The Sun.
London, England, 1847-05-08 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MAY 8, 1847.

been chiefly derived. The guardians had nevertheless granted
the relief, although he had himself asserted, that if it were
given, he should put his protest on the books against the pro-
ceedings. He had gone further, for he had written to the
Poor-law Commissioners, but had unfortunately received no
reply, although he had had a letter from the Assistant Com-
missioner. For his own part, he believed that the Act could
never be effectually carried out without nut-door relief, and ke
should, therefore, oppose the amendment.
Lord BROUGHAM said that it was very evident that the
relief was granted in the very teeth of the law, and that the
Bill would, therefore, be ineffectual without some stringent
regulation for preventing the board of guardians from grant-
ing assistance contrary to the regulations of the Act of
Parliament.
The Marquis of CLAN RICARDE thought that the case
which had been made out by the Noble Earl opposite, quite
showed the necessity for granting out-door relief ; but yet, it
was perfectly evident that the small piece of land, held by these
small tenants, would, at no tims, either in the days of pros-
perity or under the pressure of calamity, suffice for their sup-
port, and therefore the clause was directly applicable to the
purpose.
'1 he Earl of CL ANCARTY thought that his Noble Friend
was mistaken in the view which he bad taken.

The amendment being withdrawn, the clause was agreed to,
as well as clause 10.

On clause II being read,
The Earl of WICKLOW said that the result of this clause
would be the effect of preventing the landlords improving their
lands. He would move that the words out-door should be
omitted.

Lord BEAUMONT said, that they had now this rate
hanging over their heads, the whole of their united interests
would be to keep down the interest. The case was totally
different in England and Ireland.
The Earl of DEVON said, that he considered that this Bill
would have the effect of giving employment to the people of
Ireland, by making the landlords of Ireland desirous to employ
the people, and by that means prevent the increase of the poor-
rate. _ .

Lord MONTEAGLE said, he believed that the out-door
relief was that which was likely to be the most abused. What
would be the effect of this clause ? Why they would tax the
electoral division on ;which capital had been expended, and
where improvement had taken place; while they expended
money on those electoral divisions where pauperism existed in
proportion to the amount of population, which was, in fact, in
proportion to its pauperism, no matter how that pauperism might
be created. He saw, however, no reason for the adoption of
this amendment now, for he thought it would only have the
effect of making things worse.
The Earl of HAT HER TON said that the proposed amend-
ment would be a distinct warning to all English capitalists not
to make an investment of their monet., in Ireland.
The Marquis of CON\ NGH AM made a few observations.
Lord STANLEY wished to know from the Noble Earl who
proposed the amendment whether it was his intention to
proceed with it before the amendment which he (Lord Stara-
ley) intended to propose, for the omission of the clause alto-
gether, was disposed of ?
The Earl of WICKLOW said if he found the Government
disposed to oppose his amendment he would in that ease with-
draw it, and support the amendment of his Noble Friend ( Lord
Stanley), but until he heard from them what course they in-
tended to pursue he could not withdraw it.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE would not accede to the
amendment of the Noble Earl as the effect would be to induce
boards of guardians to increase the expenses for out-door relief,
so as to throw the whole burden of the rates upon the unions
at large.
The Earl of WICKLOW said that after what had fallen
from the Noble Marquis, he would withdraw his amendment.
Lord STANLEY then moved the rejection of the clause
altogether. It appeared to him to be both unjust and impoli-
tic to introduce such a clause. It applied generally to all
cases—to rack-renters, proprietors, and to liberal landlords. The
former would have this clause as the premium for poverty,
which their neglect of their duties had occasioned. The
effect of the clause would, therefore, be unjust. He would
state in illustration of this how he himself was circumstanced.
The greater part of his property was situated in one electoral
division, and comprised the half of the land in that division.
Now, he was accountable for the half of the rates in that
division, while the pauperism on his property was only one-
fifteenth part of the whole. The area of England, as com-
pared with Ireland, was in the proportion of fifty-three to one
hundred and forty-six—which meant that in Ireland they were
nearly threefold, and he now put it to their Lordships whether
any of them could think that they could carry on their estates
with any power over their property, or the well-being of
their tenantry ; if every person was entitled to eharge the
excess of his pauperism on a well managed estate. how were
they to get on. Under the present Bill, when the rates ex-
ceeded 2s. 6d. in the pound, then they were entitled to call on
the adjoining parish for assistance; 2s. 6d. was not an immo-
derate taxation, hut he firmly believed that, if the present Bill
passed, they would never have a rate struck which would be
under is. 6d. The great evils of the electoral districts at pre-
sent was, that they were too large.—( Hear, hear.) By
the present Bill they were about to increase them
twenty-fold.—( Hear, hear.) There was, at the present
a real law of settlement in Ireland. It ran thus—that any
person who, for the period of twelvemonths out of the last
eighteen, shall have occui ied any tenement within the union,
or not having occupied a tenement, but being resident in it,
shall have a claim to be relieved by the electoral dis-
trict. Consequently, if he sent a number of per-
sons into a neighbouring town, they should have no
claim upon it, but upon the district where they last.
lived. With regard to the injustice of the clause, he would
not say a word upon it, as he had not heard it denied. It
simply imposed additional discouragement on the improvement
of property and additional premiums on poverty. It would
also discourage the investment of English capital in Ireland ;
and a circumstance came to his knowledge the other
day of a gentleman about to purchase property in Ire-
land, who asked as a preliminary question whether
this clause would be inserted or not. For his own part, al-
though he had a pecuniary interest in the country, and much
more, a personal intere-t in the welfare of his tenants, he,
thank God, could give up his estates and retire on his other
resources, relieving himself from the hopelessness of conduct-
ing his property without any benefit to himself or his tenantry.
Earl GREY said that, if they considered this clause well,
they would see good reason for retaining it ; and he could
as,ure them that they would inflict great injury by rejecting it.
He held in his hand a petition from Killarney, in which it was
sthted, that up to a recent period there had been three tithes'
rates collected, and since that, in 1:•_,-16, the rate collected in
the town was Is. 6d. in the pound, and in the rural districts,
only sixpence in the pound. He would prove, not alone from
this, but from many other instances, that they would
inflict great injustice by the rejection of this
clause. Until the calamity of the potato-blight, the
average amount of rates was sevenpence in the pound.
He for one could not see upon what ground this calculation
with regard to the state of Ireland was formed. It was as-
sumed that Ireland was a country above all others in the world
where the labourer was to be supported by charity. If lie be-
lieved that he should indeed have a most fearful apprehension of
the future. The population of Ireland could not be employed
under such a charitable system. Their labour would be used
by those who expected a profitable return for it. In Ireland,
which was said to possess such facilities for the maintenance of
its population, proper employment would, by the operation of this
measure, be gradually introduced. His Noble Friend told them
that his property in Ireland was taxed to the amount of one-
half of the rate collected in his electoral division, although
,me fifteenth only of the pauperism of that division ex-
isted on that property. The legitimate conclusion to
which they would be drawn by his Noble Friend's argument
would be to make every man responsible for the conduct of the
people upon his own estate, and that their employ-
ment, whether profitab'e or not, was a duty upon
:he proprietor. Such a system would bring about the state of
things which existed in the southern portion of this kingdom in
18.33. and which it was the object of the Act of 18.34 to remove.
Under that system each small district held itself responsible for
its own po ir, and thus the circulation of labour was put an end
to, and a serious evil brought upon the country. This present
Act, as it stood, was a fair compromise between coeflicting
lifficulties and existing interests; it prevented the extreme
-other of charitable support by any district, or by any indivi-
dual. When the rate rose to a certain height, the burden was
to fall upon a more extended district, and thus much distress
and misery was removed from many small districts and
parishes in that country. He hoped and trusted that their
Lordships would consent to take this clause whole, and alto-
gether.

Lord BROUGHAM said that it required much self-com-
mand to repress his desire to grapple with the argument
which his Noble Friend had so ingeniously woven,
and so impressively delivered, but he should confine
himself to the more general details of the Bill. The assump-
tion that the labourers of Ireland were to be supported by
charity, was not the assumption of those who opposed, but of
those who favoured it. The Bill, itself, was founded upon that
assumption. The Bill was not a charity, which would be bene-
ticial to the labourer, but a compulsory one, which cursed
those who received it, and oppresse,‘ those who gave it. It
taught the labourer to rely, not upon his own industry, but
upon this compulsory assistance which this Bill was about to
give them. In the argument upon this measure, as indeed
upon all argument of this kind, they forgot the original prin-
ciple of the poor law, which had been long forgotten, and
which was consigned to a still deeper shade of oblivion by this
measure. What was that first principle ? not that the land
should support the poor, and all other property should be
exempt, nor that the landlord and tenant should be
rated at a rack-rent to support the paupers which
the wealthy manufacturer sent forth as locusts from 1
his soil. Such was not the law of Elizabeth. That was an
income-tax, and it called upon all property of any description
whatever to support the poor man. The measure was one of
gross and flagrant injustice—injustice and partial in its opera-
tion. There was 800,000,0001. of property in existence, not a
halfpenny of which existed at the time of Elizabeth, and who
could doebt that if the original system of poor-rating had been
begun in 1817, instead of at the end of the sixteenth century,
that a most effectual bar would have been put to the gross
injustice which they were now about to inflict upon the country.
The average in Ireland being 109 to 106, and he would venture
to say that a worse case could not possibly take place than that
which his Noble Friend said took place in his own union. Then
they had to deal with the Irish landlords ; a more improvident,
it might be a more thoughtless, set of men—but still men ;
xho, although careless of their interests were still aware of
the difference between half-a-crown and a pound, and who, if
they were less prudent in the management of their estates,
were not less anxious than their more prudent neighbours for
the welfare of their country.
_ _ _ _

.....
The Marquis of CL AN Ii.IC ARDE had the highest respect
for the opinions of his Noble and Learned Friend, but he could
not possibly agree in the expression of an opinion that
.-very estate ought to be made to support the labouring poor
who were born upon it, for if that was not to be the rule the whole
principles of political economy would be set aside, and he
thought that all the el jections to the clause had been fully
mswered in the speech of his Noble Friend the Secretary for
the Colonies (Earl Grey ). Unquestionably there was a
;Teat difference between destitution and moderate employ-
ment. Nor did he think that the pauperised in the
dectoral districts ought to have any weight, for the fact, the
esidents in towns too often held out a premium for i auperism,
'or the induced those who had been engaged in
country employments to settle there in the hope of
,!.taining rack-rents from their proprietors, and if this
-y•tem were really to be altered, what was to become of
roprietorsxtt in towns, for this measure had to a great
en
been framed with a view to provide for the
Pauperism of the country. But, in fact, it was in the power
s
>f the electoral districts as now provided to impose upon the
'own,- Y,st• he believed, that a great change would be
wrought by paymentthper,orof
t of money wages instead of goods.
cfleue.rt:tirrlyaa,l districts now flocked into
employ-
ment in the country, Many of the
theand wthaent
towns
wonld'Yuen" °fit this mode of things
would
w. 3810
he towns, in
wax topospirtomeneed;C:ithtsheehe:thawn,c,l,
unnecessary, for, if it were adoptedlisthe
,onsequen ly be ruined. The
he quite superseded, and the landlords
ro improve their property in Ireland. It
-treat anxiety in that country, for
if the principte of the clause was to be adopted,
. • • ot the towns ..ould have to bear the rates
1 tinir.,., n be in the
• therefore, totally
relief committee would
wouldmtit he quite unable
it
was
be a matter of
eiiv,ied nit that
c lands ad-
•— Loud cries
~f "Divide, divide.")
Lori; DESA RT said that the best criterion would he the dif-
ferent rates which had been levied, and those which have to be
evied if these principles were to be applied. That difference was
between 6,1. d. and (is. 4 I, d. , but much ,tress had been laid upon the
amount of money obtained for the rents in Ireland: but it should
grounded on
be recollected that the systennursued there was one

a habit of taking the rack-rents, and these rents were collected
weekly, so that while, in fact, the number of persons who had
to pay the rate had decreased, the rents in many cases had in-
creased. This was a strong fact, which he thought it
necessary to state, for between the census of 1831 and 1841,
there was a great difference, especially in the small towns;
and in one instance which had come under his own particular ,
knowledge, the population, which in 1831 was 5,431, had in
1841 been reduced to 4,152, and in another from 901 to 609.
Now, these facts showed that there was something more than
the rental to be attended to in framing a law that was to regu-
late
the rates.—( Cheers, and cries of "Divide, divide.").
Earl FITZ W ILLIAM said that the clause was not rightly
applicable to all the districts, for in framing a poor-law lot Ire-
land, they ought to take all the districts—the high rated dis-
tricts as well as those which were rated lowly. The matter
was of the utmost importance, as it was necessary to equalise
the rating between the town and country Oistricts, and if this
benefit was to be obtained, they ought to take some other
means for it.

The Marquis of WESTMEATH conceived that the right
means had been adopt€d for accomplishing the ends which the
Government had in view, and he trusted that they would be
careful in the steps which they took, for if it were necessary,
he would take the responsibility of ascending the steps of the
throne, even though he was alone, for an improvement of their
plan.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE would relieve the Noble
Marquis behind him (the Marquis of Westmeath) of his res-
ponsibility, by expressing his hope that the several Noble
Lords would take the course which the Government intended
to adopt, and pursue that line of conduct which appeared to
him to be most independent.—(Cheers.)
Lord BROUGHAM hoped and believed that the Noble
Marquis would no'. have to ascend the steps of the Throne
alone.—( Great Laughter.) (Loud cries of " Divide, divide.")
The Howe then divided—

Contents
Non-contents
Majority
The clause was then struck out of the Bill.
Clause 12 was agreed to.
On clause 13 being read,
Earl FITZWILLIA NI made a few observations, which were
inaudible in the gallery, and the clause was agreed to.
Clause 14 was agreed to, as well as clause 15.
On clause 17 the Earl of CLANCARTY said that some
measures should be taken for the more effectual collection of
the arrears of the rates.
Lord STANLEY said with reference to the observation of
the Noble Earl (Clancarty) that unless measures were taken to
collect each rate as far as it should be done, before another
was struck, the consequence would be, that those who did pay,
would in self-defence be obliged to refuse paymer t also, and they
would do it too. He thought her Majesty's Government should
give this matter their best consideration, otherwise the rates
would not be collected at all.
Clause 18 was also agreed to.
On the motion of the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, the fur-
-1 ther consideration of the clauses was adjourned till Monday.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

-19

HOUSE OF (.O,II,VONS, May 7.

The SrEA KEA took the Chair shortly before Pour o'clock.

THIRD READINGS.

The following Bills were read a third time and passed :
Caledonian Railway (Extension of Alothervrell Branch of
Clydesdale Junction Railway to Auchinheath Mineral Field,
with branches to the Wishaw and Coltness Railway, Can-

derside, and Th.milton).
Caledonian Rails ay (Branches to Wilsontown, to Fauldhouse,
and to Biggar and Broughton).
Caledonian Railway (Branches from the Clydesdale Junction
Railway to the °Douglas and Lesmahagow Mineral Fields
and to Strathavon).
Colchester, Stour Valley, Sudbury, and Halstead Railway
(Extension from Lavenham to Bury St. Edmund's).
Glasgow, Dumfries, and Carlisl. Railway, and Glasgow,
Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway (No. 2).
Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway, and Glas-
gow and Belfast Union Railway (No. 1).
Manchester Markets.
Scottish Equitable Life Assurance Society.
Wolverhampton Gas.
REPORTS.

The following reports were brought up and ordered to be
engrossed :
Birkenhead ( Commissioners) Dock Acts Amendment (con-
struction of New Docks and alteration of Culvert).
Birkenhead Dock Company and Herculaneum Dock Company

Amalgamation.
Caledonian Railway (Branch across Clyde and Glasgow
Station.)
Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway (No. 4).
Ipswich and Bury St. Edmund's Railway (No. I)—Extension
to Yarmouth.
The reports on the following Bills were further considered
and agreed to :
Shipowners' Towing Company.
Terrington Marsh Division, Allotment, and Harbour.
Mr. GREENE moved That the order made on the 3d day of
this instant May, referring the petition of the Lancaster and
Carlisle Railway Company, against the North Western Rail-
way (Deviations at Skipton, Casterton, and Sedbergh ) Bill,
to the Committee on the Fsill, be read. That the said order
be discharged. That the petition be withdrawn.— Agreed to.

the intention of her Majesty's Government to bring forward
any measure for the alteration of the law of settlement in
Ireland ?
Sir G. GREY had received many communications upon
the subject of the great amount of immigration of Irish pau-
pers to Liverpool. He had been informed that from the 15th
of January the number of Irish paupers who had arrived at Li-
♦erpool amounted to 180,000, of that number between 40,400
and 50,000 had emigrated again from that port, or gone further
into the country. With reference to the adoption of mea-
sures to prevent the spread of disease, orders had
been sent to the port of Liverpool, ordering that
two ships should be set apart as lazarettos, or hos-
pital ships, so that all vessels coming into the Merse7
with deck passengers from Ireland should be compelled to hoiSt
the yellow flag, and go alongside the lazarettos and put
their sick passengers on board. This measure had given great
satisfaction to the inhabitants of Liverpool. With respect to
the question of 250 paupers having been sent
from Wexford to Liverpool, it appeared that those
persons were wrecked on the coast of Wexf. rd, and
that a subscription had been entered into by the Mayor and
inhabitants of Wexford to charter a vessel for the purpose of
carrying the poor people to Liverpool ; a letter was also
sent with them, written by the Mayor of Wexford, recom-
mending those persons to the justice and mercy of the
people of England. He was not able either to state that the Go.
vernment proposed to relieve the existing pressure upon the
poor-rates of the various parishes in England ..ad Wales, and
they were not prepared to make any alteration in the law of
settlement in Ireland.
IRISH ABSENTEES.
Sir W. BARRON wished to know whether any measure
was to be introduced, to send back the 0,000,0001. of Irish
property spent in this country by Irish proprietors, because he
thought that, if the poor were to be sent back, it would be but
right that the property should also be sent back.—(Laughter.)

riAILW A YS BILL.
Mr. HODGSON wished to know whether any alteration
was proposed to be made in the Railway Bill, which he saw
was appointed for the second reading on Friday next ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that it
was the intention of the Government to make some alterations
in the Bill. He thought that the better course would be to
allow the Bill to be read a second time sub silentio upon that
occasion, and after that to take the discussion upon the Bill.
Captain HARRIS said that he wished to ask the Noble
Lord, the First Lord of the Treasury, whether it was the in-
tention of her Majesty's Government to introduce any measure
to stop the continual exportation of wheat from this country ?
The return which he held in his hand, showed that 134,000
quarters of wheat went out of the country in the month ending
the sth April last, and there was reason to suppose that a
much greater quantity of wheat had been exported in the pre-
vious months.

Lord J. RUSSELL said that it was not the intention of the
Government to introduce any such measure.
ARMY RETURNS.
Mr. F. AIAULE said that two days ago the Hon. and Gal-
lant Member for Liverpool obtained assent to a motion as an
unopposed return. It was a return of the surgeons, paymas-
ters, and quartermasters, with the dates of their services. Hu
(Mr. F. Maule) did not object to that, but the motion con-
cluded with an order for the grounds why those parties had
been excluded from the benefits of the recent advances made
in the officers of the army. He wished to make this state-
ment ere he made a motion on the subject, and he now gave
notice, that on Monday next, he would move that that portion
of the order be rescinded. Consideration for that department,
and the public service, required that this return should not be
made.

INCREASE OF PENSIONS TO THE SOLDIERS.

In angwer to a question from Captain LAYARD,
Mr. F. I\IAULE said that it was the intention of the Go-
vernment to recommend the alteration of the warrant formerly
issued, so as to increase the minimum rate of 6d. to Bd. a day.
Also, to provide for an extra pay for good service after 21 years.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. HORSMAN wished to know which measure the Go-
vernment intended to proceed with on Monday next. He
thought the Health of Towns Bill was in the hat of orders for
that day.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied, that it was his intention
to proceed with the Prisons and Transportation Bill on Monday,
but preliminary to that, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would
bring some business under the consideration of the House.
STATE OF TIIE MONEY MARKET.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said—Sir, I
am about to take a course which is somewhat irregular in point
of form, but which is necessary, in order that on Monday
next I may take a step which is called for by the monetary
state of the country, and I hope that the fevewish anxiety which
prevails on this subject, not only in the City, but throughout
the country, may be allayed by my stating shortly the inten-
tions of the Government; and I am; sure I need hardly say
that the subject ha occupied the anxious consideration of her
Majesty's Government.—(Hear, hear.) My Noble Friend and
myself have received from day to day communications upon
this subject; we have had interviews with deputations from
various parts of the country in relation to it; and we are
daily, in fact. hourly, in communication with those who are
best able to give advice and information on the state of the
money market, and the steps which ought to be taken under
the circumstances which exist.—(Hear.) The communications
made to us might be classed into two divisions, and of these
the parties from the country suggested a course to be taken by
the Government, or the Bank with the concurrence of the Go-
vernment, which would, in fact, amount to a suspension of the
present law by which the currency of this country is regu-
lated. I shall not go into that question on this occasion fur-
ther than to say that such a course is one which her Ma-
jesty's Government are not prepared to adopt—( Hear, hear,
and cheers)—and having made that statement, I think it
right to state that, consistently with the existence of the
present law regulating the currency of the country, every
facility should be given which could be consistently end
legally given, and that no course ought to be taken on the
part of the Government which would have a tendency to in-
terfere with that accommodation which has been usually freely
given on good security.—(hear, hear.) It is just a week
ago since I stated in this House that the stringent measures

which had been previously adopted need not continue to the
extent to which they had been put in operation, but I must
have been misunderstood if I am supposed on that occasion to
have said that the danger was over. What I said on that oc-
casion was, that the necessity for the stringent measures
which had been adopted had ceased, and I added that two days
before the Bank had relaxed its regulations, and that it would
be enabled to give within reasonable and moderato bounds a
greater degree of accommodation than it had some days before.
What I then said has been borne out by the fact that 400,000/.
in gold and silver bellion have been received since last Satur-
day, and that the Bank will thus have been placed in a position
to give increased accommodation to that extent. I cannot in-
terfere with the measures which may be taken by the Bank of
England, but so far as the Government securities are con-
cerned, I wish to place them in such a position that they
may be rendered as available as they usually are
to those who hold them, and I am ready to the
utmost of my power to aid in lightening_ the
pressure by that means. It appears the Govern-
ment securities which labour under the deepest depression at
present are Exchequer-bills, and although the time for doing it
has not arrived, I think it right to state, in order to relieve the
anxiety which exists, that from the day in June at which the
exchange takes place, it is my intention to propose that the
rate of interest on Exchequer -bills shall be raised to 3d. per
diem. I find that the mode of raising money on Exchequer-
bills is one with respect to which great difference of opinion
prevails but I em happy to be able to state that the Bank
finds itself in a condition to make advances on Exchequer-bills :
it has done so to-day, and a communication was made to all
the brokers that it would do so; it met all the demands of that
nature which were made on it to-day, and the whole sum
which it so advanced to-day did not exceed 170,000/. That
determination of the Bank will be a great accommodation to
the public.—( Hear, hear.) With regard to the Exchequer it
is exceedingly desirable that it should not be under the neces•
sity of requiring larger advances than usual, and I am happy
to say that, notwithstanding the difficulty of obtaining money,
the average payments of accounts last week were made, and
on the whole matters are much easier, and the extremity of the
pressure is passed. In order to carry out the view which I
have described, I propose to offer an inducement to persons who
have contracted for the Government loan to pay up the instal-
ments of the sums for which they have contracted, and I fully
believe that a great number of them will pay up the whole or
part of their instalments between this and the sth of July.
In order to carry this plan into effect, I shall propose on Mon-
day, that the House resolve itself into a Committee to empower
an offer of advance of interest on the prompt payment of those
instalments.—( Hear, bear.) That discount is to he allowed
on all sums of money paid on this account before Friday, the
18th of June, in this manner:—Any person paying before
the 18th of June an instalment due on a day subsequent to
the 18th, will receive this advance of interest in the way of
discount, to be calculated from the day on which it shall be
paid, to the day on which it is due. Thus, if any one pays
early in May an instalment (hie in June, it will entitle him to a
month's interest; if the instalment paid in May be due in July,
it will entitle the party to two months' interest ; and if the in-
stalment so paid be due in August, to three months' interest.
In proposing to adopt that plan I must re-assure the House of
my hope that considerable sums of money will be paid up in
this manner—sums sufficient to place the Exchequer in a very
satisfactory position. I propose, therefore, that the House
will, on Monday, go into Committee, for the purpose of consi-
dering the propriety of authorising the Exchequer to pay
a certain rate of interest by way of discount on any instalments
of the loan which may be so paid up.
The motion was then agreed to.
PUNISHMENT OF VAGRANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
On the question being put for going into Committee on this
Bill,
Mr. P. SCROPE said he wished to ask a question of the
Noble Lord at the head of ,the Goverment. It was of the
utmost importance that this question should be decided, and
that the House and the enantry should know whether the poor-
law for Ireland was to be of A permanent, or only of a tempo-
rary character. If it were to be permanent for three years
only, much uncertainty would be created ; and he would draw
the attention of the House to the fact, to the belief, that if it
were to he only of a temporary character, it would be worth-
less and hopeless. The poor would not confide in it, and the
rich would not act upon it, or in any way promote the general
welfare of the country ; for the absentee landlords, who are
now spending their incomes in France or Italy, would not
return to do their duty to their country, and look after
their property.—(Bear, hear.) On the contrary, if it
were to be of a permanent character, it would be in
every way useful, and he trusted, therefore, that the Bill would
be of a permanent nature. The people of this country had
come to the decision that the time had arrived when some
measures should be taken for preventing the people of this
country from falling into the deplorable state of misery which
had fallen upon the people of Ireland. They had come to that
opinion from motives which were quite justifiable. He knew
that they had to maintain their own poor, and that unless some
provision of a permanent nature was made for the relief of the
poor of Ireland, the industrious people of England would come
into the condition of the otato-fed and miserably paid people
of that country. He therefore wished to ask the Noble Lord
whether he was prepared to-night to state what the permanent
character of the Bill would be?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the Hon. Gentleman had
asked him for an explanation- as to whether the Government
should go on with the present Bill pending the proceedings in
another place. In the first place, he might answer, he was
more than ever convinced that such a Bill for the relief of the
poor of Ireland was necessary. Still, he he did not think that
a reason for postponing the present Bill. Ile thought, how-
ever, that if the Poor-law Bill was limited in its operation in
point of time, he could not ask the House to pass the present
measure, which was of a penal character, without a similar
limitation. He did not think it would be proper to give way to
a feeling of jealousy in regard to the proceediugs elsewhere.
or that they should say, that unless the Poor Relief Bill was
passed in another place, they
He h would not agree to the Vagrancy
Bill here.
hoped they would go into Committee now,
and at some future stage of the Bill they could consider
whether they should introduce clauses to limit its dura-
tion. With regard to such a poor-law for Ireland as
they had agreed to, he was more than ever convinced of its ne-
cessity, and that the Bill as it had passed through that House was
absolutely required. He had only that day received a state-
ment respecting a poor 40s. freeholder, IS o, for many years,
had been the serf or slave of a landed proprietor, who having
accepted a small sum for his freehold, was turned out and
allowed to starve, and, his wife and child had stied for want of
food refused by those on. whose lauds he had lived for many

years.—(Loud cries of " Name, name.) He certainly should I
not, but he thought no one could be blind to the circumstances
which were passing in Ireland, and the necessity there
was for an efficient measure for relief. Though
this had not been the case, he certainly thought
that, in the transition state from the public,
works to the permanent measure for relief, that the proprietors
in the neighbourhood of the places where the poor people
lived, should find the means for that purpose. He would only
further remark, that two gentlemen who had hitherto opposed
out-door relief (Mr. Nichols, the Commissioner, and Mr.
Gulson, the assistant Commissioner) had expressed their
opinion that in the present state of Ireland such relief
was necessary.
Mr. S. CFI AWFO RD hoped that the third raading of this
Bill would not take place until the House was put in pos-
session of the fate of the Bill in another place.
Mr. F. FRENCH thought the question put by the
Honourable Member for Stroud was fairly answered
by the Noble Lord at the head of the Government.
He did not see any principle which could justify the Hon.
Member for Montrose in putting the question whether these
advances to the relief of Ireland should be postponed, until the
question at present under consideration in another place—he
meant the Irish poor-law—was settled. The Hon. Member
should remember that these advances were for the purpose of
meeting the distress which prevailed, and he could not accede
that Ireland should be dealt with in a different manner from
England or Scotland.
Mr. SHAW said that it was very inconvenient in discussing
what was passing in the other house, but he did not think that
they ought to puss the Bill referred to unless their was a right
to relief. He considered that it was very unjust in the Noble
Lord to refer to the case he did without giving the name of the
party, as by his so doing he made the case apply to a whole
class, which was neither just nor reasonable. He therefore
wished that the House would forbear forming an opinion on
that statement, for he did believe that the Irish landlords were
doing their best, under very difficult circumstances, to relieve
the distress.

Sir H. W. BARRON complained that many humane and
philanthropic landlords in Ireland had been attacked in that
House for neglecting their duties, when, in truth, they were
struggling by all the means in their power under the most
adverse circumstances that men could be placed in to relieve
the poverty and distress that was about them. They should
recollect that Ireland had no native manufactures; that her
landlords were absentees, and spent their money here and
abroad, and that the soil was impoverished in conse-
quence ; and, therefore, Honourable Members who had
Bever been in Ireland, and who knew little or nothing
about that country went too far when they legislated
for Ireland in this way, and without an adequate knowledge
of her requirements. With all respect for his Hon. Friend
the Member for Stroud, he must say that this was a most im-
proper time for him to have brought forward his motion. He
(Sir W. Barron) had always been in favour of a poor-law for
Ireland ; but, at the same time, he objected to its being made
a permanent measure, and he had the same objection to this
measure being made a permanent measure, because he hid
great doubts as to how it would work.
Mr. ROSS said he had looked upon the Bill as a hazardous
experiment, but he knew they must risk something, and there-
fore he should support it. He hoped, however, that no com-
binations would be entered into to prevent the carrying out of
measure.—( Hear, hear.) He hoped, at the same time,
that the poor-law would not be so mutilated in the other House
of Parliament, as to render it defective; if it were so muti-
lated, they would have to perform again all the work they had
done.

Mr. B. ESCOTT said vagrancy in Ireland was punishable
by transportation, and in order to discover how the present law
worked, he had moved for returns on the subject, and complained
that the returns had not been furnished. He stigmatised the
conduct of those who, acting in opposition to the Noble Lord,
had succeeded in mutilating the Poor-law Bill ; but he con-
sidered that the Noble Lord might now appeal to the country
with far greater confidence and sympathy than at any past
period of his administration.
Mr. TRELAWNY said Ireland had long recognised a per-
manent poor-law, and that was decidedly the feeling of the
House. He trusted the Government would persevere in
endeavouring to pass the Poor-law Bill as left by that House.
The House then went into Committee on the Bill.
Clause Ist was agreed to.
On clause 2 being proposed,
Mr. P. SCROPE proposed an amendment, to the effect
that the capability, of a man who deserted his family to support
them, should be inquired into before his conviction.
Mr. SHAW said the law referred to existed, and that
vagrants were liable to seven years' transportation. It was an
objectionable law, but it did not work the mischief the Hon.
Gentleman (Mr. Escott) seemed to conceive.

Mr. S. CRAWFORD said the law was not often put in
force, but prostitutes and disorderly persons were occasionally
brought up before grand Juries at quarter sessions, in accord-
ance with it, and punished under it. It was a law which ought
at once to be repealed.
Mr. SHAW said no persons were punished under the Act
unless there was presumptive evidence of crime against them.
Mr. B. ESCOTT said the Hon. Gentleman's statement
confirmed his worst suspicions with respect to the existing law
of vagrancy, and that it placed a man in great danger of losing
his liberty for years if an act of simple vagrancy was proved
against him. In England men were not punished on presump-
tive evidence of crime. The law had been carried out against
several persons, as the returns he had moved for would show ;
and if he was not able to procure them, he should endeavour to
get them through some other source.
Mr. HENLEY considered it necessary that it should be
clearly ascertained whether a man had wilfully deserted his
family, or whether he had been compelled to leave them from
distress.
Mr. P. SCROPE explained. It was unfortunately a com-
mon practice in Ireland for men to desert their families, but
they frequently did so from distress ; for instance, to work else-
where ; he simply asked them to introduce a proviso to pre-
vent a man from being imprisoned three months, who had not,
in the strict sense of the word, deserted his family.
After a desultory conversation, the amendment was with-
drawn and the clause agreed to.

On clause 3 being read,
Mr. M. O'FERRALL suggested to the Government the
proprietary of limiting or defining the class of persons who
were to carry the provisions of this clause into effect.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said there were two classes of men-
dicants in Ireland; one living upon the hospitality of their
friends, wandering nbout from place to place, and the other de-
manding relief where their intimidating acts could extort it.
Now this clause was to suppress that state of things. The
country was more infested with mendicants and sturdy begzars
than this country before the law was passed for punishing wilful
mendicancy, and relieving the destitute poor. True
it would be difficult to effect the reform in-
tended to be brought about by this clause but the
wandering mendicant habits of a large body of the
Irish peasantry must be changed before they could work any
good in that country, and he had, therefore, no hesitation in
pressing for the continuance of this clause in its present form.
Mr. M. O'FERRALL said the Noble Lord had misunder-
stood him. He did not object to the powers proposed to be
taken by the clause. All that he wanted was, that the exe-
cution of the powers should be trusted to cautious and discreet
hands. _ . _ . .

--
Mr. GREGORY agreed with the Noble Lord that the
mendicant habits of the people was a curse to Ireland, and he
should certainly vote for the clause.
After a few words from Mr. BELLEW, who supported the
clause,
Sir WALTER JAMES said they were about to attempt a
dangerous experiment, for the confirmed habits of a people were
not so easily changed as some Hon. Gentlemen might suppose.
Besides, it must be remembered that they were dealing with a
Roman Catholic people, who entertained a feeling that they
had a right to beg, and they ought therefore, to be the more
cautious in legislating upon this subject. He apprehended that
all that would be required, was now and then to make an
example of incorrigible mendicants, and he thought, instead of
the power to commit for tlie offence of begging being vested in
the hands of one magistrate, it ought to be extended to two
justices of the peace in petty sessions assembled.
After a few words from Sir G. GREY,
Mr. P. SCROPE said there could be no doubt that men-
dicancy was practised to a very great extent in Ireland, by
persons who were not really destitute. Many Irish beggars
had been known to give their daughters marriage portions,
while he found it related by Mr. Carlton in his tales of the
Irish peasantry that n Ireland it not unfrequently happened
that a beggar called upon a farmer to beg a little meal, and
finding that he had none, offering to sell a peck, which he had
in his poss?ssion, below the market price. An effort he
thought, however difficult, ought to be made to put an end to
such a state of things as that.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. D. CALLIGAN said no one was more anxious to put
a atop to professional mendicancy in Ireland than he was ; but
it was a difficult task to alter the habits of a people. The
Irish peo,,le were remarkable for their hospitality, and he knew
many small farmers who took a delight in relieving all who
applied to them in the character of destitute poor. If they
could pass a Bill which should restrain the donor from giving
he thought they would be striking a blow at the root of the
evil ; but in the existing state of feeling and affairs in Ireland,
he could not consent to the passing of a Bill of pains and
penalties pressing wholly upon the poor.—( Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Lord Sandon, Mr. More O'Ferrall,
Sir D. Norreys, Mr. Young, and Lord Arundel,
Mr. P. SCROPE moved a verbal amendment.

The gallery was ordered to be cleared, but the amendmen
was withdrawn without a division.

The clause was then agreed to.
The 4th clause, as amended, was agreed to ; so were 5,6,
7,8, and the other clauses.
The House resumed, and the report was ordered to be

brought up on Monday next.
POOR RELIEF SUPERVISION (IRELAND) BILL

No. 11.

On the order of the day for going into Committee on
this Bill,
Sir ROBERT FERGUSON remarked that the commis-
sion under this Rill was made permanent; whereas by the
English measure it lasted for only five years. The Hon- Ba-
ronet cursorily remarked several other minor differences be-
between the English and Irish Bills. He thought, if the two
countries were to be similarly governed, the two measures had
better be the same ; and he wished to know from the Noble
Lord what was the reason for introducing these differences.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said with regard to one of the dif-
ferences alluded to by the Hon. Baronet, namely, that this
Bill was limited in its time of operation ; he had to state that
since the Bill had been introduced, the Government had re-
solved to alter this provision to five years, the time in the
Englishißill. It was impossible to expect that every provi-
sion of the Bills should be the same, considering the different
character of the two nations ; but the general principle exist-
ing in the English measure had beeu adopted for the measure
for Ireland. Saving some small difference the Bills might be
said to be nearly similar.
The House thou went into Committee on the Bill.
Clause 1, after a few remarks from Mr. P. SCROPE, Mr.
LABOUCHERE, and other Hon. Gentlemen, was agreed to.
As were clauses 2 and 3.
Clause 4 was agreed to as amended.
On clause 5, Sir R. FERGUSON remarked, the difference
between this provision and the corresponding provision in the
English measure, which required the secretaries, &c., to act
under a seal.

Mr. F. FRENCH agreed with the Hen. Baronet. Ac-
cording to this Bill, the officers, like all officers in Ireland,
were to be irresponsible. He complained that in the Board
of
Works there was no one to answer for complaint!.
The clause was then agreed to, as was clause 6.
Clauses 7 and S were postponed.
Clause 9, as amended, was agreed to ; so was clause 10.
Clauses, from 11 to 14, were then agreed to.
On clause 15 being proposed,
Sir ROBERT FERGUSON proposed an amendment,
which he, however, immediately withdrew ; and the remain-
ing clauses having been agreed to, the House resumed. Re-
port on Monday.
POOR REMOVAL BILL (ENGLAND AND SCOT-
LAND.)
Sir G. GREY moved the second reading of this Bill.
Sir D. NORREYS complained that the Bill would injuri-
ously affect those Irish persons who had become residents in
this country.
Sir G. GREY said that the Bill did not materially differ
from the Poor Removal Bill which had been passed ; the
only material difference was, that the process by which a person
was removed to his legal settlement, was more simple, more
expeditious, and less expensive than at present. Thus, if a
person became chargcable;
he would be immediately summoned
before a magistrate, before whom he would be examined as to
his settlement, to which h t would, in the. ordinary course,
be removed but he would net be removed because he Trdli an