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

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

-
iMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF LORDS, May 7.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack a
File o'clock.

Messengers from the Commons brought up several Bills,
which were ordered to lie on the table.
POOR RELIEF (IRELAND)—COMMITTEE.
On the motion of the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, the
order of the day for reseming the consideration of the Poor
Relief Bill ie Committee was read, and their Lordships went
into Committee.

The Earl of CLANCARTY wished to ask a question in
connexion with what had fallen from a Noble Lord. It had
been said that the accommodation in unions and workhouses
was such that out-door relief would be very little required. He
(the Earl of Clancarty) begged to ask whether, under the 4th
clause of the Bill, the Commissioners were to support..a relieving
officer who should have nothing to do?
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said the clause was ex-
ceedingly simple ; it gave the Commissioners power to ap-
point persons to dispense relief in particular districts. Out-
door relief was only intended to be given under special cir-
cumstances.—(Hear.) For instance, where impotent poor
required relief, it would be necessary to appoint persons to
dispense the necessary relief.
The Earl of CLANCARTY then proposed the omission of
the sth clause, which provided for the relief of destitute persons
under peculiar circumstances, and the substitution of another,
empowering the Commissioners to construct and aid fever hos-
pitals He said his object was not to curtail the means of substan-
tial relief to those who stood in need of it, but to protect another
&ass, who would be trench injured by the Bill as it stood,
namely, the industrious persons for whom the medical charities
of Ireland were established ; by the aid of such institutions
ailing persons would be afforded relief until they were in
a fit state to labour for their subsistence.—( Hear, hear.)
In proposing this amendment. he was testing the desire of the
Government to afford relief to the Irish people through the
medium of a Medical Relief Bill. The present Fever Bill
would terminate in November, and therefore he wished to
urge upon the Government to promote a measure for a
similar purprae, which might come into operation
at its termination : thus they might lay the foundation of
efticierit medcal charities in Ireland. It was because he
thought the clause would interfere ,with these charities that
he proposed its omission.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that he thought it
was necessary that the clause should remain in the Bill for its
eflif.cient operation.

The amendment having been negatived,
The Earl of CLANCARTY thought it would be better to
insert words making the operation of this clause temporary, in
order to carry out the decision to which their Lordships had
come on the previous evening.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE had understood the effect
of that vote to make the whole Bill temporary.
Lord STANLEY thought words ought to be inserted mak-
ing, the operation of the clause temporary.
Earl FITZ WILLIAM thought it would be better to make
the whole Bill temporary.
Lord MONTE IGLE said his intention in moving the
amendment last night was to give a temporary effect only to all
the provisions of the Hill relating to out-door relief.
The Earl of WICKLOW said, that the vote to which they
catw last night limited the operation of the whole Bill as, he
understood, to 184t4. But in fact the whole matter was in such
a state of confusion, that no two men could agree as to the na-
ture or effect of the vote which they had come to last night.—
(Hear, hear, and cheers.)
Lord MONTEAGLE denied there was any confusion
whatever, unless the confusion of ideas of the Noble Earl him-
self.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that after a most care-
ful considevrtion of the vote last night, it was difficult to say
what part of the Bill was to be temporary and what part per-
manent.
After a few words from Lord MONTEAGLE.
Earl GREY said he perfectly comprehended his amendment
of last evening ; it was to make the Bill a temporary measure.
But the Noble Lord had given notice of amendments applying
to parts merely of the Bill, and these amendments went to
make these parts permanent. The Noble Lord now pressed these
amendments to night ; exhibiting that his object last niL ht
was to damage the bill at its earliest course. He was successful,
be the Bill dispite of every manoeuvre was too high in the po-
pular esteem that it should fail.
Earl FITZ WILLIAM disapproved of the coarse of the
Noble Earl's remarks ; for it was very possible that, on a Bill
of so general import Noble Lords might differ, and differ consci-
entiously. The Bill was evidently affected by last night's amend
meet in whole. It had been determined that the Bill should
be temporary, although the limited time was not yet inserted.
Lord .MONTEAGLE disclaimed the imputation, and re-
minded their Lordships that he intimated last night his wish
to make the relief clause temporary and the rest of the Bill
permanent. _ _ _

Ear, ail'. GEP IIANS felt it due to himself to say that he
distinctly understood the Noble Lord to have intimated as
mush last night.
Lord CAMPBELL said the clause would be a new source
of difficulty, and would admit of so many different interpreta-
tions that a judge would find it most difficult to arrive at a de-
cision. He heyed his Noble Friend would consent to pro-
pose the clause merely as a temporary one.
Lord MON TEAGLE declared that the meaning of the
clause might be easily interpreted.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said the amendment
would pronvite the confusion which had been already intro-
duced into the Bill.
The Earl of SHREWSBURY said he should cordially con-
fcsi that he had been labouring under a misconception when
he had supported the amendment of the preceding evening.
The Bari of CLANCARTY consented to propose the clause
as a temporary one.
After a few words from the Marquis of WESTMEATH,
Lord STANLEY said the Noble Marquis opposite (the Mar-
quis of Lansdowne) had expressed a wish, which he said was
very near his heart, that they should commence business with-
out any unnecessary conversation. He would not add to the
mischief that might already have been done by any de-
sultory conversation which might have taken place,
and would confine himself to the sixth clause.
He would not put their Lordships to the trouble of dividing
upon the amendment if it did not appear to meet with their
concurrence, but he believed that if it were adopted it would
be finsnd to have a most beneficial effect. The Noble Lord
concludec by moving that the following clause be substituted
for clause b: —" And be it enacted, that in every electoral
divisi.,n of each union there shall be a relief eommittee ; which
relief cimrnittee shall con-ist of the guardians of such union
resident or having rateable property within such electoral di-
vision, together with the (two) highest ratepayers therein, not
bent-, guardians of such union ; and every such committee
shall meet weekly, on “srae day other than that of the meeting
of the board of guardians ; and every such relief committee
!hail annually elect a chairman ; and every relieving officer
w'ho shall be appointed as hereinbefore directed, shall at
such weekly meeting report to such relief committee any
ease of sudden or urgent necessity, and shall have power,
under an order signed by the chairman, or such person
as shall be, pro Linpore, acting as chairman, of such re-
lief committee, to give provisional relief in such case of
sudden and urgent necessity, either by an order of
admission to the worki:ouse or fever hospital of the union, pro-
vided there be room therein respectively, and by conveying any
destitute poor person thereto, it necessary, or by affording such
poor person immediate and temporary relief in food, lodging, or
medical attendance, until the next ordinary -meeting of the
board of guardians, at which meeting he shall report the case,
and the nature and cost of the relief so afforded, in such form
and manner as the Poor taw Commissioners shall prescribe,
and after such report shall give no further relief otherwise than
by direction of the board of guardians in the case so reported ;
and the guardian,, of the union shall furnish the chairman of
such relief committee with the necessary funds for affording
relief in manner aforesaid, and for the relief of those destitute
poor persons to whom relief shall be granted by the board of
guardians, at such times and in such manner as the Poor-law
Commissioners shall determine and direct."

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE hoped the Noble Lord would
le eve the matter in the hands of her Majesty's Government.
Fle ihought the object of the Noble Lord might be attained by
enabling:boards of guardians of large unions to appoint com-
mittees of their own bodies to exercise the check which he re-
quired.

Lord STANLEY said that the proposition of the Noble
Marquis was so nearly wh.t he himself previously had proposed,
that he had no difficulty in acquiescing in such an arrangement.
After a fe v words from the Marquis of LANSDOWNE,
Lord STANLEY said the only object which he had in view
was to give the board of guardians ar. intermediate control
ever the relieving officer, in order that the public interests
might be protected.
Clause 6 was then agreed to, and ordered to stand part of
the Bill.

On clause seven being read,
Lord BROUGHAM considered that the latitude granted to
paupers was by far too great, they tv, uld soon become so well
off as obe envie Iby the landlords. His great objection to the
rneasu e arose ;rain the fact of his being unable to see, the
wav in which it was to be carried out. The Government (lid
Loc follow the old principle, of resting while they were in the
dark; but they said, " because we are so let us go on."—
(Laughter.) Because we do not see our way, let us do some-
thing." It was often much better to leave what was not quite
well, alone, because meddling with it made it very often much
worse. Ihe more he considered the question, the more he was
impressed with the necessity of Government not interfering in
the manner which was proposed to do by the clause.
Lord LANSDOWNE said that the Act did net confer a
right to relief. Individual cases of hardship might arise, and
the only way to remedy it was by leaving the right to relief
discretionary in the poor-law guardians and the Poor-law
Commissioners.

Clanw 7 and 8 were thei agreed to.
On clause 9,

Earl ELTZWILLIAM moved the amendment, of which he
had given notice, to the effect, that the surrender of the
quartos acre should take place to the landlord, or some properly
authorise) officer.

Earl GREY said that the principal clause as proposed by
his Noble Friend purported that if a tenant were in
possession of a quarter of an acre of land and a
house, he should not be entitled to any relief
under the Poor-law Act, and if he were obliged to
surrender, he should surrender the entire holding, for it was
clearly evident that if the tenant chose to surrender the land
without the House, it would be a great injustice to the land-
lord if he were obliged to accept the surrender of the land
without the house. If there were to be a surrender, there
ought therefore to be a surrender of the whole of the holding.
of Lordthee
BROUG HA M was quite opposedlo the whole principle
and he did not believe that any arrangement could
Pc.'!,i•hty be devis:odfoerwthheeregranting out-door relief without work-
ing a great evil,n
Earl FITZW li
ILLIA 'said, that h
Friend appeared to have
quite mistakenis
measure, for it wouldtheN cl eh
a andr
a ct err Learned
Friend
not have the effect of increasing pauperism,
but of reducing it.
On the question being put,
The Earl of St. GERNIANSf(said that the whole operation
of the Bill would be oppressive,
d quartersw of
session of or for if a man were in the pos-
land, be might bean acre of
aaonm,reestion, therefore,
cf guattliaris for relic!, and the re,
of r~hef, of
Guardians
were
was the kind
to the board
was what was the amount of the relief,
perable
c,iamityeatmo administer.
forari holding a
which the Board
Urider the pres,ure of an insu
small portion of ground might be obliged to apply
relief. and th, re was no all ernatve. whatever bulit'atTiacthil:l
e
rnnst give up his land, and he must either go into the k
wor
house, and thus bocome a permanent pauper, for without either
hove or land lie must be in a state of destitution, and he
must therefore either go into the workhouse or else throw hi,
exertions into an already overstocked labour-market. For
those reasons he hnd formed the opinion that it would be unwise
to limit the relief to those who were not in the possession of
any portion of land. He had shown, as he thought, that he
bad not come to his conclusions with,,ut sufficient grounds, and
certain he was that some limitation should be placed on the
power vested in the boast( of guardians, and with this expres-
sion of his feeling be would leave the clause in the hands of
their Lord,.hips.
The Earl of RODEN said that he believed some limit
should be put on the lavish expenditure of the board of guar-
dians,
for he believed that abuses roust prevail, unless the pro
visions of the law was strictly carried out. He would state a
cal which occurred during the lest autumn in the district of
the board of guardians, of which he was a member. A man
in that district had unfortunately fallen into great distress, ant
he applied to. the board for relief, although lie was at the time
possession of the holding from which his subsistence had

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 out-door relief, and he
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 Martinis 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 time, 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.
'I he Earl of CLANCARTY thought that his Noble Friend
was mistaken in the view which he had taken.
The amendment being withdrawn, the clause was agreed to,
as well as clause 10.
On clause 11 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 onlwhich 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 money in Ireland.
The Marquis of CONN NG H 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 Stan-
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 case with-
draw it, and supp ort 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 chum 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, be 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 charge 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, but he firmly believed that, if the present Bill
psssed, they would never have a rate struck which would be
under 2s. 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 occul ied any tenement within the union,
or not having occupied a tenement, but being resident in it,
shaH 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 interest 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
assure them that they would inflict great injury by rejecting it.
He held in his baud a petition from Killarney, in which it was
stated, that up to a recent period there had been three tithes'
rates collected, and since that, in 1846, 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 he 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
one 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
the proprietor. Such a system would bring about the state of
things which existed in the southern portion of this kingdom in
I >533. and which it was the object of the Act of 1834 to remove.
Under that system each small district held itself responsible for
its own poor, 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 conflicting
difficulties and existing interests; it prevented the extreme
either 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
harity, was not the assumption of those who opposed, but of
those who favoured it. The Bill, itself, was founded upon that
Issumption. The Bill was not a charity, which would be bene-
ficial to the labourer, but a compulsory one, which cursed
those who received it, and oppressed those who gave it. It
taught the labourer to rely, not upon his own industry, but
upon this compul;ory assistance which this Bill was about to
give them. In the argument upon this measure, as indeed
upon all argument of this kind, they for2ot 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
,hould support the poor, and all other property should be
,xempt, nor that the landlord and tenant should be
rated at a rack-rent to support the paupers which
,he wealthy manufacturer sent forth as locusts from
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 fAizabeth, and who
could doubt that if the original system of poor-rating had been
begun in lb-17, 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 worFe 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;
who, 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 I
he welfare of their country.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE 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
every estate ought to be made to support the labouring poor
who were born upon it, for if that was not tube 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
answered in the speech of his Noble Friend the Secretary for
the Colonies (Earl Grey ). Unquestionably there was a
great difference between destitution arid moderate employ-
ment. Nor did he think that the pauperised in the
electoral districts ought to have any weight, for the fact, the
residents in towns too often held out a premium for pauperism,
:'or the induced those who had been engaged in
country employments to settle there in the hope of
M.taining rank-rents from their proprietors, and if this
sy,tem were really to be altered, what was to become of
proprietors in towns, for this measure had to a great
-xtent been framed with a view to provide for the
Pauperism of the country. But, in fact, it was in the power
towns. Yet, he believed, that a great change ,if the electoral districts as now provided
wrought by the payment
\lany of the
he towns,
%v.'s to proceed, they'
employ-
ment in the country,
ge,u,epuolnd thebe
poor f of money wages instead of goods.
in
coon the electoral districts now flocked into
the want of
toand if this mode of things
unnecessary,e: aemn ,eec
l ue positionni
y for,b be ruined,
as
if i
t tst
whre 1: consequence
ee
Tcnaewehduee:
pi. t
adopted,
:If,
clause
and the towns would
v‘ouldwass,4thnerebfoere,intotatlhlye
be quite superseded, and the landlords
the relief committee would
would
to improve their property in Ireland. It he quite unable
m
great anxiety in that country, for it uwasst be a matter of
ev
if the principle of the clause was to be adopted, the lands
that
ad-
joining the towns would have to bear the rates.— _(_L ands ad-
loud cries
of "Divide, divide.")
Lord DESA RT said that the best criterion would be the dif-
ferent rates which had been levied, and those which have to be
levied if these principles were to be applied. That difference was
between 6.1:d. and 6s. 4.,1_,(1., but much stresshad been laid upon the
amount of money obtained for the rents in Ireland : but it should
be recollected that the system pursued there was one grounded on

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 11+31 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, bad 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 WILLIAM said that the clause was not rightly
applicable to all the districts, for in framing a poor-law fot 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 districts, 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 not have to ascend the steps of the Throne
alone.—( Great Laughter.) (Loud cries of " Divide, divide.")
The House 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 FITZWILLIAIII 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 beat 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-
ther consideration of the clauses was adjourned till Monday.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOU&E OF COMMONS. May 7.
The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four o'clock.
THIRD READINGS.
The following Bills were read a third time and passed :
Caledonian Railway (Extension of Motherwell Branch of
Clydesdale Junction Railway to Auchinheath Mineral Field,
with branches to the Wishaw and Coltness Railway, Can-
derside, and Hamilton).
Caledonian Railway (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 Carlisle 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.

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. lie had been informed that from the 15th
of January the number of Irish paupers who had arrived at Li-
verpool 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 'he 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 Mersey
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 Wextxd, 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 6,000,0001. 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.)
RAILWAYS 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.

years.—( Loud cries of " Name, name.) He certainly snould
not, but he thought no one could be blind to the circumstances
which were passing in Ireland, and the neces'ity 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. CRAWFORD hoped that the third reading 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 Scoiland.

Mr SHA W said that it was very inconvenient in discussing
what wa. pa‘sing in the other house, but he did not think that
they ought to pass 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
never 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 had
great doubts as to how it would work.
lir. 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. TRELAWN Y 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. GBAWFORIi 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 nut able to. procure them, he should endeavour to
get them through some other source.
Mr. HENLEY considered it necessary that it should be
clelrly 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, hut
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 beggars
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 legiilating upon this subject. He apprehended that
all that would be required, was now and then to make an
example of incorrigible mendicants, and ho thought, instead of
the power to commit for the 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 caned upon a farmer to beg a little meal, and
finding that he had none, offering to sell a peck, which he had
in his possession, 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 people 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 pa.s 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 amendment
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

ti o. 11.

On the order of the day for going into Committee on
this Bill,
Sir ROBERT FERGUSON remarked that the commis-
sion under this Bill 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 twe
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-
f,rences 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
English' Bill. 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 been adopted for the measure
for Ireland. Saving some small difference the Bills might be
said to be nearly similar.

The House dim 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 complaints.
The clause was then agreed to, as was clause 6.
Clauses 7 and 8 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
de
injuri-
ously affect those Irish persons who had become residents
in
this country.
Sir G. GREY said that the Bill did not materially difftheer
from the Poor Removal Bill which had been passed;only material difference was, that the process by which a person
was removed to his legal settlement,
,
was more simple, more
at present. Thus, if a
expeditious, and less expensive than
person became chargeable, he would be immediately summoned
before a magistrate, before whom he_
would be examined as to
his settlement, to which he would, in the ordinary course,
be removed ; but he would not be removed because he was au