The Sun.
London, England, 1849-04-04 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 3.
POOR•LAW (IRELAND)—RATE IN AID BILL.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL then resumed the adjourned
debate on the second reading of this Bill. He deprecated
the taunts that had been thrown out by Hon. Members
of that House against Irish Members and the people of
the south and western parts of Ireland. If such taunts
were continued upon such a question as the 63. Rate in
Aid Bill, Irish Members and the people of the south
and , west parts of Ireland would feel inclined
to test their loyalty with those who de-
scended so low as to throw out such unneces-
sary insinuations. He agreed with the Honourable
Gentlemen the Member for the University of
Dublin in finding fault with this Rate in Aid Bill;
he had heard nothing on this second portion
of the debate that had removed his objection to the
measure, neither had ho heard anything as a
substitution for it. He was aware that this was an en-
deavour to induce the landlords to contribute out of
their funds to assuage the general distress of
the country, and he believed that the endeavour
arose out of a supposition that the landlords
did not do their duty to their country. There might be
some justice in this, yet he did not mean to say that the
landlords in Ireland had not generally done their duty.
should be careful of any such expression,
but as a body there seemed to be some grounds for the
allegations against them. Yet, though allowing this,
he would not assert there were no exceptions to the
general rule. He did not mean to say that there
were no good landlords in Ireland ; he know
that there were many that were excellent—
as ready to promote the welfare of their tenants
as to further the promotion of their own in-
terests. The majority of them were desirous, he
verily believed, to discharge their duties, but a
sixpenny rate in._ aid would be but a small
contribution to the necessities of the whole country; and
he only regretted that the poor-law for Ireland had been
advocated by the leading men in the House of Commons.
The Noble Lord at the head of the Government had pro-
pounded one plan, the Right Hon. Bart. the Member
for Tamworth another, and a third scheme was
advocated by the non. Member for Buckingham-
shire—all men justly renowned for the amount of their
influence, the extent of their attainments, and
the power of their abilities—justly renowned,
for they had fairly earned all the celebrity which they
enjoyed by the exertions which they had made for the
general benefit of the country—exertions, he believed,
honestly and justly made and as justly rewarded.
—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") He would not say
much more; but when the Noble Lord at the bead of the
Government stated that it was but justice that Ireland
should bear an equal amount of taxation with this country,
he conceived that the carrying out of such a
principle would be a direct violation of the Act of Union.
He believed that that Act ought to be inviolably
observed—(Hear)—tor if Ireland was to be deprived
of her inherent rights without an Act to repeal the
union—which he most fervently desired—without an
Act of repeal she ought not to be deprived of the few,
and ho might say, insignificant advantages which had
accrued to the connexion. He also regretted that the
Right Honourable Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) bad in-
dulged in the general phrases that Ireland should use
renter efforts ; for he knew of
,no country that exerted
itself for the support of her prior more than Ireland ;
but he should make allowances for the prejudices against
that country, to which the first statesmen have been at
all times obliged to bow. Here the Honourable Gentle-
man entered into a lengthened comparison between Ire-
land on one side, and England and Scotland on the other.
The rate in aid coming on the back of other oppressive
taxes, would be sure to break down the rate-payers. If
there were Honourable Members anxious to apply the
produce of an income-tax to the relief of the poor,
here was an admirable opportunity for them to distin-
guish themselves by showing their attachment to that
principle. At a time when other statesmen were
looking about for holes and corners to hide themselves
in, he thought it most creditable to the Right Honour-
able Baronet the Member for Tamworth, that he should
have come forward and staked his reputation on a plan,
which was certainly goorl, though almost revolutionary
in its character. Money was the great difficulty, but
that was a difficulty for the Right Hon. Gentleman to
settle with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There
was one point, however, on which he should be glad to
have more definite information. He wished to know
what provision was to be made in this plan against ab-
senteeism. In the plantation of James the First there
was a provision against absenteeism. Supposing this
settlement to be carried into effect without looking to
this point with re. view to its being satisfactorily legis-
lated upon, and without making some provision for faci-
litating the granting of leases, they would find the old
system revive in its full strength, which they were so
anxious to amend. He thought that an excellent scheme
might be framed from the various projects which had
been stated to the House in the course of this debate,
and that the House would do well to endeavour to in-
troduce into the Bill the principal recommendations
they contained.

Mr. CECIL LAWLESS said, he could not conceive
how the Government could call upon the House to carry
their measure, when he knew that public opinion was
against it. Gentlemen whom' they had sent into Ireland
to procure information on the subject were unanimous
in condemning it. The people of England were now
quite accustomed to bear of the horrors of Irish famines,
Irish destitution, and Irish atrocities, and in a little time
they would become quite inf,iifferent to their impres-
sions. That, indeed, was the case already to a very great
extent. In the midst of all her difficulties, wants, and
despair, the Noble Lord at the head of the Government
sat with his arms folded, apparently an unconcerned
listener to the tales of misery WI ich were constantly
being related there. Why, even Nero took more trouble,
for he was said to have fiddled whilst Rome was burn-
ing.—(Great laughter.) Ile (Mr. Lawless) did not in
any degree approve of the measure, and should certainly
vote against it; and he trusted most earnestly that before
long he might see the days of the present wretched and
incompetent Government brought to a close.
Lord CLAUDE HAMILTON said that although he
did not object to the proposed amount of relief, yet :the
measure involved a principle of raising the necessary
means which lie could not approve of. If the rate were
to be proposed at all, let it be proposed with equal pres-
sure on all kinds of Irish property, and not exclusively
on the agricultural community, which their recent legit-

letion hai already breught to the verge sr rein. Merle
Hon. Members representing Irish constituencies said
that they wished to make Uheer a part of Ireland, be
cause they would then expect to see the rest of Ire-
land standing in the superior position e h:ch the pro-
vince of Ulster now occupied. Those [lon. Gentlemen,
however, seemed to forget that if Ulster were in a su-
perior position it was owing only to the superior industry
and self-reliance of its population; and he (Lord Claude
Hamilton) very much feared that if Ulster was to be
made a portion of Ireland, in the sense of the phrase
which was contended by these Hon. Members, and if
that was to be done by the operation of this Bill,
that instead of raising Munster and Connaught to the
prosperous level of Ulster, they would sink Ulster to
the level of misery of Munster and Connaught.—(Hear,
hear.) When the Hon. Gentleman spoke of the money
expended upon the casual Irish poor, coming to this
country, to seek employment, thee passed by altogether
the large Irish fortunes which are spent in England—it
the Hon. Gentleman moved for a return, to enable hint
to strike a balance between the two accounts, he would
find a balance of millions in favour of Ireland; if they
rejected the poor man, they ought to take some account
of the rich men who spent their fortune s in this country.
While they maintained the union such arguments were
altogether out of place. If they thought the union was
a bad bargain, they ought to say so, and if they thought
proper get rid of it. They should also recollect that Ire-
land did not throw herself into the arms of England, but
that the union was brought about by the influence of
England—some said by extensive bribery.—(Hear.)These
observations taunting the ingress of the Irish peior
to look fur labour, were inconsistent and illiberal, while
nothing was said of the expenditure of the rich Irish
landed proprietors, who resided in this country. With
regard to the rate in aid, he could not understand its
justice; but even if it was correct in principle, he had an
objection to it, on the ground of it's inadequacy to meet
the evil, and also that it could not be limited to the pe-
riod proposed for its termination—two years. What he
sought tor Ireland was, calm consideration and justice.
It should be recollected that Ireland had paid all the
burdens which this country had thought it just to im-
pose upon her, but they ought not, at a time of unpre-
cedented pressure and distress, impose additional
burdens, which the country was unable to bear. They
should also take into consideration that the poor-law
valuation was unequal, and therefore a national rate must
be partial and unjust. That this was the case wets
proved by the evidence of Mr. Griffith, who was exa-
mined before the Poor-law Committee, and who was
well acquainted with the condition of Ireland, and upon
that ground the proposed rate would be unjust. Tke
poet had said—
" Hope springs eternal in the human breast,
Man never is, but always to be blest."
Now, he might ask, when were they to have these reme-
dial measures which had been so often promised? They
had once heard there were to be no more coercive mea-
sures, and that a policy would henceforth be practised
which would compensate for past neglect, and which
would raise Ireland to her proper position, and lay the
foundation of lasting prosperity.—(Hear, hear.) Was
the present a measure such as they had a right to ex-
pect after all those brilliant promises? Was it right to
tax one part of Ireland for the support of another, for
that would be the effect of the proposition? Until they
had laid down such a principle in England—until they
had shown in practice that distress in Sutherland was
to be relieved by a tax laid upon Yorkshire, they had
made out no case, and had not established a prin-
ciple upon which they could in fairness act, as they
were attempting to do. There was another thing also
in the case which had never been heard of in England,
namely, that the money raised by this tax was to be
placed under Government control. He contended that
nothing could be more unjust and unfair. He would
now call attention to the Act of the Legislative
Union, according to which it was provided that all
taxes levied in Ireland for special purposes, should be
paid into the Exchequer. He wanted to know why
4. new principle should now be attempted to
be established. He wished also to impress upon
the House, that a great mistake prevailed as to
the great ability of the north of Ireland to bear taxa-
tion, as compared to the south and west. The difference
lay not in the soil or climate, but in the industry and
habits of the peopl The Noble Lord then referred to
the difference in population and valuation in two coun-
ties, namely, Donegal and Clare, and stated that while
in the former there were eight unions, in all of which
the poor-law had been efficiently carried out, he found
that in Clare, with four unions, three were placed under
vice-guardians, and a debt had already been incurred of
28,000/. Now, he would ask the House, what would be
the feelings of the people in the district of Donegal if,
atter all their exertions and their dependence on their
own resources, they found their reward to be the pay-
ment of a tax of 6,0001. for the benefit of those dis-
tricts of the country placed in a different position?—
(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord then referred to the lan-
guage which had been used by Lord Clarendon to depu-
tations on differentoccasions, and contended that the Irish
people had no right to expect that a measure such as
the present would hare been proposed by her Majesty's
Government. It was not the amount of the rate he cora-
' plained of, but the principle of taking money for one
purpose and applying it to another. He feared that the
consequence of laying on the present rate would be, that
a difficulty would be found in collecting the ordinary
rate, if, as had been proposed, one fund should be mixed
with the other.—(Hear, hear.) He deprecated the
measure as being impolitic and unjust, and would, there-
fore, vote against it.
Mr. BRO WN said it had been argued by some Honour-
able Members, that the sum which it was proposed to
raise by the rate ir;aid should be borne by this country
as well as by Ireland. Now he complained of the con-
duct of some of the landlords of Ireland, who, by their
evictions, had sent numbers of poor people into England,
which necessarily made an extra pressure on the poor•
rates of England. He did not see why Ireland
should not pay a property tax as well as Eng-
land did. If Ireland paid such a tax, then
there might be a claim such as that which Ireland was
now making. He should like to be a little batter in-
formed with regard to some of the plans which were
shadowed forth by the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir Robert
Peel). For instance, he should be glad to know what
the Right Hon. Baronet meant by a Commission for the
sale of lands of embarrassed estates. If the commission
he contemplated was of a proper character, similar to
some which had been issued, he thought the plan might
be very beneficially carried out. This he would say,
that if the people of Ireland came forward in a proper
manner, he had no doubt that England would act in a
liberal spirit; but if they did not do so, he for his part
would not consent to vote away any public money.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD opposed the Bill,
because it gave the Poor-law Commissioners power to
levy a tax arbitrarily upon the whole of Ireland. He
was not for England's sake an advocate for a measure
that violated the first principle of civil liberty,
which held that no taxation should be imposed
without representation. He could not help giving his
warmest approbation to the admirable and eloquent
speech of the Noble Lord who had just sat down, and
which was worthy of an Irishman. It was said that Ire-
land did not pay her just proportion of taxation, but if
that were so, it was a question for the consideration of
the Imperial Parliament, and the Act of Union directed
that a re-adjustment of such taxation should be made if
necessary, in the proportion of her exports and imports.
It England said Ireland did not pay such proportion, let
an inquiry be entered into, and if such were the case, he
for one should consent that a remedy be applied for such
an anomaly at once. At the present time Ireland paid
the proportion of one to eleven in taxation. He con-
tended that Ireland was never a drain on England, and
certainly not before the Union, when Viceroy after
Viceroy acknowledged with thanks, the liberal sup-
plies voted by the Irish Parliament to the contin-
gencies of the British Empire. In 1799 the
Marquis of Cornwallis called it an extraordinary supply
when, 300,0004 was voted; and, as after that period
England got the management into her own hands, if
the finances were mismanaged, she had herself to blame,
and not the Irish people. He contended, that if a tax
were to be levied on Ireland, it should be paid into the
Imperial Exchequer, and paid out like other taxes; but
against the principle on which the rate in aid was to be
conducted, he protested. Withe'regard to what had
been said by the Right lion. Baronet the Member fur
Tainworth, in reference to the plantation of Ulster, the
great success of that undertaking was principally owing
to the agreement entered into between what were called
the " undertakers" and the tenantry located on the
estates. From the security of tenure thus given was the
prosperity of Ulster mainly owing; and he was of opinion
that, until a similar plan was introduced into the rest of
Ireland, all legislative measures must fail of producing
any good. As to the present measure, he would ask,
how could a miserable pittance of food given to the dis-
tressed poor relieve the condition of the country. He
thought it was dangerous to England to inflict injustice on
Ireland, because it must produce that discontent which
all good men wished to see allayed. He wanted either
to have a union with England or a repeal ; he wished
not to have a half sort of union—a union in name but
not in deed or spirit—the continuance of it could not be
beneficial to either. It was not the interest of England
to have Ireland in a wretched condition, for if that wore
so, she would ultimately be her ruin and downfall. Ha I
was opposed, on these grounds, to a rate in aid, and as a
British representative, he would not be a party to an
advance of money on such security as a rate in aid.
Sir D. NORREYS was an admirer of the people of
Ulster ; but on this occasion they were more English
than Irish, for they refused to
pay a moderate tax when
called on to do so, in support
oft heir fellow country- I
men. Ireland was absolutely ruined at that moment.
The landlords were selling their land—the farmers emi-
grating to America—the lands going to waste—the people
starving and dying with hunger—and yet it was at such
a time the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Tam-
worth said they were called on in Reload to make an
exertion. When the poor-law was first introduced in
300000/.' and yet
Ireland its charge was not to exceed -
citapaimtaol,unbteyd,thleast
affected loss
of
I,7oota,otiooonl.,
whichafter a
In his (Sir 1). None) neighbourhood, there
the country, amounting to up wards of 28.000,000/.
disastrousysar t o
visitation
was 2,600 acres of land out of cultivation at that
mo-
ment, and even when it was cultivated the wages paid to
labourers were not in money but in potatoes. If England
refused to aid them what were they to do ? or were
the people to be allowed to starve ? Hon. Gentlemen
said so great was their objection to the rate in aid that
they would preer an income-tax. Now he had been all
his life accustomed to hear his countrymen say they
would shed their blood on a scaffold, or lay their heads
on a block, before they would do so and-so, but the fact
was that those expressions should be taken as more in-
dicative of their energy than of a wish to do either of
those dreadful alternatives.—(A laugh.) And so it was
with those who objected to a rate in aid. But he wanted
to know from the Gentlemen who talked of an income-
tax, what they meant by it ? Was it merely an income-
tax for Irish purposes, or did they wish the
English income-tax to be extended to Ireland ?

Eio had listeued in vain fo: an explaeutioa
from them. All that he had learned aesise that a
rate in aid was an extremely ineolii-rti&d•lthing.
An income-tax, tor merely Irish purposes, would only
remove the Poor•law burdens from the landlords to
other shoulders ; while, if the English income-tax was
extended to Ireland, it would be a most iliternien mode
escapingof that they should, to avoid a burden of
300,000/ take a tax of upwards of 1,000,000/.—(Hear,
hear.) Hts main difficulty with the rate in
aid was, that it was not sufficiently large, an eight-
p einy or nine-penny rate would be more efficacious.
But he supported this rate because it was a just tax. No
one district in Ireland was responsible for its pauperism,
and therefore all should contribute fairly to its sup-
port.—(Hear.) One great cause of the pauperism was
to be found in the frequent evictions which took place
immediately after the close of the war, and the conse-
quent tailing of prices. The landlords were then
brought into immediate connexion with their estates,
and finding them over-peopled by the middle-men,
they cleared these estates, and the parties so evicted
were obliged to resort to inferior lands. Another great
cause was the abolition of the 40s. freeholders in 1829,
and while these changes lid been highly beneficial
to the more wealthy districts, it had, of course, propor
tionehly increased the burdens of. the poorer districts.
For these reasons, therefore, he was of opinion that the
poor rate should be levied as generally as was compa-
tible with the prevention of abases in the administration
of the funds. With respect to the improvement of Ire-
laud by introducing a new race of landlords, he looked
upon that as entirely hopeless. There was one peculiar
feature in these cases, that where the greatest amount of
pauperism was to be found, the means of relieving it
were smallest ; and, therefore, any hope of these dis-
tricts being able to contribute anything towards their
own relief would be attended with disappointment.—
(Hear, hear.) In unions and electoral divisions, where
the annual valuation of property to each head of
the population was 1/. 195., the rates - were
Sd., while in Kanturk and Listowel, where the
valuations were as low as 275. ld , the rates were as high
as Bs. to 9s. Under such circumstances he thought it
was hopeless to expect that capitalists would invest
money in such districts. Much had been said about
the rate in aid being an oppressive tax, brit he took issue
with Hon. Members, and totally denied that it was so.
—(Hear, hear.) On one point his opinions bad changed.
He was formerly opposed to putting any tax upon ab-
sentees, but further consideration had led him to the
conclusion, that absenteeism was a great evil, and he
was now of opinion, that a tax for the benefit of the
electoral division or union, should be levied on all rents
sent out of the country, in order to make up to such di-
visions or unions the loss caused by the absence of the
landlords who drew these rents. The principles laid
down by the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tam-
worth and thi Hon. Member (Mr. Bright) with respect
to the unfeudalizing of the soil, had his most hearty
adhesion and support. He believed that it the Right
Hon. Baronet would add to his proposed commission the
principle of abolishing entails, and freeing the transfer
of land from all unnecessary restrictions, it would do
more for the permanent benefit of Ireland than any Mi-
nistry or Government could by possibility effect. For
years he had advocated the free and unchecked develop-
ment of the resources of Ireland, as the only mode of
really promoting the prosperity of that country, and he
earnestly hoped that the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir Robert
Peel) and the Hon. Member (Mr. Bright) would per-
severe in urging this great question upon the attention of
Parliament. In conclusion, he had to say that he ap-
proved of the rate in aid, and especially of the proposal
of a maximum and the exemption of improvements from
the rate. If these two details were carried, with some
minor improvements in Committee, the measure of the
Government should have his hearty support, under the
belief that it was calculated to meet the existing difficul-
ties in Ireland.
Mr. MONSELL admitted that Ireland was bound to
make a great and independent exertion; but that exer-
tion ought not to be made in the impolitic manner
pointed out by her Majesty's Ministers. When he con-
sidered the mass of evidence urged against the measure
by Mr. Senior, Mr. Gulston, and Mr. Twisleten, who
resigned the important post of Chief Commissioner of
Poor-laws, rather than participate in the administra-
tion of so obnoxious a tax as the rate in aid, he felt
really surprised that Government should persevere in
pressing this measure on the consideration of
the House—a measure which would prove in-
adequate, and was without any precedent. It was
absurd, in a season of great distress and privation, to
bleiele of meeting the requirements of Ireland by
the operation of the Poor-law Act alone. The Noble
Lord at the head of the Government had announced an
intention of making advances for the purposes of rail-
ways; bat the 300,000/. which Government proposed to
give would not construct more than eighty miles of line,
and not more than one-third of that sum would be ex-
pended on the employment of labour. He called the
attention of the House to the dreadfully distressed con-
ditioe of the country, and pointed particular attention to
the fact, that large numbers of farmers with capital
were leaving Ireland as emigrants, and that was the
most destructive species of emigration for the country.
The system now going on in Ireland was admirably cal.
culated to aggravate the existing distress, and it struck
him that the conduct of Ministers was directcd rather to
obtaining majorities in that House, and carrying on the
government of the country, than to devising plans for
meeting the destitution of Ireland. Under the peculiar cir-
cumstances of Ireland, it was no wonder that the propo-
sition of the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tam-
worth had created a great and profound sensation
among the Irish people. The speech of the Noble Lord
at the head of the Government, with respect to the fu-
ture prospects of Ireland, was one of the most hopeless
and cheerless he had ever heard. If, a the Noble Lord
recommended, things should be alloweds to go on as they
were, they might depend on it England would suffer as
well as Ireland.
Mr. HORSMAN observed upon the improved condi-
tion in which the Irish question now stood as compared
with former years. When the Government proposed the
last grant of 50,0001. for Ireland he had voted in the ma-
jority, but there was a vast difference between a tempo-
rary expedient and a permanent system. The adoption
of the present measure, he thought, would only amount
to a postponement of the evil hour, and he could say
that as Ireland suffered from an Imperial calamity, it
would be neither just nor wise to throw the relief of the
distressed districts on the less adlicted provinces. Tho
rate in aid system destroyed economy, diminished in-
dustry, and discouraged improvement. Cruel 2S Were
cportionl s n oft
hteh ea itrt e
mlrpi Irish gdiesslatrtoi7,onhee
pkrnoevwinnceonoef
htoie
msoomree
Ireland in the vain effort to suppurt, or rather perpetuate
the miseries of another. What cluirn had Connaught for
support on Ulster, that Ulster could not fairly urge on
Middlesex? As yet no answer had been given, except
the answer to be found in the speeches of the members
of Government, namely, that both Ulster and Connaught
I were in Ireland. The great object aimed at was improve-
tnents in Ireland, and that must chiefly be obtained by
means of agriculture. But one great means for for-
warding that improvement was that the agriculturist
should know the worst that could befal him, that he
should know what he had to do, what taxes he had to
pay, what burdens were to be indicted on him, in order
that he might make his calculations correctly. The rate
in aid, however, would prevent him from doing that. In
this rate in aid he could see nothing to give security
that more and larger grants would not be required for
Ireland. Certainly in the speech of the Noble Lord at the head of the Government, last night, there
was but
little encouragement held out. What the Noble Lord
said was neither satisfactory nor statesmanlike. As re-
garded the present measure, the only thing which could
justify Parliament in passing it, would be that it was a
part of a comprehensive scheme for the benefit of Ire-
land. Were there any prospects of the other portions
of that scheme making their appearance, they might put
up for a time with this bad portion of it, in the prospect
that they were about to get a better. There was, how-
ever, no prospect of that. The Right Hon. Gentleman
the Member for Tamworth, though he stated he
would support the measure, had something of that
idea in his mind, for he had thrown out
some most valuable suggestions, which, from the high
character of that Right Hon. Gentleman, were well
entitled to consideration, and had stated that he did not
despair but that out of this disastrous state of' affairs better
times might arise in Ireland. He should like to know
then, if Government were not prepared to give them a
comprehensive measure at present, whether they had
fully studied the question, and were, alive to its import-
auce? He would not be unreasonable with the Govern-
ment, but he thought they had a right to know whether
before this rate in aid was agreed upon by them, all
raditzislictuss
haveed and nnsdob
scheme,
en considered.heoefi mnt
eeed,oflreland,ant these
etNhs
eeo
another
s None
the
other suggestions thrown out for the improvement of
Ireland
these taken k had
g est conjoinedions
xtvhaesy,
at)
hfmleairwrgeghawest
taheesaimv doneio
nadalobneeen
rimailpwroavyesr
bnutt lannodtsh, anrgi dtoanother
thatgiving
al al
tihdesteo
had been fully considered, and that the rate in aid had
been taken as a last resource. The principle of this
measure was said to be one of dire necessity. It
was said that no relief could be had from England,
and, therefore, Ireland must help herself. But although
there might be some disappointment on the part of the
people of England as to the manner their liberal contri-
buttons to Ireland had been treated, yet that disappoint-
nat nt did not so much arise from anything the people
of Ireland had done, as from the useless and unprofitable
manner in which their munificent contributions had been
applied. Let the Ministry come forward with a scheme
which would bear evidence on the face of it that it would
benefit Ireland, and guaranteeing that it would be well
and efficiently worked out, the people of England would
be as ready to contribute as ever.—(Hear, hear.) Should
the present measure pass, it would cause defiance and
ill-feeling in those districts where there was now loyalty
and order. Arid should Government succeed in doing
that, they would have done their best to have filled up
the cup of Irish misery and English crime.—(Hear.)
Sir A. BROOXE denied that the ratepayers of Ire •
land had repudiated their obligations in respect to the
poor-law. He could assure the House, that in the dis-
trict and union with which he was connected there was
not one shilling due by the proprietors of the land in the
district in that respe ct. With regard to the Right ion.
Gentleman's plan he entirely approvedof most of it, and
should like to see it carried out. If there was a gen-
tleman in Europe capable of carrying it out it was the
Right Hon. Gentleman, and the Right Hon. Gentleman
ought to go over to Ireland to see it carried out himself,
in the understanding, however, that he should not return
until he saw his plan in full and satisfactory operation.
—(Laughter.) He objected to the rate in aid system as
unjust to the ratepayers, as it placed rich and poor, the
landed proprietor and the small tenant, in the same
category. The valuation under which it was to be
levied was also unfair, and taken as a whole, it would
injure instead of hem filing Ireland. He thought that it
would be better if the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell)
would allow the few instalments due for the building of
workhouses for the relief of the poor of Connaught and

MI

Aunster, rather than this rate in aid; or let there be a
fair income-tax as far as it is just and legitimate, imposed
ms the landlords; but let not such a) unjust tax be im-
posed on the industrious poor of Ulster.— (lie ir, hear.)
Mr. REYNOLDS was prepared to support the present
measure, but very reluctantly, for if he could avoid the
vote he would avoid it, but it was because of the awful
distress of the people.—(Laughter and cheers.) lleun-
derstood those cheers, but should explain his meaning,
and he would, therefore, say, that it was on the same
priaciple of necessity that he supported it as others on
the opposite were against it. He had proved his since •
city, though he had been accused of the want of it by
his dividing the House on his motion on that question,
when he had been deserted by the Hon. and Gallant
Gentleman (Major Blackall), and the Hon. Member
for terry (Mr. H. Herbert), who had given notice of a
motion to saddle the income-tax on the people of Ire-
land ; but he believed that that Honourable. Member
(Mr. Herbert) wished to throw that tax from the shoul-
ders of the landlord on those of the shopkeepers. lie
then alluded to the speech of the Honourable Member
for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), as being one that
proved a thorough ignorance of the geography and con-
dition of Ireland. He thought it most unjust and inhu-
man for the people of Ulster to refuse this sixpenny
rate in aid, as if the property and loyalty of Ireland
were confined to that province, but he could assure
Honourable Gentlemen from Ulster that such vas not
the case, for Connaught and Munster, no less than Lein-
ster, were generally as wealthy and as loyal as Ulster.
He then alluded to the Act for the improvement of the
Shannon, and said that the Honourable Member for Ros-
conimon (Mr. French) had taken 12,0001. from the Con-
solidated Fund, and as much more from twelve counties,
some of which had no connexion whatever with that
noble river, and asked the Huse was not that a rate in
aid?—(Laughter.)
Major BLACKALL said that he did not propose that
the income-tax should be extended in all its integrity to
Ireland, such as it is in England, but that the neces-
sary provision should be made for the poor by those who
had it in their power to relieve distress, and did not do
so.--(llear, hear.) He certainly thought that an in-
come-tax was much more easily got rid of than a rate
in aid, when once imposed, but ho should very much
object to an income-tax extended in all its integrity to
Ireland. Being without a detail of the expenditure, or
the application of the money, he should vote that night
against the rate in aid, but he should be most willing in
any way to consent to a fair amount of Imperial taxa-
tion in Ireland.
Mr. FRENCH explained that Sir John Burgoyne bad
given it as his opinion that the improvement of the
Shannon, being a national object, should be defrayed by
a national rate. The Bill had been drawn up in accord-
ance with that opinion.
Mr. TENNENT said he should vote against this most
unhappy measure of her Majesty's Government. He
thought that, least of all, this should be made a question
of religion. It was a constitutional question of the
greatest consequence, and he could assure the Govern-
meat that, at the bottom of a great deal of apparently
superficial talking, there was a
.great deal of determined
resolution that was hostile to it. If Imperial taxation
were not properly assessed in Ireland, he would assert
that the Government were not entitled to balance one
evil by another, in the manner they contemplated, and
which he earnestly hoped they wauld abandon—(Hear.)
Mr. HENRY DRUMMOND said that, under the
name of a rate in aid, he conceived that the question might
be asked,whether this was a rate to increase pauperism or
diminish it? From the Government blue book he might
infer that it was a rate to increase it. Thinking so, he
rose to propose three things. First, to make the unions
support themselves. It was nonsense to talk of a labour-
market in Ireland, for there was none; and if they
would only set a plain English farmer to teach the Irish
to dig,, he was sure they R ould do a great deal of good.
In the second place, ho would recommend a sound sys-
tem of emigration, and in the last, to get rid of middle-
men, who were the real evil.
Captain ARCHDALL briefly addressed the House
against the Bill, giving the Government full credit for
their courage in propounding and pursuing it.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the second readicg .
Against it
Majority for Ministers --55
The Bill was then read a second time and ordered to
be committed.

LABOUR•RATE IN IRELAND.
Mr. P. SCROPE moved for leave to bring in a Bill to
promote the employment of labourers in Ireland by a
proportionate exemption from poor-rate.
Mr. STAFFORD opposed the introduction of a mea-
sure involving a very material change in the poor-law of
Ireland by any private Member. If any such change
were necessary it ought to be made on the responsibility
of the Government, and what he wished to know was,
whether the Government, by sanctioning the introduc-
tion of the Bill, were willing to adopt the principle of a
labour- rate ?

Lord J. RUSSELL confessed that he should not have
been disposed to offer any opposition to the Honourable
Member for Stroud bringing in this Bill, but the Hon.
Gentleman (Mr. Stafford) having raised the question by
thinking it necessary to oppose the Bill in the first in
stance, he (Lord J. Russell) owned that he was quite
opposed to the principle of the measure—(Hear)—and,
therefore, if the House should be called upon to give a
decision upon it to-night, he must give his vote in oppo-
sition to the introduction of the Bill.
Mr. P. SCROPE considered it rather hard that the
principle of the Bill should be decided upon before a
single word had fallen from him as to what that princi-
ple was, or what the Bill itself contained. He had pur-
posely abstained from addressing the House, because
the lateness of the hour would not admit of his entering
into a vindication of the principle of the measure. He
hoped the House would extend to him the usual in-
dulgence, and a' low the Bill to be brought in and read a
first time, reserving a discussion of its principle to the
second reading.
Mr. MANGLES hoped the lion. Gentlemen would
persist in pressing his motion.
Colonel DUNNE, although often differing from the
ion. Member for Stroud, was nevertheless certain that
his object was to bring forward a measure that would be
useful to Ireland; he, therefore, thought it desirable that
the Bill should be laid before the House.
Sir H. PEEL, observed that there were some Bills so
objectionable in principle, and so utterly unworthy of
consideration, as to make it quite right to refuse their
being brought in, but he must say that the present state
of Ireland might demand some such remedy as that
which was now proposed ; and, considering the great
and disinterested labours which the Hon. Gentleman
had devoted to all questions connected with the interests
of the poor and destitute of Ireland, and remembering
the obloquy to which he had exposed himself, he (Sir
R. Peel) did think that an opportunity should be given
to the Hon. Gentleman to explain his proposition, in-
stead of the Bill being hastily rejected that night. But
he would suggest to the Hon. Gentleman that he had
better withdraw his notice now, and put it for some day
when that opportunity might be afforded him. If how-
ever, the lion. Gentleman persisted in bringing in the
Bill to-night, he should cordially support the motion fur
his doing so.

After a few words from Mr. FRENCH and Major
BLACYALL in favour of the motion,
Sir G. GREY remarked that it was an unusual thing
to bring in a Bill without the House being made aware
of the nature of its provisions; he, therefore, hoped the
Hon. Gentleman would adopt the suggestion of the
Right Hon. Baronet and withdras his motion, and take
another opportunity of stating what was the precise ob-
ject of his Bill.

Mr. H. HERBERT objected to the Bill being intro-
duced. as it would excite hopes in Ireland which were
certain to be disappointed.
Mr. OSBORNE thought it better to excite hope in
Ireland than despair, and considered it most ungracious
to refuse the Hon. Gentleman an opportunity of explain-
ing his measure.
Mr. P. SCROPE wished to defer to the feeling of the
House, and would, if it were their pleasure, withdraw his
motion—(Cries of " No! no!" 4. Yes! yes!")—otherwise
he would persist in pressing it to a division.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw.
During our ab.ence we understood that Lord J. Rus-
SELL urged the Hon. Member for Northamptonshire not
to divide the House against the introduction of the Bill,
and intimated that, if he persisted in doing so, he (Lord
John Russell) would vote with the Hon. Member for
Stroud.
The House then divided; when there appeared—
For the introduction of the Bill ... 108
Against it ...
Majority... ...
SUNDAY TRAINS.
Mr. FORBES presented a petition from Stirlingahire,
against the compelling the running of railway trains on
Sundays.
Mr. LOCKE then moved for leave to introduce a Bill
to secure to the public, on Sundays, a limited and rea-
sonable use of the railways which conveyed passengers
on the other days of the week. Re remarked, that the
petitions which had been presented and the agitation
which had taken place on this subject were quite beside
the object of his simple Bill, which had been very much
misconceived in Scotland. Its object merely was to se-
cure that the railways should carry passengers in those
trains which were used fur the conveyance of the mails
and post letter-bags on the Sundays. There was nothing
in it inimical to a proper feeling, of respect for the Sab-
bath_
as a day of rest, or which was inconsistent with
Christian principles.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped, there-
fore, that the House would allow the Bill to be intro-
duced and printed, that its merits, whatever they were,
-might be made known to the public during the recess.
Mr. FORBES said that the people of Scotland were
perfectly well aware of the nature of the Hon. Gentle-
man's proposal, and were strongly and conscientiously
opposed to it. He hoped the Government would not
sanction the measure. He objected to the introduction
of the Bill.
Mr. COWAN begged to say that he felt the strongest
v2ssiblo objection to the Bill, but he hoped the Hon.
ember for Stirlingshire would not put the House to
I esitrr. Lt oti of dividing against it at that late hour.
the session he said that at an early period of
on he had stated, in reply to a question from
the Rea.
though, 8 .14.. era• ber—for-Houiton (Mr.--Locke), that al-
. pe.king for himself, he believed it was quite
consistent with a due observance of the sanctity of the
Sabbath to allow,
the running railway
restrictions and regula-
tions,he hoped tw.see this opinion trains on Sundays, and that
vayeprrtevail in Scotland, yet he
was not prepared, on the the Government, to
bring in a Bill to compel rapilwa of
contra-
diction of what he believed and knew
strongly in
to be an opinion
iii strongly entertained by a large chiral; of the community
Scotland, to take that course.
exe still entertained
very great doubts whether it was
He was inclined to think that tho
woultgleit to dlcA, so.
l
to accomplish the object more e y
of seeing passengers conveyed,
as now in England, on Sundays as well as on other days,
under such restrictions and regulations as would pre-
serve the sanctity of the Sabbath, which was so honour-
able 4 ebaraoteristio of Scotland, by leaving the matter

-93

to the discretion and good sense of the railway companits
of Scotland generally, than by atternring to force a
measure upon an unwilling, people.— (Hpar, hear.)
Under these circumstances. he could not pledge himself
to vote for the seconding reading of the Bill; but, at the
same time, he thought it would be ungracious to the
Hon. Gentleman who proposed it, especially as he had
stated that his views had beet► misrepresent, d, not to
allow him to have it put in a shape for circulation in Scot-
land.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. G. DUNCAN bore testimony to the strong feel-
ing which prevailed in Scotland against the Bill; but
thought that, if its provisions were known, there would
be less objection to it.
After a few words from Mr. STAFFORD, ridiculing
the conduct of Government in voting for the introduction
of Bills to which they were professedly opposed,
Mr. MANGLES was sorry the Hon. Member for
Northamptonshire had not yet recovered from the effect
of the late division. A noble lady had not been able
to come up to attend the deathbed of her father, in con-
sequence of the regulations of a railway in the north.
Parliament had given the railways a monopoly, and no
free-trader ever objected to regulate monopolies.
Mr. S. WORTLEY would vote against the Bill, which
interfered both with private property and with the rights
of conscience.

Sir G. GREY reminded the Right Hon. Gentleman
that all railways were compelled to carry the mails on
Sunday. The principle on which the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman objected to the Bill as an interference with the
rights of property implied an abdication, on the part of
that House, of the right to control railways. He was
not prepared to legislate in opposition to the strong
feeling of Scotland; but the object of the Bill was dif-
ferent from that which was supposed in the petitions pre-
sented on the subject.
Mr. E. ELLICE objected to a compulsory measure.
The company on whose line a noble lady had been
prevented from travelling had since rescinded their re-
gulation.

Mr. SEYMER could not support a compulsory Bill.
Mr. AGLIONBY supported the Bill. It was said to
be an interference with private property and the rights
of conscience. But railways had been formed by a most
glaring infringement of private property; and the inter-
ference with the rights of conscience was on the part of
the railway proprietors, and those Scotchmen who re-
fused to allow Sunday trains.
Sir E. BUXTON objected to a Bill intended to force
people to do that to which they conscientiously objected.
Mr. DRUMMOND—The whole of this case of con-
science in Scotland, it seems, resolves itself into the
qu,stion whether there should be one or two carriages in
a Sunday train.—(Laughter.)
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it

L ... ... 58
. ... . . ... 20
Majority —3B

Mr. FIUME obtained leave to bring in a Bill to es-
tablish county financial boards for the adminstration of
county rates and expenditure in England and Wales,
which was afterwards brought in.
Sir G. GREY, in the absence of Lord J. Russell, ob-
tained leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Acts relating
to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, which
was afterwards brought in.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL brought in the Ad-
ministration of Justice Bill, and the Portugal Treaties
Stipulation Bill.
The House adjourned at Two o'Clock.