The Sun.
London, England, 1838-03-20 00:00:00

THE YEOMANRY.

Lord BARRINGTON wished to ask a question relative
to the Yeomanry corps of the county of Berks. Three had
been disbanded, and he hoped the Noble Lord opposite would
give asatisfactory reason for not disbanding the fourth.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he could only give a general
answer that the reduction must depend on circumstances
and on the reports of the Lord-Lieutenant. There were other
considerations which it was not necessary to allude to.
Lord BARRINGTON made an observation, which was in-
audible.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL remarked, that if the Noble Lord
meant to say that any corps had been kept up, because the
Hon. Member commanding it was favourable to this (the Mi-
nisterial) side of the House, he was mistaken. It had been
said that it was hard to reduce a corps favourable to his (Lord
J. Russell's) side of the House, and not to others.—( Hear,
and laughter.)
Lord BARRINGTON meant to say that was not the cas
in the county of Berks.—(Laughter.)
Mr. GOULBURN trusted the Noble Lord would hare
no objection to lay the Report on the table.
In answer to a question from an HoN. MEMBER,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the only ease which had
officially came before him occurred in the county of Hants.
He had referred it to the Lord-Lieutenant of that County,
and expressed himself ready to abide by its decision. With
respect to other corps in other counties, he thought it right to
adopt a similar coarse, and take the opinion of the Lord-
Lieutenant.
Mr. FORBES wished to ask the Noble Lord if, in the
reduction of the Yeomanry, it was the intention of Govern-
ment to make any allowance to the serjeants and serjeant-ma-
orLs of that corps.
- ord JOHN RUSSELL said that he thought it was likely
the Government would
POOR LAWS
make them some allowance.

Sir EDWARD KNATC HBULL wished to know whether
it was the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill for
the amendment of the Poor Law Act during the present ses-
sion ? He alluded more particularly to those parts of it which
imposed certain duties upon constables without remuneration,
and to the other part, where individuals were bound to support
their poor relatives.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that with respect to
the first question, it might be necessary in cases where the
Commissioners would not allow anything to constables,
that some alteration might be required. With respect,
however, to the second question, as it related to the
operation of the Poor-law Act itself, he should not feel
justified in taking any further step with respect to it until
the Committee on the Poor-laws had made their Report.
The House then went into Committee on the
IRISH POOR-LAW BILL.

Upon the reading of the 70th clause,
Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN moved an amendment, to the
effect that the receivers of rent-charges, annuities, and join-
tures should be liable to the rates in the proportion of their
several charges ; and that the nominal landlord should be
liable only in the proportion of his clear receipts.
Mr. SHAW begged leave to ask the Noble Lord the
Secretary for Ireland, whether the clause was intended to
throw the burden of a full half of the rates upon the owners
to the exemption of the tenant ? Thit interpretation of the
clause had caused considerable alarm in Ireland, especially
amongst those landowners in the neighbourhood of Dublin
who had let large lots of building ground.
Lord MORPET II was understood to say that the
Hon. Gentleman had rightly interpreted the meaning of
the clause. With respect to the amendment of the Hon.
Member for Limerick, he believed it was the opinion of all
law authorities that it would not be advisable to subject join-
tures, annuities, or rent charges to such rates.

Mr. O'CONNEL L said the Bill ought to be a Bill to tax
property for the support of poverty ; but as the clause stood
the landlord would be dealt with as a rich man, although he
actually might be poor. He would be taxed on the whole
rental, although perhaps he received only a third or fourth of it.
He had the satisfaction of telling the Committee that he
should trouble them very little during the discussion on the
remainder of the Bill.
Lord CASTLEREAGH wished to know whether Go-
vernment meant to persevere in their own measure, or the
course pursued by the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin.
Mr. O'CONNELL replied that he did not mean to bring
forward any proposition at all.—(A laugh.)
Mr. SHAW said it would be unjust to charge land heavily
burdened with annuities with poor-rates to the full amount.
By the plan now proposed, a man with an income of 1,100/.
a-year, encumbered with annuities to the amount of 9501.,
would be liable to be charged to the full amount, although ac-
tually enjoying only the difference.
Mr. LYNCH conceived that nothing could be more un-
just than the clause. This was not properly speaking a rent,
but a rent by contract.
Mr. O'CONNELL thought the case put by the Hon. and
Learned Member for the University of Dublin the strongest
evidence that could be given of the injustice of the prin-
ciple. Here was a landed proprietor, the rental of wh:;se
estate was only 1,1001. a-year, and the annuities on which
amounted to 9501. obliged to pay the rates on the full amount
of the rental, although only in the actual enjoyment of a small
portion of it, while the annuitants did not contribute one
farthing. He could not but feel that this Bill would create
great dissatisfaction in Ireland, and the more particularly in
reference to this clause.

Colonel CONOLLY said that nothing could be more
flagrantly unjust in principle and impolitic than the proposition
to tax these annuitants. The effect of it would be to increase
the difficulty of raising money upon Irish estates, and to add
to the discredit in which all securities upon Irish property was
at present regarded.
Mr. F. FRENCH contended that the difficulty which the
Irish landed proprietors experienced in procuring money upon
their property arose from the conduct of the Government, in
making a distinction between English and Irish property.
They borrowed money upon English property at a low rate of
interest, and lent it in Ireland at five per cent.
Mr. LITTON had not heard a single argument against
the principle of the Bill, which was, that property should
be taxed for the support of the poor. With respect to
mortgages and encumbrances, it did not appear to him
to be necessary to distinguish them from jointures
or annuities. If the object of the Bill was to make
the fixed property of the country contribute to the relief of the
poor, he knew not upon what reason jointures and annuities,
which had a direct interest in the profits of the land, should be
exempted. The objection of the Hon. and Learned Member
for Galway was merely a formal one, and for these reasons
he should support the motion of the Hon. Member for
Limerick.

Mr. JEPHSON supported the amendment.
Mr. W. ROCHE had presented a petition from the grand
jury of the County of Limerick, in favour of the
principle of his Honourable Friend's amendment, and
he would now support that amendment, because it was
founded in justice and equity, and the broader the basis of the
taxation the less it would be felt upon each particular kind of
property. He hoped the amendment would be adopted, and
that the Bill would bring about a better state of things in
Ireland.

Sir C. STYLE begged to ask the Noble Lord (Mor-
peth) whether it was intended to charge the rate upon the
fines paid for the renewal of college and ecclesiastical leases ?
Lord MORPETH said in reply to the question which bad
been put with respect to the fines on ecclesiastical leases, it
was a point which had only recently been brought under his
notice, and he thought deserved consideration.—( Hear. )
With respect to the amendment of the Hon. Member, it in-
volved much difficulty and inconvenience, and on the whole
he thought it would be better not to embarrasss the Bill with it.
The gallery was then cleared for a division, when there ap-
peared—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority
—lO
The clause was then agreed to.
On the nextfclause being proposed,
Mr. LUCAS moved an amendment, to the effect that the
rate on all lands held by tenants at will, or from year to year,
or that shall be let on lease subsequently to the passing of this
Act, shall be payable ono-half by the owner and one-half by
the occupier thereof.
Lord MORPETH expressed himself unfavourable to the
amendment.

On clause 71, exempting tenants paying rents under 51. from
being rated,
Mr. FRENCH moved that Si. tenants be rated.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER objected
strongly to the amendment.
After a few words from Sir C. STYLE, Mr. P. HOWARD,
and Lord CLEMENTS,

Lord J. RUSSELL thought it better that some line should
be drawn than that all parties should be liable to the rate.
He would not now determine which line was the right one,
but should rather propose the consideration of the clause than
adopt either of the propositions now made.
Mr. LUCAS should vote for the motion of his Hoe. Friend
the Member for Roscommon.

After a few words from Mr. Rocita and Mr. BROTHERTON,
Mr. O'CONNELL said that if there was any hope of the
Hon. Baronet's motion succeeding he should vote for it ; as it
was, he would support the enlarged proposition.
Lord CLEMENTS, Mr. SHAW, and Sir C. STYLE subse-
quently addressed one or two observations to the Committee.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared--
For the original motion 57
For Mr. French's amendment l7
Majority —4o
Sir C. STYLE should press his amendment, that 101. be
substituted in the clause for 51.

Lord CLEMENTS should support this amendment.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER hoped the
Committee would adopt the clause as it stood. This was an
experiment, and it was, therefore, only right that some line
should be drawn.

Lord CLEMENTS should prefer the rejection of the
clause altogether to allowing the sum to stand at 51.
The Committee then divided—
For the clause —

For Sir C. Style's amendment
Majority for the clause —22
Clause 72, relating to the rating of tithes, was, after a brief
conversation between Mr. Shaw and Lord J. Russell, post-
poned.
Clause 73, after some verbal amendments were made in it,
was agreed to.
On clause 74, entitling the tenant to a deduction out of his
rent for the rates paid by him, being put,
Mr. SHAW hoped that the payments on account of rates
should riot prejudice the remedy of the landlord for the reco-
very of his rent, or of possession, and proposed an amendment
to that effect.

Mr. O'CONNELL contended that such an enactment
would be most unjust towards the tenant, and would be an al-
teration of the existing law. If there were any difficulty in
the case it ought to be thrown on the landlord. He should
divide the House on this proviso.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for Ireland stated that
the clause was so constructed as to afford a reasonable remedy
by ejectment (the only legal one) to the landlord, for the re-
sidue of rent unpaid ; and the tenant was also fully protected
against the landlord by the power the clause gave of paying
himself out of the poor-rate.
Mr. O'CONNELL must stigmatise the clause as mon-
strously and glaringly unjust, oppressive, and tyrannical, as it
gave the landlord the power of ejecting the tenant, although
he might have paid up most or all of his rent in the shape
of poor rate, whilst at the same time the tenant had no re-
medy against the landlord, except by an expensive action in
Chancery.
Mr. LITTON would support the clause.
The House then divided, and there appeared—
For the original clause
For the amendment 8
Majority
The clause with the provision, was then agreed to, as was also
clause 75.

Clause 76, which goes to form the constituency of rate-payers
for the election of Guardians, and to establish the system of
plural voting, was next proposed, upon which
Mr. S. O'BRIEN moved an amendment, leaving out of the
clause the words which go to establish plural votes. On this
a division took place, when the numbers were—.
For the original words 5B
For the amendment lB
Majority
Mr. S. O'BRIEN then moved an amendment, establishing
a graduated scale of voting according to the rate of property
different from that in the clause, and that in no case shall there
be more than three votes for any amount of property.
On this the House divided—
For the original clause
For the amendment
20
Majority
—34
The clause was then agreed to.
Clause 77 was agreed to.
On clause 78, providing that "at elections of Guardians
the votes be taken in writing," being put—
Mr. O'CONNELL moved as an amendment that the
words " by Ballot" be substituted for " in writing."
The Committee then divided, when the numbers were—
For the amendment
Against it
54
Majority
—27
The clause was then ordered to stand part of the Bill.
On clause 79 being put, which provided that " votes may
be given by proxy."
Mr. W YSE moved the omission of the entire clause.
The Committee divided, and the numbers were—
For the amendment 27
Against it .
Majority —2s
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 80, providing that no occupier shall vote unless
his rates shall have been paid up, being put,
On the motion of Mr. CHA PNIAN, the words " six
months previously" were substituted for " three months," and
the clause ordered, as amended, to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 81 was agreed to.
Clause 82, providing that " cess-payers shall form a con-
stituency where no rate has been made," was agreed to, with
a verbal amendment.

Clause 83 was also agreed to,
On clause 84, relating to the " borrowing of money of the
Exchequer Loan Commissioners," for the purpose of carrying
the provisions of the Act into effect, being put,
Mr. SHAW hoped any advance of money to build work.