Commons Sitting of 25 February 1847

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Poor Rates (Ireland).
Reported. — Markets and Fairs Clauses; Commissioners Clauses; Gas Works Clauses; Water Works Clauses.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Cowper, from Electors of Hertford, and Viscount Villiers, from Inhabitants of Bilston, for Alteration of Law respecting the Registration of Voters.—By Mr. J. O'Connell, from New Ross (Wexford), for Repeal of the Union with Ireland.—By Mr. M. Gibson, from Rev. John Jordan, Vicar of Enstone, for Reform of the Church of England.—By Mr. J. O'Connell, from Kilkenny, and Dublin, for Abolition of Ministers' Money (Ireland).—By Captain Harris, from Southampton, and Mr. Rashleigh, from Cornwall, against the Roman Catholie Relief Bill.—From Marylebone, for Inquiry respecting the Rajah of Sattara.—By M. L. Bruges, from Attorneys and Solicitors of Devizes, for Repeal of Stamp Duty on Attorneys' Certificates.—By Mr. Brotherton, from Cirencester Temperance Society, against the Use of Grain in Breweries and Distilleries.—By Viscount Newry and Morne, and other Hon. Members, from several places, for Reduction of Lighthouse Dues.—By Mr. J. O'Connell, from Macroom, against the Proposed Measure respecting Rum.—By Sir FitzRoy Kelly, from Cambridge, respecting Remuneration to Tax Assessors and Collectors.—By Mr. Aldam, from Leeds, and Mr. Brown, from Staleybridge, for Reduction of Duty on Tea.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from Tower Hamlets, for Increase of Duty on Willow Squares.—By Mr. Divett, from Exeter, for Repeal of Window Duty.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from Bradford, for Inquiry respecting the Anatomy Act.—From George Henry Drew, of Bermondsey-street (Surrey), Attorney-at-Law, for Production of Papers relative to the Bermondsey Improvement (No. 2) Bill, and Kent Railway Bills (1845).—By Mr. Hume, from Manchester Commercial Association, respecting the Commercial Position of Cracow.—By Mr. Cowper, from Greengrove, and Mr. Plumptre, from Crayford, in Favour of the Ten Hours Factories Bill.—By Mr. Brotherton, from Manchester, and Sir W. James, from Kingston-upon-Hull, against the Factories Bill.—By Mr. J. O'Connell, from Cork, for Relief of Destitute Poor (Ireland).—By Mr. S. Crawford, from Broughshane, for Alteration of Law relating to Landlord and Tenant (Ireland).—By Mr. Butler, from Kilkenny, respecting the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Act.—By Mr. Hinde, from Northumberland, for Inquiry into the Navigation Laws.—By Mr. Gore and other Hon. Members, from several places, for Alteration in the Poor Law (Ireland) Bill.—By Mr. E. Shirley, from Monaghan, against the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill.—By Sir W. Heathcote and other Hon. Members, from several places, for Repeal or Alteration of the Poor Removal Act.—From Liverpool, against allowing Railway Companies to use their own Steam Vessels.—From Inhabitants of St. Martin-in-the-Fields, for Alteration of Law respecting the Rents of Houses, &c.—By Mr. Brotherton, from Guardians of the Salford Union, against the Law of Settlement.—By Colonel T. Wood, from Guardians of the Staines Union, for Alteration of the Law of Settlement.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from Members of the National Association of United Trades, for Alteration in the Wages Act.

TENANT RIGHTS (IRELAND) BILL.
MR. SHARMAN CRAWFORDrose for the purpose of moving for leave to bring in—
"A Bill to secure the rights of occupying Tenants in Ireland, and thereby to promote the improvement of the soil, and the employment of the labouring classes."
He said, that having so recently addressed the House in detail upon this subject, it was not necessary for him now to go over the same ground, especially as most of his statements and positions had not been refuted. He wished, however, to be allowed to show how greatly the improvement of the soil and the employment of the poor would be promoted by securing the rights of the tenants. The ruin of Ireland was not small holdings, but that small holders were not secured as regarded expenditure in the cultivation of the soil. In the county in which he resided, the tenant right was in full operation; and there was no estate in Ireland more flourishing than that of the Marquess of Londonderry, upon which that tenure prevailed. The object of his Bill was to secure to the tenants in every part of Ireland the benefit of the system in its fullest extent. The improvement which would result to the land in Ireland, might be calculated at 6,000,000 l. annually, which would support 1,911,000 people every year, at the rate of five to a family. He divided the small holdings into three classes, and urged that if upon the second class only 10 l. in every case were expended, the effect would be most importantly to stimulate industry. They knew that in this time of distress the deposits of the farmers in the savings' banks were doubled. The large farmers were making large profits, but would not expend them in the employment of labour; they put them in the savings' banks, and solely because they had no security of occupancy. Such a proposal as he now made, was absolutely necessary to secure any improvement. Under the system of middlemen, there was no security for the occupying tenant, and, therefore, he did not improve; but give him a right of tenure, and let him be paid by the landlord for the value of his labour and improvements, and you would secure that improvement by the occupying tenant which otherwise did not and could not exist. It would not be necessary for him to detain the House longer, as he had reason to hope there would be no opposition to bringing in the Bill.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, it certainly

503
was not his intention to object to the Motion; he thought the House was indebted to the hon. Gentleman, and it was very desirable that one who had paid so much attention to the subject should have shaped the Bill before the House. He had before stated that it was the intention of Government to introduce a measure for the same object during the present Session. Any observations he might have to make, would be best deferred to that time. In the mean time, he gave his willing assent to the introduction of the measure, though, until he had examined it, he could not state how far he approved of the details.
Leave given.

POOR RATES (IRELAND) BILL.
MR. SHARMAN CRAWFORDmoved the Second Reading of this Bill, for better securing the levy of poor rates in Ireland. The principle he contended for was, that the rates payable by the landlord and by the tenant should be separate, and the landlord and tenant be separately liable for the payment of those rates. He should be willing to adopt any improvements that might be suggested in the clauses. His great object was, that the poor tenant might not be obliged to pay his landlord's rates as well as his own. For this purpose he proposed that if the rates due by the landlord were not paid, and means could not be found of levying them, those rates should be liable to be levied by application to the Court of Chancery, and a receiver-general put on the rents of the estate on which those rates were due. The Irish Tithe Act furnished a precedent for this, and the clause he had inserted was taken from that Act. He should propose to postpone the Committee till after the other Bills with respect to Ireland had passed.
COLONEL CONOLLYentertained objections to this Bill, and especially to the last two or three clauses of it. Experience proved that separate rates would be more difficult to levy. One clause gave to the guardians the power of pronouncing who was poor and who was not. He thought that too great a latitude to be given by Parliament. Other steps were utterly uncalled for, such as putting a receiver on an estate because the rates were not paid. If rates had been in any case withheld by landlords, it was because their liability was disputed. By another clause the collector was made the judge of what he was to distrain, and was forbidden to sell articles belonging
504
to poor occupiers, such as necessary implements, or pieces of furniture.
SIR G. GREYthought the sixth and seventh clauses would require full consideration before they were adopted. He did not understand the hon. Member to object to the earlier clauses, dividing the rate due by the landlord from that due by the occupier, and giving a remedy against the landlord for his portion. He thought that principle a sound one; whether any inconvenience would follow from its practical adoption would be better discussed in Committee.
CAPTAIN JONESthought that when the clauses came to be considered, very grave objections would be found against some of them. At present the ordinary remedy was against the occupier of the estate; but the Bill would make it necessary that a portion of the rate should be collected from the landlords. Many of them did not reside, and considerable difficulty would be found in getting at them.
MR. P. SCROPEcould not omit this opportunity of recommending to the House extension beyond its present limits of the exemption of the poorer classes of occupiers from rating.
MR. B. ESCOTTthought that two more important measures had never been introduced into that House than those of his hon. Friend, and he was glad that Ministers intended to undertake the preparation and introduction of Bills on the same subject. If such a measure as the first introduced by his hon. Friend, were made generally applicable to all parts of the United Kingdom, not only would it be a great relief to the occupiers of land, but it would very much supersede the necessity of the second. He hoped Ministers would direct their attention to a measure extending to the tenants of England as well as Ireland. He should be sorry if the opportunity were missed of securing a more permanent occupancy, and greater security for the outlay of capital, by tenant-farmers than now existed. By far the greater part of agricultural distress depended upon this very point, that want of security in their tenancy prevented occupying tenants from laying out as much money in employing labour as they otherwise would.
MR. S. CRAWFORDsaid, he would not insist on the clause to which the hon. and gallant Member opposite objected, if any better mode could be pointed out of exempting the poorer class.
Bill read a second time.

MILITARY ACCOMMODATION.
MR. HUMEhaving moved for a number of returns relative to barracks and the accommodation of the military, remarked that his object in moving for the above returns was to submit to the House a complete review of the barrack system. He thought the time had come when a great reduction ought to be made in the number of barracks; and when the Government ought to avail themselves of the use of steam in the conveyance of troops to the districts in which their presence might be necessary, from barracks placed in central situations. The great degree of abolition of corporal punishments which had taken place latterly, led him to hope for a better class of men in the army; and he was anxious, therefore, by better accommodation, to render the condition of soldiers to be desired rather than shunned. He had served himself in India, and he remembered that in the native corps it was considered the greatest possible punishment to be discharged; and when a vacancy occurred, there were always fifty or sixty applicants, from which a selection had to be made; and he did not see why the condition of a soldier should not be equally desirable in this country. He believed the state of barracks generally would be found to be very objectionable both as to drainage, ventilation, and cleanliness; and the married and unmarried were crowded together with a want of all respect for that decency which ought to be observed. The inquiry he moved for would bring the matter before the Government, and, he trusted, occasion a great improvement in the present system. They had just passed a Bill which required the artisan to be supplied with water and the means of cleanliness; and it was a great mistake to deny equal privileges to their own troops. In Plymouth barracks, the only supply of water was in the court yard; and although the situation of the waterworks was such that it might be laid into every room, every drop had to be carried from the court yard; and the number of men being seventeen in each room, it was impossible that the air could be kept in a state which would not cause disease and discomfort. Another point of complaint was with respect to the canteens, one of which Government allowed in each barracks. This was most objectionable as regarded the morals of the men and their discipline. In other parts of the world, coffee-rooms were kept for the soldiers to resort to, and the profits were devoted to
506
the support of reading rooms and other amusements. The profits of the canteen went to the Treasury; and he considered it a meanness in Government to receive such a paltry sum from such a source. He wished for an inquiry, for the purpose of instituting one uniform system; and he was happy to find there was no want of inclination on the part of the officers and the War Office to concur in such a reform; and the House, he was sure, would not begrudge the expense which might be occasioned by carrying out improvements which would tend to the health, comfort, and better accommodation of the soldier. In the end, he was certain the system he recommended would lead to great economy; and it was with that view he now moved for these returns.
COLONEL FOXhad no objection to give the returns; but he thought the information sought, or a great portion of it, was already before the House.
Returns were ordered.
House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock.