The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-03 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATtTRDAT EVENING, MARCH 3, 1849.

should be, first, a rate of ss. in the pound ; that is to say,
that the poor-rate should not exceed ss. in the electoral
divisions, and that when the necessities of the case ren-
dered a further rate necessary, one not exceeding 2s. in
the pound should be collected from the unions, making
a total of 7s. in the pound. The Committee appeared to
be generally favourable to a maximum rate, but required
to receive some evidence on the subject, more especially
with regard to the amount at which it might be expe-
dient to fix the maximum. Finding the gener i! opinion
of the Committee to be as I have stated with respect to
that part of the plan which I had proposed, I consented
to withdraw the resolutions which I had submitted to the
Committee, in order that they might proceed to take
evidence. But before I went into the Committee I
stated in this House that if, at any time, I should come
to the decision that it was desirable particular mea-
sures should be adopted, I should feel myself jus-
tified in coming down to this House and proposing them,
even although the Committee might not approve:of
them. Ido not, however, at present, purpose submitting
any proposition to the House on the subject of a
maximum rate. lam willing to wait until the Commit-
tee shall receive further evidence on the subject, but it
certainly is the decided opinion of the Government that
whether ss. and 25., in the way I have referred to, be the
proper limit or not, in the present circumstances of Ire-
land a maximum is desirable, and that by its means we
could combine the relief of destitution (which has, to a
great extent, been achieved) with the encouragement of
industry and the improved cultivation of the soil. I will
proceed ta state some other measures which the Govern-
ment have in contemplation with regard to the poor-law,
but with respect to which I have not asked for the opi-
nion of the Committee, although I expect to submit
them to its consideration at some future time as modifi-
cations of the existing poor-law system. One of the pro-
posed alterations is to this effect, that when improve-
ments are made upon land—agricultural improvements—
no increased valuation should take place in respect of
them for a certain number of years.—(Hear, hear)
Whether the period of exemption should be seven
years or ten years is a point respecting which con-
siderable difference of opinion prevails. I think that
the time should be limited to ten years, although,
perhaps, seven would be sufficient. Another altera-
tion refers to a question upon which a great deal
of attention has been fixed during the discissions which
have taken place from the very commencement of the
amended poor-law in 1817, and upon which lam de-
sirous of stating some general views to this House—l
allude to the question of the area of taxation. Many per-
sons, including I believe the majority of the Irish Mem-
bers both in the Committee up stairs and in this House,
are of opinion that it is desirable to have a maximum of
distance beyond which the poor-rate should not extend.
They are of opinion that persons would be far more likely
to occupy land and expend capital in its cultivation, if
they knew that they would not be subjected to a ruinous
rate. They allege that land would more readily find
purchasers if it were known that the whole rental of the
estate would not be swallowed up by poor-rates. It has
been urged in support of a more limited area of taxation,
that landowners and occupiers having a certain num-
ber of labourers residing in their particular districts, to
whom they are able to give employment, will not be
likely to expend their capital in that manner, if they
are to be called upon to bear the burden of supporting
the unemployed labourers upon the estates of their im-
mediate neighbours. Whilst I admit that this is a
plausible argument, I must at the same time say, that
I think it is impossible to consider the question in all
its bearings without seeing, that if the principle were
adopted of saying that each property shall form a
separate area of taxation, liable only to the support of
the poor found upon it, serious evils would result.—
(Hear, hear.) In the first place, if this principle were
to be adopted, it seems to me that you could not refuse
to extend to small proprietors the benefit given to large
ones.—(Hear, hear.) The returns drawn up by the clerk
of the Limerick Union mention, amongst several rentals
of large amount, one of only 30/. per annum. How would
it be possible to say " We protect estates worth 2,0001.1
or 3,0001. a year from being swamped by the negligence
of the owners of neighbouring property, but we will not
concede the same advantage to the owner of land of the
value of only 301. per annum?"—(Hear.) There would
be manifest injustice in such a course of proceeding; yet,
if you concede to the owners of small properties the ad-
vantage of separate taxation, it is obvious that great
confusion must ensue, and that it would hardly be pos-
sible to carry the poor-law into effect at all. I see how
the regulation would work in both directions. The owner
of an estate having land susceptible of improvement
would employ his capital in setting every able-bodied
labourer upon the estate to work; and he would ultimately
reap his reward, not only in the happiness
and comfort which he would be the means of
diffusing around him, but also in the augmented value
of his property. But we have the testimony of all be-
longing to Ireland to the fact, that there is in that coun-
try another class of landlords who would take a course
directly opposite to that which I have described ; and
the first impulse of these men, looking only to the returns
which they can get from their land, when they found
that they were to be taxed for the support of all the in-
firm and unemployed persons residing upon it, would be
to rid the land of what they deemed incumbrances.—
(Hear, hear.) The consequence would be, that people
would be driven in large numbers from the agricultural
districts (as we have seen in the course of the last thirty
years) into the suburbs of large towns, there to live as
mendicants for a short time, until they perish by disease
and want.—(Hear, hear.) ' Again, if you should
determine that each property should be subject only to
its own rate for the support of its own poor, you would
find that you had established a much more stringent law
of settlement than exists in this country.—(Hear, hear.)
You would find that, although labourers might find
employment from the owners sad occupiers of land
within the district where they resided, if they should
travel out of that circle but for a few miles, or even a
shorter distance, in search of better wages, they would
be driven back into their own locality, and thus, instead
of maintaining the character of free and independent
labourers, they would be reduced to the condition of
serfs to their landlords—(Hear, hear.) Whilst these are
the objections—and they seem to me insuperable—to the
sub-division of the area of taxation proposed by some
poor-law reformers in Ireland, there is, at the same time,

no doubt, considerable inconvenience resulting in many
instances from the size of the unions being co-extensive
with the electoral divisions. The Commissioners to
whom I alluded last night have taken the subject into
their consideration. They have compared the unions
and electoral divisions of the south with those of the
north, and although there doubtless are many physical
circumstances in the face of the country at the two
points which must exercise an influence, they are
nevertheless of opinion that the more minute subdivision
of the area of taxation in the north has been fa-
vourable to the development of industry, and they
therefore suggest that the size of some of the large
unions in the south should be contracted. The ex-
tent to which that recommendation ought to be carried is
s question which may fairly be. left to the consideration
of the Committee up stairs, which will have the opportu-
nity of examining persons who have been engaged in
forming new unions and new electoral divisions. should
the Committee adopt the suggestio❑ of the Commis-
sioners they would not be sanctioning the principle to
which I have before adverted, namely, that of making
each property rateable for the support of its own poor
exclusively. Such an amendment of the electoral divi-
sions as the Commissioners propose (bearing in mind
more particularly that those divisions were formed for a,
different poor-law) would be just and reasonable, whilst
the limitation of taxation to individual estates would be
a serious and permanent evil. There are other amend-
ments of the poor-law to which it is annecessary for me
to allude; but one has been suggested to which the
Government has given fair consideration, and with
respect to which I am ready to state my views. It
has been suggested, that whereas the land in Ireland
is burdened with certain charges which were fixed upon
it before the poor-law was introduced into that
country, it is only fair that those charges should be made
to contribute to the poor-rate as well us the rent of the

landlord. I think it would be impossible to subject
mortgages to a tax like the poor-rate, which is of
variable amount, not fixed like a tax levied for the public
Exchequer; and, besides, to make a deduction from the
mortgagee's income would induce him to withdraw the
money he has lent, thereby increasing the distress
already prevailing in Ireland. With respect to charges
arising out of family settlements, I think the case is
different. I think that those charges having been fixed
on the land when a poor-law could not have been con-
templated, and when the landowner believed that he
would continue to receive his rental without deduction,
it is but reasonable that they should, as fa;
land. 'this assneopurnatcticable, t
imposedmada uanpotenriorthtoe
of
aptphl?iebse subjected to deductions on
tinheentsinetruotedruecdttoinntoofsineth,
poor
-rate
ethart time ioolawM for all settle-
ments be taken to
have been arranged with due regard to the new state of
things. The relief to be afforded to the landowners in
prospectivei r
ab
to
adopt some tr
this respect must, therefore, not be
is another matter upon which I thinl it
des le
proceeding. I allude to land
which has long
been unoccupied,
upied, and on which considerable
to arrearsid of
rate have accumulated. I think that in order
tenants to occupy such land and to bring it into nuce
cultiva-
tion, the arrears should for once be remitted. I would
not wish to make:this a general rule; but I think that
mfoorroenc
once
peculiarly be done. I now come to that which
forms the subject of the resolution
which I have placed in the hands of the chairman of this
Committee of the whole House, and in so doing I must
refer to the letter which the Poor-law Commissioners
addressed to Lord Clarendon, dated December 11,
1848. In page 7of that document I find the following
passage:—
" Of the entire number of unions, 131, there are, per.
haps, 20 which require to be considered separately from
the remainder, as presenting peculiar difficulties. There
is a second class, consisting of 10 or 11 unions, in which
the present amount of out-door relief is considerable, but
in which, by dint of exertion, serious financial 'embar-
rassments may be avoided, and the destitution at the
same time be effectually relieved, without external aid.
Of the remaining unions, say 100, there are 37 in which
no relief is at present given out of the workhouse; in
the other 63 the extent of out-door relief is for the most
part inconsiderable, the aggregate total cost little ex-
ceeding 1,8001. weekly; while the additional workhouse
accommodation provided in those unions is calculated to
meet a considerable pressure, before the necessity of re-
sorting to extensive out-door relief will be again ac-
knowledged."

In considering this subject, as I stated on a former oc-
casion, we must never lose sight of the effect of the re-
cent great failure of that root which has been the staple
food of the country. It is impossible to look upon these
districts as existing in the state in which they were in
1836 and 1837, when the Poor-law Commissioners of
Inquiry made their report. However pitiable it may have
appeared at that time that there should be so many of
the inhabitants of Ireland living in mud cabins with only
one room, if room it can be called, the condition of those

o,olje

people has Wen grievously altered for the worse by the
deprivation of food with which they have subsequently
been visited. Be it always remembered those wretched
-persons never can expect, and never did expect, to re-
receive such wages in the course of the year as would
enable them to live, however hardly and scantily ; no,
they depended for subsistence upon the produce
of the patches of ground adjoining their wretched
cabins. Well, in the last two years we have seen a
repetition in an aggravated form of some of those
calamities which at various times have afflicted Ireland
—one occurring in the middle of the last century, and
another in 1822, when great relief was afforded by the
Parliament and people of this country. It now, there-
fore, becomes a question whether relief of a similar
kind shall be continued, or whether Parliament will
think it a wise course to leave the inhabitants of the
destitute unions to take their miserable chance of sur-
viving until the next harvest without making any effort
to save them. In considering this subject the House has
felt—and very naturally—that the exertions which have
been made in the last two years by the people of this
country and the Imperial Parliament, in the shape of
advances out of the national exchequer, have been of
an extraordinary nature. Ido not wish to speak as to
the mode in which relief was given, or to discuss again
the method in which the people were relieved. But then
gentlemen say that nothing was done except feeding the
people. Although I consider that feeding the people
was absolutely necessary—(Hear, hear)—yet I must
also remind them that there have been very great ex-
anions made by Parliament in order to stimulate the in-
dustry of Ireland and to place her in a better position to
withstand future calamities. I hold in my hand a gene-
ral estimate of grants and loans for works of a repro-
ductive nature which have been made in the years 1846,
1847, and 1848. The sums advanced under the Land
Improvement Act were 500,0001.; for land improvement
and drainage, under Mr. Labouchere's letter, 200,0001.;
extraordinary advances for arterial drainage, 370,0001.;
granted for navigations connected with drainage,
100,000 L; grants and loans for the improvement of the
Shannon, 123,0001.; ordinary Board of Works loan fund,
180,0001.; grants and loans for the erection of piers and
harbours, 100,0001.; advances for railways, 620,000/. So
that no less a sum than 2,193,0001. had been advanced in
those three years for what are called works of a repro-
ductive nature; and be it remembered, that though
500,000/. had been advanced under the Land
Improvement Act, there still remains 1,000,000/.
which has been applied for, and which will
be drawn for from timo to Limo,, for works of im-
provement and drainage authorized by the Act, making
in the whole 3,193,0001. I think, with that statement,
it cannot be said that Government or Parliament have
entirely neglected all works of a reproductive nature, and
that the whole of the money given has been entirely
consumed in works of charity to those who would other-
wise hare starved. Be it remembered, also, that to main-
tain the people in a season of such great and overwhelm-
ing calamity, when they were unable to obtain work of a
productive nature, to keep them alive was really the main
purpose in view.—(Hear, hear.) Although we had
made those efforts, we proposed, at the ,commencement
of the present session, in continuance of the grant made
last year, a sum of 50,000/. for the support of those unions
in which great distress existed. It was stated in this
House, and with great force, that already much had bees
done, that already very large grants had been made, and
that if it was right to continue this system in any way
it was right that Ireland should contribute her portion
generally to that fund. Now, in looking at the burden
of the poor-law, I certainly find that with regard to
many parts of Ireland there is no greater burden, if so
great a burden, imposed as is imposed on many parts of
England. I find, for instance, looking at the county of
Antrim, at the beginning of the return with respect to
the charges for last year, that the average amount of
expense in three unions has been Is. 2d., Is. lOid., and
Is. 72d. In two unions in Armagh it has been Is. 4d.,
3s. 4d., and 2s. 10d. In Down the average has been
about Is. 3d. or Is. 4d; in Fermanagh, 2s. sid., 3s. lid.,
and 2s. Bd.; in Londonderry, Is. 3d., Is. 4d., Is. 9id.,
and Is. 61d. I find with regard to several counties in
Leinster there is a similar amount of charge. That in
three unions in Kildare It has been-25., 71d., Is. 6d.
I.ln Meath, Is. 21d., 25., 2s. lid., 4s. lid., and Is. lOid.
• Those are the sums which have been paid under the
poor-law in several parts of Ireland, so that it
cannot be said with regard to those parts of
Ireland that they have been entirely sunk, and dis-
tressed, and ruined by the poor-law.—(Hear, hear.) 'Oil
the contrary, it does appear, comparing them with many
parts of England and Wales, that they are less burdened
than a good many parishes in Wiltshire and Sussex, and
other parts of this country. It does not seem, there-
fore, impossible they should bear some additional burden
for the sake of those distressed unions to which I have
alluded. When I propose, however, that there should be
a rate in aid collected in Ireland generally, for the sake
of the support of those distressed unions, I am met by
the answer, that this being a local burden, there are no
more obligations on the county of Down than on the
county of Middlesex to support the poor in the county
of Mayo or Sligo. I am met by the argument that it
would be quite as just to impose an additional poor-rate
on Lancashire for the pauperism of Norfolk as to im-
pose it on Kildare for the pauperism of the west of Ire-
land. Now, Sir, there would be much justice in this ar-
gument if it could be said that Ireland altogether was
taxed to the same amount with England—that she
paid and contributed to the same degree in proportion
to her wealth to all the taxes to which the people of
Great Britain are subject.—(Loud cries of "Hear, hear.")
But it was put forward, and with great emphasis, by
the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Northamptonshire,
when we proposed a temporary grant, that 'there were
taxes to a very large amount payable in this country
which were not paid in Ireland at all ; the Hon. Gentle-
man said to the amount of 11,000,000/. I have here a
statement which makes it even more. It appears that
we pay in Great Britain, for income-tax, 5,300,000/. ;
for land-tax, 1,150,0002 ; for assessed taxes, 3,400,0001.;
making, in direct taxation alone, 9,850,0001. ; and for
duty on bricks, hops, post-horses, and soap, 2,300,0001.;
making, altogether, 12,150,000/. I think it is but just
to say, that if there is additional taxation in this coun-
try of upwards of 12,000,000/ it entirely answers the
case with regard to the local taxation which we propose
to levy for the benefit of the western districts of Ireland.
I find Hon. Gentlemen say, and very readily, at this mo-
ment, " Impose on us the same taxation that you
have in this country —impose upon Ireland
exactly the same taxes, and then take from
the Imperial Treasury aaything that may be required
for the distressed parts of that country." That
is readily said; but I think if we were to propose not
only an income-tax but assessed taxes in Ireland—(Hear,
hear)—if we said, instead of 300,0001. we would charge
Ireland with 1,000,000/. of taxation—if instead of 6d.,
something like ls. or ls. 6d. were asked, we should then
find that gentlemen would very much change their opi-
nions on this subject—(Hear)—and that, having made
that profession in order to get rid of theipresent proposal,
to which they have a great objection, they would then
object with twice as much fierceness and twice as much
obstinacy to the proposal I should then make.—(Hear.)
Even now, with regard to the income-tax alone, there is
7d. in the pound paid in this country; and let me ob-
serve with regard to this 6d. in the pound which I pro-
pose, the tenant occupier would be asked for 6d. addi-
tional poor-rate. He would take half of that from the
rent he paid to his landlord, but if he had income-tax to
pay, then we should demand from him 7d. in the pound,
and he would take the whole of that SAM from his
,landlord when he afterwardal',paici his rent. You
would have to collect 7d: in the pound from- all
persons who were tenants of those who had more than
150/. a year—(Hear, hear)—and those persons at least
would be subject to a reduction of 7d. in the pound from
their income, instead of 3d. as I now propose. With
regard to the measure itself, I certainly have no pecu-
liar fondness for this mode of rating Ireland rather than
any other, but I do believe if we were to withdraw this
proposition and substitute an ineome-tax, we should find,
in another shape, objections to charging Ireland for the
reliet of Ireland, and the same argument, that the Im-
perial Exchequer ought to be answerable, that we have
now to encounter. But the objection goes further than
this. It is said, and we were told last night that it was a
matter of feeling affecting even the loyalty of the loyal
province of Ulster.—(Hear, hear.) Ido not think that
those who represent that province can represent her
fairly when they assert that her loyalty would be im-
paired by such a proposition.—(Hear, bear.) I can
well understand if it were a ouestion of right, like
that which Hampden resi!ted, that 6d. or 3d. or Is.
might be as objectionable to them as if it were the largest
sum, and that they would be ready to stake their ex-
istenco against that sum.; but it is no question
of right. Everybody acknowledges the right of the Im-
perial Parliament to tax Ireland as well as England.
All that the Imperial Parliament has done has been to
tax Great Britain when she has not taxed Ireland, but
nobody has denied that it is competent for Parliament
to impose an income-tax or assessed taxes on Ireland at
any time when it should be thought necessary. Then,
nut being a matter of right, I must say I cannot believe
that the loyalty of Ulster is of such a nature that it
would be impaired by the imposition of a tax of this
kind for the relief of persons who were destitute and
suffering the extremity of hunger.—(Hear, hear.) I
believe their loyalty is founded on attachment to the
throne, to the institutions of this country; on the sym-
pathy with the religion of this country, and the memory
of the many dangers and of the many victories in which
they have been associated. I cannot think that a feel-
ing of this nature can be impaired because a rate of this
kind is imposed, and because they are asked to bear some
part of the burden which for years together Great
Britain has borne without complaint.—(Hear, hear.)
But I am told that this measure is likely to lead tc a
permanent charge upon the income of Ireland, and that
a perpetual rate in aid will be the cotiaequence of this
proposal.—(Hear, hear.) Let us look 'at what is the ac-
tual situation of that country. We hail) 20 unions now
either in or likely to be in a state of very great distress.
There is no reason that I know why the distress should
be one of continuance for many years more. My ex-
-13, station is that one of two things must infallibly happen
—either you will find that by the return of, good and
plentiful harvests there will be sufficient food and em-
ploy ment for the people in those distressed districts, and
that there will be such a change of culture, and such an
employment of capital in those districts, that the people
may be placed in a state of comparative comfort, and then
you are relieved from the burden in that manlier, or else
you will find that the people, seeing that they have no
prospect of the restoration
emigraterestorati otfothoatthfeoroddiusptroinctzhitcohotthheeyr
depended, will
partsNcf Ireland,
o)rthAmeritco Scotland,
anandAu tsotrEnaliagnlacnod—
lon(jeA laugh)—othto
the
United States of America. That is what you find they
have done to a great degree in the last three seasons.
It is not without example that great calamities have be-
fallen a people in consequence of the failure of either
tion was maintained in some of
their oacgcouapagtrieoant
poorptuhlaeir means of livelihood. Many
kelp the eTs
ht eartu
manufacture
eusr a
co
tfurSec
of certain chemical preparations, and that population
wotalasnddispblyactebmy manufacture
clictcuorveero;
could, in consequence,
,find no,,subsislence.,Their means '
I • '

of subsistence have not been restored, great miseries were
endured, but there could not be any longer that popula-
tion continuing in the Western Isles without employ-
ment, by which they obtained subsistence. So you find
in several towns in this country and on the conti-
nent, that various branches of manufacture have
subsisted and flourished for a time, that they have en-
tirely deserted the places in which they were established,
that great miseries have been endured for a while; but,
afterwards, you find those people migrating to other dis-
tricts, where other or the same employment was found
for them; and, finally, the calamities left no traces be-
hind them.—(Hear, hear.) So I believe with respect to
this calamity affecting some of the southern and western
districts of Ireland, that their livelihood having been
entirely estimated on the culture of the potato, and that
food having failed, unless that food comes back to them
—unless they find there is the same mode of sub-
sistence they have hitherto had, you will find afterwards
that other districts will have, not the burden of their
subsistence, but the benefit of their employment.—(Hear.)
hear.) I have now stated the reasans upon which I
ground the proposition I have to make, I believe, that it
you agree to that proposition, we shall then be entitled,
after the consent of the house has been obtained, if we
find it necessary, from accounts of the increasing desti-
tution, to ask some advance from tlis House before the
rate be immediately collected, by which we could supply
the more pressing wants of these people. At all events,
I think it is the duty of the Government to lay the case
before the House of Commons—(Hear, hear)—to ask
the House of Commons whether they are ready to con-
sent to the means by which we propose to meet this case
of misery and wretchedness—whether, if they do not
take our means they will consider what other means
ought to be adopted in preference—or whether, lastly,
it be the deliberate will and sentence of this House that
no attempt should be made to relieve the exigencies
of the distressed districts, of Ireland.—(Hear, hear.)
As I understood an Hon. Gentleman who spoke last
night, that last seemed to be the view he took of this
question.—(Hear, hear.) For my part, I own that
although you should limit your aid, and take care it
should be spent as frugally and as economically as pos-
sible, yet, considering that the whole social state of
Ireland is undergoing a great transition, and that you
may save some of the miseries and many of the deaths,
which are the consequence of that transition, by inter-
posing with relief of this kind, I confidently ask for your
assent to the resolution which I have proposed.
Mr. STAFFORD rose under great difficulty on that
occasion, but he had experienced still greater difficulty
on former occasions, when the policy he advocated eras
less understood than it was at present. The predictions
in which he had indulged in former years had been fully
realised, and if written in the present instead of the past
tense, might now be read as history. He was, there-
fore, prepared to advocate these views with the confi-
dence which past experience had given him. Feeling
thoroughly satisfied that an inculcation of the great
principle of self-dependance was the main requirement
for the people of Ireland, he had opposed the grants of
money to that country in various forms, - and among
others the proposal of his lamented friend, Lord George
Bentinck, for the encouragement of railway enterprise.
This circumstance entitled him to claim the attention
of the House while he showed that, in obedience to the
dictates of his own conscience, he was obliged to
vote against the motion for the Speaker leaving the
chair, and he would again feel it to be his duty to give
earnest opposition to the Bill of the Noble Lord in all
its stages whenever divisions took place. He
tben proceeded to detail the proceedings before the Se-
lect Committee of the House of Commons appointed to
inquire into the operation of the Irish poor-law, and
entered his protest against the course adopted by the
Noble Lord, in compelling the Committee to decide on
the rate in aid proposition which had been submitted to
them without any previous inquiry or deliberation.
Some gentlemen took up the cry that the property of
Ireland should support the poverty of Ireland without
understanding the meaning of the phrase ; he should
endeavour to analyse that cry with great deference, but
with great earnestness. Now he admitted that the pro-
perty of Ireland should support the poverty of Ireland,
but, then, it was the entire rateable property, and not
the landed property alone, that should be held respon •
sible. The Noble Lord, in instancing several cases of
local distress, said that unless this state of destitution
t
were stopped, the people would leave the country, and
he land would fall out of cultivation; but the Noble
Lord did not say how they were to emigrate. He
did not mention who was to provide the funds, nor
did he state that any portion of the rate in aid was
to be applied to that purpose. It should be stated dis-
tinctly by some Minister of the Crown what amount of
money they expected this rate to realise, what amount
of destitution they expected to be called on to relieve,
and what amount of destitution they believed to exist
in those localities. According to the return of the Poor..
law Commissioners, there were 21 unions in a state of
bankruptcy, which would require 593,000/. to pay off
their debts and to meet their expenditure ; 300,0001. was
the maximum sum which the advocates of the rate in aid
calculated that it would produce, and there would then
remain a sum of 220,000/. to be provided for, even sup-
posing that no further destitution existed. This was an
important and essential part of the question. The
objection be took to the plan of the Government was,
first of all, that it was unjust ; next, that it would
be difficult of execution ; and, thirdly, that if it were
not unjust or difficult of execution, still it would fail
of its proposed object. It was most desirable that
Ireland should not come any longer to that House
as a beggar. He was one of those who thought that
sufficient means could be raised in Ireland to support the
poverty of the country, and this might be rendered prac-
ticable if all the property were assessed for the relief of
the destitute. Let them not say that Ireland resisted
an income-tax. Ireland had not had an opportunity of
expressing herself upon that important question. As
Ministers of the Crown, and guardians of the general
interests of the kingdom, the Government should have
given them an alternative. But when they had deter-
mined that a rate in aid should be extended over the
whole of Ireland, it would have been fair to Ireland, and
more consistent with the feelings of the House, if they
had offered to the Irish people the alteraative of an
equal taxation. It would have been better in dealing
with this question if they had kept those two classes ot
taxation distinct from one another. At the same time,
also, that they withheld this alternative,' they did not
follow the bold and statesmanlike course of bringing the
subject forward as a Government measure, for the fair
and deliberate consideration of the Irish representa-
tives. The observation of the Hon. Gentleman be-
low the gangway, who said of the loyalty of Ulster
that it was a "sixpenny loyalty," had been regretted
by many Hon. Gentlemen, and the more so because it
was accompanied by an outburst of mirth which very ill
suited the gravity of the question; for he need not re •
mind the House that the question they were discussing
was of the very highest importance, not only to Ireland,
but to England. Having now spoken of the principle
upon which they intended to raise the funds for the
relief of the country, he approached the subject of their
application; bat before he quite dismissed the preceding
topic of discussion, he would express his opinion, that no
income-tax would be refused, the proceeds of which
were to be applied to the relief of the poor population
of the country.—(Hear.) It was now proposed to impose
a general tax, to be raised by local machinery, and to be
devoted for local purposes. Now, to that distinction be
attached the greatest importance, for there could be
no check to profuse expenditure,. and, even to use • a •
4;oninsott-,tihrase, to itbbing, which the system would
give rise to unless the strictest scrutiny was made as to
the manner in which the money was expended. To en-
sure the proper expenditure of the money, it ought to
be raised from the Imperial Treasury, for then every
Member of that House would have an interest in looking
after the mode in which it was expended, and in seeing
that no misapplication was made of it. he did not,
however, want one farthing to come from the Imperial
Treasury for the relief of Ireland, unless the taxation
in all parts of the kingdom was assimilated. The Noble
Lord had said that the reducing the area of taxation
would be the means of increasing the evils of Ireland ;
but while he did not wish to argue whether a diminution
in the area of taxation would be right or wrong, he did
say, and experience convinced him of the truth of the
assertion, that where the electoral divisions were ren-
dered coterminus with property, the Irish poor-law
worked well ; while, where the electoral divisions had
been enlarged, it had proved a complete failure. Com-
munication was now so rapid, and such publicity was
given to everything by means of the, public press, that
he would venture to say, that at this moment there was
not a district of Ireland, nor a landlord of that country,
but both as to the state of the one, and the character of
the other, Lord Clarendon was in possession of the most
ample details. That no doubt had its advantages,
and it had its disadvantagei, but he would put it to the
Secretary for Ireland, what it was that last autumn was
most universally asked for by those who he know to be
most deserving of consideration? Was it not that each
of those men, from their respective localities, pressed
upon the Government the necessity of reconsidering the
system of the poor-law, and particularly of diminishing
the area of taxation in Relived. They said, and said
justly, that the English poor-law, as applied to Ireland,
was a mere chimera. As applied to Ireland, two great
assistants which accompanied it in England had been
withheld in Ireland. Had it not been for the smallness
of the area of taxation in England, the poor-law would
not have worked there, and how could it do so in Ireland,
where that requisite was wanting? Then again in Eng-
land, the whole of the rate levied under the poor-law
fell on the occupier, but in Ireland for the most part
two-thirds, and in many cases all •the burden fell on
the landlords.
If, therefore, they _meant to call it
the English poor-last that they had given to Ire-
land, give them along with it the English area o
taxation. In England, that was about two thou-
sand acres, and did the Noble Lord at the head of
the Government, make it in Ireland in no case exceeding
3.000, nor under 1,000 acres; h©
gave him to understand
that such an arrangement would meet with the support
of a large party in Ireland. The question of unions was,
however, different from that of the electoral divisions,
although the boundary Commissioners had in a great
degree mixed up the two. Ile trusted that Government
would instruct the Poor-law Commissioners in no case to
separate unions, or erect new ones without the consent
of the poor-law guardians. Every new union was of
course attended with an additional staff of officers, and
if the poor-law guardians chose to raise the money to
defray the cost of them, let them do so; but he would
advise Government to lend them no funds for thai. pur-
pose. If they did so, instead of a sixpenny rate in aid
they would soon have a shilling one. In regard to the
valuation on which that rate in aid was to be taken, he
would advise Hon. Members to consider the evidence
given that day before the Poor-law Committee by Mr.
Griffin. He would not dilate upon it, as it would soon
be in the hands of the Members; but be would say that
nothing could more effectually show the impolicy, and
even impracticability of that
rate, than did the evidence
of that gentleman. He had therefore suggested to the
Government some improvements which might be made,
such as the equalisation of taxation, and a diminution
of
the area of taxation, together with some other matters
A ,

axeb tmei

T 4A

of detail; but he was not disposed to bring forward any
general plan himself. He must, however, say, that if
ever a Government had a plea to call for a plan on such
a subject as the present, it was the present Government.
He did not charge them as being actuated by a bad or
good principle, but he charged them with being actuated
by no principle at all. He did not believe that in re-
ference to this importaut subject of the Irish poor-law
they had a single arrangement made or a single remedy
concocted previous to the meeting of Parliament, for there
was disagreement in the Cabinet on the subject, and
therefore, no arrangement could be made, and no
plan or remedy fixed upon; and while, therefore, it
was not the duty of Hon. Members to suggest plans to
the Government, if there ever was a case where a viola-
tion of that rule could be justified it was the present,
for they had a Government wholly devoid of resources
in itself; and totally unfit to meet and combat the diffi-
culties which surrounded it.
Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL said he was glad that the
Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was not autho-
rised to speak for Ireland, as it would look somewhat
strange, that after coming to Parliament for grants in
aid for some time past, they should now come forward
and find fault with the Government far not placing theca
on an equality, so far as taxation was concerned, with
other parts of the kingdom. The Hon. Member had in
no respect met the argument of the Noble Lord, as to the
impropriety of reducing the size of the electoral divisions.
The Noble Lord had said, were such done, landlords
would in a few years free themselves from the pay-
ment of rates altogether, by banishing the pier
from their properties ; and there was no doubt but
that such would be the result. On the whole, however,
there was little of encouragement in the Noble Lord's
apes ch. There was no hope given that those compre-
hensive measures which Government had in contempla-
Ltioonrdwhosadldgibreencaarrmieodstomut.eianOcbnotihyeprcoosnptercatryo,f
tthheefNutoubrele,
for he had said, that unless by some chance the potatoe
should be restored, or the peasant obtain a substitute for
it, in the shape of better food, or that the population of
Ireland should be swept away by emigration, there was
but a faint prospect of the country being restored to
would again revive. The extermination system would
ledßutot theiet prt he
se emn t sdtoa tea ofw a tyh i nwgi st h,
andthe ler
ea lhasneral
pwrhoisephe rhi
at yd.
never restore it—it had been tried over and over again,
and failed. As to the expedient proposed, he did not
approve of it, but he did not wish to commit himself in
decided opposition to it, until he heard from the other
side of the House what proposition they had
to make on the subject. As yet, he had
not heard of any such proposition, and he
could not help thinking that it came with a
bad grace from the other side of the House to find fault
with Government in regard to their Irish policy, for
those on that side had always been the bitterest foes of
that country. He did not think it was creditable to that
House, that when one portion of the empire was in a
state of starvation any difficulty should be thrown in
the way of affording them necessary relief, even if the
money should never be repaid. He thought that when
England had exhausted the resources of Ireland she was
called upon by every sense of justice to provide all that
was required out of English resources, lie could not
forget how unwillingly the paltry grant of 50,000/ had
been conceded; and he thought it was not creditable to
the House that such a course of conduct should have
bean exhibited as they bad all witnessed with reference
to the grant ihe had alluded to. The Honourable and
Learned Member contended, that under the Act of
of Union, Ireland was fairly entitled to an exemption
from taxation to a larger amount than she at present
enjoyed. The popular party had again and again
said, give back that Parliament which was taken
away from Ireland by the most foul, nefarious, and
iniquitous means—give Ireland the management of her
own affairs, and she would ask for no grants of money
from England, and would no longer be appearing as a
mendicant in that House. The experiment was by no
means new of endeavouring to raise taxation in Ireland
up to the level of the English; but the previous attempt
had been a failure, and the experiment was therefore
given up. He thought that rates in aid would destroy
the poor. rate payer, but the condition of these people
had not been' aken into account, and by breaking down
the poor-rate payer they would be increasing the ranks
of the paupers. He thought they would hear something
about the income-tax from observations that had been
made by some Hon. Members. Now, he altogether ob-
jected to the laying on of an income-tax in Ireland. He
believed it would be most disastrous to the country
should it be attempted, for they had no such thing as a
middle class in Ireland, and the distress was so preva-
lent, that the laying on of an income-tax would com-
plete the ruin of the country. To increase the taxation
of Ireland would be a violation of the Act of Union,
and he was ready to prove it by chapter and verse.
The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth
(Sir R. Peel); when he was proposing the income-tax for
England, in 1842, said that the fiscal ability of Ireland,
as compared to Ireland, was as one to nine. If that was
the case, her taxation should be in that proportion; but
on the contrary, she was taxed in the proportion of one
to four. It would bo absurd, therefore, to impose an
income-tax, for it could not be made a source of revenue.
He was ready to admit that the people of Ulster were
deserving of great credit for their industry, and that im-
posing a rate in aid upon the population would be a great
hardship; yet it must be admitted that the people of
Ulster had enjoyed exclusive advantages—the tenant right
for instance—and therefore such a rate would fall with
far greater severity upon the poor farmer in Leinater.
The lion. and Learned Member then referred to the
state of the Irish Church Establishment, and expressed
it as his opinion that Government, without in the slight-
est degree trenching upon vested rights, might obtain
from that source not less than 200,0001. for the relief of
the suffering poor. He next passed in review the evils
of absenteeism, and said that a tax might be levied upon
absentees, which would produce about 300,0004, and that
sum, with the 200,000/. he had referred to, would make
up the 500,0001. which were now required. Let them
not, therefore, he would say, put Ireland under the
operation of a new and ruinous tax. lie had studied
the working of the poor-law in England, and ho was
bound to say that in his opinion it was most unjust
in principle, and did not work well. Poor-
laws would crush Ireland, and were crushing
her, and they were now suffering for the hasty manner
in which they had imposed poor-laws in Ireland. The
Hon. and Learned Member then called the attention of
the House to the address of the Catholic suffragan
bishops at Tuam, in January last, in which the evils of
the Irish poor law were pointed out, and the great and
extensive distress that prevailed under their operation.
He considered that the only measure tor the benefit of
Ireland would be a good lanlord and tenant Bill, and he
felt assured that the House would agree with him in
that opinion if they would only refer to the province of
Ulster, where that system obtains to a considerable de-
gree; but to poor-laws he was strongly opposed, as being
vicious in principle and ruinous in effect; and such was
the general policy of the British Ministers, for most of
their measures were nothing more than patchwork.
Lord BERNARD said that the Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
J. O'Connell) had asserted that there was no proposi-
tion offered by any Hon. Member on his (Lord Bernard's)
side of the House, but such was not the case. A cele-
brated orator some 300 years ago, answered, when asked
what was to be done, " Do anything, but do not support
the present question." Such ho considered to be the
principle of the Irish Members. He considered that if
the arguments brought,forwird far an income-tax were
just and equitable, let the 6overnment act on those ar-
guments, but let not such a measure as the rate in aid
now proposed be allowed by the House, as such must
certainly ruin that country, and he should add that one
of the principal reasons fur not bringing on an income
tax in Ireland was that most of the income of that coun-
try was subject to that tax in this country, where it was
spent by landed proprietors residing in England. If the
House would look to the condition of Ireland, they
would find that there was at present the sum of
3,700,000/. chargeable on the rental of that country,
amounting to only 13,000,000/. annually. He (Lord
Bernard) would ask how could that rate in aid be
collected?—(Hear.) Was it by valuation? No, for
in every union. of Ireland there is a different ratio of
valuation. He would refer to the Union of Middleton,
in the county of Cork, which required the commissioners
to allow the collection of the tax to be suspended until
after the harvest, as the people of that union would be
either driven from their houses to the union workhouse,
or to a foreign country, for they were incapable and un-
able to pay the demand of the tax-gatherer. When the
Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) alluded to the number of
grants given to Ireland, which he with gratitude ac-
knowledged, he (Lord J. Russell) should recollect that
1,000,000/. of that sum was given by the Right. Hone
Baronet (Sir R. Peel), in compensation for the losses
sustained by the corn-laws. On the whole, he believed,
that this present measure would be the very instrument
of arousing the indignation of the most loyal people of
the country, the inhabitants of Ulster, and hoped that
the Noble Lord would turn his attention to developing
the resources of that country by railways, and other such
remedial measures. He hoped, that as Ireland had
shared with Englind her naval and military glory, so she
would also be allowed to share her commercial glory,
and enjoy happiness and tranquillity, unalloyed by sec-
tarian or party feuds.
Mr. FAGAN said that the distinction he (Lord Ber-
nard) had drawn between the loyal men of Ulster, as he
designated them, and the rest of Ireland, as a different
class, would tend more to injury and opposition among
those classes than any measure brought on by Govern-
ment, even the present, bad as it was. He would next
refer to the Hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. J. O'Con-
nell). I ask him how would Ireland have survived for
the last two years bat for her poor-law ? And he would
apply the same argument to England against the lion.
Gentleman, because to those poor-laws was to be attri-
buted the support of the weavers, and other operatives,
whose trade was for some time suffering, who would
have literally starved but for that Bernier resort of
clemency and humanity—the poor-laws. lie concurred
fully with the Hon. Member for Rochdale in this, that
as they were bound politically with England, it was the
duty of the people of England to aid the people of Ireland
until the calamity which oppressed them should have
passed away. England was, in fact, more interested in
the prosperity of Ireland than Ireland was herself—
manufacturing Manchester was more interested in the
prosperity of work than Dublin was. Taking that view
of the case, he would say further, that Ireland wasrather
the creditor than the debtor of England. Ireland had
been compelled to contribute towards the united exche-
quers of the two kingdoms more than her quota, be-
cause the national debt of Great Britain bad increased
so rapidly between the time of the Union and that of the
union of the two exchequers. When he saw so many.
manifestations of the unwillingness of the English people
to contribute any further sums to the maintenance of
destitution in Ireland, it was impossible for him to turn
his back on his perishing countrymen, and he would im-
press it upon the earnest consideration of the House
that they should provide some ready means of
alleviating it. Ho was in favour of this na-
tional rate in aid, but he thought that it was
Wanting in some material details before it could be

rendered a perfect measure. He objected to the income.:
tax on account of its inquisitorial nature—but otherwise
he should prefer it to the Government plan. To meet
the difficulty he would recommend that the poorer
holders might be exempted from the tax, and that it
might be imposed exclusively on the richer ones. The
Government would find it absolutely necessary, sooner
or later, to render the operation of the Irish poor-law
as perfect as possible, and the sooner they applied them-
selves to that task, whether in this way or in some other,
the better it would be for the interests of the community
at large. It was impossible to carry out the system of
the Hon. Member for Northamptonshire, and his Hon.
Friends who agreed in his opinions, without establish-
ing the settlement system, which would infallibly prove
the destruction of the Irish poor-law. Though he was
opposed to the area-of-taxation scheme, he very much
approved of an alteration of the poor-law that would
develop the industrial resources of the country. Some
system of that kind must be devised, to afford the Irish
landlords the encouragement which they stood in need
of. For those reasons, and under the peculiar difficulties
of the case, he would support the proposition for a na-
tional rate in aid.
Mr. BANKES said that the Noble Lord at the head
of the Government had placed the House in a situation
of considerable embarrassment. The Irish representa-
tives said the whole scheme was an illusion, some of
them saying that they could not pay it, others that they
would not. In this perplexity they found themselves
pledged by the Noble Lord to an advance of money,
for the security of which they were to stand their
chance, and which, if the Noble Lord had explained it
to the House in the first instance, would certainly hav
proved a considerable impediment in the way of his ob-
taining his Committee. The Noble Lord's invitation
tacitly was to " make common cause with them, and they
would put things right;" in fact, " pillage was the way
to banish pauperism." He understood that the advance
of 10,000/. was to be applied to the emergency of
this particular time when they were discussing the ques-
tion; if that sum were not large enough, why had
they not asked for more? Above all, why bad they not
called Parliament together at a much earlier period,
when they had warning of the impending distress?—
(Hear, hear.) Last year he thought it his duty to pro-
pose a measure of relief for Ireland. Had it been carried
Ireland would now be bound in fiscal as well as in poll
tical union with England. He knew the difficulty of the
Noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown. The
Noble Lord had carried a coercion Bill, and he had
carried the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act; but it
remained to him to carry a pue,lerty-tax Bill to Ireland
before he fulfilled the measure of his destiny. He should
oppose the proposition for a rate in aid for these rea-
sons, his opinion at present leaning in favour of a pro-
perty. tax; but he should reserve himself until he could
ascertain whether the Opposition had not a better
measure to propose than that of the Government.
He felt that the people of England ought not to be
called upon to come forward in this manner, unless
upon better guarantees of security than were yet given
to them, and without which he believed the scheme of
her Majesty's Government would become altogether a
failure.—(Hear.)
Mr. MONSELL said that the Hon. Gentleman who
had just sat down had, by means of very opposite rea-
sons to those which he (Mr. Monsell) would take the
liberty of addressing to toe House, arrived at a conclu-
sion not altogether different from his. It was possible
that, on the part of many Hon. Gentlemen who would
address the House on this question, there would be
strong objections expressed to the imposition of addi-
tional taxation on Ireland ; but there was not the least
doubt, that with respect to a large portion of Ireland,
money must be found to support the people.—(Hear,
hear.) He believed that there was as little doubt
that that House would not consent to any grant out of
the Imperial resources for the relief of that country
unless there was some additional contribution made to
the Imperial Treasury by Irelana.—(Hear, hear.) He
thought it better, therefore, in these circumstances, to
moot the case fairly as it existed, without going into
theoretical arguments, or making calculations as to how
the balance stood between England and Ireland.—(Hear,
hear.) He trusted, however, that Hon. Gentlemen
would pause before they consented to the proposition
which had been submitted to them by the Government;
for he thought he should be able to show that it was
most unjust. In the first place he believed, from the
papers which had been laid before the House, that the
sum proposed by Government for the aid of the dis-
tressed anions would be found utterly insufficient. It was
hopeless to think of relieving those unions by mere grants
of money. In the evidence taken before the Committee,
Mr. Power, as assistant Commissioner, distinctly stated
that it was idle to imagine that the destitution of the
western counties could be supported without extraneous
resources. But it had been argued that Ireland was
sot entitled to relief from the Imperial Treasury be-
cause she did not pay an income-tax, which was an
admission that, if she had the tax, Down should no
more pay the rate in aid than Middlesex. Who paid
the income-tax in England ? Certainly not the small
farmers. The whole of the argument resolved itself
into this, that the Irish small farmer should pay a tax
which was not levied off the small farmer in England.
The next argument for the rate was the necessity of the
case. It was, however, scarcely to be supposed that the
House would sanction the principle " Rem, si possis,
recto ; si non, quocumque modo rem." Much stress had
been laid on this point of unequal taxation. If the as-
sessed taxes were imposed on Ireland, the cost of collec-
tion would be more than they were worth, and any rise
in the spirit duties would be impolitic, as such a course
had been invariably found to produce illicit distillation.
Similar objections existed with respect to the soap
duties. What source of revenue remained ? As an
Irishman representing an Irish constituency, he wished
at once to state that he would be content to accept an
income-tax.—(Hear, hear.) If he consented to the
tax, therefore, he should not be considered unjust if he
demanded that the proceeds should be applied exclu-
sively to Irish purposes.—(Hear, hear.) The proposition
would have the great advantage of enabling Govern-
ment to adopt some other means besides those which
had been hitherto attended with such bad success. They
could not say that they had been left without advice or
without example of what might be done by energy in a
right course. One of the Noble Lord's colleagues
(Viscount Palmerston) had a property in a western
county, which was worse off at the commencement of
the famine even than Clifden ; but the Noble Lord bad
applied all his energy and ability to raise the condition
of the people by the natural and judicious course of
enabling them to go to another country, where those
poor creatures were now doing well, and whence they
were sending home money to their friends.—(Hear,
hear.) Another of the Noble Lord's colleagues (Lord
Carlisle) had acted in a similar way with a like success.
There was a portion of Crown property in Ireland which
had not paid rent for eleven years, which was a nest
of robbers and marauders, and the plague of the county;
but the Noble Lord, by assisting the people to emigrate,
had altogether renovated and restored it.—(Hear, hear.)
If the Government had but listened to the advice of the
Irish Members on this subject, they would not have been
placed in their present position. Even yet he hoped the
Noble Lord would pause before he forced that measure
upon them. He little knew the feelings it would excite
—the alienation and discontent it would create, and, ad-
dressing the Noble Lord in words with which he was
not unfamiliar, he (Mr. Monsell) might say,
Turno tempers, eritemagno cum optaverit emptum
t 'lntactum Pitillantasr •
When every union in Ireland was administered by
vice-guardians, and when every bench was filled by sti-
pendiary magistrates, the Noble Lord would be sorry he
had not listened to the recommendations of those who
asked him to withdraw a proposition which hal received
so little favour in the country to which it was to be ap-
plied.—(Hear, hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
question which was put by some Hon. Gentleman on the
proposed plan was, how was this money to be raised in
Ireland? That the necessity for aid was great the Hon.
Gentleman admitted. It was but a sixpenny rate, he
would answer, taken upon the poor-law valuation of the
land, and without it, he believed starvation in the suffer-
ing districts must be the consequence.---(Hear, hear.)
Some Hon. Gentlemen who were opposed to the propo-
sition now before the House, seemed to forget that the
food of the people in the suffering districts had almost
totally failed. One thing was certain, that if relief was
not given, the consequences would be most deplorable.
The Hon. Member for Dorchester (Mr. Bankes) had
complained that Government had not at the meeting
of Parliament made some statement to the House of
the necessities of the people of Ireland; but the
House would recollect that ho (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) had, within four days after the meeting
of Parliament, made a statement to the House
on the subject For the last three or four months a na-
tional rate was suggested as the best that could be pro-
posed, and Hon. Gentlemen advocated a national rate in
aid of emigration. Now, if that was so, how could they
rationally object to the proposed rate in aid ? With
respect to the encouragement of emigration, he could as •
sure the House that it formed a part of the plan of her
Majesty's Government; and on this subject he would
say that that sort of emigration, which was carried on
with foreign assistance, was the most healthy system of
emigration, and from no country did it meet with more
encouragement than from Ireland. He hold in hand a
statement of the number of emigrants who had pro-
ceeded from the United Kingdom in the months of
January for the last three years, which would show
the House how emigration was going on, namely,
in January, 1847, 4,700 ; in January, 1848, 4,560 ;
and in January of the present year, 10,140. This
emigration, let him say, took place with foreign
assistance, those who went before assisting those who
remained to fello a them to America, or elsewhere, when
they were prepared to receive and further assist them
on their arrival.—(Hear.) He might state that in aid
of this description of emigration a sum of 46,0001. had
been received in the course of last year, from those who
had previously emigrated, and that being so, it was but
little necessary to give any great stimulus to emigration
from Ireland. He would repeat that, connected though
he was with the Government, he for one would not pro-
pose a national rate it he believed it would be of a perma-
nent nature. The whole machinery for the collection
was in operation, and it was but a 6d. rate. It would,
ho assured the House, be collected without the appoint-
ment of one additional person, or without adding
one farthing's expense to the present system of collection.
Mr. OSBORNE moved that the Chairman report pro-
gress, and ask leave to sit again.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he should net object to
the motion of the Hon. Member. The debate would,
therefore, stand adjourned till Monday. He hoped on
that day to he able to make such an arrangement as
would enable the House to proceed with the second read-
ing of the navigation-laws on Tuesday.
The CHAIRMAN then reported progp,ss, mai ob-
tained leave to sit again on Monday next.
The Out-door Paupers Bill was read a third time and
passed.
The second reading of the Qualification and Registra-
tion of Voters (Ireland) Bill, and the Election and Poll-

ing Plac(l_,(lrean3
the 16th in. t. -

Bill_ was pos_t_poned until Friday,

PETTY SESSIONS BILL. e t"
The House then went iutu Committee on the Petty
Session 3 Bill.

Sir J. DUCKWORTH took occasion to allude to a
clause of which the Hon. and Gallant Member for
Brighton had given notice, the object of which was to
prevent petty sessions being held at public-houses. He
hoped the Hon. and Gallant Member would not perse-
vere in his motion, as it might be desirable, under parti-
cular circumstances, to hold a petty session in a public•
house. At the same time he thought the county rate
ought nut to be made chargeable for holding these petty
sessions in public houses.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that by the Bill
he left it entirely in the discretion of the magistrates to
hold the petty sessions where they pleased.
Mr. HENLEY thought the Bill was better as it was,
and hoped the proposed clause would not be added to it.
The quarter sessions would take care to prevent petty
sessiuni being held in public-houses.
Captain PECHELL said he was glad he had been
enabled to elicit the feeling of the House against the
practice of holding petty sessions at public-houses. Out
of thirty-two petty sessions, twenty-three had been
held in public-houses. He concluded that this ought
not to be the case, and that a remedy ought to be
applied.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL declined to engraft
the lion. and Gallant Member's clause on the Bill.
After a few words from Mr. PACKE,
Capt. PECHELL then brought up the clause of which
he had given nwice, which was as follows :—And be it
en cted, that after the passing of this Act, it shall not be
lawful for any justices of the peace in England to hold
any petty or special sessions of the peace in any house
licensed for the sale of exciseable liquors, or, after a
session-house shall have been provided under the powers
hereinbefore contained, elsewhere than in such session-
house, except in cases of urgent necessity, the cause of
which shall be noted in the minutes of proceedings. In
Ire'and it was illegal to hold a petty sessions in a public-
house, and why should it not be prevented in this
country ?
Sir ROBERT PRICE hoped the clause would be
withdrawn. The matter might safely be left in the hands
ot the magistracy.
Sir William Jolliffe, the Attorney-General, Mr.
Deedes, Mr. Hodges, and Mr. Packe, also urged the Hon.
and Gallant Member not to press the clause.
Captain PECHELL said, that under the circumstances
he would not persevere, and consented to withdraw his
clause.

It was withdrawn accordingly, and the Bill passed
threui.,h Committee.

The Distruining for Rates Bill also passed through 'EY
Committee.
The House then adjourned at a Quarter to One o'clock Flu

LAW IN TELLIG'ENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, March 2. -

•
IN RE YALDON.
The LORD CHANCELLOR having granted the prayer
of a petition in case this for the issuing of a commission
of lunacy,

Mr. J. PARKER made an application that permission
should be given to a gentleman to attend the examination
under the commission. The Learned Counsel said that
the party in question was not a relative, but he had an -
interest in a will which had been made by Mr. Yaldon,
and he was desirous, therefore, of the fact being esta-
blished that Mr. Yaldon was of unsound mind at the
time of making the will.

His LORDSIrIP said such an application could not be
granted, as no party could have an interest in a will till
after the death of the testator.

IN RE DYCE 111011BRE.
The further hearing of the argument in this came was
the❑ proceeded with.
Mr. Shadwell haring followed on the same side with
Mr. Rolt and Mr. R. Palmer,
Mr. BETHEL proceeded to argue against the prayer of
the petition for superseding the commission ; and not
having concluded at the rising of the Court, the further
hearing was adjourned till to- nacrrow (this day).

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT:
POSTPONEMENT OP THE TRIAL Or MR. DEOLJET.--•
Mr. BALLANTINE applied to the Court to postpone the
trial of Birtholmew Peter Drouet to the next session.
He c.id that the defendant was charged upon the
Coroner's inquisition with the offence of manslaughter,
and he believed that the Grand Jury had also returned
true bills against him for the same offence. He held in
his hand the affidavit of a professional gentleman, a
member of the College of Surgeons, which stated that
Mr. Drouet was suffering from inflammation of the heart
and lungs, and although be was partially recovering, he
was still in a most precarious state of health, and quite
unfit to take his trial. Upon this ground he applied for
the postponement.
Mr. CLARICsoN said he appeared for the parish of St.
Andrew, Holborn, to prosecute in one case only.
There was no desire to put the defendant to any un-
necessary inconvenience, and the only object of the
prosecutors was that the case should be properly
investigated, and to secure the attendance of
the defendant for that purpose. An application
had been made, he believed, to the Court of Queen's
Bench, to remove the record to that Court, and the ap-
plication would probably be decided upon next Monday.
The defendant, in the meantime, he believed, was only
under a recognizance to the amount of 2001., and the
only question was whether the Court would consider
that the amount of recognizance ought not to be in-
creased

The CHIEF BARON said he supposed there was no
doubt that the condition of the defendant was truly re-
presented.
Mr. CLARKSON said there was not the least doubt that
Mr. Drouet was in such a state as to render him quite
unfit to take his trial, either there or in any other Court,
at this time.

The CHIEF BARON said that this being the case, the
only thing to be done was to grant the application, and
he did not think he ought to make any alterat,c)a in the
amount of the recognizances.
Mr. CLARKSON said he was perfectly satisfied with the
decision of his Lordship. His clients were only anxioUS
that it should not be thought elsewhere that they had
neglected their duty.
The CHIEF BARON said there was no suggestion of
that kind. It was quite clear that under the circum-
stances the trial mint be postponed.