Commons Sitting of 26 April 1849

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.——1o Exchequer Bills (17,786,700 l.); Incumbered Estates (Ireland); Estates Leasing (Ireland); Society for the Prosecution of Felons (Distribution of Funds).
2o Administration of Justice (Metropolitan Districts).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Thomas Greene, from Lancaster, against the Parliamentary Oaths Bill.—By Mr. Hardcastle, from Colchester, for the Clergy Relief Bill.—By Mr. Alexander Smollett, from Greenock, against, and by Mr. Du Pre, from Aylesbury, in favour of, the Marriages Bill.—By Mr. Bouverie, from Renfrew, against the Marriage (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. Duneuft, from Oldham, against Endowment of the Roman Catholic Clergy.—By Mr. Cowan, from several Places, and by other hon. Gentlemen, against, and by Mr. Locke, from Edinburgh, in favour of, the Sunday Travelling on Railways Bill.—By Sir William Molesworth, from Launceston, Van Die-men's Land, against Convict Emigration.—By Mr. Joseph Bailey, from Crickhowell, County of Brecknock, for Repeal of the Duty on Attorneys' Certificates.—By Mr. Thomas Greene, from several Places in Lancashire, respecting the Lancashire County Expenditure.—By Lord Marcus Hill, from the Evesham Union, for the County Rates and Expenditure Bill.—From the Lewes Union, Sussex, for Relieving Counties from the Expense of Constructing Gaols and Lunatic Asylums.—By Mr. Cowan, from the Royal Burghs of Scotland, in Convention assembled, for Reduction of the Public Expenditure.—By Mr. Deedes, from a Number of Places in the Eastern Division of the County of Kent, for Agricultural Relief.—By Mr. Fagan, from Cork, against the Attachments, Court of Record (Ireland), Bill.—By Admiral Dundas, from Greenwich, against the Friendly Societies Bill.—By Mr. Cowan, from the Royal Burghs of Scotland, in General Convention assembled, respecting the Recovery of Money advanced for the Support of Irish Paupers.—By Viscount Bernard, from Cork, for a better Regulation of Medical Charities (Ireland).—By Mr. Adderley, from the Staffbrd Union, for the Adoption of Measures for the Suppression of Mendicancy.—By Mr. Dodd, from the Maidstone Union, and by other hon. Members, for a Superannuation Fund for Poor Law Officers.—By Mr. Turner, from Coventry, for the Punishment of the Promoters of Promiscuous Intercourse.—By Mr. Henry Herbert, from Killarney, and other Places in the County of Kerry, for a more complete System of Railways (Ireland).—By Mr. Hume, from Pathhead, Fifeshire, and by other hon. Gentlemen, from several Places, against the Registering Births, &c. (Scotland) Bill, and Marriage (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. Heyworth, from Cireneester, for an Alteration of the Sale of Beer Act—By Mr. Alexander Smollett, from the Presbytery of Greenock, against the Abolition of Tests for Schoolmasters (Scotland)—By Alexander Hastle, from Glasgow, and by other hon. Members, for referring International Disputes to Arbitration.

STEAM-BOAT CASUALTIES.
MR. J. O'CONNELLwished to ask the right hon. the President of the Board of Trad a question, of which he had given notice, whether it is the intention of the Government to bring in any measure so to regulate the carriage of passengers in merchant vessels, between various ports of the united kingdom, as may prevent the recurrence of such calamities as occurred on

857
board the Londonderry steamer? He wished also to ask, whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman had been drawn to the report of an inquest that had been held in the course of the last few days at Liverpool, in consequence of several deaths that had taken place on board the Britannia steamer, on her passage from Dublin to that port? It appeared she carried 414 deck passengers, in a gale of wind, many of whom had to remain upon the paddle-boxes, and, in consequence of the exposure and the severity of the weather, a man, woman, and child died. He wished to know if the Government intended to adopt any measures to prevent the recurrence of such casualties?
MR. LABOUCHEREwas glad to say, that the attention of the Government had been directed to the lamentable consequences arising from the overcrowding of steamers, and the exposure of deck passengers, from overcrowding, on board steamers between England and Ireland. They had considered the question, not only with regard to the Londonderry, but various other cases. The subject was one which was not unattended with difficulty; and it would be most unadvisable to throw any obstruction in the way of the cheap means of conveyance at present enjoyed by the humbler classes in Ireland, who came over to the harvest, or for other purposes. On the other hand, the overcrowding had been attended with such serious results, that it would be necessary to interpose. The hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that, by an Act passed in the last Session, there was a power vested in the Board of Trade to limit the number of passengers; but the application of that Act had hitherto been limited to steamers navigating rivers, and had not been applied to sea-going steamers. Under the present circumstances, he had thought it right to direct Captain Denham to go down to Liverpool, and to report the result of his inquiries; and he could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that no time would be lost by the Government in taking such measures as, under all the circumstances, might be considered expedient.
MR. CARDWELLexpressed his gratification that the duty had devolved upon Captain Denham, and hoped the Government would not lose sight of the subject.
Subject dropped.

THE NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
MR. B. COCHRANE, pursuant to notice,
858
put the following questions: Whether there be any probability of the House of Commons being ready for the reception of Members by the Session of 1850? Whether it might not be ready if a larger grant were made for that purpose? What amount would enable such to be effected? Whether a great ultimate saving might not be attained by a more liberal grant during the present year?
MR. GREENEreplied to the first question, that the House itself might be rendered fit for the occupation of Members by the time named; but, at the same time, it would not be convenient so to occupy it until the library, offices, refreshment rooms, and approaches were finished. To the second question, he could only say, that it might be possible to get the whole ready if an additional sum of 50,000 l. could possibly be allowed for the purpose. With respect to the last question, no doubt was entertained by those superintending the building, that a considerable ultimate saving might be effected by proceeding more rapidly by the advance of additional sums.
MR. B. COCHRANEasked, whether, as a great saving could be effected by additional advances, the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown would not propose them to the House?
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, that the yearly amount of grant was very much regulated by the income and expenditure of the year.
MR. B. COCHRANEasked if the noble Lord would increase the grant?
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, that there were many buildings in which, no doubt, economy would be consulted by granting larger sums of money; but if 50,000 l. were granted to one, and 100,000 l. to another, the expenditure of the year would be increased in a way by no means advisable.
Subject at an end.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, he proposed to move the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Poor Laws (Ireland) Rate in Aid Bill, for the purpose of postponing it, inasmuch as there were so many Motions on the Paper, that he could not expect it conveniently to come on that night. What he proposed was, to postpone the Committee on that Bill until tomorrow, when it could be taken first. Then, when the Bill had gone through Committee, he proposed that the House should meet on Saturday for the report.

859
He did not anticipate there would be any discussion on that stage. The third reading of the Bill would then stand as the first Order of the Day for Monday, when that discussion could take place, which, he understood, was desired, before the Bill went up to the House of Lords. After this, he hoped to be able to go into Committee of Supply, and take a few Votes on account.
MR. GRATTANthen rose and requested the hon. Member for Shrewsbury to postpone the Motion he had on the Paper for the appointment of a Standing Committee to consider the practical measures likely to improve the working classes; and he grounded his appeal to him on the distressed condition of the poor of Ireland. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman would give way to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, that the measures respecting Ireland might be considered without loss of time.
MR. SLANEYsaid, he had twice postponed his Motion, at the request of the Government; and now he thought it hardly fair that he should be appealed to for another postponement.
SIR. R. PEELhoped that the announcement made by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, with regard to the postponement of certain measures, did not affect the Motion of which he had given notice with respect to the Bill for the Amendment of the Irish Poor Law, or the other, respecting the sale of incumbered estates.
LORD J. RUSSELL: Oh no, these are not at all affected by what I said. They will come on to-night.
MR. HUMEsaid, he had postponed the two Motions which stood on the Paper in his name, in order that the Government might proceed with their measures for Ireland; and he was sure that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Shrewsbury, although his Motion was important, would find a more fitting opportunity for bringing it on at a future period of the Session.
MR. BRIGHTwished to add his opinion in favour of the hon. Member postponing his Motion. Although the subject was one to which the hon. Gentleman had paid great attention, and was in itself very important, yet he thought he would be more likely to gain the ear of the House on another occasion if he would consent to postpone it to-night. He said, there was reason for wishing to forward any measure
860
introduced by the Government in regard to Ireland; and therefore, although the subject of the hon. Gentleman's Motion was important, it was still more important that the Government measures for Ireland should be advanced without delay.
Mr. SLANEYsaid, if any day were fixed when he could have precedence for the discussion of a subject to which he had given a long and painful attention, he had no objection to postponing his Motion. But unless that were assented to, at that advanced period of the Session, he did not feel it his duty to postpone a subject in which a large portion of the people of England were interested; he wished to know, therefore, whether the noble Lord would give him precedence on any day?
MR. POULETT SCROPEsaid, the hon. Gentleman spoke of the people of England, but he (Mr. Scrope) appealed to the House, whether the distress of the Irish people did not make it much more important to proceed with the Government measures.
MR. SLANEY: Can the noble Lord give me any assurance that I shall have the precedence on a future day?
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, that that matter rested with the House, and not with him.
MR. SLANEYthen said, that in obedience to the desire which appeared to prevail on both sides of the House, he would give way to the noble Lord, but in the hope that another day would be granted to him for the discussion of his Motion.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, he would at present leave the Bate in Aid Bill where it stood on the Paper, to come on at a later period of the evening. If it should not come on to-night, he would then revert to the arrangement he had already announced.
Subject at an end.

POOR RELIEF (IRELAND).
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid: I rise. Sir, to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Acts for the more effectual relief of the destitute poor in Ireland. I have not proposed to the Committee now sitting on the Irish poor-law to come to any decision on the measure I am about to submit to the House. That measure I propose entirely on the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. There are several points upon which the Bill I am about to introduce does not touch, but which are points requiring further consideration, and

861
upon some of which it may be advisable that the House should legislate in the course of the present year. The first and most important alteration which I now propose is the introduction of a maximum, both with regard to the rate upon each separate electoral division, and the rates upon all the electoral divisions of an union. It must be admitted that these provisions are contrary to the general principle of the poor-law as understood in this country. It is always assumed that, whatever may be the amount of pauperism, it must be relieved first by means of a rate for the purpose of providing for the infirm poor, and in the next place by setting to work the ablebodied poor. But, in putting that principle into operation in Ireland, at a time of very great distress, and when great scarcity prevailed in that country, there has been such a pressure upon the tenant-farmers and upon the property of the country as to create very considerable alarm, and to be an obstacle to the due cultivation of the land. Now, it is obvious that if there is this difficulty with regard to the cultivation of the land, the pressure of the poor-rates would thereby be increased, and in two ways: first, from there being a want of the means which have hitherto existed to supply the wants of the poor; and, secondly, from the increased number of labourers unable to find employment, who would consequently become paupers. It was therefore considered by Mr. Twisleton, as the head of the Irish Poor Law Commission, and by Her Majesty's Government, whether it would not be advisable to propose a maximum rate, and it was thought by them that a maximum rate should be enforced. What I have now to propose, is, that the rates in any electoral division shall not exceed the amount of 5s. in the pound in any year, and that what may be further required shall be levied on the other electoral divisions of the union to an amount not exceeding 2s. in the pound for the year. Supposing, therefore, that in one electoral division expenses have been incurred to the amount of 7s. in the pound, that electoral division will first pay the rate of 5s., and then it, with the other electoral divisions of the union, will pay an amount not exceeding 2s. in the pound, in addition to the ordinary rates which may be necessary in those divisions. With regard to the present state of the electoral divisions in Ireland, I have a letter lately received from a farmer in an union in Tipperary, who states that in his electoral division
862
the rates amounted to 7s. 6d. in the pound, while in two electoral divisions in the neighbourhood scarcely any rate whatever was necessary, there being no surplus of labour, and consequently very few persons requiring relief. I have been told, as an objection to my proposal, that it will be an inducement to electoral divisions to expend to the amount to which they are limited by law, in order to obtain the aid which which will be given by the additional rate of 2s. upon the other electoral divisions. I cannot think, however, that that will be the ease, because it is obvious that if an electoral division could support the poverty which belongs to it with a 4s. rate, there is no inducement to it to it to increase its rate to the amount of 7s. in order to obtain some aid from other electoral divisions. Still less could it be the interest of those electoral divisions which at present are lightly charged—which pay 6d. or 1s. in the pound—to increase their charges for the purpose of raising the whole amount of the rates. Now, some persons are of opinion that it would be advisable to lay a rate upon each electoral division which should not exceed a certain amount, but that it is not advisable to call in the aid of other electoral divisions. I am afraid that if that proposition were adopted, the result we wish to arrive at would not be attained; because, while some of the electoral divisions might incur an expenditure greatly exceeding 7s., there might be other electoral divisions whose expenditure might be much below that amount, and the electoral divisions charged with the 7s. might have an amount of pauperism they could not support, while they could obtain no aid from the union. It appears to me that the guardians, having a general control with regard to the expenditure of each union—and being forced by the necessity of contributing to the aid of any electoral division when the guardians or managers are disposed to be wasteful to look narrowly into that expenditure—would, therefore, exercise vigilant control over the expenditure of each electoral division. This is a totally different case from any general rate in aid, for if you made a general—an indefinite—rate in aid over the whole country, demands might be made upon that rate in consequence of profuse expenditure in particular electoral divisions; but that objection will not apply to my proposal, because the guardians have a general supervision of the charges and expenditure of the electoral divisions which require aid. Another

863
objection to this proposal is, that there may be, in certain unions, as we have found has been the case in past years, a total inability to defray the expense of maintaining their poor, and that in consequence of this measure no more than a 7s. rate can be collected from all the electoral divisions in such unions. But, on the other hand, the main question appears to me to he to enable the unions as far as possible to support the pauperism in their own districts. We have found that not only were many unions unable to raise a rate amounting to the 7s., or 10 s., or 12 s. that might he required, but that a rate of 3s. or 4s. has been the utmost collected in years of very severe distress. I do not think, therefore, that this measure would at all disable unions from affording aid to the necessitous, while it would give security both to occupiers and owners of land that their rates should not go beyond a certain limited amount, and there would therefore be an inducement to occupy and to cultivate laud, which is now wanting in the more distressed districts of Ireland. I have also to propose several further provisions with respect to the amendment of the poor-law. One proposal is that the Poor Law Commissioners shall have the power to settle the past liabilities of certain electoral divisions, in contemplation of a new division of unions and electoral divisions. Upon that subject a report has been made by the boundary commissioners, who were appointed last year. It is impossible now to go into that report, and the principles upon which it is founded; but all I say at present is, that I propose to adopt the general views of those commissioners, and to enable the Poor Law Commissioners from time to time to carry their reports into effect. I am, however, prepared to say, that having considered the question with regard to workhouses, and the opinions that have been given by various persons with respect to that subject, I am disposed to assent to the opinion which I find is generally entertained, that it would not he useful to make a further division of unions, unless at the same time some provision is made for new workhouses. I think it would be better to defer for a time the carrying into effect of a new division of unions; but at the same time whenever there is a new division of unions, that new workhouses should be erected. There will be a clause in the Bill, therefore, enabling the Commissioners to make these arrangements. Another provision
864
of the Bill is one to which I referred on a former occasion—namely, that the owners who pay the poor-rate according to the present law, should have the power of deducting a portion of that rate on account of the jointures and rent-charges by way of life annuities which are chargeable upon their property. I would make this alteration on the principle that these jointures and family settlements were made in contemplation of a state of the law totally different from that which now exists. It was then supposed that the rent of the landowners would not be charged with the poor-rate, to which it is now subject; and I therefore think it is just that the change in the law affecting such property should be taken into consideration. In the case of any future settlements it will, of course, be in the power of persons executing them to make them in accordance with the existing law, and to make jointures larger, because the poor-rate is chargeable upon them. There will be no difficulty, I think, with respect to future arrangements, the only difficulty being with respect to settlements already made. I propose, also, to make an alteration with regard to a very important provision of the original Poor Law Act, in respect to the deductions made by the tenant from the owner in reference to the poor-rate. It was intended that half of the poor-rate should be paid by the occupier and half by the owner; but it was stated that there were in many cases very high and exorbitant rents payable. It was provided by the original Act that the tenant should be allowed to deduct not only half the rate he paid, but half the rate on the amount of rent he paid. There was a survey to make valuations, which were made a good deal below the actual fair rents paid, and in that manner many occupiers have transferred from themselves to the owners the liability intended to be placed on themselves; and I propose for the future, as the best way of avoiding this difficulty, that the tenant should have the power of deducting half the rate he paid, but should not have the power of making any further deductions; and therefore the deduction would have no reference whatever to the rent he was liable to pay. I shall propose, also, to insert in the Bill a provision with respect to agricultural improvements, which may be effected either by drainage or improvement of land, or by farm buildings. I think it impossible—at least we have not found that we could frame any provisions by

865
which, without a great deal of inconvenience, the land should be free from increased valuation on account of certain improvements. There must have been an inquiry as to what those improvements wore, at what period they were made, and whether the party was fairly entitled to have his claim allowed to have his valuation not increased; and we felt it not possible to frame any provision to that effect which might not give rise to great disputes, and questions to be brought perhaps before a court of law, and causing considerable litigation. Consequently, what we propose is, that for a certain period there should be a fixed rateable value—namely, that for a period of seven years agricultural improvements should not be valued at an increased amount. The obvious effect of such a provision would be, that persons might undertake improvements without any fear that during seven years they would be liable to increased rates on account of the value of those improvements; for hon. Gentlemen are aware that there has been great complaint made in petitions and memorials that no sooner did a landed proprietor or occupier increase the value of his property, by laying out any great sum of money on works of improvement, than his rates were increased, and consequently great discouragement was thereby given to effecting improvements. Another arrangement which I propose to make is, that civil-bill decrees for the recovery of rates shall be removable into any of the superior courts in Dublin without writ of certiorari, and when duly filed shall have the force of a judgment of such court; thus making them judgment debts against the property, which may be sued out by the usual process of law. A question which has been much agitated and disputed is that relating to the sale of land for the purpose of paying arrears of poor-rates. There exists very great difficulty on that subject, owing to the necessity of solving the question, who is the person liable for the payment of such poor-rate, and who is the person having the interest in the land? Of course it would not be just, if one person were liable for the poor-rate, and another were the owner of the land, that the land should be sold for the payment of the arrears of poor-rate; and I have therefore requested my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General to insert in his Bill provisions which I think it possible to make with respect to the sale of land for the arrears of poor-rate—that being one of the points with
866
which his Bill proposes to deal, and I desiring to confine myself, in the present measure, as much as possible to the amendment of the poor-law itself. I propose, however, that on the non-payment of rates, the lessor may have the power of proceeding by civil bill in respect to them, and may oust the tenant for the non-payment. I have not included in this Bill several provisions which it may be desirable to introduce after further discussion shall have taken place. I have introduced those amendments which it seems to me will tend to the improvement of the poor-law, and calculated, I think, to stop that alarm, or rather panic, which has prevailed in some parts of Ireland as to the inability of the present occupiers and owners of land there to pay the poor-rate. The great increase of the poor in Ireland during the last year, has led many persons to suppose that the burden will be so great that it will be impossible to cultivate the land with any profit; and if that opinion were to spread through the country, it would prevent persons from cultivating it. Now, I do not think that there is any such extent of pauperism in Ireland as may not be relieved by rates which, in ordinary years—not speaking of occasions of extreme famine—the cultivators might be capable of paying. I own that I was surprised to find that the number of ablebodied labourers who, with their families, sought relief from the poor-law in June and July last in Ireland, was not greater than 70,000; whereas the number in England amounted to 90,000. The question, after all, is, whether, supposing there is not a very great scarcity, it is not possible for Ireland to go on supporting her poor by a poor-law made as efficient as possible for that purpose? My belief is, that, omitting extraordinary years, it is possible for Ireland to bear the burden, and that, so far from the country being pauperised by the poor-law, the land is, on the contrary, much more likely to be cultivated if there should be some security for the support of life under a poor-law, than it would be if the country were left without a poor-law at all. The noble Lord concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the Relief of the Poor in Ireland.
Mr. STAFFORD: Sir, the noble Lord has stated that the rates for the maintenance of the poor in Ireland could be collected—all his arguments proceeded upon that assumption; but, over and over again, he had called attention to the fact,

867
that the famine in Ireland, cease when it would, would not leave Ireland where it found it, in possession of all her resources. The great error of the poor-law was its tendency to render wider the distance between capital and population. Thousands of lives had been lost, still the capital of Ireland was being swallowed up. In one whole quarter of Ireland, the resources of all were wholly and completely exhausted, and it was by extraneous means alone that the lives of the people could be preserved. It was with great regret that he saw the Government coming down with such piecemeal legislation. It would have been far better to have embodied the whole of the alterations they intended to propose in one Bill, so that the people of Ireland might know the amount of change they had to expect, at least for one year. The Committee nominated by the noble Lord upon the poor-law had not concluded their proceedings, it was true; but he was at a loss to know for what more evidence the noble Lord was waiting from them, or why he had selected the present from among the many other subjects which their inquiries embraced. The noble Lord said he was not prepared to go into the question of the sale of land for arrears of poor's-rates. That was a subject upon which considerable evidence had been taken by the Committee, and upon which great anxiety existed in Ireland. [Lord J. RUSSELL: I said, not in the Bill for the amendment of the poor-law.] But that is the only Bill we have before us. [Lord J. RUSSELL: Yes; but not the only Bill that is promised.] Then it would be convenient if the Government would state to the House what other subjects their policy was intended to embrace during the present Session. It would tend to set at rest vain fears as well as vain hopes, which were worse, upon certain subjects, which were entertained in the country. To fix a maximum rate was one of the most difficult matters they had to deal with. He did not understand that the Government had irrevocably fixed upon a 5s. electoral division and a 2s. union rate. But the noble Lord had not told them what was to be the case when the rate exceeded 7s. in any electoral division. Whence was the poverty of the district to be supported when that maximum had been reached? The Rate in Aid Bill was avowedly to last only two years; from what fund then was the money to come? The conclusion at which the people of Ireland would come would be that the money
868
must come out of the national exchequer. Did the noble Lord mean that the 5s. rate was to be merely struck, or was it to be really and truly collected? If they contented themselves with merely striking the rate, and suffer a large portion of it to remain uncollected, and then proceed to lay the 2s. rate, he could assure the noble Lord it would not work, and he might as well give it up. Make a 6d. rate if they pleased, but whatever they did impose let them see that it was actually collected. The noble Lord said he proposed to adopt the report of the boundary commissioners; but, so far as he understood that report, it did not much matter whether he did or not, for it contained nothing. But he could assure the noble Lord, that unless the area of taxation was made much smaller than that proposed by the boundary commission, that commission would have achieved very little good in the working of the poor-law. He wished them to bear in mind that unless they rendered the poor-law a stimulant to labour, they would swamp the property before they found relief for the poverty of the country. Now, with regard to the size of the unions, the noble Lord had stated that he could not consent to the alteration of the size of the unions unless new union workhouses were raised. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had stated 1,100,000 l. were owing for union workhouses in Ireland; that none, with the exception of Newtownards, had attempted to pay back by instalments what was advanced; but when they found they were the only persons that were doing so, they discontinued paying. It ought to be recollected that union workhouses were built without reference to the local authority on the subject. In the Limerick union much of the money that was received would have been repaid if it were not necessary to spend it in enlarging the workhouse. How were they to exact the workhouse test when the workhouse was overflowing? They had in Limerick actually spent in building and repairs more money than would have repaid the money borrowed from the Government. If now, then, the union workhouses were to be built, he asked where was the money to come from? He thought that when boards of guardians had conducted their own affairs through difficult times, they should be permitted to retain the boundaries of their own unions as they were. Let the English Members, he said, look to this, that it was proposed that

869
twenty-one new workhouses should be built, and that all must be built from the funds of the national treasury; and let those who were satisfied with the payment of the past loans recommend another. In Committee it was his intention to propose a clause to the effect, that unless in the case of boards of guardians that had been dismissed, the opinion of the board should be taken, and, unless the board of guardians should consent to the proposed altertion, the boundaries of the union should remain as they were. In Ireland the moment a new union was proposed, it was immediately acceded to, as with a new union there would be a new staff, a now clerk, &c., and all the other machinery for jobbing. Then, he said, to prevent this, it should be understood that, where a new workhouse was to be raised, the board of guardians would have to pay for it, and that no loan or grant would be made from the treasury on account of new workhouses in Ireland. He understood from the noble Lord that the incidents of rates were henceforth to be equally divided between the owners and occupiers of land—that there was no reference made to the rent which the tenant paid. As he understood, of every shilling of rate—sixpence was to be paid by the occupier, and sixpence by the owner. In England, the whole rate fell upon the occupier; in Scotland, half was paid by the occupier, and half by the owner; so that, in point of fact, the noble Lord proposed to assimilate Ireland and Scotland in that respect. He thought that there was another course which it would be wise to adopt on this subject, and that was that when the holding was above a certain value, the whole amount of the rate should fall upon the tenant, so that there would be thus an inducement to the occupier, the only person who could give employment, to afford it. He knew of instances in which this would have a beneficial operation. Then, when there were arrears of rates, the noble Lord proposed to place a summary power in the hands of the landlord of ejecting the tenant from the land; that the tenant should be ejected by a civil bill; that, in point of fact, the landlord should be an instrument in the hands of the poor-rate collector, and that he should have more power for collecting for another than he had for himself. Another difficulty on this subject would be—what was proposed to be done with family settlements? He did not know from what date the noble Lord meant to but those whose settlements
870
were dated from the year 1838 would have less reason to complain than others, but it would remain for the noble Lord to show that it was impossible to exclude those who had mortgages and other charges on property from such a proposition. He had hoped that there would be a clause which would give further facility for emigration, and modify and amend a clause that passed in 1847, and that clause the noble Lord would find had been wholly inoperative. There was required the Poor Law Amendment Act facilities for the application of funds, and for permitting electoral divisions to levy an emigration rate in addition to other charges. He hoped the noble Lord would take this subject into consideration. He had read in an able weekly periodical, the Economist, with which he believed the hon. Member for Westbury was acquainted, an article in which the principle of the narrowing the area of taxation was the main foundation of all improvements. He knew, within the last month, of a number of persons being ejected, and when the agent was asked why he did not emigrate them, his reply was, that if he did so, it would cost him twelvepence in the shilling, whereas by putting them into the workhouse he had only to pay fourpence in the shilling, as two other persons having property there had to contribute equally with himself. He must remind the noble Lord that Mr. Twisleton stated that the point on which he was most urged by those whoso opinions were entitled to great weight, was narrowing the electoral divisions. That which he desired should be an instruction to the boundaries commissioners would be to assimilate the electoral divisions in Ireland to the size of the parishes in England. He spoke of the whole of Ireland generally; but where there was mountainous land he did not desire it. What he asked, and what he insisted upon, as absolutely necessary for the fair working of the poor-law in Ireland was that, for poor-law purposes, the electoral divisions should be assimilated to the parishes in England; whereas, if the Government insisted upon a large area of taxation, he was convinced that all their labour would be vain. He did not underrate the difficulties which the noble Lord had to contend with, nor was he, nor those who acted with him, disposed to increase those difficulties by any conduct of theirs. The same feeling that had hitherto influenced them, should continue to actuate them; and when he felt it to be his duty to press particular topics upon the attention

871
of the Government, they might rest assured that his only reason for doing so was, that he felt convinced they were absolutely necessary for the salvation of the empire.
MR. W. FAGANsaid, he fully agreed in the proposition that the ratio between population and capital in Ireland was daily becoming more distinct and marked; but, with regard to what had been said about the operation of the Irish poor-law, he should like to ask how they would have preserved the peace and the lives of the people of that country during the period of famine without such a law? He therefore protested against the practice of attributing the misery and destitution of Ireland for the last three years to the working of the poor-law. It was not fair to attribute the condition of Ireland, after three years of famine, to the operation of the poor-law. With reference to the limitation of the area of taxation, it was true that such a measure might be a stimulus to employment; but on the other hand it was admitted by all who had well considered the question, that it would also be a stimulus for clearances, and that it must be accompanied by a law of settlement. That was the opinion of Mr. Power, the assistant poor-law commissioner, and also of Mr. Twisleton, and others who had turned their attention to the subject. The noble Lord would allow him to express his regret that he had not taken into his consideration the peculiar position of the cities and towns, particularly the seaport towns, of Ireland. The city of Cork, for instance, was very much oppressed by the working of the poor-law. One of the greatest difficulties that the framers of the original poor-law for Ireland had to deal with was, how to meet the circumstances of the position of places like Cork; and to meet those circumstances a general union rating was adopted by this House, which, however, was changed into an electoral division rating by the House of Lords. But those who were the best authorities upon the working of the Irish poor-law, were of opinion that a general union rating would be a much fairer system, particularly as affecting the cities and towns. If those cities and towns were oppressed by the present system of rating—if they now complained of the inundation of paupers from a distance—if the corporation of the city of Cork had been obliged to grant, as they had recently done, the sum of 100 l. for the employment of a police force to prevent strange paupers from coming into the city, then he would tell the noble Lord, that with
872
his proposed new Bill this state of things would be materially aggravated, and the oppression become still greater, inasmuch as by reducing the maximum rate, the amount of the influx of paupers in periods of distress or famine, like those which the country had lately passed through, would be considerably augmented. In his opinion, the cities and towns which were liable to be thus inundated with pauperism, should have some assistance given them by the noble Lord's measure. Either a portion of the rate in aid should be allocated to them for the support of those strange paupers, or some other means adopted to do justice to them. He observed that the noble Lord did not contemplate making the landlords, who received rents from public buildings, liable to the payment of the rate; but if the existing poor-law were to be amended at all, that was an amendment which ought most certainly to be adopted; for as the law at present stood, the landlord of the custom-house at Cork, who received, 800 l. a year rent, did not pay a single farthing towards the support of the poor.
VISCOUNT BERNARDsaid, that he did not entertain the extreme opinions supported by some persons with regard to the diminution of the area of taxation; but he thought that they had, at all events, a right that the area in Ireland should be assimilated to the English system of parochial divisions. The working of the Labour-rate Act had convinced him of the impolicy of entrusting local authorities with the expenditure of money chargeable over a large extent of district, because, in that case, it was admitted that there had been an extravagant expenditure, by the granting of indiscriminate relief, merely because the money was to be drawn from the public exchequer, and not from the barony alone. A strong feeling existed on this subject in Ireland; and bethought that the public had a right to know at once what it was Her Majesty's Government intended to propose. It was his painful duty to preside at a meeting convened in the town which he represented, for the purpose of bringing under the notice of Her Majesty's Ministers the alarming distress of the western districts of Cork, Bantry, and Skib-bereen. At that meeting, the agent of the Earl of Bantry stated publicly that the Earl of Bantry and his son had applied for 12,000 l. under the Loan Improvement Act, that they had taken 2,300 l of that amount, but were unable to take the rest, because, from the way in which the electoral divisions

873
were at present framed, the spending of that money in land improvement would in no degree diminish the amount of their poor-rates. If, however, the area of taxation were reduced, the Earl of Bantry's agent stated that they would be at once prepared to undertake the charge of all the paupers upon their property, though that property was one of the poorest in the district; but other parties would not cooperate. With regard to the non-payment of the advances for the erection of workhouses in some parts of Ireland, he believed that the objection to the payment arose solely from a feeling of indignation at the shameful manner in which the money had been expended. There was one difficulty with regard to the taxing of annuities and jointures for the relief of the poor, on which he wished to hear some explanation. Annuities and jointures were generally chargeable on the whole property, which might happen to be situated in several electoral divisions; and as the poor-rates often varied considerably in adjoining electoral divisions, he wished to know by what rule the portion of the rate payable to each out of an annuity was to be fixed. He regretted that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had not stated how he intended to meet this difficulty; and he also regretted to find that the noble Lord had not alluded to the subject of emigration. The evil that was now complained of was, that parties were emigrating to America who belonged to a better class of life than that of the labourers—unfortunately, the very people they could least wish to spare were going to America. Under the present system, the amount applicable to emigration was not sufficient to take out any material number of the population. In the union where he (Viscount Bernard) presided as chairman, he had proposed during last year to strike a rate for promoting emigration; but the project had to be abandoned, because it was found that they could not send out a sufficient number of the paupers to afford any relief to the union, as the vacancies that would be created in the workhouse, would be at once filled up by new applicants. He thought that the project of a maximum rate and a 2s. union rating was involved in considerable difficulty. Thus, in his union, a 2s. rating would yield 12,000 l., and therefore any reckless electoral division, having expended its own 5s. rate, would be at liberty to claim 12,000 l. additional from the union at large. In conclusion, he wished to express
874
his conviction that no alteration in the poor-law would effect any permanent benefit, unless accompanied by auxiliary measures. He believed that one of the most important aids in the amelioration of Ireland would be the construction of railroads. The two most successful unions in the county with which he was connected, were those of Bandon and Mallow, and both had been greatly assisted by the extensive railway works carried on in them. He trusted that the Government would adopt some measure for the construction of railways through those parts of Ireland that were not provided with them.
MR. POULETT SCROPEwished to say a few words before the Motion was agreed to. The improvements proposed by the noble Lord at the head of the Government involved merely the shifting of the burden of taxation as regarded the ratepayers; but what he (Mr. P. Scrope) wished to see was some improvement in the law as regarded the poor themselves, for whoso benefit the law professed to have been passed; and he could perceive nothing in the noble Lord's plan at all relating to them. With regard to the outdoor poor, he hoped the noble Lord would take into consideration the propriety of allowing something in the shape of lodging-money for the houseless poor, and also of providing them with some sort of clothing, so as not to leave them, as they were described, in the reports of the inspectors, to be wandering about the country without shelter, and almost naked. He wished to know if clothing and shelter were not as much wanting to preserve life almost as food itself. So much for outdoor relief; but with regard to indoor relief, immediate change was equally necessary. The union workhouses in the distressed districts were described as being at present absolutely pest houses. One gentleman, the chaplain of the Kenmare workhouse, had described the inmates as being crowded together four and five in a bed, and without any means of changing the wretched and filthy clothing that they were when entering the House. Again, in the Ballinrobe and the Ballinasloe unions, the mortality was described as averaging 100 a week. The poor people saw the workhouse managed in such a way that 100 burials went forth from it every week, and naturally preferred remaining to die out of doors, or if they did apply for admission, it was merely with a view of being provided with a coffin after death. There was one

875
other point which he wished to impress on the noble Lord, and it was with reference to the responsibility of the poor-law officials. It appeared that numbers of paupers died of want, after having in vain applied to the relieving officer for assistance, and yet no responsibility attached to the official who was thus guilty of their deaths. The Poor Law Commissioners stated, he believed, that they would dismiss any relieving officer who was reported to them to have misconducted himself; but surely that was not sufficient protection for the safety of the public. Where such negligence on the part of the officer was followed by death, he ought to be indicted for manslaughter; and he was convinced that the example would have a most salutary effect in preventing the recurrence of the abuse, if criminal proceedings were taken in some proved case of this sort. Now, with regard to the powers of the poor-law guardians, he would ask the House to allow the Irish boards the same privileges that were allowed to the English boards. He would state an instance in point, as to the difference between the two countries. The Sheffield board of guardians, finding themselves likely to be overburdened with ablebodied poor, had taken on a long lease a piece of waste land, about six miles from the town, and employed their ablebodied poor in reclaiming it. They had taken fifty acres, which was the most the law allowed; they had erected upon it a subsidiary workhouse for the residence of those who were employed on the land; and when it was reclaimed and improved, they intended to sell this portion, and lease fifty acres more, and so on till several hundred acres were reclaimed. As yet, their proceedings had been eminently successful. Now, he could not see why the Irish proprietors should not have the same power. In framing the Irish poor-law, the noble Lord seemed to have confounded two things which were altogether distinct—the humane provisions of the 43rd of Elizabeth, which authorised the giving employment to the ablebodied poor, with that corruption of the practice which had crept in in modern times, of allowing a labourer in full work to obtain relief if his children exceeded a certain number. That abuse had very properly been put down by the 4th and 5th of William IV.; but there never was so great a mistake as to confound the two things together, and equally to prohibit both. With regard to the question of small areas of
876
taxation, he should wish some of its supporters to define what they meant by it. [Mr. H. HERBERT: The average size of an English parish.] It was notorious that wherever a parish was in the hands of a single proprietor, their attempts at clearances were most generally seen. What was the opinion of the Rev. Mr. Lilly, who had been brought up from the south of Ireland to give evidence before the Committee in favour of small areas of taxation? On being asked, what was the cause of the numerous evictions that had taken place, he answered that he believed they had been caused by the anticipation of the landlords, that in a short time a smaller area of taxation would be resorted to, and they were preparing for that by getting rid of the poor. With regard to the Economist newspaper, which had been referred to that evening, he regretted to say, that he had read in last Saturday's number a furious attack against the principle of a poor-law altogether, whether English, Scotch, or Irish; and his regret was increased by the rumour that that article had been written by one of Her Majesty's Government. He should conclude by again expressing his opinion that the Bill would not provide a remedy for the pauperism of Ireland.
MR. H. A. HERBERTthought that he and his friends had a right, to a certain extent, to complain of the conduct of those who were opposed to a small area of taxation. When a Gentleman found that the arguments used on his (Mr. Herbert's) side of the House were unanswerable, what did he do? Instead of attempting an answer, he put into their mouths arguments which they never used, and statements which they never made, and then he turned round and demolished the case which he had himself raised. Thus the hon. Member for the city of Cork stated that the hon. Member for Northamptonshire attributed the miseries of Ireland entirely to the poor-law. His hon. Friend had said no such thing. Still less was it their wish to say, as had been represented, that Her Majesty's Government had not had great and tremendous difficulties to contend with—difficulties which, the more he reflected on them, and the more he knew the circumstances of the country, the more he saw their magnitude. But what he and his friends did say was this—that these difficulties had been increased and aggravated by the poor-law—by the large electoral divisions; so much so, that even in the distressed districts

877
one of the poor-law inspectors had given his opinion, that if the small area of taxation had been adopted two years ago, the difficulties of Connaught would have been much less, and that, even now, though most part of Ireland was sinking into the abyss of despair, yet the distress would be much alleviated if the small area of taxation were adopted. The hon. Member for Cork city had also stated that it was admitted by every one that the small area of taxation tended to clearances, thus throwing upon them the odium of advocating a system which they knew would lead to clearances. He totally denied that such was the tendency of the system if it were guarded by a law of chargeability, which would not be difficult to work. How could they say that the system would tend to clearances, when it was notorious as day that clearances were now going on—when the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated, that in one union alone—the union of Kilrush—13,000 persons had been evicted? If any man would examine the subject, he would find that in proportion as the area of taxation was large, so was the number of evictions; and in proof of it, he might state, that in the union of Kilrush, where evictions had been carried to such an extent, the electoral districts averaged 11,000 acres each. With regard to the amendments which the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown had introduced, he must say, that he would much rather have the Bill as it stood at present. He did not say that the amendments did not contain much good; but, with regard to the 2s. union rating, he must say, that, if there was one thing wanting to prostrate the spirit of industry in the rural districts of Ireland, it was that. Take the case of two electoral divisions in one union, which contained at present an equal amount of pauperism, and which required a 7s. rate each for the maintenance of their paupers. Suppose that the proprietors and occupiers in one of these districts should combine, and give employment to the poor, and thus reduce the rate to 2s., while in the other division nothing was done, and the rates continued to amount to the maximum; could anything be more unfair than to come upon that division which had already made such sacrifices for the employment of its own poor? He thought the noble Lord underrated the magnitude of the difficulty he had to deal with. The noble Lord said, that by the returns there were 70,000 ablebodied persons entitled to relief—
LORD J. RUSSELL: By the return of last July, 70,000 persons with their families.
MR. HERBERTsaid, that was what he wanted to show; because he wished to show the utter fallacy of relying upon returns in a question of this kind. That return did not represent the whole number of able-bodied poor; for, in fact, the poor-law guardians were, in all cases, most unwilling to resort to the system of giving outdoor relief to the ablebodied poor; and, rather than do so, they in many cases put down men as infirm who ought to be considered as ablebodied; and, indeed, such was the emaciated state of the people at present, that the boards of guardians were justified in so classing them.
MR. GRATTANcomplained that this Bill did not bring before them the whole question of Irish pauperism; for the noble Lord at the head of the Government had told them that there were some points which would be provided for in another measure, to be afterwards brought in. He thought it was better that they should have the whole case before them; for, otherwise, not only was the measure incomplete, but it excited suspicion. One part of the noble Lord's speech had given him hope—where the noble Lord said that this measure would meet the difficulties of Ireland in ordinary times: but what was to remedy the present emergency? Some hon. Members talked of emigration; but when did they read in the history of any country, that where there were 14,000,000 of acres, 4,000,000 of which were lying waste, they sent away the best part of the population, and retained the weakest? What, then, did they mean to do? They talked of being Christians, and yet they suffered the poor to die and to remain un-buried, leaving the corpses to be torn to pieces by dogs, or to have the eyes picked out by the fowls of the air. Hear that, Gentlemen of England! Shut your eyes you may; shut your cars you ought: it is a misfortune to us; but it is a disgrace to you. The true remedy would be found in sending the Irish landlords back to do their duty in Ireland. The Romans would have done that; the Greeks, with all their republican notions, would have done it; but you have not the courage to do it because your pocket gains by it. But now the day of retribution has come, and I rejoice that, in the decree of Eternal Providence, you are called upon to support the poor Catholic whom you have oppressed. I rejoice

879
that there is a God in heaven who has punished you at last. England took the money of Ireland, and then grumbled because she was required not to let that country perish. In Ireland insurrections were conveniently got up to hide the distress of the country. A body of officers had been sent over to Ireland to spy out the nakedness of the land, under pretence of distributing Indian meal; but, nevertheless, 170,000 of the best men of the country were obliged to leave it. How hon. Members from Ireland could support an income tax of 7½ per cent for a perpetuity, while they rejected a rate in aid of 6d. in the pound for a couple of years, passed his comprehension. The single question was, whether the Union with Ireland was real or fallacious. The people of Ireland had been driven to other countries, from whence their sons would come back with rifles on their shoulders—so, at least, it was said—but he trusted it would be otherwise. Many plans had been proposed for Ireland; but that of the right hon. Baronet, as well as that of the noble Lord, was a total failure. He had a letter from a lady whom he never saw, who said that all her rents went to pay the ablebodied poor, who had shot several of her servants, and therefore she would not go to live there, not she. But who were those new comers to be who were to supersede the old landlords of Ireland? Were they to be chosen upon the plan of James's settlement of Ulster, or of Charles's plantation? The ruin of the country was laid at the doors of the Irish landlords of Ireland; but it was not a matter of recent growth, nor was the gradual decay confined to estates that were encumbered. He knew of one estate which had been purchased a few years ago for 89,000 l., which he was offered lately for 50,000 l. And one cause of the depression was, that, after a long course of bad legislation, the English gentry, and the press of England, had represented the people of Ireland as incorrigible. They had damned the Irish people as lazy and idle, and irreclaimable; and after having run them down, they turned upon the landlords, all of whom they classed in the same category; and now they came forward, after they had beaten down the value of the land to fourteen years' purchase, and, giving them the same choice that had been given under the former settlement of Ulster, they left them to go to Connaught if they liked, or to hell if they preferred it. Their tenure of Ireland
880
was, consequently, not of love, but of 40,000 armed soldiers, and 14,000 policemen. They had complained of the rebellious spirit which existed there; but what else could be expected? They talked to the Irish about the gratitude they owed to England. They talked about English benevolence to Ireland. The Irish did not want their benevolence. They wanted justice, and it was no justice to take away their gentry and their nobility—to drive into another land their middle classes and their farmers, and then to turn round and shut the doors of their national exchequer. They had asked for a small sum to relieve the distress of the Irish people a short time ago, and the hon. Member for Montrose, who was in other respects a very excellent man, refused, with true Scotch economy, to vote for it. Money would be freely taken for a Caledonian canal, but it could not be advanced to relieve Irishmen from starvation. Those petticoat Gentlemen had no hearts, as they had no breeches pockets. He saw no cure for the condition of the people of Ireland, but the restoration of their native Parliament, and allowing them to legislate for themselves. A great change had come of late over the minds of the gentry of Ireland upon the subject of the native Parliament; and he asked the noble Lord at the head of the Government, had not the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland come over to this country lately, and recommended the experiment of rotatory Parliaments? They had discovered now that their coercive policy in the late trials for treason and felony had been mistaken. He (Mr. Grattan) told the Government, when they introduced their Treason Felony Bill, that they would risk the obtaining of verdicts altogether by such a course of legislation, and his prophecy had been fulfilled. They had made Mr. Duffy not only a martyr, but a victor. It was high time they tried a different course. He knew landed proprietors in Ireland who did not owe a single shilling in the way of encumbrance or mortgage, yet whose estates were daily regularly diminishing in value. He know an estate in the county Monaghan, the property certainly, he should say, of an absentee, which produced, up to the year 1846, a clear rental of 1,200 l. a year; in 1846 it diminished to 1,000 l.; in 1847 it fell to 700 l; in 1848 it came down to 600 l.; and in 1849, reckoning to the 1st of January, it produced only 566 l.; having thus fallen, in the course of five years,

881
more than one-half. He knew of another estate, in the county Longford, which produced, up to the year 1845, 1,500 l. a year; in 1846 it fell to 1,200 l.; in 1847 it produced only 1,000 l.; and in 1848 it came down to 868 l.; and those were only specimens of a regular, general, and national sinking. He asked the House, did they remember when Mr. Loader, the then Member for the county Cork, said, many years ago, that they mistook if they thought the evils of Ireland were of a temporary nature. He said, "There is a general sinking of the country; trade after trade, and manufacture after manufacture, is falling, and will go altogether unless something he done." And they had lived to see the prophecy fulfilled. There was an estate in the county Cavan, which, in 1844, produced 1,170 l.; in 1846 it produced 940 l.; in 1847, 600 l.; in 1848, 500 l.; and in 1849 it had fallen to 400 l. Let the noble Lord not go to sleep whilst he was stating such frightful facts. Those plantation men of Ulster were beginning to be aroused. The propositions of the Government were violently opposed to their feelings. The landlords were already heavily taxed. He knew instances in the province of Leinster whore the landlords, after having paid the rates imposed upon them, and after having besides taxed themselves for the relief of the poor, were now assessed to poor-rates to the amount of 11 s. in the pound. With such a condition of things they were called on to pay more. He hoped the noble Lord would not be allowed to follow a course which was calculated to excite disaffection and rebellious feelings, and that there would be Irishmen found who would still preserve the connexion between England and Ireland in spite of the Government themselves. He called upon the noble Lord to come forward, not with those miserable expedients, but with some comprehensive measures, not mixed up with national hatred and religious hostility, but calculated to rescue the country from its present miserable condition, and the Irish people from the jaws of famine and of death.
SIR R. PEEL: I am exceedingly sorry at having heard the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Meath. I am exceedingly sorry that it was my misfortune to have been present during that speech. I am most unwilling that any impediment should be thrown in the way of the hon. and learned Gentleman the
882
Solicitor General bringing forward what I believe to be a measure of the deepest importance to the welfare of Ireland; namely, a measure for facilitating the disposal of incumbered estates in Ireland; otherwise, I think the House would permit me to have some opportunity, before these Irish debates close, of rectifying some great misconceptions which have taken place with respect to the suggestions which I recently offered—suggestions which I offered in no spirit of party feeling; from no wish to embarrass Her Majesty's Government—suggestions which I offered from the deepest sympathy with the suffering condition of Ireland, and from an earnest hope of contributing something to ameliorate her condition. Of all the misconceptions which have taken place, however, the only one which I shall now notice is the one which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Meath has fallen into—a misconception of the utmost importance—which is calculated to excite the deepest feelings in Ireland—which it is impossible for me to listen to and to remain silent, for fear an inference might be drawn that, having been present, and having heard it, and remained silent, I acquiesced for one moment in the justice of it. The hon. Gentleman seems to suppose that I made some proposition, in a sectarian spirit, for the purpose of depressing the Roman Catholics and driving them out of their present holdings, with the view of substituting a Protestant population. Now, Sir, the very last thing that would enter my mind would be to injure the Roman Catholics by substituting a Protestant population in their stead. My object was to elevate the Roman Catholics, to improve their condition, and not to gain any paltry advantage by introducing in their place the members of any other faith. When did the hon. Gentleman hear from me the proposition that, in case there should be a redistribution of property, the Protestants should have the advantage? Was I not aware that the Roman Catholics had a large amount of capital which found no vent in the purchase of landed property? Did he think I was not aware that it was stated by the Commission over which the Earl of Devon presided, that one great evil in Ireland was, that there was a large amount of accumulated property in trade and commerce which found no opportunity of investment in land? Does the hon. Gentleman suppose that, in case of facilities being granted for the purchase of land in

883
Ireland, I wished to exclude the Roman Catholic merchants of Cork and Waterford from having an opportunity of making an investment which they cannot now make on account of the barbarous tenure of laud? The hon. Gentleman says, I wish to drive the noblemen and landed gentry out of Ireland. [Mr. GRATTAN: I did not say that, but that such would be the result of your scheme.] No, Sir, you attributed this motive to me. I said no such thing. I wish to drive out no man; I wish to do no violence to the rights of property. But, what I say is, that if there are nominal proprietors who have no real interest in the land, who derive small incomes from it that are frittered away, not in the improvement of the land, but in law expenses in Dublin; that if I can give them facilities for rescuing themselves from their embarrassed condition, and transferring their estates to others who will perform the duties incumbent upon those who hold land, I am not injuring them; I am, in fact, doing them a benefit instead of an injury, and I am at the same time conferring an advantage upon the country, by enabling men with new capital and new hopes, new feelings and new aspirations with respect to its application, to occupy, to the extent which they can occupy, consistently with the maintenance of the rights of property, the incumbered and vacated soil. Injure the Roman Catholic peasantry by the measure I proposed! Why, Sir, did I not hear the other night the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that, after four successive years of famine, in one union 15,000 persons were driven from their homes helpless and friendless? Is that a state of things which the hon. Gentleman would wish to retain? I ask now, if there is in Algiers, or in the Punjab after your successful military operations, or in any other portion of the civilised or barbarised world—will you show me a country, I ask, in which 15,000 people have been driven helpless and homeless from their houses, and exposed to the inclemency of the weather? And yet here is one union in which that has taken place, I confess, that ever since I heard it, I have dwelt upon it in the hope of hearing that it was untrue. Just consider for a moment what is the case—that the strength of the people having been diminished by four successive years of penury and privation, there should be, not in ten, not in twenty, but in one union, 15,000 human beings, driven out by evictions, ejectments, and legal processes, from their houses, helpless and
884
friendless. When I offered my suggestions, my main object was to remove from the minds of the people of England the prejudice which might remain, after the great expenditure which had taken place. I was afraid that after expending 9,000,000 l. or I0,000,000 l. in rescuing Ireland from her difficulties, they might be unwilling to contemplate the magnitude of the subject—and my object was to remove their prejudices; and, above all—for I cared not about my plan or my suggestion—to impress upon the House of Commons that, notwithstanding the past expenditure, it was your real interest, in point of justice and policy, as well as in point of pecuniary consideration, to apply yourselves to the condition of Ireland, in respect to which I believe every other consideration to he subordinate—that so far as Englishmen are concerned, looking to the prospects of the future, there is no question—not the navigation laws nor any other—that approaches it in point of importance. What I said was, that if I can, consistently with justice to the nominal proprietors who are encumbrancers upon the estates, facilitate the transfer of their land to others who have the means, and who will enter upon it with new views and new hopes, I shall not only benefit those who are in this miserable condition on account of the encumbered position of their estates and the existing legal difficulties as to their transfer, but I may possibly lay the foundation—not for immediate improvement—that I never contemplated—but the foundation ultimately of a better order of things. After careful reflection I retain my deliberate conviction that all your other measures, the rate in aid, the alteration of the poor-laws, the advance of money for railways, will all do positively nothing, unless you can remedy that which I believe to he the great social evil of Ireland—the difficulty of effecting the transfer of land to the possession of those who are competent to discharge those duties which the possession of land involves. When I spoke of the settlement of Ulster I knew perfectly well the construction that would be placed upon the reference. I knew perfectly well there would be persons who would say that I was proposing in the 19th century that which might have been tolerable in the 17th. I knew it would be asked, "What does he propose to do? Does he propose to drive the Roman Catholic inhabitants to Con-naught, or to hell?" Not to Con-naught, certainly, for that is the district

885
with which I proposed to deal; and as to the other, it is the last which I should intend. I said that I was aware that it was a fatal blot upon the plan of James I. that it made religious distinctions—that it gave religious preferences—that it desired to expel the Roman Catholic inhabitants, for the purpose of introducing others upon whose allegiance there was a greater claim. I said this for the purpose of preventing the possibility of my being subjected to the charge which after three weeks has been preferred, that it was my object to expel the Roman Catholics. I have no such object. What I wished was, by creating a demand for labour, to give the Roman Catholic peasant an opportunity of maintaining himself in independence. My object was to secure to the Roman Catholic labourer, if possible, 8d., or perhaps Is. a day—for that must be the foundation for all improvement in Ireland. I never believed the doctrine by which some have attempted to relieve themselves of the obligations belonging to them, that there is any inherent inability or indisposition to work on the part of the Irish labourer. I ask any English gentleman, who has met an Irish labourer on the road, and has entered into conversation with him, as I make a habit of doing whenever I meet one, whether he has not left him with an admiration of his acuteness and his natural politeness, and with an impression that Nature never intended him for a serf? It is sometimes supposed here, that the Irish peasants are a turbulent class of men, whom no law can restrain, and no cultivation improve; but I ask those who have seen them in the counties of England, whether it is possible to see men more obedient to the law, more patient and forbearing under much provocation, more industrious, more desirous to remit small sums to their friends out of the proceeds of their severe labour, for the purpose of paying their rents or keeping their families out of the poorhouse? I therefore repudiate the doctrine that there is some inherent slothful-ness or inactivity or want of enterprise in the Irish peasantry. At the moment when the hon. Member was charging me with a desire to expel the Irish landlords, and introduce English ones, I was engaged in reading a letter I had received—one of the many I am receiving every day—which gives an account of an English company, their application of capital to Irish property, and the consequences of it. It is an account of the proceedings of the Drapers'
886
Company, who are entitled to a large estate in Ireland under the settlement of James I. The Drapers' Company proceeded for a long time in giving a lease constantly renewable to a single family. In 1817, however, the lease fell out, and the company refused to renew it to the Rowley family, the lessees. This company of English merchants and tradesmen residing in London, with no intimate knowledge of Ireland, but influenced by the spirit of Englishmen, and by the sense of justice of Englishmen, determined to make an inquiry about their property. The state in which they found it is described in the first report of a deputation which they sent over to Ireland in 1817:—
"' The bulk of the holdings would be inconsiderable in point of quantity, even if entire, but when subdivided are very small. There is a cabin, and sometimes two on each holding and subdivision of holding. These cabins are mere mud huts, covered sometimes with straw, at other times with reeds, or swards, and are but rarely water-tight. The natural soil is the floor. Sometimes there is a hole in the roof to serve for a chimney, at other times the door serves as the channel for the exit of the smoke, and generally, but not universally, there is a partition between that part which is devoted to the use of the family, and that part which is applied to the use of the cow, the horse, the goat, or the pig.' And their course of husbandry is thus described:—' They grow nothing but oats, potatoes, and flax, and the course in which they follow each other seems rather to be accidental than regular; the same piece of land is frequently sown two years successively with oats. The small quantity of manure which is made upon the farm is applied to the potato crop; fallows are never made. The land is sometimes said to be laid down in grass, but no grass-seeds of any sort are ever sown. None of the leases contain any covenants or stipulations as to the course of crops or cultivation of the land; in every respect, every lessee is as much at liberty thereon as if he was the owner of the fee. It would not be literally true to say that there is not a hedge or a tree upon the estate, but there are so few that no advantage can be derived from them.' Such was the condition of the Drapers' estate in 1817. The company, however, were not discouraged. They went to work with the zeal, energy, and perseverance, honesty of intention, and singleness of purpose, the characteristic qualities of the British merchant; and such has been the success of their labours that not a trace remains of the condition of the estate as described in the above report. Comfortable, neat, and substantial farmhouses and cottages, with suitable offices, have been substituted for the smoky cabins. The farms have been enlarged and fenced, an improved system of agriculture has been introduced, the subdivisions of farms prohibited, leases have have been made on the most approved plan of English farm leases, with covenants for making and maintaining improvements, and for enforcing a proper rotation of crops, and these covenents have been rigidly enforced. Wild, and previously impenetrable districts, have been opened by judiciously

887
formed roads, extensive plantations of timber, as well as ornamental trees, have been made, and are now in a flourishing state. Moneymore, the principal village on the estate, has risen from a poor hamlet into a prosperous town."
Did this company, however, proceed in a sectarian spirit? Did these Protestants, deeply attached, no doubt, to their own religious views, neglect the fair claims of those who differed from them? No—
"A handsome church and Presbyterian meeting-house have been built in it at the sole expense of the company, and liberal contributions made for the improvement of the Roman Catholic chapel, and an annual salary is paid by the company to each minister of those respective places of worship. There has been also built in the town by the company an excellent, and now much frequented hotel; and the trade in it has increased so much as to require the establishment of a branch from one of the Belfast banks."
The example thus set by the Drapers' Company has been followed, I believe, by the Fishmongers and other companies. I confess that I look to great advantages arising from the introduction of new capital and new views into Ireland; and my firm conviction is that the relation of the Roman Catholic to the soil will be greatly improved thereby. As I happened to be reading the letter from which I have just read an extract to the House when the hon. Gentleman the Member for Meath attributed to me those views, with respect to the banishment of the Roman Catholic population, I could not resist the temptation of replying to the hon. Gentleman and rectifying his misconception. I trust I have now satisfied the House that it would be my last object to injure the Roman Catholics. As I am unwilling to prevent the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General from stating the views of the Government with respect to the measure they contemplate, I shall not attempt to notice any other misconceptions; but I could not be present and hear this misconception without removing what, if justifible, must have created, among the great mass of the population of Ireland, a most unfavourable and unjust impression.
MR. GRATTANsaid, he had made no such charge at all as the right hon. Gentleman imagined. He had merely stated what he believed would be the result of the right hon. Gentleman's plan if it were carried into effect. But he never thought of charging him with having any such intentions.
SIR R. PEELsaid, that the hon. Gentleman had alluded to certain periods of
888
history which would lead to the supposition that something of a similar kind to the course then pursued would be adopted were his (Sir R. Peel's) plan to be carried into effect.
MR. J. O'CONNELLsaid, that whatever might have been the misconception upon the mind of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Meath, he believed the Roman Catholics of Ireland laboured under no such mistake. The general opinion in Ireland amongst Roman Catholics was favourable to the plan proposed by the right hon. Baronet. Sharing, as he did entirely with the right hon. Gentleman, the desire to hear the details of the measure about to be proposed by the hon. and learned Solicitor General, he should not detain the House further upon the subject than to say that he did not think, with his hon. Friend the Member for Meath, that the right hon. Baronet's plan would tend of itself to increase the abominable clearance system in Ireland. The noble Lord proposed to tax jointures, but such a step would be the infliction of a great grievance upon a defenceless class. If they intended to embark in this method of taxation, why not interfere with mortgagees, and prevent them from foreclosing? He hoped, too, that the quarter-acre clause would be suspended. What they wanted, however, was, that Ministers should speak out, and give the country some insight into what they intended to do. There was one great scheme before the House, that of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth; and he wanted to know whether the Government intended to propose any great and comprehensive plan in opposition to it. As matters at present stood, there was nothing of the kind brought forward by the Ministry—their paltry and peddling plans standing in disgraceful contrast with the great and bold measure of the right hon. Baronet opposite.
MR. O'FLAHBRTYbogged to assure the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth that his proposition had been received by all classes, rich and poor, and by the clergy of every denomination in the western part of Ireland, with the greatest possible favour, and that when it was brought forward in a substantial form, as a matured plan, it should receive his best support. He regretted the amendments in the poor-law had been brought forward by Government before the report of the Committee had been presented to the House, and thought that such a course was

889
unfair, at least to those hon. Gentlemen who composed it. It was with great disappointment he perceived the noble Lord at the head of the Government had not come forward with some large and comprehensive proposition to remedy the present state of Ireland. He (Mr. 0'Flaherty) spoke from that (the Opposition) side of the House for the first time. He should continue to do so, for he found he could no longer sit on the Ministerial benches. He had waited patiently to the eleventh—he might say indeed to the twelfth—hour, but he could wait no longer; and, unless the noble Lord changed his proceedings, he should refuse him his support, and give it to any one who came forward with a proposition for the service of his country. Ireland had been deluded on all sides of the House. Whenever any proposition for coercion was brought forward, Whigs, Tories, Protectionists, and every other party, were pretty sure to vote for it; but they never proposed any generous measure for the relief of the evils of Ireland. He, as an independent Member, would support any party who introduced such a measure by all the means in his power.
MR. BRIGHTwas of opinion that the hon. Gentleman who had just resumed his seat, had done the House some injustice. He (Mr. Bright) however admitted with him that coercion had been the rule rather than measures of real justice towards Ireland. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had that night fully admitted, though not in so many words, that much of the present evil of Ireland was attributable to bad laws. All who had taken office, and all who held office, might take some blame to themselves in this matter. The right hon. Baronet was doing now what was calculated to atone in some measure for that share in the mischief which he had in his long political life been instrumental with others in inflicting; and he (Mr. Bright) believed that the noble Lord at the head of the Government—who, on the other side of the House, had promised a great deal, and who, on that, the Ministerial side, had not done much, was now convinced that a more energetic course of action than had before been adopted was now rendered necessary for Ireland. For himself he could say that although he believed he had found as much fault with the House as any hon. Member in past times for its legislation with regard to the sister country, and especially with reference to
890
land, he was willing now to forgot past differences—to lot bygones be bygones—and he hoped one side of the House would not waste time in blaming the other, but that they would one and all leave party squabbles alone, and proceed at once to an honest consideration of this highly important subject. If he were disposed to find fault, he could retort, not upon the hon. Gentleman the Member for Galway, perhaps because he was a young Member of the House, but upon the Irish Members generally, because, though they had been prone to find fault with everybody, they had been so unfortunate in those propositions they had attempted to submit to the House, that they were not agreed amongst themselves with respect to the propriety of them. This was one of the greatest misfortunes Ireland laboured under; and he attributed it, in a great measure, to the state of the representation in that country, for the Reform Bill as regarded Ireland had been a sham and nothing more. And though the Irish Members at present in the House were excellent in their way, yet he thought that if there was a free and full representation of the people of Ireland, the condition of the Irish representation would then be very considerably improved. On several former occasions he had spoken to the Irish Members on this subject. They admitted that they had not been successful in proposing measures to the House. Even this Session they were divided. He thought the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gal-way need not to have gone over to the protectionist side of the House for the reasons he had stated, because when good measures emanated from either side, he (Mr. Bright) hoped that he should be always ready to support them, irrespective of party. He thanked the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth for the speech he had delivered on a former occasion, and also for the speech of that night, for, though there was nothing absolutely now in what he said before or now, yet truths the most common, if they were stated by the right hon. Baronet or by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, possessed an influence not only in Ireland, but in Great Britain, and throughout the world; and the whole world, under such circumstances, were inclined to believe that which men of their character were disposed to recommend. He confessed that in his opinion, now, they had passed the time of difficulty with regard to Ireland, and that in future they would have a more sensible

891
species of legislation adopted for that country.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, there was one course which might have been taken by hon. Members, and which had, indeed, been followed by the hon. Member for Northamptonshire, namely, the somewhat inconvenient course of discussing, without seeing the Bill before them, its several provisions, and of pointing out the merits and defects of the various provisions of the measure. There was also another course open to them, which would have been, without discussing the merits or defects of the present Bill, to have allowed him (Lord J. Russell) the opportunity of bringing in his Bill; to have deferred the discussion upon it to some future stage; and to have heard his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General state the several provisions of the measure he was about to introduce. But the third course was that which seemed to please hon. Members the most, and it was to attack the Government and all its Members for not having introduced measures of the nature of that which his hon. and learned Friend was about to introduce. Now, that he certainly could not think a very reasonable course. The long speeches in which some hon. Members who made those complaints had indulged, had hitherto prevented the explanation of the measure of his hon. and learned Friend. As hon. Members did not wish to discuss the provisions of his Bill for the amendment of the poor-law, he did not wish to enter upon its provisions, as he admitted it would be an inconvenient course. It would be, therefore, far better to allow him to bring in his Bill, and then to allow his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General to explain his measure to the House.
SIE H. W. BARRONwould not have troubled the House with any observations, had it not been for the extraordinary attack which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester had thought proper to make on the Irish Members. It was said that they did not care for these attacks; but yet they were published in the newspapers, and blazoned forth to the world; and it was because he wished that the antidote should go forth with the poison that he now rose to address the House. Did the hon. Gentleman imagine that the Manchester school was to guide the British nation, and lecture the Irish Members? Man-cheater doctrines might be very agreeable at Manchester, or at other places in the north of England, where the hon. Gentleman
892
was in the habit of congregating with his friends; but he would tell the hon. Gentleman that there was not more division amongst the Irish Members than he could point out amidst the English Members. Without going further than the bench under him (the Treasury bench), he would ask, were the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who occupied seats thereon, agreed on matters of public policy? He wanted to know if the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty agreed with the noble Lord at the head of the Government on the Irish Church Appropriation Clause. He wanted to know if the hon. and learned Member for Hull agreed with the right hon. Member for Taunton on the navigation laws? and he wanted to know if the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth agreed with the hon. Gentleman who sat next him—the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire—with regard to one of the main questions of the House, the question of free trade? These were matters of great public policy; and when an attack was made on Irish Members for their want of unity, he wanted to ascertain the amount of difference which existed between them and the English Members. Never was there an accusation more absurd than that which had been made by the hon. Member for Manchester. It was. part and parcel of the Manchester school to taunt the Irish Members; but he would retort on the hon. Member, and tell him that it was because they themselves were self-sufficient—that it was because they thought themselves superior to the rest of the world—that they taunted all who dared to differ from the Manchester school. He would tell the hon. Gentleman that it was the policy of that school which had brought Ireland to ruin and to misery. England possessed her manufactories, her riches, and her capital, by aid of which she could survive the shock; but Ireland was solely an agricultural country—the sole dependence of her inhabitants was the land and its produce. There they had no manufactories to fall back upon—and there had they landlords, tenants, labourers, all become involved in the ruin brought on by the Manchester school.
Leave given. Bill ordered to be brought in by Lord John Russell and Sir William Somerville.

INCUMBERED ESTATES (IRELAND).
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that it was not his intention to make any

893
preliminary statement which might interfere in any respect with the explanation which it was his duty to lay before the House. But it was necessary, in order to make that explanation intelligible, to recall to the recollection of the House what had been done by the Incumbered Estates Bill last Session, and to recount the difficulties which had been experienced in carrying that Bill into operation. By that measure it had been proposed to effect the sale of incumbered estates by two different plans united in the same Bill. One of these plans was, to effect a sale under the authority of the Court of Chancery; and the other was to dispose of an estate not under the authority of the Court of Chancery, but by a sale in which the purchase money should be paid into that court, and be by it distributed amongst those interested after the estate had been disposed of. Both of these plans had, however, up to the present time, been wholly ineffectual. Now, he must avow his belief that, totally independent of the measure itself, there had boon peculiar circumstances connected with Ire-land which would have made it very difficult for any measure to succeed. The House would bear in mind that it was essential to the success of a plan of this kind that a class of purchasers should exist; and to find individuals of that class was the great difficulty of those who wished to dispose of land. He did not therefore attribute the failure of this Bill hitherto to the difficulties of the Bill itself, although undoubtedly there were considerable difficulties imposed by its provisions. In the first place, it was found that very considerable delays must take place before a purchaser under the Act could be put in possession of an absolute title. These delays would sometimes extend to a period of five years; and there was a complicated system of registers necessary, involving applications to the Court of Chancery. In addition to this, it was also necessary to show that an estate was to be sold for its full value. The money was then to be paid in, and afterwards distributed amongst the persons having beneficial interest. Now, it was manifest that these delays and conditions were serious impediments to the working of the Bill. The object at present was, therefore, to get over them. There had been difficulties, too, attending the other mode of sale. There were great delays occasioned by the necessity of the preliminary investigation, after which only the court was enabled to give a proper title to
894
the purchaser; and further delays consequent upon the necessity of ascertaining who were the proper receivers of the purchase-money; any person about whose mortgage or debt the least doubt existed being compelled to prove his claim, so that no money could be paid until after a series of complicated questions of law and questions of fact had been raised and set at rest. Of course all these forms and proceedings had been productive of great expense. He bad now endeavoured to obviate the objections which he had stated, by resorting to a course which was not new, and which had been under the consideration of the Government for some time. They had decided that it would be best to create a commission to perform, in respect to incumbered estates, the functions now discharged by the Court of Chancery—a commission which would, however, perform these functions unfettered by the rules and clogs which at present existed, and which would be able to execute its duty without the expense arising from fees and the antiquated system which could not be removed from the Court of Chancery. Now, in the adoption of this course, they were not without a precedent, and a precedent, too, from which cheering omens of success might be drawn. He alluded to the West India Commission. That commission was entrusted with the payment of 20,000,000 l., and with the performance of duties analogous to those contemplated now. It had to inquire into the ownership of estates, and into the claims of incumbrancers according to priority; and that commission had performed its functions not only without blame, but with great rapidity, little expense, few appeals, and general satisfaction, both on the part of the persons on whose rights it had adjudicated, and on the part of the public at large. The Government now proposed to appoint a commission, to consist of three paid commissioners and a secretary. It proposed that they should follow the course adopted by the West India Commissioners—that they should themselves frame a set of rules for their own guidance—that these rules should be submitted to the Privy Council in Ireland, and having been sanctioned by that body, and also laid on the table of the House, that they should have the same force as if they were parts of the Bill enacting the commission. It was further proposed to give the commission power to alter and reform these rules as circumstances should seem to require. When

895
the commissioners were thus established, it would become their duty immediately to proceed with the discharge of the functions entrusted to them. He ought to mention that, in allowing the commission to frame rules, it was proposed not to allow them to frame any rules which might have the effect of levying fees from suitors. Considdering the importance, too, of the commission, it was not thought desirable that it should have any other than a period of temporary duration. It would be very desirable to ascertain how it performed its functions previously to anything like a permanent enactment being brought in. They proposed, therefore, that the commission should deal with matters in which application should be made within the space of three years from the constitution of the commission. It was necessary that the commission should last some time more than three years, because it might have many duties to perform on an application being made. It was proposed, then, that the commission should endure for two years after the final period for application being made to it. Furthermore, the Government proposed to invest this commission with all the powers possessed by the Court of Chancery, for the production of title-deeds and evidences of title. It was not proposed that the commission should have any functions or duties to perform, except in cases in which application had been made to it; but when such application had been made by any owner or incumbrancer of any estate, then it would be the duty of the commission, having made such deliberate inquiry into the case as they thought proper, to proceed to the sale, and conclude it in such a manner and in such portions as they should consider most advantageous for the parties interested. It was proposed that the conveyance should be in the form specified in the schedule of the Act—a form with which legal Members of the House would be familiar, as it was similar to that used in the transfer of Crown lands. On the sale being effected, the commissioners would issue a certificate to the purchaser of the property, who, upon obtaining it, would possess a title beyond which it would not be necessary to go. The title would be considered perfect and complete from that period. It was also proposed, as considerable difficulties might arise in various instances, that the commissioners should have the same power of putting the purchaser into possession of the land as a sheriff would have in the execution
896
of a writ of possession. It would, therefore, not be necessary for the purchaser to bring an action of ejectment to obtain possession of the property. The purchaser would be thus put as early as possible, and by as simple a process as possible, in possession of the land, and no person would be permitted to interfere with that land by reason of anything anterior to the specified period. It was proposed that the money should be paid into the Bank of Ireland, in the name of the commissioners, and that, upon its lodgment, it should be divided amongst the various parties entitled to it, without delay. It had been felt that it would be introducing a new element between the relations of mortgagor and mortgagee to allow the money to remain in court for any length of time, and that injustice would be done if the distribution of the money did not immediately take effect. Of course, in several cases doubts would arise as to who were the persons entitled to property, and in such cases the commissioners would have to decide. With respect to those properties the titles to which were not in dispute, the purchase-money would be received at once. Questions with respect to the rightful possession of incumbrancers, might also arise. It might happen that possibly a property might be disposed of which ought not to have been touched, but in the present emergency Her Majesty's Government had not thought it necessary to retain any fund as a security against such possible contingencies. In Ireland, although estates might not have good marketable titles, it might not be so difficult to ascertain the incumbrances upon a property. It would be the duty of the commissioners to ascertain that point, and adjudicate accordingly. To show that the commissioners could beneficially exercise this power, he would cite the case of the West Indian Commission—a commission analogous to that now proposed. In not a single instance of the disposal of estates under the West Indian Commission, although claims were examined into and adjudicated upon to the extent of many thousands of pounds, was complaint made of an improper distribution of the money. If such cases should occur, he thought Parliament might deal with them. At all events, he did not think this was an objection of sufficient weight to warrant the House in fettering the progress of a Bill which he believed to be essential to the regeneration of Ireland. It would be necessary, for the purpose of

897
adjudication, that the commissioners should have power to send cases and issues to be tried at law. The expense of such proceedings would be confined to the parties immediately concerned, and the property of the other parties would not in the mean time be locked up an evil which at present existed under the system of the Court of Chancery. The commissioners would also have this advantage. The Court of Chancery had, in a number of cases examined into matters of this description. In all cases, therefore, where the Court of Chancery had instituted an inquiry into property, and had issued a decree, the commissioners would be bound by that decree, and the commissioners would have the power of adopting any preliminary inquiries not finally concluded by the Court of Chancery. It was obvious that there must be a species of concurrent jurisdiction between the commissioners and the Court of Chancery, and it had become absolutely necessary to determine to which tribunal priority should be given in these matters. Now, it had been considered, that as a special tribunal was being created for those purposes, which was to be invested with high and important functions, it was expedient to invest it with full powers. Accordingly, in all cases where a decree for sale by the Court of Chancery had not been carried into effect, it should be carried out by the commissioners; and in all cases where proceedings for sale by the Court of Chancery were pending, and on application being made to the commissioners, the commissioners should effectuate the sale; and on that being done the Court of Chancery should cease to take any further measures with respect to the sale. With respect to all other matters in the suit, it would be in the discretion of the Court of Chancery to proceed with or suspend proceedings until after the commissioners should have sold the property. The commissioners, the House should bear in mind, would act only upon application being made to them. Upon application being made, the jurisdiction of the commissioners with respect to the perfecting of sales would be paramount. It had also been thought advisable, in establishing an appellate jurisdiction to which any appeals against the decisions of the commissioners should be preferred, to follow the precedent adopted with respect to the commission to which he had referred. The tribunal in question he proposed should consist of such Members of the Privy Council in Ireland as the
898
Lord Lieutenant should select as a court of appeal. But it was proposed to reserve to the commissioners a power of determining whether a case was properly the subject of appeal or not. That that power would be fairly exercised, he thought probable; for our experience of courts of justice told us that no one was more desirous that appeal should be resorted to than the judge who tried the case. This power was conceded to the commissioners, to secure them against frivolous objections, and in cases got up for the mere purpose of delay. These, therefore, were the general functions which the commissioners would have to perform. He did not think it necessary for him to go into greater detail as to the functions and duties of the commissioners, as they would be found in the Bill, which, with a few alterations, would be in the hands of Members in the course of a few days. Now, if the alterations with respect to property in Ireland would be considerable under the operation of this Bill, it should be remembered that the benefits to he derived would be of a permanent character—that every acre of land disposed of under the Act would, as to title, be beyond question, from the date of the commissioners' certificate. It was desirable that titles hereafter in Ireland should be put on such a footing as to prevent them from getting into the same state of complication as now existed. To make provision for that purpose, formed no part of the object of the present Bill, which, though temporary in its operation, would yet have generally a beneficial effect. Every acre of land sold under this commission would be held by a title which could not be questioned. It would, indeed, be a great misfortune if, after the lapse of some thirty or forty years, estates should fall again into the same state of confusion as now existed, with only this difference, that the incumbrances might be of thirty or forty years instead of sixty. It was the wish of the Government to make a change in the system of judgments so as to prevent them from becoming a permanent charge on the land. At present, when money was raised upon property in Ireland, the judgments were registered, and created a general incumbrance on the estate. That evil would be remedied by an enactment which, however, would not have a retrospective effect. The Government had also considered whether it would not be possible to introduce an improved system of registration in Ireland. That

899
question was still under consideration, but the measure relating to it was not sufficiently matured to allow of its introduction into the House in the course of the present Session; besides, as the Commission on Registration was about to make its report, it might be desirable to wait until that document should be before the House. The feeling of Government, however, was, that it was not enough to liberate the land of Ireland from incumbrances, but that it was necessary, also, to take advantage of its freed state to prevent its being again reduced to its former condition. The Bill, he trusted, would directly effect that object, which he believed Her Majesty's Government desired to see attained, and which the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tarn worth had in view when he suggested some measure of this description. It would, he believed, afford persons of capital in Ireland an opportunity of purchasing land free from incumbrances, and would pave the way for that employment of labour on the land which was now wanting in that country. But he believed the Bill would have a beneficial effect in other respects; that it would create through this commission that improvement upon the present system of procedure in the Court of Chancery, which that tribunal, owing to the ancient prejudices against which it had to contend, could not itself introduce. A largo discretion must be given to this commission. It would not be imperative on them to sell in every case. A family property might be slightly incumbered; and if a reasonably short time were allowed, the incumbrance might be paid off. In such a case as that, there would not be sufficient ground for depriving the family of the property, and the commissioners would have the discretionary power of refusing a sale. But, in the execution of their functions, they must not suppose that the interests of the parties to the estate were the only, though he admitted, the principal, interests to be considered. He could conceive a case in which the incumbrancers might apply for a sale of the property, and, upon investigation, it was found to be so hopelessly incumbered that no one connected with it could perform the duties belonging to property. In such a case he thought the commissioner should have a discretionary power to sell or not sell. He was not at all certain that the success of the measure was beyond all question or doubt, because its success so completely depended on a good class of purchasers
900
being found willing to invest their capital in Ireland. It might be said of this Bill, as was said of last year's Bill, by one class of persons, that there would be no sales under it; and by another, that it would have the effect of deluging the market with property at a low rate, to the great injury of all other persons holding-land. The latter evil, he thought, might be prevented by the adoption of precautionary steps and guards on the part of the commissioners. It was desirable to afford the greatest security and relief to all incumbrancers, not making them liable to refund or repay that which they were paid under the commission; and, trusting to the commission to dispose of the properties justly, he hoped and believed they might reasonably expect that the result of the measure would be the effectual sale of incumbered estates, the bringing into market a large quantity of land, and the sale of that land beneficially, whether for the real or nominal owners. He anticipated that it would be said that this measure went a great deal too far; that it superseded the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, and disposed in somewhat an arbitrary manner of the property of one class of persons, to divide the proceeds among another class. His answer was, that the emergency and circumstances of the case justified the expedient. The House would have to judge by the rules of the commissioners how far the functions to be performed by them were likely to be beneficial. An hon. Member, in the course of a previous debate, had stated that if the people were employed, there would be no need of a poor-law. Now he (the Solicitor General) believed, that the only mode by which employment could be given to the people, was the getting the land into the hands of the monied classes; and the present measure, he thought, would supply that mode. He had now stated the general heads of the measure which he was about to ask the permission of the House to introduce. There was another short measure, however, to which he should ask the sanction of the House, subsidiary to that of which he had stated the provisions, and to the efficacy of which he trusted it would add. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill further to facilitate the sale of Incumbered Estates in Ireland.
MR. STUARTsaid, that the experience of last Session was sufficient to satisfy the House that the task undertaken by his

901
hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, and described in so clear and able a manner, was one of no ordinary difficulty. They all concurred in the propriety of affording facilities for the sale of estates in Ireland, which could no longer continue in their present condition with advantage to the proprietors; but they could proceed very little way in that attempt, without finding that they had embarked in an undertaking of extraordinary difficulty. The measure of last Session had turned out a total failure; and that failure was to be accounted for, not by any of the little circumstances to which his hon. and learned Friend had alluded, but to this—that it was a mass of complicated enactments on a difficult subject, which were not thoroughly understood by one out of ten of the Irish Members who had so eagerly called for it. Indeed, so unwilling had they been even to hear his objections to it, that at last he thought the most appropriate punishment was to let them have it. He should have wished to hear from his hon. and learned Friend a statement of the difficulties with which they had to deal, before they were called upon to consider the remedy; but he did not complain of that, for his hon. and learned Friend bad certainly done a good deal in explaining a measure so very complicated as the present. But what was the difficulty in the sale of incumbered estates in Ireland? It was this. That there were a great number of individuals, having interests in an estate, which they were willing to part with; and that no step could be taken towards forcing a sale without doing violence to the rights of these individuals. It was very easy to talk of following the precedent of the sale of crown lands, in which only the Crown and the public were interested; but who were the parties interested in these Irish estates? First, there were the mortgagees. The hon. Member for Car-low had mentioned a bill filed in the Court of Chancery, in which it was necessary to have 43 defendants: they were all interested in the estate; and there was the difficulty of compulsory sales in Ireland. It was not a light thing to tell a mortgagee, who was the 8th or 10th on the list, and who got some interest every year with more or less difficulty, that the estate would be put up to sale whether he would or no: what, he would ask, would be the position of the mortgagee between the application for the sale and the granting of the certificate? Still more, what would
902
it be after the certificate had been granted? It was supposed that the Bill of last year would got over these difficulties; but that had, as was predicted by the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, altogether failed; and now it was said that there was a precedent in the commission for distributing the compensation money amongst the owners of slaves in the West Indies; but that that commission should be quoted as a precedent for the commission now proposed, must excite unqualified surprise. He supposed and hoped that the commissioners would be laymen and not lawyers: lawyers were by habit accustomed to respect most scrupulously the rights of property, and therefore he thought that laymen rather than lawyers would be better instruments for carrying into effect this measure of confiscation. The duty of the commissioners for distributing the slave compensation money was entirely different; the present commission was to settle questions as to disputed rights, and as to the compulsory conversion of land into money. The slave compensation commission established, as one of its rules, that if even a question of that kind occurred, they would not settle it, but that the money should at once be paid into Chancery. Let the House look at the case of the children and grandchildren of an Irish proprietor, whose whole fortune consisted of their portions on an incumbered estate; he wished to know how they were to be supported during the operation of this commission? These appeared to him to be enormous difficulties; the more so because they affected the rights of people in a helpless condition, whom the Legislature was bound to guard and protect with anxious care; and he felt now that the paternity of this measure did not belong to his hon. and learned Friend. He begged to apologise to the House for venturing to say anything upon a plan which required the greatest consideration; he did not pretend now to understand the details; but he thought that already he saw great difficulties in the way. It had been thrown out last year by himself and other hon. Members, that when a proper case occurred, they might give the purchaser an absolute title, similar to that which the railway companies got; but it was quite another thing how they were to deal with the many complicated interests of these defenceless persons, whom they were bound to protect. It was certainly very difficult to legislate upon the subject without doing violence to

903
rights of property, which this measure dealt with, as it seemed to him, in a manner that amounted to confiscation.
MR. KEOGHwas desirous of taking the earliest opportunity of acknowledging that he thought the Government had taken a step in the right direction, by the introduction of the present measure. The Bill was calculated to relieve Ireland from one of the greatest inflictions which could oppress a country. It proposed to put an end to the present system of expensive and interminable litigation now going on in the Irish Court of Chancery. He remembered to have heard it said that the Irish Members would oppose the Bill of last Session, because it would deal with those abuses; but from conversations he had had with persons of eminence in the law in Ireland, he was satisfied that the Bill would meet with no opposition at their hands. The hon. and learned Member for Newark had said, it was the number of incumbrances upon the estates that prevented the sale of estates in Ireland; but he (Mr. Keogh) thought that the sales were prevented, not by the number of incumbrances, but by the complicated, expensive, and dilatory tribunal to which the investigation of them was submitted; and therefore he believed the plan of the measure before the House would go at once to the root of the evil, because it proposed at once to liberate the land, and it was to the land they must look to provide for the employment of the labourers. It was tied up at the present moment; and it was to emancipate it from the trammels under which it was now suffering that this Bill was directed. It was the land that must be the great absorbent of labour; and, argue as much as they would, and delay as long as they liked, this fact should be ever remembered by the House, that to Ireland in her present position delay amounted to death. The Bill proposing, then, to liberate land, sought also to effect its object in the speediest way. It was not intended to bring it to a hasty sale, irrespective of the rights of the parties having interests in the property, because the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General stated that the important and momentous trust of disposing of the lands was to be placed in the hands of the commissioners, who, no doubt, would be persons selected for their great learning, prudence, and well-established integrity, and taken from the highest ranks wherever they were to be found. And even then they were not to proceed
904
at once to sell the estate without consideration. He understood they would have to make a preliminary inquiry to know whether it was a proper case for disposing of the estate. Now, this was the very principle recognised by the Act of last Session, which required a preliminary inquiry to be made either in or out of court in the first instance; and the present proposal only carried that principle out still further, by saying, that the process should be a simple and speedy one, and that the land should be really and not merely nominally emancipated. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newark asked, "How can you deal with this vast amount of property without inflicting an injury upon somebody?" But how could any great improvement, social or political, be carried into effect without injury to some one? The House would not deliberately inflict an injustice upon anybody, if it could avoid it; but the Legislature had a great public duty to discharge; they had to deal with a country labouring under a monstrous gangrene; and they must deal boldly and fearlessly with that fearful disease; quack medicines would no longer avail—the malady was too powerful, and the knife must be resolutely and fearlessly applied if they would really effect anything like a cure. If they did not act thus with the west of Ireland, they would find this gangrene extending until it devoured the very heart's blood of the country. With regard to the disposal of the money obtained on the proceeds of the sales, he thought the commission would be unnecessarily embarrassed in the discharge of their duties, if their attention were diverted from the great and important trust of liberating the land, to consider the claims of the different parties to the purchase money of the property. The great object to be considered in Ireland was to release the land for the employment of the people. The hands of the commissioners would be embarrassed if they had imposed upon them additional duties; and the parties afterwards, if they were so wedded to the cumbrous procedure of the Court of Chancery, might be left to deal with the produce of the estates when the money was realised. There was another part of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General's proposition which he could not altogether approve of. He spoke of a concurrent jurisdiction existing in this commission and in the Court of Chancery. Now, he (Mr. Keogh) thought that would

905
be one of the greatest evils that could possibly be inflicted now upon that country.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the hon. Gentleman had misunderstood him. He had said, there would be a concurrent jurisdiction if measures had not been taken to prevent it; and he therefore proposed to give a paramount jurisdiction to the commission to stay the proceedings of the Court of Chancery.
MR. KEOGHwas glad to learn that his first impression was erroneous. As to the feelings of the bar, with which he had the honour to be connected, he could assure the House that every member of it was quite willing to abandon every advantage which might be supposed to arise out of the present order of things, provided a benefit was conferred upon their country. Having thus spoken a word for the bar of Ireland, he intended also to have said something in reply to the aspersions which had been thrown out against the Irish Members by the hon. Member for Manchester; but that hon. Member had been so ably handled by the hon. Baronet the Member for Waterford, that it was unnecessary for him to say more than this, that such insinuations as had been indulged in could only have originated in a desire to gratify self-conceit. He (Mr. Keogh) begged to assure the hon. Member for Manchester, that if the Irish Members wished to profit by the example and precept of others, they would not become the pupils of the Manchester school.
MR. W. P. WOODwished to say a few words on this measure, with reference to what had fallen from his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newark, as to the measure of last Session, and the inference he had drawn from that with regard to the probable success of the present measure. It was not fair altogether to impute to the Act of last Session the failure of any favourable results from it, because unquestionably it was not to be expected—and indeed the hon. and learned Solicitor General seemed to have similar apprehensions with respect to this Bill also, owing to the same cause—that any complete results would have followed the previous measure, considering the existing circumstances of Ireland. These circumstances had greatly impeded its working; for it could not be expected, even with the best possible state of the times, that they would find persons anxious to invest their capital, whilst a general alarm prevailed as to the social condition of the country, though
906
happily only for a short period; and whilst more than 30,000 troops were necessary to preserve the peace of the country; and when, also, the estates were so overloaded with the pauper tenantry, that the poor-rates were eating up the whole of the landed property of the country. Under these circumstances, although they could have secured an entirely perfect title to the purchaser, it was not likely that any great amount of capital would flow into Ireland. Now he had similar fears of the present measure, though not wholly from the same causes. He thought there might be difficulty, on the one hand, in finding purchasers, and, upon the other, in finding sellers; for he observed that this Bill—and he was not now finding fault with it—proposed that no operations of the commissioners should have effect until after application to the parties interested in the estate. This was one cause of the failure of the other measure. They would have first to consult the heavily mortgaged owner, who was unwilling to part with that species of territorial power which he still wished to retain, although it was merely a shadow; then there was the first incumbrancer, receiving his six per cent, and, of course, not anxious to sell; and, next, the second incumbrancer, who might be receiving something, but what amount was by no means clear; and he would be afraid that, if a sale took place, especially under circumstances like those that prevailed last year, the land would be sold greatly under value, and thus a portion of his property be sacrificed; and, therefore, he would wish to wait till a more favourable opportunity for a sale. He (Mr. Wood) thought it extremely probable that we should not have a large number of applications when we might wish to have estates sold. It would be better, however, to establish a machinery by which we could effect the disposal of the land and confirm the title, without the enormous expenses of the Court of Chancery; and if it were found that the result would not be so effective as was necessary to moot the social evils of Ireland, so far from the provisions of this Bill being of too bold a character, he believed the House would be prepared to give far higher powers than were now proposed. Two strong circumstances bad greatly impressed his mind during the recent debates upon Ireland, in connexion with the scheme of the right hon. Member for Tamworth. One was, the statement of a gentleman who for a short time represented Kinsale,

907
with regard to the operation of receivers in Ireland, and the fearful condition of estates exposed to their management. The other was the existence of cases like that of the Ballina union, where Captain Hamilton reported 27,000 were likely to fall upon the poor-rate, of whom 4,000 were ablebodied persons, who, together with the relatives dependent upon them, numbered a total of 18,000 to he relieved within the union. And still, notwithstanding this frightful state of things, Captain Hamilton reported that they would have ample employment for the whole of the labourers if the landlords had capital enough to improve their estates, and there would be no necessity for any additional assistance under the poor-law to support them. This circumstance was surely sufficient to prove the necessity of something being immediately done, and as rapidly as possible, to liberate the land and place it in the hands of persons of capital, and capable of working it. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newark thought that the getting rid of the cumbrous machinery of the Court of Chancery would risk the interests of those whom it was the especial duty of the House to protect. He said there might be an eighth or ninth, or a tenth incumbrancer, and bow were their rights to be protected? Why, under this Bill they would not he any less protected than they were now. At present any incumbrancer might enforce a sale as against all those under him, but he could not, of course, do so against those above him. There were hero two difficulties to he considered. The first arose from the rights of the parties, and the other from the mode of enforcing those rights. Now these rights would be left wholly unaffected by this Bill; but, in the case referred to by his hon. and learned Friend, to make forty-three parties all defendants in the Court of Chancery, amounted to a practical denial of justice; and therefore it was proper to improve the mode of enforcing rights. The commissioners would not be embarrassed by those technical difficulties respecting the parties, such as bills of supplement, and all the other formalities which had grown up in Chancery proceedings, but which he hoped to see speedily reformed in both countries. It was on account of these defects, and not on account of the rights of the parties, that they could not enforce the Act. This new Bill did not propose to deal with existing rights farther than that it intended
908
to authorise the commissioners to sell, whether the first or second incumbrancer wished it or not. If this measure were open to some of the objections of the hon. and learned Member for Newark, he did not believe them to be of sufficient weight to authorise the House in refusing to receive the Bill, which he regarded as a real boon and benefit to Ireland—he did not see why the House should oppose the trial of the experiment now sought to be made. With regard to the West Indian compensation, that was a very good precedent for what was now proposed. The enfranchisement of the slaves was enforced;—a compulsory sale of them took place—and Parliament did what it thought necessary to compensate the planters. Surely that was dealing with vested rights and interests, and upon a large scale, as much as was proposed to he done by this measure. Again—roads, canals, railways, and other public works, did most serious injury to private individuals, where no amount of money would compensate their loss. There were innumerable instances of that kind, and yet, because it was wished to make a road or a canal, that was considered sufficient to justify the proceedings. But hero they were about to regenerate a whole country, and to remove a millstone from their necks, which would drain England down to the same abyss of ruin and misery, if Parliament did not take steps seriously, sedulously, and energetically, to raise the sister country from her present hopeless and prostrate position. No petty difficulties or little trifling objections ought to prevent them from doing Ireland the justice she required at their hands; and he rejoiced that this was not to be the only measure of the Government for remedying her social evils. He was glad that, although not during the present Session, they were to have a measure brought forward for the registration of titles. Too great stress had been laid upon the badness of the machinery of the Court of Chancery, as causing much of the evil under which Ireland laboured; but it should be remembered that the defective state of the law as to the tenure of land permitted all these perplexing little interests to be created, and the want of a general register for complete title; and there not being an easy mode of transfer, created the necessity for all the notices and other difficulties connected with the Court of Chancery. If they allowed such subdivision of rights to grow up and continue, the courts had no other alternative

909
but to take cognisance of them; and it, therefore, became, in some degree, necessary to have all those forty-three defendants that had been alluded to. Much of the evil was owing to their imperfect legislation as regards the rights to estates, and the manner in which they were allowed to be so minutely subdivided, and too much of the blame had been ascribed to the machinery of the Court of Chancery. He was glad, therefore, that this was not the only measure they were to have, and that it was to be followed up, if not this Session, at least in the next, by a measure for the registration of titles. He hoped that such a measure would be introduced, not for Ireland only, but also for England. Such measures would do away with the necessity of having recourse to all those notices which the Court of Chancery required for the protection of numerous rights which the Legislature created, and which occasioned so large a portion of the evil which was complained of. He believed the time was come when they would find it desirable to deal with the ownership of land in respect to those who might have the power of giving absolute titles, in the same way as they now dealt with stock, leaving all minor divisions of interest to be dealt with by means of caveats, as was the case with hundreds of thousands of pounds of stock, which by a system of distringas could be prevented from being unduly transferred. He would not, however, pursue this subject on the present occasion, but would content himself with making a suggestion which might be worth the attention of Her Majesty's Government—namely, whether it would not he wise to give the commissioners power of inquiring into the management of estates under the receivers of the Court of Chancery, not for the purpose of sale, but with a view of directing improvements in their management, without going through the process of applying to all the different parties concerned. He would only say further, that he believed that those who had anything to do with the administration of the law, were most anxious to see this and similar measures carried. He believed that in this country they were desirous of seeing every useful reform carried into effect. He therefore begged to protest against the imputations thrown on the profession to which be belonged, that they were not anxious to second and adopt improvements of this kind. He believed that from the first moment that the Judges
910
invented the system of fines and recoveries in order to prevent property from being tied up, down to the present time, they were anxious to see every useful amelioration effected; and, in fact, it was by professional men that the amendment of the criminal law, with which the name of the hon. and learned Solicitor General was so honourably connected, and all other law reforms, were first pressed upon the attention of the Legislature.
SIR R. PEEL: Sir, I should be most unjust and most ungrateful towards the legal profession, if I were to throw any reflections on them, or their sincerity and willingness to co-operate in any reform for Ireland. I have, myself, been concerned in attempts to improve the law—the criminal law of this country, by measures which I thought it my duty when in office to bring forward; and I am bound to say that I found generally, on the part of the profession, speaking of the present body, a most zealous desire, at whatever pecuniary cost it might be to themselves, to cooperate in improvement. Now, without relinquishing any of the opinions which I have expressed on two former occasions—wishing of course to reserve to myself the opportunity which the House will have when this measure of the hon. and learned Solicitor General is before them—I cannot, however, avoid on this occasion expressing my cordial satisfaction at the course the Solicitor General has taken, and at the general propriety and principle of the measure which he has introduced. Sir, I believe, although the ordinary courts of law are admirably suited for the conduct of ordinary proceedings, and for the administration of justice between man and man, without extraordinary courts, yet I must say, when great social difficulties have to be contended with, my belief is, that you should step beyond the limits of those ordinary courts of justice, and establish some special tribunal, unfettered by reference to technical rules, for the purpose of solving those difficulties. I apprehend that is the course you have pursued on more than one recent occasion. Three or four years since we found all the southern counties of Wales in a state of insurrection on account of the turnpike tolls within those districts. The Rebecca riots must be familiar to many of those whom I address. The Queen's troops were resisted: it became necessary to apply a remedy. We proposed to Parliament to send down a commission to inquire into these tolls; we found the necessity

911
of extinguishing them, and placing them on an entirely new footing. We appointed a new tribunal, with new powers of adjudication, and with a simple form of appeal. We offered to the parties that simple arbitration, leaving them to go to law if they pleased. There was a general disposition to acquiesce in our proposal, on account of the saving of expense; the turnpike tolls have been abolished in Wales; peace has been restored; in some cases the sums due upon debentures were nominally 100 l., but they were reduced by the award of the commissioners to 70 l., 60 l., and in one case even to 10 l.; in those awards the parties acquiesced; and I believe there were only two cases of appeal from the decision of the special tribunal. A few years since you found it necessary to have a compulsory commutation of tithe. You found voluntary commutation did not succeed. The noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown brought in a Bill, the object of which was to inform all parties, that if, before the 1st of October, 1838, they could make a voluntary agreement as to tithe, they were at liberty to do so; but if they failed to make voluntary agreements, provision was made for a compulsory commutation. It was necessary in that case to decide upon the most complicated questions which had been agitating the Court of Exchequer for centuries, as to moduses and compositions. The compulsory commutation has proceeded, with a general admission of the benefit conferred upon all parties. Then a special tribunal was appointed, and there again, I believe, it has given entire satisfaction. You had a still more difficult question to deal with about fourteen or fifteen years since. You determined upon the abolition of slavery in the West Indies; you resolved to compensate every holder of slaves for the slaves of whom he was possessed, and you awarded 20,000,000 l. for that purpose. There were nineteen colonies, with different usages in each colony. You resolved to meet that difficulty, but you found it absolutely necessary to depart from the ordinary course of proceeding. [An Hon. MEMBER: That is not a case in point.] An hon. and learned Member says, this is not a case in point. Upon a question of law I have the greatest hesitation in differing from the hon. Gentleman, especially as he is conversant with the Act of Parliament, and has been engaged in practice under its provisions. It has been said that this is not a case in point, because all you had to do then was
912
to award the 20,000,000 l. among the holders of slaves, and that nothing could be more easy than for a special tribunal to allot to each party the sum of money due to him—to determine the value of a slave in Jamaica, and of another in Trinidad, and to apportion the amount. But I beg to remind hon. Gentlemen that these were not the only duties of the commissioners—that they had most complicated duties to perform independently of the awards. Besides dealing with the owners of slaves, they had to determine the interest of married women, of infants, of lunatics, or of persons of insane or unsound mind, of persons beyond the seas, and of persons labouring under any other legal or natural disability or incapacity. With all these cases the commissioners had to deal, and they were empowered to lay down rules which were to be submitted to the Privy Council, and being approved of by them, were to have the force of law, But, besides that, the slave partook of the nature of the real property to which he was attached. Whoever had a mortgage upon the real property, had a mortgage upon the slave. How, then, did that case differ from the case before us? But, besides the interests of married women, of infants, and of lunatics, which, as I have said, the commissioners had to protect, any person having, or claiming to have, any right, title, or interest in or to any mortgage, judgment, charge, incumbrance, or other lien, upon any slave or slaves to be manumitted, was authorised to prefer his claim before such commissioner, who were to frame rules and act accordingly. These commissioners had, therefore—if I do not misquote the Act—to determine claims precisely of the same nature with those we are now considering—namely, the claims of all encumbrancers and mortgagees, who had the same lien upon the slave that they had upon the landed property. So, in dealing with this complicated question of landed property in Ireland, I believe that by appointing some special tribunal to direct its attention to this particular subject—observing, of course, all the great principles of law, and avoiding doing injustice to any man—you will best remedy the social difficulties with which you have to deal. I think the great object to be gained is to give a clear, simple, Parliamentary title. To find, when you have purchased an estate, that you have bought with it a lawsuit, and, for any thing you know, in some cases, a duel besides,

913
is certainly not a pleasant thing. What man would invest his capital under such circumstances? Give, therefore, a clear, simple title, which will he safe against the whole world—that is the chief thing. Give to the purchaser an assurance against indefinite charges for poor-rate, as you are about to do; give assistance by advances, also—not to the incumbered proprietor, who really has nothing beyond a nominal interest in the property—but to the new purchaser, who proves to you that he has capital, that he can repay you 4 per cent interest upon any advance for the improvement of the land, and 2 per cent as a sinking fund; and take care that there shall be no repudiation—that, if the advances are not repaid, the land is seized. If you give the purchaser these three inducements—simple title, guarantee against indefinite poor-rate, and possibly his share in the advances for the permanent improvement of the land, it is my belief that you will afford the greatest encouragement to persons to invest their capital in Ireland. The hon. and learned Solicitor General has said that many persons will be shocked at this invasion upon the old system. Now, one example is worth a hundred arguments; and in order to alleviate the apprehensions of those who are shocked at the thought of parting with the old remnant of Chancery administration in Ireland in respect of estates, I would just ask the Solicitor General and the House to accompany me in a little excursion into the courts of equity in Ireland. I will call your attention to what is termed a sale, and I would ask if there is a probability, while the present law remains in force, that any one will purchase an Irish estate? If the hon. and learned Member for Newark has any reluctance to accompany me, perhaps, when I tell him that the purchaser's name is John Stuart, he may find some relationship which may induce him to listen with more care than he would otherwise do to my statement. I am perfectly ready to place in the hands of any Gentleman the original letter, giving account of this transaction. The gentleman who sends it says—
"I know how apt the House sometimes is to have erroneous statements made. I do not, therefore, send this to you without having first submitted it to my solicitor, and asking him whether the account is true in every point."
This is an account of what is called a sale under the Court of Chancery in Ireland:—
"A receiver was appointed over the estate in
914
1813. The estate was sold, under a decree of the court, in 1838. After most tedious proceedings and great costs, it was discovered that there was a technical defect in the title, and the purchaser was freed from the purchase. The estate was resold in 1843, under an amended decree. The present purchaser (his informant) thought that, after the previous investigation, purchasing under the amended decree, he should be safe. He paid his purchase money into court. In June next, six years would have elapsed since he paid the money. He was not in possession, and would not be for two years more. It was discovered, on examination, that the estate was less by 1,200 acres than the quantity stated in the rental; that parts of the property stated to he fee-simple were leasehold, with a power of reentry and reservation of the royalties. That leases stated to have been made without powers were made with full powers, and were binding and valid. In 1848, it was discovered that several reversionary leases, not set out in the rental, were in existence and also valid. On these objections the remembrancer decided in favour of the purchaser—that is, that the rule was invalid, and the purchaser thought he was released—and reported to the purchaser that he should be released from his purchase. The vendors objected to the release. The barons decided in their favour, and reversed the decision of the remembrancer. The result had been that the purchaser had neither received the interest of the purchase-money nor the rents of the estate. So far as to individual wrong. Now look at the social evils. All the evicted paupers of adjoining estates had crowded into it. In the course of the proceedings the widow of the vendor became the inheritor of the estate on the death or her youngest son. She died lately of a broken heart, without the common necessaries of life. On her death, fresh proceedings had to be taken, new bills filed, new decrees pronounced, and now we have to discover her heir in America. That such a system must prove ruinous to all parties, the vendors, the purchasers, the mortgagees, and the tenants, is evident. The capital I had intended to expend in the improvement of the property will all be spent in law costs, in a fruitless attempt to obtain that which was professed to be sold to me. This is not an uncommon case. Two friends of my own purchased two estates the same day I did, under the courts. Mr.——at the end of four years, was forced to take what his counsel pronounced was not the title under which he bought; Mr.——at the end, I believe, of six years, has been freed from his after most expensive proceedings, during which, I believe, the tenants have paid no rents, and have, by their lawless proceedings, endangered the peace of the neighbourhood,"
This is an extract from the statement made to me by a gentleman of the highest respectability; and I shall be prepared to place the original in the hands of any Gentleman who wishes for more details on the subject. Now, I put it to any one who may have heard, with some surprise, the proposal of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, whether it is possible to permit such a state of things as is here described to continue without immediately

915
attempting to apply a remedy? Sir, I believe it will be possible to apply that remedy without injustice to those who are either the nominal proprietors, the actual proprietors, or incumbrancers upon the estate. I believe the saving to them of legal expense, of costs in the courts of law, and of the anxiety consequent upon such proceedings, will be a compensation for any conditions you may impose upon them. As I stated the other night, you are now in a new position with respect to this insolvent property. Unless you take some remedy with regard to it, the whole of the solvent property in Ireland will be affected. I ask hon. Members, before they decide upon this question, to read the evidence given before the House of Lords by two Irish gentlemen, Colonel Gore, of Mayo, and Mr. Martin, of Gal-way, which shows that they are well acquainted with the condition of Irish property, and that they have been actively exerting themselves for the mitigation of the evils existing with reference to that property. I think that evidence deserves the most serious consideration. It shows the injustice you would do to the owners of solvent property in Ireland, if you made them responsible for the default of the insolvent proprietors. I may add, that the course which the hon. and learned Solicitor General has pursued during his Parliamentary career, the principles he has evolved, the temperate, well-considered attempts he has made to reform the law, are, I think, worthy of the great name he bears. He proves himself to be one of those lawyers who, having the key of knowledge, are not desirous of using it for the purpose of excluding their fellow-countrymen from possessing the benefits of sound legislation.
MR. BRIGHTcould not allow this discussion to close without expressing his opinion on its subject. He had never listened to the deliberations in that House upon any question connected with Ireland with half the delight which that evening's debate had given him. A more beautiful explanation of a measure than that given by the hon. and learned Solicitor General of his most excellent Bill, he had never heard in that House or elsewhere. He could not find the slightest fault with the proposition, either that it went too far, or that it did not go far enough. There were, as the hon. and learned Gentleman admitted, other things to be done; but certainly the measure here submitted to the House
916
was one which had begun at the right point, and was proceeding—at all events, to a considerable extent—in the right direction; and he was satisfied, further, that though some learned Gentlemen opposite, and some other persons connected with the land in Ireland, might regard it as a dangerous measure, there was no class in Ireland whose real safety was more consulted by the Bill than the class of landed proprietors. For himself, he would say, that, did he not conceive it would conduce as much to their safety, and to the maintenance of their property, as to the safety and to the maintenance of the property of any other class, it would not have the warm support he was disposed to give it. He was of opinion that nothing could be more fatal than an attempt to maintain the property of any one class as against any other class; while measures based on sound principles, calculated to meet great emergencies, must be, as this measure eminently was, certain to be advantageous to all classes in the country to which it referred. He had that night fallen under the displeasure of two hon. Gentlemen, representatives from Ireland: he was not about to say that he had not laid himself open to some of the observations which had been made; but hon. Gentlemen from Ireland would do him generally this justice, that, on all occasions since he had sat in that House, he had almost always spoken—always voted, in favour of those measures which had met the approbation of the Members for Ireland—at all events, sitting on that side of the House; while with respect to this especial measure. Gentlemen from Ireland might, perhaps, recollect that at the close of the last Session of Parliament he had made the precise proposition now submitted to the House by the hon. and learned Solicitor General. He had stated on that occasion, that before anything else was done with this question of land in Ireland, a special tribunal ought to be appointed, to which the adjudication of all questions connected with this subject should be referred, since, from what he had heard of the condition of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, he was satisfied that nothing effective could be done without the establishment of such a tribunal. He would appeal unhesitatingly to the whole of his conduct, in and out of Parliament, to show that he had never exhibited hostility to the people of Ireland, or those who represented them in that House. He heartily thanked the Government for this measure,

917
and hoped they would exhibit as much determination in pressing it through the House, as they had exhibited wisdom in conceiving it and laying it before Parliament.
SIR J. B. WALSHobserved, that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tam-worth had given a striking instance of the abuses of the Court of Chancery In Ireland, and there could be no doubt of its being desirable to abridge the technical forms. But the provisions of the proposed measure extended to constitute a new tribunal. He warned hon. Members against supposing that the whole of the evils and difficulties in the case of Ireland arose from this particular condition of encumbrances upon property. He felt certain that no encouragement would be found for the investment of capital in any such union as, for example, that of Ballina.
MR. J. O'CONNELLreserved his opinions until he had seen the Bill. It must be remembered, however, that such a measure as this alone could not effect all the necessary ameliorations; and he trusted the House would yet see the necessity of introducing other measures, conceived in as large a spirit as this appeared to have been.
MR. HORSMANwas anxious, in common with other speakers, to express his sense of the manner in which the hon. and learned Solicitor General had introduced this measure. One point ought, however, to be attended to in legislating upon this matter. While care should be taken that every measure should be based upon sound principles, it should be remembered that the evils of Ireland were many, and were in combination, and were only to be met by a combination of measures. No isolated measure could effect everything. If he had any doubt as to the operation of the present measure, it would arise, not from any fault in the Bill itself, but from the fact of its not forming a part of a general plan or design, which circumstance, he thought, was essential to the success of any particular measure. He had not heard that the Bill contained any provision for limiting the liabilities of an incoming purchaser of property; and if that were so, there ought to be another Bill, with such an object, to sustain and support the present. At the same time, he agreed with those who thought that this was a step in the right direction; and he gave great credit to the Government for the animus in which they had proposed it, and for
918
the attempt to relieve property from the trammels of Chancery technicalities. He thought there were some omissions in the Bill, but would reserve them for future consideration.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had made a salient and pointed attack upon the Court of Chancery in Ireland, and had illustrated it by a very touching anecdote. But the right hon. Gentleman had made a somewhat extraordinary statement, in saying that the first sale of the property in question had gone off upon a technical imperfection; while it appeared, when the circumstances were investigated, that the estate was 1,200 acres less than had been represented, that a portion of it was leasehold instead of freehold, and that there were certain leases under very awkward conditions which had not been at first disclosed. Now, these might be called technical objections in Ireland; but they certainly would not be so considered on this side of the water. With respect to the West Indian Commission—that might be said to be a precedent for the duties of the proposed commissioners in respect to the mere distribution of the funds after the sale of estates; but it was not a precedent for the duty of judging whether or not estates should be sold, and it was to this latter point that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newark had adverted.
SIR R. PEELexplained: So far from his informant regarding those objections as technical, he found them valid and real. He said that he had bought a property of 10,000 or 12,000 acres, and afterwards found it 1,200 acres less; that a part had been sold as freehold which was really leasehold; and that there were reversionary leases on the property which he had not been informed of. He wanted to be relieved from his purchase, but was not allowed—but was forced to take the estate less the 1,200 acres. So far from viewing these as technical, he (Sir R. Peel) had urged them as strong and real objections. It was on the first sale that the technical objection arose; and it was the second purchaser, who bought thinking himself safe under the amended decree, upon whom these real difficulties accumulated.
MR. MONSELLwished to state his cordial approbation of the measure which had been introduced by the hon. and learned Solicitor General. It would abridge the time required for the sale of estates,

919
and also diminish the costs of the sale, which he considered to he two of the principal objects which called for legislation. The strongest objection in the way of the well working of the measure, was that which had been stated by the hon. Member for Cockermouth—namely, that the great difficulty would be to find purchasers of land in Ireland. This Bill was to be accompanied by another measure, which had been that night explained to the House, and which would greatly enhance the difficulties of working it. He had heard the speech of the noble Lord at the head of the Government with great disappointment, because he feared that the Bill which he had obtained leave to introduce would, if it became law, greatly increase the evils of the poor-law in Ireland.
MR. BANKESobserved that the hon. Member for Manchester, with the modesty which always characterised him, had avowed that he was really the author of this scheme, which he had propounded to the House at the end of last Session. Two hundred years ago, however, a statesman who ran a brilliant career, though its termination was not fortunate—the Earl of Strafford—proposed a measure very similar to the present, namely, to suppress all the courts of equity in Ireland, and to establish a court of commission, for which proposition he was impeached and lost his life on the scaffold. If a similar fate should ever threaten the hon. Member for Manchester, on account of his being supposed to be the author of such a proposition, he (Mr. Bankes) would not give his voice for his impeachment, because he knew that the hon. Member was innocent of its authorship. From all he had heard that evening, he feared that the measure would not be so effectual as had been hoped; but the Government certainly deserved the support of the House in the attempt which they were making.
SIR H. W. BARRONsaid, the commission about to be appointed under this Bill would have a superior jurisdiction to the Court of Chancery, if proceedings were commenced in that court for the sale of an estate. He wanted to know whether the Bill would give a similar power in the case of proceedings commenced in the Court of Exchequer?
The SOLICITOR GENERALreplied that the equity side of the Court of Exchequer would be in the same situation as the Court of Chancery.
Leave given.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Solicitor General, Lord John Russell, and Sir William Somerville.

ESTATES LEASING (IRELAND) BILL.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that he wished to explain to the House the provisions of another Bill, which would confer considerable benefit in a small way. It had been a constant complaint in Ireland that there was a great defect in the law, which did not allow persons having a limited interest in land to grant leases for a term of years, which would enable improvements to be made. The principal object of the Bill, therefore, was to enable such persons, tenants for life, for instance, to grant leases for 99 years for building or improving purposes, provided that the fullest and best rent was reserved. Upon that being done, the lessee would have a parliamentary title to the extent of his lease. It was also proposed to extend this power to persons having an absolute interest in land, tenants in fee-simple or fee-tail, and to holders of leases having a right to perpetual renewal. At the same time, it was to be observed that certain covenants and forms must be followed in all these leases. It was proper to state that he should ask, in a few days, the leave of the House to introduce another Bill, without which this measure would not have the effect which he desired. As the law stood at present, wherever a power of leasing was granted, and the exact form of the power was not followed, the lease so made might be set aside at any time. He proposed shortly, therefore, to ask for leave to bring in a Bill to enable a court of equity to supply formal defects in the execution of powers, and it was intended to be a general measure, extending to England as well as Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to enable persons, having perpetual and limited interests in lands in Ireland, to make grants in fee or demises for long terms of years.
MR. STUARTsaid, he should make no opposition whatever to the Bill, but he wished to know whether his hon. and learned Friend meant the present Bill to extend both to England and Ireland? [The SOLICITOR GENERAL: No.] He could not conceive why a difference should be made between the law of England and of Ireland in regard to building and improving leases. Although he could not prevent the Solicitor General from bringing in the Bill in any shape he pleased, he must not allow

921
the opportunity to pass without stating that he had great objections to the Bill. By it, for example, he increased the power of the tenant for life, who was thus enabled to take something from the remainder-man. But the difficulty did not end there; for suppose a man should grant an improving lease, and should afterwards be himself evicted, that was, that the lessor should actually dispose of land not his own, then, by this Bill the tenant would be left in possession. How that could be shown to be advisable he could not see.
MR. SADLEIRwas glad that a Bill had been brought in to improve the tenant tenure in Ireland, as nothing would more improve the condition of agriculture. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would in his Bill encourage leases for a fixed term of years, instead of the leases at present prevalent in Ireland, of leases for lives, with a term of years in reversion or concurrent.
Leave given.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Solicitor General, Lord John Russell, and Sir William Somerville.
The House adjourned at a quarter past Twelve o'clock.