Commons Sitting of 27 April 1849

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT.—For Sheffield, v. Henry George Ward, Esq., Chiltern Hundreds.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o Poor Relief (Ireland).
2o Exchequer Bills (17,786,700 l.); Ecclesiastical Commission.
Reported.—Poor Laws (Ireland) Rate in Aid.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. John Tollemache, from Wyton, Huntingdonshire, against the Parliamentary Oaths Bill.—By Mr. Hume, from Inverbervie, Kincardineshire, for the Affirmation Bill.—By Mr. Carter, from Winchester, and by other hon. Members, for the Clergy Relief Bill.—By Mr. Goulburn, from Clergy of the Archdeaconry of Middlesex, against, and by Captain Edwards, from Halifax, in favour of, the Marriages Bill—By Mr. Benjamin Smith, from Dunfermline, and by other hon. Members, from several Places, against the Sunday Travelling on Railways Bill.—By Mr. Disraeli, from Proprietors and Planters of Jamaica, and from Inhabitants of Nova Scotia, for Inquiry and Redress.—By Lord Rendlesham, from a great Number of Places in the Eastern Division of the County of Suffolk, for Repeal of the Duty on

931
Malt.—By Mr. Cobden, from Great Yarmouth, and other Places, for Reduction of the Public Expenditure.—By Mr. Forster, from the North British Railway Company, respecting Taxation of Railways.—By Mr. Disraeli, from the Eton Union, for Rating Owners of Tenements in lieu of Occupiers; and from Colchester, for Agricultural Relief.—From Members of the Irish Branch of the United Church of England and Ireland, for giving Encouragement to Schools in Connexion with the Church Education Society for Ireland.—By General Lygon, from Worcester, against the Friendly Societies Bill—By Mr. Hume, from Montrose, against the Lunatics (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. Drummond, from the Dorking Union, for Redress of Grievances affecting Poor Law Medical Officers—By Mr. Cowper, from Bishop Stortford Union, Herts, for a Superannuation Fund for Poor Law Officers.—By Viscount Bernard, from Ballyclough, County of Cork, for an Alteration of the Poor Law (Ireland).—By Mr. Mundy, from Ratepayers of the County of Derby, against the Public Roads (England and North Wales) Bill.—By the Marquess of Granby, from Magistrates of Stamford, for an Alteration of the Sale of Beer Act.—By Mr. Masterman, from the City of London, against the Removal of Smithfield Market.—By Mr. George Thompson, from Languike, Glamorganshire, and by other hon. Members, that Inter national Disputes may be referred to the Decision of Arbitration.

METROPOLITAN POLICE.
LORD D. STUARTwished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary a question, as to the intentions of the Government regarding the rating of the parishes in Middlesex for the support of the police. The Police Act gave the Government the power of issuing 90,000 l. from the Consolidated Fund towards the support of that body, whenever the rates in the parishes amounted to a certain sum in the pound. In 1847 the magistrates of Middlesex had re-assessed the county, the effect of which act was to raise the rateable property from 6,200,000 l. to 7,700,000 l. An additional sum towards the maintenance of the police was raised, amounting to upwards of 35,000 l. He wished to ask whether it was the intention of the Government to relieve the parishes of the great additional burdens that had been imposed upon them last year in consequence of the extraordinary circumstances of the case?
SIR G. GREYsaid, that when the metropolitan police were first established it was necessary that a rate amounting to 8d. in the pound should be levied. This rate was afterwards reduced to 6d., a charge having been placed on the Consolidated Fund, by which a portion of the expense of the police was defrayed, in consideration of their general as distinguished from their local service. The charge upon the Consolidated Fund amounted to 90,000 l. It was anticipated, in consequence of a new assessment last year for Middlesex, that the result would be such as to render it possible for an application to be made to Parliament to reduce the assesment from
932
6d. to 5d. Circumstances afterwards transpired which rendered it necessary, in the opinion of the Government, and, as he believed, in the opinion of the public generally, to increase the police force considerably. He was not prepared to say that any reduction of this force could now be made, considering that there had been an increase in the population within the year of 220,000, and no less than 1,476 new streets. He would give the noble Lord the same answer he had given the deputations that waited upon him in reference to this subject—that it would be desirable, if possible, to have a more equitable assessment of the metropolitan districts. If the result of any such measure should be a surplus, he could assure the noble Lord and the House, that the Government had no desire whatever to press for a greater sum than was indispensably necessary. He must, however, warn the noble Lord from encouraging the impression that, in the event of a surplus fund thus arising, the metropolitan ratepayers would have the whole benefit of it. It should be recollected that the Consolidated Fund was contributing 90,000 l. a year. It would, therefore, be a matter of consideration with the Government whether it ought not to have a share in such an advantage as well as the ratepayers.
Subject at an end.

IRISH APPOINTMENTS.
CAPTAIN BATESONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the absence of the Master of the Mint (Mr. Shell), whether it was true that a certain young gentleman, who was not a solicitor in England, and who had only been sworn in within a few days in Ireland—he meant Mr. Reynolds, the son of the hon. Member for Dublin—was appointed to the responsible and lucrative situation of Solicitor to the Mint.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No, he is not. At the same time it was true that he had been appointed a clerk in the office of the Solicitor to the Treasury and the Mint in Ireland, which offices had been amalgamated; but upon the question being put to the Solicitor for the Treasury and the Mint, whether it was desirable that this clerk should be a solicitor or not, the answer was that he should not.
CAPTAIN BATES ON: Is he not a solicitor?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE QUER: To the best of my belief, be is not.
Subject dropped.

NAPLES AND SICILY—THE BOMBAY STEAMER.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, it would be in the recollection of the House that some time ago the Bombay steamer, which had been hired or purchased by the Provisional Government of Sicily, was seized in this country. An idea was prevalent that great efforts were making by the agents of the insurgent Government to release this steamer. He wished to ask the noble, Lord at the head of the Government whether they bad any intention to assist the agents of that Government in these proceedings of theirs, or whether it was the intention of the Government to allow the case to be adjudicated upon by the courts of law in the usual way?
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, that there had been reason to believe that the Bombay steamer bad come under the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act, and accordingly the Board of Admiralty detained the vessel. The owners of the vessel made representations, stating that there was no legal reason for detaining the steamer. The opinion of the law officers of the Crown was then asked, but it had not yet been delivered. If it should prove that there were no legal grounds for detaining the vessel, the Government would not act contrary to law in detaining it; but if, on the contrary, the seizure should prove lawful, the Government would act accordingly.
Subject at an end.

POOR LAWS (IRELAND)—RATE IN AID BILL.
MR. SPEAKER,on the Motion being put for the House to go into Committee on the Rate in Aid Bill, informed Sir H. W. Barron that be could not, consistently with the rules of the House, move the instruction to the Committee which stood on the Paper against his name.
LORD J. RUSSELL: I apprehend, Sir, that opinion equally applies to any such proposition in the Committee?
MR. SPEAKER: To any proposition extending the rate, or altering its application; for to any such proposition a resolution of a Committee of the whole House would regularly be required.
The House then went into Committee; Mr. Bernal in the chair.
On Clause 1,
SIR H. W. BARRONsaid, that having been precluded by the forms of the House from moving as an instruction to the Committee that all funds raised under this Bill be levied on property in Ireland which was not at present charged with poor-rates, he could not allow the opportunity to pass without appealing to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, against the great injustice which the Bill would inflict on the ratepayers of Ireland, by levying from them an additional rate. He complained that the legislation for Ireland was never founded on adequate information, and that any evidence but that of Irishmen, who well knew the country, was made the basis of it. The present Bill was an example of this which could not have been anticipated by him, although an advocate for a poor-rate, and surely was not anticipated by the Government; for when the noble Lord moved for a vote of 50,000 l, some time ago, he stated that it was not likely to be the last vote which he should have to ask for Ireland during the present Session. This week, however, the Government had so far changed as to propose laying an additional burden on distressed Ireland; and why he could not understand, unless it were that the noble Lord saw the House was unwilling to make any more grants for Ireland. Although it was strongly required that grants should be made to enable the people of Ireland to escape from the distress into which they were plunged, it was now proposed to impose another burden on them by a Bill which was meant merely to save the pockets of the people of this country. Already the poor-rate bore heavily upon the people of Ireland without any addition to it; already they were taxed under that bead to the amount of 9 per cent on all the property of the country. Taking that property as amounting to 13,000,000 l., the rate at 9 per cent would yield about 1,620,000 l. as the amount now levied from that distressed people on whom this Bill was about to impose an increased burden. In conclusion he begged to say, that he should oppose in every shape, and on every occasion, the infliction of a tax fraught with so much mischief and injustice to the impoverished people of Ireland.
CAPTAIN JONESstated, that it was his intention to take the sense of the Committee on this clause; and he would do so by moving the omission of the words by which the Poor Law Commissioners were empowered

935
to fix and declare the amount which, from time to time, they might deem it expedient or necessary to impose under the Bill. He was of opinion that the guardians, and not merely the commissioners, ought to have a voice in determining the amount, and which ought to have reference to the means of the union. He had stated on a former occasion that he believed it would be found impossible to levy this rate in aid; and he felt confident that in any attempt to levy it, the whole poor-law system in Ireland would be placed in jeopardy, and probably completely destroyed. This he, for one, would regret.
First Clause (Poor Law Commissioners in Ireland may authorise the levying a rate in aid):—Page 1, line 8, Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "to fix and declare from time to time the amount of such sum."
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, he would state very shortly his reason for supporting the proposition of his hon. and gallant Friend, and would point out what, as appeared to him, would be the effect of this clause, in order to justify himself in the course he had taken in opposition to the whole Bill, and in the conclusion he had arrived at, that an income tax, or any other mode of taxation, would be preferable to that which would be imposed under the Bill. The first clause made it imperative on the commissioners to impose the rate in aid in every union in Ireland of 6d. in the pound on the valuation. He would like to know how they were to deal with the insolvent unions. If the rate in aid was to be assessed upon the insolvent unions, and the clause certainly seemed to require it, he would only say it seemed to him rather an Irish mode of legislation. But passing by the insolvent unions in the west, it appeared to him that the certain effect of the clause would be to derange the whole system, and to pauperise some electoral divisions in every province and almost in every county in Ireland. It was very remarkable, in looking into the papers on the table, to observe how small a rate had the effect of breaking down and pauperising the western unions. It would be seen in the tables appended to the eight series of papers on the state of unions, page xxxiii, that in the union of Ballina, one of the insolvent unions, only 2s. 1d. in the pound had been collected and lodged during the year ending 29th September, 1848; in the Bantry union, only 3s. 2d.; in the Galway union, where there were ten
936
writs and two executions against the guardians, only 1s. 5½d.; in the Gort union, only 3s. 1½d.; in the Kenmare union, 4s. 10 d.; in the Scariff union, 6s. 6½d. It could not be stated that due means had not been used in those unions to collect the rates. What do the inspectors state? They all state that the utmost exertions have been used. The Inspector for Scariff union states—
"With regard to the collection of the rate, I have devoted every exertion of mind and body to this important object; the collectors have been stimulated to use their fullest legal powers in the performance of their duty."
And he adds—
"Many of the ratepayers are now in the workhouse, or are become paupers receiving outdoor relief, who only a few weeks past paid the poor-rate a large landed proprietor of the union, who had been reduced to support his family on the milk of two cows, had them seized for debt; they wore redeemed by a friend and restored to him out of pity to his children, who that day were without food; but the cows wore subsequently seized by the collector of poor-rates, and again sold; even the goat of the cottager had been seized in like manner."
It was obvious, therefore, that the exaction of what some hon. Members might consider a small rate, namely, 3s. or 4s. in the pound, had in many cases in Ireland the effect of breaking down a union. Now, if hon. Members would turn to other parts of Ireland, they would find there was scarcely a county in which there was not some electoral divisions on the very eve of bankruptcy. He would take the county of Antrim. There was an electoral division in the union of Ballycastle, where the poor-law charge levied the last year was 3s. 8¾d.—add 6d. for the rate in aid, and there would be 4s. 3d.—a rate larger than that which had broken down the western unions. In the same county there was an electoral division rated so low as 4d.; the unequal pressure of the rate in aid upon two electoral divisions so differently burdened, would be a great ground of complaint. In Armagh county there was an electoral division in the union of Lurgan, where the charge was 5s. 4d.; in Cavan, 7s. 8d.; in Tyrone, 5s. These all must be in a most struggling condition, on the verge of insolvency, and the additional 6d. would complete it. But supposing those electoral divisions were unable to contribute the additional 6d., what would be the effect of the clause? Why, the commissioners were empowered to abstract from the general funds of each union 6d. in the pound on the entire valuation. The consequence

937
would be, that the solvent electoral division in each union would have to pay for the insolvent ones; and if half the electoral divisions in a union were insolvent, the 6d. rate in aid would become 1s. on the remainder. Now, he had no fear that the people of the north or east of Ireland would have recourse to any illegal or improper moans to resist the rate in aid; but he believed the effect of the injustice it would perpetrate, would be such as to disgust all parties with the whole poor-law system, and create a feeling against it which would be quite as destructive to it as any illegal resistance. Her Majesty's Government had been sufficiently warned of this; and if it should happen hereafter that they should be obliged to abandon its collection, and the 100,000 l. advanced on the credit of it should not be repaid, he trusted no English Member would accuse Irish Members of dealing unfairly by them, or Ireland of repudiating that debt.
LORD J. RUSSELLadmitted that the proposition of a rate in aid was accompanied with great difficulties; but he could not allow the language which had been employed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Waterford to pass without protesting against its injustice. The hon. Baronet stated that they wanted to save their own pockets, and to tax the poverty of Ireland. Now, so far from that being the case, he believed that England had never made such exertions on her own behalf as she had made to save Ireland. He did not wish to boast of the exertions that had been made; but when he heard it stated over and over again that England had done nothing to relieve the misery of Ireland, he could not but refer to the grants and advances of upwards of nine millions sterling, and to the proposals which had been made every Session for the purpose of assisting Ireland. It was hardly just, then, when hon. Gentlemen representing English counties said that they could not consent to further grants, to accuse them of refusing all assistance, and of throwing the whole burden upon Ireland. The fact was that there did prevail this year, as in former years, very deep and extensive distress, arising from the failure of the food of the country. Had the potato crop been abundant last year, the Government might not have had to ask for this extraordinary aid. But that, unhappily, had not been the case, and it appeared from reports from the Poor Law Commissioners, and from private communications, that the utmost distress did exist.
938
In a letter received by himself only that; morning, from the Protestant clergyman of Ballinrobe, it was stated that in a work-house built for 800 persons there wore now 2,000; that the number of deaths was dreadful; and that the admission to the workhouse might almost be regarded as a passage to the grave. There might be measures proposed to alleviate the social state of Ireland in a few years, but he asked now, as he asked before over and I over again, what was to be done between the 1st of May and the 1st of August? Should they propose very large grants from the exchequer? To that the House generally was very much indisposed. Was it not possible, then, for Irish Gentlemen to agree to some means of levying the I necessary funds to relieve the extreme distress of their country? An income I tax had been proposed; but that measure had been fairly brought forward by the hon. Member for Kerry, and had been fully discussed. It had been rejected by the House, and he did not see that any good end would be served by again proposing it. The House having on the other hand resolved in favour of the rate in aid, he did ask the Committee now to allow the Bill to proceed; for he saw nothing but the most dreadful fate in store for the destitute poor of Ireland if it were not agreed to. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last inquired whether the rate would be levied upon greatly distressed unions. In answer to that he would say that in cases where t it was not possible to levy the ordinary poor-rates, this sixpenny rate would not be collected. It was not possible, however, to insert in the Bill a certain number of unions to be exempted, because if they did that in the case of certain unions, questions would constantly arise as to other unions whether or not they ought to be I exempted. He did not controvert at all the statement that there were strong objections to the imposition of an additional rate in Ireland in her present circumstances; but be believed it to be the only resource left them in Ireland's present moment of extreme distress and destitution.
MR. STAFFORDsaid, he was not acquainted with any union in Ireland where no poor's-rates at all were collected. But I if in certain distressed unions the commissioners were to have a discretionary power—["No, no!"]—"No!" then he should I like to know what was meant. As the Bill now stood, the Poor Law Commissioners

939
were compelled to levy a rate of 6d. in every union in Ireland. It gave them no dispensing power; but if they were to have that power, as the speech of the noble Lord at the head of the Government clearly indicated, a clause should be introduced into the Bill to that effect. He wished to draw the attention of the Committee to this circumstance, that having proceeded thus far in this Bill, the Government had themselves stated that in certain unions the levy of the 6d. rate would be impossible. They did not state the number of those unions; but according to the accounts of all the Irish Members, they were very much upon the increase, and in proportion as they did increase, the value of the security for the advance of 100,000 l. would be diminished. He wished to know in how great a proportion of the area of Ireland this rate would be raised, and why Government refused to give a dispensing power to the commissioners; which the noble Lord had stated would be absolutely necessary.
SIR G. GREYsaid, that what his noble Friend had said was that, practically, he did not anticipate that it would be possible to levy this 6d. rate in all the unions. This was a difficulty which attached to every law which imposed rates on the whole population; but the commissioners were to enforce the rates in all cases in which they could be enforced. The objection taken to the general terms in which the law was framed, was equally applicable to all laws.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHsaid, that in the course of the noble Lord's speech, reference was made to the unions in Ireland in which the rates could not be levied. He (Viscount Castlereagh) held in his hand a return of the financial condition of the following 13 unions in Ireland—namely, Ballina, Bantry, Clifden, Galway, Gort, Kenmare, Kilrush, Scariff, Westport, Ballinrobe, Castlebar, Carrick-on-Shannon, and Ennistymon; and by that return it appeared that the rate collected in 1848 was 114,474 l., and that the grants in aid in the same year amounted to 194,043 l., making the total funds 308,517 l.; whilst the expenditure was 340,624 l. The liabilities for 1849, carrying forward the surplus of expenditure, were the debts due on the 27th January, 104,926 l.; relief advances from Burgoyne's, or the "stir-about" commission in 1847, 106,108 l., and the same expenditure as in 1848, 340,624 l.; thus making the total liabilities of the 13 unions for the present year
940
551,658 l. The assets were—outstanding rates uncollected, 58,968 l., and the same amount of rate as was levied in 1848, 114,474 l.; together, 173,442 l.; thus leaving a deficit of 378,216 l. And even if the gross amount of the rate in aid, supposing it to be levied at 6d., which would come to 329,685 l., were deducted from that 378,216 l., a deficit would still remain of 48,531 l. Such was the financial condition of these thirteen unions. But, in addition to this statement, it appeared that at the close of the year 1848, 86 unions out of 131 were indebted in the sum of 268,273 l. And surely if those unions were unable to discharge their own debts, it was not very likely that they would be able to pay the debts of others.
SIR DENHAM NORREYSdid not think there would be any difficulty as to this Bill, as the moiety of all sums which were paid was to be transferred to the rate in aid accounts. He agreed with the hon. Member for the University of Dublin, that it was most unfortunate the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown did not adopt some scale which should exempt districts which at present were unable to pay their own expenditure. There were upwards of 2,000 electoral divisions; of these 539 were in the course of the collection of rates of the amount of 5s. and upwards; but of these electoral divisions so rated only 148 actually paid 5s. in the pound. Could anything more clearly show the impossibility of raising an extra rate? In Ulster, which had been referred to as a model province, there were 98 electoral divisions in which 5s. and upwards was in the course of collection; only 17 of these electoral divisions were able to pay 5s. in the pound. Therefore, it was utterly hopeless for the noble Lord to raise 6d. in the pound in aid of the current expenses.
SIR R. FERGUSONcomplained of the impolicy and harshness of the measure, and expressed his conviction that very great difficulty would be experienced in levying the rate.
MR. SADLEIRwished Government to consider the propriety of making an advance of 100,000 l. on the security of the enormous sum due for poor-rate in Ireland. The arrears of poor-rate amounted to 500,000 l., and would furnish security for this advance of 100,000 l. Might not Government with great advantage introduce into the measure proposed by the Solicitor General a simple power to sell a certain portion of those estates which were justly

941
liable to the poor-rates? As to the observations of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire, that every union in Ireland must be liable, he gathered from the noble Lord at the head of the Government, that it was proposed that every union should contribute more or less to the payment of the rate in aid. There were some electoral divisions which were seriously considering how they could practically exempt themselves from the rate in aid.
SIR A. B. BROOKEsaid, that the feeling in his district was against the rate in aid, and he did not believe that one farthing of the sixpenny rate in aid would be collected without the greatest difficulty. He denied that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had fairly brought the question of the income tax before the House. He did not wish it to go forth that Irish Members were unconditionally opposed to every species of legislation, and all he asked of the noble Lord was to appoint a Committee to consider the propriety of imposing an income tax on fair and equitable grounds.
SIR W. VERNERconsidered, from what he had heard, that the difficulty of levying this tax was beyond what could be conceived. The hon. Member for Manchester had taken on himself to state that the unions in the province of Ulster were opposed to this measure, because they were actually coerced. Now, he had taken the trouble of looking at the petitions presented to the House, and there were upwards of seventy petitions against this measure. He believed there were no persons in Ireland more competent to judge of the working of the system than the guardians; and when the hon. Member took on himself to speak of the motives which influenced the province, he (Sir W. Verner) would ask him who had influenced the guardians?
MR. STAFFORDsaid, when he considered they had to advance 100,000 l. on this Bill, he felt it his duty, as an English Member, closely to watch the progress of the measure, and for the sake of his constituents to see that the security was as good as possible. As regarded Ireland itself, he feared that the more distressed the union, the more oppressive would be the operation of the rate, for in the distressed unions rates would be highest, and consequently the rate in aid would come soonest into operation.
MR. SHARMAN CRAWFORDaugured great danger to the poor-law generally from the working of this Bill. In
942
the part of Ireland with which he was acquainted, the people would never become willing agents in the collection of the rate, because they considered it to be a breach of national faith and of the Articles of Union. It was, in fact, a delusion both as regarded England and Ireland, as it would neither repay the English advance, nor relieve the Irish destitution.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 81; Noes 28: Majority 53.

List of the AYES.

Adair, R. A. S.

Maitland, T.

Anson, hon. Col.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Baines, M. T.

Milner, W. M. E.

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Bass, M. T.

Morison, Sir W.

Bellew, R. M.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

O'Connor, F.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Owen, Sir J.

Brackley, Visct.

Paget, Lord A.

Brotherton, J.

Palmerston, Visct.

Busfeild, W.

Parker, J.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Pearson, C.

Carter, J. B.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Coke, hon. E. K.

Perfect, R.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Pilkington, J.

Craig, W. G.

Power, N.

Crowder, R. B.

Pryse, P.

Drummond, H.

Reynolds, J.

Ebrington, Visct.

Rich, H.

Ellis, J.

Rumbold, C. E.

Evans, W.

Russell, Lord J.

Fagan, W.

Rutherfurd, A.

Foley, J. H. H.

Scrope, G. P.

Fordyce, A. D.

Shafto, R. D.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Smith, J. A.

Grenfell, C. W.

Smith, M. T.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Harris, R.

Stanton, W. H.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Strickland, Sir G.

Heald, J.

Sturt, H. G.

Henry, A.

Talfourd, Serj.

Heywood, J.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Heyworth, L.

Thompson, Col.

Hollond, R.

Vane, Lord H.

Howard, Lord E.

Wawn, J. T.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Williams, J.

Jervis, Sir J.

Willyams, H.

Kershaw, J.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Lacy, H. C.

Wyld, J.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

TELLERS.

Lewis, G. C.

Hill, Lord M.

M'Gregor, J.

Tufnell, H.

List of the NOES.

Alexander, N.

Corry, rt. hon. H. L.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Crawford, W. S.

Bentinck, Lord H.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Dunne, F. P.

Bruen, Col.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Castlereagh, Visct.

Grattan, H.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Grogan, E.

943

Keating, R.

Sullivan, M.

Keogh, W.

Tennent, R. J.

Lawless, hon. C.

Urquhart, D.

Maenaghten, Sir E.

Verner, Sir W.

O'Brien, Sir L.

Young, Sir J.

Rawdon, Col.

Richards, R.

TELLERS.

Sadleir, J.

Hamilton, G. A.

Stafford, A.

Jones, Capt.

MR. W. FAGANthen rose to propose the addition of the following proviso. He believed if it were acceded to it would go a great way in neutralising the opposition to the Bill:—
"Provided always. That the occupier of all rateable hereditaments in any Union who shall not have any greater estate or interest therein than a tenancy from year to year, or who shall hold under a lease or leases terminable on the demise of one life, concurrent with thirty-one years, or under a lease of years not exceeding thirty-one years, or under a lease for one life without years concurrent therewith, shall be entitled to deduct from the rent payable by him to his immediate lessor, the full amount of all rates and arrears of rate paid by him under and by virtue of this Act: Provided further, that every person not an occupier as aforesaid, who shall pay rent in respect of any lands or tenements, shall not be entitled to deduct from the rent paid by him, any greater sum than a sum bearing such proportion to the amount of rate deducted from the rent received by him, as the rent paid by him bears to the rent received by him."
LORD J. RUSSELLdoubted if the proviso came within the scope of the resolution on which the Bill was founded. He should be glad to hear the Chairman's opinion on the subject.
The CHAIRMANsaid, the question was one of considerable difficulty. He doubted very much whether the proviso came within the scope of the resolution.
SIR G. GREYfeared that it would be impossible to give effect to this proviso without altering other portions of the Bill, although the principle might be a very proper one to raise on a general amendment of the poor-law.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, he had consulted Mr. Speaker, who was of opinion that the words of the resolution on which the Bill was founded were of so very general a character as to make it very difficult to say whether the present Amendment did not come within their scope. At the same time it was the opinion of Mr. Speaker that if the proviso was calculated to alter the poor-law, it could not be put, seeing that the resolution on which the Bill was founded gave no power to alter the poor-law. He had himself some doubts as to whether the proviso did not alter the poor-law.
MR. J. O'CONNELLsaid, as this Bill was merely a temporary measure, not interfering with the general poor-law, be thought that the proviso might be put. If the noble Lord would admit it, it would remove a great many difficulties out of his way.
LORD J. RUSSELLremarked, that he was quite ready to abide by the decision of the Chairman as to whether the proviso should be rejected on a point of form, or as to whether it should be argued on its own merits. If the Chairman thought that the proviso could be legitimately put and debated, he, for one, would be very ready to accept that decision.
The CHAIRMANsaid, that it was difficult for him to pronounce at once whether the effect of the clause proposed would be to alter the existing state of the Irish poor-law. The doubt which he entertained was this—the measure before them was a Bill making temporary provision for a period of difficulty; for levying, in fact, a rate in aid. Now, the proviso pointed to this temporary provision, and not to the existing poor-law. His belief, therefore, was that the Amendment would not have the effect of altering the permanent law; at the same time he felt a difficulty, and he thought that the most conscientious way of discharging his duty was frankly to state the doubt existing in his mind to the House.
LORD J. RUSSELLwould not, under these circumstances, object to the proviso being argued upon its merits.
The CHAIRMANthen put the question as to whether the proviso should be inserted.
MR. POULETT SCROPEwas anxious to see how those Irish Members, who had expressed such a decided objection to the rate in aid—because it would throw the burden upon the poor occupier—that they asked for the imposition of an income tax instead, would vote on this proposition, the effect of which was to transfer the burden to the shoulders of the landlords.
MAJOR BLACKALL: Though he might be willing to pay the rate for his poorer tenants if this rate should be proposed, he considered it extremely unjust to compel the landlord to pay in all eases for his tenants, who might have as much interest in the land as himself.
MR. J. O'CONNELLsuggested that the clause should exempt tenants at will only, as that would encourage landlords to give leases.
SIR W. SOMERVILLEthought it most unadvisable in a Bill of a temporary nature, and brought forward for a temporary purpose, to introduce so great a change in the principle of rating.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONalso opposed the Amendment.
MR. REYNOLDSunderstood that if the Amendment passed in its present shape, it would throw the whole burden on the landlord, and exempt the tenant. That was the fair construction—and that was the ground on which he was prepared to support it. This Amendment would test the sincerity of the 165 Members who had voted for the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Longford, which was something very like a proposal for imposing an income tax, instead of the rate in aid. The present proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Cork would relieve the tenants altogether from that burden which those hon. Gentlemen considered so oppressive that they preferred an income tax to it. Every man holding land as tenant at will or on lease would have the right to deduct the rate from the rent; this would not only relieve the tenant, but remove all the difficulties of collection, and he hoped, therefore, that those Irish Members who were so anxious to protect the tenants from the burden would vote for it. He regretted that the original poor-law had not proceeded upon the same principle; if it had they should have got rid of the landlord clamour. On a former occasion he had voted for the rate in aid, and he had found since that in doing so he was acting in accordance with the feeling of his constituents. ["Oh, oh!"] This was proved by the fact, that at a meeting held the other day of the town council of Dublin, called for the purpose of petitioning against the rate in aid, a petition in favour of the measure was adopted almost unanimously, and he had a day ago presented that petition to the House.
SIR H. W. BARRONobjected to the proposition, as being a departure from the principle of the poor-law, in which the great error, as he thought, was that in the matter of rating it was not assimilated to the English law, which made the occupier liable in all cases. He contended that it never had been the intention of the House that the 100,000 l already granted for the relief of distress in Ireland, should be levied upon the landlords. Those who supported the first and second reading of the Rate in Aid Bill had not understood any such intention
946
to exist, and therefore in honour, justice, and principle, hon. Members were bound to oppose the Amendment.
SIR G. GREYobjected to any alteration being made in the general principle of the Rate in Aid Bill, and for that reason deprecated the adoption of the proviso of the hon. Member for Cork.
SIR H. W. BARRONwas satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Baronet, but must confess that he was somewhat astonished at the coolness with which the hon. Member for Dublin was about to crucify the Irish landlords. That hon. Member was excessively liberal with other people's property; but it might be well to ask whether he was quite so liberal with his own. It was uncommonly easy to vote where a man had nothing himself to vote away.
MR. REYNOLDSreminded the House that he had not made use of the word "crucify." He left expressions of that kind to the excellent and elegant vocabulary of the eloquent Baronet the Member for Waterford.
MR. SCULLYthought the Amendment was of too sweeping a nature in exempting not merely tenants from year to year and tenants at will, but other classes of tenants also.
SIR A. B. BROOKEwas so utterly opposed to Her Majesty's Government on this question that he would not vote in the division. He disapproved of the Amendment, and of the odium which had been attempted to be cast upon the landed proprietary of Ireland by the hon. Member for Dublin, and he would leave that hon. Member and the Government to settle the point between them as to who should pay the rate.
MR. SHARMAN CRAWFORDopposed the Amendment upon the ground that it was based on injustice, and that the hon. Member for Cork could not have considered all the bearings of the question when he proposed it for the adoption of the House. He believed that tenants at will were not in many cases entitled to exemption. He desired that landlords and tenants should alike possess a mutual interest in preventing the evils of pauperism, but that desirable object would not be attained if the whole burden were thrown upon the landlords.
MR. KEOGHcalled on the hon. Member for Cork to explain his Amendment. It appeared, that if the landlord executed a lease for one year, he was to pay; if he

947
did not execute it, he was to pay also. In any case, the landlord was to pay them. In the same sentence, it would appear that the landlord was both to pay and to receive rent. [Mr. FAGAN: That's the middleman.] Well, really, if some third person was meant, the clause should be made intelligible.
Question put, "That the Proviso be there added."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 13; Noes 101: Majority 88.

List of the AYES.

Adair, R. A. S.

O'Connell, J.

Fox, W. J.

Scrope, G. P.

Greene, J.

Tennent, R. J.

Henry, A.

Thompson, Col.

Keating, R.

Wawn, J. T.

Kershaw, J.

TELLERS.

M'Cullagh, W. T.

Fagan, W.

Moore, G. H.

Reynolds, J.

Clause 2.
COLONEL DUNNEmoved an Amendment of which he had given notice, to the effect that the rate in aid should be collected separately from the general rate under the Irish Poor Law Act.
Amendment proposed, page 2, line II, to leave out the word "in," in order to add the words "by a separate Rate to be made immediately subsequent to."
SIR G. GREYobserved, that the rates had been combined, as the money was more likely to be got if no distinction were made. Hon. Members opposed to the sixpenny rate had with a very creditable feeling expressed their desire that the rate should be collected without incurring the risk they apprehended of collision, or of a necessity arising for the use of the police and military. The less obnoxious the mode of collection, the less likely were they to incur the evils anticipated by some; and Her Majesty's Government had therefore thought it better, upon the whole, that the plan now proposed should be adopted. He must, therefore, oppose the Amendment.
MR. R. M. FOXwas for having the rate collected separately. He thought the people should be asked distinctly whether they would or would not pay 6d. in the pound, and that it was most objectionable to mix up a temporary rate of that nature with the permanent poor-rate.
MR. STAFFORDsaid, the temporary rate could not be collected separately—that the Government dare not levy it in that form—and that, therefore. Ministers were compelled to disguise the obnoxious
948
nature of it by levying it with the other poor-rates. One hon. Gentleman had remarked that the other rates would float the sixpence. His opinion was, that the sixpence would sink the other rates, and that the truth of the predictions of the Irish Members, with reference to the resistance that would be given to the collection in Ireland, would hereafter be fulfilled.
COLONEL DUNNEfelt satisfied with the turn the discussion had taken. His Amendment had effected exactly what he intended it should. The Government, by the mixing up of the two rates, had admitted the injustice of their present attempt, and that admission was now upon record.
SIR G. GREYthought the hon. and gallant Member had drawn an erroneous conclusion. The Government, by the plan of collection they proposed, had simply endeavoured to make the proposed rate as little obnoxious as possible.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, the argument of the hon. and gallant Mover of the Amendment was this—that it was desirable to exact the rate separately, in order to put the question to the people, whether they would or would not pay, Now, that was not a desirable issue. When a law was once made, it ought to be obeyed; and therefore he could not understand why the hon. and gallant Member should be so very desirous of putting such a question to the tenantry. Undoubtedly, if the House wished to provoke resistance, the way to do so was to impose the rate separately, and to put it to the people whether they would or would not pay; but as there were persons ready to make violent harangues in Ireland, and to persuade their hearers to resist the tax, it was not desirable to levy it in the manner now proposed.
MR. R. M. FOXapprehended that his observations had been misunderstood by the noble Lord. He believed that the rate would be likely to be collected separately, if it were left to the good feeling of the people of the north of Ireland to say whether they would contribute towards the support of the distressed unions in Connaught. He had never dreamed of being so mad as to countenance resistance to its collection.
LORD J. RUSSELLexpressed his regret if he had misunderstood any hon. Member.
MR. O'FLAHERTYbelieved the House

949
was about to practise a delusion upon the sister country; but as the object of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was to impose the tax quietly, and to render it as palatable as possible, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed to a division.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, it was because the proposed plan of levying was a delusion that he should divide the House.
MR. REYNOLDSobserved, that al-though the rate in aid might be a delusion, the 100,000 l. loan was undeserving of any such appellation. That loan would appear to be a reality. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire had asked that night what security there was for the 100,000 l.; but now there was some room to doubt that hon. Member's sincerity on this subject, inasmuch as he was about to vote for the Amendment, which would jeopardise the collection of the rate, and render the security less certain. ["No, no!"] He (Mr. Reynolds) said, "Yes, yes," because it was admitted on the other side that it would be impossible to collect it separately. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was not to be caught in the trap laid for him by the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington, because he would mix it up with the general rate, and thereby render its collection facile. The argument of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire was, let it be collected separately, in order that it may not be collected at all. Now he (Mr. Reynolds) was sincerely anxious for its collection. He was honest on the question. [Laughter.] He was glad the phrase "honesty" had excited laughter. Hon. Members appeared to have some qualms of conscience. Let them ask themselves, were they strictly honest? He believed they were, although there was no obstacle which human ingenuity could invent that they had not put in motion to retard this Bill. He did not charge them with a want of humanity, but they should recollect that whilst they were protracting the carrying of this question, their fellow-countrymen were dying in the ditches of starvation. No man was loss disposed to shield the present or any other Government than he was. He believed that every Government had certain sins to answer for; but in Ireland the people were too much in the habit of blaming the Government for their own faults, and if they (the people) tested their own consciences sincerely, they would find that a large amount of
950
the miseries of the land lay at their own doors. He stated this even at the risk of creating discontent in the minds of those who, par excellence, or something else, possessed the green acres of the country; and he told that class that if they discharged their duty to the people—if they took the same care of their tenants that the manufacturers of the north of England took of their workmen—it would be easier to govern Ireland than it was. They ought to be the last men in the world to throw any obstacle in the way of the Government, and yet they went on complaining, and saying that their duty was to oppose and not to propose. An hon. Baronet the Member for Waterford had said that night, that he (Mr. Reynolds) was very free with the property of others. He confessed that he did not understand the meaning of the phrase. He certainly was anxious to make that hon. Baronet and others do their duty. He had passed through that hon. Baronet's property in the county of Waterford, and he had not seen more squalid and naked misery in any other part of the province of Munster than he witnessed there. He did not say that the hon. Baronet had neglected his duty. But he did say, that the hon. Baronet did not represent the county of Waterford; he represented the city of Waterford after a very hard struggle. He had never ventured to offer himself for the county, and in that respect he had shown his wisdom, because, had he become a candidate for the county, the great probability was that he would have been left in a very small minority.
SIR H. W. BARRON,in reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Dublin respecting his (Sir H. Barron's) property, bogged to say, that in twenty-one years he had built seventy-nine slated residences on it; had expended 4,900 l. in three years on drainage; had built four national schools at his own cost; had established four model farms, one of forty acres, another of sixteen, one being now in operation for seventeen, the other for nine years. One parish in the union of Dungarvan belonged to him altogether, and there was not a single pauper in that parish receiving either indoor or outdoor relief. Since the famine he had given employment to every man on his property, scattered though it was in different parts of the county of Waterford, and even to many others who did not belong to it. He hoped the House would excuse him for making this statement, so personal

951
to himself, in reply to the unfounded remarks of the hon. Member for Dublin.
MR. STAFFORDexplained that what he meant to say was, that it would be better to abandon the sixpenny rate altogether, than by adding it to the general rate, risk both. The hon. Member for Dublin asked what security would be given if the rate in aid were abandoned. His hon. Friend the Member for Kerry had already proposed an income tax as a security, for which the hon. Member for Dublin had voted, as soon as he had escaped the onus of it, by obtaining a lucrative appointment from the Government for a relative of his.
MR. REYNOLDSwas not aware that any relation of his had received a lucrative appointment from the Government. So long as nine months ago, his right hon. Friend the Master of the Mint—his friend of twenty-seven years' standing—had offered him, for his son, the very small appointment of second assistant to the Solicitor to the Mint. He hesitated to accept it, as he thought his son had then much better prospects. After much deliberation, however, he did accept it; hut in doing so, he did not consider himself under any obligation whatever to the Government, or to Government influence, or to any other person whomsoever than his right hon. Friend, who had the right to appoint. He was sorry, therefore, that the hon. Member for Northamptonshire should have shown such had taste as to have given them a rehash of what he understood had been made the subject of a question in the earlier part of the evening by the hon. Member for Londonderry. The object of the allusion he knew very well was to damage him (Mr. Reynolds) in public estimation; but hon. Gentlemen much mistook his character, if they thought that that petty appointment, or any appointment, would induce him to give a vote against his conscience. His son was a gentleman by birth, education, and conduct; and in the latter respect, at least, would bear a comparison with the hon. Member for Londonderry. He could say of him, too, that he never sailed under false colours. He (Mr. Reynolds) could only attribute the hon. Gentleman's ill-natured question, because he (Mr. Reynolds) called him a captain on a former occasion in consequence of his exhibiting the signs of the military profession. In conclusion, he would tell the hon. and gallant Member—for gallant he could not
952
help calling him when he looked at him—that if he meant to give up the military trade, he ought to take down the signboard.
MR. BATESONwould not notice the personal observation of the hon. Member for Dublin, hut he asserted his right, as an independent Member of Parliament, to ask a Minister of the Crown whether the newspaper statement was true, that a young gentleman, who was not an English solicitor, and had been but a short time a solicitor in Ireland, had been appointed to a lucrative and responsible situation in Her Majesty's Mint, without being subjected to the sneers or taunts of the hon. Gentleman.
MR. GROGANregretted that the discussion should have become so personal. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Dublin that the rate in aid was very popular there.
Question put, "That the word 'in' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 113; Noes 35: Majority 78.

List of the NOES.

Adair, R. A. S.

Keogh, W.

Alexander N.

Lawless, hon. C.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Bateson, T.

Macnaghten, Sir E.

Bernard, Visct.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Blake, M. J.

Nugent, Sir P.

Bourke, R. S.

O'Brien, T.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

O'Flaherty, A.

Castlereagh, Visct.

Sadleir, J.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Scully, V.

Crawford, W. S.

Sidney, Ald.

Dodd, G.

Stafford, A.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Stuart, J.

Greene, J.

Sullivan, M.

Grogan, E.

Tennent, R. J.

Hamilton, G. A.

Verner, Sir W.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

TELLERS.

Jones, Capt.

Dunne, Col.

Keating, R.

Fox, R. M.

On the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill,
MR. KEOGHsaid, he should much regret if the Act were to he met with what was called "passive resistance," hut he thought it quite possible to drive a coach and six through it. By this second section the rate in aid was only required to he added to the first rate struck after the passing of the Act. Now, if any board of guardians chose, before the Act passed, to strike a rate sufficient for the whole of the two years, they might get rid altogether of the rate in aid.
SIR G. GREYsaid, this was so improbable a contingency that it had not been

953
provided for, and the Government was willing to run the risk.
The clause was then agreed to.
On Clause 3,
MR. S. CRAWFORDmoved an Amendment expunging the words, "as the said Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury shall think fit," and substituting the words, "as shall be directed by a board appointed as hereinafter provided." This was with a view to moving a clause of which the hon. Gentleman had given notice, vesting the power to dispose of the monies raised by the rate in aid in a national representative board, to be elected from the several boards of guardians in Ireland. The proposal of this clause to give this authority to the Commissioners of the Treasury was most unconstitutional, and one which Englishmen would not have submitted to. He sought, by moving this Amendment, to protect the popular rights. Should it be affirmed, he would then move a clause, giving power to the several boards of guardians to elect, on a day to be fixed, the national representative board. If the board were not so formed, there ought, at least, to be some national board, responsible to Parliament, even if they were appointed by the Government.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "as the said Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury shall think fit," in order to insert the words, "as shall be directed by a board appointed as heroin-after provided."
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Gentleman had expressed much unnecessary alarm about this clause, the real object of which was to place the money practically at the disposal of the poor-law guardians. The words objected to had, in fact, been copied from the poor-law Acts.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 117; Noes 19: Majority 98.

List of the NOES.

Bateson, T.

Nugent, Sir P.

Blake, M. J.

O'Connell, J.

Castlereagh, Visct.

O'Flaherty, A.

Dunne, F. P.

Rawdon, Col.

Grattan, H.

Sadleir, J.

Greene, J.

Scully, F.

Hildyard, T. B. T.

Sullivan, M.

Keating, R.

Tennent, R. J.

Lawless, hon. C.

TELLERS.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Crawford, S.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Brooke, Sir A.

On the Motion that the clause as amended stand part of the Bill,
MR. GRATTANmoved the omission of the clause. He did not see the use of sending half-starved people out of the country. He advised his hon. Friends opposite to keep the ablebodied at home, in order to fight their battles, rather than send them to America to fight against them.
SIR G. GREYsaid, that the question was, whether the clause, as amended, should stand part of the Bill, and the hon. Gentleman only objected to a few words of it.
The clause was then agreed to.
The remaining clauses were then agreed to.
MR. ADAIRproposed the following clause:—
"And be it enacted, That whenever a rate in aid shall have been levied in any electoral division, or when a sum equivalent to the amount of such rate in aid, if levied separately, shall have been paid out of any balance standing to the credit of such electoral division in the books of the treasurer to the union wherein such electoral division is comprised, it shall be lawful for the occupier primarily liable, being a tenant at will, or leaseholder for a term of years whereof not more than seven shall be unexpired, or for one life, at a rackrent of not more than 20 l., to deduct the full sum to which he shall have been rated as a rate in aid, or to make good any deficiency in the balance of the electoral division created as aforesaid, from any rent duo, or which may become then next due, from him to his immediate landlord, on production of the receipt of the collector of poor's rates for such payment; provided always, that in any receipt hereafter to be given by any collector of poor's rates, so long as this Act shall remain in force, it shall be stated what proportion of the gross rate, if any, shall have been paid as a rate in aid."
SIR G. GREYhoped that the hon. Gentleman would not press the clause, as it was the same in principle with the clause which had been proposed by the hon. Member for Cork.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHhoped that the clause would not be pressed. He thought that matters of this kind would be better settled between landlords and tenants themselves.
The clause was negatived without a division.
MR. ADAIRproposed three other clauses, to the effect that no sums should be advanced for the relief of the destitute poor in any union until the commissioners should have certified that the utmost diligence was used in collecting the rates; that the sums so advanced should be deemed a first charge on the property of

955
the electoral division; that whenever a sum in the nature of a rate in aid should have been advanced, it should be lawful for the commissioners to associate with the board of guardians a paid officer as an additional guardian.
These clauses were also negatived without a division.
On the Motion that the preamble be agreed to,
SIR J. YOUNGsaid, that the name of a gentleman from whom he had received a letter, had often been mentioned in the course of the debates upon this subject, and he did think that the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk had not fairly stated the opinions expressed by Mr. Twisleton, the gentleman to whom he alluded. He should, with the permission of the House, read the following extract from the letter that Mr. Twisleton had written to him:—
"I shall be much obliged to you, as Chairman of the Irish Poor Law Committee, if you will take some favourable opportunity in the House of Commons to set Mr. M'Cullagh right in regard to his statement, that my 'only hope for the future rested on the revival of the potato crop;' in reference to which hope he proceeds to say, that 'nothing could be more fatal than to teach the people of Ireland to rely on that root;' as if I had been in favour of teaching them some such lesson. This misrepresentation of my evidence could only have arisen from an inaccurate and superficial perusal of parts of my evidence, without reference to the context, and the general drift of the questions and answers. You will probably remember that, so far from teaching the people of Ireland to rely on the potato, I expressed regret and apprehension at the apparent extent to which preparations were made for planting the potato again this year. It is true that I expressed an opinion that there was no hope that the distressed unions in the west of Ireland could go on without extraneous assistance after next harvest, unless the potato came round; but this was always on the supposition that no other measures were adopted in reference to those unions; and you will remember that I more than once stated that those unions did require the adoption of some other measures."
He had marked some passages in the evidence of Mr. Twisleton, which he might, if necessary, read to the House, and which would fully bear out the statement contained in that gentleman's letter. He wished further to add, that it was quite a misapprehension to suppose that Mr. Twisleton had represented the poor-law as having broken down in Ireland; on the contrary, he believed it to have been successful as far as any such measure could be expected to succeed. It did not meet all cases of distress, but it had done much to alleviate destitution.
MR. M'CULLAGHsaid, he had not
956
been singular in the interpretation he had placed upon Mr. Twisleton's evidence, but he was perfectly ready to acknowledge that Mr. Twisleton must be the most accurate exponent of what he meant to say on the occasion. He had never had the slightest idea of treating Mr. Twisleton with discourtesy, or of refusing to admit the services he had rendered.
Preamble agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported, as amended, to he considered to-morrow.

SUPPLY—PROPERTY OF THE LATE JOHN TURNER.
The House then went into Committee of Supply, Mr. Bernal in the chair.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, that as he had undertaken not to bring on the Naval Estimates after 11, and as it was now past that hour, he would not now proceed with the Naval Estimates, but would merely ask the House to agree to one vote, which it was necessary immediately to agree to.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the vote he wished to obtain at once from the House arose in this way. Some years ago, a gentleman of the name of Turner died, leaving, apparently, no heirs or representatives; every precaution was taken to ascertain whether any such heirs or representatives were to be found, and none appearing the balance of his property became escheat to the Crown, and was accordingly paid over to the Consolidated Fund in 1842. In 1846, however, a Bill was filed in Chancery, by certain parties claiming to be the next of kin; a writ of inquiry was issued, and the jury deciding in favour of the claimants, the court ordered the money to be paid over to them. It being thus necessary for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to perform the disagreeable office of refunding, the present vote was asked.
The question was then put, that a sum not exceeding 52,173 l. 2s. 11 d., be granted to Her Majesty, to replace the escheated property of the late John Turner.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, that certain allowances had been granted to some attendants upon the late Mr. Turner, who was a lunatic, for the extreme attention they had paid him. He hoped the case of these persons would be considered.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was now proceeding under an order of the Court of Chancery, and had no further control over the money.

957
Certain sums had been paid to the parties referred to before the order was made, and, as the order only applied to the balance of the property, these sums, of course, would not be questioned.
MR. BROTHERTONsaid, that some years ago Mr. Samuel Ashton, of Hyde, loft 150,000 l. to be paid over towards liquidating the national debt. Had the Government received this money?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was not prepared with an answer to the question.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, the hon. Gentleman need not trouble himself about the money, it was quite safe in Chancery.
Vote agreed to.
Resolution to be reported to-morrow.
House resumed.

SAVINGS BANKS COMMITTEE.
MR. REYNOLDSsaid, that he had two changes to make in the names of the Select Committee on Savings Banks, namely, to substitute Mr. Keogh for Mr. H. Herbert, and Mr. F. Mackenzie for Mr. Forbes. As he understood the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had some objections to make to the names, he would, with the permission of the House, reserve what he had to say on the subject until the right hon. Gentleman had stated his objections.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was sorry to be obliged to take the course of objecting to the Committee proposed by the hon. Member; but he was obliged by his sense of public duty to do so, in order to avoid the consequence which would follow, of disagreeable personal recriminations. He considered that he had made a very fair proposal upon this subject to the hon. Member; but as he found it impossible to come to terms with him, the best way of avoiding all difficulty was, in his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) opinion, to reappoint the Committee which had sat last year on the same subject. That Committee had very diligently performed its duties up to the end of the Session, without a single disagreement or division, until the hon. Member for Kerry had dissented from the opinions of the other Members. Therefore, under all circumstances, he thought a fairer Committee could not be named than those hon. Members who had already carried on an inquiry into the subject of savings banks. No report had been made by that
958
Committee, but if it was reappointed, this result might now be looked for. He had, been told that this was an Irish question, I and therefore ought to be a preponderance of Irish Members on the Committee; but it had been sought to establish a claim, with respect to this subject, on the Consolidated Fund, and that therefore deprived the question of any exclusively Irish character. It was obvious, that if the Committee now proposed should report that the depositors of any one of the savings banks had a claim on the Consolidated Fund, that would establish a similar claim, not only for the whole four banks in question, but for all the savings banks in the kingdom placed under similar circumstances. Now, in England, Scotland, and Wales, whenever loss had occurred to the depositors in savings banks, the loss had been made good by the trustees; and he had not heard of a single exception to that rule until the last discussion on the subject. At all events, he was not aware that any English or Scotch savings banks had made a claim upon the Consolidated Fund; and, as the number of savings banks in England and Scotland greatly exceeded those in Ireland, it became more a question for English and Scotch than Irish Members. He thought that the Committee which he had originally nominated was a perfectly fair Committee, much fairer than that now recommended by the hon. Gentleman.
MR. H. A. HERBERTthought, in the whole of that transaction, and in his endeavours to get the matter sifted by a Committee of the House, he had reason to complain of the manner in which he had been treated by the Government. Every possible obstacle had been originally thrown in the way of the appointment of that Committee. The hon. Member for Dublin had been appealed to frequently to postpone its nomination. At the end of the Session, however, feeling the necessity of such an inquiry, in order to satisfy persons that justice might be done to them, he had felt it to be his duty to put a notice of a Motion for a supply night on the Paper, and he had announced his determination to divide the House upon it. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, however, asked to appoint the Committee, and he (Mr. Herbert)—in his innocence he admitted—had consented to it. Only three Irish Members, however, had been nominated on a Committee of fifteen, which was to inquire into a question mainly affecting Irish banks. He would appeal to

959
English and Scotch Members whether that would be considered a fair arrangement with respect to any matter affecting their countries. His right hon. Friend had said at the time that the question was one of general interest. The case was now altered. It was now proposed only to inquire into three Irish savings hanks. On the former occasion, however, he thought an unfair advantage had been taken of their forbearance in the nomination of the Committee. He would only say a word about the course which he had taken in that Committee. His right hon. Friend had proposed a short report to the effect that it was the opinion of that Committee that it was desirable that any further inquiry into that subject should take place in the recess or the next Session of Parliament. He had been accused of obstinacy because he had moved the omission of the words "during the recess." But now, when they asked for an inquiry into a matter concerning Irish business, the nomination of the Committee was opposed. The amount of money invested was such as to render it indispensable that some inquiry should take place. Though they were loft under the impression that the Government intended to bring in some measure on that subject, no measure had been introduced. When the proposition had been first made for a Committee, it had been met by a direct negative on the part of the Government. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was proposed to make a claim on the Consolidated Fund. For his part, he thought those who lost by the savings banks' defalcations had as good a claim on the Consolidated Fund as those who had suffered by the Exchequer frauds. But he denied that any hon. Member who Toted for that inquiry had made up his mind on the subject of the responsibility of the Consolidated Fund, although he was free to admit that he thought there were good grounds for such a claim.
MR. R. M. FOXconcurred in the Motion before the House, and thought it was a very advisable thing to appoint an Irish lawyer, like the hon. and learned Member for Athlone, on that Committee.
MR. GOULBURNobserved, that this was a most unpleasant discussion. The question at issue was, whether the Committee of last year had discharged their duty fairly, or whether there was any imputation against thorn. He had not heard that there was any such imputation; and he was inclined to agree, therefore, with
960
the right hon. Gentleman opposite in the reappointment of the Committee of last year.
MR. KEOGHwas prepared to support the hon. Member for Kerry in maintaining that for the consideration of this question another Committee should be appointed. It was said that this was a national question, and, in one sense, it was a national question. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that, when proposing a new Committee, he thought it fair and reasonable there should be six Members from Ireland; and yet he now proposed his Amendment that a Committee should be appointed in which were the names of only three Irish Members. The hon. Member for Dublin proposed a Committee of fifteen, with seven representatives from Ireland. Upon the selection of Committees in the House, the representatives for Ireland were not fairly treated. Nineteen Committees had been appointed this Session. One was on the Scotch marriage question, consisting of fifteen Members, every one of whom was a Scotchman. In the Army and Navy Committee, amongst fifteen Members, there was no Irishman. On the Divorce Bill Committee—divorce being a matter in which some persons said that Irishmen had something to do with the initiative—there was no Irishman. There was no representative for Ireland on the Real and Personal Property Committee. In the Committee on the School of Design, the English Members were fourteen to one Irishman. There was not a single Irishman on the Committee on Fees in Courts of Law. There was one Committee from which Irish Members were excluded, and on which he made no complaint, and that was the Insolvent Members Committee. This showed that Irish Members were carefully passed over; and in the Committee before the House, he said, they were entitled to a larger representation. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that if the Committee reported that the savings banks had a claim upon the national exchequer, it would, therefore, become a national concern. He (Mr. Keogh) thought it an imperial concern, that no portion of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland should remain under the impression that when they asked for an inquiry it had been denied to them by the House.
MR. HUME,having been a Member of the Committee last year, must say, that most unpleasant disclosures had taken place, and, for one, he concurred in the resolution

961
that further inquiry was requisite. There ought to he a just proportion of Members for England, Scotland, and Ireland. This was a question of great importance. It affected the whole of the savings banks in the united kingdom; and whatever principle might be adopted in the Committee, ought to he applied to all savings banks. As to the Committee on Scotch marriages, that was as much a local question as the buildings of a bridge at Drogheda. Would the hon. Member for Athlone point out an instance where a Committee had proceeded to an inquiry, had reported progress, and recommended further inquiry; and yet, where a new Committee had been appointed, and the original Committee had not been reappointed to continue the inquiry? To act in that manner would be to cast reflections on the Committee.
SIR H. WILLOUGHBYsaid, that in 1844 a deputation from all the savings banks in the kingdom met in this metropolis: they did him the honour to make him their chairman; and he happened to know from that circumstance what was their opinion as to the changes of the law in 1844. In spite of all the remonstrances on the part of this deputation, that trustees and managers should not be free from the responsibility which should arise from the consequences of any wilful neglect, those who were in power in this House at the time made the change. Mr. Tidd Pratt was at that time the organ of the Government. At that very time, he knew this bank in Dublin was insolvent, and yet they were left to evade the law. Therefore, if ever there was a case where an impartial Committee should be appointed to inquire into an important question, this was one of those cases. It was a question which went to the security of the whole system of savings banks in the country. He considered the Committee appointed by the hon. Member for Dublin to be a fair Committee.
MR. J. A. SMITHobserved that his name had been placed on the Committee nominated by the hon. Member for Dublin, and he would be most happy, if appointed, to give his services; but he protested against the statement that this was an Irish question. The question in reality was, whether the Government was to be held responsible for the deposits in the savings banks before they were paid into the national exchequer; and he maintained that that was a point in which the English people
962
were as much concerned as the Irish. He could not conceive what possible objection there was to the Committee of last year, named by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Members of that Committee were, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. H. Herbert, Mr. Goulburn, Sir J. Graham, Mr. Villiers, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Herries, Mr. Gibson Craig, Mr. P. Scrope, Sir J. Buller, Mr. Hume, Mr. K. Seymer, Mr. W. Fagan, Mr. J. A. Smith, Mr. S. Adair, and Mr. Bramston. He was sure it was impossible to find Gentlemen that could better discharge the important duties required of them than those whose names he had read.
LORD C. HAMILTONthought, that if those Gentlemen who now crowded the Ministerial benches had but heard the speech of the hon. Member for Kerry when he brought this subject of the savings banks before the House, they would not have shown the impatience which they now displayed, but would have seen the necessity for inquiry into a subject that trenched on the interests of a class which more than any other required their protection. The Committee of last year was not appointed to take into consideration the whole question of the savings banks, but to inquire into, and report on, the laws relating to savings banks in Ireland only; and, therefore, the reference to that Committee was not at all in point. All that was wanted, was a Committee, the Members of which would be able to devote the requisite amount of time to the investigation. He hoped that official and technical objections would not be allowed to stand in the way of such an inquiry.
MR. REYNOLDSrejoiced that he had very little to answer in the shape of objection. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had steered very wide of the real question, which was, whether he (Mr. Reynolds) should enjoy the courtesy usually extended to those who succeeded in getting a Committee appointed. The sole ground of objections to him was, that the report of the Committee on which he had previously sat, was lame and impotent; but it had not been stated that he had sought to have its labours continued, and that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had himself defeated that object, by interposing Government business on the night when he (Mr. Reynolds) was about to make a Motion on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman now sought to reappoint the Committee of last year—a

963
most immaculate Committee, no doubt; but still one only appointed to inquire generally into the state of the law as affecting savings banks. What he wanted was, a Committee to inquire specially into the affairs of St. Peter's savings bank in Dublin, those of Tralee bank, and of that of Auchterarder, in Scotland. This was an Irish case, and one of no common importance. It was the case of 1,700 pauperised artisans of the city of Dublin who had lodged 50,000 l. in the savings bank on the faith of England's honour. The Committee of last year contained twelve English and three Irish names, and what he proposed was, eight English and seven Irish names. He was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should object to his Committee, and wished to know the reason. He appealed to the House of Commons to see justice done to his poor countrymen, and, he might add, countrywomen. It was a question which interested the people of England and Scotland as well as the people of Ireland. They were all under the impression that they had national security for their money. National security! National moonshine. They had the security of the managers, over whom there was no control, and whom Mr. Tidd Pratt by his Act released from all responsibility. He believed that the poor people might be reimbursed without any loss to the nation, as there was a surplus of about 300,000 l. to the credit of the general savings bank account. The right hon. Gentleman surely could not be serious, or entertain the notion of dividing the House upon the question. If such a Committee were forced upon him (Mr. Reynolds), the inference that would be drawn by the Irish people, from the Giants' Causeway to Cape Clear, would be, that the House of Commons refused to nominate an impartial jury to try the cause between those unfortunate people and the Government.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERdenied that he had any desire to refuse an impartial inquiry into the circumstances connected with these savings banks. Referring to the list of names constituting the Committee of last year, he defied any man to say that it was possible to put fifteen gentlemen on a Committee of higher character than those who were on that list. What he proposed to do was this: he would assent to the appointment of the first four names on the hon. Gentleman's list, because they were Members of the Committee of last year; but when they came to
964
the fifth name, that of Mr. Napier, he should divide the House against the nomination of that Gentleman, solely on the ground that he was not a Member of the Committee of last year. Should the House support his proposition, he did not then intend to proceed further with the nomination of the Committee, but would defer the consideration of it to a future day, that he might in the mean time determine what changes might be made in the names of the Members that should constitute it.
Mr. Reynolds, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Henry Herbert, Mr. Goulburn, nominated Members of the Committee.
On the name of Mr. Napier being proposed,
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERobjected.
Motion made and Question put, "That Mr. Napier be one other Member of the said Committee."
The House divided:—Ayes 74, Noes 111: Majority 37.

List of the AYES.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Keogh, W.

Bateson, T.

Kershaw, J.

Blackall, S. W.

Macnaghten, Sir E.

Blake, M. J.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Bourke, R. S.

Monsell, W.

Bremridge, R.

Mullings, J. R.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Butler, P. S.

Nugent, Sir P.

Carew, W. H. P.

O'Brien, J.

Caulfeild, J. M.

O'Connell, J.

Chichester, Lord J. L.

O'Flaherty, A.

Christy, S.

Pearson, C.

Cocks, T. S.

Pechell, Capt.

Cole, hon. H. A.

Pilkington, J.

Coles, H. B.

Rawdon, Col.

Conolly, T.

Renton, J. C.

Cowan, C.

Sadleir, J.

Crawford, W. S.

Scully, F.

Devereux, J. T.

Sheridan, R. B.

Dunne, F. P.

Smyth, J. G.

Edwards, H.

Somerset, Capt.

Fagan, W.

Spooner, R.

Farrer, J.

Stafford, A.

Followes, E.

Sullivan, M.

Floyer, J.

Taylor, T. E.

Fox, R. M.

Tonison, E. K.

Grattan, H.

Tennent, R. J.

Greene, J.

Thompson, Col.

Grogan, E.

Urquhart, D.

Gwyn, H.

Verner, Sir W.

Hamilton, G. A.

Wawn, J. T.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Williams, J.

Heald, J.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Henley, J. W.

Wodehouse, E.

Hildyard, T. B. T.

Worcester, Marq. of

Hodgson, W. N.

Hood, Sir A.

TELLERS.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Reynolds, J.

Keating, R.

Herbert, H.

965

List of the NOES.

Anson, hon. Col.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Armstrong, R. B.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Langston, J. H.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Baines, M. T.

Lemon, Sir C.

Baring, H. B.

Lewis, G. C.

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.

Littleton, hon. E. R.

Barrington, Visct.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Bass, M. T.

Maitland, T.

Bellew, R. M.

Mangles, R. D.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Marshall, W.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

Matheson, A.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Matheson, J.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Matheson, Col.

Brand, T.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Brockman, E. D.

Milner, W. M. E.

Brotherton, J.

Mitchell, T. A.

Brown, W.

Morris, D.

Bruce, Lord E.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Bunbury, E. H.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Carter, J. B.

Paget, Lord A.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Paget, Lord C.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Paget, Lord G.

Cavendish, W. G.

Palmerston, Visct.

Childers, J. W.

Parker, J.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Patten, J. W.

Cobden, R.

Price, Sir R.

Coke, hon. E. K.

Ricardo, O.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Rich, H.

Craig, W. G.

Romilly, Sir J.

Crowder, R. B.

Russell, hon. E. S.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Rutherfurd, A.

Duncan, G.

Seymour, Lord

Dundas, Adm.

Simeon, J.

Dundas, Sir D.

Smith, J. A.

Ebrington, Visct.

Smith, J. B.

Evans, W.

Somers, J. P.

Foley, J. H. H.

Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W.

Forster, M.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Fortescue, hon. J. W.

Stanton, W. H.

Freestun, Col.

Strickland, Sir G.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Glyn, G. C.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Thornely, T.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Grey, R. W.

Vane, Lord H.

Hardcastle, J. A.

Watkins, Col. L.

Hawes, B.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Heathcoat, J.

Willyams, H.

Herbert, rt, hon. S.

Williamson, Sir II.

Heywood, J.

Wilson, J.

Hindley, C.

Wilson, M.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Howard, Lord E.

Young, Sir J.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Hume, J.

TELLERS.

Jervis, Sir J.

Hill, Lord M.

Keppel, hon. G. T.

Tufnell, H.

Further proceedings adjourned till Monday next.

SMITHFIELD MARKET COMMITTEE.
MR. MACKINNONmoved that Mr. W. Miles be discharged from further attendance on the Select Committee on Smith-field Market, and that Mr. Ormsby Gore be added to the Committee.
MR. PEARSONmoved as an Amendment,
966
that Sir De Lacy Evans be substituted for Mr. Miles. He objected to Mr. Gore, as a person whose opinions on the question were strongly marked. Besides, he thought that it was of importance to have on the Committee a representative of one of the constituencies subject to the inconvenience complained of. The hon. Member also took occasion to say he was prepared to prove that the corporation had a pecuniary interest in the removal, rather than in the continuance, of Smithfield market, the tolls which they derived from it being less than the interest of the money which they had paid for the land, and much less than the ground-rents which they would receive if the space were employed in the manner it would be if the market were removed.
MR. SPEAKERput the question, that Mr. W. Miles be discharged from further attendance on the Committee, which was unanimously carried.
On the next question, as to whether the name of Mr. O. Gore or Sir D. L. Evans should be substituted in place of Mr. Miles,
VISCOUNT BARRINGTONsaid, that in his opinion there was great impropriety in suffering the nomination of Committees to be in the hands of individual Members; and he submitted to the House, whether it would be advisable to appoint a Committee to nominate Members of public Committees, in the same way as was done with regard to private Bills?
SIR E. FILMERhad no personal objection to Sir De Lacy Evans, but the fact was that Mr. Gore, who was Chairman of the former Committee, had been left out of the existing Committee by a mere mistake, and on that account he thought it would be unfair to reject him now.
MR. MACKINNONexplained that he had left out Mr. Gore's name under the erroneous impression that he did not wish to serve.
MR. PEARSONsaid he would not divide.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Ormsby Gore be added to the Committee."
Amendment proposed, to leave out the name of "Mr. Ormsby Gore," and to insert the name of "Sir De Lacy Evans," instead thereof.
Question, "That the name of 'Mr. Ormsby Gore' stand part of the Question, put, and agreed to. Mr. Ormsby Gore added to the Committee.
The House adjourned at half-after One o'clock.