The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-21 00:00:00

instances the poor were solely dependent upon the privates
resources of the euardians and the resident gentry. —( Hear.)
Mr. LEFROY felt constrained to bear his testimony to
the wretched state of the people of Ireland, and to
state that within the last few months he had had ample
opportunities of witnessing the anxiety of tete landowners to
mitigate the distress with the aid of their own private funds.—
( Hear, hear.) He must say, in justice to the Government.
that he had heard their statements in reference to Ireland with
the utmost satisfaction. Credit was due to them for the can-
dour with which they admitted the prevalence of the distress—
and the fairness with which they allowed that whatever
works had been recently adopted in Ireland were fully autho-
risedf by the exigences of the times. t Hear, hear. )
The Lord Lieutenant and the Secretary for Ireland,
had exerted themselves to the utmost to mitigate the
evils, and had entered cordially into all the schemes that bad
been submitted to them for the purpose. All those who had
the power of co-operating with Government in the present
state of Irish affairs, ought readily to come forward and do so.
He could bear testimony, with the Hon. Gentleman who last
addressed the House, to the difficulty of collecting the rates in
Roscommon, and ha bad not the least hesitation in believing
that the same difficulty had been experienood, and the reme-
dies resorted to in Castlebar. The Hon. Member for Bath,
on the previous night, suggested measures for meeting the
present exigencies, which would have the effect of ex-
tinguishing the landholders of Ireland.—( Hear, hear.)
But would their extinction improve the condition of the
Irish people. In many instances the landlords had given up
their rents, and others of them had abandoned many of their
comforts, and reduced their establishments for the purpose of
investing large sums of money in the purchases of Indian corn,
for the benefit of the poor. He did not pretend to say that
those who thus invested their money, expected it would be a
loss, on the contrary he was convinced they would be enabled
to remunerate themselves by selling the corn to the
distressed poor.—(C, ies of it Hear, hear.") The corn
dealers throughout Ireland, however, had been filling
their pockets at the t xpense of the people, and steps he had
mentioned, as being taken by the landlo:ds, were the only
means by which unjust and cruel speculations in food could be
put a stop to.—( Hear, hear.) He did hope, therefore, that no
more would be heard about extinguishing the landlords, but
that suet measures would be adopted for advancing money to
the landlords at reasonable rates of interest, to be invested in
reproductive works, such as the improvement of the land, and
thus enable them not only to meet all the liabilities the mea-
sures would impose upon them, but to derive some profit from
the money so borrowed. ( Hear, hear. )
Mr. P. BORTHWICK promised to give the measures of
the Government his careful consideration, and after giving
them such partial consideration to decide upon them without
reference to party feelit g or party bias. He did not agree
with the reasoning that had been advanced in supoort of the
violation of the Treaty of Vienna in the suppression of
Cracow, nor did he think those were the best friends of the
Government of France er of England who were silent upon the
subject of the Montpensier marriage, on the ground that the
entente cordiale which existed between the Govern-
ments of the two countries was indispensably neces-
sary for the preservation of the peace of Europe.
It was indispensably necessary that it should be shown to the
people and Government of France, that in this country there
was a reunion of all sections and parties in the sentiments ex-
pressed in reference to the Montpensier marriage. it was very
desirable, no doubt, that there should be an entente cordiale
between the two countries, but it should not be merely between
other parties and factions of these two great powers, but be-
tween the people.
Mr. PLUMPTRE expressed his hope that peace would not
be interrupted.
Mr. EWART was aware that the present subject required
the nicest management, but he could not help saying that he
hoped her Majesty's Government would introduce some mea-
sure for the extension of education in this country. He must
express his satisfaction at this part of her Majesty's Speech
which expressed a desire to preserve unbroken the peace of
the world. He was sure that the feeling of the people of this
ountry was in favour of peace as long as their natural rights
were not interfered with.—( Hear.) Peace was suited to their
commercial character, and to the limited monarchy under
which they lived.
Lord G. BEN TINCK begged to offer a few observations
upon what had fallen from an Hon. Gentleman in reference to
a Noble Friend of his, Lord Lucan. He had the authority of
that nobleman for stating that, during six years, he has con-
stantly resided in Castlebar, and expended, not only the whole
of his Irish rents, but a large portion of those derived from his
English estates also, in that part of the country. In justice
to the people of Mayo, he must state that they refused only to
pay rates on the ground of the extravagant assessment that had
been made on them, it being no less than 400,0001. It was
levied at meetings where there were numbers of persons with
shillelaghs in their hands.—(Laughter.) When the rates were
not levied, Lord Lucan himself paid the poor-rates of the
parish.—( Hear, heat.)
Mr. Pt IULETT SCROPE said that he lead derived his
authority from the daily papers. Perhaps the Noble Lord
would inform him, as he was on the subject, as to what had
been alleged of the landlords sending over paupers in such num-
bers to Liverpool.
Lord G. BENTINCK was informed that it was not the
landlords of Ireland who exported the paupers in this wholesale
manner. The steamers coming over here every year short of
hands, induced the proprietors to bring over paupers to Liver-
pool, in order to compel the parish to send them back.
The Address was then read and adopted.
CORN LAWS. . _

Lord JOHN RUSSELL gave notice of a motion for to-
morrow, that the House do resolve itself into a committee to
consider the corn laws.
The House then adjourned at Nine o'clock, till to-morrow
(this day.)

IXI'ENSES OF PRIVATE BILLS
IN PARLIAMENT.
The effects of the expense of carrying private Bills through
Parliament are shown in the annexed quotations from the
minutes of evidence taken before the House of Commons last
session, and recently issued by order of that House. Mr. E.
Chadwick is the first witness :
In the visits which you have made to different parts of
the country, have you found many parishes and communi-
ties who have been in want of lighting, paving, or water,
but who have been unable or unwilling to come to Parlia-
ment, in consequence of the great expense now attending it?
—A great number of places. In fact, except two or three
towns and the county town, I might say that the smaller
country towns in the whole country are in that position. The
expense of a Water or Drainage Bill, if unopposed, would
be 5001. In the small town of St. Helen's, which required a
Water Bill, I think the expense of the works was 3,0001.,
and the expense of obtaining the permission of Parliament
to erect those works was 1,0001. Consequently, one-fourth of
the money upon whtch the inhabitants will have to pay interest
went for the Parliamentary expenses. In fact, the expense of
obtaining works for drainage of many villages, and rather im-
portant small towns, would equal the expense of laying down
the house drains ; and the expense of a water Bill would
equal the expense of laying down the tenants' water pipes.
When the standing orders require that water shall be sought
by one Bill, and drainage, or the means of carrying away
water, by a second Bill, paving or cleansing by a third Bill,
the fees of the House and the professional expenses of these
Bills mount up, so as to render the expenses prohibitory; the
money expended in procuring Acts under which, in some of
the larger towns, only ineffective and expensive works have
been produced, might have sufficed to obtain good works. The
money expended in Liverpool for the private Act legislation,
the results of which have been desc• ibed to the Committee, it
may be confidently asserted would have sufficed for the effectual
drainage of upwards of 20,000 houses.
(T. Greene, Esq., M.P.)
Would you propose that communities should have the power
of adopting any of those branches, by the sanction of the
Secretary of State, or whatever department they were under,
on application to him, as is now done with respect to rating?
—lt may be a prejudice, but I have rather a disposition that
they should he obliged to come to Parliament on those matters;
I think it would be more satisfactory to the country at large
than that it should be vested in any one individual • and I
think the expenses, which are at present complained of so
heavily, would be a good deal avoided by having a short Bill,
and by having some better mode of settling the question of the
standing orders.
Would not there be many communities and parishes so poor
as not to be able to incur the actual fees of the House, even
without any of the other attendant expenses ?—I hardly think
that there would be, under the circumstances of improvement
which I think would attend the passing of private Bills ; because
the great expense they have to complain of is not the fees taken
in the House, but in point of fact the heavy charges of the
agents and witnesses brought up.
How would you propose to lessen those expenses of the
agents and witnesses ?—With respect to the standing orders, a
great deal of expense would be saved if, prior to the meeting of
Parliament, some officer of the House were appointed to take
the whole of the evidence upon the compliance and non-com-
pliance with the standing orders of this House ; that officer
would have ample time, beginning a few weeks prior to the
meeting of Parliament, to make an inquiry of that description ;
and he could regulate the time when each party should ap-
pear, so that it should not be the case, as at present, that wit-
nesses
i m
sleicaoret
was
ekeuini impossible
town for a considerable length of time,
cosi
consideration
exactly n ;
to
but
ty
hewhen
might particular
arrange
the Bill
time, and the parties would be here a very short period ; and
he, siting the whole of the day, would be able to complete the
inquiry in a very brief space of time.
Do you consider that that would be preferable to
any
on the spot, where all the witnesses would be in attendanceprrf
If that appear to be a cheaper plan, I see no objection to it -
but, of course, in all these matters the parties promoting the
Bill ought to pay the expense of the commissioner going into
the country, and it would require a vast number of commis-
sioners in different parts of the country to investigate these
matters, and considerable expense must be incurred; and there
would be also the objection which I have stated in my examina-
tion before, that there might be a want of uniformity if we
had a vast variety of commissioners in different parts of the
country; and that want of uniformity would be a very great
evil.

.
opposing I s it no
at theßil fact,l
in thtihs
House
actsexp anss ea and
prohibitiont e inconvenience
upon
opposi-
tion, except in cases where parties feel themselves grievously
and individually interested?—Certainly.
Thewholecon-
siderable
presentcommunity
sys-
tem, be worth the while of any one
.person that
extent, community
and
yet mayit mbaeyinjuriouslyit nt
under. a fftehcet e d to a
ttohegonitlle?t_heceexrptaeinnsley.and incur the inconvenience of opposing
(J. St. Georpe Burke, Esq.)
In the
that kind,
,cdans e sy
nonf
ewnantsei
dr we'ro rtkhsa,
totrh
eg aeso, rpl
ipaanveien g o
w,
ithr
standing
f
orders might be proved with less expense on the spot where
the works are to be?—yes, it would be a saving, as far as re-
gards the bringing up witnesses to prove it. It would not be a
very large difference, because you must appoint some official
person to go to take the evidence, and he would have fees, I
suppose, for going and expenses, and I do not know that there
would be a great change. The great expense we have been
put to in this session and the last, has arisen more from the
enormous glut of business which has prevented our Bills being
taken in due time, and because we have had to wait for days
in the lobbies, with hundreds of witnesses. Now an immense
saving might be effected if one Hon. Member would take the
duties of five; that instead of having five Members to investi-
gate whether plans have been rightly lodged, it should be re-
ferred to one single Member, who would be just as competent
as a committee of five.
Then if a plan were adopted by which one person here could
take the proofs, or if it could be done on the spot by a pro-.
perly authorised person, that would save a great deal of those
great expenses for witnesses which are now necessarily in-
curred ?—lf one Member were to form a committee for the
performance of this duty, it would save expense ; except that I
do not expect, nor does anybody ever expect, to have a repeti-
tion of what we have had this year and last.
When you speak of the comparative paucity of gas and
waterworks Bills, do not you think that the great expense of
obtaining Bills acts as a prohibition in many towns with regard
to their availing themselves of gas-lights and supplies of water,
which they might otherwise find it well worth their while to
establish do not think the expense is dependent at all
upon the length of the Bill ; that is a minimum proportion of
the expense.
What is the principal expense?—ln a Gas Bill the expenses
are not heavy if it is unopposed ; if it is opposed there are
various expenses arising from the fees to counsel, and so forth,
which run up a bill to a large amount ; the expenses of evi-
dence, the shorthand writer, the committee fees, the House
Tees, are all increased by an inquiry before a Committee; but