The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1849-05-22 00:00:00

n .made a single mark on the documents'
id to have altered, nor had he even made
ind The committee which

tern Counties Committe

43 would think v

great crew

'Vith respect to
every share which he or

profit, he cvoul

He had ;ley,
a severe los,
knew not t

transact

he had much more to reply to, 'and he
pon the consideration of tLe house, ready

imEelf

to give every explanation upon the whole of these tran-
sactions. As to placing sums of money to capital instead
of revenue, it was common with other companies, and par-
liament itself had payment of interest out of capital, the
princirlein either case being the same.

Mr. WADDINGTON denied the charges made by the
committee; and was ready to meet any investigation ; for
irhe had erred at all, it was an error of judgment alone,
Mr. BAGSIIAW also entered into an explanation, and
said he houlJ think himself unworthy of a seat in that
house it the charges against him were true. He was not

Lu4' Utz
the represenfatise of the interests of another
That other company had only on that very
,ain elected him -as their representative unani-
.., and this was of it-self, perhaps, a sufficient
answer to the charge. He would, as an act of justice to
Mr. Hudson, state that he had met him in the north some
time back, when he said to him in great agony of mind,
" Mr. Rigshaw, I have been greatly deceived in these
' The suhject then dropped.
Land Improvement and Drainage (Ireland) Bill
' a third time and passed.

rection

company

morning ae

-mously

matters
The .1

On ti
Poor R

ie order of the day for the second reading of the
lief (Ireland) Bill,

Mr. P. SCROPE, approving of the principle of the bill,
remarked that it omitted to secure its great object—to
provide an effectual ielief for the destitute poor. Relief
was to be confined to workhouses, but in order to recon-
cile this limitation of succour with the principles of
humanity, and not make the test too severe, the work-
houses should be well regulated ; whereas, in many parts
of Ireland, no one would say they cßme within this de-
scription, and some were of such a characi-Cr fm to deter
the people from entering them until dying of starvatii37..
He then reiterated his suggestions for the employment of
the able-bodied paupers upon productive works—applying
the idle labour to the idle land—at once improving the
country and reducing the rates.

Mr. OSBORNE inquired why, when a committee was
sitting upon the Poor Law, the Government should have
brought in a bill to amend that law before the committee
lied made a report ? He should not oppose the second
reading of the bill, but he believed it to be utterly impo3
bible to struggle with the vast amount of destitution under
such a Poor Law, or by any pc:ldling legislation upon the
subject. Without a national rate—and in addition, lie
advocated paid boards of guardians—the land of Ireland
would be unable to afford relief commensurate with the
existing destitution.

Lord C. lIAmiLTox feared that the absence in the bill
of any reference to the question of settlement would
nullify its operation.
After a very few words from Mr. CALLAGHAN,
Colonel DUNNE approved some of the provisions of the
bill, but others he should oppose in the committee. The
measure, however, wovld prove perfectly futile under the
it Poor Law.

Mr. H. HERBERT, though he considered the bill, with
its principle of union rating, a pernicious one, yet, believ-
ing the Poor-law to be breaking down, should not oppose
its second reading, the state of Ireland being at its worst.
He enlarged upon the calamitous effects produced, as he
contended, by the Poor-law, which had changed the lan-
guage of honest self-dspendence into that of despair.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE showed the inconsistency of Mr.
Osborne's charge against the Government. which, when
be (Sir William) had proposed the appointment of a com-
mittee, had been told that it was their duty to bring for-
ward a measure on their own responsibility, and not to
wait for the report of a committee. He then replied
shortly to Mr. Scrope—who, he observed, bad mixed up
-with this measure matters entirely distinct from it—and
in a more specific and detailed manner to the objections
urged by Mr. Herbert, especially with reference to there-
Zuction of the areas of taxation.

Mr. V. SMITH remarked the ominous silence of Irish
members upon the novel principle in this bill of a maxi-
mum rate ; and he asked, when the maximum rate was
exhausted, whence the relief was to come? He warned
the house of the danger of a national rate or of a claim
-anon the Consolidated Fund.

Lord J. RUSSELL, in reply to Mr. Smith, said, if the
poor of Ireland had been relieved by rates of Bs. or 12s.
in the pound, and the house was asked to provide for an
excess over such rates, it might lead to some apprehen-
sion ; but this was not the case, and an abstract declara-
tion of the law, that the whole property of the unions
was liable, would be no security that the people would be
relieved. He found that the last rate in Ballina was
3s. lid., and that while in some electoral divisions rates
of Ils. and 12s. bad been collected, in those where aid
was required from public grants rates of only 35., 3s. 6d.,
and 4s. 2d. had been raised. These small rates had been
collected with the utmost severity, and had in some cases
suspended the cultivation of the land. In this state of
things there was no way to relieve the destitute but by
giving a security and a limit beyond which the cultivation
of the land would not be interfered with. But the ques-
tian still remained ; there might be unions in which, after
paying a ss. rate and a 2s. rate, there would be an amount
of destitution still unprovided for, and Mr. Smith had
asked whence the provision was to come. His answer
was, that, as a general principle, a rate-in-aid should not
continue in Ireland, and that the maximum of 7s. being
found insufficient to meet the amount of destitution
would not be a ground of claim upon the Consolidated
Fund; he thought it would be better to leave its relief to
such resources as existed before the Poor Law of 1847
than to sanction a national rate, or a claim upon the
Consolidated Fund. Lord John noticed some of the
objections of Mr. Herbert, but reserved his opinion upon
others until the bill was in committee.

Mr. HORSMAN considered that the answer of Lord
John Russell to the important enquiry of Mr. Smith was
so vague as to lead tdian inference that the Government
had not made up their minds upon the subject, so that
the maximum might turn out only a nominal one, and
prove a snare to the ratepayer. Ile then entered upon a
general criticism of the measure, and of the action of the
Irish Poor Law, dwelling at same length upon the neces-
sity of reducing the area of taxation. The great object of
etploying the able-bodied poor was to be arrived at only
by adopting a small area of responsibility, which would
prove the will and the power of proprietors to discharge
their duty; and by a rigid ••
test.

,lic-ati6n of the. workhou

Air. NAPIER objected to the principle of a rnaximo
rate, on the ground of its injustice and its incongruit
with the spirit of the law of 1838. A maximum rate rer

but whether t, the full amount must he lift I hOl
The capital of the company had been
one-third, while the receipts were
which he thought a full answer to the ques-