The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-17 00:00:00

The Earl of ROSSE said there was a general belief
that the Pour-law Commissioners were favoursoie to a
system of out-door rt lief. lie rose to state as much to
the House, as the Noble Marquis opposite hsd inti-
mated, that at a cerLiu period the out-door relief system
would be suspended.
L REDESDALE considered that the principle
now proposed was more and more a departure from the
principle and spirit of the English poor law. This Bill
proposed the very worst principle, a principle which,
with regard to Ireland, but rendered the case more hope-
less, and involved the country more and more in difficul-
ties.—(Hear.) He felt that if the Bill were carried as
proposed, it would greatly increase the difficulty in
relation to the purchase of land, and that with such a
Bill it would be utterly impossible to redeem the country
from its oppressed condition.
Lord MONTEAGLE, in pursuance of the notice
which he had given, rose to propose an amendment.
With respect to a maximum rate, it must depend upon
the uniformity of the valuation. His Noble Friend
(Lord Fortescue) had proposed a resolution on that sub-
ject, and the witnesses whom he had called in to his aid
had failed to make out his case; yet he now sought to
press the principle on their Lordships' House. He (Lord
Monteagie) felt that the law as now propos?d was at va-
riance with the English poor-law. The maximum which
was now proposed was no maximum at all—it was 55.,
for instance, in one place, 10s. in another, and 2s. 61 in
another. How, then, could that be said to be a maxi-
mum which operated so unequally? On the ground that
the maximum, as proposed, was contrary to the English
law—that it was delusive, fallacious, and unjust; he
called upon their Lordships to reject the proposition, and
to do the same justice to Ireland that they would to
England. The Noble Lord concltided by moving, as his
amendment, the omission of the first clause, establishing
a maximum.
Earl FORTESCUE admitted, with respect to the re-
solution referred to by the-Noble Lord, that there were
many in Committee opposed to it, and he withdrew it
on that ground; but he certainly did not think with the
Noble Lord that every member of the Committee was
opposed to the clause.
The Earl of WICKLOW said that his great objection
to the resolution in Committee was, that it appeared to
him to be utterly absurd to agree to a resolution where
there was no fund to meet its object. He felt, however,
that the objection in Committee was to a great extent
obviated by the matter having come in the shape of a
Bill from the House of Commons. It was said, in sup-
port of the Bill, that it would greatly facilitate the pur-
chase of land; but in his opinion, instead of acting as an
inducement to purchasers, it would have quite a con-
trary effect. He, for one, would not become a purchaser
of landed property, which he found subject to, and bur-
dened with rates of almost every description—and on
which he found it was now proposed to levy an additional
rate of 7s. 6d. in the pound. They had latterly heard much
about the city of London coming forward as purchasers
of property in the west of Ireland. Now he happened
to know something of the property purchased by " ab-
sentee" companies in the north of Ireland, and he must
say, in reference to the benefits alleged to have been
conferred on the country by those absentee companies,
that he thought that they were greatly exaggerated.—
(Hear, hear.) What was the state of the question with
regard to the purchaser of land in Ireland? Why, in
addition to Crown and quit rents, he would:find that land
in that country was subject to tithe charge, that it was
subject to a rate of 2a. 6d. in the poundjfor building
new workhouses for the poor, that it was subject to a
liability for past debts, that it was subject to a rate for
emigration, and that it was now proposed to make it
subject to the additional tax of 7s. 6d., comprising ss.
and 2s. as a maximum rate, and a sixpenny rate as the
rate in aid. Why, with such an accumulation of rates,
he did not hesitate to say that landed property in Ireland
would not be worth five years' purchase—(Hear, hear)—
and it was on those grounds that he felt he ought to give
his vote against the clause, considering the principle a
most vicious one, a circumstance which he regretted, as
he was desirous to see the measure rendered a useful one.
Lord STRADBROOKE considered the principle pro-
posed to be unjust, and so long as that principle was
maintained on a large area of taxation, so long would
Ireland continue to be oppressed. He wished they would
endeavour to assimilate the law to that of England, for
the more they did that the better he felt it would be for
Ireland.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE agreed in the opi-
nion of the Committee, that a maximum rate would be
likely to raise the marketable value of landed property
in Ireland, and that it would at the same time, as im-
posed for a poor-law, be a vicious principle. But, upon
the principle on which the maximum was proposed in
the Bill now before the House, he felt that he was called
upon to support it. He hoped that the objections which
had been urged against the clause were not of sufficient
force to induce their Lordships to oppose it. He had
never seen a person connected with Ireland who did not
admit that a maximum clause would be of the greatest
advantage to those who had land to dispose of, and that
it would greatly facilitate the transfer of property. He,
therefore, considered that portion of the Bill would be
of the greatest advantage to Ireland; at all events its
introduction could not make matters worse, and he had
every reason to believe it would make them better.
Earl FITZ WILLIAM said he could conceive certain
cases where a maximum rate might be established, but
this was not one of them. His Noble Friend who had
last addressed the House, spoke as if the present was a
measure simply relating to the land of Ireland—(Hear)
—a measure for facilitating the transfer ut nvni by in
that country. But it was no such thing. It was a
measure to make provision for the poor of Ireland ;
and while they might have a maximum as regarded
some rates, he did not believe that it was possible, in
the circumstances of Ireland, to have a maximum poor-
rate. He would ask those who contended for such,
were the people of Ireland to starve should this ss. or 7s.
maximum rate not prove sufficent for their relief?—
(Hear, hear.) Should the House of Commons declare
that they were prepared to make up such a deficiency
from the Exchequer, should such deficiency occur, then
he would be prepared to support a maximum rate; but,
until he had that declaration, he must give his support
to the amendment which had been proposed.
Earl ST. GERMANS agreed that the enactment of
this maximum rate would have the effect of facilitating
the transfer of land in Ireland, and it would operate in
that respect most beneficially, by transferring the land
from persons who had no capital to those who had.—
(Hear, hear.) He did not think it fair to say that the
maximum would not suffice for the necessities of the
unions in Ireland, for in 1848, when the distress was
very severe, they would find that not more than 24 of the
unions in Ireland exceeded a 51. rate. While, therefore,
it was not with any great satisfaction he voted for the
olause, he would do so rather than hazard the passing of
the measure.
Lord REDESDALE objected to the clause. It was
true that after the expiry of twelve months, the two shil-
ling clause for the raising a rate in aid could be brought
into operation, but during the year, should the five shil-
ling maximum rate be insufficient for the
maintenance of the poor, the affairs of the
unions must be at a stand-still. At the same time,
on referring to the clause itself, it turned out
an absurdity, for it authorised the levying of a ss. rate in
aid within the year, therefore contradicting the inten-
tions of those who supported it.
Lord %VHARNCLIFFE said, from all the informa-
tion be had gathered, he had come to the conclusion to
oppose the imposition of a maximum rate. He could
not conceive how a maximum rate in the circumstances
of Ireland could have a real existence. He could under-
stand establishing a maximum, and expending the over-
plus funds created by it in carrying out -the objects fur
which such maximum was established, but in the pre-
sent case, while there was no evidence that such maxi-
mum would suffice, he would not support it unless
guarantee was given that the deficiency would be made
up from the common treasury. They were told that by
fixing a maximum of ss. beyond which no rates could be
levied, they would give facility to the sale of land; but
while that might be true, they at the same time greatly
diminished the value of such property.—(Hear.) He
did not think any such step as this would put a stop
to the unfortunate state of things which prevailed in
Ireland. A taxation, such as that proposed, would nut
operate; and, therefore, Government ought to have had
recourse to some other system. The great objection to
the system he had was, that it was not a temporary
arrangement; for if they by such means induced parties
to invest their money in land in Ireland, they could not,
with a good grace, afterwards turn round and say that
they found it necessary to alter the law, and that the
tenure on which they entered upon the possession of
their properties would be altered also. He would be sa-
tisfied to allow this clause to be inserted in the Bill, if it
were of a temporary nature, but when it was introduced
as a permanent measure, he considered that it was the
duty of Parliament to oppose it by every possible means,
as nothing could be more injurious to the interests of
the Irish farmer and the Irish landlord than such a
clause.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said, that before
their Lordships came to a vote on this clause, he wished
to remind their Lordships that he had, in connexion
with the Government, fully and maturely considered
the necessity of this clause, and that all were

perfectly satisfied that there was an urgent
necessity of amending the poor-law, and of en-
grafting on it a maximum rate, beyond which the
poor-law could not extend. He was the more desirous
that their Lordships should agree to this clause, because
it had already met the approbation of the House of
Commons, and that because they saw the necessity of
such a clause for the present state of Ireland, as both
the landlord and the tenant would benefit much by such
a clause. He also wished to remind their Lordships
that, of the 1,923 electoral divisions in Ireland, there
were only 328 where this question was agitated ; and
that of the 131 unions there were only 61 in arrears, and
that more than one-half of those were liable to only Is.
in the pound ; and that the highest rate, in the most
distressed unions, did not amount to more than 6s. in
the pound, which was less than one. third of the income
of the property. He hoped that they would also re-
collect that the majority of the evidence given before
the Committee concurred in deciding that this maxi-
mum rate would tend to improve the interest of Ire-
land, by causing more capital to be expended in that
country. He therefore considered both these clauses
essentially requisite for the improvement of that coml.
try, and hoped that their Lordships would agree with
him.
Their Lordships divided upon the question that the
clause do stand part of the Bill, when there appe.ared—

Contents ••• ••• ••• ... 26
Non-contents ... ••• ••• ... 33
Majority against the clause —9
During the absence of reporters, the Marquis of
LANSDOWNE, as we were intormed, announced that
he would not trouble their Lordships to divide upon
clause 2 (for a 2s. rate in aid).
Clauses 1 and 2 were accordingly omitted from the
Bill.

Clauses from 3 to 15 were then agreed to.
On clause 16,

Lord D.IONTEACiIiE laid that this and the 170

18th, eid 19th, whieh hiecr,l neon it. we7e the frost
ela:lses as
luoti6 of ratiog is Ireland, and extliblng as they did a
totally opposite principle to that in operation in the
English poor law, while their principle was at variance.
The summery pow4'which the 8,11 gave to obtain a
debt duo by process before the as,ietant barrister,
and the course which it proposed of carrying the
decision of that functionary before the Judges of the Su-
perior Courts in Dublin, in order to give to it, by regis
tration, the same effect as a judgment debt obtained in
those superior courts, was, he considered, most objec-
tionable. But it was peculiarly oppressive when the
debt for which this course was proposed as a remedy
was not that of the actual tenant in possession, but of a
defaulting and absconded tenant. He considered a case
of that sort one of great hardship, great injustice, and
great oppression; and he should therefore propose the
omis,ion of the clauses altogether.
Lord CAMPBELL explained that the Noble Lord
was mistaken in supposing that one man was to be made
liable under this Bill for the debt of another.
Lord STANLEY was at a loss to know how the Noble
and Learned Lord could defend those clauses, which
exposed a party not owing a debt to have his land taken
from him and confiscated for a debt due by another.
Earl ST. GERMANS thought there must be some
misapprehension about the clauses, which, if they were
to have the effect described by his Noble Friend (Lord
Monteagle) ought certainly not to be aliowed to remain.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said the question
before the Committee was, as to the best mode of re-
covering those debts for which the landlord was really
liable, and he th,,ught the mode proposed by the mea-
sure before the House better than that proposed by the
Noble Lord.

The Earl of LUCAN supported the amendment, and
went further even than it did, for he was of opinion that
no personal liability should attach to the landlord at all
for arrears due by the tenant.

Lord BEAUMONT also supported the amendment,
as he conceived it unjust to make a landlord pay rates
for which he was not primarily liable; and as the law
made him so liable, as it at present stood, he thought it
should be altered, but in the meantime that the bimplest
mode of recovery should be adopted.
The Marquis of SALISBURY considered the law at
present most stringent and unjust, and that an alter-
ation should be made. He would support the amend-
ment.

After a few words from the Marquis of LANS
DOWNE, the House divided, when there appeared
Contents
Non-contents
Majority ...
The clause was consequently lost.
On clause 20 being proposed,
Lord STANLEY intimated that he had an amend
meat to propose in reference to the giving the poor-law
guardians power to associate with them a paid officer,
instead of the vice•guardian.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE, as was understood,
stated that Government would consider the propriety of
introducing such a clause.
Lord STANLEY said that he would leave this mea•
sure, but he would suggest that there should be one
paid guardian, instead of having the vice guardian ma-
nage the business.

... 32
... -13

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE perfectly concurred
with the Noble Lord (Lord Stanley) that every precau-
tion should be taken against the possibility of abuse,
and for that reason he would use every exertion to ar-
range that matter.
The clause was then agreed to.
Lord MON fEAGLE said that the next clause was
to enable the tenant. even if reduced to a state of pauper-
ism, to claim compensation for any improvement he
might make on his farm.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that he would
therefore postpone the report till Monday next.
The House then adjourned.

HOUSE OF CO-1
MONS, July 16.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
SMALL DEBTS AMENDAENT ACT.
The House went into Committee on the second read-
ing of this Bill.
Mr. CARDWELL hoped that he should succeed in
persuadiug his Hon. and Learned Friend the Attorney-
General to postpone any further proceedings on this
Bill. He objected to some of the changes attempted in it.
A party might go and reside at Birmingham and con-
tract a debt there; as soon as he had exhausted his
credit at Birmingham ho might remove to Liverpool.
He (Mr. Cardwell) was entirely in favour of the dimi-
nution of costs in the county courts ; but would the
costs of the case he had put be diminished if a man was
compelled to follow his debtor to Liverpool? in such a
case it appeared to him a defeat of justice would be
likely to ensue. He had received several communica-
tions front gentlemen of the legal profession residing in
Liverpool, stating the practical mischiefs which would
result from the operation of such a Bill as that before the
House. He had also received similar communications
from the gentlemen who represent the Tradesmen's
Guardian Society in that town. Believing it would
be a considerable departure from the wisdom of the
common law, and would rather tend to increase than
diminish expense, he hoped his Honourable and Learned
Friend (the Attorney-General) would not press the
clauses in question.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said his sole object
was to make the Act more efficient for the recovery of
debts: but if he found it was the general opinion
of the members of the Cummittee representing mercan-
tile communities that those clauses had better be
omitted, he was ready to abandon them.
Mr. MUNTZ could quite corroborate the statement
of the Hon. and Learned Member for Liverpool as to the
objections to this Bill among mercantile gentlemen. He
had received a great number of communications on the
subject, not from gentlemen of the legal profession, but
from tradesmen, to all of whom it was objectionable.
Ho therefore hoped the Hon. and Learned Attorney-
General would withdraw the objectionable clauses.
Mr. BROTHER TON was very glad to find the
Attorney-General was disposed to withdraw the objec-
tionable clauses. In Manchester (so we understood) an
Act was obtained for a Small Debts Court, at an ex-
pense of twelve hundred pounds, which expense had
not since been defrayed. That court had been of
great utility; its jurisdiction extended to about 100
townships, including a population of not less than
1,000,000. A preference was often given to the court
in question over the county court. Within the last two
years 3,700 cases had been entered in it, and more than
2,000 of them were for sums under 101.
. Lord DUDLEY STUART said the clause as it stood
did not abolish the court referred to by the Honourable
Member for Salford; but if such courts would improve
their practice they would still retain plenty of business.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it seemed to be
the feeling of the Committee that he should withdraw
the first five clauses, and he would do so. He would
then begin at the sixth clause. The Learned Gen-
tleman then went on to explain that debtors were now
committed to the House of Correction, and had their hair
cut, and were treated as misdemeanants, of which, as
a matter of course, much complaint was made, for
parties who moved in a respectable sphere of life were
treated contrary to the Si irit in which the Act was passe e
He had introduced a clause into this Bill by which those
persons would be treated as debtors, and that where the
gaols were too crowded and at too great a distance
that provision should be made for their nearer reception.
Mr. B. COCHRANE wished that what was specifiea
as " contempt of court" in the 7th clause were clearly set
forth, as the clause said that a person might be com-
mitted for contempt of court it he used abusive language
to a bailiff going to or from the court. Now, who was
to decide what was contempt of court in such a case?—
(Hear.) Again, if a poor man could not pay, was he to
be committed for contempt?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the contempt,
consisted of insulting a judge, ajuror, or ;bailiff, and fur
non-payment. The 113th section, which made contempt
committable to the House of Correction, was repealed
in this Bill, and altered to the debtors' prison,
Mr. MULLINGS suggested that other places than the
county debtors' gaol should be provided for the recep-
tion of persons committed under the County Courts
Act. For instance, the county gaol of Gloucestershire
might be fifty miles from the spot where a man was
committed. Now there were four houses of correction
in the county. Could not some_ arrangement be made,
by which parties might be placed in those gaols anti
treated as debtors?
Clauses 6 and 7 were then agreed to.
On clause 8 being proposed,
Mr. W. PATTEN drew attention to the fact, that it.
had been held that a sheriff's writ ran in preference to
one of the County Court, and that it had been decideo
that the claim of a landlord should be prior to that of
any other creditor.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said a difference of
opinion prevailed upon the point among the judges, and
that it was just one of those matters that should be con-
sidered by the judges appointed by the Lord Chan-
cellor.
After some observations from Mr. W. PATTEN and
Mr. MULLINGS, the clause was agreed to.
On clause 9 being proposed,
the
M followingnotice, clause:—" And whereas it is expedient to
extend the provisions of the said Act of the tenth year
of the reign of her Majesty to all debts, damages,
and demands not exceeding fifty pounds. Be it
therefore enacted, that the jurisdiction of the
several courts holden or to be holden under the said Act
of the tenth year of the reign of her Majesty, shall ex-
, tend to the recovery of any debt, damage, or demand not
exceeding the sum of fifty pounds, with and subject to
the several powers and provisions of the said Act, ex-
cept so far as the same are hereafter altered or repealed."
He could not see on what grounds the Attorney-General
could oppose this proposition ; and with respect to the
50/. clause, if it was thought not advisable, he had
no objection to its not being compulsory.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, although he
coincided in what had been said by the Hon. and Gal-
lant Gentleman as to the utility of these courts, he did
not think it would be prudent at present to extend the
jurisdiction from 201. to 501. Before such a change
could be made in the law some power of review must
be established.

Mr. W. PATTEN regretted to hear that it was the
intention of the Hon. and Learned Attorney-General to
oppose the clause. It would be of great service to the
manufacturing districts, t;nd he thought the alteration
might be agreed to after some slight modification.
Captain PECHELL should undoubtedly support the
proposal ; but he was not surprised at the Learned
Attorney- General opposing it, as in 1835 he rt slated a
similar suggestion to ext, nd the jurisdiction from
201. to 501. The great opponents to proposals of this
nature were the lawyers, who were afraid of busines
being taken out of Westminster Hall, and disposed of iu
the country, and until that selfish feelit,g were got rid of,
the public would not reap the full advantage of these
courts.

Sir GEORGE GREY quite admitted that these courts
had acted most efficiently, gild he was not at all pre•