Sitting of 13 July 1849

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS,—2° Judgments (Ireland); Administration of Justice (Vancouver's Island).
Reported.—Estates Leasing (Ireland); Judgments (Ireland); Inland Posts (Colonies); House of Commons Offices; Petty Bag, &c. Offices Amendment; Commons Inclosure (No. 2); Lunatic Asylums (Ireland); Labouring Poor Act Amendment (Ireland); Land Improvement Amendment Act (Ireland).
3° Poor Relief (Cities and Boroughs); Bribery at Elections.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Dudley Stuart, from St. Pancras, for Universal Suffrage; also for Regulating the Hours of Labour in the Baking Trade.—By Mr. Brotherton, from Finsbury, for Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Mr. George Dundas, from Kirkliston, against, and by Mr. Stuart Wortley, from Stourbridge, in favour of, the Marriages Bill.—By Mr. Milifer Gibson, from Manchester, for Repeal of the Duty on Attorneys' Certificates.—By Mr. Mackinnon, from Portsmouth, for the Prohibition of Interment in Towns.—By Mr. Grogan, from Dublin, for an Alteration of the Newgate Gaol (Dublin) Bill.—By Lord J. Russell, from Dungarvon, for an Alteration of the Poor Law (Ireland).—By Mr. John Stuart, from Newark-upon-Trent, for the Protection of Women Bill.—By Mr. Osborne, from St. Giles in the Fields, for an Alteration of the Sale of Beer Act.—By Mr. Thomas Duncombe, from Finsbury, against the Sale and Manufacture of Bread Bill.—By Mr. Evelyn Denison, from Nottingham, for the Scientific Societies Bill.—By Mr. John Neeld, from Swindon, for an Alteration of the Small Debts Act.

ESTATES LEASING (IRELAND) BILL.
The House went into Committee on this Bill, when Clauses from 2 to 8 were agreed to.
On Clause 9,
MR. SADLEIRinquired whether Trinity College, Dublin, would be empowered to grant leases under the Bill? There was nothing more objectionable than the college tenure in Ireland, and nothing more disgraceful than the way in which Trinity College had managed their estates during the last 100 years. When their land came out of lease, the authorities of the college took pains to secure and select from any part of the country some party willing to occupy the position of middleman. Cases had come within his personal knowledge where the college had rejected the proposals made to them by their occupying tenants and the persons actually cultivating the land, and had selected middlemen who offered rents much under those which the occupying tenants proposed to pay, the middlemen in these cases enjoying a profit after the payment of the rent.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the Bill would not apply either to Trinity College or any other corporation, but simply to occupiers. If, however, a clause were proposed calculated to improve the management of estates by colleges he would not object to it.
MR. NAPIERrepresented the inconvenience of seizing the present occasion to make a complaint against Trinity College respecting the management of their estates. If the hon. Member for Carlow would select some specific instance, at a suitable time, he would meet the hon. Member upon this charge.
MR. SADLEIRhad made no charge against Trinity College, the authorities of which probably felt compelled to adhere to their present system of estate management.
Clause agreed to.
MR. HAMILTONproposed a clause, empowering the incumbent of any benefice in Ireland, with the consent of his archbishop or bishop, to devise or lease any part of his glebe lands, not being less than ten acres, and not being immediately appertaining to and used in connexion with a glebe-house, for any term not exceeding twenty-one years, to take effect in possession, and not in reversion, and without fine.
The SOLICITOR GENERALstated, that it was not his intention to have legislated on this subject, but as the clause was proposed by the hon. Member for Dublin University, he would not oppose it.
SIR R. FERGUSONsaid, that a provision should have been introduced against subletting.
MR. HAMILTONsaid, the lease could be made only to a person in occupation; and in the form prescribed in the Act to which reference had been made in the clause, there was a provision against subletting; and if the Solicitor General introduced any general provision against subletting, it would, of course, apply to church lands. The clause was then brought up and agreed to.
The other clauses were thou gone through, and the House resumed.
Committee reported progress.

JUDGMENTS (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for the Second Reading read.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL The SOLICITOR GENERAL moved the Second Reading of this Bill, which was a measure in furtherance of the objects contemplated in the Incumbered Estates Bill. It would be an imperfect course to free estates from their incumbrances unless you prevented, as nearly as possible, the recurrence of such incumbrances, and this was the purpose of the present Bill, the scheme of which was threefold: the first object was to prevent the assignability of
326
judgments in future; the second to effect by means of the Bill judgments henceforward from becoming a charge upon the land, except in cases where the land should be in the hands of the sheriff; and the third object he hoped to attain was to prevent receivers from being appointed over estates by the holders of judgments under a certain amount. With respect to the first provision of the Bill, he might allege as a reason for assenting to it the fact that judgments of 100 years' date were at present in force against landholders, and these judgments under the present system constituted vested rights over the rentals, to the prejudice of persons actually in possession of the land. So that, when the possessor wished to sell his estate to pay off the incumbrances, it was not only necessary to hunt out all those who had any collateral right of heirship to the property, but also all the holders of judgments; and the expense of doing this, which was enormous, fell wholly on the landowner, besides which, the difficulty attending the search for claimants operated as a bar to a transfer of the land, and prevented its sale. The Bill was not intended to deal with existing judgments; all it was intended to effect was to prevent a recurrence of the evils at present existing in Ireland, and to prevent in future judgments from being assigned after a stated period. In short, the object of the Bill was to assimilate land in Ireland to stock, and to create difficulties in the way of henceforward incumbering landed estates in Ireland. The hon. Member for Middlesex had, with the consent and approval of the Government, moved for the appointment of a Select Committee, for the purpose of inquiring into the system of appointing receivers to estates in Ireland. He (the Solicitor General) had postponed the introduction of the present measure until the Committee had reported, and now that the highly interesting and valuable report made by the Committee was on the table of the House, he had taken the earliest opportunity of bringing forward the measure which he had framed for the purpose of remedying the existing evils. The Committee differed from him in some respects. He had wished to put an end to the whole system of borrowing money on judgments in Ireland, as whilst it existed he thought it was impossible for the cultivation of the land to be in a thriving condition. The Committee had thought it dangerous to put a sudden end to the system of borrow-

327
ing money on the security of warrants of attorney secured on the land; and as he was not so well acquainted with the working of the system as the hon. Members on the Committee necessarily were, he had felt disposed to bow to their decision; and thinking it of the utmost importance that the Bill should pass during the present Session, he had consented to limit the operation of the measure to judgments not exceeding 100 l., as was suggested by the Committee, thinking it likely that at some future period the necessity would be seen for putting a total stop to the practice of raising money by means of judgments on the security of land, as well in Ireland as in England, for he was well satisfied that considerable evils had arisen under the Judgment Act recently passed for England. He had felt the importance of not alarming the people of Ireland as to matters of this description, and had therefore modified his own views. He had had the advantage on these points of the advice and opinion of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin, whoso candour and intelligence he felt it to be his duty to state had raised him to a most advantageous position in that House, and he had given way to that hon. Gentleman in a manner which he had not originally intended or contemplated doing. He was happy to say that the Committee were unanimously of opinion that the system of assignable judgments should not any longer be permitted to continue, and this was a very important feature of the present Bill. With respect to the receivers he intended to confine the operation of the Bill to judgment debts not less than 150 l. in amount, and no judgment should henceforward be deemed a charge upon the land, unless the land was in the hands of the sheriff. But as it was possible, in contemplation of the effects of the Bill, that there might be a general rush for entering up judgment at the opening of the next term in Dublin, he should restrict the operation of all judgments to those which were already completed previous to the passing of the Bill. Now, with respect to the receiverships over land in Ireland he felt it necessary to observe that the rentals thus collected amounted to 2,000,000 l. per annum there, whilst by a return which he had obtained of the amount passing through receivers' hands in England, as well of leasehold as of real property, he found, as nearly as could be stated, that it was 58,58 l.; so that if this return was a
328
correct one, the amount of property passing through the hands of Chancery receivers in England was one-fourth only of that so received in Ireland; whereas the rental of England was about some five times as great as that of Ireland. The present Bill had necessarily been delayed until the Incumbered Estates Bill stood in a position where it was likely to become law; for he had considered that, inasmuch as that Bill proposed to give an immediate and stringent remedy to the holders of judgment debts, and of other claims against landed proprietors in Ireland, it was necessary that some restraint should be put upon that class of creditors, to prevent them proceeding harshly and cruelly against their debtors. If the House should agree in the views he had stated, he proposed to have the Bill read a second time, and then, at the earliest opportunity, to go into Committee pro formâ on it for the purpose of introducing the amendments which he had framed in accordance with the views of the Committee; and then, having done so, he would pass it through Committee in the usual form, and send it to the Upper House as soon as possible. He begged, therefore, to move that the Bill be read a second time.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he did not rise to offer any opposition to the course proposed to be taken by the hon. and learned Solicitor General, but rather to express his approbation of the candid manner in which he had explained his views, and the consideration he had shown towards the recommendations of the Committee. But as the subject was an extremely important one, as well as difficult to deal with, and bore much upon property in Ireland, he wished briefly to explain to the House the grounds upon which the Committee had come to the conclusions at which they had arrived, and which he believed if acted on with firmness and fairness, would attain all the objects which the Government proposed to accomplish. There could be no doubt that, inasmuch as recent events had forced the Legislature to contemplate a rearrangement of the present system of property in Ireland, they should take care to prevent, as much as legislation could do it, a recurrence of those evils which unhappily recent events in Ireland had shown them to be in existence; neither ought they to confirm any law which had mainly contributed to such a state of things. Considering the peculiar circumstances of the Irish people, and looking at the temptation which the

329
assignability of judgments held out to an improvident raising of money, he had come to the conclusion that it would be a wise course to repeal the law which permitted such a practice, and thereby endeavour to put the state of things in Ireland on a more just and safe footing. The Bill of the learned Solicitor General was one for qualifying the rights of judgment creditors. It was right in framing such a measure as that to distinguish between two classes of creditors. There was one class to be considered in the light of the money lenders—and the other the creditors who had obtained judgments on a fair bonâ fide demand. Now, in legislating upon that matter, he maintained they ought not to go one step beyond what was necessary for the public exigency. Both classes of judgments were assignable, that of the bonâ fide creditor, and that of the money lender on a warrant of attorney, and it was necessary to bear in mind the distinction between them. For his own part, he considered that it was a matter contrary to all sound public policy to allow a security like a judgment to be made the means of raising money. Sir Edward Sugden, however, was of a different opinion, and did not consider it wrong to do so. The present Master of the Rolls in Ireland, however, had stated to the Committee, that, looking at the present state of society in Ireland, he thought it a matter of political and public importance to make judgments a very doubtful security for raising money, and considered that their assignability ought to be got rid of. Sir Edward Sugden, indeed, thought it would be an unwise thing to make so great a change at once, but recommended as a first step to limit the amount of judgments under which receivers could be appointed to 1,50 l. The Committee, however, had been unanimous in the conclusion to which they had come on this one point—namely, that assignability of judgments ought not to be allowed. In any legislation of that description, they should always endeavour to enlist on their side the good sense and right feeling of the country with which they proposed to deal. In his opinion they were clearly bound to qualify the rights of judgment creditors, if those rights should be found to operate injuriously to the best interests of society. The hon. and learned Gentleman then quoted the evidence of the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, and other legal authorities, for the purpose of showing the evils which resulted from the pre-
330
sent system of assigning judgments; and afterwards proceeded to say, that he believed that measure would operate very beneficially when taken in conjunction with an improvement in the system of receivers, and a simplification of the proceedings in the Court of Chancery itself. He thought, that after having accomplished such changes, and after having effected a consolidation and a simplification of the laws which regulated the relations between landlords and tenants, the Legislature would have done all that it could do to improve the social condition of Ireland; and the country might then, he believed, be left to itself. He readily admitted that they ought to legislate for the protection of the rights of bonâ fide judgment creditors, and that they ought to give those creditors the same rights against property in Ireland which were possessed by the same class in England. But he also thought that they ought not to legislate exclusively with a view to the interests of capitalists, who might be disposed to purchase lands in Ireland. Before he sat down, he felt bound to express his acknowledgments to the learned Solicitor General, for the kindness with which he had received every suggestion he (Mr. Napier) had made to him; and he should farther say, that he would at all times be ready to give every assistance in his power towards ensuring the success of any measure which he could think calculated to promote the improvement of that country. He confessed, that, if they were all cordially and frankly to unite for that purpose, he should not despair of seeing Ireland raised to a state of real and permanent prosperity. That great and remedial visitation—for such he should call it, in spite of all the calamities with which it had been accompanied—that visitation with which they had of late years had to contend, might then, he believed, be made an instrument for effecting the regeneration of Ireland, and elevating her to the rank to which he was sure it was the wish of every Member of that House—whether Englishman or Irishman—that she should attain; and thus might they see the strength of the united kingdom and the general prosperity of the empire largely increased.
MR. SADLEIRsaid, he should only aim at making a few cursory remarks upon this Bill. He agreed in the general principles laid down by the Solicitor General, but regretted that those principles were not reflected in the Bill itself. He

331
admitted that the Bill prepared by the Master of the Rolls in Ireland would diminish greatly the delay and expenditure incidental to the prosecution of creditor suits, and he felt that some such practical measure was loudly called for. With regard to the suggestions of his hon. and learned Friend, as to the simplification of the proceedings of the Court of Chancery, he thought that unless some speedy and proper alterations were made, it would be impossible to afford any permanent relief to the immense amount of business which now lay before the court. The Incumbered Estates Bill, now in progress, was, he must admit, a step in the right direction. As the Bill stood, it certainly did not go to realise the objects stated to-day by the Solicitor General. The power of assigning judgments had existed in Ireland for more than a century. The real evil of a judgment as a security for money was, not only that it attached as a lien to the particular property, but that it overrode all the real and personal property possessed by the borrower at the time he confessed the judgment. It also affected the property which the borrower might afterwards acquire. It was idle to talk of increasing the facilities for the sale of land in Ireland, unless at the same time they conferred upon the lender of money on landed security in that country the fullest possible remedy for recovering his money. This seemed to be a retrograde movement in the wrong direction. By the operation of this Bill, the owner of the land confessed his judgment was hemmed in between two evils, in the shape of the Incumbered Estates Bill, and the Judgment Security Bill. If he wanted to sell the estate, the Incumbered Estates Bill would operate to prevent him; and if, on the other hand, he wished to dispose of the judgment, the Judgment Security Bill would not permit of his doing so, though a capitalist were at hand ready to advance the money. He thought it most desirable that a judgment-creditor should not have power of appointing a Chancery receiver over an estate. With reference to that part of the Bill which went to revive the vicious system of elegits, he thought that system was quite as objectionable as the custodien system. Had the Solicitor General thought of the immense sea of litigation which would arise from the complex system of elegits which he sought to revive? He thought the Government should not submit to the House measures of this isolated and puny
332
character, but others of a massive and general nature with respect to real property. For instance, it was impossible to do any thing in Ireland without a system of registration of births, deaths, and marriages, many of the evils in respect of real property arising out of this defect. The facilities that existed in Scotland for the transfer of real property was the secret of the success of that country in this respect.
SIR J. GRAHAMhad been anxious to offer some observations to the House on a measure which, in connexion with the Incumbered Estates Bill, appeared to be of vital importance to the circumstances of Ireland; but time now forbad; and as he believed there was no difference of opinion as to the second reading of the Bill, he suggested that that stage should now be taken without further delay, in order to allow the Solicitor General to pass the Bill through Committee pro formâ When the Bill was recommitted, there would be an opportunity of discussing all the details of the question, and hon. Members would then have an opportunity of reading the report of that Committee on which he had had the honour of serving—a report which was not voluminous but specific, and contained a well-reasoned argumentation; also the important evidence of Sir E. Sugden and the Master of the Rolls in Ireland. Before he sat down he would inquire whether the Solicitor General, in fixing the limit of 150 l. as the lowest amount of debt justifying the appointment of a receiver, was prepared or not to adopt the recommendation of the Committee, that in all cases above that limit, where a creditor should petition the court for a receiver, the period of at least one year should be given from the date of the judgment before the appointment of a receiver? He agreed with the learned Solicitor General that the present Bill must be taken in conjunction with the important measure relating to incumbered estates, and he suggested that the House should have the opportunity of discussing an important alteration made by the Lords in the latter measure, and, if possible, coming to an agreement with the Lords upon that Amendment, before considering the present Bill in its amended state.
Bill read a Second Time, and passed through Committee pro formâ.

FISCAL RELATIONS BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND.
On the Motion that the House do

333
resolve itself into a Committee of Supply.
MR. J. O'CONNELLrose to move, pursuant to notice, for a Committee to inquire into the fiscal relations between Great Britain and Ireland. One good effect of the appointment of the Committee would be, that it would be proved that Ireland had been unduly taxed. It would be proved, also, that the fact of the Irish standard of taxation being lower than in England, was not the result of any merciful consideration for Ireland, but was owing to the experience of English statesmen, who found that increased taxation in Ireland would not increase the revenue, but would diminish the amount contributed to the imperial exchequer. The appointment of the Committee would further tend to show that this country had not been lavish in her grants to Ireland. If a Committee was appointed, it could only sit for a short time at that period of the Session; but it was not his fault that his Motion had been delayed for such a long period; but if it only met for one week, they would be enabled to see what documents should be called for, which could be considered during the recess, and another Committee be appointed at the commencement of next Session. If his Motion was agreed to, he should be able to show that if they took the gross revenue of the two countries at 56,000,000 l., the excess of taxation paid by Great Britain was not more than 13,000,000 l If from this amount they deducted the 5,000,000 l. paid for income tax in this country, the excess would not be more than 8,000,000 l. Taking this 13,000,000 l. from the gross revenue, there remained 43,000,000 l., to which both countries contributed in equal proportions—that was, that England paid 38,200,000 l., and Ireland 4,810,000 l., or in the proportion of one to eight. He could not bring forward a more striking-proof than this, that Ireland was subject to one-eighth of the general taxation of the empire. If, however, Ireland was placed on the same footing as England, as regarded the development of her natural resources, she would be entitled to 10,000,000 l. or 12,000,000 l. for her share. This showed what a strong interest England had to raise the condition of Ireland. He would here ask two questions—the first was, whether Ireland was rightfully or not exempted from the excepted taxes paid in this country to the amount of 13,000,000 l.; and, secondly.
334
whether she was so exempted from any merciful disposition on the part of this country, or because no more could be got from her I In answer to the first of these questions, he would say, that, after due consideration, Ireland was exempted from the payment of them by the Act of Union; and his answer to the second question was, that such exemption did not take place from any merciful feeling on the part of this country. He would not go into the question of local taxation in Ireland, as he believed other Members would do so. He might observe, however, that on this subject a very striking protest had recently been placed on the Journals of the House of Lords, to which the name of the Earl of Rosse was affixed. This document strongly pointed out the injustice of the present system. At the time of the Union, the public debt of England was so much larger than that of Ireland, that it was distinctly declared that it would be utterly monstrous to make Ireland responsible for the whole of the debt of England, so that some arrangement must be made. At the time of the Union with Scotland a sum of money had been voted to that nation for any loss that might arise from the junction of the exchequers of the two countries. The amount was 300,000 l., which was a large sum in those days in a poor country like Scotland, although it might not be regarded so now. It was found, however, that compensation could not be given to Ireland at the time of the Union, as the difference in the amount of the debts of the two countries was so great. According to a Parliamentary paper which he held in his hand, the amount of the debt of Great Britain on the 5th of January, 1801, which was the period of the Union, was 450,505,000 l., while the annual charge for the debt was 17,720,000 l. At the same period the amount of the debt of Ireland was 28,550,000 l., the interest on which was 1,244,500. The consequence was, that the separation of the debts continued for several years, A calculation was then made as to the charges which should be made in each country for the common expenses of the empire; and the basis then taken had since been admitted to have been unjust to Ireland. At the time of the Union it was considered proper that the expenditure of the country should be divided into seventeen parts, and of this amount Ireland was to contribute two parts, and England fifteen parts. It was provided by the seventh article of the Act

335
of Union that the exchequers of the two countries should not be consolidated until either of two contingencies arose: the first was, that the two debts should be paid off, which condition he had hardly need state had never occurred; and the second was, when the proportionate difference between the taxation of the two countries should be at the rate of two to fifteen. There was also another condition, which was of an accumulative character, and which was as binding and as stringent as the others. It was, that the respective circumstances of the two countries became such that they would be able to contribute equally to the common taxes. The arrangement at the Union, instead of increasing the prosperity of Ireland, had tended much to the impoverishment of that country. It should not be forgotten that 3,000,000 l. had been expended in bribery to promote the Union, and to induce the Irish Parliament to sell the country, and to give compensation to the proprietors of the rotten boroughs. This charge also was forced on Ireland, and thus again was her debt forced up. Again, in the report of the Finance Committee of 1815, he found the following-statement:—
"For several years Ireland has advanced in permanent taxation more rapidly than Great Britain itself, notwithstanding the immense exertions of the latter country, including the extraordinary and war taxes, the permanent revenue of Great Britain having increased from the year 1801 in the proportion of 16½ to 10; the whole revenue of Great Britain, including war taxes, as 21¼ to 10; and the revenue of Ireland in the proportion of 23 to 10. But in the twenty four years referred to your Committee, the increase of Irish revenue has been in the proportion of 46¾ to 10.
In the debate also on the consolidation of the Exchequers in 1816, Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald, the then Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer, referred to this declaration, and said—
"You contracted with Ireland for an expenditure she could not meet, your own share of which you could not meet but by sacrifices unexampled—by exertions the tension of which only England could have borne. Ireland has been led to hope her expenditure would have been less than before she was united with you. In the fifteen years preceding the Union, it amounted to 41,000,000 l.; but in the fifteen years of Union, it swelled to the enormous amount of 148,000,000 l. The increase of her revenue would have more than discharged, without the aid of loans, an expenditure greater than that of the fifteen years which preceded 1801. Your own Committee have shown you what an advance in permanent taxation Ireland has made."
The Marquess of Lansdowne, also, in a speech on the state of Ireland in 1822,
336
complained that the increase of the Irish taxation since the Union was so excessive as to destroy revenue. He said that—
"In 1807 the revenue amounted to 4,378,241 l.; that between that year and 1815, new taxes were imposed from which an additional income of 3,370,000 l. was anticipated, but that the result was an absolute diminution of income, the revenue in 1821 having been 533,000 l. under its amount in 1807."
He would also quote an extract from a speech of Lord Sydenham, then Mr. Poulett Thompson, delivered on the 20th of March, 1830, when he moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the expediency of making a revision of the taxes, and then took occasion to refer to Ireland as furnishing the most remarkable instance in history of the effects upon revenue produced by excessive taxation. He said—
"A case is established in the instance of Ireland, which is written in characters too legible not to servo as a guide to future financiers—one which ought to bring shame upon the memory of its authors."
He then stated the facts as to the decrease of the revenue between 1817 and 1821, mentioned by the Marquess of Lansdowne:—
"Here is an example to prove that an increase of taxation does not tend to produce a corresponding increase of revenue; but, on the contrary, an actual diminution."
He believed also the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated in the course of a debate in 1822, that the proportion of two to fifteen as the contribution of the two countries to the public expenditure, was admitted on all hands to be unjust. The pretence for the consolidation of the two Exchequers, was to relieve Ireland from the burden of the debt. Now, how did the debts of the two countries stand on the 5th of January, 1817? The English debt had increased from 450,050,000 l. in 1801, to 734,522,100 l. at the commencement of 1817, the interest on which was 28,238,400 l. The Irish debt had increased from 28,550,000 l. in 1801, to 112,704,800 l. in 1817, the interest on which was 4,104,500 l. Thus the increase on the charge of the British debt between January, 1801, and January, 1817, was 60 per cent; while the increase on the charge of the Irish debt in the same sixteen years was not less than 230 per cent. What had been the effects of the consolidation which took place? He thought it was perfectly clear, if nothing of the kind had taken place, it would have been for

337
the advantage of Ireland. At the time of the consolidation, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been obliged to take off the income and some other taxes, which together produced 17,000,000 l, and then he determined to have Ireland at his mercy, to see whether he could not make up the deficiency by putting the screw on that country. By the proceedings then taken, Ireland had been made liable for every farthing of the English debt. The projectors of this Act stated that such an amount of debt had been thrown on Ireland that she could not continue to pay it; therefore they nominally took off the debt from that country. As it was, instead of having to pay only 2–17ths towards the charge for the expenditure of the country, Ireland had to contribute one-seventh, or 2–14ths. After quoting some further details in illustration of the disproportionate and unjust amount of the general taxation which he alleged was borne by Ireland, the hon. and learned Gentleman alleged that, speaking generally, the ability of Ireland to pay was as one to nine, but that, whenever it could be got, she was made to pay as one to seven. There was a vast amount of uncredited taxation paid by Ireland. For example, there was upwards of 60,000 l. Crown rents, for which she got no credit whatever. Then there were the duties paid in Ireland on manufactured articles coming through England, but for Irish consumption: all these were credited to the English revenue, although it was the consumer who actually paid the duties. The customs thus paid had been estimated by Sir Henry Parnell at 350,000 l. a year. If Members would look at the tables of the receipts of the revenue of the two countries from customs articles, they would observe the ridiculously small sums which were put down to the credit of Ireland upon articles which must obviously be of very large consumption, such as oils and silks. Some of these items were credited as low as 5l., 2l., and in one case 1l. 10 s. What the meaning of this was, or why it was so put, he knew not; but the great bulk of the articles consumed in Ireland paid the duty in England on passing through; and, therefore, on a largo proportion of the customable and excisable articles thus paying duty in England, Ireland got no credit for this amount of taxation. Ireland paid more than her fiscal abilities warranted. The excess of the debt charge of England over that of Ire-
338
land was more than fifteen millions; and in this respect the conditions of the Union had been violated; for by an unjust consolidation England was only paying thirteen millions, instead of between fifteen and sixteen millions. It was said that when there had boon a deficit in the accounts of the two countries, England had paid it. That might be true; but how had she paid it?—out of the surplus of proceeds common to both countries. This was the injustice of associating in partnership a rich man and a poor man, and making the latter liable for the expenditure of the former. The hon. and learned Gentleman than quoted further extracts from the Parliamentary returns and reports of Committees on finance and taxation to show that the burdens of Ireland had been un duly increased by her disproportionate liability to taxes, which should have been supplied by a separate taxation, and that since the Union she had been made unjustly liable to sixty-four millions of money which England ought to have defrayed by separate taxation. The hon. and learned Gentleman then urged that this injustice might be repaired by taking off the stamp duties, and the remission of other imposts which would not involve those commercial difficulties which would arise if the customable and excisable duties were different in the two countries. He then compared the remission of taxation which had taken place in England and Ireland, arguing that the result was anything but favourable to the latter country. From 1814: to 1846 inclusive, Great Britain had been relieved from 51,2,36,420 l. of taxation, while, in the same period, the taxation remitted in Ireland was only 2,903,995 l, The hon. and learned Gentleman then went through some further details of the kind, and then alluded to absenteeism as the bane of Ireland. Absenteeism was sapping the vitality of the country. Not alone did it cause the cattle and goods to go out from Ireland, but oven the money they brought was not returned to that country, or if it was it quickly went out again in the payment of absentee rent. He concluded by recommending the state of Ireland to that deep and anxious consideration winch every statesman must feel that the safety of the empire rendered it incumbent upon him to bestow upon so momentous a question. It would be well that the leading parties and leading men in the House should consider the subject during the recess, for the exigencies of

339
Ireland could not be postponed much longer. There could be no greater mistake than to grind down with the screw of taxation an already impoverished country; but if they would allow the resources of Ireland to grow, she could better hear taxation. If they would grant the Committee for which he now moved, much useful and valuable information might even now be obtained for consideration during the recess.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the fiscal relations between Great Britain and Ireland," instead thereof.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not intend to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman through the long details of figures which he had gone through; but he assured the hon. and learned Gentleman that whatever returns upon this subject might be desired, he should have great pleasure in acceding to; and it was by returns that the points could be most advantageously laid before the House. But although he could not accede to the Committee which the hon. and learned Gentleman had moved for, he should yet make a few observations in reply to the statements which he had made. Whatever Ireland might contribute to the general revenue of the empire, so far as regarded the injustice of which the hon. and learned Gentleman had been complaining, his statements were not borne out by the facts of the case. Without any Committee on the subject, the various returns which already lay upon their table were sufficient to show that since the time of the Union downwards, the expenditure of Ireland had never been met by her income, not even with the additions which the hon. and learned Gentleman had taken credit for on account of the customs received on goods now landed in this country. The hon. and learned Gentleman had talked of the proportion of payments to be made by the two countries, and had quoted figures, which, if he had only looked at the last returns, might have been stated in round numbers at 48,000,000 l. for England, and 4,000,000 l for Ireland; the proportion for the first twenty years after the Union being fixed at 15 to 2. But speaking of the debt, the hon. and learned Gentleman himself had acknowledged that since the Union Ireland had never paid the interest of her own debt; and the returns on the
340
table showed that between 1803 and 1817 her income, so far from equalling her expenditure, was necessarily augmented from the British Exchequer to the amount of 61,700,000 l., to defray the charges upon the expenditure for Ireland. Even with such deductions as could be fairly made for the customs in this country—and the hon. and learned Gentleman fairly took credit for them—that was yet a large sum. But, again, the hon. and learned Gentleman in taking credit for the receipts which came into this country, did not look at certain charges not one sixpence to which did Ireland contribute either to the military or to the naval expenses incurred for the protection of our colonial trade, or to the general expenses of the country. As for the local charges upon Ireland, he found that during the last two years previous to the distress now prevailing in the country, a charge had been made upon the Consolidated Fund to the amount of 7,000,000 l. to be laid out for local purposes alone. He would not say more on that occasion. He admitted that the returns were somewhat below the truth in regard to the receipts, and very far below the truth as to the true amount of the expenditure. He could not say that the hon. and learned Gentleman was at all justified in the statements he had made to show that the sister country was unfairly taxed in proportion to England.
MAJOR BLACKALLconceived that the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was an argument for the Committee that had been moved for. That speech showed that a return when moved for was not sufficient, for how were the same returns read in an opposite sense by two hon. Gentlemen? The matter was an important one, and it ought to be set at rest. It was not right that taunts should be thrown out against Ireland on the subject of her taxation. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated what was true, Ireland was not fairly taxed. Then if she were not, let the matter be justly settled, and let her bear her fair proportions. Let them, he said, by a fair and full inquiry, put an end to this bandying of words that was constantly going on upon both sides of the House—the Irish insisting that they had paid too much, and the English declaring that they paid too little. The question could be settled by a Committee, and a Committee ought to be granted.
Mr. W. FAGANthought there were good grounds for granting this Committee.

341
For supposing all the accounts were correct, and that the contribution of Ireland was 5,000,000 l. a year, he yet believed it could be shown that she paid more than her fair amount of taxation. The principle of the financial union of England and Ireland was, that both countries should contribute to the expenses of the empire according to the ability of the two countries; and the proportion was stated in a speech made by Lord Castlereagh on the subject to be 2–17ths. Admitting that proportion to have been fair for Ireland in 1801, subsequently to that year circumstances occurred which made that amount vastly more than Ireland was able to pay. The question for the Committee would be whether that principle was fair and just. By the returns of the hon. Member for Glasgow, it appeared that the debt of Ireland, in 1817, was 130,561,000 l.; that in 1801 it was only 27,792,705 l.; so that she borrowed in the meantime 102,768,295 l. But if her fair contribution was at the rate 2–17ths, the amount borrowed by her ought to have been not 102,000,000 l., but 31,000,000 l. only. The hon. Gentleman then quoted returns to show that Ireland's payments since 1801 had varied from 1–16th to 1–12th in 1840, and argued that he was justified in saying that was a sufficient contribution from that country. Supposing the exchequers of the two countries had not been consolidated, what would have been the consequence? Since 1817 the general expenditure of the country had been, say 54,000,000 l.; from which, do-ducting the interest of the debt, there would remain 24,000,000 l. to be contributed by both countries. Quo twelfth of that gave him 2,000,000 l. as the proportion for Ireland in the general expenses of the Government; add to which the interest on the debt, another 2,000,000 l., and the round sum became 4,000,000 l. or 4,500,000 l. to be contributed by Ireland. He concluded by expressing his hope that the right hon. Gentleman would accede to the Committee.
MR. F. FRENCHinsisted that the Motion of the hon. Member ought to be acceded to. He was convinced that Ireland in proportion to her means was paying as largely as England. In fairness to England and to Ireland, the Committee ought to be agreed to.
COLONEL DUNNEdid not see it was for the benefit of Ireland that England had colonies, or that she had such an interest in them as to be called on to pay for them,
342
for the balance of trade with the colonies was against Ireland. If the hon. and learned Gentleman pressed his Motion to a division, he would vote for it; but he hoped the Motion would be now withdrawn, and a Committee moved for early next Session.
MR. J. O'CONNELLultimately withdrew the Motion, saying he should bring it forward next Session.

SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES—BRITISH MUSEUM.
SIR R. PEELrose to move the estimates for the British Museum. He said he should best consult the convenience of the House by at once placing in the hands of the Chairman the vote necessary for this establishment. Every matter connected with the British Museum had boon referred to a commission, which had made extensive inquiries, and whose labours were now drawing to a close. Any discussion would therefore take place with much greater advantage when their report was laid on the table, and the opinions of the very eminent persons who were upon that commission were before the House. For these reasons he was of opinion that any discussion with regard to the British Museum had better be postponed until next year.
The vote of 42,915 l. to defray the charges of the British Museum was then read by the Chairman.
MR. HUMEthought it perfectly right to postpone any discussion, as the commission were still busy about their report. He was gratified to find that the number of visitors seemed to increase; and when greater facilities were afforded for the use of the reading-room by the public, the institution would effect a much greater amount of good. He entirely concurred in the vote, and he only wished to see the liberal sums now given by Parliament towards the Museum properly appropriated. He wished to make a remark respecting the National Gallery, and to express his anxiety that the recommendation of the Committee of last year should be carried out, with respect to providing accommodation for the munificent collection of Mr. Vernon. He thought that, as the Royal Academy were only accommodated in their present apartments in the National Gallery until the rooms should be wanted for the public, it was of considerable importance that space should be obtained for Mr. Vernon's collection in the rooms now occupied by the Royal Academy. It was notorious, and from accounts that he received from

343
all parts of the country he was convinced, that if the space at the disposal of the trustees for the reception of pictures were increased, donations of valuable pictures and collections would soon be made, which would even more than fill the present building. It was, therefore, highly desirable that Mr. Vernon's collection should be placed in the situation to which it was entitled by its excellence. He did not think that the present situation of those pictures was open to all the complaint that had been made; but there were people who thought that a better sense of the value of Mr. Vernon's collection ought to have been shown by making bettor accommodation for its reception. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, as a trustee of the National Gallery, must be aware that the trustees were frequently compelled to decline the acceptance of valuable pictures, in consequence of the limited space at their disposal in the present building. The noble Lord at the head of the Government appeared to be of opinion that the Royal Academy had a right to their present rooms in the National Gallery; but he would find, upon inquiry, that the understanding was, that they were only to be admitted to the use of those apartments until the public accommodation required this further space. Three years ago, he wanted to know the means of the Royal Academy, but he lost his Motion by four or five votes only. He was now told that there was 100,000 l. belonging to the Royal Academy; that would enable them to build an edifice suited to their purpose. [An. Hon. MEMBER: It is not their own.] But it was received from the charges made for admission to their annual exhibition, and that money might be devoted to building an edifice of their own. He protested against the House being called upon to vote money for finding accommodation for the Royal Academy, when that body had the means of obtaining a building for themselves. The Government ought to have paid more attention to the report of the Committee of last Session, which recommended that the Royal Academy should be removed from the National Gallery, and that additional provision should be made for the reception of pictures belonging to the public. He would suggest that the Royal Academy might go back to Somerset-house, on the west side of which they might find a very proper situation. He had no objection whatever to make to the present vote.
344
of which, on the contrary, he highly approved.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, the subjects to which the hon. Member for Montrose, had adverted connected with the Royal Academy, and the providing better accommodation for the pictures of the late Mr. Vernon, had not been lost sight of by the Government. He had himself proposed the appointment of the Committee last year, and, although he was not able to make any proposal for the present Session, he hoped next Session to be able to state an arrangement that might be satisfactory.
MR. W. J. FOXbelieved that, taking into account the increase of population, and the additional facilities of communication with the metropolis, the ratio of visitors to the British Museum had not increased. But, looking to the higher purposes of literature and art connected with the institution, the attendance at the reading-room, the print-room, and the sculpture-room, had been regularly decreasing for several years, until the decrease had become very considerable. He would not pretend to say from what cause this arose, but he thought the question should have been mooted, had the House not received an intimation that the commission had concluded its labours, and that their report would shortly be printed. He had heard several complaints that the commission had not been so accessible as it ought to have been, and that there were literary men deeply interested who would have been able to offer valuable suggestions respecting the institution, but who had had no opportunity of stating their views to the commission. The British Museum was a most useful institution, but he believed its utility was capable of very large extension.
MR. EWARTsaid, the Committee now sitting on the subject of public libraries had agreed on two points. First, that the 52,000 duplicate volumes in the British Museum ought to go to form lending libraries; and, secondly, that the reading-rooms should be open in the evening for the admission of many studious persons who were at present excluded. He confirmed the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose in the fact that when the Royal Academy removed from Somerset-house to Trafalgar-square, the Chancellor of the Exchequer distinctly stated, in answer to a question, that they were to occupy the building only until it was required by the public.
SIR R. PEELsaid, he was sorry to hear it stated by the hon. Member for Oldham, that the number of persons visiting the British Museum had declined, and that there was not a disposition on the part of the public to avail themselves of the advantages which the collections at the Museum afforded. He confessed that he had reached a different conclusion. He considered the hon. Member to be quite under a mistake when he supposed that there was not a growing disposition on the part of the public to avail themselves of all advantages of that class; and as to the aggregate number of visitors, there could be no doubt that they had of late very much increased. The number, for example, who went to inspect the works of art and relics of antiquity at the Museum had very much increased during the last five or six years. Thus, in the year 1843 the numbers wore 517,000, while in 1848 the numbers were 867,000, showing, as the House would see, a very manifest increase. Again, with respect to the print-room, the mumbers in 1846 were 4,390, while in 1847 they amounted to 4,572, and in 1848 there was a still greater increase, which raised the number to 5,819. In the face of these facts it still was said that the numbers had recently declined; and, assuming that they had, he might observe, that it never could be very easy in such cases to say why a few less should have examined those works of sculpture or of painting in one year than in another. There certainly had been no impediments thrown in the way of visitors, at the same time that precautions to no inconsiderable extent were found necessary, for very serious losses had been sustained in the medal department, in a case in which there existed every rational ground for placing full confidence in the person at whose hands the Museum had sustained that injury. His great learning, his very pleasing manners, disarmed all suspicion; and, unfortunately, as many as 300 or 400 coins had been abstracted. Still reasonable access was not denied, though it became necessary to provide means of security against depredation; and he wished to impress this upon the mind of the hon. Member opposite, that if there were any falling off in the number of visitors, the change was to be imputed to accident, and not to any impediments created by the officers of that institution, for there could be no doubt that they showed every inclination
346
to minister to that growing disposition which everywhere showed itself in the people of this country to substitute rational enjoyments in the place of those which were of a more sensual and less improving nature—a disposition which had clearly been shown by the returns that were now before the Committee.
MR. EWARTbelieved the decrease had been principally in the reading-rooms. Seven years ago the numbers there were 71,000, now only 65,000, which was very remarkable.
MR. HUMEwas sorry the evidence had not been published which was taken before the Committee last year; if it had, as he had wished it to be, he was sure it would have afforded very satisfactory information to many persons.
The LORD ADVOCATEbelieved the accommodation in the library and reading-rooms was better than that in any similar institution in any other country.
The grant was then assented to.
A vote was then taken for 112,800 l. for the Disembodied Militia in Ireland.
On the question for a vote for 119,950Z. Excess of Army Expenditure,
MR. HUMEhoped, that by the rules recently laid down, they would have no more votes on account of any excess.
MR. FOX MAULEcould not promise that there never should be any excess. There were no rules laid down according to which the estimates could be so constructed as to avoid occasional excess. He feared that many hon. Members were too ready to think that there was every disposition on the part of a Government to get all the votes they could, and to expend as freely as possible; but on the subject of excesses, he wished to call attention to one or two facts. In the year 1841 there was an unappropriated balance carried to the public credit amounting to 119,000 l. In the year 1842 there was a similar sum similarly applied of 391,000 l. In 1843 the amount was 173,000 l., and. in 1847, 855,000 l.
MR. HUMEadmitted that the public accounts were now more correctly kept than formerly, and he was bound also to admit that his right hon. Friend at the head of the Army Department had given a great deal of time and attention to the subject; and, on the whole, there was no great reason to complain.
Vote agreed to.
On the question that there be granted a sum of 59,900 l., being the remaining portion of 109,900 l., on account of the works

347
now going forward at the New Houses of Parliament,
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUEEstated, that 50,000 l. had already been granted, and that this vote was only the balance of what was intended to be the vote for the whole year.
MR. HUMEfeared that there was very little chance of their being able to get into the New Houses of Parliament in the course of the next year, and when they got in he feared they would not find very good accommodation.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that no doubt they might very much sooner get into the new House of Commons if they chose to break through contracts, and pay forfeits; but there was no escaping from those contracts without paying the forfeits; and he thought, upon the whole, that it would be the best way to finish the works according to the contracts. No contracts were now entered into without their being submitted to the Treasury.
MR. MUNTZthought that they had much better make a large grant at once, and get into the Now Houses without further delay.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERfully expected that the works would, in the course of next year, be sufficiently advanced to enable them to get into the New Houses.
MR. HUMEsaid, that the proposed ventilation was, he feared, bad, and that many faults were to be found with the architecture. The original estimate was 770,000 l., and that, at all events, ought to have been a correct estimate, for nine months had been spent in its preparation. Looking, then, at the immense outlay that had been incurred—vast beyond anything that had ever been anticipated—looking at that, he would say that they were bound as regarded Mr. Barry, and not Mr. Barry alone, but any individual so placed—they were hound to take care that he did not carry them too far, for if they wore to pay him commission for the great excess that had been committed, they would have to disburse a very large sum of money—it would form a very great difference in the sum that Mr. Barry would have to receive.
MR. SPOONERthought it was advisable to see if they could not increase this vote and finish the work at once. They had already voted no less than 192,766 l. for temporary arrangements during the
348
building of the New Houses of Parliament; and he had not the slightest hesitation in saying that if any Gentleman would enter into a close inquiry upon the subject, he would find that the postponement of these payments for the New Houses Vas made at an expense of from 12 to 15 per cent per annum. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other night that trade was reviving, and that prosperity was staring them in the face; and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth referred them to the quantity of gold in the Bank, and the cheapness of money. Now, if they trusted to that—if they trusted that their prosperity was built upon a sure foundation, that their difficulties were over, and that trade was reviving—why not go into the market at once and borrow enough money to finish the works, and put a stop to these outlays for temporary accommodation? No one could deny that they were carrying on this work in a most wasteful and expensive manner. They were doing it in a way too which inflicted great injustice upon the contractors, and put all the workmen to great and severe inconvenience. By-and-by another claim would come upon them, which, he confessed, he was at a loss to know how they would meet. The contractor would say, that he had entered into his contract, after making the same calculations as he should have made were he doing the work of a private individual; that he had, therefore, laid in a certain stock of materials, which came to 15,000 l. or 20,000 l.; that these materials should have been used two or three years ago; but that they still lay by him on account of his being stopped in carrying on the works in the best and most expeditious manner. True, they might answer him when he came to them, and said that he had all his money locked up, and had lost the interest thereon for so long a period: "Oh, yes; but you must carry out the conditions of your contract; "but he (Mr. Spooner) put it upon the broad ground of equity, whether, if the contractor showed that he had done nothing more than what a prudent man should do, any court of equity would refuse to allow him interest for his money. It seemed also that there were two conflicting powers in operation. They had the regular architect and the ventilating architect battling with each other. At all events they did not act cordially together. The contractor complained of the ventilator, and the ventilator of the

349
contractor. But the question was, who would have to pay for this? and he thought it now became the Government to step forward and say, "Gentlemen, one of you must give way. We cannot have two kings reigning fit the same time, and we will not permit the continuance of these disputes any longer." On looking at the estimate they would perceive that the sum spent for ventilation was one that required the serious consideration of the House. He knew that it was incompetent for any private Member of the House to move an increased grant; but he trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his views of the returning prosperity of the country, would act upon those views, and increase the vote to a sum sufficient for the immediate completion of the works.
MR. HUMEthought that the present question fully deserved the serious attention of the House. The two objects that they had in view were economy and accommodation; and he feared it would be found that the temporary provision made for the use of both Houses would prove as expensive as the estimates for the new buildings, which he at the outset brought under the notice of the House.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he must object altogether to borrowing money for an annual expense. They had resisted loans for building docks, and they certainly ought to resist them for such a purpose as was now proposed. It was to be hoped that in the course of next year they would be able to get into the New Houses, and get rid of all the temporary charges. He should not go into the question respecting prosperity, which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had raised; but, even assuming that his statements were well founded, he did not think that they afforded any justification for the course which that hon. Gentleman had recommended.
MR. EWARTcomplained of the Committee-rooms. It was extremely difficult to hear in them; they were badly ventilated, and there was no retiring room for the Committee to consult in. Whenever there was difficulty in the Committee, witnesses and strangers had to be turned out into the lobby, which they blocked up, and created confusion and inconvenience.
MR. T. GREENEadmitted that the Committee-rooms were defective in this respect, and also thought it was very difficult to hear in them. Flock paper had been put upon the walls with a view to
350
facilitate the hearing, and he hoped that by means of a screen it would be greatly improved.
MR. EWARTwished to know on what principle it was proposed to ventilate the House? From all he could learn it appeared to him that the House of Lords was to be ventilated upon the principle of a descending current of air; the House of Commons upon an ascending current, and the Committee-rooms not ventilated at all.
MR. T. GREENEsaid, the ventilation of the House of Commons rested with Dr. Reid, that of the House of Lords with Mr. Barry, and that as to that of the Committee-rooms it had not been thought of yet. He hoped, however, all the arrangements respecting the ventilation would be completed before the commencement of the next Session of Parliament.
SIR H. WILLOUGHBYsaid, that last Session of Parliament he had moved for a return of what sums had been voted, and what had been expended, on the Houses of Parliament. They had now got another step as to what would be the probable cost of the Houses, and it appeared that the amount would be 2,043,000 l. It was doubtful whether they were at the end of the expenses. He wished to get an answer to the simple question, who were the parties really responsible for this expenditure? It seemed that the hon. Member for Lancaster had no power to regulate the expenditure. If there was any real responsibility in the matter, the Treasury were the parties who should have previously inquired into these matters, and taken some security for the completion of the works within a given amount. He was firmly persuaded that 2,043,000 l. would not cover the whole cost. There was 497,000 l. for fittings and furniture. What security had the Chancellor of the Exchequer that more than that sum would not be expended? The question he wished to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer was, whether he could not appoint some particular department of the Government to have an effective control over the expenses.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas quite ready to admit that the proceedings connected with the building of the New Houses had not been conducted in a very satisfactory manner. It was a matter with which it had been very difficult to deal in the first instance, because Committees of the two Houses, apart from the Government, had determined

351
upon certain plans which they wished to have carried out, and they had from time to time approved of schemes which increased the expenditure. The original estimate was rather more than 700,000 l.; but that sum did not include the purchase of ground, or the expense of the foundations; it referred only to the carcass of the building, and no one could suppose that that was an amount for which such an edifice could be completed. Other expenses were incurred at the wish of the Woods and Forests; and a Committee which had sat in 1844, to investigate the expenditure upon objects not included in the original estimate, had reported their opinion that such expenditure was proper and necessary, and that it was not extravagant. He did not think that a sufficient degree of control had been exercised at that time; but a commission had since been appointed to exercise a perpetual check upon the expenditure, and to take care that no new expense was incurred until it had been approved by the Treasury. Certain plans had been approved by the joint Committee of the two Houses, which were to be carried out, and he imagined the commissions would take care that there was no deviation from them; but if any alterations were necessary, involving an additional expenditure, the sanction of the Treasury must be obtained.
MR. HUMEdid not understand what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Did he mean to say that the original plan was to be carried out, with the exception of some alterations? Nothing was more distinctly ascertained than the estimate was at first. When Mr. Barry's plan was brought before the Committee, an examination took place. It was found that the estimate was very defective, and the Committee postponed the matter for several months, in order to allow a complete estimate to be made, and it was after the new plan was brought before the Committee that the amount of the estimates was fixed. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth proposed a resolution that the architect was not to be paid by a per centage, but to be paid by a sum of money. It was left for the Woods and Forests to decides whether it should be 20,000 l. or 25,000 l., and they decided on 25,000 l. He could not imagine there could be any doubt as to the contract, and that there was to be no claim for any additional sum.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE- QUERreplied, that considerable expense had been incurred for the purchase of ground, for the alteration of the approaches, and for furniture. The commissioners, however, stated in their report that they would endeavour to exercise the strictest economy, and that they would postpone the completion of such portions of the building as were not immediately required. The estimate laid on the table was the architect's estimate, and had not been sanctioned in a formal way.
SIR H. WILLOUGHBYconsidered that to be the great misfortune. He understood the fact to be that the commission whose duty it was to look over these matters was under the control of the Treasury, and that the Treasury were the really responsible parties. There was rather an ominous sentence in this estimate. It said, "exclusive of the cost of previous estimates proposed for warming and ventilating the House of Commons." Then there came this doubtful expression, "and all other incidental payments not under the cognisance or control of the architect." These words—"incidental payments"—left a loophole for everything.
MR. MUNTZwished to know whether the money they were then voting was to be applied to the completion of that portion of the building which was to be appropriated to the use of the Members of that House?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERstated, that the present vote would be almost entirely expended upon the new House of Commons.
MR. T. GREENEsaid, the Committee were anxious that the whole of the funds placed at their disposal should be applied to the completion of the buildings most urgently required, and they were desirous that no further progress should be made with the towers at present; but Mr. Barry had stated in one of his reports, that if they adopted that course they would incur an expenditure of about 50,000 l. for violation of contracts. He believed that only 12 or 15 feet of the towers remained to be built before the completion of the present contracts, and when they had expired the building of the towers would be entirely suspended, and the whole of the money voted would be applied to complete the House and Committee-rooms.
MR. DRUMMONDobserved, that if any set of Gentlemen who had seen a true drawing of all the details of the new palace imagined that it could be completed

353
for 700,000 l, he thought they must have been very incompetent judges of building and architecture. If the 25,000 l. which it was said Mr. Barry was to receive was to be given to that gentleman upon his estimate for the carcass of the building, well and good; but, as it had been said that unpleasant remarks might be made about an architect who demanded what he considered his just due, he (Mr. Drummond) would ask the House whether they thought no remarks would be made about employers who defrauded that architect of his just due? If an individual employed an architect, he dared not refuse to pay that architect the sum to which he was justly entitled; but this was not the first time that the House had defrauded those whom they had employed. They had defrauded Mr. Brunei in the same manner, for they had contracted to give him half the amount of saving the Government would effect by using his block-machinery, and they had never fulfilled their contract. Was there ever a grosser case of oppression than that committed with regard to the Baron de Bode? The fact was that the House had the power and the purse in their hands; they would not pay; and there were no means of making them pay. He would say, that if they meant to put off Mr. Barry with 25,000 l., it was as gross a fraud as was ever committed by any body of men.
MR. HUMEbegged to remind the hon. Gentleman that the architect had undertaken the work after the Committee had come to a resolution that he should not be paid by a per centage, but that he should receive a fixed sum.
Vote agreed to.
On the vote of 12,000 l. to purchase the necessary Books, Apparatus, and Instruments required for the use of Professors in the Colleges established in Ireland,
MR. J. O'CONNELLhoped that this vote would be postponed; or if the Ministry were disposed to part with 12,000 l. just now to Ireland, it would be much better to send it towards relieving the distress that was prevailing there, than for the use of the colleges. Nothing could be more proper than the desire to advance education among all classes of people; but these colleges were to spread a system of education which was most objectionable, on religious grounds, to the Catholic population of Ireland. He had great hopes that if this vote were postponed for the present, between this and next Session an amicable
354
agreement might be come to between the two opposing parties; and therefore he hoped Her Majesty's Ministers would consent to that course. The head of the Roman Catholic Church had twice desired his subordinates in Ireland not to have anything to do with this system of education; and if the Government persisted in it, they would be thrusting it down the throats of the Catholics, which they would be certain to resist. The object only could be to increase the Government patronage in a poor country where that patronage was an unconstitutional attempt, and he objected to it on every ground.
MR. SPOONERsaid, that upon looking at the Act of Parliament he found 21,000 l. was to be advanced for carrying out the objects of these colleges, but not more than 7,000 l. a year, and he wished to know if any of that sum had been advanced?
MR. THORNELYwished to know when they would have a report of the progress that had been made in the erection of the colleges? He trusted that none of the professors would be appointed until the colleges were nearly ready.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was true that 100,000 l. had been appropriated by Act of Parliament for the building of these colleges, and a sum of 21,000 l. for their maintenance for throe years. The 100,000 l. had been expended in the building and furnishing of the colleges, which would be ready for opening in October next. The annual expenditure of the 21,090 l. would not, of course, commence until the colleges were opened. The presidents and vice-presidents of the colleges had already been appointed, but the professors would not be appointed until within a reasonable time of the opening of the establishments. It had, however, been represented to the Government that the whole sum of 100,000 l. had been expended upon the building and furnishing of the colleges, and that the lectures could not be commenced without a certain amount of books and instruments; and the Government had proposed the present vote in order to supply that want. The 21,000 l. was applicable only to the annual expenditure, and no portion of it bad been issued, with the exception of the salaries of the presidents and vice-presidents of each college, since the time of their appointment. The Government could not apply any portion of the grant of 7,000 l. a year to the purpose of providing

355
books, as that sum was merely applicable to the annual expenses.
MR. LAWasked whether this 12,000 l was in excess of the 100,000 l mentioned in the original Act?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes, in excess of the sum originally specified.
MR. PLUMPTREasked if it were true that Government had received a protest signed by a large portion of the Roman Catholic hierarchy against these colleges; and if so, whether, seeing also that they were objected to by a large portion of the English people, he meant to persist in their establishment?
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, that there had been an opinion expressed by a majority of the Roman Catholic bishops, that in order to make these colleges what they considered safe places for the education of Roman Catholic youth, certain securities must be provided, and among the rest, that certain professors should not be appointed, except subject to the veto of the Roman Catholic bishops. That was a proposition to which the Government could not assent. At the same time he must add, that both the former and present Governments gave explanations that satisfied a great number of the bishops that education might go on in the colleges with perfect security to the religious opinions of the Roman Catholic youth. The plan of the colleges was a thing which did not immediately concern the present Government, having been sanctioned by an Act of Parliament previous to their accession to office. What might be the ultimate success of those colleges it was of course impossible for him to say; but he believed that they were now looked upon with favourable eyes by a large majority of the Roman Catholic clergy and laity. Sir R. Kane, a distinguished appointment of the last Government, had informed him that the number of pupils likely to be sent would be much greater than he had in the first instance anticipated. He (Sir R. Kane) had received a vast number of letters from persons anxious to send their sons to the colleges, and who eagerly inquired when they were likely to be opened.
MR. LAWsaid, it appeared to him that this sum was in addition to the amount paid already; and he considered it somewhat irregular to propose, as an ordinary estimate, a large sum, which was beyond the express terms of the original contract. The moment it was discovered that the
356
100,000 l would not be sufficient for the buildings and furniture, a Bill should have been introduced to obtain the required addition, for, in his view, the House was not at liberty, under the circumstances, to vote it without notice as an ordinary estimate.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Government had not felt themselves at liberty to apply any sum obtained under the Act to other purposes than those specified in the Act. They thought it best to come before Parliament and state the case as it stood, for, after all, the amount was only required to carry out bonâ fide the intentions of the House when the Act was passed. Parliament intended to establish the colleges: without apparatus and books they could not be opened. He, therefore, thought Parliament might be fairly called upon to carry out its intentions.
MR. PLUMPTREasked, who had decided that the sum now applied for would be sufficient for the purposes for which it was destined—the professors or the Government? Unless there was some security that it would be sufficient, Parliament might be called upon year after year for similar grants, and nobody would be able to tell when these applications would stop.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, Sir Robert Kane had communicated to the Government his opinion that this sum was necessary, but the vote was not to be an annual vote.
LORD J. RUSSELLadded, that he had been informed, that when the colleges were once open, the matriculation fees would be sufficient to supply whatever might be further required.
MR. HENLEYwished to be informed what security there was against the House being called upon for an annual grant to continue the undertaking in case the colleges should not fill? The noble Lord said the Roman Catholic hierarchy had made certain demands with regard to certain professors and officers, which the late Government would not concede; but explanations had been given by the present Government which had satisfied a considerable portion of that body. It was desirable the House should be put in possession of these explanations, because Parliament had voted money upon the faith and understanding that the colleges were to be common to all parties, without advantages being given to any.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, so far as he could recollect his words, he had not stated

357
that explanations had been given. All the information he had upon the subject was derived from sources which were public, and known to every Member of the House. What he had said with regard to objections was, that the presidents of each college would frame and propose regulations which he thought would satisfy the parents of Roman Catholics, and parents belonging to any other religious community who had doubts or fears as to the education provided in the colleges. There were no particular advantages or special privileges given to Roman Catholics. He did not know whether the regulations had been completed or sanctioned by the Lord Lieutenant, but the general nature of them was that those who wished it might live in the houses of their parents if they resided in the place; if they did not live there, the persons keeping lodgings for students would have licenses, that they were proper persons to keep such private establishments. These establishments would be entirely private, and no portion of the public money would be given to them. Parents of Roman Catholics would send their sons to a Roman Catholic establishment; parents belonging to the Establishment to one attached to the Establishment. Thus there would be every Security for religious and moral education without danger of proselytism; and it appeared to him there could be no objection to regulations of this kind.
MR. HUMEexpressed his belief that the 100,000 l. was intended to defray all the expenses of establishing the colleges, including books and apparatus.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreferred to the words of the Act. They were "for the necessary buildings, purchase of land, tenements, and buildings, with the appurtenances, and the furnishing of the same." The question then arose whether books and apparatus were part of "furnishing" or not.
MR. HUMEunderstood "furnishing" to mean everything suitable to establishing the colleges. He wished further to know, when the presidents and vice-presidents were appointed, at what salary, and from what fund, they were paid?
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, the Government had naturally inquired, when the proposal was made to them, in what way the Act had been understood. They were informed by the Board of Works, that the letters which they received directed them to expend the whole of the sum on the buildings, and that as to what was usually
358
called "furnishing," there was no sum applicable to the purpose. Such being the case, it was absolutely necessary that this vote should be proposed in order that the colleges might be commenced. With regard to the next question, he was not quite certain when the presidents and the vice-presidents were appointed; but he knew they had been occupied in making arrangements for the colleges which had required their attention for a considerable time.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, he understood that the colleges of Belfast and Cork gave the greatest possible promise of success. The only doubt he had was with reference to the college at Galway, if the Roman Catholic clergy should be found to persevere in their opposition to it.
MR. O'FLAHERTYsaid, that the success of the colleges depended entirely upon the appointment of the professors. If those appointments were judiciously made, he had no doubt of the success of the colleges; but if they were jobbed, and persons appointed merely through Parliamentary or any other interest, they would certainly fail. He could answer one of the questions of the hon. Member for Montrose. The presidents and vice-presidents had been under salary since 1846, and had received two and a half years' salary. He had always thought it very absurd that they should have been under salary so long; but he thought it fair to say, that this was not the fault of the present but of the former Government, by whom the appointments were made. He trusted the Government would listen with attention to the objections which had been urged against these colleges by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Tuam—if the Government would only see justice and fairness done to all sects, he was convinced that the colleges would be successful, and would be found to be a source of lasting improvement to Ireland.
MR. J. O'CONNELLmentioned the names of several other Prelates of the Catholic Church who were opposed to the colleges as well as the Archbishop of Tuam.
DR. POWERsaid, it was quite true, as had been stated by his hon. Friend the Member for Limerick, that very grave objections were entertained by some of the Roman Catholic bishops to the establishment of those colleges; but he thought that their objections were founded rather on the experience of the past than on any just grounds as regarded the present mea-

359
sure. They saw, that up to a very late period every attempt that had been made to educate the people had been founded upon a sectarian and narrow principle; but, seeing the satisfactory results of the national schools, he thought that the rational inference was, that the Government that had been ancillary to the establishment of these beneficial institutions would conduct the colleges on the same liberal and enlightened principles. The Pope had expressed dissatisfaction at these colleges; but he thought that the Pope's condemnation of them was founded rather on the fears of certain parties in Ireland than on any knowledge he had of the actual state of things. The state of feeling in this country had undergone a very great change with respect to Ireland, and there was now a wide-spread feeling to conduct every thing connected with Ireland on broad and liberal principles, and the old principles of bigotry and Protestant ascendancy were crushed for ever.
MR. HUMEthought it not right that the presidents and vice-presidents of these colleges should have been paid during three years for doing nothing.
MR. SPOONERobjected to the amount originally fixed upon for the establishment and carrying on of these colleges, being exceeded. It appeared, that apart from the sum voted for establishing these colleges, 7,000 l a year had been granted since 1845 for carrying them on, which sums, as they had not been brought into operation, had not been expended. Why not take the money for the purpose now stated from the surplus resulting from that grant? He should take the sense of the Committee against the vote.
LORD J. RUSSELLadmitted, that a portion of the 7,000 l. a year granted in 1845 remained over in consequence of the professors not having been appointed; and if that fund could be drawn upon for the purchase of the necessary philosophical apparatus and books, there would be no occasion for this vote. Government, however, considered that grant made for a special purpose, and that they had no power to devote it to any other.
MR. BANKESsaid, that though the sum now asked for might appear inconsiderable, the principle involved was worthy of a discussion, because if, after an Act of Parliament had been passed limiting the expense of a certain establishment, the Government of the present day might claim 12,000 l. additional, what should prevent
360
a future Government making a still greater demand? Those who agreed to the Act in 1845 might have done so because the particular expenditure under it was limited, and at that time money was abundant, and distress not rife. But now distress existed, and money was not abundant, and 12,000 l. at present might perhaps be as important as 100,000 l. in 1845, The rejection of the vote would teach those who brought in Money Bills to take care that what they demanded of the House was sufficient for the purpose; and whenever they applied for a further grant, they, whether in power or out of power, should be told that they had deceived the Parliament.
MR. HUMEthought the Government had acted fairly, if there existed a doubt that this expenditure was not comprehended within the Act. That had been stated to be the case; and, as the money was required for starting the colleges, he should support the vote.
MR. NEWDEGATEinquired whether the income intended for these colleges was accumulating; and whether there was any considerable amount of it in the hands of the Government?
LORD J. RUSSELLreplied, that 21,000 l. were granted in 1845 for the payment of the salaries of professors and other officers, and for defraying the expense of prizes and exhibitions. A considerable portion of that sum had not been issued, because the professors were not yet appointed; and that money would only be applied by the Government to the purposes mentioned in the Act.
The Committee divided :—Ayes 106; Noes 28: Majority 78.

List of the NOES.

Bankes, G.

Morgan, O.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Morris, D.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Muntz, G. F.

Cobbold, J. C.

Mundy, W.

Devereux, J. T.

Newdegate, C. N.

Disraeli, B.

O'Connell, J.

Duncan, G.

Pechell, Capt.

Floyer, J.

Portal, M.

Gwyn, H.

Salwey, Col.

Hastie, A.

Stuart, J.

Henley, J. W.

Walpole, S. H.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Williams, J.

Kershaw, J.

Law, hon. C. E.

TELLERS.

Meagher, T.

Spooner, K,.

Martin, J.

Plumptre, J. P.

The following votes were then agreed to:—
A vote of 65,525 l. to defray the Excess of the Commissariat expenditure.
A vote of 35,386 l. 15 s. 7d. for the Excess of the Ordnance expenditure.
A vote of 500,000 l. for Supplies, 1848, &c.
The House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported on Monday next.

POOR-LAW UNION CHARGES ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
On the Motion of MR. BAINES, the House resolved itself into Committee on this Bill.
In answer to a question from Sir H. WILLOUGHBY,
MR. BAINESsaid, that as so many objections had been raised against the sixth clause, the object of which was to enable the Poor Law Board to unite several parishes to return one guardian, he should withdraw it at the proper time.
On Clause I being proposed,
MR. FLOYERobjected to this clause, by which temporary enactments which were passed last year were continued for one year longer. He considered this to be a very objectionable course to adopt. The defect of the present Act was, that it gave no guide or direction to the board of guardians to enable them to decide who were, and who were not, settled in the parish in which they were resident. He thought the position of boards of guardians was an extremely difficult one, because they had not the facts regarding the chargeability, &c., of the pauper before them, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would direct his attention to amend our legislation in this respect, otherwise the guardians could not administer the poor-law in the satisfactory and uniform manner which was desirable.
MR. BAINESsaid, with respect to the clause under consideration, he wished to say that the Act of last Session, two provisions of which were of a temporary nature, made provision for casting on the common fund of the union the two classes of vagrants, and the irremovable class of paupers under the 9th and 10th Vic, cap. 66. It had been found unjust that the parish where the relieving officer lived should be charged for the relief of all that came to him; and so, also, that the mere accident of a parish having the workhouse within it could not justify the whole charge-ability being thrown upon it. Therefore, it was thought by Parliament, and justly, he thought, that the true, and reasonable, and just course with regard to this class of
362
vagrants, was to charge their relief upon the common fund. That arrangement had been tried last year by Mr. Charles Buller; and he (Mr. Baines) thought it was still to be considered in the light of an experiment. Doubtless some hardship arose in particular cases, but he thought the experiment, on the whole, had succeeded. Therefore, on the present occasion, he could not propose the adoption of a clause to make that state of things permanent, although he considered the result of the experiment had, on the whole, been so satisfactory as to justify him in recommending Parliament to continue it for some time longer.
MR. FLOYERsaid, it had been alleged that the Act of last Session was only a continuance of what was called Mr. Bodkin's Act; but that was totally incorrect. There were three classes of paupers under the Act giving irremovability, as it was termed—first, those who had resided five years in a given place; then the class who were temporarily sick; and, lastly, the class of children, with widows in the first year of their widowhood. Now, the second class, the temporarily sick, were the largest class, and occasioned four-fifths of the expense; they were entirely omitted from Bodkin's Act, which only threw the first of the three classes on the common fund.
MR. BAINESsaid, that it was quite correct that Bodkin's Act provided that the class of paupers who had resided five years, under certain circumstances, should be chargeable to the common fund; but Mr. Charles Boiler's Act went a step further, and included other classes.
Clause 1 was then agreed to; as were Clauses 2 and 3.
The House resumed.
Committee report progress.
The House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Trustees Relief; Newgate Gaol (Dublin).
2a Pupils Protection (Scotland); House of Lords Costs Taxation; Poor Relief (Ireland); Attorneys and Solicitors (Ireland).
Reported,—Sequestrators Remedies; General and Quarter Sessions Courts Procedure.
3a Consolidated Fund.
Received the Royal Assent.—Passengers; Small Debts Act Amendment; Highways (Annual Returns); County Cess (Ireland): Loan Societies; Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction; Soap Duty Allowances; Assaults (Ireland); Silver Coinage; Sheriff of Westmoreland.
PETITIONS PRESRNTED, By the Earl of Harrowby, from Liverpool, and other Places, against the Granting of any New Licenses to Beer Shops, and against any Alteration in the Law of Marriage; also from Cork, against certain Clauses in the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill.

MARRIAGES AND REGISTRATION (SCOTLAND) BILLS.
The EARL of ABERDEENsaid, he had observed from the Votes of the House of Commons yesterday, that Her Majesty's Government had abandoned the Scotch Marriages and Registration Bill, which wore sent down from their Lordships' House some time ago. As he was one of those who took a very decided part in opposing those Bills, and ventured to protest on the Journals of the House against their passing, he could only feel satisfied with such a result; but his object in rising at present was, to state that, although he much deprecated the alteration that had been proposed in the law of marriage in Scotland, he was yet fully sensible, and had always admitted, that great evils arose from the difference of the law on this subject in the two countries. He considered what were called "border marriages" disgraceful to any country, and was especially anxious to see a remedy applied to prevent the evasion of the law of England by the natives of this country. Now, if his noble and learned Friend near him (Lord Brougham) thought fit to reintroduce a Bill on this subject next Session such as he had proposed some years ago, he (the Earl of Aberdeen) would have great satis-

289
faction in supporting him as far as he could; or if some other noble Lord, more competent to deal with the subject, took it up, which might easily be the case, then, also, he (the Earl of Aberdeen) would be most happy to acquiesce. But if neither of these alternatives were adopted, he (the Earl of Aberdeen) would himself next Session lay before the House a measure having for its object to remedy the great evil that had long and most justly been complained of.
LORD BROUGHAMquite agreed with his noble Friend who had just spoken, that it would not be difficult to find a person more fit than himself (Lord Brougham) to bring in a Bill on this subject. But he would, certainly, most willingly support his noble Friend in bringing in his Bill, if he would undertake the responsibility of the task. His (Lord Brougham's) Bill of 1835 was highly approved of by his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Campbell), and was fully explained at the time; and he did not know, but hoped that his noble and learned Friend would undertake to bring in a Bill next Session himself Be that, however, as it might, he (Lord Brougham) would pledge himself thus far, that if no one else would relieve him of the charge, he would himself give their Lordships another opportunity of doing their duty with regard to Scotch marriages.
LORD CAMPBELLdeeply deplored the loss of these two Bills this Session. He had had twice the honour—once during a previous, and also during the present, Session of Parliament—of proposing a change in their legislation with respect to the Scotch marriages; but he hoped that the cause would prosper better under the auspices of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham). He (Lord Campbell) had already used his best exertions to improve the marriage law of his native country; but now he would wash his hands of the subject, and give it over to his noble Friend.
LORD BROUGHAMbegged his noble and learned Friend not to follow his example, and because he (Lord Brougham) had given over the question to his noble Friend near him (the Earl of Aberdeen), transfer the charge of bringing in a Bill to him (Lord Brougham).
The EARL of ABERDEENsaid, the two noble and learned Lords were condoling with each other upon the untimely fate of this most detestable Bill; but he main-
290
tained that if the Bill had not been withdrawn by Her Majesty's Ministers, representative government would have been rendered a mere farce; for the whole Scottish nation were unanimously opposed to the measure. And what or who made the Government withdraw it? Did he? Certainly not; but the fact was, that out of the thirty-three or thirty-four Scotch Members of the other House, they almost all to a man voted against it, and they were, therefore, compelled to withdraw it.
The EARL of MINTOhad looked at the petitions that had been presented against this Bill, and certainly found that they were not petitions against the measures that came before their Lordships; they were against anything rather than them—they were against the grossest misrepresentation of the Bills as they actually stood. He considered the present state of the marriage law a disgrace to any Christian country.
The EARL of HADDINGTONnever thought there was a more general concurrence of public feeling than had existed against this Bill; and he would ask the noble Lord who spoke last whether the religious denominations of every description in Scotland were not adverse to the measure?
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he should present the two Bills in one, and his Bill of 1835, next Session, for the purpose of effecting a complete reform in the Scotch low of marriage.

POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, that he understood that an arrangement had been come to, in consequence of the absence of several noble Lords, that if the Bill were allowed to be read a second time that night, the discussion on the principle of the Bill would be taken on going into Committee. He wished to know if that were so?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that one noble Lord—or, perhaps, one of the noble Lords to whom the noble Lord alluded on the other side of the House—had certainly stated to him that he bad no objection to this Bill being read a second time that evening, upon the understanding that he should have the opportunity, on going into Committee, of making any observations upon it he thought proper; and, if the noble Lord had no objection, he

291
should propose to go into Committee on Tuesday next.
LORD MONTEAGLEbegged to make a few observations respecting the order of proceedings in their Lordships' House. Of late years, a practice has grown up of allowing important measures to be passed through a second reading, pro formâ as it is called. Now, by abandoning the ancient and better rule of taking an effective discussion on the second reading of a contested Bill, the House is sacrificing a great and important principle. The second reading should not be slurred over. A deliberate discussion at that stage is not more useful than it is convenient. It is most convenient that discussions should take place on second readings—should take place for the purpose of eliciting those opinions which will afterwards be produced in the shape of distinct propositions and amendments in the Committee on the Bill. On these grounds, a protest should be made against reading a second time a Bill like that now brought forward, as a matter of course. Besides which, the adoption of such a proceeding in respect to the poor-law, would be misinterpreted at the other side of the Channel; it would lay their Lordships open to a charge of indifference on a subject exciting the most intense anxiety. Nor was he reconciled to this arrangement from the reason by which it was explained or excused—the absence of certain noble Lords from the service of the House. It might suit their pleasure or their convenience to be absent, but that was no reason why a discussion on the second reading should be omitted.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEthought it unnecessary to debate a matter on which there could not be a difference of opinion. There was not the slightest intention on the part of the Government to slur over this important stage of the Bill. He had protested against the postponement of the discussion as a matter of form, and had stated to the noble Lord in question that he should feel it incumbent on him on this occasion to state the provisions of a Bill of so much importance, and it would be open to any noble Lord to express his opinion upon it, upon which a debate might arise. The only understanding he had come to with the noble Lord to whom allusion had been made, was, that he should not be precluded by his absence on this occasion from stating his opinions with respect to the principle of the measure, on the question of going into Committee.
292
Having said thus much, he would proceed to state, in as succinct a form as possible, the provisions of the Bill of which he was now about to move the second reading. It was a Bill to amend the Acts for the more effectual relief of the poor in Ireland. At the time when—in consequence of the alarming destitution prevailing in Ireland, caused by the prevalence of famine in that country, two or three years ago—it was found necessary to provide for the emergency, so unexpected and so great, and so far exceeding anything which had befallen any other country in Europe—at a time when it was found necessary to provide, or to endeavour to provide, something like an adequate remedy, so far as human foresight and prudence could provide for this state of things, so alarming and so revolting to humanity—at that time, in suggesting the remedy, the Government protested against being made responsible for its perfection as a remedy. None of those who had taken part in these discussions, and who had made various amendments, many of which had been adopted—none of those parties had been sanguine enough to believe that a measure which had been adopted hastily—hastily, because no time could be allowed for its preparation—and unexpectedly, because no one could foresee the extent of the calamity in a country in which there was more than the usual proportion of poor—none of those, he said, believed that a measure for such a purpose could be made, under such circumstances, perfect in all its details. It was in that view that the Bill which he then held in his hand had been submitted to the consideration of Parliament; and he thought he should be best consulting the convenience of their Lordships, and at the same time discharging his duty to them in proposing the second reading of the Bill, if, without entering into general considerations with respect to the measure, further than had already been done, or insisting upon the necessity of an enactment of this description, he at once proceeded to explain to their Lordships what were the main provisions more or less effecting amendment, and creating more or less of difference in the law as it at present stood. Those parts of the Bill to which he should first advert as being the most important, and then most likely to create some difference of opinion with some of their Lordships, were the two first clauses, enacting a maximum rate beyond which no electoral division or union could be called upon to contribute for the

293
maintenance of the poor. The unforeseen extent and repetition of the famine in Ireland from year to year, and the positive augmentation of distress created by the operation of the present law, was such as he might say justly to cause very considerable alarm throughout that part of the united kingdom. Under the then circumstances of Ireland, whatever inducements persons might have for investing capital in Ireland, whether in the way of improvement, or of agricultural enterprise, or simply in the purchase of land, it was clear that an alarm must have been created in their minds, lest, hanging over the property which might become theirs, there might be an amount of charge indefinite in its nature, and which might possibly, although not probably, eventually absorb the greater part of their capital. It became, therefore, a great public object to endeavour to remove that alarm; and no other mode of creating the degree of confidence necessary to be generated, seemed to present itself, than that of enacting by law a maximum rate, beyond which no rates should be levied either on the electoral divisions or the unions in that part of the united kingdom. It was easy to come to that conclusion; but it was much more difficult to determine what the maximum should be, and to what limits the power should be exercised of stopping aid when it had arrived at certain bounds. It had appeared to Her Majesty's Government, and it had met with the pretty general concurrence of the other House of Parliament, that, assenting to the principle of a maximum, 5s. in the pound on the rental in each electoral division, nearly presented the limit beyond which it was desirable that the rating should not be carried. But no one who viewed that as the limit, and who had looked at the accounts which from time to time had been presented as to the state of the unions and of the poor-rates in particular parts of Ireland—no one could fail to see that it would be impossible to provide for the poor in certain electoral divisions, without some assistance beyond that which the sum of 5s. in the pound would afford. It was necessary to provide for the deficiency somewhere in Ireland, and it was supplied by a rate imposed on all the unions thus creating a common interest throughout the country in respect to the support of the poor. No one, again, who had looked attentively at the mode in which the administration of relief had been imperfectly carried on, and the
294
difficulty of distinguishing between real poverty, and what was a fraudulent demand, but must feel it to be of the utmost importance that the greatest number of persons possible, that the ratepayers on the spot and in the neighbourhood, should have an opportunity of keeping down the amount of rate to be so levied. It had, therefore, been found necessary to assign a limit to the further rate, and that limit had been fixed at 2s. in the pound, to be levied on the union in aid of the electoral divisions where the rate of 5s. in the pound should either be actually levied, or where it should diligently have been attempted to be levied. But when he said that the limit had been found in 2s., he did not mean to state it as a matter of opinion that that sum was likely to be called for in all unions. He was not prepared to say that all these rates put together provided an adequate remedy for the misery and poverty prevailing in Ireland; but he indulged a hope that in most cases it would be found to be so. At all events, should circumstances be adverse, and should Ireland, under the dispensation of Providence, be visited with similar disasters to those which had afflicted her for several years past, the rate having been collected from one end of the country to the other, she would be placed in a position different to that which she before occupied, and she would come before the Imperial Parliament of this country with proofs in her hands of the exertions she had made—with proofs of the degree of pressure which those exertions had occasioned, and would present a claim for that consideration which he would not anticipate now, but which could not be forgotten hereafter. At all events, it would be a consolation to us to know that we had alleviated an existing calamity, and that we had put that part of the united kingdom in a position to show the rest of the kingdom and the world at large that she had not been wanting in the exertions she had been called upon to make. Having said this much with reference to the first two clauses, which were the only parts of the Bill as to which he anticipated any difference of opinion on principle, he would pass on to the clause providing for the alteration of claims founded on residence. It was proposed to alter the clause by making the claim on the electoral district in which the parties had been longest usually resident. There was another provision that the cost of relief of

295
the destitute poor not resident in the union for the last three years next preceding, should be charged according to the provisions of a former Act, namely, "An Act for the Relief of the Destitute Poor in Ireland." The fourth clause provided for the division of accounts difficult to adjust between the unions and electoral divisions, on any alteration of the limits taking place; and it was a provision to which, as he believed it to be equitable and just, there would be no opposition. The fifth and sixth clauses were of considerable importance, and provided for the erection as soon as possible of additional workhouses, in unions proposed to be severed from existing unions, and to afford facilities which did not now exist for investigating the cases of the poor. The seventh clause provided for that "which experience had shown to be extremely necessary to the working of this law, namely, an alteration and modification with respect to boards of guardians. The clause provided that the qualification of persons eligible to become guardians might be altered with the approbation of the commissioners, who might fix a different qualification and a different value in different electoral divisions. With respect to the difficulty of procuring eligible persons to serve in this capacity, the eighth clause provided that in certain cases nonresident proprietors in the adjacent parts of the country, not residing in the union, should be enabled to become guardians, in addition to the resident guardians chosen in the first instance, wherever a deficiency of guardians required such places to be filled. He anticipated no objection to a proposal for thus giving additional efficacy to the law in this respect. The ninth clause provided for the division of electoral divisions for the purpose of electing guardians. To the tenth clause he was aware there might be entertained some objection. It bore upon the liability of rent charges by way of annuity and jointure to deduction on account of poor-rates. These rent charges having been established at a time when a poor-law did not exist in Ireland, and was not even contemplated, it had been deemed just and equitable that they should be compelled to contribute to the rate, instead of leaving the whole burden to be borne by the property to which they were charged. The eleventh clause provided that every person receiving rent in respect of property used for charitable or public purposes, should be liable to be
296
rated to the extent of one-half the poundage of every rate made for the electoral division in which the property may be situated. The twelfth clause provided that a tenant should not deduct from his rent more than one-half of the rates actually paid by him. Another provision, and a most important one, to which he should refer, was one that was framed with a view to encourage the improvement of estates, and the laying out of capital upon them, both by landlords who were already in possession of them, and by capitalists who might hereafter be induced to invest their money in the purchase of them. It was this—that for any improvement that might be effected upon land whereby its value should be enhanced, no additional poor-rate was to be levied for a certain number of years. Whatever improvement might be effected, and to whatever extent, no poor-rate beyond that upon the present value of the estate was to be levied for the next seven years. There was to be no additional poor-rate levied upon the improvements. That provision he considered a most important one for the encouragement of agricultural improvements. There remained little more to be stated regarding the Bill. There was one clause, the eighteenth, of some importance. It provided a more effectual remedy for levying the rates than at present existed. It was most important that the rate should be levied effectually, and this provision was for the purpose of enabling the rate to be recovered by a civil-bill process, by which it would become a judgment of court, affecting the land subject to the rate, but affecting that part only upon which it was due and unpaid. No person could have expressed greater surprise than he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) himself did, when he found by the evidence laid before the Committee, that it was possible at present to pursue the recovery of the poor-rate, not only over the entire estate, but even to the extent of confiscating the land. There remained only two more clauses to which he should refer, and they were not introduced originally by Her Majesty's Government, but upon the representation of independent Members. Those two clauses were for the purpose of enabling districts and unions to tax themselves for the purpose of assisting the emigration of the poor from their localities. It was a power afforded to the poor-law guardians, upon receiving the permission of the Poor Law Commissioners,

297
to levy an additional rate upon their districts, upon the faith of which they could borrow money, either from persons who were willing to lend it, or from the Consolidated Fund Commissioners, with which they could enable persons from those districts to emigrate. He had now arrived at the close of his statement, he had mentioned the various objects and provisions of the Bill, and had briefly stated the reasons by which those provisions were supported. He was not prepared to say that it was a perfect measure which he had the honour of submitting to their Lordships. He was far from saying that no further improvement could be made. So long as the law was in operation, so long as the circumstances of the country were liable to change, it could not be assorted that no further alterations would be needed. It was not five years, not ten years' experience of its working, that would constitute a period sufficient to enlighten either that or the other House of Parliament, so as to enable them to produce a perfect measure. During a long period it would be the duty of both that and the other House to be open to the consideration of the law upon a subject of such deep importance. But it was sufficient for the purpose of the present Bill to say, that it would effect most important practical improvements in the management and the working of the law. Feeling the difficulties that attended that law, their Lordships would be bound to render it, by every means in their power—not easy, because easy it could not be made; not light, because, situated as the country was, it could not be made light; but free from as many difficulties as they could remove from it—free to such extent as human care, legislation, and foresight, could provide against. Trusting that by the care which their Lordships would give to the measure in Committee, it would be thus far perfected, he begged to move that the Bill be read a second time.
LORD MONTEAGLE: I think, my Lords, that you cannot feel any surprise from what I have already stated, that I consider the present question as infinitely too important to be permitted to pass without serious discussion. It is true that but few of your Lordships' House are now present; but, whatever your numbers may be, I feel that accident to be no reason for shrinking from the discussion. I feel it to be my duty to call your attention, and that of the public, to the present Bill; I feel it due likewise to the honour of Parliament,
298
that a measure of such importance as the present should not be allowed to pass silently.
I could have wished that the enactments of the present Bill had permitted the President of the Council to have proceeded regularly, by directing the Clerk to read the paragraph of Her Majesty's Speech from the Throne relating to Ireland; to enter, as read, the report of your Select Committee on the Irish Poor Laws, and thus to have shown, by a regular chain of authority, evidence, and reasoning, that the Bill now presented fulfilled the gracious intentions of our Sovereign, was consistent with the judgment of the Select Committee named by your Lordships, was framed upon the evidence taken, and, above all, that it was a remedy adequate to meet the unexampled exigencies of the present crisis. Unfortunately, the character of the Bill precludes my noble Friend from pursuing this otherwise strictly Parliamentary course. I grieve to think, under any circumstances, that Select Committees of either House should be granted merely as legislative toys for the amusement of Members of Parliament, from which no practical good was to be derived. I have always thought that when subjects of such deep interest as the wants and sufferings of a nation are recommended from the Throne by Her Majesty's responsible advisers as deserving immediate consideration when, in pursuance of such recommendation. Select Committees have been appointed, witnesses of high authority examined, and great labour, time, and expense devoted to the inquiry, some slight attempt at least should be made to realise, in subsequent legislative measures, the gracious intentions of the Crown, the suggestions of the witnesses, and the judgment authoritatively pronounced by the Committee. Unhappily, no such results are attained in the present instance.
I complain of the Bill, and I complain likewise of the speech of the President of the Council, not only for what it contains, but for that which it omits. I complain specially of the speech of my noble Friend (the Marquess of Lansdowne), because in relation to a Bill which is founded exclusively upon the pressing wants of the present time, he has altogether omitted any mention of the existing distress, or any estimate, however vague, of its extent and intensity; and because be has not even made an attempt to prove that the measure now under discussion is adequate to remove

299
that existing distress, or even to mitigate its pressure. I allege, on the contrary, fearlessly, that this measure, even taken in conjunction with the other propositions brought forward during the previous months of the Session by Her Majesty's Government, is utterly inadequate to meet the present exigencies of Ireland. If your Lordships think that, by your past legislation, you have really solved the awful problem submitted to your judgment, you will be deceiving yourselves, and lulling yourselves to rest by most fallacious hopes. Those hopes will rather be in accordance with what you may benevolently desire, than with what you can reasonably believe. If Parliament is prorogued in the course of the next week or fortnight, let not Members return to their own happy and peaceful homes under the delusive impression that Irish distress has been removed by the legislation of the Imperial Parliament. Your measures have scarcely had any tendency towards the performance of that great public duty.
I shall endeavour to follow my noble Friend through his short, but clear and able, statement. With that object I shall proceed to an analysis of the Bill on the table. The first clause to which my noble Friend has referred, was framed with the object of establishing a maximum beyond which the poor-rate of Ireland is not to pass. The object and justification of such a clause, is the encouragement which it is supposed you thereby give to outlay of capital upon land in Ireland, and the consequent increased demand for labour, and augmented production of agricultural wealth. It was intended as a relief to the present race of proprietors, and as an encouragement to those who might hereafter be disposed to purchase Irish estates, by giving to both classes a security against the enhancement of rates beyond a certain fixed standard. I am happy to observe, from my noble Friend's argument, that he at least is not one of those dogmatists who consider that the absolute annihilation of the existing proprietors, and a total change in the ownership of land, is the one thing needful, and the first step to produce any permanent improvement. My noble Friend, it seems, admits that whatever encouragements are given, should be extended impartially to the present as well as to the future possessors of property. My noble Friend considers that it is both useful and just to hold out inducements to the present landowners to lay out their
300
capital in the improvement of their estates, as well as to the new purchasers who may be tempted to invest; but then such inducements, if given at all, should be honestly and sincerely given—they should not be based upon false pretences; we should not bait our traps for capitalists with fraud. Nor, if we attempt to do so, will those capitalists be so easily caught. The principle of a maximum is absolutely worthless, unless we can convince the public that it will be strictly adhered to. If its permanence cannot he relied on, what purchasers will be so rash as to expend their money upon a doubtful contingency? Have you ever tried a maximum rate in England? In all cases I feel desirous of testing this and other propositions by an English standard. Our experience of the poor-laws in Ireland is too short to afford us many Irish precedents. We have no facts from whence to generalise; but, I repeat my question, have you ever tried a maximum rate in England, and with that result? You have done so. You have done so more than once; and more than once it has failed you, and its inexpediency has been proved experimentally. You tried it in your incorporated unions. You established it by statute law; but in the year 1796 you were constrained to pass a new Act, in the preamble of which it was set forth, that—
"Whereas several Acts of Parliament have been passed by which the amount of poor-rate is limited to a certain sum not exceeding the average amount levied for the support of the poor in the several districts for a number of years;"
And then followed an enactment that—
"Such maxims having been found insufficient, it should thereafter be increased 100 per cent."
Here we see a maximum established, and here we see its absolute failure. Is not this conclusive evidence that a maximum cannot be relied upon? But this is far from being all. In the year 1812 the maximum, which had been doubled in 1796, was again found to be inadequate for the purposes which it was intended to meet. Parliament felt themselves called upon, not merely to increase, but absolutely to repeal that doubled maximum—rejecting the principle altogether as vicious and impracticable, and permitting the incorporated unions to impose any amount of rate considered necessary for the support of the poor. If such has been the case in England, I should like to know whether the habits of the people of Ireland are so steadfast, and the progress of distress so slow,

301
as to make it improbable that a result like those of 1796 and 1812 would not be produced in Ireland. What capitalist with these facts before him could be induced to place the slightest confidence in the permanence of a maximum in Ireland, if it should now be rashly established?
But the principle on which it is proposed by this Bill to fix a maximum, is indefensible, and I may say absurd, upon other grounds. There was at least some plausibility in the original maximum established in England; it professed to be founded on experience—it was calculated on the average of the rates paid in each district during a specified number of years. The estimate of the future rate was thus made and varied according to the circumstances of each locality, as proved by the past. But we are now called upon to adopt in Ireland a standard purely empirical; a standard made uniform by law, and applied alike all over the country; this, too, in reference to a country where the difference between province and province is extreme to a degree unknown in English experience. It was neither founded upon, nor guided by, any average of past expenditure, nor yet by any estimate of future wants. No reason could be shown, or even suggested, for adopting a maximum of 5s. rather than one of 4s. or of 6s. Again, a maximum, by way of a definite poundage rate, must necessarily imply a uniform valuation to which such poundage applies. Now, the evidence taken before the Valuation Commissioners proves that the valuation in different parts of Ireland varies no less than from 30 to 40 and 50 per cent. Thus a maximum of 5s., though nominally uniform, will, in fact, be 5s. in one instance, and 10 s. in another. And here it is necessary to refer to another part of the case. The variation in the condition of the people is even greater than the irregularities of the valuation. In the union of Dunshaughlin, for instance, the property, as compared with the population, stands in a ratio exceeding 100 to 1; whilst in the union of Glenties it is but 7 to 1. Are your Lordships prepared to apply the same maximum to cases so utterly dissimilar? A proposition more untenable, one more absurd, was never submitted to rational men. I presume the blunder is defensible only because it is proposed for Ireland.
But the proposed maximum will turn out, if more closely examined, to be no 5s. maximum at all. The 5s. maximum was practically abandoned during the pro-
302
gress of the Bill through the House of Commons, where very material changes in its enactments were made. It is to me clear that my noble Friend (the President of the Council) has not been made aware of those subsequent enactments. He has reasoned exclusively from the original Bill; he who is all candour and truthfulness would not otherwise have omitted that which is essential to a just consideration of the question. It is not a maximum of 5s. only with which we have to deal; to that maximum must be added a contingent charge of 10 per cent for a union rate, a certain charge of 2½ per cent for a general rate in aid, and to this was also added during the discussions on the Bill in the House of Commons, a heavy and varying charge for the amount of debts upon the several unions, which to that period seemed to have been forgotten or left unprovided for. In the thirty-two distressed unions specified in Mr. Twisleton's last return, the net debts in March, 1849, amounted to no less than 231,171 l., being more than double the amount of the expenses for the in maintenance of the poor, and nearly equal to the whole expense of out-relief. The estimated receipt of rates for the same half year does not amount to 200,000 l. Attention was necessarily called in the other House to the absence of all provision for these debts. The extent of such omission is exemplified by the following table:—

Union.

Net, Debt duo March 25, 1849.

Ballina

19,032

Ennistimon

12,948

Galway

11,080

Kenmare

25,596

Kilrush

13,068

Roscommon

11,023

Scarriff

14,421

Ennis

11,288

It was therefore found indispensably necessary that in addition to the 5s. maximum, and to the 12½ per cent rates in aid, provision should be made for the union debts, and it has been made accordingly. A more complete demolition of the original Bill, and a more signal proof of the want of knowledge on the part of those who had framed it, could not have been given. On the other hand, the provision necessarily made for these debts was a demolition equally signal of the principle of the maximum. Had not some provision been made for the debts, one of two fatal consequences must have ensued; the rates being insufficient for the double purpose of the debts and the current expenses, either the

303
poor would have been left without an adequate provision, or the contractors and other creditors of the unions would have been deprived of their security. Take, for example, the case of Messrs. Russell and Co., of Limerick. To that respectable mercantile house certain unions are indebted to the amount of 46,000 l. By what right can those gentlemen be deprived of any security which they now possess for the recovery of their claim? Passing from this point to another, the Bill makes a further addition to the possible charges under the clauses for Emigration. Should these provisions come into operation, the maximum will further be considerably increased. Reviewing all these facts, is it possible to expect that capitalists should be induced to purchase or proprietors to improve land upon the faith of this supposed maximum? more especially when, judging by the English precedent, no security can be felt, that a maximum, already shown to be excessive, will not be doubled at some future time. The proposition of a maximum is therefore too monstrous to obtain faith in the minds of the most credulous. The lowest boy in the lowest class of the very worst of the national schools over which my noble Friend (the Lord President) exercises his salutary authority, would prove arithmetically that this proposition for a maximum rate is an absurdity in itself, and, if relied upon by purchasers, will be discovered to be an imposture.
But the principle of maximum is connected in this Bill inseparably with a rate in aid—the two proposals must stand or fall together. In proposing that the rate in aid of 10 per cent shall be enforced at the will and pleasure of the Poor Law Commissioners, your Lordships are called upon to legislate in a manner fatal to the real interests of Ireland. The general rate in aid of 2½ per cent stands condemned by the third report of the Select Committee, which was carried by a large majority, and only passed your Lordships' House by two votes. But, bad as that measure was, the union rate in aid of 10 per cent contained in this Bill is infinitely worse, both as productive of future danger and of present mischief. In the first place, it should be remembered that this union rate in aid is proposed as permanent. In the second place, it was a tax of 10 per cent, not 2½ per cent. Your Lordships should recollect that a tax upon property of 10 per cent was the highest amount of tax on property
304
ever levied in England, and that during the war, when we were contending for our national existence. The principle, too, on which this rate in aid rests is wholly unprecedented in English legislation. Only two cases have been referred to as authorities in which on any of the 14,000 parishes of England a rate in aid has been imposed since the days of Elizabeth. It is preposterous to consider these two cases as precedents, when they are contrary to the otherwise unbroken chain of experience. The case of Worcester applied to a few small parishes in a town, and appeared little more than a friendly contribution among neighbours. The fatal case of Choleshury is evidence the other way. Mr. Gulson observes—
"The rate in aid did not relieve that parish. It became waste and uncultivated, notwithstanding the rate in aid."
If English experience is then to be referred to (and it is our safest guide), we find it to be contrary to the principle of a permanent rate in aid, more especially when the tax is made dependent upon the mere arbitrium of the Poor Law Commissioners. Your Lordships are also called to adopt it in opposition to the evidence of all the most authoritative witnesses examined before your Committee. This difficulty will be greatly enhanced when it is considered that the claim for a rate in aid is made dependent, not upon the amount bonâ fide paid in any electoral division, but on the amount assessed, together with such lesser payment as the commissioners consider just; for
—"this will, undoubtedly, operate as a bounty upon non-payment, I think I may defy you practically to work out the proposition. I am satisfied that an attempt to do so will create inextricable difficulty."
Such are the words of Mr. Gulson.
Again, it is clear that a union rate in aid cannot come into operation at all within the distressed districts. Electoral divisions separately insolvent cannot become solvent in their collective capacity. This lies beyond even what is termed Parliamentary omnipotence. Connaught, for the greater part, cannot furnish means for paying this 10 per cent rate. But let us proceed farther. Take the union of Glen-tics, for example, where 43,000 people are to be supported upon a rental of 16,000 l In that union there is but one single electoral division, that of Fintown, which is capable of paying a rate in aid. The electoral division of Fintown is valued

305
at 425 l. only, therefore the 10 per cent rate will produce but 42 l The contribution, consequently, of 42 l as a union rate would be absurd, if considered in relation to the wants of a population of 43,000. But this miserable contribution of 42 l. could only be obtained by the taxation of the immediate lessor in Fintown, and the funds for supplying it must he afforded by his large expenditure of capital upon his estate.
In the union of Donegal, containing 41,371 inhabitants, and valued at 31,637 l., I believe that there are but three electoral divisions which are capable of sustaining a rate in aid, these being the property of the Earl of Arran, Mr. Hamilton, and a young and gallant officer, a kinsman of my own (Mr. Leslie). The more prosperous condition of these three districts is attributable solely to the large expenditure made by the proprietors in their improvement. In consequence of such expenditure I am informed that the estate of Mr. Leslie is at the present moment comparatively relieved from distress, consequently there is but little pauperism, and the rates are light. But let the 10 per cent rate in aid be imposed upon Mr. Leslie's estate, and it becomes at once burdened to the same extent with the neighbouring pauperised districts. Thus he would have re-imposed upon his property by Act of Parliament those heavy rates which he has endeavoured to escape from by great labour and a generous expenditure. Nor would this have the effect of providing adequately for the pauperised districts. The rate in aid would, therefore, be at once an absurdity and an injustice. A similar instance will be found in the union of Gal-way. The population of that union amounts to 88,973, the valuation to 100,777 l., audit consists of twelve electoral divisions. Of these twelve districts that of Galway alone, which is valued at 44,812 l. is capable of paying a union rate of 10 per cent; this rate would produce 4,480 l., and no more. But the 88,000 inhabitants of Galway union required, in addition to the rate collected during the last year, an expenditure of no less than 23,993 l. It is obvious that the rate in aid of 4,400 l., however ruinous to the electoral division, would be wholly inadequate to the wants of the Galway union.
A farther, and a still more conclusive, objection applies to the Bill. The rate in aid is to be exacted, not when the maximum rate of 5s. shall have been collected,
306
but when so much has been levied within that amount as in the judgment of the Poor Law Commissioners shall appear to be sufficient. It is therefore a mere delusion to hold out the maximum rate payable in neighbouring districts as a protection against the imposition of a rate in aid, when the whole depends upon the discretion of the Poor Law Commissioners. The Bill places the property of one man at the discretion of another, that other being a nominee of the Crown, to an extent never before attempted in any civilised country.
On those two grounds, therefore, in a future stage of the Bill, I shall confidently ask the House to omit those two clauses altogether. The maximum rate is a delusion and an absurdity, and the rate in aid an injustice to which I feel assured your Lordships cannot on reflection agree. No such principle has ever, to my knowledge, been previously affirmed. If the House should refuse to negative these clauses, I shall then propose that the duration of the rate in aid should be limited to two years. My noble Friend has said, and has said most truly, that these are the two great principles of the Bill. I admit that they are so. But, if my reasoning has made an impression upon your Lordships' minds—if I have shown that there exists no authority, analogy, or common sense to recommend either the maximum or the rate in aid—I feel assured that these clauses must be rejected. There never was exhibited so large a sacrifice of principle, such an abandonment of all fairness and justice, such a disregard for the equitable rights of property, as are manifested in this part of the Bill."
To proceed farther. It is clear from the evidence that without a reduction in the size of unions, and without the erection of additional workhouses, the poor-law cannot he carried into effect consistently with humanity, with discrimination, or with economy:—
"From the extreme point of Binghams Town to Ballina is more than 42 English miles. If a pauper has to go twice and return, he has 160 miles to travel," (Bourke.)
"Such instances operate as a bar to the relief the Act contemplated." (Gulson, 858.)
"When we found unions so large that a pauper might be required to travel thirty miles to a work house, there could be no hesitation in reducing a distance so prohibitory. In one case it has been stated that a man walked 150 miles before he was ultimately admitted into the house." (Boundary Report, p. 8.)
"Parties have, on transmission from such distances, sunk under the fatigue and died on the roadside." (Martin, 2,549.)

307
On this and much additional evidence to the same effect, the Boundary Commissioners and your Lordships' Committee have united in recommending reduced unions and an increased number of workhouses. Yet the Bill is silent on this subject. The Government is surely bound, in common justice to the country, as the responsible advisers of the Crown, and as the authors of the present Bill, to give effect to this recommendation. It cannot be operative unless the new workhouses are assisted, as the original workhouses were. What had Parliament done when the first poor-law passed in 1838? Parliament had felt it indispensable to give public assistance for this purpose. On what principle could that assistance be now refused? Is Ireland less distressed now than in 1838? Those noble Lords who attended the Select Committee are well aware that there is no exaggeration in the striking statements of Count Strzelecki. He observed—
"I have had occasion to visit civilised communities under most latitudes and longitudes, including the aboriginal races in North and South America, the South Sea Islands, New Zealand, and Australia; and I have not found anywhere else men subject to misery of such an aggravated character as are the Irish peasantry of the western unions." (8,561.)
He compares it to the state of Tuscany in the time of famine, described by Sismondi. If that be so, is it possible that the Government can be contented with a barren enactment, recommending new workhouses, without providing facilities for their creation? If the Government are sincere in their recommendations, they should furnish the means for carrying out the principle practically. If they do not, let me entreat them, at least, to expunge that clause from the Bill, which, without increasing the means of relief, will perplex all poor-law administration, and will set one board of guardians at variance with another, by attempting to render a single workhouse available for two distinct unions. Without a provision for distinct workhouse accommodation, the Bill will be utterly impracticable.
The noble Marquess has touched but slightly upon the 18th Clause of the Bill for the recovery of rates. He did indeed vouchsafe to say, in passing, that there was some novelty in it. I shall endeavour to explain what that novelty is, and to point out its injustice and its danger. When the Poor Law of 1838 was intro-
308
duced, two modes were provided for the recovery of rates. The one, a summons before the petty sessions, and a warrant of distress; the other, a proceeding by civil bill before the assistant barrister. From, the decree of the assistant barrister an appeal lay to the judge of assize, in order to avoid any local bias, and to obtain a higher legal authority. In 1842, my noble Friend (the Earl of St. Germans) introduced an Act for amending the Poor Law. This Bill was in several respects necessary. Under its provisions the owners of all tenements valued at less than 4l. were exempted from rating, and such rates were, for the first time, laid upon the landlord, or immediate lessor. These tenements were more than 500,000 in number, and they included more than half the ratepayers in Ireland. For the recovery of these rates, in addition to the remedies by distress, and by civil bill, a third mode of proceeding was introduced, and guardians were authorised to institute suits and actions in the superior courts in Dublin. This might be necessary where the landlords resided out of the jurisdiction of the local courts. But nothing more was contemplated than to obtain, through the superior courts, the same remedy which under ordinary circumstances the civil-bill decree or the justice's warrant would have afforded. This additional remedy could not, however, be resorted to by any board of guardians without the express sanction of the Poor Law Commissioners, and it was expressly limited to the cases of the 4l. tenement, where the landlord was made previously responsible. It never entered into the mind of my noble Friend, in proposing the Bill, nor, as I believe, into the mind of any one who supported it, that by thus giving a jurisdiction to the superior courts. Parliament was doing more than giving to those superior courts, within their enlarged jurisdiction, the same power which had previously been exercised by the local tribunals. It was not till within the present year, and, I believe, within a very few months, that a most important change has been effected in the law, not made by any distinct or avowed enactment, but as an unexpected incident traceable to a clause passed with another intent. It was discovered that a judgment obtained for poor's rate, in consequence of a suit in the superior courts, became a lien upon the real estate of the defendant. This principle is unknown in the law of England. I should have felt warranted in asking a

309
repeal of this enactment, involving such an unexpected and important consequence; if defensible at all, it ought to have been the result of distinct legislation, adopted after free discussion. The present Bill, so far from remedying this evil and injustice, carries it infinitely farther. Perhaps English gentlemen might be apt to say, although their lands are subject to no such charge, that it is right to make Irish freehold estates subject to be sold for poor's rates; but will such English gentlemen defend the principle that our estates are to be made liable to judgments and sale, not for our own debt, but for the debt of another, and that other very possibly a fraudulent tenant, who, after withholding all payment of rent, absconding from the land, and carrying off all his stock and other effects, leaves the estate subject to an arrear of rate which may be recovered, under this Bill, by a judgment against the landlord, and a sale of his estate. This result is distinctly contained in the enactments now under consideration. The Select Committee of your Lordships' House, of which five Cabinet Ministers were Members recommended that the powers of proceeding in the superior courts should be withdrawn; that rates should be in future recovered at petty sessions, by warrant, or before the assistant barrister by decree, subject to appeal, as I have already explained. The Bill is thus in direct opposition to the report of the Committee. By the Bill, at an expense of 5s., and with scarcely any notice, a decree being obtained in the local court, it may be registered in the superior courts in Dublin; that registration gives to the decree the force of a judgment; and thus no individual is safe from having his landed property subjected to such judgments, not only for his own debt, but also for the debt of a fraudulent and runaway tenant. To complete the injustice, the Bill also proposes to give such judgment priority over any charge or incumbrance, except, indeed, claims duo to the Crown. Is this just or reasonable? The landlord is subjected, the moment such judgment is obtained, to an application for a receiver, or for a sale of his estates. He is also subjected to all the expense of such a proceeding. For the correction of the existing evil, and to prevent its going farther, I shall propose to your Lordships to follow the recommendation of your own Committee, and to allow of no proceedings in the superior courts for the recovery of rates—amending the
310
existing law, however, so as to preclude any fraudulent evasion of rates.
I now proceed to state another objection to this Bill. I strongly object to that clause which, for the first time, subjects jointures and other annuities charged on land to the payment of poor's rates. Why are the owners of this particular description of property to be subjected to this assessment? They are selected because it is known that they are defenceless. The landlord and occupier have more or less of power to control the imposition and the expenditure of rates, but the widow and the annuitant are neither elected guardians, nor are they qualified to serve as such, yet for rates imposed by others they are now made responsible. The clause is indefensible upon another principle. An annuity is frequently granted as the consideration for money lent. Now, let me suppose the case of 10,000 l. lent by Mr. Gurney, and secured by an annuity, and 10,000 l. lent by Baron Rothschild, and secured by a mortgage; both sums being lent to the same person, and secured on the same estate. On what principle of justice can you defend the imposition of a poor's-rate on Mr. Gurney, when you allow Baron Rothschild to go free? The injustice and the want of generosity are alike manifest. You dare not tax the mortgagee, because he is at liberty to foreclose, or to raise the rate of interest. You do tax the annuitant, because he is in your power, and cannot resist your injustice.
I feel some surprise at the mode in which the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) has disposed of the Emigration Clauses. He has told us that they were introduced by a very respectable Member of Parliament, and formed no part of the Government Bill; they are treated as matters of comparative indifference. Are Her Majesty's Ministers prepared individually, as well as collectively, to justify such an opinion? Can they, with the evidence before them, either state that emigration is unnecessary, or that it is now going on so extensively, so rapidly, and so satisfactorily, that it neither requires aid or guidance? But is this consistent with their own acts? The First Lord of the Treasury had himself proposed, in the Select Committee, that power should be given to impose rates of 2s. 6d. in the pound, or one-eighth of the whole rental of Ireland, for the purposes of emigration. I therefore have at least Lord John Russell's authority for my assertion, that it is neces-

311
sary and expedient to assist emigration from Ireland. Unless, therefore, you undervalue that noble Lord's authority, it is an invention and a calumny on the part of those who describe emigration as a selfish device of the landlord to get rid of a burdensome population. Lord J. Russell would not have appropriated 1,600,000 l for a purpose so indefensible. It is true there is a large emigration now in progress;—that emigration will and must increase; but of what elements is it composed? It is the emigration of the most active and industrious classes; it is the emigration of the small capitalists; of those whom you grieve to lose, and whom you would readily make large sacrifices to retain.
Captain Farren says—
"Those who are principally going are the holders of land." (6,338.) "Those who have means are leaving the country, and therefore the country, to a certain extent, will lose." (6,340.)
Colonel Clarke observes—
"You take away the best qualities of the population." (7,796.) "The best prop of every country is the middle class, who are now quitting Ireland; it is only upon that class that you can depend for the stability of the country; and I look upon every individual taking himself away, and possessing capital and intelligence, as a positive loss; and that in a double degree, because he leaves behind him those who are a dead weight upon the land."
Mr. Senior is equally explicit. He observes—
"Under the existing system of emigration, left to natural causes, precisely the people go whom you would wish to keep, and precisely the people stay whom you wish to go." (1,845.) "Facts have come to my knowledge proving that very large sums of money are taken away by emigrants to the United States. Those that go are generally, in the first place, the most energetic and best part of our population; and, secondly, they are persons whose departure diminishes the remaining capital." (1,854.)
Colonel Knox Gore expresses the same opinions:—
"The emigrants are persons who have capital; they are a loss in both ways; they created capital by their labour, and had sufficient capital remaining to keep them afloat; they had a good deal of means—200 l., 100 l. 70 l.," &c. (2,132.) "The class going are of a better class than the small farmers; they are holders of fifty acres and upwards." (Kincaid, 3,128.) "There will be a large emigration of farmers from Gonnaught this year." (Bourke, 3,194.)
Mr. Brett observes, in relation to the county of Mayo—
"All the industrious classes who have the means of going at all are going; farmers and tradespeople seeing no likelihood of realising a support for themselves and families; they see nothing but ruin and misery around them, and the certainty of spend-
312
ing their capital by remaining idle at home." (4,995.)
Such is the emigration for which my noble Friend the Postmaster General took credit some short time since, and which he seemed fearful to discourage. The emigration of such industrious small capitalists who, when they found they could not profitably cultivate land in Ireland, quitted the country, has led to the abandonment of farms, and has produced the existing waste and desolation. To rely upon such emigration is as great an error as it would be, in a case of disease, to rely upon the fatal bleeding of an artery in place of the opening of a vein. It is arterial blood which is now flowing in Ireland. I have ever contended that the emigration which is most required from Ireland is that which would likewise be most beneficial to our colonies. Let that emigration be but assisted, and we shall check an emigration which is morally, socially, and economically injurious. It is an error to suppose that the emigration of capitalists is that which will be most useful in the colonies. I can refer to cases in which it would be as mischievous to the colonies to add to capital without accompanying that capital by labour, as it would be to Ireland to retain its labour, and to lose capital. It is not capital so much as labour which is required in New South Wales; it is rather labour to make colonial capital productive; in the Australian colonies its sheep are slaughtered and boiled down for tallow, for want of hands to shear them. The universal complaint from those colonies is, the insufficiency and high price of labour. If we encourage the emigration of capitalists, we raise the the price of labour, and thus inflict an evil upon the colony which receives the capital, and on Ireland whence the capital is withdrawn. If these observations be true—and they rest upon undeniable evidence—how is it possible to treat this great question lightly? The clauses of the Bill respecting emigration are important as affirming the principle; but they must be strengthened and rendered practical if the Legislature seeks to perform its duties towards Ireland. I shall propose Amendments for that purpose.
In the third report of the Committee on the Poor Laws, which I had the honour of preparing, and which was agreed to by a majority of twelve independent Members of all parties, English as well as Irish, voting against five Cabinet Ministers and the Master of the Buckhounds, there were

313
contained recommendations wholly opposed to the principles of the present Bill. In that report the principle of the rate in aid was unequivocally, and, as it appears to me, incontestably disproved. But, even in the last report of that Committee, a report presented by the Lord Steward, there were many recommendations which I am entitled to call upon the Government to realise. In that report it was stated, as the unanimous opinion of the Committee, that no permanent system for the relief of the poor can he safely and beneficially carried out in Ireland, unless by a recurrence to the principles of the original Poor Law Act of 1838, excluding the present system of outdoor relief. This was practically the principle of the English Poor Law Amendment Act, as originally framed. Such avowedly was the principle of the Irish Bill introduced by the Government of Lord Melbourne. Without a recurrence to that principle, experience had now demonstrated that there was no chance of carrying on the poor-law with any effect in Ireland. Not only was that principle laid down in the last report, to which five Members of the Cabinet agreed, but it was also asserted in the most bold and uncompromising manner by an eminent Statesman in the other House of Parliament—I allude to Sir Robert Peel. He had the manliness and courage to assort that there was neither safety for property, nor for administration of the poor-law, until the necessity for excluding outdoor relief was acknowledged. I seek in vain in the present Bill for any enactment which asserts this great truth. It is excluded from the Government measure. In thus proposing to reform the poor-law, they are trying to perform Hamlet with the part of Hamlet omitted. From this great error they have been driven to the expedient of proposing to confiscate the property of one district in Ireland, in the vain hope of relieving the pauperism of another. The Bill before us at once deprives industry of its just reward, and Ireland of its only hope.
I shall now allude to the question of the division of unions and of electoral divisions. At an early period of the Session, the President of the Council stated, that although the new boundaries might be carried into effect without the special sanction of Parliament, he yet thought that it was right to obtain a legislative authority for what was proposed. This engagement has not been performed in the Bill under consideration. It is not recognised. It is
314
not even alluded to. Neither is any provision made for the erection of new workhouses, although it is evident that without such arrangements it is impossible to revert to the principles of the first poor-law, or even to administer that law as it exists. An attempt to appropriate one workhouse to two unions is worse than useless. It is mischievous and dangerous. Without new workhouses a limitation of the area of taxation is useless. I know there are many who attach what appears to me an undue importance to this latter measure. They consider it not only as needful, but as the one thing or the only thing needful. In my judgment, however desirable, and even essential, it may be, it cannot be considered, like the talismanic words of open sesame, the means of removing all obstructions. But the advocates of a reduced area of taxation must indeed be easily contented if they are satisfied with the provisions of the present Bill. Even supposing that their just expectations were fulfilled by the Government, must they not perceive that those expectations are counteracted by the proposed rate in aid? We first hope to individualise responsibility, as it is called, and then by the rate in aid we destroy the responsibility of individuals. We thus blow hot and cold, and make our legislation a mockery and a delusion.
In the existing law there are enactments with respect to the duties and to the salaries of auditors. The receipt of the salaries has, I doubt not, been punctually attended to; but the duties appear to have been wholly neglected. Mr. Twisleton admits that a gross misapplication of the public money, and that to a very great extent, took place in November, 1847, in the union of Newcastle; and yet in April, 1849, no remedy had been obtained for the ratepayers (7,110). The reason which he assigns for this is somewhat singular, He says—
"It was a very heavy case: the amount illegally given was very considerable."
In other words, because the injustice was great and undeniable, no relief had been obtained, and no punishment enforced. But he goes farther. He was asked—
"Within your knowledge have monies of that description ever been refunded?
His reply is conclusive—
"I do not remember a case." (7,120.)
I propose a remedy for this unexampled maladministration; and, if your Lordships support me, I shall render the law more strict, and the responsibility of the poor-law inspectors more effective.

315
There are other amendments of detail in which I cannot but anticipate an agreement on all sides. I shall propose clauses to enable the guardians to acquire sites for workhouses upon more equitable terms. I shall also submit to your Lordships the necessity of combining with the ordinary guardians an assistant paid and resident guardian, who shall direct the management of the workhouse, the financial affairs of the union, and the accounts which are in their nature most intricate. I shall propose that where a tenant sublets or subdivides his farm, contrary to covenant, he shall lose his power of deducting from the landlord any portion of the rate. It cannot be held unjust that, if the tenant produces pauperism by his own act, and does so in violation of his engagement, he shall be compelled to pay for the maintenance of that pauperism which he has created. I shall propose clauses, likewise, removing the technical difficulties which impede the trial of poor-law cases, both in proceedings for the recovery of rates and in appeals. I shall propose, likewise, the entire abandonment of legal proceedings in the superior courts. I shall introduce a clause to facilitate emigration. But these are all questions which will be best discussed in Committee. They are all founded on the recommendation contained in the last report from your Select Committee, and were adopted unanimously.
There is one subject more to which I must take leave to call your most serious attention. I challenge this Bill, even combining it with all other Irish measures passed in the Session, as being utterly inadequate to meet the exigencies of Ireland. It makes no attempt to remove any one of the causes of pauperism, and it is insufficient to cope with our present misery. If I had not the evidence of this Session before me, I could not have conceived it possible that a Bill like the present could have been proposed by any Government. I could not have believed that it could have been framed by men bound to have read the papers laid on your table, and the evidence taken before the Committee. On the contrary, it appears to me the work of men utterly ignorant of the extent and the intensity of our suffering. The attempt to hew down rocks with a razor would be as reasonable as an attempt to remove Irish distress with so miserable and feeble an implement as that provided by the present Bill. The people of Ireland have been taught by their real friends to
316
look to the Legislature and to this country for guidance and for justice. But the Bill before us is no less opposed to justice than to common sense. I wish I was enabled to refer to the report of the Poor Law Commissioners for the present year; but that report has been mysteriously delayed. The Commissioners by law were bound to have presented it long since: they have not done so. The last reports from the distressed districts have also been delayed. These Irish returns, like Irish remedial measures, are generally delayed to the period when they become valueless. I am, therefore, driven to reason from the antecedent returns; but as it is notorious that the country has not improved, but the reverse, the inference to which I shall lead your Lordships must be considerably within the mark. I shall refer to the papers for the month of May. The estimate formed by the Poor Law Commissioners for that month, for twenty unions only, amounted to 64,215 l The estimated collection of rates in those unions was but 9,090 l., showing a deficiency of above 50,000 l The vice-guardians from Ennistimon stated, on the 1st of May, that they had only a supply for three days' consumption, and this furnished on their own personal responsibility. On the 7th of May, the same vice-guardians stated, further, that they had not one shilling at their command, and were, therefore, driven to solicit an immediate grant by return of post, to avoid the most fearful consequences. The answer of the Commissioners was simply that they had no funds at their command. The accumulation of debt, and the consequent legal proceedings against the unions, are reported. Executions are at the present moment in the workhouses of Gort, Castlebar, and Tuam.
On the 28th of April, 46,568 l is reported as due to the single commercial house of Russell and Co., of Limerick. The consequence of this accumulation of debt is shown to be an increase in the price of all articles supplied. In the union of Newcastle, 1l. 15 s. per ton is charged beyond the market price of 8l. 8s., being an excess of 30 per cent above the market price for ready money. The Home Office, on the 10th of May, decide in the teeth of these facts, that the object of the Government advances would be defeated if the debts to the contractors were paid. From Ennis, on the 18th of April, it is reported that the stewards and other union officers are placed on the relief lists from

317
want of funds to pay them their wages, and that contractors make the same demand. The vice-guardians of the Scarriff union apply for assistance, stating that they "had no credit left except for good intentions." Now this appears to me an equally just description of the condition of Her Majesty's Government. "Credit for good intentions" they may be entitled to claim, but it is the only credit which will he given them in Ireland. Credit they cannot claim for their mode of extinguishing the overwhelming distress and consuming poverty of Ireland. On the 11th of May the vice-guardians of Scarriff again report, with some epigrammatic bitterness, that
—"everything was satisfactory with them except their bankruptcy, having neither credit nor funds."
On the 14th of May it is stated—
"That the small occupiers of Glenties who are in arrear have nothing whatever, and that many ratepayers are infinitely greater objects of charity than the paupers in the workhouse."
On the 26th of May the Poor Law Commissioners admit—
"That a great mortality has, without doubt, taken place recently in some of the unions."
The report of Mr. Achmutie contains some striking evidence of the intensity of the pressure. The sale of the last effects of the very poorest classes appears to have taken place.
"A donkey sold by distress for 2s.: 200 goats, the last possession of the very poor, were sold at one time. At Swineford (May the 19th) it appears that a widow lady who had been worth 400 l. a year had applied for relief—150 l. of rates was due from her. In Galway 9,629 l. was due in May, a very small portion of which could be collected before harvest; even then, so great was the poverty of the union, independently of the vast tracts of unoccupied grounds, that the collection was expected to fall far short of expectation." "In Gort 3,300 l. out of 3,370 l. due, is stated to be uncollectable till harvest. The solvent ratepayers are a miserably small minority; numerous occupiers are reduced to a state bordering on pauperism, and much land is lying waste. At Ballina scarce any of the last harvest remains; the whole stock and farm property of nearly all the agricultural ratepayers would not amount to a moderate rate, and unless the position of property changes, so that employment be provided and land brought into cultivation, the prospect of collecting rates will be hopeless."
Of 7,694 l. due in Castlebar, 5,000 l. is un collectable. In many cases the lands of occupiers are waste. In some cases the property seized does not realise the rate. In numerous other cases no property whatever exists to meet the rate. In Ennis a
318
deficiency of 24,800 l. will remain after the collection of the rate. Such is the present state of some of the distressed unions. Such had been the operation of the system upon which Government and the Legislature relied. To Your Lordships generally some of the facts I have stated may not, perhaps, appear to have any great force; but to such as are personally acquainted with Ireland, the sale of the donkey of the peasant, or of the goat whose milk supports his children, afford the most conclusive evidence of the suffering and ruin of the entire community, and cannot fail to convey the most emphatic expression of our present distress. With this is concurrent the absolute insolvency of many of the gentry and proprietors on whom you propose to cast new burdens. So miserable being the condition of the tenantry, and such being the working of the poor-law, lands lying waste, production rendered impossible, the collection of rents necessarily ceases. Superadded to this loss of rent, the landowner is subjected to the rates duo primarily from his tenants. He is called upon to make good the deficiencies of a fund to which he had already paid his contribution. He is called upon to meet the destitution arising from causes over which he had no control.
I must refrain at this hour of the evening, and in the present state of the House, to go more at length into the evidence, but there is one farther document to which it is absolutely necessary to refer. We are not left wholly to calculate from the past the future wants of these unfortunate districts. A return has been laid before the Commissioners at its latest sitting, on which Mr. Twisleton founds his calculation for the future. In thirty-two unions, he states the amount of debt, on the 25th of March, to have been 231,000 l. The estimated expenses for the current six months, 464,00 l making a total of debts and expenses of 695,000 l. Mr. Twisleton calculates, more sanguinely than the facts warrant, that 193,000 l. will be collected during the half year; but even if this expectation were realised, there would remain a deficiency of more than 500,000 l. during the six months. There is no more chance of meeting such deficiency by rates, than there would be of catching white bait by spreading a net over the floor of your Lordships' House. But I have said that Mr. Twisleton was over sanguine. His estimate of six months' collection, in some of the distressed unions, is as follows;—

319

Ballinrobe

£5,200

Ballina

6,579

Castlebar

5,000

Castlerea

8,000

Ennistimon

10,000

Kenmare

4,000

Kilrush

8,000

Roscommon

12,000

Athlone

11,600

Ennis

13,000

Cashel

20,000

My reply to these calculations is simply that they are impossible. To meet this distress Parliament has liberally voted one grant of 50,000 l, and a loan of 110,000 l. has also been advanced on the security of the rate in aid. If your Lordships consider that the provision so made is adequate, you blind yourselves to the magnitude of the peril, whilst you apply a magnifying glass to the remedies which the Legislature has provided. My Lords, I lament the course of legislation in which you are involved. I lament the sacrifice of Irish interests, both as respecting the proprietors of land and the poor, which you are making. I fear it must be traced to a want of sufficient information respecting the country whose interests are committed to your charge. I would deprecate the inferences to which it may lead. I lament the realisation of those predictions which were made at the time of the Union by one of the greatest of your statesmen. Lot me remind you of the words of the late Lord Grey, spoken on the 21st of April, 1800. That eminent man observed—
"I am far from supposing that British Members will wantonly abuse their powers; but the prosperity of a nation should not be loft at the discretion of any man or any set of men, however just or generous they may be; and it is impossible for Ireland to enjoy that security which her constitution at this time affords her if she is united to England in the manner proposed."
I cannot but fear that your measures since 1846 but too strongly prove that Lord Grey was right.
I cannot but fear that agents and public officers, acting under the authority of the Imperial Parliament, show themselves but too apt to deal with the rights of Irish property in a more reckless spirit, and under a less immediate sense of responsibility, than if it were English. I would, however, bid them and their superiors beware lest they suffer themselves to be betrayed into a disregard of that equal protection which they are bound to extend impartially on both sides of the Channel. The present Bill, and the attempt to enact this indefensible rate in aid under the ex-
320
isting circumstances of Ireland, exhibits, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, that very recklessness and injustice which had been foretold, and so emphatically denounced, by the late Earl Grey.
Do not, my Lords, think that you can rid yourselves of the present pressure of duty by merely going into Committee on this Bill. Do not fancy that you have provided immediate remedies, or future precautions, against the dangers which surround us. You may, perhaps, conceive that, as the harvest is near at hand, and as there is a general expectation that it may prove productive, the abundance which you anticipate will be a remedy for the unhappy inflictions under which Ireland labours. Do you imagine that a restored productiveness of the potato will render the condition of Ireland either safe or satisfactory? But have you any right to reckon upon that renewed productiveness? I warn you against any such confidence. Nor do my apprehensions rest upon slight authority. I may be allowed to mention the name of one individual who has communicated with me upon this subject—a gentleman well known to many of your Lordships—Mr. Vandeleur Stewart, on whose powers of observation every reliance may be placed. That gentleman has informed me that he has already detected evidence of the progress of disease among the crops in his neighbourhood. If that be so, and if the disease should extend, from what sources are the people of Ireland to expect relief? But, supposing that Mr. Stewart is fortunately in error, is the House to rely upon the potato, combined with such miserable attempts at makeshift legislation as those adopted in the present and in previous Sessions? What is the present condition of Ireland? I appeal to evidence—and to evidence superior to any which has yet been brought before your Select Committees. What is the statement made by your own admirable Lord Lieutenant, in that memorable letter to the Lord Mayor of London, in which be comes forward to give his approval and sanction to that great scheme which had been shadowed forth in the House of Commons by another eminent Statesman, to whom Lord Clarendon, though differing on other questions of policy, has practically paid a willing and generous tribute. In that letter the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland thus expresses himself:—
"The whole social system of Ireland has been based upon the potato; and the failure of that

321
root has consequently entailed universal distress. Hence so many landed proprietors are now unable to keep down the interest of their mortgages. Tenants can no longer pay their rents, and the peasants, for want of employment, are driven upon the rates, of which the collection becomes daily more difficult. Such a state of things contains within itself no germ of amelioration; it cannot even remain stationary. It must go on from bad to worse, for the means of improvement are altogether wanting, and the national resources are gradually wasting; and even if the potato were to revive—and to that all classes are now clinging with desperate hope—it would only bring back the evils under which the country has been so long labouring."
Such is the description of Ireland, given by one of the most accomplished and practical statesmen who, in either part of the empire, has ornamented public life. A statesman who has effected a miracle in Ireland by uniting all parties in one opinion—a statesman who has acquired the confidence, and, I might add, the affections of all classes of the community—a statesman whose only wrong might be said to his having indefinitely postponed the settlement of an important question which, one day or another, must be considered by Parliament—namely, the abolition of the office of Lord Lieutenant. This Lord Clarendon has done by the admirable manner in which he has fulfilled his official duties. We prize the office for his sake. I pray your Lordships to respect his authority, even if you are determined to reject all other.
It has been said that the Government is afraid of England on Irish questions. If so, it is a mistaken timidity. If the Government was felt to be wise, the generosity of England would be unfailing. But, even if this were not the case, a supposition which I only name to reject it, we might appeal to the selfish interests of England. There can he no safety for this country whilst there exist 8,000,000 of starving people on the other side of the Channel, situated within four hours' sail from your shores. In the words of the Quakers' final report—
"The paupers are merely kept alive in crowded workhouses, or in alarming numbers by outdoor relief—their physical strength weakened—their mental capacity lowered—their moral character degraded. Hopeless themselves, they offer no hope to their country, except in the prospect—abhorrent to human nature and Christian feelings—extinction by death. Many families are now suffering extreme distress, who, three years since, enjoyed the comforts and refinements of life, and administered to the necessities of those around them. Thus we have seen the flood of pauperism widening more and more, engulphing one class after another, rising higher and higher on society,
322
till it threatens to swallow up within its vortex all ranks and all classes."
In language equally alarming the excellent Count Strzelecki speaks:—
"Far from the calamity of Ireland being an ordinary case, it is an extraordinary one—unparalleled, exceptional; it is not a case within the power of local proprietors to cope with. Parliament and the public, in 1840 and 1847, showed that the calamity is an imperial one. The distress of 1848 and 1849, is the consequence of the melancholy events of 1847. As such it ought to be dealt with by Parliament and the public; otherwise the evils will accumulate and become in inveterate sore, and a disgrace to a civilised country. Any measure of immediate relief, which does not include measures for a radical cure, will only postpone the solution of the question, aggravating the evil."
Mr. Otway draws a conclusion from these facts as true as it is alaruming. He observes—
"The united kingdom will not be safe in such;l state; with-such a sore no community can be safe."
I also entreat your Lordships to consider well the opinions which have been expressed in another House by that eminent man who was at the head of the last Government. He gave utterance in the House of Commons to words which conveyed hope and consolation to Ireland, as they indicated no narrow or isolated measures, no limited or uncertain relief for one particular type of Irish distress, but contemplated a wise and comprehensive remedy, striking at the root of her afflictions.
These are my witnesses—these are my authorities; from them you will obtain no support for your delusive maximum, or for your oppressive rate in aid. Again, let me entreat you to consider well the collateral evils which Irish misery must inflict upon English property. Let noble Lords read and weigh well the letters of Mr. Rushton to the Home Secretary on the effect produced by the immigration of Irish paupers into Liverpool—396,231—landed at that port in the course of a single year, 116,000 of these are stated to have been paupers, half naked and starving, landed during the winter. The cost of relief necessary to prevent thousands perishing in the streets—the cost also of the pestilence which follows in the train of famine the consequences upon the health and character of the laburing classes of England—the increase of crime—are all dwelt upon by Mr. Rusbton. These unfortunate outcasts understand well the principles of your law, Mr. Rushton continues—

323
"Few become claimants for parochial relief; for in that case they soon discover that they might be at once sent back to Ireland. They take refuge in the very gaols, and in many cases desire to go to prison. Where this is not the case, the beat down wages by the low rate at which they offer to work."
This wretched system must extend still farther. Whilst I am confident that I can appeal to the generosity of England to compel Parliament to adopt sounder and wiser legislation, I can appeal as confidently to your self-interest. I tell the manufacturers that they are losing their nearest market, by the wretchedness of 8,000,000 who might be profitable customers.
I tell the consumers in this country that they are losing their surest and most independent supply of food. All share in this general calamity.
When I consider how few Members have condescended to attend on the second reading of this important Bill, I am bound to justify my present intrusion upon your Lordships' time and attention.
My justification for having detained your Lordships so long is a conviction, that upon the present question depends the very salvation of Ireland—not merely in relation to the cultivation of its broad lands—not merely with regard to the interests of the proprietors—not merely in relation to its economical condition, but in relation to what is superior to all—the moral state of the people. Had there been even fewer of your Lordships present—had I been compelled to stand alone on the present occasion, on this latter ground alone I should still have felt it my duty to express my sentiments as I have done. As the present is the last, so I consider it the very worst, of the series of measures proposed for the adoption of the Legislature.
I now give notice, that in Committee I shall move the omission of the clauses establishing a maximum and a rate in aid, and also the clauses authorising proceedings in the superior courts of law. I shall likewise suggest clauses to encourage emigration, to secure a due audit of accounts, to check subletting, and to provide for the appointment of an assistant resident guardian.
On Question, resolved in the Affirmative.
Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.
House adjourned to Monday next.