Sitting of 19 March 1838

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Mutiny; and Marine Mutiny.
Petitions presented. By Mr. THORNELY, from Upper Govnal, from Baptists at Providence Chapel, and at Summer-hill Chapel, in the parish of Sedgley, by Mr. C. WHITLEY DUNDAS, from Baptists at Bontnewydd, by Mr. W. A. WILLIAMS, signed by 2,076 inhabitants of Nanty Glo Iron-works (Monmouthshire), by Mr. BAINES, from several places in Yorkshire, by Mr. C. P. VILLIERS, from two places in Staffordshire, by Sir G. STRICKLAND, from Dewsbury, and eleven other places in Yorkshire, by Mr. LABOUCHERE, from Taunton, and by Lord EBRINGTON, from Sidmouth and Bideford, for the abolition of Negro Apprenticeship.—By Sir JAMES GRAHAM, from 615 Freeholders of the county of Roxburgh, complaining of Rioting and Disturbances at the three last Elections for that county.—By Lord W. BENTINCK, from Glasgow, from four Dissenting Congregations in the neighbourhood of Glasgow, by Mr. J. E. ELLIOT, from places in Roxburghshire, and by Mr. E. ELLICE, jun., from Cupar, against additional Endowments to the Church of Scotland.—By Mr. GROTE, from Cirencester, in favour of the Ballot—By Lord CASTLEREAGH, from parishes in the county of Down, by Mr. O'CONNELL, from Dublin, and by Mr. ROCHE, from Limerick, against the Poor-law (Ireland) Bill.—By Lord SANDON, from several Building Societies of Liverpool and its neighbourhood, against the Small Tenements Rating Bill; and from 3,000 persons in Liverpool, for the repeal of the Catholic Emancipation Act.

POOR-LAW—(IRELAND).
House in Committee on the Poor-law (Ireland) Bill.
On the 70th Clause,
Mr. S. O'Brienmoved an amendment, to the effect that the receivers of rent-charges, annuities, and jointures should be
990
liable to the rates in the proportion of their several charges; and that the nominal landlord should be liable only in the proportion of his clear receipts.
Viscount Morpethsaid, it was the intention of Government, by the interpretation clause, to extend the operation of this clause to all rent-charges in the nature of fee-farm rents; but it would be a new principle in law to subject to a charge of this sort jointures, annuities, and marriage portions.
Mr. Shawsupported the amendment, and stated a case in which an estate producing annually 1,100 l. paid 950 l. in the way of annuities and jointure, leaving only 150 l., to the landlord: it would be most unjust to impose on him the entire burden of the rate.
Mr. O'Connellbelieved the act would produce nothing but disgust if it excepted annuitants, who, for the most part, had abundant means, and were not otherwise taxed.
Colonel Conollycontended, that the amendment, if adopted, would tend to depreciate Irish property, and render it more difficult to borrow money upon land.
The Committee divided on the amendment. Ayes 27; Noes 37:—Majority 10.

List of the AYES.

Archbold, R.

Macnamara, Major

Barron, H. W.

Maher, J.

Bateson, Sir R.

O'Conor D.

Bridgeman, H.

O'Connell, M.

Chester, H.

Palmer, G.

Curry, W.

Pechell, Captain

Evans, G.

Redington, T. N.

Finch, F.

Roche, W.

Fitzsimon, N.

Shaw, right hon. F.

French, F.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Hayes, Sir E.

Style, Sir C.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Westenra, hon. H. R.

Jones, T.

TELLERS.

Kirk, P.

O'Brien, S.

Litton, E.

Roche, D.

List of the NOES.

Adare, Viscount

Hodgson, R.

Barrington, Viscount

Hughes, W. B.

Briscoe, J. I.

Lucas, E.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Lynch, A. H.

Busfield, W.

Miles, W.

Castlereagh, Visc.

Morpeth, Viscount

Childers, J. W.

Nicholl, J.

Clements, Visc.

O'Callaghan, hon. C.

Conolly, E.

Poulter, J. S.

Courtenay, P.

Power, J.

Damer, hon. D.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Ebrington, Visc.

Richards, R.

Ellis, J.

Rundle, J.

Fergusson, rt. hon. C.

Russell, Lord J.

Gladstone, W. E.

Scrope, G. P.

Grey, Sir G.

Sheil, R. L.

991

Shirley, E. I.

Young, J.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

TELLERS.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Campbell, Sir J.

Thornley, T.

Labouchere, T.

Clause agreed to.
Clause 71 having been proposed,
Mr. F. Frenchobjected to the clause and wished it to be omitted. He contended that it would hold out a great temptation to landlords to raise the rent of Houses above 5l., and would expose the poorer classes to oppression.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobjected to the proposition of the hon. Member for Roscommon, on the ground, that as all the rate-payers were to vote in the election of guardians, the omission of this clause whould let in a set of voters directly interested in the mismanagement of the measure.
Mr. Shawthought, it would be better to have one uniform mode of rating throughout this bill, and that in all cases the occupier should pay the rate. This would give the tenant an interest, which it s fit he should have, in the appointment of guardians, and in the disposition of the funds of his parish.
Sir C. Stylemoved, that 10 l. be substituted for 5l. as the amount of rent in the clause.
Mr. Lefroythought, that the clause would operate prejudicially, in leading landlords to increase their rents on the poor man, or to add to the evils which arose from clearing estates of small holdings. He should therefore support the amendment of the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. F. French).
Lord J. Russellsaid, he believed there was considerable difficulty about the clause, and he felt some doubt about the course which ought to be pursued in reference to it. The most that they could do in legislation of this sort was to lay down a general rule or principle. If exceptions were found to arise in particular districts and under particular circumstances, it could not be helped. The difficulty in the case was, that they must either adopt an arbitrary line, which should be universal and uniform in its application, or they should have no line at all. The question which he considered of the greatest importance was, whether the bill would be likely to work so well without some line as with it. They would in the former case have a small class of tenants paying rates and having the right to vote, the payments from whom would
992
be irregular, and would give rise to constant disputes and vexation. Besides, they would not be so intelligent in working the bill and administering its provisions as the class pointed out in the clause, and from which these people would be excluded. In England it was true that many persons were from poverty exempted from the payment of rates, but in Ireland, if some were to pay readily, others after a contention, and some not at all, such a state of confusion would arise, and such impediments would be thrown in the way, that it would be impossible to work the bill. If a line, however, was drawn reasonably well, they would have a certainty of getting a class of persons who would pay regularly, and who would be sufficiently intelligent to work the bill well. Upon the whole, he was disposed to say that the clause as it stood was preferable either to the amendment of the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. F. French), or the proposition of the hon. Baronet, the Member for Scarborough.
Mr. Lucasdid not approve of the arbitrary line laid down by the noble Lord. He found, upon examination, that the average of all occupations in Ireland did not exceed 7l. a-year. The payment of a higher amount of rent by a small farmer was not by indication of wealth or prosperity, but was altogether the result of chance and a successful scramble for a larger quantity of land. The laying down of an arbitrary line would create a great deal of jealousy among the small farmers, and would operate ss a check upon industry and an encouragement to laziness and slovenliness. He would, therefore, support the amendment of the hon. Member for Roscommon, in preference to that of the hon. Baronet, the Member for Scarborough, which, as he had shown, would exempt nine-tenths of all the occupying tenants in Ireland from the payment of rates.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he would divide in favour of the substitution of the word, "ten" for that of "five." As the bill stood it was perfectly absurd to make the most wretched peasantry of Ireland the bankers of their landlords, by advancing money for them which they were afterward to deduct from the rent.
The Committee divided on the question that the blank in the clause be filled up with the words "five pounds," as originally proposed. Ayes 57; Noes 17: Majority 40.

List of the AYES.

Barrington, Viscount

Lynch, A. H.

Bateson, Sir R.

Macleod, R.

Beamish, F. B.

Marshall, W.

Blake, M. J.

Marsland, H.

Briscoe, J. I.

Martin, J.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Morpeth, Lord Visct.

Busfield, W.

Morris, D.

Chester, H.

O'Brien, W. S.

Cole, hon. A. H.

Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Plumptre, J. P.

Corry, hon. H.

Pringle, A.

Dalmeney, Lord

Rice, E. R.

Ellis, J.

Rice, rt. Hon. T. S.

Fergusson, rt. hon. R. C.

Roche, W.

Roche, D.

Gladstone, W. E.

Round, C. G.

Grey, Sir G.

Rundle, J.

Hayes, Sir E.

Russell, Lord J.

Hodgson, R

Shaw, rt. Hon. F.

Howard, P. H.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Howick, Viscount

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Hughes, W. B.

Thornely, T.

Humphrey, J.

Williams, W.

Hurt, F.

Winnington, T. E.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Wood, Sir M.

Jones, T.

Woulfe, Mr. Sergeant

Kirk, P.

Young, J.

Lefroy, rt. hon. T.

Tellers.

Litton, E.

Brotherton, J.

Lucas, E.

Parker, J.

List of the NOES.

Archbold, R.

Reddington, T. N.

Bridgeman, H.

Roche, E. B.

Bryan, G.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Butler, hon. Colonel

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Clements, Viscount

Wakley, T.

Curry, W.

Westenra, hon. H. R.

Fitzsimon, N.

Wood, G. W.

Maher, J.

Tellers.

O'Connell, D.

French, F.

O'Connell, J.

Style, Sir C.

The Committee again divided on the question, that the clause stand part of the bill. Ayes 49; Noes 27: Majority 22.

List of the AYES.

Archbold, R.

Hurt, F.

Beamish, F. B.

Litton, E.

Blake, M. J.

Macleod, R.

Bridgman, H.

Marshall, W.

Briscoe, J. I.

Marsland, H.

Brotherton, J.

Martin, J.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Morpeth, Viscount

Busfield, W.

Morris, D.

Cole, hon. A. H.

O'Brien, W. S.

Coote, Sir C. H.

O'Connell, D.

Corry, hon. H.

O'Connell, J.

Fergusson, rt. hon. C.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Grey, Sir G.

Plumptre, J. P.

Howard, P. H.

Rice, E. R.

Howick, Viscount

Rice, rt. hn. T. S.

Hughes, W. B,

Roche, E. B.

Humphrey, J.

Roche, W.

994

Roche, D.

Wakley T.

Rundle, J.

White, L.

Russell, Lord J.

White, S.

Shirley, E. J.

Winnington, T. E.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Wood, Sir M.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Woulfe, Mr. Sergeant

Style, Sir C.

TELLERS.

Thornley, T.

Dalmeney, Lord

Tollemache, F. J.

Parker, J.

List of the NOES.

Barrington, Viscount

Lucas, E.

Bateson, Sir R.

Lynch, A. H.

Brabazon, Sir W.

Maher, J.

Bryan, G.

Reddington, T.

Butler, Colonel

Round, C. G.

Chester, H.

Shaw, F.

Curry, W.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Ellis, J.

Stuart, V.

Fitzsimon, N.

Tennent, J. E.

Hayes, Sir E.

Westenra, hon. H.

Hodgson, R.

Wood, G. W.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Young, J.

Jones, T.

TELLERS.

Kirk, P.

Clements, Viscount

Lefevre, C. S.

French, F.

On Clause 74, "receipts for rates to be taken in payment of rent," being read,
Mr. O'Connellcontended that this clause gave a power to the landlord over the tenant which was not sanctioned by the law as it now stood, and which, if attempted to be carried into operation, must work great injustice. This clause gave the landlord the power of ejecting his tenant for nonpayment of rent, though it might happen that he had paid in poor rate the sum to which he was really liable. This proof the tenant had no opportunity of giving, for the right of action was taken away from him. Now, how stood the law at present? No action for ejectment would lie unless it was proved, that the tenant got credit for any sum he might have advanced for the landlord, and that after so doing, a full year's rent remained due. But by this clause, the tenant was not allowed the same advantage with respect to payments made on account of the poor-rate which they were about to establish, as he now possessed with regard to all other advances made by him in favour of the landlord. He defied any hon. Member to produce any but one, apparently, just reason for conferring this exorbitant power on the landlord, and that was, that he might not know what sum was paid for rates by the tenant. But this difficulty might be easily removed by requiring the landlord to serve a notice on the tenant, demanding that he should state how much he had paid for rate, and, in case of his refusing to answer, that he

995
should be declared not entitled to credit for any advance which he might have made. He had made up his mind that this bill could confer no benefit when it imposed the rate on the occupier in the manner in which it was determined to have it levied; and he should have taken no part in the discussion of its details, only for the impression which he had, that such clauses as the present would work gross injustice to the tenant. An ejectment could not be served on a single person in Ireland, for a less sum than from 5l. to 10 l.; and a tenant might be put to expense and deprived of his holding, though he might have a good and honest defence, on the ground that he had paid as much in poor rate as would discharge the claim for rent.
Mr. Shawobjected to this clause, because it would prejudice the tenant, and also if any part of the rent were paid in poor-rates the landlord would be deprived of any remedy for recovering the residue. The interests of landlords and tenants were identical, and this bill ought not to give either one an advantage over the other; at the same time this was a dangerous experiment to be tried on the landed interests of Ireland, for it was not so much a question between landlords and tenants as between the landed interests and destitution. If the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sergeant Woulfe) said, that the object was only to protect the landlord from paying the poor-rates of the tenant, he should be satisfied.
Mr. Sergeant Woulfethought the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had explained the difficulty of the right hon. Member who had just spoken, in saying that the landlord's remedy by ejectment was the only one interfered with in this clause; but the tenant got credit from the landlord for the amount of the poor-rates, and yet the landlord's action for the remainder would be as vigorous as ever; he might bring an action for the gale rent minus the poor-rates. There was no case in law in which a partial payment on account of the landlord would deprive him of that remedy. The Tithe Act was framed so as to give the tenant the power to deduct the amount of tithes from the rent due to the landlord, and yet not deprive the landlord of his remedy for the residue. In his opinion, the clause did all that was fair to the landlord without being harsh upon the tenant. It would certainly be hard on the landlord to deprive him of ejectment or some means of recovering his It would certainly be hard on the landlord to deprive him of ejectment or some means of recovering his
996
remaining rent. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin said this clause gave no action; nor did it for the tenant; but it gave him what was better, the right of deducting from the rent the amount he had paid for poor-rates. The deduction was not to the prejudice of the landlord, but only to protect the tenant.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that it was his solemn opinion that this bill would amount to an actual confiscation on the part of the landlords and tenants; by its present limits it could not go far enough to prevent this. It was only upon comparing its operation on landlords and tenants that he said it was a landlord's bill. He did not deny, that the landlord ought to have some remedy to recover the surplus of his rent after the poor-rates were paid; but he would suppose a case where 50 l. rent was paid; the tenant paid 30 l. for poor-rates, and there was no reason then why the landlord should not recover the remaining 20 l.; he might distress, or he might bring an action for that sum, but by this monstrous and unjust clause he might bring an ejectment and recover the whole 50 l.
Mr. Sergeant Woulfeobserved, that the ejectment would be brought for the residue, and not for the entire rent.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that unless there was an entire year's rent due, no ejectment could be brought. That was the law. An ejectment was to recover the land, and not the rent, and yet if a tenant had paid 30 l. 40 l., or even the whole of the 50 l. rent for poor-rate, the landlord could recover the full amount by an ejectment. Was not this a monstrous injustice? And yet no action was given to the tenant against the landlord. That was really the law, and although he had left his profession, he was certain of it, and would stake his professional character on that point. He was not to be shaken from his position. There was only one inconvenience which he would admit, and that was, that the tenant by paying a small portion of the poor-rates might deprive the landlord of the remedy by ejectment, but the clause ought either to enable the landlord to pay the poor-rates, or prevent his tenant from doing so, by giving him due notice of it.
Mr. Sergeant Woulfeobserved, that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin said, a tenant might pay all the amount of rent in poor-rates, and yet be liable to his landlord; but under this clause all poor-rates paid were equivalent to rent paid to the landlord. He denied the possibility of a

997
tenant being liable to an ejectment or action if he paid the whole amount of rent in poor-rates. If he produced the discharge which he had received from the collector, it would be as effectual as a receipt from his landlord. If he had not paid the whole, he admitted that he was then liable to the same remedy, and no other, as if he had paid none. It was not fair that landlords should be deprived of all remedies, and the law should give him a remedy for a part as well as the whole. This act compelled the tenant to pay the rates, and that would be equivalent to rent.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that he saw there was one word in the proviso which would bear the construction of the right hon. Member—viz., that where the rent was entirely paid in poor-rates, an ejectment would not lie; so far he conceded, but if 49 l. were paid out of 50 l., then it would, and if an action were brought, a verdict in judgment must be given.
Mr. Lefroysupported the clause, for he thought the case put by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin a very extreme one, and not at all likely to occur in practice.
Mr. E. Littonconsidered it to be extremely improbable, even supposing a tenant paid 49 l. 15 s. in poor-rates out of a rent of 50 l., that any landlord would bring an action of ejectment for the remaining 5s., or that any tenant would refuse to pay the 5s. to save the action. But there was a case very likely to occur, if not prevented by the enactments of the present bill, which would have a most injurious effect on the interest of the landlord—viz., that of a tenant paying 2s. 6d. poor-rates for the purpose of defeating an action of ejectment brought for the non-payment of a rent of 50 l. He, therefore, was in favour of the retention of the proviso to the clause, by which such a proceeding was rendered impossible.
Mr. O'Connellmoved the following amendment to the clause:—"That deduction on account of any payment of rate under this act shall be held to be a discharge of any portion of any gale, or quarterly or other payment of rent, due from the person entitled to make such deduction, so as to prejudice the right of any landlord to recover the possession of any hereditaments by ejectment for non-payment of the rent thereof, but that it shall and may be lawful in any case where the remaining portion of such gale shall be unpaid; for such landlord to proceed for the re-
998
covery of such hereditaments by ejectment, as effectually as if the entire gale or quarterly or other payment of rent, out of which such deduction is hereby allowed, had remained wholly due and unpaid."
The Committee divided on the original motion: Ayes 69; Noes 8: Majority 61.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

Macleod, R.

Ainsworth, P.

Maher, J.

Archbold, R.

Marshall, W.

Barron, H. W.

Maxwell, H.

Barry, G. S.

Monypenny, T. G.

Bateson, Sir R.

Morpeth, Lord

Beamish, F. B.

Morris, D.

Blake, M. J.

O'Brien, W. S.

Briscoe, J. I.

O'Neil, hon. J. B. R.

Busfeild, W.

Palmer, C. F.

Castlereagh, Lord Vis.

Parnell, Sir H.

Cole, hon. A. H.

Plumptre, J. P.

Craig, W. G.

Price, Sir R.

Curry, W.

Redington, T. N.

Dalmeny, Lord

Roche, E. B.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Roche, D.

Fergusson, rt. hon. C.

Russell, Lord J.

Finch, F.

Shaw, right hon. F.

Fitzalan, Lord

Sinclair, Sir G.

Fitzsimon, N.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Forbes, W.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

French, F.

Staunton, Sir G.

Grimsditch, T.

Stuart, V.

Hayes, Sir E.

Style, Sir C.

Hodgson, R.

Thomson, C. P.

Howard, F. J.

Thornely, T.

Howick, Lord

Tollemache, F. J.

Hughes, W. B.

White, A.

Hurt, F.

Wood, C.

James, W.

Wood, G. W.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Woulfe, Serjeant

Jones, T.

Wyse, T.

Kirk, P.

Yates, J. A.

Lefroy, rt. hon. T.

TELLERS.

Litton, E.

Grey, Sir G.

Lynch, A. H.

Parker, J.

List of the NOES.

Brabazon, Sir W.

White, L.

Bridgeman, H.

White, S.

O'Brien, C.

O'Connell, J.

TELLERS.

Wakley, T.

Bryan, G.

Westenra, H. R.

O'Connell, D.

Clause agreed to.
On Clause 76, giving rate-payers votes in proportion to their property,
Mr. O'Connellobjected to the clause, as granting a plurality of votes for the election of guardians. The system of plural voting had, in all cases where it had been adopted, operated badly, and he would therefore move as an amendment, that the words "or votes" be left out.
Viscount Morpethsaid, the motives for,

999
granting a plurality of votes were so obvious, that he would not take up the time of the Committee by detailing them. The system had been established in the English law, and he thought plural voting was necessary in the present case for the due protection of property. He could not, therefore, consent to the amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin.
The Committee divided on the original question, that the words stand:—Ayes 58; Noes 18: Majority 40.

List of the AYES.

Acland, T. D.

Macleod, R.

Ainsworth, P.

Maxwell, H.

Baines, E.

Morpeth, Viscount

Barron, H. W.

Morris, D.

Barry, G. S.

Murray, J. A.

Bateson, Sir R.

O'Brien, W. S.

Blackburne, I.

O'Neil, hon. J. B.

Brabazon, Sir W.

Palmer, C. F.

Briscoe, J. I.

Palmer, G.

Busfield, W.

Parnell, Sir H.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Plumptre, Sir J. P.

Cole, Viscount

Price, Sir R.

Craig, W. G.

Redington, T. N.

Curry, W.

Russell, Lord J.

Dalmeny, Lord

Sinclair, Sir G.

Douglas, Sir C.

Stanley, E. J.

Fitzsimon, N.

Stansfield, W. R.

French, F.

Stuart, Lord J.

Hayes, Sir E.

Stuart, V.

Hodgson, R.

Tennent, J. E.

Howick, Viscount

Thomson, C. P.

Hughes, W. B.

Tollemache, F. J.

Hurt, F.

Westenra, hon. H.

James, W.

Wood, C.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Wood, G. W.

Jones, T.

Wyse, T.

Kirk, P.

Yates, J. A.

Lefroy, right hon. T.

Litton, E.

TELLERS.

Lucas, E.

Parker, J.

Lynch, A. H.

Grey, Sir G.

List of the NOES.

Archbold, R.

O'Brien, C.

Beamish, F. B.

O'Connell, J.

Blake, M, J.

Roche, E. B.

Bodkin, J. J.

Roche, D.

Bridgeman, H.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Brotherton, J.

White, A.

Bryan, G.

White, L.

Clements, Viscount

White, S.

Finch, F.

TELLERS.

Howard, F. H.

O'Connell, D.

Maher, J.

Wakley, T.

Mr. S. O'Brienhad an amendment to propose in regard to the present clause. As the clause was framed, the scale of voting gave, in his opinion, an unfair influence to property, and he should therefore move an alteration in the scale, and also a limitation
1000
to the number of votes to be given by any one owner of property for the election of guardians. By the proposed scale, any sum above 5l., and not exceeding 50 l., gave one vote; 50 l., and not exceeding 100 l., two votes; 100 l., and not exceeding 150 l., three votes; 150 l., and not exceeding 200 l., four votes; 200 l., and any sum above that, giving five votes. Now, in the English Poor-law Bill the number of votes allowed was only three, and the scale of voting was as follows:—Any sum under 200 l. entitled the party to only a single vote; 200 l. or more, but under 400 l., to two votes; 400 l., or upwards, to three votes. That, in his opinion, was a much fairer scale, and he should therefore move (as we understood the hon. Member) that the number of votes in any one case be limited to three, and that a scale similar to that in the English Poor-law Bill should be adopted in the present case.
The Committee divided on the original question, that the blank be filled up with the words fifty pounds:—Ayes 54; Noes 20: Majority 34.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Lynch, A. H.

Acland, T. D.

Macleod, R.

Ainsworth, P.

Maher, J.

Baines, E.

Monypenny, T. G.

Barron, H. W.

Morpeth, Viscount

Barry, G. S.

Morris, D.

Bateson, Sir R.

Murray, hon. J. A.

Blackburne, I.

O'Neil, hon. J. B. R.

Brabazon, Sir W.

Palmer, C. F.

Briscoe, J. I.

Palmer, G.

Cole, Viscount

Parker, J.

Craig, W. G.

Parnell, Sir H.

Curry, W.

Plumptre, J. P.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Price, Sir R.

Forbes, W.

Redington, T. N.

French, F.

Russell, Lord J.

Grey, Sir G.

Shaw, right. hon. F.

Hayes, Sir E.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Hobhouse, Sir J. C.

Stanley, E. J.

Hodgson, R.

Stuart, Lord J.

Howick, Viscount

Steuart, V.

Hughes, W. B.

Tennent, J. E.

James, W.

Thomson, C. P.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Woulfe, Sergeant

Jones, T.

Wyse, T.

Kirk, P.

Lefroy, right hon. T.

TELLERS.

Litton, E.

Wood, C.

Lucas, E.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

List of the NOES.

Archbold, R.

Bryan, G.

Beamish, F. B.

Clements, Viscount

Blake, M. J.

Finch, F.

Bodkin, J. J.

Howard, F. J.

Bridgeman, H.

Marshall, W.

1001

O'Brien, C.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

O'Connell, D.

Vigors, N. A.

O'Connell, J.

Wakley, T.

O'Connell, M. J.

Roche, E. B.

TELLERS.

Roche, W.

O'Brien, W. S.

Roche, D.

Brotherton, J.

Clause agreed to.
On Clause 78, "At elections for guardians votes to be taken in writing,"
Mr. O'Connellmoved, that the words "by ballot" be substituted for the words "in writing."
The Committee divided on the original motion:—Ayes 54; Noes 27: Majority 27.

List of the AYES

Acland, Sir T. D.

Litton, E.

Acland, T. D.

Lucas, E.

Baines, E.

Macleod, R.

Barrington, Viscount

Maher, J.

Barron, H. W.

Marshall, W.

Barry, G. S.

Maxwell, H.

Bateson, Sir R.

Monypenny, T. G.

Blackburne, I.

Morpeth, Viscount

Briscoe, J. I.

Morris, D.

Clements, Viscount

Murray, J. A.

Cole, Viscount

O'Brien, W. S.

Conolly, E.

O'Neil, hon. J. B. R.

Corry, hon. H.

Palmer, C. F.

Curry, W.

Palmer, G.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Price, Sir R.

Ebrington, Viscount

Redington, T. N.

Fitzsimon, N.

Russell, Lord J.

Forbes, W.

Stuart, V.

French, F.

Tennent, J. E.

Grey, Sir G.

Thomson, C. P.

Hayes, Sir E.

Townley, R. G.

Hobhouse, Sir J.

Westenra, H. R.

Hodgson, R.

Wood, C.

Howick, Viscount

Woulfe, Sergeant

Hughes, W. B

Yates, J. A.

Jones, J.

Kirk, P.

TELLERS.

Knight, H. G.

Stanley, E. J.

Lefroy, right hon. T.

Parker, J.

List of the NOES.

Archbold, R.

O'Connell, J.

Beamish, F. B.

O'Connell, M. J.

Blake, M. J.

O'Connell, M.

Bodkin, J. J.

Roche, E. B.

Brabazon, Sir W.

Roche, W.

Bridgeman, H.

Roche, D.

Brotherton, J.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Bryan, G.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Craig, W. G.

Style, Sir C.

Finch, F.

Vigors, N. A.

Howard, F. J.

Wallace, R.

James, W.

Wyse, T.

Jephson, C. D. O.

TELLERS.

Lynch, A. H.

O'Connell, D.

O'Brien, C.

Wakley, T.

Clause agreed to,
On Clause 79, "Votes may be given by proxy."
Mr. Wyseobjected to this clause, on the ground that it would encourage absenteeism, and moved that it be omitted.
Mr. S. O'Briensupported the amendmen E
A division took place on the question, that the clause stand part of the bill:—Ayes 52; Noes 27: Majority 25.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Hughes, W. B.

Acland, T. D.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Ainsworth, P.

Jones, T.

Baines, E.

Litton, E.

Barrington, Viscount

Lucas, E.

Barron, H. W.

Macleod, R.

Barry, G. S.

Marshall, W.

Bateson, Sir R.

Morpeth, Viscount

Blackburne, I.

Morris, D.

Briscoe, J. I.

Nicholl, J.

Campbell, W. F.

O'Neil, hon. J. B. R.

Clements, Viscount

Palmer, C. F.

Cole, Viscount

Palmer, G.

Conolly, E.

Price, Sir R.

Corry, hon. H.

Russell, Lord J.

Craig, W. G,

Shaw, hon. F.

Curry, W.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Stanley, E. J.

Ebrington, Viscount

Stuart, V.

Fleetwood, P. H.

Tennent, J. E.

Forbes, W.

Thomson, C. P.

French, F.

Townley, R. G.

Grey, Sir G.

Westenra, H. R.

Hayes, Sir E.

Woulfe, Mr. Sergeant

Hobhouse, Sir J.

Hodgson, R.

TELLERS.

Howard, F. J.

Lynch, A. H.

Howick, Viscount

Prker, J.

List of the NOES.

Archbold, R.

O'Connell, M. J.

Beamish, F. B.

O'Connell, M.

Blake, M. J.

Redington, T. N.

Bodkin, J. J.

Roche, E. B.

Brabazon, Sir W.

Roche, W.

Bridgeman, H.

Roche, D.

Brotherton, J.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Bryan, G.

Style, Sir C.

Finch, F.

Vigors, N. A.

Fitzsimon, N.

Wakley, T.

James, W.

Wallace, R.

Maher, J.

Yates, J. A.

O'Brien, C.

TELLERS.

O'Connell, D.

Wyse, T.

O'Connell, J.

O'Brien, W. S.

Clause agreed to.
Clauses to the 100th were agreed to.
The House resumed, Committee to sit again.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Dissenters Declaration; Immediate Abolition of Slavery.—Read a third time:—See of Sodor and Man.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of RADNOR, from Medical Men of Leeds, that no uneducated persons might be permitted to practise Medicine.—By the Earl of STRADBROKE, from Halsted, for an Equalisation of the Postage Duties.—By Viscount MELBOURNE, from the Guardians of a parish in Surrey, and another in Kent, and by the Earl of DEVON, from Okehampton, in favour of the New Poor-law.—By Lord WHARNCLIFFE, from a place in Yorkshire, complaining of the hours at which children work in Factories.—By the Earl of ROSEBERY, from a parish in Scotland, by the Marquess of SLIGO, from Wesleyan Methodists of Glasgow, and from Macclesfield, by Lord WHARNCLIFFE, from a place in Yorkshire, by the Duke of CLEVELAND, from Wesleyan Methodists and Dissenters of Barnard Castle (Durham), and from a place in Derbyshire, by Lord BEXLEY, and by the Earl of BURLINGTON, from a place in Yorkshire, and by Lord BROUGHAM, above eighty petitions from various places, for the immediate abolition of Negro Apprenticeship; and by Lord BROUGHAM, from Electors of Norwich, for the Ballot; from the Operatives, and the parents of children engaged in the Woolen Manufacture at Calverleycum-Farley, at Shepley, and other places in the West Riding of York, for a limitation of the hours of Children's Labour; from the inhabitants of Musselburgh, from the inhabitants of Kinross, from the United Secession Congregation of the Eglington-street Chapel, Glasgow, from the United Secession Church in Rose-street, Edinburgh, from a village in Fifeshire, and from other places, against additional Grants to the Scotch Church; and from the Faculty of Advocates (Scotland), against Bills for reforming the law of Scotland.

NEW POOR-LAW—SEVENOAKS UNION.
Earl Stanhoperose to present a petition from the inhabitants of Broomside, near Durham, praying for the total repeal of the Poor-law Amendment Act. Their

985
Lordships would, probably, recollect, that, some days ago, when a discussion arose on the presentation of a petition by a right rev. Prelate, whom he did not now see in his place (the Bishop of Exeter), he (Earl Stanhope) had made a statement to the House with respect to certain grievances which existed in the union of Sevenoaks. Since that time he had received a letter from the clerk of the guardians of that union; and as it was just and reasonable that the same publicity should be given to the counter-statement of the guardians which had been given to his original declaration, he would, with the permission of the House, read the letter to their Lordships. It was in the following terms:—
"It having been reported to the board of guardians of the union of Sevenoaks that your Lordship has made the following statement in the House of Lords—that one of the most intelligent, respectable, and humane guardians of the union was so disgusted, and viewed with such detestation and abhorrence the conduct of the other guardians, that he refused any longer to act; and that he could mention the case of a family which, from a refusal of any relief in addition to their very scanty earnings, were now perishing by disease, produced, as an eminent physician had informed him, from cold and hunger. I am directed by the board of guardians to acquaint your Lordship, that, after a careful inquiry, they have not been able to find the case of any guardian who refused to perform his duty on the grounds stated by your Lordship. The only two cases of the refusal of relief to which your Lordship could have alluded, have been fully investigated by the medical officers of the union, and the charge proves to be without foundation. Under these circumstances, therefore, the board of guardians must repel the charge, and they feel bound to state, that it is the first which has ever been brought against them."
Now, there was no man more willing than he was to correct any error into which he might have fallen unintentionally, or more disposed to confess that any mistake or misrepresentation had been made, if such were proved to be the case, and by that means to remove, as far as possible, any improper impression which might have been created; but, in the present instance, he felt himself compelled, out of a regard for truth, to re-assert in the strongest manner that which he had before stated. All that he had read to their Lordships, in laying before them the letter of the guardians, was nothing more than a most lame and impotent, futile and ineffectual attempt to reply. He was not in the habit, in public
986
or in private, of making any statement on vague report. The guardians could find no record of any one guardian having declined to act. Did they expect to find it registered in their records, that A. B. refused to perform the duties of his office as guardian? All that they could practically record on the subject was, that any individual had declined to be put in nomination as a guardian, or that, being elected, he had refused to act. Now, he made his statement on the best possible authority—on the evidence of a person himself who was a guardian, and who stated that he could not act with persons by whom a system of so much cruelty and oppression had been pursued. ["Name, name."] He was surprised to hear that he was called upon to name the individual he had referred to. He would not name any person to whom he might refer, without having first obtained his consent. What he had stated was upon his own authority, and he pledged himself to the truth of what he had said. He had resided uninterruptedly in the neighbourhood of the union ever since the board had been formed, and he could not be ignorant of its proceedings. He had received much information from various quarters, and he had been informed of many circumstances by one of the former guardians, who, however, did not think it right to disclose all the secrets of the prison house. He was informed that a pauper who had applied for relief and was refused, in the agony of grief which he felt, expressed a wish, that Providence might remove him from this world, and almost, indeed, expressed a determination to commit suicide. It was but fair and just that, in reference to this case, the inhabitants of Sevenoaks should receive the due amount of praise to which they were entitled. The unfortunate individual to whom he had alluded, although refused assistance from the public funds of the union, was relieved by the private charity of individuals. With respect to the other charge which he had made, the guardians stated, that it had been fully investigated. By whom had this investigation been made? By the medical officer of the parish. He re-asserted what he had before said in reference to this case. He had received his information from a most eminent physician, who had retired from practice, and who gave advice to the poor gratuitously, and who had an estate in Ireland, and the gentleman declared, that, even in that land of misery and wretchedness, he had never seen greater

987
poverty and destitution than in the cottage of the individual to whom he had referred. The pauper and his family, from the action of cold and hunger, had become diseased, and it was expected that some member of his family might perish. He was in work, but all he could earn was 6s. per week, and although he had a wife and five children he could obtain no relief. The conduct of the guardians, he was ready to admit, might have been in accordance with the law, and with the rules, orders, and regulations issued under the authority of the law by the three gentlemen in Somerset-House, and the complaint which he made was, therefore, not so much against the guardians as against the Commissioners. He had thought it right, and fair, and just, to that much calumniated body of men, the guardians, to state to the House the answer which they had made, and he should be happy if any noble Lord, who might be acquainted with the union, would offer any observations to the House.
The Earl of Brecknockrose to defend the conduct of the Board of Guardians of Sevenoaks. After the observations of the noble Earl, on a former evening, he had requested to be furnished with some additional information, which would afford him some clue by which he might discover the individuals referred to, and having since made some inquiries into the, matter, he thought it fair to state their result to their Lordships. He found a gentleman who told him that he had informed the noble Earl of the two cases to which he had referred, and he had since had an opportunity of finding the guardian himself who was represented to have refused to act. [Earl Stanhope: Who was it?] When he had asked the noble Earl the name of the guardian, on a former occasion, he said he could easily discover him. The individual to whom he referred had admitted that he had declined to act as guardian, but from a far different motive to that alleged. He said that, having been a guardian several times, he found that a proper attention to the duties of the office interfered with his business, and therefore he was compelled to give it up; and he certainly admitted, besides, that he entertained a strong opinion on the subject of out-door relief. With regard to the case of the pauper mentioned, he had ascertained that there were only two cases to which the description of the noble Earl could apply. In one instance the person had been employed by a noble relative of his own during the severe part
988
of the winter, and although his family were suffering from disease, it was caused not by destitution or want, but by injuries which they had sustained. In the other case the person had been employed as a sawyer, and in one month had earned wages amounting to 9l., and the guardians, therefore, conceived that they were justified in refusing him relief, and besides, although it appeared subsequently that he was in want, his apparent destitution it was ascertained was caused entirely by mismanagement.
Earl Stanhopesaid, that the case of the guardian referred to by the noble Earl was not that to which he had alluded, and he must repeat that in the instance which he had mentioned he had received his information from the guardian himself. With regard to an allegation that the administration of the law was lenient in the union of Sevenoaks, he had a letter from a pauper confined in the workhouse there, who said, "We are kept so short of victuals, having hardly enough to support life, and we are never allowed to go out an any day or any hour."
Petition laid on the table.

CHURCH ACCOMMODATION (IRELAND).
The Earl of Ripon, in presenting a petition from the bishop and clergy of the diocese of Down and Connor, complaining of a great want of church accommodation in that diocese, took the opportunity to say, that their Lordships were aware that, in that diocese, there were a great many Protestants. They had offered to advance a considerable sum of money for the purpose of obviating the complaint, and had made application to the Commissioners in Ireland for assistance to complete the object. The Commissioners answered that they were sorry that they could afford no relief, but they had actually no funds from which they could advance any money. He was not at all surprised at that answer, because the expenditure of that commission, the necessary and inevitable expenditure, had exceeded their income in four years by the sum of 229,000 l.; and they had been compelled to borrow 100,000 l. under the Act from the Government, and apply the money which they obtained by the sale of perpetuities and bishops' leases, which money ought to have been laid aside to form a fund.
The Bishop of Derrywould take that opportunity of stating to their Lordships, that many of the clauses in the Church

989
Temporalities' Act were of a very injurious nature. In Ireland, as he supposed was the case in this country, there were many large parishes the churches of which were situated at the extremity, and he hoped that the Commissioners would, as soon as possible, turn their attention to that subject, as it was impossible for many of the parishioners to attend the performance of public worship. There was one class in Ireland who seemed to be altogether forgotten—he meant the curates, who were often turned out of their cures upon the coming in of a new incumbent, and were left to poverty in the evening of their life. He sincerely trusted that whenever the funds of the Commissioners were in a more flourishing condition, something would be done for that suffering class. Might he ask the noble Viscount if that Bill—the Church Temporalities' Bill, was likely to be altered during the Session?
Viscount Melbournewas not aware that there existed any serious objections to the Bill alluded to by the right rev. Prelate.
Petition laid on the table.