The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-14 00:00:00

.-
which they had long resided. The fourth clause
provided as to the adjustment of accounts of unions and
electoral divisions. There was none of the other
clauses which he conceived would give rise to
any discussion. There were two clauses added not by
the Government, but several independent Members of
the other House connected with Ireland, which gave
poor-law guardians the power to tax the unions with
which they were connected for the purposes of emigra-
tion. Stich tax was, however, to be voluntary, and he
did not apprehend any objections would be made to
those clauses. Upon the whole, while the measure might
not remedy to the full extent the evils now prevalent in
Ireland, he felt convinced it would do so in a very consi-
derable degree, and he, therefore, with the greatest con-
fidence, proposed the second reading of the Bill.
-Lord MONTE AGLE said he regretted that the
Noble Marquis could not have stated to the House that
the measure came before it under the sanction, and in
accordance with the views of the Committee of their
Lordships' House, which sat and reported on the subject.
Such not being the case be conceived placed Committees
of that or the other House of Parliament in the character
of mere toys, with whom Government could do as they
pleased. The Noble Marquis had said that the measure
had been introduced for the benefit of Ireland, but he
had failed to show in what respect it would do so, while
ha was prepared to prove that no benefit to Ireland
would flow from it.—(Hear, hear.) He should say that
the maximum in Ireland was quite different from what
it was established in England, and he therefore thought
that it should be considered by their Lordships, and that
they should make allowance for this state of things, as
there were different maximums in various unions. He
also hoped that their Lordships would look on the
matter in point of justice, and would not allow such
a Bill to be carried, as it would materially injure
the tenant, and be looked upon the maximum as
a cheat and a deceit, and there!ora hoped that
their Lordships would look to the subject in its true
light, fur he believed such a measure to be dangerous
to the interest of Ireland, generally and principally to
the Irish, as the farmers considered that the rate in aid
contained in this Bill would be of a most dangerous cha-
racter, as it would very much affect the interest not only
of themselves as tenants, but that the landlords of Ire-
land would suffer materially by it. He therefore hoped
that such a measure would not be carried, principally be-
cause he knew that such was unprecedented ever since
the days of Queen Elizabeth, when the poor-law was
established, and therefore on those grounds he should
vote against such an iniquitoes measure, as it was no-
thing less than a rate in aid. When the landed propri-
etor exerted himself to remove the difficulties under
which the tenants laboured, be did not see why they
should be subject to support the poor of other districts,
who did not use the same exertions as he had used; and
he therefore hoped that those two clauses would he
forom iitftetdh,oteheattt!s:
points the
agreed
tod theh o rate
shouldn aid;p ro.
mwaemriecanuomt rte
He opposed these on the ground
pose that they should be struck out of the Bill, as being
unconstitutional.
that there was nothing like this in the state
of Rome or Tuscany when labouring under si-
milar famine, and for that reason he pelted that the
assistance granted to the richer part of Ireland should
be granted to the suffering poor of that country.
When he saw that the landlord or the occupying tenant
would be subject to the rates of the tenant who ab-
sconded, he hoped that their Lordships would look to the
matter, and not allow them to be responsible for the
debt of another. The expediency of obtaining every as•
sistance for the promotion of emigration was readily in-
ferred, not only from the declaration of his Noble Friend,
in moving the second reading of this Bill, but also from
the act of the First Lord of the Treasury himself, who,
on the first meeting of the Committee, proposed clause*
giving power to the unions to appropriate 2e. 6d. in the
pound, or one eighth of the whole rental of the country,
to assist in this very project. lie, therefore, called upon
the Government to realize, or else to show cause why
they did not realze, the recommendations contained in

their own report on this subject, and also on that re-
lating to the system of out-door relief. He rjoieed to
find that in another place a considerate Statesman (he
meant Sir Robert Pet'l) had had the courage to
declare emphatically that until they reverted to the
principle of in-door relief exclusively, there could
be no safety for property in Iceland. There were
several other points involved in the subject, all of
them more or less good, but on no particular one of
which did he lay much store. Amongst these were the
smaller area of taxation and the sale of estates. The
smaller area of taxation ought not to be connected with
the principle of the rate in aid, which was wholly anta-
gonistic to it. He challenged this Bill and all the pro-
ceedings upon it, as being wholly inadequate to meet the
necessities of the case, and if he had not the evidence of
the Bill before him, he should really have doubted whe-
ther it was possible that a measure could emanate from
men professing to he in any degree acquainted with the
state of Ireland, so wholly unfitted to improve it. The
result of their present operation was to contract for meal
and other provisions at greatly increased prices, and in
many unions the stewards and other officers had been
placed upon the relief list, in consequence of there being
no funds in hand to pay them. To reduce to figures

the desperate state of affairs in Ireland, and the —utter
incompetency of the relief measures now about
to be brought into operation, a report presented
to the Committee by Mr. Twistleton, stated that
in thirty-two unions out of 130, the amount of
debts and expenditure was 695,0001, to meet which
he estimated that in the present half year a sum of
195,0001.. would be collected. But how was this made
out ? Any gentleman who knew the country would
know it to be impo•aeible for many of the bankrupt
I unions of Ireland to contribute 10,0001. each, at which

sum, or thereabouts, they had I),•en calculated upon in
this estima`e. In short, if their L)rdships blinded their
eyes to the fact that immense distress existed which de-
manded the most prompt reddre.s, they would go far to
realise the prophecy of the late Lord Grey, that under
such circumstances they would themselves destroy the
respect to which their House was entitled. If these
were the measures shadowed out in a remarkable letter,
addressed to the Lord Mayor of London by the Lord
Lieutenant of Ireland—a nobleman who, ho might justly
say, had endeared himself to all classes of men in the
country where he had authority, he would venture to
sly that they were such as no man possessing the
slightest knowledge of Ireland, or the earnest wishes of
Lord Clarendon tor its welfare, would have ventured to
predict. He believed they could appeal to the genero-
sity of England ; but an appeal to her interest would
not be found without its advantages.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
be committed on Monday.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 13.
JUDGMENTS (IRELAND) BILL.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. NAPIER did not rise to oppose the second
reading of the Bill, but to express his great satisfaction
at the candid manner in which his Learned Friend the
Solicitor-General proposed to deal with this subject. The
matter was one of great importance to the people of Ire-
land, and he could not allow the present opportunity to
go by without making a few observations on the measure.
In legislating on such a matter for Ireland, it was ne-
cessary to make a distinction between two classes of
debtors—those who partook of the nature of money-
lenders, and thoe who had obtained judgments ou ions
fide debts. It was the opinion of a very high legal
authority in Ireland, that it would be a very beneficial
law which tended to make judgments an unpopular se-
curity on property in Ireland. He thought, also, that
great respect ought to be shown to the long preju-
dices of the people of Ireland, and care taken to
conciliate their long-formed opinions in these matters.
The Act of 1841 had greatly augmented the difficulties
which surrounded the question, and indeed he very much
doubted whether, in despite of the enlightenment of the
present day, and the increased privileges which were 113 w
enjoyed, modern legislation did not sometimes suffer
by comparison with that of our forefathers. The sug-
gestions made by the Committee to the House were sup-
ported by the evidence of Sir Edward Sugden, to whose
opinions in these matters too great deference could
scarcely be shown. The evidence too of the Master of
Rolls in Ireland also justified the views of the Commit-
tee. He thought that if the Solicitor-General adopted
wasthe pr principleoposedo,ftt not
en idaledin the medium of
ofof 1501,
the
which
system of receivers, together with another matta which
alsoattendedwith a purification
had been introduced into the report of the Committee,
namely, the simplification of the proceeding in Chancery,
the Bill would be one which would deserve the support
of all parties, and would be likely to meet with cordial
co-operation from the people of Ireland.
Mr. SADLEIR said he should only aim at making a
few cursory remarks upon this Bill. With regard to
the suggestions of his Hon. and Learned Friend, as to
the simplification of the proceedings of the Court of
Chancery, he thought that unless some speedy and pro-
per alterations were made, it would be impossible to
afford any permanent relief to the immense amount
of business which now lay before that Court.
lie admitted that the Bill lately framed by the Master
of the Rolls would go far to remove such causes of com-
plaint, and some measure of this nature was loudly
called for by the history of suits in Chancery.
The Incumbered Estates Bill now in progress
was, he must admit, a step in this direction
As the Bill stood, it certainly did not go to realise the
objects stated to-day by the Solicitor-General. The
power of assigning judgments had existed in Ireland for
more than a century. The real evil of a judgment as a
security for money was not only that it attachel as a
lien to the particular property, but that it overrode
all the real and personal property possessed by the
borrower at the time he confessed the judgment. It also
effected the property which the borrower might afterwards
acquire. It was idle to talk of increasing the far -
ea
for the sale of land in Ireland, unless at thry6ame time
:Joey on landed
securitythey con i
arerred t
country
thery t h lee
fnudiei
er m
possible remedy for
recovering his money. This ;seemed to be a retrograde
movement in the wrg:,,,g direction. By the ope-
ration of this
'"fall, the owner of the laud
confessed his judgment was hemmed in be-
tweentwo, evils, in the shape of the Incumbered
Estate; Bill and the Judgment Security Bill ; if he
w-..oteci to sell the estate, the Incumbered Estates Bill
would operate to prevent him; and if, on the other band,
Securitythough a
. he wished to dispose of the judgment, the Judgment
Boialulitwaloiautldwenroot
at
tpehrmaniit orefadbyis
todoing
advance sO,
y. lie thought it mostdesirable that a judgment
creditor should not have the power of appointing a
Chancery
receiver over an estate. With reference to
that part of the Bill which went to revive the vicious
system of elegits, he thought that system was quite as
objectionable as the custodian systetn.: Had the
Solicitor-General thought of the immense sea
of litigation which would arise from the complex
system of elegits which he sought to revive ?
He submitted that the Government should not submit
t) the House measures of this isolated and puny cha-
racter, but others of a massive and general nature with
=aspect t 9 roAl property. for ialtottce, i 4 WAS Lupin.

sil;le to do anything in Ireland -witlttmt a system
of registration of births, deaths, and marriages,
many of the evils in respect of real property
arising out of this defect. The facility that
existed in Scotland for the transfer of real property was
the secret of the success of that country in this respect.
Sir J. GRAHAM said, if time had allowed he
should have been glad to have offered some observations.
There was but one opinion in the House, he believed,
that the Bill should be read a second time. As the Bill
would be again discussed in Committee after they had
had an opportunity of reading the report, he pressed
upon the House the necessity of reading it a second time,
reserving further diseu;4ion until the Committee. The
Bill must be :taken in connexion with the Incum-
bered Estates • Bill, the Lords' amendments
to which he hoped would be discussed before this Bill
again came on.
The Bill was then read a second time, and committed
pro forma, to be re• committed on Thursday next.
The House resumed, and immediately adjourned till
five o'clock.

The House resumed at Five o'clock.
Mr. J. HEALL) presented a petition praying the
House to extend the p.wers of County Courts.
ROYAL ASSENT.
The Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod appeared at
the table and summaned the House to attend at the bar
of the House of Lords to hear the
-Royal assent given to
several public and private Bills (for which see Lords'
report).
The SPEAKER, on his return, enumerated tho Bills
which had received the Royal assent.
Mr. B. OSBORNE presented several petitions—one
from a place in Scotland, deprecating the interference of
ltusia in the affairs of Hungary, and praying her Ma-
jesty's Government to acknowledge the independence of
that country; another from St. Giles-in• the-Fields,
against the Beer Bill ; one from the Rev.
T. Harrison, of Monmouth, complaining of tyranny on
toe part of his Bishop; and one from a solicitor at
Warwick, going through the Leigh case, and praying to
be heard on the case at the bar of the House.
Mr. E. DENISON presented a petition from certain
persons at Nottingham in favour of a scientific institution.
Mr. S. WORTLEY presented petitions from several
places in favour of the Marriage Bill.
Lord DUDLEY STUART presented a petition from
Marylebone and St. Pancras againt the Sale of Bread
Bill.

THE LEIGH PEERAGE.
The ATTORNEY-GENEgAL thought it was his
duty to call the attention of the House to a petition
which had just been presented. It appeared that the
petitioner was undergoing an imprisonment for libel, and
al the libel was repeated in the pc.,tition, he apprehended

could not be relayed.
Mr. OSBORNE said the petition had been forwarded
n him by the Hon. Member for Finsbury. No doubt
he petitioner wa3 in gaol, but from the tenor of the peti-
ion he thought he was better qualified for a lunatic
asylum.—(Hear, and a laugh.)
PILOTAGE BILL.

Sir GEORGE CLERIC said the second reading
of the Pilotage Bill had been fixed for Monday
next ; but as it had not yet been printed
sufficient opportunity would not be atfot ded
to parties interested in the measure to consider is pro-
visions if it were read a second time to early.
Mr. STAFFORD wished the Noble Lord at the head
of the Government, at the same time that he answered
the former question, to state what his intentions were as
regarded the Austrelian Colonies Bill.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, with regard to
the first question, the second reading of the Bill
had nut yet been fixed. With regard to the second
question, he proposed that the House should meet on
Thursday morning at twelve o'clock, to consider the Bill
referred so. He might take that opportunity of stating
that as an arangement had been made for bringing on
the Ordnacce Estimates on Monday, he should he com-
pelled to postpone the consideration of the Lords'
amendments to the Incurebered Estates (Ireland) Bill
till twelve o'clock on Tuesday morning.
Mr. MONSELL trusted the Nobl Lord would recon •
eider the morning sitting on Tuesday, as thereW4S a
most important question coming on the same evening.
Lord 'JOHN RUSSELL was afraid he could not do so.
FISCAL RELATIONS OF GREAT BRITAIN
AND IRELAND.
On the question that the Speeker leave the Chair for
the House going into a Committee of Supply,
Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL rose to move for a Select
Committee to inquire into the fiscal relations between
Great Britain and Ireland. He believed that the
result of the labours of such a Committee would
tend to disabuse the public mind of the mistake
that this country had absolutely been lavish in its
grants of money to Ireland, and that Ireland had
only added ingratitude to want of punctuality in re-
paying the advances so I.bnally made to her.
He believed it woull be proved by the labours; of such
a Committee that Ireland, whatever money she
had received, had to the utmost of her
power paid back, and with greater punctuality,
considering the state of her resources, than
had been the case with many of our colo•
vies towards the mother country. He
warned the House against the dangerous ex-
periment of endeavouring to impose fresh taxation on
Ireland, which would only be attended with the result
which had attended similar experiments. namely, the
total failure of a productive result so far as the increase
of the revenue was concerned. Taking the united gross
revenue of the two countries at 56,000,0001., the exclusive
taxation paid by Great Britain did not amount
to more of that sum than 13,000,0001., with the exception
of the differential duty on spirits between the two
countries. The Hon. Gentleman then sail the Act of
Union had been violated. At the time of the Union;
though the Government which effected that measure
were prepared to go far, still it was too much even for
the men of that time to amalgamate the debt of b)th
nations. By the 7th section of that Act, the Exchequer
of both countries was not to be consolidated, except upon
conditions therein laid down. It was not contemplated
by that Act that Ireland should pay taxes in the same
proportion as England, until she was equally able to pay
them. He contended that Ireland during the forty-nine
years since the Union had been unjustly made liable to
sixty-four millions, which she had no right to pay. The
Irish people were now impoverished, and if the Imperial
Legislature were obliged to assist them, it was only an
act of retributive justice. Ile contended that Ireland
had not been shown any favour in the way of loans or
grants since the Union, but he should call the attention
of the House to the relief from taxation granted to
both countries. England, since the Union, had
51,236,000/, of taxes remitted, while Ireland had but
2,000,0001. The imposition of taxation in England was
40,000,0001, while it was 53- millions in Ireland. Thus
the relief to Great Britain exceeded the amount of
taxation by 11,000,000, while that to Ireland was little
more than one-half of the amount imposed. Then there
were 19,446,0001. of as -essed taxes taken off in England,
in Ireland but 600,0001. Then, as to the loans and
grants made to both countries up to 1847, he found there
was advanced to England for public works 7,176,0001.,
of which 2,000,000/. were unrepaid, and, according to the
returns down to 1842, there were 15 millions advanced, of
which six millions were paid. Then there was advanced
for Royal palaces 4,600,0001.; for the National Gallery
1,600,00)1 ; for the British Mus'Aim, 937,0001.; and
compensation to Scotland for the union, 260,000/. He
found by the finance account of 1545 that nine millions
and sixty-seven thousand pounds were advanced to Ire-
-1 and, of which upwards of seven were repaid, while
England out of an advance of fifteen millions only paid
six. Ireland, no doubt, owed 1,000,0001. fur the erection
of workhouses, contracted during the last ten years, and
England, with all her boasted wealth and resources,
owed 800,000/. since 1835. Then there was the great
absentee drain, and the payment of mortgages, which
was enough to ruin any country in the world. The Hon.
Gentleman, after calling on the Government to take the
matter into their serious consideration, concluded by
submitting his motion to the House.
Colonel DUNNE seconded it.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not
think it was necessary for him to follow the Hon. Gen-
tleman through all his statements, nor was the appoint-
ment of the Select Committee applied for necessary,
inasmuch as the returns moved for from time to time
gave all the information which could be obtained. He
could not, however, allow the statements of the Hon.
Gentleman to go forth uncontradicted, and he could as•
sure him at the same time, that any further returns
which should be moved fur, and which would have the
effect of elucidating the subject, would be granted, be-
cause it was his wish that the real nature of the case
should be fairly and fully explained. Whatever com-
plaints Ireland had to make of the legislation of the
Imperial Legislature, most assuredly she could not com-
plain of unjust taxation, inasmuch as the returns moved
for by the Hon. Member for Glasgow showed that at no
period was her income equal to her expenditure. The
return did not show exactly the amount of the income;
it was below the actual sum, but so was it in a far greater
degree in giving the expenditure. The Hon. Gentleman
said the proposition ought to be 15 to 2; but, in point
of fact, England paid forty-eight millions, while Ireland
only paid four, which was far below that amount. Ire-
land never even paid the interest on her own debt; and
it was only when the consolidation of the Exchequer
took place, in 1817, that her income was equal to the
expenditure. Now, the Hon. Gentleman forgot that
Ireland paid no portion of the charge for the navy,
which protected the trade of the United Kingdom and
the colonies, although she enjoyed all the advantages.
Mr. d. O'CONNELL admitted that Ireland did not
pay her portion for the navy, but her unaccredited taxe-
Lion would amount to more then that sum, and they were
besides deprived in Ireland of naval dockyards or esta-
blishments.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would
say that the Hon. Gentleman was not justified in saying
that Ireland was unfairly taxed, and he should therefore
resist the motion.
Major BLA.CKALL thought the Chancellor of the
Exchequer himself showed that a Committee was neces-
sary, for he read the returns in a totally contrary sense
from that of his Hon. Friend. Ho thought it ought at once
to be settled whether Ireland paid her fair proportion or
not; if she did, let them n )t be taunted as they had been
by English Members, and if not, let further taxation be
imposed. Certainly, if his Hon. Friend divided the
House, he should 'rote for his motion.
Mr. FAG AN also supported the motion, and con-
tended that Ireland, at the present moment, paid more
Can her fair proportion, according to the terms of the
Union. The principle of the Union was that both coun-
tries should pay according to their means, and Lord
Castlereagh fixed the proportion of Ireland at 2-17ths.
tlrVibhuatteevbeerfomreigthht have beeeunionsnLethe cornpoowpeteriyof Ireland
lostth to
atp,cmone;
after the Union. It would hive been better if the Ex-
chequers of the two countries had never been united,
for since that consolidation Ireland had centribu'ed
more than her fair share of the revenue of the empire,
and that accounted for much of its poverty and distress.
FitZliCki laid he really thought the Ilouourable