The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-06 00:00:00

s U
ce.) districts not including the city of London north
of St. Lltke's, for which the returns were n re4l3 •(*--;
(hear, hear.) And yet that was but a s
,150rn06?014.7.-fati
of the relief afforded by this country t 77alti
relief of Irish paupers. By a returissike had
received from Liverpool, it appeared t 1141i.:414rhXgtp..._? "-6
,-
the last fourteen weeks no less than 51,000 • obeli
passengerseners were landed at that port from Ireland—as-a S.M.Y.V
jty, he was happy to say, being for emigra-
tion, of which the people of Liverpool could not complain.
as it circulated more money, but deducting—thein and
some others the balance of absolute paupers thrown upon
the rates was 15,000, or more than I,oooa week„—(Hear.
hear.) Large amounts for Irish paupers were also paid
by Manchester and other larger towns, and in the gene-
ral report of the Poor-law Commissioners for 1848 they
stated that the poor-rates had exceeded the ordinary
amount by 800,000/.; and that the greater part of that was
on account of Irish pauperism. It could not, therefore, be
said that English farmers and others did not bear a fair
share of the burden of poor-rates even for Irish poor.—
(Hear, hear.) The representatives of the north of Ire-
land objected to a rate in aid, not.hecause they preferred
an income-tax, but because they objected to any tax in
any shape for the purpose of alleviating Irish distress.
The Hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Mansell) objected
to the inequality of the valuation; but surely that
was not a conclusive argument against the
rate. If it were, it was equally so against the
poor-law itself as against the county rate.
The objections to an income-tax, as a mode of imme-
diate relief, were very great, on account of the neces-
sity which would arise for creating machinery for its
collection; while, in the collection of the rate in aid not
a shilling of extra expense would be incurred. He cons
curred in all that had been stated as to this being a
temporary expedient. The Government would certainly
not have made this proposal to the House if 'they had it
not in contemplation to propose a modification of the
existing poor-laws. His Noble Friend had stated the
other night the outline of the modifications which they
intended to propose, some of which would be most im-
portant and beneficial in their operation. But did any
one suppose that they could discuss and adopt all these
suggestions, along with this resolution for a rate in aid,
and do it in sufficient time to make the rate in aid avail-
able for the immediate purpose for which it was required?
These modifications, however, would be proposed, and
he trusted, assented to by the House, at a later period
of the session. He had already stated that measures
had been taken by the Government with reference to
the area of taxation; but before any satisfactory conclu-
sion could be come to a great many preliminary steps
were required to be adopted. As to the suggestions
thrown out by the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel)
he was certain no one would dissent from his proposi-
tion, that the Government was bound to look beyond
the present moment bound, not only to pros
vide the means of relief fur the existing des-
titution, but also to provide, as far as they were able,
for the future, and to look forward to the adoption
of permanent means by which these portions of Ire-
land might be placed in a condition to maintain them-
selves, without having recourse to these continual
calls for external assistance, and whereby the holders
and occupiers of property might be able to support
their own poor. He (Sir George Grey) had stated
what be conceived to be the cause of the distress ;
and, in looking to the remedies which might be applied,
though he was less sanguine, perhaps, than the Right
Hon. Baronet in thinking that Parliament or the Govern-
ment could apply any direct remedy, ho most entirely
concurred in the opinion expressed by the Right Hon.
Baronet, that the remedy was to be sought in the trans-
fer of property from the hands in which it now was to
those of others—from landlords who had inherited their
property overwhelmed with burdens, and with a surplus
income not sufficient to enable them properly to discharge
their duties to those around them—to men who were
possessed of such an amount of capital as would effes-
tually enable them to discharge the duties of their posi-
tion, and to provide employment for the people on their
estates.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Honourable Baronet
had not exaggerated the difficulties of this subject. He
had alluded to the Act passed last session for facili-
tating the transfer of land ; and he must say that it
was only by slow experience that a conviction was forced
upon gentlemen accustomed to the forms of law and
equity, of the necessity of dispensing with some of those
forms which in their notioas derived from education and
long-cherished habits were essential for the protection
of the rights of property.—(Hear, hear.) No doubt
those gentlemen thought it necessary to lay down these
rules for the protection of property, and they would be
slow in receiving the conviction that they were unne-
cessary; it was no less true that the Court of Chancery
was not a court likely to assist in the removal of the
obstacles which prevented the transfer of property.—
(near, hear.) At the same time, it was no doubt
very desirable to accelerate the process of transfer.
It was undoubtedly the interest of the holder of pro-
party in those parts of Ireland where heavy poor-rates ex-
isted to dispose of that property; and what was wanted
was to make it the interest of the people to buy. The
thing that was wanted was so to modify the poor-laws as
to induce persons to enter the market without being
deterred from purchasing by the weight of poor-rates,
which, no doubt, was the principal cause why the Act of
last session had been comparatively inoperative. The
only remedy for this would be to relieve the purchasers
from the rates in arrear, which at the present moment
were deterring them from making purchases. Whether
the Commission which the Right Hon. Baronet proposed
would accelerate the transfer of property or not was a
matter for consideration; but if the gentlemen com-
posing it were to have power to decide all the questions
that might be raised about the titles to property, it
would be necessary that they should be lawyers; and if
so, the parties would find themselves in muck the same
state as the Court of Chancery. At the same time,
he should be sorry to express a hostile opinion
to a proposal of that kind without its being
presented in more detail. He believed that the Con-
nemara estate, to which allusion had been made,
was likely to become the property of one of the
great insurance companies; it was to be sold either to-
gether or in lots. The Right Hon. Baronet had spoken
of selling it in small lots of one or two thousand acres.
Probably he was not rightly informed of the nature of
the property, a great portion of it being of that descrip-
tion that it could not be divided. He hoped, however,
that by means of the Sale of Encumbered Estates Bill of
last session very many of the obstacles to the transfer of
property would be removed, though it might be by a
slow and gradual, but sure, process. He trusted the
House would not reject the proposition before them,
without being satisfied that there was some other course
which would better secure the desired object.
Viscount CASTLEREAGH moved that the chairman
should report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Lord J. RUSSELL hoped the debate w ould now be
allowed to close, and that the sense of the Committee
might at least be taken on the preliminary resolution.
After a few words from Sir J. WALSH, a division took
place on the question of adjournment.
For the adjournment ... 104
Against it ••• ••• ••• 251
Majority ... —147
Lord CASTLEREAGH again moved the adjourn.
ment.

Lord J. RUSSELL amid great confusion, was under-
stood to accede to the adjournment, with the under-
standing that the debate should be resumed this day.
He hoped that gentlemen who had notices on the paper
would consent to postpone them.
BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS BILL.
Sir J. PAKINGTON moved that the following gen-
tlemen be nominated a Committee on the Bribery at
Elections Bali—Sir John Pakington, Lord Ashley, Sir
Frederic Thesiger, Mr. Bouverie, Viscount Mahon, Mr.
Brotherton, Mr. Walpole, Mr. Legh, Sir John Hanmer,
Mr. Honman, Mr. Wrightson, Mr. Napier, Mr. Mait-
land, Mr. Mullings, and Mr. Sheridan.
Colonel SIBTHORP opposed the motion on the
ground of the lateness of the hour, and moved the ad-
journment of the House.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said that he had given ample
notice of the composition of the Committee, and he could
only say that he had endeavoured to constitute the Com-
mittee as fairly as possible.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY objected to the placing of the
same Members on several Committees at the same time.
It was impossible for them to perform the duties that
were expected from them on these several Committees.
He thought the business ought to be more fairly dis-
tributed amongst the Members of the House generally,
and should not bo left to some thirty or forty Members
of it. lie knew instances of Committees where the
chairman was the only person present to conduct the in-
qui!), and cross-examine the witness, although by the
rules of the House it was necessary that there should be
five to constitute a quorum.—(Hear.)
Mr. W. PAT IEN said that the last point alluded to
by the lion. Gentleman was worthy of consideration..4'ed
The abuse of which he complained certainly 'existed
list session, and the House ought considerto
should not whether
the rule which applied to private Committees
be extended to
public Committees,namely, that the
clerk of the Committee should notify to the chairman
when there were not five members present, and that all
further pioceedings should cease till the requisite num-
ber was present.—(Hear.)
The names of several Members, to whom no objection
was made, were then nominated.
On the motion that Sir J. Hanmer be one of the Com-
mittee,r. .AIMACKENZIE objected to his name standing.
The House divided, when there appeared--
For Sir J. Hanmer 31
Against
Majority ••• ••%
As there were not forty Members present, the House
necessarily adjourned at One o'clock.

EW ASSURANCE COMPANIES.—The following
offices were founded last year :—The IlLgis, British
Empire (Fire), Counties, Dundee, Etonian, Engineers,
Gresham, Indisputable, Independent, Mentor, Metropo-
litan Counties, National Mercantile Fire, Prudential, and
Scottish Marine. In 1844 eleven offices ceased to exist;
in 1846, ten; in 1847, five; and last year thirteen. From
1844 to 1646, no less than 146 companies were projected,
but only seventy-six were founded. Out of twenty com-
panies projected up to the close of the last year, nine
have commenced business. At the present moment
nearly a dozen new companies are in the course of pro-
jection. As many of these emanate from irresponsible
portico, and as it is not unlikely they may have to deal
with a large amount of private capital, which there is no-
thing to prevent them from iw properly squandering, it may
become a question whether it would not be well for the
Legislature to require not only that the promoters and
managers of these undertakings, but those of the most
ancient, the most successful, and the most respectable
companies should periodically publish in the Gazette the
number of shares issued and paid upon, with the amount,
the number of policies issued, and their amount,
the amount of money lent on securities, and the extent of
as a
J oi
nnd t stock Ass companies are
Assurance chronic le
their
requiredres ptoe
e cdt iov. capitals,e_r h c
Reporter
for alfarch. -

q34413CL1