithe Rent
Charge Act ; his clause would make it more consistent, and
he thought the house was bound to allow it.
Mr. P. SCROPE said that it he landl ode were Metre in
regard to the church, they should vote for the proposition of
the bon. member.
Sir J. YOUNG was not prepared to deny that the clergy
had a grievance to complain of as the bill stood, hut was not
prepared to go so far in the way of remedy as was proposed
by the hon. and learned member for Dahlia University.
After a few words from Mr. IiAIItLION,
Sir D. NORREYS thought that the best thing his hon.
and learned friend could do would be to accept the else
which had been made by the government, namely, to have a
separate rate struck in the cos of the clergy.
Mr. E. B. ROCHE said that his ton. friend the member
for Mallow spoke as a warm friend of the church. He be-
lieved the fact to be that the hon. baronet was a tithe owner.
(Laughter.) If so' he was very much in the position of a
man who became his own counsel. (Laughter.) The ob-
ject of the bon. and learned member fir the University was
quite transparent—it was to relieve the clergy trim certain
taxes and to place them on otber shoulders.
Sir D. NORREYS explained, after which the house
divided.
For the clause 5O
Against it 125
Majority agaiust the clause
Mr. It. J. O'CONNELL moved ths omission of estate
ten, which renders rent charges, granted by way of annuity
or jointure, liable to the rate.
The motion was negatived.
On the question that the bill do pus,
Mr. STAFFORD complained that the first two clauses of
the bill did not bear out its title, for their object was not
so mush to amend the poor law of Ireland, as to introduce
perfectly sew principles the principle of a maxi-
mum 'rate, and the rate In aid. He contended that
the maximum rate, which was only an eosins for
still further burdening the whole of the rateable property of
Ireland, had been forced upon the Irish members by hon.
gentlemen on the ministerial side of the house, who were
fond of maintaining the intimate connexion which out 'fated
between taxation and rommutation. Those hon. retitle-
men had succeeded in sending three unfettered commissioners
to the sister country to tax millions of property there 10 per
seat. This wee the justice of the Whig ministry towards the
peuperty of Ireland ; and, so far as the libertii sof the coun-
try were concerned, the same ministry had taken care Of
them by suspending the Habeas Corpus Act.
Mr. BRIGHT wished tiny two or three words in reply
to the hon. member who had just sat down. He wet
obliged to plead guilty as to his absence while the moose*
was being &massed, and the chief reason why he had kh Mm
disposed to take past in the discussions in the house was
thle—that, after having sat in the committee, he was se
much la the dark en the subject, if not mere in the dark,
than he was when the committee commenced its sittlage.
(Hear.) If, then, he had voted on the serious clauses, he
must have voted in deference to authority on one
side of the here or on the other ; and ander them stream-
stand, she had not meddled with the bill io the hewn. He
had doubts so strong as to the propriety of a maximum rate,
that had be been preheat he should certainly have voted
against it, because the sum fir d by the government was
muck smaller than in his opinion it was desirable is Lx. If
they were to have a poor law on the principle of the one in
England, then the principle of a maximum rat: wan a very
hazardous one, and if tol:trated at all it should
be fixed so high that It would not be likely